The other day I visited a friend at her house on Menlo in the afternoon. We decided to play a game of beer pong. While it was just girls, the game was great, we laughed and had a good time. Two girls, one a sorority member of the notorious delta delta delta, could not fathom playing a game just among women; it was not legitimated unless males were present. It was just PRACTICE for when the girls play against the guys. This alone, disturbed me.
The girls also used terms such as the Indian, the Asian, the white man, the black man, to describe a formation of the cups that can be chosen for a re-rack. One cup "shaft" was Indian, two Asian, three white man, and four black man. The sorority girl giggled as she told me the terms.
Had any minority been present, I would not be as offended as I was. However, this specific group of people are all young, white, middle class girls and boys.
While I understand these names were used for a friendly, but competitive game when consuming alcohol, I nonetheless excuse the racism. People, expecially college students at a prestigious university, should be responsible enough not to not enforce gender and race heirarchies, but sadly not all are.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
KKK Case to Be Reopened
"We all love this country but a lot of folks think that blacks don't support the war on terrorism. That's bullshit. It's just that it's hard for me to get behind the war on terrorism over there when we haven't done it over here. Can we stop off in Alabama and hunt the terrorists there before Afghanistan?!" Evan Lionel, Actor/Comic
I pulled this quote from a lecture by Prof Jacobs-Huey on a discussion regarding comedy in the wake of 9/11. I found it incredibly thought provoking.
I pulled this quote from a lecture by Prof Jacobs-Huey on a discussion regarding comedy in the wake of 9/11. I found it incredibly thought provoking.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
REJN concert Tonight!
Everyone take a break from finals and come see my boyfriend's band play at Leonardos. They are opening for Akil from Jurassic 5. Check em out www.rejnband.com, or on myspace, the link is on the side bar!
Congrats to all those graduating!
Keep it real yooo
Congrats to all those graduating!
Keep it real yooo
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Terrorism on Campus?
This is going too far. Trying to charge a drug dealing delinquint for terrorism? Is this remiscent of the McCarthy era to anyone else?
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/04/25/News/Meth-Gun.Found.In.Students.Home-2879511.shtml
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/04/25/News/Meth-Gun.Found.In.Students.Home-2879511.shtml
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Shortcomings of Realism in a Global Era
When the Dog Bites, When the Bee Stings:
The Shortcomings of Realism in a Global Era
Most people have a conception of world politics akin to a game of chess—power, strategy and stability in a system of uncertainty. Each move is made based on rational choice, maximizing gains and minimizing loss. This is the realist paradigm— prevalent since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1478 when the “state” was born. While the realist paradigm is able to explain some events in global affairs, it fails to explain them all. This lens lacks depth in analysis hence providing a superficial explanation for events, which leads to ineffective foreign policy. This production of superficial analysis of global issues and ineffective policy prescriptions is evident in the emergence of non-state actors and the importance of symbols and emotions in ethnic conflict. In considering the shortcomings of realist thought, I will discuss contemporary theories that consider the challenges of contemporary issues.
The philosophy in question manifests in the key works by the fathers of realism, including, Thucydides and Machiavelli. Thucydides, a Greek historian, analyzes war between the Athenians and Spartans in, The History of the Peloponnesian War, as a war fought to acquire power. In the “Melian Dialogue,” a portion of the book dedicated to the discourse between the Melians and Athenians, Thucydides writes, “since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Thucydides argues that wars are fought over power. If an army is capable of winning a war, then they will fight it. Over millennia later, Niccolo Machiavelli similarly advocates the inherency of evil in man and the role of power seeking actors play in causing war. In his work, The Prince, Machiavelli advises that the objective of a prince is to obtain and maintain power. To do so, the prince must be dedicated to the art of war and must understand and accept that violent means may be necessary to maintain stability and power. Hence, realism is rooted in a philosophy that man is inherently evil and conflict is caused by the need to obtain or maintain power for security.
Although there are several strands of realism elaborating on different aspects of the theory, several core assumptions exist that define a realist. Realist theory is rooted in a philosophy that contends that man is inherently evil, initiated by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Man yearns for power, and conflict is caused by gaining or maintaining power. The nature of the system is anarchic, meaning no central source of governance exists. Sovereign states are the principal actors, and each state is rational and acts in their own national interest for their national security. Relations between states lay in their power, which can be defined through military, economic or moral terms.
Now in the past, the state has been the key actor in international relations. States waged war on each other; weak states succumbed to more powerful ones; power was defined as military might. However, today non-state actors have emerged. One must keep in mind that a theory is only a lens in which one sees the world. While a certain shade may highlight power as the cause for war, others may reveal different causes for war that were previously hidden from the eye. For example, realist theory cannot fully explain the emergence of terrorism. Realist theory views the outbreak of war as the result of a security dilemma. If a nation-state feels as though it is threatened then it will raise the power of its military. The aggressor responds in a similar fashion. War is won by the most military powerful nation-state. Yet this theory is inadequate when trying to understand issues that transgress nation-state boundaries. Terrorism, for example is a non-state actor. Therefore applying a theory meant for state actors to a non state actor is illogical.
Moreover, realist theory fails to explain the outbreak of ethnic war as described by Stuart J. Kaufman in his recent book, Modern Hatreds: Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Kaufman explains that myths, ethnic fears and the opportunity to mobilize are the preconditions for ethnic war. Nations do not go to war simply to maintain power or because they can, but because myths are propagated or symbols are manipulated to mobilize the mass or instigate the elites to cause war. The cover of Kaufman’s book provides an excellent example of elite-led violence. Croatian leader, Franco Tudjman, kisses a Croatian flag that once symbolized Nazi-fascist Ustashe terror. This image flared ethnic hatred between the Serbs and the Croats and instigated a war that erupted in the region. Symbolic politics rather than realist theory explain the emergence of ethnic war in the former Yugoslav. In this case, a military power struggle is unable to explain the violence and resulting ethnic war. Thus, realist theory is crippled.
Failed Policy
The real need for a departure from realist thought is evident in the foreign policy that is developed based on the realist lens. While analysis can be skewed by a single lens, it is only analysis. But foreign policy is developed out of this analysis. And that is where the real danger lies. Incorrect analysis will create inefficient policy, policy that may even worsen a situation than ameliorate it.
For example, the United States suffered from an attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In response, the United States increased defense spending, recruited troops and declared war against countries that were “against us.” As I write this, the U.S. is still engaged in unpopular military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. How could it be that the most advanced use of force the world has ever seen cannot squander the efforts of a relatively small number of individuals in a military battle? Perhaps the military is ill equipped for the intimidation of non-state actors. The continued conflict is a result of the inability of realism in applying to non-state actors.
Hard power
Hard power is generally associated with command power. Command power is “the ability to change what others do” and it “can rest on coercion or inducement.” Typically, hard power methods include using force, sanctions, payments and bribes. The current administration’s handling of the War on Terrorism, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, are prime examples of fighting terrorism through using hard power methods.
Soft Power
The term “soft power” was coined by Joseph S. Nye in the late 1980’s. The definition of soft power requires more explanation than hard power as it is less direct and a newer term. However, the term must be understood entirely in order to the power of the solutions described later in this paper.
Soft power tends to be associated with co-optive power rather than command power. Co-optive power is the ability to shape what others want” and it “can rest on the attractiveness of one’s culture and values or the ability to manipulate the agenda of political choices in a manner that makes others fail to express some preferences because they seem to be too unrealistic.” Instead of using coercion to get what you want, soft power explores attraction instead. Soft power is an “attractive power,” that “gets others to want the outcomes you want” and “rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others.” There are three main sources of soft power for a country: “Culture (in places where it is attractive to others), political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).” By projecting attractive culture, political values and foreign policies, one can maximize their soft power.
The drawbacks of hard power and the benefits of soft power
“If you live near a swamp that is home to thousands of mosquitoes carrying malaria, you can kill the mosquitoes but more will come carrying the same disease. The only real solution is to deal with the swamp, the incubator of the disease.”
Using hard power methods to fight terrorism may seem effective immediately but in the long run, it fails to fight terrorism and in some instances could even breed new terrorists. Examining our nations past hard power approaches to foreign affairs can help us to understand the drawbacks of using hard power methods to fight terrorism. For example, “The four week war in Iraq in the spring of 2003 was a dazzling display of Americas hard military power that removed the tyrant, but it did not resolve our vulnerability to terrorism.” Although the war in Iraq was a military success, it failed to prevent any further terrorist attacks. In fact, “regime change or the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will not, by itself bring peace. Others would replace Sadam in due course of time.” Hard power simply fights the current terrorists but does nothing to prevent the growth of future terrorists.
Furthermore, deterrence policies, such as current policies for the War on Terrorism do the exact opposite than what the goal of the policy was. “Terrorists are locked into their organizations even more and see no alternatives but to stay on.” It causes terrorists to continue to be terrorists, since they provide no options for them. Using hard power does not give terrorists reasons to change yet instead “creates substantial additional economic costs, increases vulnerability to terrorist acts, and strengthens terrorist’s cohesiveness and influence.” Once more, using hard power tactics against terrorism adds fuel to the fire instead of water.
Nye describes in an excerpt from Soft Power why soft power is effective and could better be used than hard power to hinder terrorism growth.
“When countries make their power legitimate in the eyes of others, they encounter less resistance to their wishes. If a country’s culture and ideology are attractive, others more willingly follow. If a country can shape international rules that are consistent with its interests and values, its actions will more likely appear legitimate in the eyes of others. If it uses institutions and follows rules that encourage other countries to channel or limit their activities in ways it prefers, it will not need as many costly carrots and sticks.”
Therefore, the international community must utilize soft power to fight terrorism. By using an attractive force rather than a coercive one to stop terrorists from organizing and acting, terrorism will be fought at the root instead of the tree. When individuals are attracted to Western culture and politics, they will not have a need to fight against them. These individuals living in nations where terrorist cells organize and operate, need incentives that are more attractive than those terrorists provide in order to not join the movement.
Although wars have been fought since man has been on earth should not prevent man from flirting with the idea that peace is possible. Pessimists argue that the status quo is never changing. To them I suggest they pick up a history book. Peace is possible, but as Gandhi said, nonviolence is a tool for the strong, not the weak.
A realization that realist policy blinds the eye from seeing reasons behind conflict must be obtained for all intellectuals in the field. Those who study global issues must push the limits of the field, step over the boundaries of the status quo, and continue to test and invent new theories. At the same time, intellectuals must realize that the system is creating venues for violence to erupt. Therefore to end this violence, the injustice must be revealed. In most cases, the cause for violence is one that is manipulated by the media or by power hungry elites. Like an onion, layers of fallacies must be peeled off in order to discover the core cause of the eruption of violence to be a system of injustice, and non violent social revolution is the only means to rectify the system.
The Shortcomings of Realism in a Global Era
Most people have a conception of world politics akin to a game of chess—power, strategy and stability in a system of uncertainty. Each move is made based on rational choice, maximizing gains and minimizing loss. This is the realist paradigm— prevalent since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1478 when the “state” was born. While the realist paradigm is able to explain some events in global affairs, it fails to explain them all. This lens lacks depth in analysis hence providing a superficial explanation for events, which leads to ineffective foreign policy. This production of superficial analysis of global issues and ineffective policy prescriptions is evident in the emergence of non-state actors and the importance of symbols and emotions in ethnic conflict. In considering the shortcomings of realist thought, I will discuss contemporary theories that consider the challenges of contemporary issues.
The philosophy in question manifests in the key works by the fathers of realism, including, Thucydides and Machiavelli. Thucydides, a Greek historian, analyzes war between the Athenians and Spartans in, The History of the Peloponnesian War, as a war fought to acquire power. In the “Melian Dialogue,” a portion of the book dedicated to the discourse between the Melians and Athenians, Thucydides writes, “since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Thucydides argues that wars are fought over power. If an army is capable of winning a war, then they will fight it. Over millennia later, Niccolo Machiavelli similarly advocates the inherency of evil in man and the role of power seeking actors play in causing war. In his work, The Prince, Machiavelli advises that the objective of a prince is to obtain and maintain power. To do so, the prince must be dedicated to the art of war and must understand and accept that violent means may be necessary to maintain stability and power. Hence, realism is rooted in a philosophy that man is inherently evil and conflict is caused by the need to obtain or maintain power for security.
Although there are several strands of realism elaborating on different aspects of the theory, several core assumptions exist that define a realist. Realist theory is rooted in a philosophy that contends that man is inherently evil, initiated by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Man yearns for power, and conflict is caused by gaining or maintaining power. The nature of the system is anarchic, meaning no central source of governance exists. Sovereign states are the principal actors, and each state is rational and acts in their own national interest for their national security. Relations between states lay in their power, which can be defined through military, economic or moral terms.
Now in the past, the state has been the key actor in international relations. States waged war on each other; weak states succumbed to more powerful ones; power was defined as military might. However, today non-state actors have emerged. One must keep in mind that a theory is only a lens in which one sees the world. While a certain shade may highlight power as the cause for war, others may reveal different causes for war that were previously hidden from the eye. For example, realist theory cannot fully explain the emergence of terrorism. Realist theory views the outbreak of war as the result of a security dilemma. If a nation-state feels as though it is threatened then it will raise the power of its military. The aggressor responds in a similar fashion. War is won by the most military powerful nation-state. Yet this theory is inadequate when trying to understand issues that transgress nation-state boundaries. Terrorism, for example is a non-state actor. Therefore applying a theory meant for state actors to a non state actor is illogical.
Moreover, realist theory fails to explain the outbreak of ethnic war as described by Stuart J. Kaufman in his recent book, Modern Hatreds: Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Kaufman explains that myths, ethnic fears and the opportunity to mobilize are the preconditions for ethnic war. Nations do not go to war simply to maintain power or because they can, but because myths are propagated or symbols are manipulated to mobilize the mass or instigate the elites to cause war. The cover of Kaufman’s book provides an excellent example of elite-led violence. Croatian leader, Franco Tudjman, kisses a Croatian flag that once symbolized Nazi-fascist Ustashe terror. This image flared ethnic hatred between the Serbs and the Croats and instigated a war that erupted in the region. Symbolic politics rather than realist theory explain the emergence of ethnic war in the former Yugoslav. In this case, a military power struggle is unable to explain the violence and resulting ethnic war. Thus, realist theory is crippled.
Failed Policy
The real need for a departure from realist thought is evident in the foreign policy that is developed based on the realist lens. While analysis can be skewed by a single lens, it is only analysis. But foreign policy is developed out of this analysis. And that is where the real danger lies. Incorrect analysis will create inefficient policy, policy that may even worsen a situation than ameliorate it.
For example, the United States suffered from an attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In response, the United States increased defense spending, recruited troops and declared war against countries that were “against us.” As I write this, the U.S. is still engaged in unpopular military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. How could it be that the most advanced use of force the world has ever seen cannot squander the efforts of a relatively small number of individuals in a military battle? Perhaps the military is ill equipped for the intimidation of non-state actors. The continued conflict is a result of the inability of realism in applying to non-state actors.
Hard power
Hard power is generally associated with command power. Command power is “the ability to change what others do” and it “can rest on coercion or inducement.” Typically, hard power methods include using force, sanctions, payments and bribes. The current administration’s handling of the War on Terrorism, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, are prime examples of fighting terrorism through using hard power methods.
Soft Power
The term “soft power” was coined by Joseph S. Nye in the late 1980’s. The definition of soft power requires more explanation than hard power as it is less direct and a newer term. However, the term must be understood entirely in order to the power of the solutions described later in this paper.
Soft power tends to be associated with co-optive power rather than command power. Co-optive power is the ability to shape what others want” and it “can rest on the attractiveness of one’s culture and values or the ability to manipulate the agenda of political choices in a manner that makes others fail to express some preferences because they seem to be too unrealistic.” Instead of using coercion to get what you want, soft power explores attraction instead. Soft power is an “attractive power,” that “gets others to want the outcomes you want” and “rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others.” There are three main sources of soft power for a country: “Culture (in places where it is attractive to others), political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).” By projecting attractive culture, political values and foreign policies, one can maximize their soft power.
The drawbacks of hard power and the benefits of soft power
“If you live near a swamp that is home to thousands of mosquitoes carrying malaria, you can kill the mosquitoes but more will come carrying the same disease. The only real solution is to deal with the swamp, the incubator of the disease.”
Using hard power methods to fight terrorism may seem effective immediately but in the long run, it fails to fight terrorism and in some instances could even breed new terrorists. Examining our nations past hard power approaches to foreign affairs can help us to understand the drawbacks of using hard power methods to fight terrorism. For example, “The four week war in Iraq in the spring of 2003 was a dazzling display of Americas hard military power that removed the tyrant, but it did not resolve our vulnerability to terrorism.” Although the war in Iraq was a military success, it failed to prevent any further terrorist attacks. In fact, “regime change or the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will not, by itself bring peace. Others would replace Sadam in due course of time.” Hard power simply fights the current terrorists but does nothing to prevent the growth of future terrorists.
Furthermore, deterrence policies, such as current policies for the War on Terrorism do the exact opposite than what the goal of the policy was. “Terrorists are locked into their organizations even more and see no alternatives but to stay on.” It causes terrorists to continue to be terrorists, since they provide no options for them. Using hard power does not give terrorists reasons to change yet instead “creates substantial additional economic costs, increases vulnerability to terrorist acts, and strengthens terrorist’s cohesiveness and influence.” Once more, using hard power tactics against terrorism adds fuel to the fire instead of water.
Nye describes in an excerpt from Soft Power why soft power is effective and could better be used than hard power to hinder terrorism growth.
“When countries make their power legitimate in the eyes of others, they encounter less resistance to their wishes. If a country’s culture and ideology are attractive, others more willingly follow. If a country can shape international rules that are consistent with its interests and values, its actions will more likely appear legitimate in the eyes of others. If it uses institutions and follows rules that encourage other countries to channel or limit their activities in ways it prefers, it will not need as many costly carrots and sticks.”
Therefore, the international community must utilize soft power to fight terrorism. By using an attractive force rather than a coercive one to stop terrorists from organizing and acting, terrorism will be fought at the root instead of the tree. When individuals are attracted to Western culture and politics, they will not have a need to fight against them. These individuals living in nations where terrorist cells organize and operate, need incentives that are more attractive than those terrorists provide in order to not join the movement.
Although wars have been fought since man has been on earth should not prevent man from flirting with the idea that peace is possible. Pessimists argue that the status quo is never changing. To them I suggest they pick up a history book. Peace is possible, but as Gandhi said, nonviolence is a tool for the strong, not the weak.
A realization that realist policy blinds the eye from seeing reasons behind conflict must be obtained for all intellectuals in the field. Those who study global issues must push the limits of the field, step over the boundaries of the status quo, and continue to test and invent new theories. At the same time, intellectuals must realize that the system is creating venues for violence to erupt. Therefore to end this violence, the injustice must be revealed. In most cases, the cause for violence is one that is manipulated by the media or by power hungry elites. Like an onion, layers of fallacies must be peeled off in order to discover the core cause of the eruption of violence to be a system of injustice, and non violent social revolution is the only means to rectify the system.
Virginia Tech: Pointing Fingers
A week ago I read stargirl's post on the Virginia Tech shootings. She criticized the school, specifically, for their "poor decision making on the part of administration officials" during the shootings that took place on campus. She mainly focused on the lack of immediate school shut down and notification by email rather than emergency alerts.
Seconds after the tragedy occurred, fingers began pointing, criticism began flying, and public statements of apologies began flooding the media.
The assailant's sister, Ms Cho Sun-Kyun addressed the public in a statement, apologizing for her "brother's unspeakable actions." "It is a terrible tragedy for all of us," she said.
The president ofSouth Korea
So many people are apologizing on behalf of Cho’s murder rampage. But it was neither his parents who committed the crime, nor his sister. The school did not tell Cho to murder 30 of his peers and faculty, nor did the gun, nor didSouth Korea
Cho killed all those people because of an apparent mental illness. Individuals who display signs of mental health problems are generally viewed as “weirdos” in society. Take Cho: He was a loner who displayed deep grievances against his peers and signs of mental illness in his writing class. I guarantee you Cho was dismissed as a weirdo; ignored by society; fallen into the cracks.
And what was the result of this? His illness festered. His anger grew, until it became an uncontrollable monster that lashed out with a vengeance packed in 9 mm hand gun.
Seconds after the tragedy occurred, fingers began pointing, criticism began flying, and public statements of apologies began flooding the media.
The assailant's sister, Ms Cho Sun-Kyun addressed the public in a statement, apologizing for her "brother's unspeakable actions." "It is a terrible tragedy for all of us," she said.
The president of
So many people are apologizing on behalf of Cho’s murder rampage. But it was neither his parents who committed the crime, nor his sister. The school did not tell Cho to murder 30 of his peers and faculty, nor did the gun, nor did
Cho killed all those people because of an apparent mental illness. Individuals who display signs of mental health problems are generally viewed as “weirdos” in society. Take Cho: He was a loner who displayed deep grievances against his peers and signs of mental illness in his writing class. I guarantee you Cho was dismissed as a weirdo; ignored by society; fallen into the cracks.
And what was the result of this? His illness festered. His anger grew, until it became an uncontrollable monster that lashed out with a vengeance packed in 9 mm hand gun.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Cho-hammad? Islam: the new scapegoat
When I first heard of the Virginia Tech shootings, one of my responses was, “please God may the shooter not be a Muslim.” It would only add to the growing Islamophobia and anti-Islamism. The shooter turned out to be Cho Seung-hui, a Korean emigrant of 15 years.
Despite his heritage, Americans are questioning whether or not Cho was a Muslim and thus a terrorist due to a tattoo on his arm reading: Ishmael X.
Could it be that Cho, as an English major simply read the first page of Moby Dick? Or could it be he read the plethora of poetry alluding to Ishmael?
Or maybe he committed his crime for the reasons he himself claimed -- a vendetta against the "rich kids," the snobs etc.
The fact that this debate is even being brought up in the media and the blogosphere reveals the growing Islamophobia, anti-Islamism and ignorance towards Islam. Muslims today are scapegoats for anything bad that happens in the world. Sound familiar? Same thing happened to the Jews in the years leading up to WWII. Poor economy...the Jews, violence in the streets...the Jews, deteriorating moral fabric of society...the Jews. That was 50 years ago. Today, replace Jews with Muslims. Tomorrow, who knows whom it will be next.
Despite his heritage, Americans are questioning whether or not Cho was a Muslim and thus a terrorist due to a tattoo on his arm reading: Ishmael X.
Could it be that Cho, as an English major simply read the first page of Moby Dick? Or could it be he read the plethora of poetry alluding to Ishmael?
Or maybe he committed his crime for the reasons he himself claimed -- a vendetta against the "rich kids," the snobs etc.
The fact that this debate is even being brought up in the media and the blogosphere reveals the growing Islamophobia, anti-Islamism and ignorance towards Islam. Muslims today are scapegoats for anything bad that happens in the world. Sound familiar? Same thing happened to the Jews in the years leading up to WWII. Poor economy...the Jews, violence in the streets...the Jews, deteriorating moral fabric of society...the Jews. That was 50 years ago. Today, replace Jews with Muslims. Tomorrow, who knows whom it will be next.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Fighting Violence by Sitting In
Protests are a nuisance, often disrupting traffic, waking people from their drunken slumbers, and rarely achieving their immediate goals. But they do achieve a very important one: They raise awareness about violence in the world and offer a nonviolent solution.
On Tuesday April 10th two lawyers, immediately followed by 13 students carrying rations for three days, walked into the reception room of President Steven B Sample of the University of Southern California’s office. Prevented from going any further, the students put their stuff down and began to chant, “USC, sweat-free.” The students refused to leave until President Sample signed on to either the Designated Supplier Program or the Workers Rights Consortium, independent factory monitoring agencies.
The DSP and WRC ensure that factories give the people working there basic human rights such as living wages, reasonable hours, a harassment-free environment, breaks during the day, and perhaps most important, the right to unionize. Currently, USC is signed on to the FLA, the Fair Labor Association. However, this organization is a self-policing organization. That means the people on the FLA board are the same people who run the companies that the FLA monitors. That is the definition of a conflict of interest.
After six hours the protesters did not win their campaign. The vice president of student affairs, Michael Jackson, threatened all twelve students, (one was lost because an officer refused to let her return after a bathroom break had been negotiated) with immediate suspension.
Although the protesters did not achieve their goals, they did raise awareness of violence against women and children and provided a non-violent solution. Over 100 supporters rallied around the building, chanting, beating drums, calling for President Sample to “prove his creed” and not give in to “corporate greed.” Students who were onlookers became participants. Participants became hopeful, full of energy, believers in civil disobedience.
The gathering grew. The Los Angeles Police Department came to be sure no violence would break out. As the spectacle grew, a modest sit-in became news worthy. The student’s cell phones rang; the press was on the other end.
The next day the protest headlined the Daily Trojan. The story was picked up by the LA Times, Daily News, CBS, Associated Press and several other publications and including many blogs. Students, faculty, parents, universities, unionized factories in China and Indonesia flooded the administration with phone calls urging President Sample to adopt the DSP.
That is the success of civil disobedience. With a relatively minor infraction, only a few students managed to have their voices heard by hundreds of thousands of people. If only a few more were inspired, it could spark another protest, and so on, and awareness spreads without the use of violence.
Others argue that non-violent protest does not amount to any change. The only change, they say, is the hassle the protestors create for other students for that day. To those who argue that students should not have broken school rules, I say look up the meaning of civil disobedience. Look at the history of civil disobedience. African Americans did not achieve equal rights laws in even a matter of years. They are citizens of this country and it took decades and countless demonstrations. Still they face structural discrimination not more then a mile from the protest.
Eventually achieving labor rights for the third world may be he ultimate goal, but it cannot be achieved by one sweeping move. This protest, as I said, may be the inspiration for future demonstrations, and perhaps after years of building awareness, things will change. It requires great foresight, and great sacrifice.
Gandhi writes, “Violence is a tool for the weak, nonviolence a tool for the strong.” Violence isn’t always overt. It isn’t always guns pointed at people, bullets flying, and buildings being bombed.
I tell you this story because these students recognized that there is structural violence. Violence embedded in the structure of the global capitalist economy, yet masked by popular trends. Subjecting women to harassment is violence. Forcing children to sew clothes in lieu of education (so colleges can slap their logo on them and sell to their students) is violence.
And here we have students who could have taken the easy way out. They could wear the sweatshirts to fit in during football games or because they were on sale and looked cute or cool. But instead, these students chose the road less traveled; embarking on a journey to stand up for basic human rights and for women’s rights; standing up to their university.
On Tuesday April 10th two lawyers, immediately followed by 13 students carrying rations for three days, walked into the reception room of President Steven B Sample of the University of Southern California’s office. Prevented from going any further, the students put their stuff down and began to chant, “USC, sweat-free.” The students refused to leave until President Sample signed on to either the Designated Supplier Program or the Workers Rights Consortium, independent factory monitoring agencies.
The DSP and WRC ensure that factories give the people working there basic human rights such as living wages, reasonable hours, a harassment-free environment, breaks during the day, and perhaps most important, the right to unionize. Currently, USC is signed on to the FLA, the Fair Labor Association. However, this organization is a self-policing organization. That means the people on the FLA board are the same people who run the companies that the FLA monitors. That is the definition of a conflict of interest.
After six hours the protesters did not win their campaign. The vice president of student affairs, Michael Jackson, threatened all twelve students, (one was lost because an officer refused to let her return after a bathroom break had been negotiated) with immediate suspension.
Although the protesters did not achieve their goals, they did raise awareness of violence against women and children and provided a non-violent solution. Over 100 supporters rallied around the building, chanting, beating drums, calling for President Sample to “prove his creed” and not give in to “corporate greed.” Students who were onlookers became participants. Participants became hopeful, full of energy, believers in civil disobedience.
The gathering grew. The Los Angeles Police Department came to be sure no violence would break out. As the spectacle grew, a modest sit-in became news worthy. The student’s cell phones rang; the press was on the other end.
The next day the protest headlined the Daily Trojan. The story was picked up by the LA Times, Daily News, CBS, Associated Press and several other publications and including many blogs. Students, faculty, parents, universities, unionized factories in China and Indonesia flooded the administration with phone calls urging President Sample to adopt the DSP.
That is the success of civil disobedience. With a relatively minor infraction, only a few students managed to have their voices heard by hundreds of thousands of people. If only a few more were inspired, it could spark another protest, and so on, and awareness spreads without the use of violence.
Others argue that non-violent protest does not amount to any change. The only change, they say, is the hassle the protestors create for other students for that day. To those who argue that students should not have broken school rules, I say look up the meaning of civil disobedience. Look at the history of civil disobedience. African Americans did not achieve equal rights laws in even a matter of years. They are citizens of this country and it took decades and countless demonstrations. Still they face structural discrimination not more then a mile from the protest.
Eventually achieving labor rights for the third world may be he ultimate goal, but it cannot be achieved by one sweeping move. This protest, as I said, may be the inspiration for future demonstrations, and perhaps after years of building awareness, things will change. It requires great foresight, and great sacrifice.
Gandhi writes, “Violence is a tool for the weak, nonviolence a tool for the strong.” Violence isn’t always overt. It isn’t always guns pointed at people, bullets flying, and buildings being bombed.
I tell you this story because these students recognized that there is structural violence. Violence embedded in the structure of the global capitalist economy, yet masked by popular trends. Subjecting women to harassment is violence. Forcing children to sew clothes in lieu of education (so colleges can slap their logo on them and sell to their students) is violence.
And here we have students who could have taken the easy way out. They could wear the sweatshirts to fit in during football games or because they were on sale and looked cute or cool. But instead, these students chose the road less traveled; embarking on a journey to stand up for basic human rights and for women’s rights; standing up to their university.
The Public Intellectual
After reading an article from the Nation, The Future of the Public Intellectual, we debated the concept of the public intellectual in class. The debate made me question whether or not public intellectuals exist and if they do, how long they will continue to exist?
Now here is what I think: Intellectuals exist. Knowledge is available by the click of mouse. There are many people out there who are educated. They have studied through universities, or read on their own time. Yet they are not always in the public. Case in point: professors. John Donatich, in the article, also makes the point that “scholars and thinkers have retreated to the academy.”
Now there are also public figures that are not intellectuals. Take public figure Fukuyama who regularly contradicts himself in arguments. Samuel P. Huntington argues that Islam is the root of conflict in the post Cold War era: a blatantly racist, ethnocentric and prejudice theory.
And how does one discern between simply a public figure and an intellectual. Well, one would consult an intellectual, yet if the intellectual were not a public figure how would one know he or she is an intellectual. And if the figure were in the public eye, how would one know he or she is an intellectual?
Specifically, when a politician argues against an academic for having “extreme” views, which should the public follow? And if the public follows the politician, and a particular view becomes mainstream, does it become true? Does the academic’s view indeed become something “extreme”?
The circular logic makes me dizzy. If wordsmiths can validate any point, then it seems the public intellectual is already dead. How does one come to any conclusions when knowledge itself is subject to bias?
Now here is what I think: Intellectuals exist. Knowledge is available by the click of mouse. There are many people out there who are educated. They have studied through universities, or read on their own time. Yet they are not always in the public. Case in point: professors. John Donatich, in the article, also makes the point that “scholars and thinkers have retreated to the academy.”
Now there are also public figures that are not intellectuals. Take public figure Fukuyama who regularly contradicts himself in arguments. Samuel P. Huntington argues that Islam is the root of conflict in the post Cold War era: a blatantly racist, ethnocentric and prejudice theory.
And how does one discern between simply a public figure and an intellectual. Well, one would consult an intellectual, yet if the intellectual were not a public figure how would one know he or she is an intellectual. And if the figure were in the public eye, how would one know he or she is an intellectual?
Specifically, when a politician argues against an academic for having “extreme” views, which should the public follow? And if the public follows the politician, and a particular view becomes mainstream, does it become true? Does the academic’s view indeed become something “extreme”?
The circular logic makes me dizzy. If wordsmiths can validate any point, then it seems the public intellectual is already dead. How does one come to any conclusions when knowledge itself is subject to bias?
Art on the Wall of Hate
I really wanted to share these because many people in the United States have this view of the Palestinians as brainwashed Islamic fundamentalists. They inhumanely attack Israeli's by blowing themselves up. Atleast that is the image you get in the media. But there is a lot more to life in Palestine then Islamic fundamentalism and suicide bombings. There is art, music, film. There is life in Palestine and I think people tend to forget that, or never realize it in the first place.
Another reason I wanted to share these photos, is to show how Palestinians are fighting nonviolently against the occupation. These paintings are commentary on life in Palestine under occupation. Take the painting of the girl grasping a bundle of balloons that are raising her off her feet. I interpret this image to be a symbol of imagination. The wall is suffocating for Palestinian society, but with a little imagination symbolized in this image of girl floating away with her balloons (an image I know I have once imagined myself) a door is open, providing a breath of fresh air for the men, the women, the children who walk by it every day.
Painting is a form of nonviolent resistance. It is active, not passive. And it is difficult. Any artist will tell you that. It is easier to succumb to violence, but to have the courage to stand up against oppression with a paint brush, not knowing if you will fail or succeed is more frightening to me then jumping out of a plane from 18,000 feet in the air.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Olmert denies Right of Return
Of course Olmert denies Palestinians the right of return.What's one more broken international law to the list? Let’s see here. Continued illegal occupation of territories seized in during 1967 war…check. Use of excessive force in occupied territories…check. Constructing a "security fence" on Palestinian territory…check. Deliberately targeting civilians in Amy Goodman Interview with Sami Rasouli
What is really going in Iraq?
When it comes to Iraq everyone has an opinion. But it angers me because many times I see people arguing that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq to provide security amidst the civil war, or that U.S. troops should stay to train Iraqi forces to stabilize their own country. I always hear people thinking what they think is best but rarely do I hear people referring to what the Iraqi's want. Hell, I actually do not want to hear what anyone thinks should be the U.S. policy in Iraq except for Iraqi's themselves.
Who are we to step on to foreign soil, beat their people to a pulp, then ask, what should we do now? But what about Saddam Hussein, is not life better in Iraq without him? William Blum spoke on campus and had a great analogy, I'll paraphrase. Imagine a patient goes to a doctor with a knee problem and the doctor amputates his knee and then says, but hey, you don't have knee problem anymore!
Get the hell out of there. That is what the Iraqi's want. According to a World Public Opinion poll, 70% of Iraqi's want U.S. troops to withdraw within six months. Whatever happened to popular sovereignty? Popular sovereignty doesn't exist in the face of the American Empire, we seek only “democracy.”
When it comes to Iraq everyone has an opinion. But it angers me because many times I see people arguing that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq to provide security amidst the civil war, or that U.S. troops should stay to train Iraqi forces to stabilize their own country. I always hear people thinking what they think is best but rarely do I hear people referring to what the Iraqi's want. Hell, I actually do not want to hear what anyone thinks should be the U.S. policy in Iraq except for Iraqi's themselves.
Who are we to step on to foreign soil, beat their people to a pulp, then ask, what should we do now? But what about Saddam Hussein, is not life better in Iraq without him? William Blum spoke on campus and had a great analogy, I'll paraphrase. Imagine a patient goes to a doctor with a knee problem and the doctor amputates his knee and then says, but hey, you don't have knee problem anymore!
Get the hell out of there. That is what the Iraqi's want. According to a World Public Opinion poll, 70% of Iraqi's want U.S. troops to withdraw within six months. Whatever happened to popular sovereignty? Popular sovereignty doesn't exist in the face of the American Empire, we seek only “democracy.”
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Emerald Queen
I revisted Ultraviolenceland, a series of paintings by Camille Rose Garcia. All the paintings in this series intend to describe recreational violence. The castles are a symbol of empire. The vampires are armies that feed on violence and destruction. The dark forest symbolizes subconscious fear while inside the city symbolizes unhappiness with the "pristine but ultraviolent world."This particular painting screamed to me the ills of the empire. The depressed princess toys with her gems in oblivion of fear. No castle can hide violence. Regardless of beauty and peace in the empire, when built by blood, fear and violence will lurk in the subconscious. The dutiful worker extracting dead souls from life reminds me of a soldiers work: the violence an army must enact to maintain an empire.To me, it also raises the question of the rationalization of violence. Violence is rationalized to protect an empire. Those who live outside the empire live outside of the care of the empire, and therefore suffer. However, all, inside and outside the empire suffer from violence. The categorization of within and outside an empire becomes arbitrary. This painting leaves me questioning. What is a nation? What is a state? Why do we substantiate violence for this arbitrary, imaginary concept?
Non-violent struggle takes many shapes and many forms. Vampires in forests, ghouls sucking souls, and princesses in castles slitting wrists and downing pills are all images of violence that Garcia painted with the intention to evoke thoughts on the use and need of violence in this world. Most people don’t look at a painting and see non-violent struggle, but it is there. Took view more of Garcia's work visit her online gallery.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Sewage Floods Village in Gaza
Five killed after sewage floods village in Gaza
A couple thoughts on this article: First off, I find it interesting that the author wrote, "Hamas gunmen, along with rescue crews, rushed to the search for residents." Maybe the representatives of Hamas carried guns to the scene, maybe not. Regardless I think using the term "gunmen" exacerbates the already warped US perception of Hamas as a solely right-wing militant terrorist organization.
Yes, Hamas calls for a one-state solution. And yes, after the Oslo Accords failed, Hamas claimed responsibility for suicide attacks during the second intifada. However, since the second intifada, Hamas ceased using the deplorable tactic.
Hamas funds social programs such as education (and no these are not terrorist brainwashing madrasas), welfare programs, orphanages, and healthcare clinics. To the Palestinians, Hamas is a political party fighting to end the occupation and protect the Palestinians.
Overall this article really brings to light how neglected the human rights, and deplorable living conditions are for people living in the occupied Palestinian territories. It seems like the media, finally, has the guts to reveal at least bits of truth regarding the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation.
For more information on the occupation check out:
End the Occupation
Electronic Intifada
Jewish Voice For Peace
A couple thoughts on this article: First off, I find it interesting that the author wrote, "Hamas gunmen, along with rescue crews, rushed to the search for residents." Maybe the representatives of Hamas carried guns to the scene, maybe not. Regardless I think using the term "gunmen" exacerbates the already warped US perception of Hamas as a solely right-wing militant terrorist organization.
Yes, Hamas calls for a one-state solution. And yes, after the Oslo Accords failed, Hamas claimed responsibility for suicide attacks during the second intifada. However, since the second intifada, Hamas ceased using the deplorable tactic.
Hamas funds social programs such as education (and no these are not terrorist brainwashing madrasas), welfare programs, orphanages, and healthcare clinics. To the Palestinians, Hamas is a political party fighting to end the occupation and protect the Palestinians.
Overall this article really brings to light how neglected the human rights, and deplorable living conditions are for people living in the occupied Palestinian territories. It seems like the media, finally, has the guts to reveal at least bits of truth regarding the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation.
For more information on the occupation check out:
End the Occupation
Electronic Intifada
Jewish Voice For Peace
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Hebron is Hell
I'm posting this article for those who either do not know much about the occupied Palestinian territories and especially to those who claim to have gone to Hebron and returned with smiles and postcards.
I'm saying this because I have quite a few friends who traveled to Israel through Birthright. They think they are getting a real experience of the country but what they get is far from it. Many of them have no idea that the routes they take detour around Palestinian inhabited areas, sometimes up to a 7 hour detour, just so they never see what the IDF is doing there. When they visit Hebron, IDF locks in the Palestinians in their homes by MILITARY force, while the young Americans enjoy their time in the suburban paradise.
A representative from Women in Black, and Israeli peace organization, spoke to a small group of us on campus last year. She described the violent acts of settlers against the Palestinians. The most horrific that stains my mind still was her description of settler women throwing rocks at Palestinian CHILDREN. A photographer friend of mine who has also spent time in Hebron described settler men urinating on Palestinians. The Women in Black, when under attack from the settlers for protecting the Palestinian children, were subject to threats such as, "We killed Jesus, we'll kill you too."
Hebron is hell. Occupation is hell. Read this article if you don't believe me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6470375.stm
I'm saying this because I have quite a few friends who traveled to Israel through Birthright. They think they are getting a real experience of the country but what they get is far from it. Many of them have no idea that the routes they take detour around Palestinian inhabited areas, sometimes up to a 7 hour detour, just so they never see what the IDF is doing there. When they visit Hebron, IDF locks in the Palestinians in their homes by MILITARY force, while the young Americans enjoy their time in the suburban paradise.
A representative from Women in Black, and Israeli peace organization, spoke to a small group of us on campus last year. She described the violent acts of settlers against the Palestinians. The most horrific that stains my mind still was her description of settler women throwing rocks at Palestinian CHILDREN. A photographer friend of mine who has also spent time in Hebron described settler men urinating on Palestinians. The Women in Black, when under attack from the settlers for protecting the Palestinian children, were subject to threats such as, "We killed Jesus, we'll kill you too."
Hebron is hell. Occupation is hell. Read this article if you don't believe me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6470375.stm
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Billboarding the Iraqi Disaster
"Why is it that we are counting and thinking about the Sudanese dead as part of a high-profile, celebrity-driven campaign to "Save Darfur," yet Iraqi deaths still go effectively uncounted, and rarely seem to provoke moral outrage, let alone public campaigns to end the killing? And why are the numbers of killed in Darfur cited without any question, while the numbers of Iraqi dead, unless pitifully low-ball figures, are instantly challenged -- or dismissed?"
In New York City giant billboard display the number dead in Darfur. Save Darfur campaigns flood universities, corporations etc. What about the Iraqi's? Why has Darfur recieved the media attention it has regarding casualities, living conditions, horror stories, while Iraq has not? Arnove makes a keen argument regarding the Iraqi Disaster.
In New York City giant billboard display the number dead in Darfur. Save Darfur campaigns flood universities, corporations etc. What about the Iraqi's? Why has Darfur recieved the media attention it has regarding casualities, living conditions, horror stories, while Iraq has not? Arnove makes a keen argument regarding the Iraqi Disaster.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Struggle for Justice
After chewing on the advice given by a plethora of intellectual peers and synthesizing in my own mind ideas of truth, justice, feminism, peace and conflict, I have decided to re-name my site and re-write my "anchor" piece." Justice by Truth will now be known as The Struggle for Justice. The Struggle for Justice will focus on pacifism, a basic opposition to war and violence, as an active struggle, not simply a passive resistance. Evident in the music and lyrics of hip-hop, based on the philosophy of Ghandi, specifically his principle of satyagraha, integrated into international relations by the feminist theory, an active struggle for peace is not only a valid but a potentially succesful alternative to war. Any thoughts or advice are welcome regarding the new focused journey for The Struggle for Justice.
Themes to be explored: justice, nonviolent struggle for peace, feminist theory, hip-hop, conflict and war
Themes to be explored: justice, nonviolent struggle for peace, feminist theory, hip-hop, conflict and war
Friday, February 9, 2007
Alternate Universe
Jerusalem is one of the holiest sites for three Abrahamic faiths. Bullets and blood are flying at the Dome of the Rock, the site where the Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h, beloved spiritual ascendant to the Muslims as well as other faiths.
A place where people go to worship something greater than themselves, a place where seekers meditate upon truth, the site where many have traveled to as a pilgrimage is being torn apart. It is erupting from within. It is somewhat ironic actually. Religion is dying in the very place it was born.
I can't help but think about the origin of the Abrahamic faiths. Not many people know this, but the Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h., when he was revealed to, thought he had lost his mind. He ran to his much older wife, Khadija for comfort. They lived in a pagan society, but Khadija had heard of a group of people believing in one God, a uniting being. She advised him to discuss the matter with the Christians and Jews who at first welcomed the Prophet as their own. The enemy was not each other, but paganism. They fought for others to recognize that God united mankind, thus love for one another was the only way to live. Mankind has a short memory it seems.
It makes me really sad to see this image. Especially when I had been standing in that very spot less than one year ago.
Whether or not Israel truly was renovating the sight, and any violence was not precipitated, is not the question. Nor is the question whether or not the Palestinians were protesting to protect their holy site, or used this occasion to incite violence.
The main point here is that the region is incredibly volatile. There is no peace. People are jumping at the chance to throw a rock, shoot a gun. Suspicion, hatred, fear: no one can live like that.
This is not a war between religions per say, it is a battle between two groups of people inhabiting the same land. It has gone unresolved for so long the battle has grown into a monster: a war between religions. Now we have all looked under our beds and in our closets, and we know monsters do not exist. So I plea for all to recognize this battle for what it is.
A place where people go to worship something greater than themselves, a place where seekers meditate upon truth, the site where many have traveled to as a pilgrimage is being torn apart. It is erupting from within. It is somewhat ironic actually. Religion is dying in the very place it was born.
I can't help but think about the origin of the Abrahamic faiths. Not many people know this, but the Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h., when he was revealed to, thought he had lost his mind. He ran to his much older wife, Khadija for comfort. They lived in a pagan society, but Khadija had heard of a group of people believing in one God, a uniting being. She advised him to discuss the matter with the Christians and Jews who at first welcomed the Prophet as their own. The enemy was not each other, but paganism. They fought for others to recognize that God united mankind, thus love for one another was the only way to live. Mankind has a short memory it seems.
It makes me really sad to see this image. Especially when I had been standing in that very spot less than one year ago.
Whether or not Israel truly was renovating the sight, and any violence was not precipitated, is not the question. Nor is the question whether or not the Palestinians were protesting to protect their holy site, or used this occasion to incite violence.
The main point here is that the region is incredibly volatile. There is no peace. People are jumping at the chance to throw a rock, shoot a gun. Suspicion, hatred, fear: no one can live like that.
This is not a war between religions per say, it is a battle between two groups of people inhabiting the same land. It has gone unresolved for so long the battle has grown into a monster: a war between religions. Now we have all looked under our beds and in our closets, and we know monsters do not exist. So I plea for all to recognize this battle for what it is.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Religion of Love
My heart has become capable of every form;
It is a pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christian monks,
And a temple for idols and the pilgrim's Ka'ba
And the tables for the Torah and the book of the Qur'an.
I follow the religion of Love, wherever way
Love's camels take, that is my religion and my faith.
Ibn al-'Arabi
I studied this poem in a poetry class at the American University in Cairo and recently came across it once more in the introduction to The Essential Writings of Gandhi. The love poetry of Ibn al-'Arabi always has a double meaning, one literal the other esoteric. Much of his poetry was charged for being overly lustful, yet many scholars, such as William Chittick and Frithjof Schuon, believe his love poetry to transcend romance between man and woman and described a deeper love between humankind and God. These lines from the collection, Interpretor of Desire, I feel reveal the true nature of his poetry to be more than just lustful words. Instead, his poetry describes a philosophy of oneness in being and love for all mankind.
In our world today, religion's exclusivist nature has led to fear, manipulation and war, when in actuality, all religions share the universal characteristic of love for others. Humankind's inability to recognize the universiality of all religions, is in my opinion, the root of conflict today. Any system of exclusivism or hierarchy creates the dichotomy of us and the other. If this dichotomy, this manner of dividing mankind could be replaced with a recognition of the unity among man, conflict in this world would cease to exist.
It is a pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christian monks,
And a temple for idols and the pilgrim's Ka'ba
And the tables for the Torah and the book of the Qur'an.
I follow the religion of Love, wherever way
Love's camels take, that is my religion and my faith.
Ibn al-'Arabi
I studied this poem in a poetry class at the American University in Cairo and recently came across it once more in the introduction to The Essential Writings of Gandhi. The love poetry of Ibn al-'Arabi always has a double meaning, one literal the other esoteric. Much of his poetry was charged for being overly lustful, yet many scholars, such as William Chittick and Frithjof Schuon, believe his love poetry to transcend romance between man and woman and described a deeper love between humankind and God. These lines from the collection, Interpretor of Desire, I feel reveal the true nature of his poetry to be more than just lustful words. Instead, his poetry describes a philosophy of oneness in being and love for all mankind.
In our world today, religion's exclusivist nature has led to fear, manipulation and war, when in actuality, all religions share the universal characteristic of love for others. Humankind's inability to recognize the universiality of all religions, is in my opinion, the root of conflict today. Any system of exclusivism or hierarchy creates the dichotomy of us and the other. If this dichotomy, this manner of dividing mankind could be replaced with a recognition of the unity among man, conflict in this world would cease to exist.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Structural Violence
Structural violence, a term which was first used in the 1970s and which has commonly been ascribed to Johan Galtung, denotes a form of violence which corresponds with the systematic ways in which a given social structure or social institution kills people slowly by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Institutionalized elitism, ethnocentricism, classism, racism, sexism, adultism, nationalism, heterosexism and ageism are just some examples of this. Life spans are reduced when people are socially dominated, politically oppressed, ore economically exploited. Structural violence and direct violence are highly interdependent. Structural violence inevitably produces conflict and often direct violence including family violence, racial violence, hate crimes, terrorism, genocide, and war.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Sum of Us
If you wanna fight the power
Get the power to fight
Cuz some of us judge without knowing the man's inner
And some of us find fault in the sin and not the sinner
Jurassic Five
Get the power to fight
Cuz some of us judge without knowing the man's inner
And some of us find fault in the sin and not the sinner
Jurassic Five
Human Shield Tactic
Palestinians' high-risk human shield tactic
A beautiful example of nonviolent resistance. Gandhi has said violence is a tool of the weak, and non-violence is a tool for the strong, a philosophy I am proponent of. The Palestinian response to IDF violence should be disclosed to the world as the poster-child for peaceful resistance.
A beautiful example of nonviolent resistance. Gandhi has said violence is a tool of the weak, and non-violence is a tool for the strong, a philosophy I am proponent of. The Palestinian response to IDF violence should be disclosed to the world as the poster-child for peaceful resistance.
The Bottom Rung
"Today's conventional portrait of international politics thus too often ends up looking like a Superman comic strip, whereas it probably should resembler a Jackson Pollock painting." Cynthia Enloe, Curious Feminist.
Enloe referring to the simplification of international politics by solely recognizing power centers and ommitting the voices in the margin.
Enloe referring to the simplification of international politics by solely recognizing power centers and ommitting the voices in the margin.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Our World Needs a Mother
I recently attended a lecture by USC Professor of International Relations, Ann Tickner. The lecture included an exericse in which those attending were told to describe male/masculine qualities in juxtoposition to female/feminine qualities. She then asked the audience, who were prodimently women, to state which qualities they saw in themselves or wish to see in themselves. I was disheartened to see the majority of women identifying with the "male qualities" which included but was not limited to income earner, career oriented, controlled, leader, autonomy, reason and power. One female in the audience went so far as to rebuke any female who would ever want to identify with feminine qualities such as passivity, soft spokenness and indecisive. It blew my mind that 1) she chose the qualities of femininity with the most negative connotations and 2) held reverence for male qualities and a glimmer of shame towards female qualities. To address my first conundrum I plea for all to think twice about the judgement of qualities. Aggressiveness is considered comendable in a work environment while passivity is condemened. Maybe passivity is wise while aggressiveness is foolish? Aggressivenss in foriegn policy for instance has left the US a debt and a pariah in the New World Order. Passiviity, the feminine quality may have served us better, and therefore should not be considered negative. And what of autonomy? I would think any man or woman who could think he or she could make it in this world alone or independent has failed to understand how greatness was achieved. No great leader ever achieved success alone, not Gandhi nor Mother Theresa, nor any great president. Many women feel that they must adopt masculine qualities to be successful in our male dominent world of today, but I question the need for leaders seeking more power and money or policy based on toughness and reason. In my opinion, the world is in need of the so-called feminine qualities of empathy and caring. I plea for all women to develop the qualities in them regardless of their gender associations, but I plea more for any man or woman to recognize that maybe our male chavuanistic world is need of a mother of unconditional love and fierce maternal protectiveness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)