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.

Blog Assignment #1

     From a historical context, I believe war is hard-wired into the human condition.  I think it has to do with Marx's Conflict Theory, that all of history can be explained by examining a scarcity of resources and how they are divided up.  In one group's push for a greater share of resources, violence will result.  Why?  Because in the natural order of human response, violence is the most potent of those responses, the pinnacle of human action.  I say this not to glorify it, but to explain that physical conflict is the strongest form of coercion available to make an individual or population submit to an outside influence.  It's like deciding who goes first in the sandlot baseball game.  Hand over hand, from the bottom of the bat, until the top is reached, declaring the winner.  The strongest survive; their hands end up on top through brute force.

     There is no life without war, as there is no life without peace.   It has been cyclical throughout human history.  The examples of cultures without war are so few that I believe they represent an anomaly rather than the basic structure of humanity.  And also, looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, natural selection says that the strongest survive to pass on their genes.  Once again, with limited resources, those that can eat because of taking from the weaker will survive to reproduce.  From this perspective, violence and war have been selectively bred into us from the advent of man, or rather, the advent of two men.  

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Blog Assignment #1

Blog Assignment #1

When we discuss, war, its causes, and human rights abuses associated with violence, we are often led back to the question of whether violence is part of human nature. Some people believe that humans are born with a drive for war while others believe that it’s a cultural institution, not a biological instinct. Discuss whether you think that violence is a part of human nature.

Your blog posts should be short reflections. They don’t have to be really long. A few paragraphs should be sufficient. If you have trouble posting, then feel free to email your responses to me.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)