Blog Post #5 What human rights abuses exist in Tibet?

Tibet is exploited by China in a way that resembles a pacifist version of what Russia has done in the past to its own surrounding nations. In that sense China could have done a lot worse but that's not really a notable accomplishment. Cultural opression like this is devastating, but it is especially disheartening to see such a humanistic idealism being persecuted for comparatively trivial economic and political reasons. I may be impractical but I just cannot see the value in opressing other nations for their disinterest in an ideology. I believe that a realist path to Communism cannot be made with any force other than reason, otherwise it faces all the past injustices and consequences of Socialism. Also I'm tremendously retarded.

Should China be able to host the 2008 Olympics given their human rights records in areas such as Tibet?

Whether we should or not - I can't really say - not really my place. However, based on my personal "feelings" on the subject, hell no. I constantly here people bitching about this. It seems kind of hypocritical as a nation to for the U.S. to go along with it. For what? politics/trade? Fuck that-life will go on. Perhaps my friends and family in MI will be able to go back to work, if raltions are lost with China. Is trade really that vidal to us that we have to tip toe around with things like this, or are our "leaders" just somehow capitalizing on such things. Yeah, we all see the financial benifits of being in such a position of power.

It really bites that oppressive socialist governments, such as China get so much attention, causing people relate socialism to tyranny.

Britt's Response for blog #5

Okay, good thing I checked back because I had written this and it didn't post, I hope it works this time.

I do not know if anyone can take away the right to hold the Olympics in China because it is so close to already happening and they have all of the preparations.  It would be a slap directly in China's face if the world told China that they couldn't have the olympics.  I don't think anyone wants to slap China in the face directly because they are a pretty powerful country.

I think that if more countries with the United States, would boycott the Olympics, then it would be like a kick in the shin to China.  At least after that, China could not get as mad.  It is important not to participate and urge others to not participate as well to show that we do not accept what they are doing.  If we did participate in the Olympics then the whole world could turn on us and point out our selfish ways of trying to take oil from the Middle East but not really caring about the people there, but we would allow China to keep doing what they are doing.  If we didn't participate with enough other countries then the China could turn on us and say that we don't want to let anyone else do what we are doing to the Iraqi's.  

It is really sad for the Olympians because they have trained for many many years.  I hope that they can be rewarded in some way.

blog 5 response

well,
it's always a disappointment to realize how much the universal community 'let slide' before they made laws and took action. Now, all this crap is boiling over and there are too many alliances, ties, organizations, laws, and things going on to do much of anything really. How many countries have had questionable things going on while they hosted the Olympics? Alot. but they still hosted, so it might not be fair to stop China from hosting the show, but justice must start somewhere, and if thats on China then let it be. the athletes can keep training, this is a humanity issue... way bigger than the Olympics themselves. theres no point in making all these improvements in writing, when nothing really is done about them. i can't believe the dalai lama's successor hasnt been seen since 1995! thats so sad, that as a boy he's suffered prosecution for his beliefs. which is a violation of the UDHR, article 18. Theyr being bombarded in their homes and country side, which violates article 1, 2, 3, 20, and 22.. so they violate many articles. The world just has to go through a detox, China isnt the only one that needs a wake up call.

The Olympics In Bejing

From its official international inception in 1896, the Olympics have symbolized a coming together of the world's nations and their athletes for competition.  However, also since its official inception, the competitions begun and the medals won have meant much more than how well how well an indivual has done.  Because of their medal totals, there are winners among countries as well, and how well their athletes do is a source of pride for their countries.  It can also serve as a type of battleground, albeit usually blood-free, between nations vying for superiority.  And because of this, the Olympics have been, and likely always will be, more than just athletics.

While the Nazi party was gaining momentum, there was talk in the US about boycotting the 1936 summer games in protest of both the Nazi's anti-semitic stance as well as its belief in Aryan superiority.  Though this boycott did not go through, the message was clear that the olympics could be used to make a political statement by simply non-attendance.  

This strategy was carried out in the 1980 Olympics when President Carter's demands of Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan.  Because of the Soviet's refusal to do as commanded, the US boycotted the summer games held that year in Moscow.  As a special "middle finger" to the USSR, the US even held "Boycott Games" in Philidelphia that year for its athletes and the few other countries that followed the US lead that year.

And the Soviet Union gave a big red middle finger four years later by boycotting the games held in L.A., USA.

So should the US boycott the Chinese games in 2008?  The Olympics are clearly not just athletic games but a way to make both political statements and ultimatums.  Though the US has already decided that they will not be boycotting the games, it is unlikely that a grass-roots movement will gain enough momentum to affect, or change the US's decision.  Why?  Because the US doesn't have any demands to make, as we had previously, to decide a boycott.  Should the US?  It doesn't seem like it achieves much other than to piss the host country off, which isn't the best idea with a country as big as China.  And with our objectives being dubious, dealing with internal humanitarian issues rather than external invasions, it seems like it would be a fruitless, though symbolic, choice.

Blog #5

So many parties are to blame here:

China, of course. Despite their claims of sovereignty, Tibeten people did not used to be a part of China and, more importantly, are of a different ethnic and cultural background. To oppress/suppress a people for whatever stated reasons is inappropriate and seldom excusable.

The U.N. and all nations that are complicit in their inaction. It's more than absurd to publically and internationally condemn a nation for its actions and then a) refuse to take action to provide an incentive for the "offending" nation to stop and perhaps related b) continue to do major business deals with the offending nation. That's hypocritical, contradictory, and ultimately undermining to any authority structure that is attempting to exercise moral law over the "offending" nation. This includes the IOC and its refusal to withdraw the Chinese right to hold the Olympics. It would be ludicrous to deny China its ability to hold the Olympics now--Chinese human rights abuses against Tibetan and Tainwanese people have been publically and internationally acknowledged for decades. Nothing has changed.

The only party that's not too blame is the Tibetan people. They're trying to live their lives without violent or cultural interference from any source. That's not too much to ask.

Blog 5

In light of the recent events in Tibet, I feel like China doesn't deserve to host the 2008 Olympics, but that is just a personal opinion. In reality, taking the games away from China would punish the athletes and fans more than it would punish China. I only hope that having the spotlight on this country will raise awareness of the situation and all of the human rights violations there, and through that education something can be done to end the occupation or at least the conflicts. China considers this year's Olympics to be their chance for acceptance and recognition by other nations of the world. Chinese leaders are using this opportunity to shape the world's view of their country, make it more familiar and positive. The slogan for the games "One World, One Dream" even calls for everyone to unite because of these games.
The Olympics are being represented as something entirely different by human rights and pro-Tibetan independence groups. Some are calling it "the Genocide Olympics," making connections between China and Sudan and the deaths in Darfur. Whichever way it's spun, all eyes are on China, and hopefully this awareness will bring about some change for the better.

DRP's work for blog post 5

taking in to account the situation with Tibet and China, i still feel that china should be able host the Olympics. i say this only because i would feel bad for the people how have been training so hard over the years to compete in the games, to all of a sudden have there goal taken away. what i think needs to be done, is give individual athletes or countries the ability to drop out of the Olympics as a show of respect for Tibet. 

i would also like to comment about the use of non violence. i am a huge advocator of the use for non violence. And i have a great respect of the Dalai Lama for encouraging the protesters to use non violence. i think that it is the better way to work on resolving a conflict for a couple of reasons. first if the Tibetan protesters use violence the situation will continue to escalate and more and more people will get hurt, and nothing will be accomplished. secondly the use of non violence would put the protesters in a good light. it would show the world how important their cause is , if they acted a peacefully when faced with violence. 

Blog #5

There are a number of human rights issues being abused throughout Tibet. Since last week the Chinese government has sent its police to raid the homes of the residents of Lhasa in search of people who were involved in recent protests that happened throughout the city. Citizens of that region have reported that the police are pulling people out of their homes. Not to mention that the Chinese government is reporting that 13 of its citizen have bee killed because of the protesters. We than have Tibetan exiles stating that over 90 Tibetans have been killed by the police. This is only one of the situations going on between the people of Tibet and China. And since the beginning of China’s ruling, many of the Tibetans have gone through much worse. Tibetans have been locked up for no reason by the Chinese government throughout the years and many of them have been tortured while detained. In 1995 a report came out talking about how children risk their lives trying to cross the Himalayas just to get away from the Chinese government. Imagine the place where you were born and the only way you could live a decent life was by risking your own life just to get a glimpse of this freedom. Just after reading that report we see that the Chinese government has already gone against Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

According to Amnesty International, every week people are thrown into jails from protesting the government. The human rights group also states that the Chinese government will go into people’s homes and take away their pictures of the Dahlia Lama. Tibetans have been going through this treatment since the 1950’s and it’s shocking that the Chinese government is still getting away with this. If the UDHR was created to protect the universal rights of all individuals, why is it that people (Tibetans) are still suffering? How come nothing has been done to stop this chaotic treatment?

Beijing --Blog 5

The question of whether Beijing should be able to host the Olympic Games is a tough one, especially considering the cities that have historically hosted the games. Take for instance the 1936 Olympic Games, hosted by Berlin. At that time, Hitler and the Nazi’s had already been forcing human rights violations on the Jewish population for over three years, including stripping Jewish immigrants from Poland of their citizenship and prohibiting Jews from owning land. And Hitler was officially named Fuhrer in 1934, two full years before the games were hosted in Berlin. The fact that German Jews were consistently falling victim to human rights violations didn’t seem to affect the decision to hold the most important global sporting event in Berlin. Take any city that has hosted the games, and you could find some human rights violation that had taken place in that country. The difference between most of those countries, however, and the decision to host the games in Beijing, is that those problems were not occurring literally at the same time as the games. I think, however, that if we’re going to prevent one country from hosting the games based on their global policy, the decision of where to host the games would become a far more difficult one. For instance, the debate over holding the games in Chicago in 2016—whether you are in support of our position in the middle east, it would absolutely have to be taken into consideration that we did, in fact, occupy a country. America waged a very unpopular war, and that information would have to be taken into account. The war in Iraq is not the same thing as China’s violations toward Tibetans, but the difficulty with establishing any standard of this type is that it is all or nothing. There would have to be some kind of agreed-upon standard for what violations are bad enough to warrant stripping a country of the privilege of hosting the games.

Blog Assignment #5

This week, Tibetans began protesting the Chinese government’s occupation of their country. As we briefly discussed in previous class when we defined the term “ethnocide”, the Chinese government has occupied Tibet since the 1950s. Since this is an important human rights related topic in the news, this is an issue that our class should gain a general understanding of the situation in this region.

For next week, you can answer one or more of the following questions. The BBC has a great page about the history of Tibet that you could possibly use in your responses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456954/html/nn0page1.stm

What human rights abuses exist in Tibet?

How does the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights relate to the Tibetan issue?

How has the United Nations reacted to and addressed the situation in Tibet?

Can Tibetans freely leave Tibet?

Can exiles return to or visit Tibet?

How are human rights organizations spinning the Beijing Olympics in 2008? What does such an event symbolize?

Should China be able to host the 2008 Olympics given their human rights records in areas such as Tibet?

What has been international reaction and response (political, economic, human rights) to the Tibetan situation? Why have so few Heads of State and official governments supported an independent Tibet?

How has the Chinese Government reacted to foreign intervention or diplomacy on behalf of the Tibetan situation?

What has been the Tibetan reaction and response to Chinese occupation (non-violence vs. guerrilla warfare)?

Is adopting a non-violent approach a better way to work toward conflict resolution?

What organized efforts in India and the West exist to continue the struggle for a free Tibet? What can American citizens do to get involved ?

What is the function of non-governmental organizations like the International Campaign for Tibet?

Missing

Has anyone seen Blog #5 lying around?

Blog #4

The film is in some respects both a propaganda film, and also a documentary. And it is not to say, that a movie cannot be both. The film was clearly designed to make the Nazi's look powerful,prosperous, and intelligent. The music in the film was intended to be captivating, and powerful. The film is designed to make germany look like a utopian society. Yet the film did show actuyal Germany, and actual events in Germany, but it only showed one side of Germany.

--From Alex Blanco

Blog Post #4

Much like the passage by Walter Benjamin, Triumph of the Will seeks to fetishize ideology through aesthetics. This is where Triumph of the Will differs from Night and Fog, because regardless of the content, Triumph dictates to the audience a consistently optimistic message. While Night and Fog on the other hand brings together various elements and leaves those open to interpretation, even if the agenda behind the combination of those elements (music and footage juxtaposition, subtle humor, etc.) may appear obvious. This freedom to interpret, no matter how limited it may be, suggests a sense of truth seeking to the audience, providing a deeper understanding of the subject matter than merely a gallery display of fantastic achievements.

It is true however that propaganda can also implement these techniques to gather greater depth, but Triumph of the Will had no intention of going any deeper than the surface. Ultimately it underestimated the human mind's potential to have a more developed frame of reference (although probably nobody involved had accounted for the possibility of the end of the Nazi party).

Rosco's 4

TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is a propaganda film. The reason I believe this, is that a documentary is supposed to be completely unbiased. This film is basically a debate where only one participant is permitted to speak. Leni Riefenstahl does all the talking and the viewer can only sit and be influenced.
As far as the arguement of the footage being from real life. That's film magic. My last film was made using footage that I found in trash cans. My film had a message, but I can assure you that it wasn't the same message that was intended when it was shot.
Through editing, you can send a pro war message using shots of daisies.

Real like Reality TV

"Triumph of the Will" is as much of a documentary as "Flavor of Love" is. They're both made up of "actual footage" of actual events, but they're both scripted, staged, and skillfully edited for a certain purpose. While "Flavor of Love" is trying to be outrageous, hilarious TV, "Triumph of the Will" strives to be pro-National Socialist propaganda.
With "Triumph of the Will" very specific images of Hitler and the people were chosen to portray a very positive image of his leadership and it's country. I would not be surprised to find out that every single instance in the film was staged ahead of time and everyone was instructed on how exactly to behave. That is how we end up with plump German women hailing Hitler like he's a rock star and close-ups of young, strapping Arian boys laughing and having fun.
Plus I wonder, where's the other side? Where are the dissenters? I have a hard time believing everyone went and welcomed Hitler with open arms. There may not have been protesters, but people may have chosen to stay home--well if this was reality.
If "Triumph of the Will" is a documentary, it is in the loosest sense of the word. It is first, and foremost, a propaganda film meant to ally all of it's viewers with Hitler.

Blog #4

Some people argue that “Triumph of the Will” is a propaganda film while others argue that is a documentary because it was made up of “actual” footage of the Nazi Nuremburg rallies. How would you categorize it and why?

This is really a fallacy in thinking--that a film must be one or the other--that propaganda films or documentaries are mutually exclusive. The reason the argument exists is simply becuase "Triumph of the Will" is both a propaganda film AND a documentary. A further fallacy is that documentaries are true/factual/unabirdged representations of real life/events/movements. The very fact that human beings are subjective, and therefore a filmed event is even more subjective (based on the limited perspective of the camera), documentaries, especially any that employee editing (read: all), are influenced by subjectivity and therefore attempting to communicate some message--and therefore propaganda.

There is no problem with propaganda; there is a problem with people accepting it carte blanche. The point is to understand that any purveyor of any view has an interest in you believing or disbelieving something. Propanganda is nothing more than a poorly-constructed, one-sided argument that does not atttempt to represent a complete perspective. That encompasses most arguments in life.

Triumph of the Night and Fog

Did anyone feel ready to join the Nazi Party after watching Triumph of the Will?  The director's careful syncronization between music and scene was powerfully done.  It was interesting to note that, from what I can remember, there was no mention of anti-semitism.  Hitler looked surprisingly benign, even when he spoke to the battalion of manual laborers, executing perfect close order drill with . . . shovels.

Quite obviously, Triumph was intended to be a chest-swelling patriotic film, and it did so by carefully showing Hitler, beloved of small children with flowers, out-of-luck young men, and hordes of admires as he stood on his balcony like being cast into a Shakespeare play.  

The height perspective was an interesting choice by the director.  While making Hitler look friendly and accessible, he was constantly above his audience with an almost divine seperation.  He enters the film flying high above Nuremburg.  He exits from his plane above a crowd of admirers.  He stands in a car above the spectators of a parade.  He stands above the legion of shovel-wielding young men.  And of course, his balcony, lit with Heil Hitler in Hollywood bulbs.  

This dual nature, both truly and fully God and truly and fully man, is perfectly understood by one of the propaganda posters we were shown equating Hitler to Jesus, which was a strong theme of the movie.  The similarities are striking: Jesus and Hitler letting the children come unto them.  Jesus and Hitler feeding thousands, though Hitler's seemed to be much more blonde.  Jesus and Hitler giving the sermon on the mount, though markedly different in subject matter.

They both, however, gave their followers something to believe in, even to death, which was shown in Triumph of the Will.

 

Triumph of the Will

I’d have to agree that Triumph of the Will was designed to make the Nazi party look more attractive to the German people, even if that beautification was only capitalizing on the way Hitler and the Nazis were perceived by many Germans at that time. Take, for example, the representation of the young workers as being carefree and playful: I think it’s safe to assume that the general frivolity pictured in the film was not necessarily the way those people lived all of the time. There was no real reference to actual work throughout that entire scene; just various shots of blond-haired boys wrestling and laughing. The music and previous images even made the mass-produced meals look enticing.

Though Triumph of the Will is arguably designed to beautify the Nazi party, I don’t know if Night and Fog was necessarily designed to do the opposite. The film didn’t deal as much with the politics behind the imprisonment and extermination of the Jewish people throughout Europe; it just revealed how those people actually lived. It obviously did portray the horrors of the camps, but it did not seem specifically designed to combat the glamorized image the Nazi’s were given in films like Triumph. Night and Fog did, through real portrayals of the camps, serve to combat some of the glamorized and sterilized versions that many people have been exposed to through movies about the Holocaust, which, by extension, changed the way the party politics—and in some ways, war—are viewed. Whether Triumph of the Will is a documentary or not, I do believe that Night and Fog at least achieved the purpose of more correctly portraying the whole of the situation; all of the images in Triumph were real, and the people involved in those images did support Hitler that fanatically, but it is not necessarily a correct representation of the Nazis. Night and Fog more accurately got to root of the Holocaust than Triumph did for the party.

Techniques of film

The films we saw in class have some similarities, but they also have many differences. Triumph of the Will was a very strong film compared to Night and Fog. They reasons include music, editing and overall camera use. The music is Triumph of the Will was powerful and leadership like, whereas the music is Night and Fog was in a way peaceful at most parts. Triumph of the Will includes many shots of just Hitler and the people that back him up. Seeing this gives off a powerful message, stating that this guy is a big deal for this country. Many of the shots of him are low angles, insinuating power. Then we have the film Night and Fog that shows horrible pictures and describes to us the events that took place during the Holocaust. The opening shot puts us in the open land where we then see barbed wire appear from the bottom of the screen. In both films we are given long scenes. This may be for us in take in what we are seeing and also to take a moment to think about what we are seeing. These films deal about different tragedies during World War Two and they show these tragedies with different techniques.

DRP's Work for blog post 4

Considering what we saw of the film Triumph Of The Will I believe that it is a propaganda film. Throughout the film they show very positive images, images of happy people, well fed soldiers, people having fun, even hitler descending from the heavens. All things might make it seem appealing for a person to join the nazi party. 

Looking at both films I can understand why people might say that Triumph Of The Will aestheticized the nazi party; for, it clearly was made to try and present the nazi party in a good way. But looking at Night and Fog i think it only showed the harsh reality of the Holocaust, and there is nothing beautiful about that.    

oh and...

forgot to say that the art direction in both was quite fascinating. in night and fog the music didnt connect at all, and maybe that was in effort to completely make the viewer not influenced by the music so that their reaction to the sights in the documentary are honest. Triumph of the will's music was jolly and celebratory, which contradicts their reputation and only makes them seem only the more evil by todays viewer, but if i assume the position of the first target market of the time, i would think the music and art direction might bring feelings of patriotism.
okay thats it

response to blog 4

From my perspective of the video, I think Truimph of the will is a more of a documentary than propaganda, my argument is that those things happening were actual events, the actual recording of Hitler and his movements 'encouraging' the masses. On the other hand, its propaganda-ness comes from the fact that it was made to brainwash. Its sole purpose was to hypnotize the German mind thats watching into falling in love with Hitler and everything he stands for.
Night and Fog though, was a collection of old pictures and videos vs. the 'now' of the holocaust sight. The difference between Triumph of the Will and Night and Fog is that Triumph was set entirely then and there in Germany... there was nothing else to view but Hitler and his subjects. in Night and Fog, this is a seemingly objective point if view of the happenings/ horrors of the holocaust camp sight. the video is set in todays day but focuses on the flashbacks

The Good Thing about Living in 3D is the Ability to See Both Sides of a Coin

First of all, that passage was disturbing. Yes destruction can be its own creation; it is beautiful in a horrifying way. If any of you have seen I <3 huckabees, you know what I mean when I say, "Creation, destruction. Creation, destruction." The Fifth Element deals with the same issue (awesome sci-fi movie). It is the natural path of things, regeneration and degeneration, life and death. However, life is better. Life is a gift. Sometimes it may seem as if death is a gift, and it may be for some, regardless of the unknown afterlife. War does not go around asking people if it can kill them and humiliate them first. It may be beautiful in a horrifying way, but it sure isn't fair.
I don't think Triumph of the Will should be considered a documentary. Although it had the aim to showcase some of the events of the nationalist-socialist uprising and of the holocaust, it did not fairly represent everything that happened. It was a promotional film, one-sided and noticibly silent on the part of the Jews. Though there was live footage, we hardly ever heard Hitler speak. This film was mainly visual/inspirational rather than informational.
Although I would like to say Night and Fog is more of a documentary than Triumph of the Will, I can't necessarily say it is true. Night and Fog, like Triumph, shows visual facts and some live footage. However, it lacks the traditional informational format of a documentary. I can say both represent part of the history of the holocaust. Triumph is clearly slanted towards the Nationalist-Socialist ideology, while Night and Fog seems to give a dry pan of the horrors which took place in the camps. Therefore, it may be somewhat ok to say that Night is a fairer representation.

Britt's Response for Blog #4

"Triumph of the Will" should be considered a documentary, based on what we saw anyway.  It shows the truth and it is factual.  There was no acting or reenactments only footage of events that occurred. The film is a representation of what happened at the rallies.  Documentaries are made to have a point or an argument.  In "Triumph of the Will" the argument is - Hitler is doing good things, he is a good leader.  That is the argument of the documentary.

People might not want to call "Triumph of the Will" a documentary because most people do not agree with Hitler's concepts so they would not want to agree with the film.  Just because film people might not like the idea behind "Triumph of the Will" does not mean it should be dismissed as a documentary film.  It is an like art piece.  Art is art even if it is Hitler's art.

Blog Assignment #4

Your blog posts for this week could touch on one or more of the following questions:

How do the film techniques in “Triumph of the Will” differ from the techniques used in the making of “Night and Fog?” “Night and Fog” was the film that we watched during the second class.

Specifically, how do these films employ the use of music, camera angels, edits?

How do the objectives of the films differ?

Some people argue that “Triumph of the Will” is a propaganda film while others argue that is a documentary because it was made up of “actual” footage of the Nazi Nuremburg rallies. How would you categorize it and why?

Many people argue that “Triumph of the Will” aesteticized politics: it made the Nazi movement look beautiful. Does “Night and Fog” ce-aesteticize politics and, therefore, war?

Feel free to draw on this passage of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” by Walter Benjamin.

“All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. This is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system. It goes without saying that the Fascist apotheosis of war does not employ such arguments. Still, Marinetti says in his manifesto on the Ethiopian colonial war: "For twenty- seven years we Futurists have rebelled against the branding of war as antiaesthetic.... Accordingly we state: ... War is beautiful because it establishes man's dominion over the subjugated machinery by means of gas masks, terrifying megaphones, flame throwers, and small tanks. War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamt-of metalization of the human body. War is beautiful because it enriches a flowering meadow with the fiery orchids of machine guns. War is beautiful because it combines the gunfire, the cannonades, the cease-fire, the scents, and the stench of putrefaction into a symphony. War is beautiful because it creates new architecture, like that of the big tanks, the geometrical formation flights, the smoke spirals from burning villages, and many others.... Poets and artists of Futurism! ... remember these principles of an aesthetics of war so that your struggle for a new literature and a new graphic art . . . may be illumined by them!"”

--Walter Benjamin, 1937

For you own edification, I highly recommend you reading this entire article. It’s a difficult read, but very influential. The article can be found here:

http://web.bentley.edu/empl/c/rcrooks/toolbox/common_knowledge/general_communication/benjamin.html

Blog 3

I do know that countries who have much power and who have extreme wealth, have a tendency to play global police officer. Which is fine in some cases. I do believe that in some instances where genocide is occurring, we should step in. But how do you go about being a police officer where the cultural differences vary and where cultural relativism has its own meaning. No, I don't understand or agree with the mutilation of young girls in Africa, but I don't think its our place as one of the most powerful countries to step in to stop it from occuring. The US has a history of robbing Africans from their cultural identity. It happened with slavery, where Africans had to lose their language, practices and religion. I think we have to face the fact that some countries are not meant to be Westernized.

Jay blog #3

I think the idea of making a declaration is riddled with problems inherent in any attempt to try and encompass such a large aspect of humanity, in what basically is what is right and what is wrong. I think its hard for us to go into a culture, one that we may view as exotic, and tell them "this is what is good and this is what is bad". Maybe this culture has existed for hundred of years and their practices, ones that go against what we feel are human rights, are as old as the culture. Now in this scenerio it is arrogant for us to go in and say that what these people have been doing all these years is evil and wrong, because essentially what we're saying is that their way of thinking is evil and wrong. People's way of thinking, their thought process, what the identify as human rights is not universal, so such a declaration can not be universal and completely fair. But some practices of some cutures are brutal and cause suffering for many people, like female genital mutilation. So where do we draw the line? When is it right for us to step in and denounce the practices of these cultures, that they may have been practicing for hundreds of years and may very important to them? That is definitely a grey area and it will always be grey. But people are suffering, and if we want to try and be mr. nice guy, mr. open minded, they will continue to suffer. It comes down to how much we believe in these human rights, and weigh that against how much we believe in the sanctity of culture and its importance to life and living? You have to step on toes and hurt people either way you go. So what's more important? Cultures have risen and fallen since the beginning of man, so I believe we do what we need to to protect those human rights.

Jennifers Real response

"The child, completely naked, is made to sit on a low stool....With her kitchen knife, the operator first pierces and slices open the hood of the clitoris. Then she begins to cut it out....the operator digs with her sharp fingernail a hole the length of the clitoris to detach and pull out the organ. The little girl, held down by the women helpers, screams in extreme pain; but no one pays the slightest attention....cutting it to the bone with her knife....he neighbor women are then invited to plunge their fingers into the bloody hole to verify that every piece of the clitoris is removed."
That was a women who wittnesed the horrible act of female genital mutilation. I know that in some cultures this what this is "socially acceptable" and we as Americans believe to some extant it is ok for this to happen, because it is part of a culture we are not familiar with. Personally, it sickened me when I read this article. There is NO point, at least for medical or hygienic reasons, for this procedure to be done. I believe a universal law should be put in order to stop such actions from happening. We as Americans are lucky enough to not have to go thru ancient rituals in order to be socially accepted. But in-turn we have been numbed to knowing such pain and hardships that some 3rd world young adults go thru. The fact is, no matter how much we try to understand such pain we will never be able to measure it to anything. In all, yes there should be laws to stop these kinds of barbaric rituals, this is the 21 century, you no longer need to sew your vaginal region shut to not have baby's. No one, no matter where you come from, should ever have to suffer thru so much pain and mutilation, for the sake of culture. There should be laws to stop such things from happening, unless there is a mutual consent from both party's.

Jennifer's Response

Britt's Responce for blog 3

I think that there can be some universal rights.  To have or develop universal rights I think that the cultures involved must all agree on them.  If the majority of cultures decides that one of the ways that they do something is right then they should be able to educate the minority cultures on the subject.  I must stress education, not force.  After the minority culture learns about the way other people do something, then they can decide if they would like to continue to do it the way that they have been or the way that others do it.  In this way I would defiantly hope that educating and being educated, are universal rights.

Because of the "melting pot" idea, Americans often have experience with many worldly cultures and practices, in The United States.  It is not that uncommon to have Buddhist-Jews, or Wicken-Catholics in america.  I think that another universal human right is to choose your culture, and what rights you think that you deserve, for your self.  I am not saying that everyone should be able to do what they want to do, but I am saying they should have a voice in their rights.

Right to Choose

I think there are universal human rights. I can understand the argument of cultural relativism when it comes to human rights and I think it is okay to take them into consideration, but it should not be an umbrella excuse for inaction. In the case of female genital mutilation I understand that it is a cultural practice. If all the women who went through these procedures were happy about it then I'd just say, sure, that's their culture and leave them be. But in reality that is not really the case. This happening to the majority of those women against their will. That's when it becomes a human right's issue. I think that should be the standard used to measure certain instances in whether or not cultural relativism should come into play. It may be tradition, but are the people involved making the choice to be a part of it?

I think that danger of universal human rights is one of intepretation. Just as any abstract term of "right" or "freedom" is wide open to be swayed according to ones culture, therein lies the danger in setting high morally fuzzy standards with no hardcore legislation. I didnt get a chance to read the article on cultural relativism, but i do agree in what another blogger said about healthcare,education, ect to be fundamental and inalienable human rights, however,the problem comes up the backing of infrastructure and institution to make the transition to nice declarations of solidarity to legislation that punishes a countries government if they dont grant those rights

Blog #3

I think a potential danger in the UDHR is the specificity of the rights. They are positive rights, for sure, but it would almost seem that negative rights (such as those in the U.S. Constitution) are almost more freeing and therefore more universal. For instance, the UDHR guarantees the right to marriage, but neglects to define what marriage can entail--whether solely a man and a woman, two men, or several partners. A clause that would allow less possible discrepancy over interpretation would be something that either does not address it at all, or if it seems necessary to involve the government to some extent in marriage, to define the right as the inability of a government to dictate if or how a marriage could exist.

Perhaps a better, less confusing, and therefore ultimately less limiting, right would be: the right for every person for any government to be unable to interfere with respect to marriage. It would seem that the ongoing issue for most, if not all, cultures is too much government interference. It’s not that governments aren’t doing enough; it’s that they’re doing it poorly. The wording throughout the UDHR is active when it should be passive. The rights “guaranteed” in the UDHR are worded in such a way that suggest governments should actively ensure the presence of the rights, when the wording instead should be passive, limiting the powers of the government to action only when government involvement is necessary to a solution. Without a doubt, differences between cultures will result in different interpretations of the rights, and the more active those rights are, the more complexity inherent with applying them.

sad but true.

human rights as a whole cannot be universal, there can be a standard but within our own cultures certain rules apply. Due to this fact, we are unable to create a way of ethics that can be universal, which is sad but at the same time we need to have our cultural freedom and ways. sure some things that go on in different cultures are not look upon as the greatest things in the world but as long as it doesn't effect you then its not interrupting your ability to have your right. some of us are born into cultures that have screwed up ways of doing things, if you choose to stay within in that culture and live that way, that is your decision. But as a human, you are your own boss and judge, there is a way out.

it is like the discussion we had about the public school system of Chicago, you need to take charge of your life and make the changes to enjoy it.

It would be great to have a universal rights system but that would only work if the world worked together, thanks to our current president we do not have a good relationship status with some countries, they fear us that's the only way we have their respect.

see you in class tonight.

That's a hard pill to swallow

I believe it's quite hard to have universal human rights acceptable to all humans. I have to agree with the article, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" which states that different cultures have different moral codes - and everyone may lean towards his own native customs and the religion he or she was brought up in, to be the best. I do disagree that without exception people believe this, for the religion I was brought up in - I realized was not the best or befitting religious practive for me when I "became of age".

The Cultural Relativism theory can be used to open our minds, but I will be somewhat difficult to arrive at a standard code taking all the people of the world into consideration.

For example, I know in certain cultures female genital circumcision is right or okay. There is no theory in this world that can change my mind that this practive is not only wrong, but degrading, dangerous to women and should be abolished.

Some cultures may believe that the legalization of alcohol, cigarettes and other harmful habits/practices are wrong as well - where we think of it as a right.

I really don't know, but I do think a standard bill of rights is necessary - how to derive at one taking all the different cultures into consideration will be somewhat hard.

Cultural Relativism

I believe there could never be a set law on human rights that affects every individual in the world. This is only because a lot of people don’t follow the same ethics as everybody else. One groups culture completely differs from another group. As stated in one of Darius’s stories on what the Callatians do with their dead compared to the Greeks. Lets say for example that you were to set a human right law stating that you could no longer kill. I remember doing a report on the people of India and it stated that if a man were to disown his wife, whether he cheated on her or not, the wife’s family was , by their cultural way of living, able to kill the husband. So as you see the hypothetical universal law stating that you could no longer kill somebody would affect the culture and way of live in other parts of the world.

Cultural relativism is a major detail to look over when you think about what the universal laws of Human Rights should contain. In the end all the laws are going to affect a certain group of people in the wrong way, which might end up changing their way of life.

Once again it depends on who is asking the question on what should be considered a universal human right and what shouldn’t be considered one. I believe that although you may have a set of laws stating the rights people have; someone is going to end up breaking them anyways. It’s hard enough making laws for a country. Imagine making laws for the world. Who exactly has the say on that? At this rate you will have a better chance at living life happily just by listening to a Bob Marley song, because in the end they will end up doing the same thing.

Improbabilities

I think that even the fact that we are able to argue about cultural relativism seems to point to the impossibility of  a standard, universally practiced set of human rights. It would appear that there would be the possibility, based on the theory presented that most of our values, regardless of society, seem to revolve, at least in part, around whether certain actions are beneficial to a society or not. But even within the set of human rights set forth within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are some points which could be argued. For example, the right of parents to decide on the proper form of educating their child. It could be argued that every child should have the right to a certain education (say, for example, the traditional twelve to sixteen years provided for most American children), regardless of whether a child's parents want him or her to be educated only two years; or parents who do not believe that their child should be educated at all Many members of our society would find it in contradiction with the child's rights to deny them an education based only on their parents' discretion. It is a commonly touted trend in this society that those with a higher eduction level tend to make more money and enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle; the question would then be, is it right to deny a child that opportunity because his or her parents do not believe in traditional education? The very presence of that argument would imply that most human rights, not matter how logical they seem, can be amended and used in a way that seems wrong to our society. And if there is any argument in the practice, then the right could not be universally enforced. 

Another example would be article 18, which states that any person should be given the right to practice any religion he or she wishes without facing preventative measures or prejudice. It seems to be a fairly straightforward right, and one that should exist. But what about cults? Most people in our society would look at some religions as being cults, and regard the actions of the people who practice that religion as wrong. Again, the presence of the argument, and the rights of others to have their opinions against those actions, would prevent it from being a universally held right.

And though there are some rights which seem to be inarguable, the still have yet to be universally practiced. Like, for example, the right of a person to be free from arbitrary detention. I think many people would agree that a person should be imprisoned for no reason, but the reasons for imprisoning someone are wide and varied. Some people support, for example, the current detention of possible terrorists, though they have been given little evidence that those specific people are, in fact, terrorists. None of the evidence that they could be dangerous to the United States ha been publicly aired; but many people would argue that the evidence we have been given is enough. The question, I think, is two-fold: 1) could there be a universally held standard for human rights; and 2) if there were, would it be possible for those rights to be universally accepted and practiced. At this point, I don't think we, as a global society, are capable of adopting a set of universal rights, no matter how much we believe that there should be something to protect all members of all societies.

culture vs. universal

I believe that there should be some things culture should not have anything to do with. for instance, i have always had issues with the concept of circumsizing a woman. i believe it is a human rights issue because thats someones body, and not just any part too.. the most intimate and sensitive. theres no reason for it, i think. maybe itd be more of a cultural spin if women didnt actually DIE from it. just yesterday on americas next top model there is a girl on it from sudan named Fatima who experienced circumcision, and she said her labia was sowed together! i mean seriously! then... i just read in one of these blogs that men in the culture find 'it' better.. um. its not worth it. i think in these situations, where culture is getting in the way of living a normal life, distorting nature, and is simply dangerous... thats when culture crosses the line and becomes a universal issue. thats why education is so imperative. these cultures that practice dangerous rituals, dont know that their culture is cultivating death instead of maintaining a good standard of life for its people. education is a human right. life is a human right. people all over the world die or live in suffering because of a lack of education, and as a result.. live a lie. some things are bigger than culture

DRP's work for week 3

With the importance of cultural relativism considered, i still think that there can be universal human rights. However these rights would be to grantee the most basic of things needed to sustain life, such as a right to have water, food, and medical care. I would like to think that no mater how different all of our cultures are, this would be something that we all could agree upon. 

Looking at The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights I would like to believe that the rights it establishes would be acceptable to all humans. However it contains thing such as freedom of belief and religion  and i feel that is something that people may not be was willing to accept. 

Maybe we can't have universal laws, because of cultural differences, but we can have universal respect. The girl mentioned in the hand out that didn't want to be mutilated shouldn't have to be. It's one thing if the person thinks that it's a privilage, but to force something like that on one's person is where I say a line should be drawn. Nobody should have to give up a piece of thier body for any culture.

Ouch.

Female genital circumcision is certainly a painful social construction. However, it is that- a social construction. I want every female who wishes to abstain from mutilation to have the opportunity to receive that liberation. I personally believe it to be a result of the dominator role which is present in almost every culture. While it feels like we would be living in the dark ages to permit such behavior, many social constructions are harmful, yet will not be rescinded out of a unified belief in the reasons for the construction. If the whole believes something to be true, or of importance, it will likely not be abandoned unless given good reason. I wish every human to be granted the rights stated in the UDHR, but not every person would wish to have every stipulation extended to them, out of ignorance perhaps, but perhaps out of cultural and historical rule. If there is oppression, and the people feel oppressed, then it would be imperative to grant them the rights they feel they have been denied. Though the argument may be seemingly ignorant for the enforcement of 'backward' policies and traditions, it is cultural relevance that dictates what goes on in the world, not what we wish to go on in the world. Maybe the world will live in harmony one day, and everyone will be independent, free, and respected. That is what I would hope. However, there is a large chasm between what I want (speaking as a semi-educated woman in the year 2008) and what the rest of the world wants.

Why Female Genital Mutilation Is Good

1.  It keeps evil spirits away.

2.  Insures that the rains will come.

3.  Increases the chances of a male child.

4.  Is more attractive for a husband.

5.  Would be chosen by women if they knew what was good for 'em.

Despite the overwhelming "popularity" of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation and that the practice is usually perpetuated by women, the bottom line is that the procedure is not only unnecessary but both dangerous and traumatic to those that receive it.  This number is over 15 million women in the world.  The problem with the practice is that it is not always, if ever, a voluntary practice, but one that must be forced on the participant.  By this detail it crosses into the realm of article 5, that of freedom from torture and degrading treatment.   The girls are old enough to remember the procedure, which makes it different from the Jewish--and American--practice of male circumcision done at birth.

It's difficult to extend these rights to the world though.  And our basis of the UDHR is based on our perception that our way is better than their way, at least in this.  But the only way to sway opinion is through education, which is what several African nations are doing through propaganda posters used to discourage the practice.  The UDHR must be adopted voluntarily and not compulsory, and so the root is through greater effort in education.  The extension of article 26, the right to Education, is the quickest way to encourage a country to adopt the remaining 29 articles.

Blog Assignment #3

If you left class last week before picking up the reading assignment, then check OASIS tomorrow. I'll be posting that on the class page at some point. Here's your assignment for the week. I'll give you a week from today to get this in for full credit.

Cultural relativism is the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives. Some would apply this relativism to the promotion, protection, interpretation and application of human rights which could be interpreted differently within different cultural, ethnic and religious traditions. In other words, according to this view, human rights are culturally relative rather than universal.

With this in mind, can there be any universal human rights? Does the UDHR succeed in establishing human rights that are acceptable to all humans? Or discuss the issue of cultural relativism as it deals with controversial cultural practices. For example, you could discuss the issue of whether female genital circumcision is an issue of cultural relativism or a issue of human rights.

Hmm

I love history, and try to learn as much as I can about the past. The more we know about our past we can prevent such devastating atrocities such as the Holocaust of World War Two and currently the genocide occurring in Darfur, Sudan as we speak. But, how can we learn form history that isn't taught to us? I have never heard of the Armenian Genocide until this past week. How can a massacre 1.5 million people that occurred not nearly a century ago, not make it into the history books. It’s absolutely sickening to think that the history that is passed down to us is only the point of view and or events that our government wants us to know about. I guess it true to say the less educated we are the easier we are to control. I'm beginning to feel pretty ignorant of what is actually going on in world. Thank you for bring this to my attention; I’m going to do more research on this horrific event.

Whoops--I must have missed that one

I'm not big on history in general. In high school and middle school I didn't pay too much attention to what we learned and basically just memorized the facts I needed to know to do well on the test. It's possible that one of the many history teachers I've had mentioned the Armenian genocide, but I have absolutely not recollection of it. I remember learning about the WWI era of American and world history, having to memorize who was on what side and such. I remember Turkey being a part of the whole hubub, but I do not remember anything about Armenians. It's possible that maybe there was some sort of blurb in one of my textbooks or a quick mention by a teacher, but it wasn't enough to leave an imprint.
I do think this is something I should have known about--something that everyone should be aware of. No matter which side you land on concerning whether or not it was genocide, such a massive number of deaths connected to the same people and events deserves to be studied and analyzed and understood to prevent another similar catastrophe.
Why I never heard about it I don't know. I basically put the responsibility of this knowledge on my earlier schooling--which was in public schools so there is always the argument the government prevented the teaching of the event through text book selections or other means. Maybe it's because it's a controversial topic for some. Perhaps it's because the United States looks bad for their inaction at the time. Or it could all have to do with politics. I don't know which it is.

Armenian Genocide: Blog Assignment 2

Armenian Genocide: Blog Assignment 2

I had heard about the Armenian Genocide before, but never in school. My uncles lived in California, where there is a large Armenian population, and we would sometimes visit them during the Armenian Remembrance Day. Aside from that, however, I didn't hear about the Armenian genocide in any larger context, either in school or in the media, until 2006, when I read an article in The New Yorker about "A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility," a history of the Armenian people in Turkey, written by Taner Akcam. After I read that review, that name, and talk of the Armenian Genocide, seemed to crop up constantly, and I began to wonder how I hadn't heard of it before.

But then again, there are so many things that I didn't learn in school that, looking back, seem so thoroughly necessary to learning about the world. How many murders like this have there been in history, that we simply haven't heard about? Or haven't learned about? I don't remember any mention of Pol Pot's forced agrarian utopia in Cambodia; I don't recall anyone teaching me about the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda, that is until Rwanda became a more popular topic following the release of "Hotel Rwanda;" Stalin's forced famine; I even continue to be surprised by everything I don't know about the Holocaust, despite having been taught it almost every year since grade school. And this list is just from the twentieth century! What about everything that happened before? What about the Spanish Inquisition--the number of deaths pales in comparison to something like the Armenian Genocide or the Holocaust, but considering the amount of carnage the Inquisition caused during its time, it is obviously a very important part of history that I feel was glossed over or ignored completely in my history classes.

Obviously, not everything can be taught. There are millions of years of history that we're supposed to know--or we desire to know--and simply not enough time in school to learn it. But I don't understand why there was so little concentration on these types of conflicts in school. Why was there not a class to not only inform us of what happened, but also why it happened? For example, what was the state of the world when the Armenian genocide took place? What was happening to allow Hitler to not only come into power, but kill millions of people? And now, we should be learning why most leaders since the 1900s refuse to call the Armenian genocide by that name. Every teacher in school told me that I was learning history so that it wouldn't repeat itself, but what good were the cursory descriptions of every ruling monarch in England for preventing future murder? If I was truly being taught history so that my generation could hope to refrain from making the same mistakes, then I should have been taught the mistakes of history, not just the timeline.

--From Danielle

Week 2 response

I was never taught anything to do with this, which the more i think about it, it upsets me. I went to school at Stevenson high school in Lincolnshire IL which has records, awards and a bunch of other shit to make them feel good like they are number one. I was always told getting an education there was a treat and that i would be taught by the best in IL. Well my history class was the biggest joke, seriously like modified BS was taught, they didnt give detail nor go into serious subjects. Which makes you wonder if schools have been told to not teach certain things?

But to answer the question i didnt know about these, i was familiar with the words and all but not on the topic its self.

See you in class tonight.

Blog Response #2

When I was younger, a man that went to my church had parents who were victims in the Armenian genocide. He didn’t talk about it that much, and what I heard was mostly second- or third-hand. I remember thinking of it in terms that it had happened almost in an “indistinct” time period. I was never really able to put it in perspective of where or when it happened. I vaguely knew that it was in Central or Eastern Europe, but beyond that, I hadn’t the slightest idea of when it happened, and where exactly Armenia was.

It’s hard to define an event or a period of history as something I “should” know about. I am a firm believer in the power of knowledge and information, but it certainly seems both unlikely and impossible that I could know about all, or even most, atrocities, and at some point, if it’s even doing me any good to know about all of them. There’s no doubt that knowing more about the world and having a greater perspective on global intra-culture should make me a more concerned and more responsible human, but there comes a time when the scales should tip from information gathering to action. Too frequently, more time is spent on discussing the degree of atrocity instead of taking direct action against it.

I’m glad I knew about it--for sure--but I felt so removed from the situation that I didn’t recognize (and probably still don’t) my place or ability to do anything about it. I wish I’d known more information, and what I could do as an active part of the world to prevent something like that from happening during my lifetime.

thobe's blog response

well. i only heard of armenians last year, (thanks to celebrity-ville i have heard of the word) i'm positive there are sooo many genocides that have happened that the general public has no idea about. funny thing is, i was taught a considerable amount on ww1 in high school but i never heard of this, no suprise. theres too much to learn and no time to learn it, so we must take responsibility and educate ourselves... apparently turkey doesnt want to call it a genocide and neither does bush. 'birds of a feather flock together' i say, the war is too important to him to dare challenge the turks! the turks dont answer the phone, and life goes on as we know it. i mean take a look at the news, war in iraq, genocide in kenya, madness in zimbabwe, no rights in burhma... but all i see on world news, local news, and articles is britney spears' new adventure to the gas station. but anyhow, after reading the article all i thought was... what now?

Blinded by Ignorance, Again.

I am another to add to the list of those who haven't heard about the Armenian massacre/genocide. I have always been frustrated by a lack of knowledge concerning world affairs, injustices and histories. This is why I took this class, to hopefully educate myself on a higher level, to attain further understanding and awareness. It is sad to me that most of my education has contained little to no information about these topics, but rather it usually just consisted of memorization of war dates and president names. (I don't remember those either, because they don't matter to me; the stories are what make history come alive- human connection is the powerful key to teaching it, in my opinion.) 

Why is the wool always pulled over our eyes?

 Yes, partially I am to blame for my ignorance. I accept that. However, I have been a good student in school, one that does well with a little direction, rather than self-propelled learning alone. I don't feel I have been given enough nudges to learn about things outside of my local needs and desires- even in this time where the global community is growing powerful- there is still not a real NEED to learn about others, history, to learn from them. Why? Because we are comfortable. The path of least resistance is so easy to concede to in a small town in the United States. This is why I feel change and knowledge, experience, are so vital to greater understanding. We have to take a little initiative and risk, expose ourselves to generate awareness. That being said, I think our schooling system, our social constructs, our family constructs, the media as a whole (except for the news and documentaries- and even these have agendas and choose what to give importance as 'news')  fail to push us to be aware, as a whole, beyond the scope of the Armenian massacre. There are two main responses to the injustice of the world- flip out or become numb. This culture is overwhelmingly apathetic; we don't care, because not caring is easy. I also think that there is a lot we aren't encouraged to know. If we knew all the injustices that went on right under our politically sensitive, yet completely ignorant noses, we would probably choke on our McNuggets and keel over on the spot. Of course we aren't encouraged to know about every injustice! That could create political, social and economic instability! The leaders of the country, but more than that, the owners of the businesses that profit from exploitation are often the ones promoting racist, sexist, classist systems....Yes. Rambling. Good.

Well. No, I haven't heard of it. It doesn't surprise me. Though we have technology, our ideological systems and methods for education are still a little fucked up on different levels.

BUT...sidenote...If you want to hear a great song with powerful lyrics about 9-11, listen to the song "Wake Up" by Cold Duck Complex about ten times through. It still gives me chills. It is on myspace in the music section. Look it up. Do it.

Armenian who????

I had no clue that the Armenian genocide occurred. In fact I didn’t even know who the Armenian’s were until I read this article, which kind of sucks because now I feel like I don’t know half of the shit out there. I wish I knew this had happened. Many people have heard of the saying “history repeats itself” ( President Bush did this one well by doing what his father did). And after remembering this quote, somehow this does not really surprise me. Well it did in the way that many people where killed just from their different culture. I believe that this type of information is important for someone to know. Just like the Holocaust is important for someone to know. Knowing this information will hopefully open up our eyes and show us that “evil” is still out there and hopefully we can do something about this type of treatment.

To be honest I have no idea why I was not taught this. Most of the things I was taught was based around America to be honest. We were taught the wars that we were a part and we were taught what we did in these wars. Apparently slaughtering thousands of Armenians was not a part of the American way. But if you think about we were mostly taught what our country did and how it affected us. Whether it was WWI, WWII, the Civil War, or Vietnam. These all go around us. God bless America.

Like I said before, this is the first I have heard about this certain group of people. Which is very, very embarrassing. I feel as though I have not learned what I really was suppose to. But I guess it’s a good thing I learned it eventually.

DRP's work for week 2

Before the reading in class i knew of the 1915 genocide, but only that Turkey  had tried to kill the Armenians. I find it very strange that people know very little about what happened, or that it even happened at all. Being that it was the first genocide of the 20th century I would have expected to have learned something about it in school.  I think that we are purposefully kept unaware of what happened by the government ;for, it shows the united states in a very poor light. we had every opportunity to help stop what was happening and yet we did nothing . 

The best work of art I know of pertaining to the Armenian genocide is the song "Speak On It" by Knowledge.    This song is on the Axis Of Justice Concert Series Volume One. "Speak On It" is truly unsettling to listen to, and describes many of the atrocities that were done to the Armenians, it also explains why Turkey wanted to kill the Armenians    

Why is that?

I have to be honest - I never heard of the massacres/genoicide of the Armenians in the early 20th Century. My laziness is partly to blame for my lack of knowledge about this subject. I mean, we live in a culture where we are wrapped up in our own lives, that we forget to put emphasis on the "pursuit of knowledge". Not necessarily what we learn in school to become adequete to practice in our perspective majors/professions - because life is more then studying film, journalism and art.


I believe acquiring knowledge of history is very important. There is a famous quote that says, "You'll never know where you are going unless you understand where you have been". And, information is readily available to us. We have the internet, books, laptop computers, cell phones with the internet. I mean, the access to information is at our fingertips - yet, we are not smarter, wiser or more knowledgeable.

Why is that?

Monday, February 11, 2008

Britt's Response for week 2

I don't remember learning about the Armenian Genocide in a history class.  I know that I have heard the word Armenian but I do not think that it had to do with a genocide.  Clearly, there is controversy about the movie "The Armenian Genocide" because some people do not consider it to be a Genocide.  Because I do not know much about it I'm not sure if it should be considered one or not.  Unfortunately whenever there is a controversy about a historical event it is most likely glossed over in Public High School history classes.  History classes usually have to be compressed and to the approved by the government.  Therefore, there is a slim possibility of controversial issues to get into the textbooks or syllabus. 

 I think that I should have learned about this issue because it is important to study the flaws in humanity and society because there are more and more of us everyday and we have to live together.  Everyone strives for perfection and we as a whole need to strive to become the perfect people.  We can not do that if our history is being censored from us.  As if we ignore it, it will go away.  This in an idiotic approach to improving the quality of life.  

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Class Average For School Temperature Survey

Out of fourteen surveys, the average human rights school temperature is 85. 4 out of 100.  

The highest temperature was 98.  The lowest temperature was 64.

The lowest answer, on average, was the question "When someone demeans or violates the rights of another person, the violator is helped to learn how to change his/her behavior" with an average score of 2.6.  

The highest answer, on average, was the question "I have the opportunity to express my culture through music, art, and literary form" with an average score of 4.0.

Thoughts?

Armenian Massacre

I've never heard of the Armenian massacre.  Therefore it didn't happen.  Just like the holocaust, if it's not remembered because it's not taught, then it become a story, a legend, that some people are familiar and others aren't.  Already there are movements, including the Neo-Nazi movement, that claim the holocaust didn't happen and that Hitler and the rest of the Third Reich were misunderstood, and slandered, by history.

This is a powerful implication.  Despite living in an age of wide-spread information, the information that's presented is not always reliable.  The many debacles concerning Wikipedia show this, but it happens, and will continue to happen in as open a space as the internet, which we come to depend on more than a library, for instance.  

And this brings up a question of history in general.  There is no such thing as objective history.  There never has and never will.  History, by definition, is a series of events based around a point of view.  Who tells it?  Whoever wants to.  Whoever wins.  Whoever records it.  

I wonder how the Nazis would have recorded the holocaust.  Maybe they never would have recorded it.  Maybe the spin they put on it would hardly make it recognizable by us today.  It's interesting how evil we paint the Nazis today.  I wonder if we fall into the same trap, even years later, of glorifying our side while debasing the other.

One of the theories of why we dropped the Atom bombs on Japan is so that we could beat the Russians to it, thereby keeping a watchful eye and one step ahead of the Communists.  And think about it in general.  The act of using the Atom bomb opened a new epoch in world history.  If we had lost, and if the US ever loses its number one spot, will we be called into account for this as a war crime?  

And I've never seen, to the best of my knowledge, any art concerning the Armenian massacre.  

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Blog Assignment #2

For this week’s blog assignment I’d like you to discuss one or more of the following questions. I encourage you to comment on other’s student’s posts. Any additional insight that you add to the class blog will earn you course participation points. In order to receive the six points for each blog assignment, then please start a new thread. Please use a different thread title than me for the ease of your classmates.

Before your doing your reading assignment for this week, did you know about the massacres—or genocide according to most scholars—of Armenians in the early 20^th century? Do you think that this is something that you should have known about? Why do you think that you didn’t know about it? Do you know about any art dealing with this moment in history? If so, briefly discuss the art. This art could be visual art, film, music, etc.

Friday, February 8, 2008

im not really sure what to do

I am not really sure as to what to blog about. It seems the main topic seems to be war. I think there is a certain mysticism to war, I can only imagine the effect of facing your own death, or the futility of what you consider to be your life, and having war as means to justify your life. War as a purpose...and for someone,mainly those disenfranchised and oppressed as a grassroots movement and a life cause. I think that there is a concious selling of war by the media, and the cost of lives in the name of a ideal is not new, however, there are people out there who conciously oppose war,sometines at the cost of their lives. we are all looking for a cause, whether it be war or something perhaps not as insidious and life and soul destroying, but the search for a cause, in my opinion is innate. In my own life, i would much rather strive for a cause that nourishes not destroys the spirit.

Assignment #1

My belief of this subject is that war is forced upon people. Different cultures believe different things. Some believe in giving their lives for the cause of war and some don't. War can also be thrust upon a person/persons which creates different circumstances.

As far as the act of violence, I think it is taught in many cultures, others don't believe in it at all..... It is definitely a cultural matter.

Britt's Response

Power and violence go hand in hand.   People learn to want power when they are powerless and the people with the power abuse them.  If the power wanters gain power after a while, no matter what they swore to do (ie not use their power to harm others, or use their power to help others) the power will get to them and they will be forced with a choice, loose the power or harm some one to keep the power.  They will choose power. People are greedy.  They will use the power against others and justify it with several reasons. "When I didn't have power the ones with power hurt me, so I will do the same" "It's all about hierarchy" and "Take one for the team".  Power-violence, Violence-Power.  It is as simple as bullies.  Bullies survive because the bullied cannot make the bullies feel powerless.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Blog Assignment 1

It is easy to argue that violence is inherent in humans, because all animals commit acts of violence. And when one considers that even primates use violence, or, more commonly, the threat of violence, to help achieve certain social goals, it seems perfectly natural to assume that there is a genetic predisposition toward humans using violence to solve certain social goals as well. But there is some discrepancy between the two: primates do not commonly use violence, because most violent actions would be disproportionate to the social goal the primate is trying to achieve—if it’s unnecessary to kill monkey 1 to eat, monkey 2 just won’t do it. Humans, however, consistently (I would even dare say constantly) use unnecessary amounts of violence.

Over thousands of years, we have been continuously developing into a society that feeds on abstract ideas like faith and pride and power; and as we continue to pour importance into those ideas, the less of those necessities there appears to be to go around. We have built up certain social goals—being powerful, being wealthy, being the most pious, being the most respected—to the point where a disproportionate amount of violence seems completely appropriate to help achieve what is necessary for the new form of survival we have created for ourselves. So while it be natural or instinctual for us to commit, or threaten, acts of violence, the reasons that we have designated as violence worthy social goals have become extremely unnatural.

Obviously it's really hard to choose nature or nurture when considering violence. I'm don't do research in the area, so all i have to go on is my personal experiences.

Starting with myself. I used to be a very violent person. I would never order so much fast food that I would order them by a number, but if I did get the wrong order. I would retaliate in one way or another [probably violently]. That was when I was quite a bit younger. Now, through the aid of a bleeding ulser, I've learned just to eat what I get and be happy that I'm eating.

If one were to analyze this aspect of my live it would appear that I was naturally violent. Then through sercumstances, I learned to be peaceful.

Another experience is raising my children. They didn't come out hitting people. They were nice and cuddley at first. They learned to hit from watching movies, and playing with other children.

I would have to lean towards the notion that we learn to be violent, but that we instinctually learn to be violent because self preservation is our number one objective.

When we discussed human rights on the first day of class, it became apparent that we needed to define the term, as we all had different conceptions of what the term means, and especially since language is largely dependent upon context. Therefore, I took a minute to lookup the definition of 'violence.' Here it is from Merriam Webster:
Violence
1 a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage3 a: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b: vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c: a clashing or jarring quality : discordance4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

I believe that violence of feeling, intensity of action, clashing, jarring, destructive forces- all of these are inherent in the human experience.
When it comes to physical violence, I feel that most violence would be erased if there wasn't a gaping disparity in the distribution of wealth. When people are deprived of basic human needs, it leads to a survival mentality. This is primitive and instinctual, survival of the fittest. However, as humans, we have the powers of reason to rise above our instincts. This is why those who have resources should (feel compassion for and) extend their excess resources to others who have less resources. If we are more conscious of humanity on a global scale, we open ourselves to the responsibility that comes with knowlege and exposure.
There is another thing that leads to violence apart from basic need, and that is perceived need. A person may perceive that they need more power or wealth, comfort or domain, to be happy. Power, greed, and self-indulgence are at the heart of why there continues to be disparity. Some will do anything to attain these things, disregarding the rights and needs of other humans. These people have distorted views of reality and of themselves. When it comes down to it, we are all just tiny points in space, only existing for a few years in the scheme of history. I read the other day that there have only been 29 years in all of history where there hasn't been a war going on somewhere in the world. That to me, doesn't mean that it is part of human nature, but rather that we are imperfect beings, incapable of seeing outside of our selfish needs. There would be no reason to fight if there was an equal distribution of resources (or at least a fair distribution), and if we didn't have to struggle with delusions of gradure and self-importance.

War and Human Nature

Freud stated that there are two fundamental instincts in human beings: the erotic, or love, instinct and it's opposite, the destructive instinct. I totally agree with this summation. Let's look at the way we, human beings, respond to things...... How many times do you pull up to a McDonald's drive through, ask for a #1, drive all the way home to realize that you have a #7. You are comfronted with two sets of emotions: Oh my god, I really like a #7 too, or I feel like ringing the neck of that cashier.

Violence is part of human nature and it is our responsibility to discipline our emotions. We can't be violent towards anything and everything because it infringes on the safety and rights of others.

I believe war and violence is never good, but to seek out peace is hard. If humans are willing to do good and spend the time it takes to create peace, then we would never have to go to war. But because violence comes easy.......we often act on it.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Blog Assignment #1

I don't think there is any absolute characteristic that defines human nature, some people are violent and some are not, though most are probably somewhere in between depending on mood and circumstances. Violence is one of many human traits that seems like it should be obsoleted by civilization, but it continues to emerge because it is difficult to supress.

Violent behavior is not responsible for war, instead it is ideology that does most of the work there. Violence is an extreme form of disagreement, and perhaps it will one day be rare, but as long as there is language and debate, there will still most likely be violence.

You'd have to create a hell of a utopia to make a society that is bland enough that there is no longer a purpose for any extremism. Until every other person is Carl Sagan that isn't really going to happen. That means we have a pretty long way to go, since the one we did have is already dead, and there's a few billion homicidal pacifists left behind.

Blog #1

I think that there are a few key elements of life that point to violence being a part of human behavior. The fact that both birth and death are oftentimes painful, even violent experiences, indicates on some level humanity is closely related with violence. So many necessary parts of life, be it relationships or physical growth are inherently painful and violent. To suppose that violence is not a necessary part of being human is to suppose that these events can happen without that associated pain or violence.

Whether explicitly through a desire for violence, or implicitly as a means to facilitate greed, violence has recurred with such frequency and consistence throughout history that it’s difficult to claim it’s a chosen behavior. From the earliest stages, long before psychologists and sociologists believe that we’re capable of conscious decision-making, we’re hitting and fighting with our siblings and friends over everything. Of course that’s not to say that we all do it, or that the drive to commit violence isn’t outweighed by the fear of punishment (oftentimes some form of violence), but there is an overwhelming preponderance to violent action, long before television and news made us aware of the commonplace worldwide presence of violence.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Blog Assignment 1

I tend to believe that humans are not inherently violent.  Just as a person has to be taught what to fear, I have always felt that people learn such things as violence; from, the people they interact with, and their surroundings.  And if you simply removed these negative influences a person would be free from violent tendencies. 

            As far as a need to make war is concerned I do not believe in that either. I think humans are naturally peaceful beings, that would rather not resort to harming each other. War simply happens when every other reasonable option has either failed or been ignored. 

Monday, February 4, 2008

Of Mice & Men: Habitats Supplement Natural Violence

In captivity, male mice bred as pets are taken as soon as they're weened and often placed in glass habitats in pet stores in large groups. They live in adorable harmony for a few weeks: sharing food, grooming each other, and sleeping in a cuddle pile. Then they reach sexual maturity and everything changes. If not separated, the mice will fight and kill each other, until the one dominate mouse survives. Why is this? The mouse never had contact with his father, so he did not learn this behavior from him. Is it simply nature? Not quite. There are a few factors contributing here. First, the mice are in a habitat that is too small for the number of mice, but economical for the store. There are not enough "homes" for each mouse, and they are literally living on top of each other, in their minds forced to compete for their survival. If they are sold quickly, and go home to adequately sized cages, then the mice are never known as killers, but sweetly tamed pets. In nature, there's ample room for them to spread out and establish their own territories without ever killing each other.
Now, are humans like mice? Not quite. But sort of. I believe both have some sort of predisposition to violence naturally. It varies from mouse to mouse and person to person. Also, what it takes to draw that violence out of an individual will be different. For a mouse it may be as simple as the other mouse eating out of his food dish, while another mouse might only act in violence to physically defend himself. For a human, maybe he sees that the other human has something he needs to survive or maybe he sees that another human has something he wants.
I think, just like the mice kept in the pet store habitat, the society and culture we live in now helps to foster the violence. At all ages we're bombarded with imagery of violence and hate. War and action heroes slaughter numerous faceless victims without negative consequence. And of course the ever-cited video games: gratuitous violence, demeaning images of women, etc. In an atmosphere like this I think it can sometimes intensify what may be naturally there. It certainly isn't helping counteract anything.

War what is it go for...apparently anger.

I believe violence is a huge part of human behavior! We all have are moments when we get extremely upset; however some of us express it differently than others. For example, being in a family of 14 people I have seen anger. I have seen anger at its very best and truthfully I have snapped a couple times myself. When it comes to violence many people express it so differently, but I do believe it is part of our nature.

When you talk about war; well lets look at what we have. We have pissed off people who have the opportunity to go into another place and kill people. Regardless some of those people don’t want to take away another human life, but those who do have the opportunity to take it. War has been going on since Jesus walked the Earth. Even before Jesus walked the Earth. War is just a way to let peoples anger out. It is a horrible way to let your anger out, but it gives us a reason and the “power” to do that.

So ask yourself this question. Have you ever been extremely angry at someone or something that you thought of the unimaginable? Everybody has had their moments and as we grow older we are taught to control our angry whether it is through the law or by our parents.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)