Class discussion: oppression

Today we talked about oppression in class. As a white male I should technically run into the least resistance. I don’t have a strong sense for how the other oppressed groups (women, colored) feel since I don’t belong to them. I take for granted my skin color and sex.

The video we watched about the native people oppressing the blue eyed people in that social exercise was extremely interesting. It was hard to watch those people get treated so poorly, but it made me question if we do that everyday and I turn a blind eye. Something to think about.

Who will liberate Liberia?

What is the reading about?

The reading takes the stance that the current global political climate is perfectly suited to allow the immoral occupation of a poor country. The Bush administration can do almost anything they please as long as they mask their true intentions with some simple political spin and the American people will gobble it up. The writing also raises the issue that even a portion of the money spent on wars would be enough to feel all of the world’s hungry dying poplulation.

What do we FEEL about the reading we just finished?

I feel pretty upset after finishing the essay. The ease in which the US government can do almost anything it pleases is sickening. IS THERE NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE!?

What do we THINK about the reading we just finished?

feel the reading hits the nail on the head here. The allusions to Orwell’s 1984 are apt and perfectly encapsulate the feelings at the time. It’s almost comical how weak political ties can be (USA and Liberia) if one country doesn’t have something the other needs (Oil in Liberia).

What do we BELIEVE about the reading we just finished?

Like most people (I think) I want to believe the issues the paper brings up are facetious but the evidence has been stacking up to support its claims. So I believe the writing’s morals are in the right place and are trying to bring some pretty important issues to light.

What do we KNOW about the reading we just finished?

I know the US has it’s hands in some pretty shady cookie jars and should really be spending more on foreign aid. It’s sad really.

September 11: Forgiveness is not part of the lessons learned.

What is the reading about?

       The reading argues that forgiveness plays no role in the Bush administration’s plans for the war on terror, instead it was motivated by “…the worst human instincts – nationalist hatred and list for retaliation.”  The reading argues that if the United States is a christian nation like it claims, it should have exercised some christian values of forgiveness.

 

How do we FEEL about the reading we just finished?

      The paper brings up some pretty good points. Like how the president claims to be a christian yet flexes none of his christian muscles when he is attacked. The immediate response to the terror attacks was to enter a war that caused the deaths of thousands of civilians, doesn’t seem very christian to me.

What do we THINK about the reading we just finished?

     I think the reading is well informed and pretty thoughtful. For me, the reading really brings into questions the validity of the claim that politicians are actually religious. I find it hard to believe they are often, and it’s for the very reasons this paper highlights. It is a very non-christian response to attack others when you’ve been attacked. 

What to we KNOW about the reading we just finished?

     I know that if a politician says he’s religious, that counts for almost nothing, and in fact, actually makes him or her less appealing to me. What purpose does their religion serve for their politics if they borrow none of the religion’s good qualities?

Negotiation, Not Retrubution

What is the Reading about?

The essay suggests that our definition of terrorist is less concrete that we might like to imagine. Someone who was once labeled a terrorist could be titled different if the culture changes. The paper also suggests that The United States is responsible for the deaths of many more people than died in the september 11th attacks. Also, the paper scolds the American government for responding to sept 11 with revenge over negotiations and peaceful talks.

How do we FEEL about the reading?

I feel like the paper had some major flaws. First, it fails to make a distinction between the American people, the American government and the American military (which is also part of the government). Second, the paper seems to blame America as a whole for the weapon’s manufacturing when the majority of America has nothing to do with that, it is in fact the responsibility of the government, which for all intents and purposes, acts without the say of the people. It is dangerous to leave out such a crucial caveat.

What do we THINK about the reading?

I think the paper’s ideas of mourning the loss of the tens of thousands of innocent lives lost due to the immoral actions of the government are important to consider.

What do we BELIEVE about the reading?

I don’t know what to believe about the reading. It comes across as somewhat biased and I am immediately skeptical of it for that reason. Some of it is good intentioned though. Like the bits on remorse and empathy for embattled third world nations are righteous.

What do WE KNOW about the reading?

Not too much. Even ten years after the fact, I don’t know a whole lot about the shady dealings of the American government, and they probably like it that way. I think if there were more transparency of the government’s dealings most people would be in shock of the things they get away with.

Chapter 5, The Role of the Automobile in American Culture

Chapter 5 of Issues in Social Justice takes an in-depth look at how the automobile has shaped society, both geographically and sociologically. The chapter gives a history lesson on the automobile and the major players in the explosive growth of the industry. The American economy has a large section of the chapter dedicated to it and how the automobile helped the economy flourish. A number of questions are also answered such as “how does an automobile shape one’s self image, and other people’s view of a person?” ‘

How do we FEEL about the reading WE just finished?

As a non-driver, I feel removed from a lot of the chapter I just read. I use public transit for the majority of my transportation and see the bus as a more environmentally friendly and affordable way to get around. The section of the chapter that talks about one’s identity in relation to their automobile is completely lost on me since I’ve never owned a car and rarely feel the need for one or my own. The rest of the chapter is mainly a history lesson on how the automobile shaped the American landscape and I can’t really comment on that too much other than to say that it was an interesting read.

What do we THINK about the reading WE just finished?

After the reading I feel like the automobile is (clearly) capable of a lot of good, but also harbours some unhealthy repercussions. It’s extremely important in facilitating comerce and industry. Without the automobile the country wouldn’t have seen the economic growth it has seen for the past century. The unhealthy aspects are that certain people get stigmatized for not being able to drive or willfully declining to drive and that just isn’t cool. Also, when one begins to see their sense of self worth signified by the car they drive, I can’t help but feel like that can’t be good either.

What do WE BELIEVE about the reading WE just finished?

Considering most of the chapter was a history lesson, I believe most all of the chapter. There isn’t really too much to dispute.

What do WE KNOW about the reading WE just finished?

Again, being a someone who doesn’t drive and hasn’t really read up much about the automobile prior, most of this chapter was news to me. The history of the car was pretty intersting, especially the passage on page 126 where it states, “Laws were passed and changed to favor the car companies who argued their industry was fueling the American economy,” because it shows how much power, even early on in the automobile’s life, the car companies could leverage because of their place in society.

Chapter 3, Human Trafficking

What question did the Chapter raise?	How did the text answer this question?	How does the answer match our own ideas and experiences?
What is Human Trafficking?	The text explains that human trafficking is a broad term that applies to “…the purposeful movement of any person to places in which they are sold or purchased into forced labor… prostitution, industrial work, domestic work, or sex slavery.”	Before reading the chapter I assumed human trafficking only applied to sex slavery. I had no idea that humans were bought to perform labor.
Who gets trafficked?	Mainly people in poor living conditions ie nations with struggling economies, war torn nations, kidnap victims	I knew kidnapping played a big role in human trafficking but had never given the thought that families may sell their own children as a perverse form of income.
How are these crimes committed?	The text cites a few ways they happen. First, the “bait and switch” where a trafficker promises a victim a better life to leave the country and work, instead they are trafficked. Second is as simple as kidnapping. The third and final way is where a family sells their children into trafficking rings.	Again same as before, I thought kiddnapping was the main way this happened.
What are the outcomes for the victims?	Many physical and emotional scars are left for the victim. Post-traumatic stress, depression, loss of limbs, STD’s, torture,	It would be an understatement to say I assumed that the lives of trafficked peoples we’re incredibly rough.
How is the problem being addressed?	The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection At of 2000 has been key in bringing harsher penalties on to people convicted of human trafficking. Shelters, hotlines, and counselling have become available because of the act as well.	I had no previous knowledge to how the problem was combated. I assumed there were agencies overseas that tried to address trafficking, but I had no idea how they operated.

Chapter 10 Terrorism

What Question did the Chapter raise?	How did the text answer this question?	How does the answer match our own ideas and experiences?
How does Terrorism function?	Terrorism functions through spreading fear and hysteria through the population for a political gain.	Before reading the chapter I didn’t really have a strong definition of what terrorism was. I knew it involved violence but I wasn’t aware a political message was necessary for it to be called terrorism.
What are the types of terrorism?	The text lists five types of terrorism: Mass terror, Dynastic assassination, Random terror, Focused random terror, Tactical terror. They all vary in goals and methods	Again, I didn’t know much about the types. If pressed, I would probably only admit to knowing of two types of terrorism. Violence against civilians, and violence against political leaders.
How do terrorist in Iraq function?How does Intolerance Come about?	The text explains that terrorists and insurgents in Iraq have a number of tactics to instil terror into the popuace and that these have changed over time. First the insurgents engadged in street-to-street combat but when American technology took the advantage away from the insurgents they resorted to more brutal and desperate techniques. Suicide bombings, kidnapping and video beheadings.The readings indicate that intolerance (and tolerance) comes about by beinging socially constructed to protect intrests of the group to which one belongs.	My main source for information regarding terrorism has been the news, and that isn’t always the best avenue for solid information. I knew of the beheadings and suicide bombings obviously since they’re a daily occurence.. I just don’t know much about terrorism in general.It’s hard for me to come up with an example of blatant intolerance. Maybe Canada is more accepting than most places, but it feels like mostly everyone is on the same ground here.