I'm interested in researching about the staggering number of people in jail in the United States. While I believe that there should be consequences for breaking the law, there seem to be a lot of inconsistencies. For instance, a group of American fisherman unknowingly broke the law when they imported lobster tails in plastic bags instead of boxes. (I'm not sure why this would matter. The lobsters are already dead so it couldn't be for their sake...) For unknowingly packaging lobster tails incorrectly, three out of the four fishermen were sentenced to eight years in prison. And while I understand the argument about how the fishermen should have known better since this was their job/specialty, I still think this consequence seems extreme. I think people who knowingly run stoplights are more dangerous. (But then again I don't know why the lobster was supposed to be packaged differently..) I think this is an important topic because it has the ability to affect all of us. I for one would hate to one day be sitting in a cell for breaking a law I didn't even know existed. (On the other hand, if that could be used as an excuse then criminals could claim they were unaware of any law they might want to break.) I think doing crime comparisons of other countries, and trying to find out if there is a correlation between how many people are in jail and how safe people feel in general might be interesting. I also wonder if we have more of one "type" of criminal than other countries, ex) fraud, murder, traffic violations... If we have more murderers, then maybe we are in the right and are just more able/willing to catch murderers. If the majority of Americans are in jail for laws like the fishermen dealt with and other countries don't have many of those, then maybe we are, not just having higher expectations for our citizens, but setting them up for failure.
http://www.economist.com/node/16640389
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR32.4/article_loury.php
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Hoess Photo
http://idamclient.ushmm.org/IMAGES/(S(a0giee55143bxqrwwntdcv45))/RetrieveAsset.aspx?instance=IDAM_USHMM&qfactor=2&width=640&height=480&crop=0&size=1&type=asset&id=1163609
"An accordionist leads a sing-along for SS officers at their retreat at Solahuette outside Auschwitz."
A large group of men are gathered on a hill in uniform and are singing. Some men in front are smiling and the men that are leading the others are very animated.
Nazi officers close to camp meet and do a sing-a-long. They were having a picnic and decided to sing songs about old films and about jokes and what Germany is going to be like/was like. Sang prideful songs about what a good job they were doing. They are having a good time and feel a sense of companionship. They are small-talking about everything except for the deaths of Jews just a few minutes away.
Who is in charge in this photo? Is it really the man waving his hands and getting the others to sing? Did they have the day off? Do they get days off? Were there so many officers that these officers could go off and have a sing along and things would continue to run smoothly without them?
"An accordionist leads a sing-along for SS officers at their retreat at Solahuette outside Auschwitz."
A large group of men are gathered on a hill in uniform and are singing. Some men in front are smiling and the men that are leading the others are very animated.
Nazi officers close to camp meet and do a sing-a-long. They were having a picnic and decided to sing songs about old films and about jokes and what Germany is going to be like/was like. Sang prideful songs about what a good job they were doing. They are having a good time and feel a sense of companionship. They are small-talking about everything except for the deaths of Jews just a few minutes away.
Who is in charge in this photo? Is it really the man waving his hands and getting the others to sing? Did they have the day off? Do they get days off? Were there so many officers that these officers could go off and have a sing along and things would continue to run smoothly without them?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Congo Today
Woman: 'They wanted to destroy my body and spirit'
"Adam Hochschild, author of the prize-winning book, "King Leopold's Ghost," wrote that Belgian King Leopold murdered up to 8 million Congolese while robbing the country of ore and rubber at the beginning of the 20th century. The struggle for control of Congo's rich natural resources -- the CIA Factbook says it is "endowed with vast potential wealth" in diamonds, gold and cobalt -- has fueled much of the violence today, activists say."
There is a lot of violence still going on today, and much of it has to do with natural resources just like it was with King Leopold in the Congo. Things are particularly gruesome for women in the Congo as they are raped and abused as an effect of the economic war.
"It's 'femicide,' " Ensler says, using another word to describe the treatment of Congolese women. "It's the systematic destruction of women. It's an economic war fought on the bodies of women. It's the destruction of the Congolese people and life itself."
Some organizations are attempting to create safe havens for these women to come and recuperate from abuse.
UNICEF says the war has cost more lives than any other war since World War II.
I wonder how these numbers compare to the death toll when Leopold was in power.
Rape has become a primary weapon in that war, says Geoffrey Keele, a UNICEF spokesman. Keele says rape is designed to destroy the Congolese community. Husbands, families and villages often shun rape victims. A weak and divided community is easier to conquer.
"Rape is designed not just to injure and dehumanize the women but impact their families and communities," Keele says.
I don't understand why these communities are allowing this tactic to work on them. Organizations should possibly be working with them to support and rehabilitate one another, not shun family members, dividing and letting the other side's plan work. I think there should also be many more safe havens for women.
Leopold may have set an example for today's Congolese who are fighting for resources. They have turned to violence and are using violence to gain control and power over the people.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-15/world/congo.women_1_congolese-women-democratic-republic-belgian-king-leopold?_s=PM:WORLD
"Adam Hochschild, author of the prize-winning book, "King Leopold's Ghost," wrote that Belgian King Leopold murdered up to 8 million Congolese while robbing the country of ore and rubber at the beginning of the 20th century. The struggle for control of Congo's rich natural resources -- the CIA Factbook says it is "endowed with vast potential wealth" in diamonds, gold and cobalt -- has fueled much of the violence today, activists say."
There is a lot of violence still going on today, and much of it has to do with natural resources just like it was with King Leopold in the Congo. Things are particularly gruesome for women in the Congo as they are raped and abused as an effect of the economic war.
"It's 'femicide,' " Ensler says, using another word to describe the treatment of Congolese women. "It's the systematic destruction of women. It's an economic war fought on the bodies of women. It's the destruction of the Congolese people and life itself."
Some organizations are attempting to create safe havens for these women to come and recuperate from abuse.
UNICEF says the war has cost more lives than any other war since World War II.
I wonder how these numbers compare to the death toll when Leopold was in power.
Rape has become a primary weapon in that war, says Geoffrey Keele, a UNICEF spokesman. Keele says rape is designed to destroy the Congolese community. Husbands, families and villages often shun rape victims. A weak and divided community is easier to conquer.
"Rape is designed not just to injure and dehumanize the women but impact their families and communities," Keele says.
I don't understand why these communities are allowing this tactic to work on them. Organizations should possibly be working with them to support and rehabilitate one another, not shun family members, dividing and letting the other side's plan work. I think there should also be many more safe havens for women.
Leopold may have set an example for today's Congolese who are fighting for resources. They have turned to violence and are using violence to gain control and power over the people.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-15/world/congo.women_1_congolese-women-democratic-republic-belgian-king-leopold?_s=PM:WORLD
Monday, September 20, 2010
KLG Post-Discussion
Idea or question that's lingering after your discussion.
"Discuss the various comparisons Hochschild makes between Nazi concentration camps and the actions of white men in the Congo. How culpable do you think the perpetrators of each of these crimes were?"
I guess I don't know as much about the Nazis' goals as I thought. I thought a key difference between Leopold and Hitler and other Nazi officials was that the Nazi's weren't after natural resources or land - but apparently that's not true. So I'd like to know more about the similarities and differences between the two that I might not know.
Evaluate your small group discussion. What went well? How can you improve?
I think our group actually did extremely well. We used support, both quoted and paraphrased and everyone spoke at least once. Most people spoke many times. We stated our opinions and used the book to show why we thought what we did. It was informal and had a good flow. We could probably improve by getting everyone to participate more consistently/equally.
"Discuss the various comparisons Hochschild makes between Nazi concentration camps and the actions of white men in the Congo. How culpable do you think the perpetrators of each of these crimes were?"
I guess I don't know as much about the Nazis' goals as I thought. I thought a key difference between Leopold and Hitler and other Nazi officials was that the Nazi's weren't after natural resources or land - but apparently that's not true. So I'd like to know more about the similarities and differences between the two that I might not know.
Evaluate your small group discussion. What went well? How can you improve?
I think our group actually did extremely well. We used support, both quoted and paraphrased and everyone spoke at least once. Most people spoke many times. We stated our opinions and used the book to show why we thought what we did. It was informal and had a good flow. We could probably improve by getting everyone to participate more consistently/equally.
Friday, September 10, 2010
KLG p 33-60
"(Leopold) never bothered to learn Flemish, spoken by more than half its subjects. In this snobbery Leopold was not alone, for at this time his country's bitter language division marked class as well as region." p 33
Leopold had a sense of superiority and didn't treat all of his people equally. He ruled quite systematically and thoroughly. Like his father said, he was a "fox," and he ruled a bit like a fox, too. The way he ruled ended up being really effective since he ended up controlling so much land.
"If Leopold wanted to see his father. he had to apply for an audience. When the father had something to tell the son, he communicated it through one of his secretaries. It was in this cold atmosphere, as a teenager in his father's court, that Leopold first learned to assemble a network of people who hoped to win his favor." p 34
I think that is was this sort of distant relationship that helped Leopold separate himself emotionally to what he was doing with the Kongo slavery.
Do you think that Leopold's relationship with his father affected the way he chose to rule?
Livingstone, Stanley and the other explorers, Leopold saw, had succeeded in stirring Europeans by their descriptions of the "Arab" slave-traders leading sad caravans of chained captives to Africa's east coast. p 42
How much did Stanley and Leopold have in common? What were their biggest differences?
Leopold and Stanley were both exploring men who in search of power. But Leopold was looking for total control over a population while Stanley was looking for power to help populations escape from rulers like Leopold.
Leopold had a sense of superiority and didn't treat all of his people equally. He ruled quite systematically and thoroughly. Like his father said, he was a "fox," and he ruled a bit like a fox, too. The way he ruled ended up being really effective since he ended up controlling so much land.
"If Leopold wanted to see his father. he had to apply for an audience. When the father had something to tell the son, he communicated it through one of his secretaries. It was in this cold atmosphere, as a teenager in his father's court, that Leopold first learned to assemble a network of people who hoped to win his favor." p 34
I think that is was this sort of distant relationship that helped Leopold separate himself emotionally to what he was doing with the Kongo slavery.
Do you think that Leopold's relationship with his father affected the way he chose to rule?
Livingstone, Stanley and the other explorers, Leopold saw, had succeeded in stirring Europeans by their descriptions of the "Arab" slave-traders leading sad caravans of chained captives to Africa's east coast. p 42
How much did Stanley and Leopold have in common? What were their biggest differences?
Leopold and Stanley were both exploring men who in search of power. But Leopold was looking for total control over a population while Stanley was looking for power to help populations escape from rulers like Leopold.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
KLG p 1-32
“Like any system that gives some human beings total power over others, slavery in Africa could be vicious.” p 10
Very true; complete power usually doesn't lead to anything good. Complete power corrupts completely?
“It was surely not right, said one (priest), “for persons baptized in the Catholic church to be sold to peoples who are enemies of their faith (Protestants).” p 10
The Catholic priests were not at all bothered by the slavery, but they were absolutely against selling a slave to a Protestant.
“Alfonso's life spanned a crucial period. When he was born, no one in the kingdom knew that Europeans existed. When he died, his entire realm was threatened by the slave-selling fever they had caused. He was a man of tragic self-awareness, and he left his mark...A native of the Knogo knos the name of three kings: that of the present one, that of his predecessor, and that of Affonso.” p 11
-converted to Christianity
-did nothing but study
-fan of European skills such has medicine, woodworking, masonry
-fluent in Portuguese
-once sent a bunch of slaves to his “brother” king in Lisbon as a gift
Did Affonso do everything he could to stop the Kongo slave trade? Did he assist or make any part of it easier for the white Europeans?
“Because virtually everything we know about this part of Africa for the next several hundred years comes to us from its white conquerors, King Affonso I provides something rare and valuable: an African voice.” p 12
Do you think the voice of Affonso correctly represented the voices of his people?
How did the Kongo slaves view the white man? Great traders, cruel, rich? Myths were created! Plus, “From that time to our days now, the whites have brought us nothing but wars and miseries.” p 16
Why did the whites never take up white slaves?
“When the ship bombarded a Confederate fort in North Carolina, Stanley became one of the few people to see combat on both sides of the Civil War.” p 25
This gives him a unique perspective and later probably helped him to see from the Africans' POV - to see that what the Europeans were doing was wrong.
“But to nineteenth-century Europeans, celebrating an explorer for “discovering” some new corner of Africa was, psychologically, a prelude to feeling that the continent was theirs for the taking.” p 27
Why did Europeans think that just because they found some place new that they had a right to take it (when they were obviously NOT the first to discover it and when there were already people living there)?
We can only hear the voices of the Kongo slaves through the voices of their white conquerors, and at least one white man was known to make things up. How do we know that we are right about anything we know about the Kongo slaves?
Very true; complete power usually doesn't lead to anything good. Complete power corrupts completely?
“It was surely not right, said one (priest), “for persons baptized in the Catholic church to be sold to peoples who are enemies of their faith (Protestants).” p 10
The Catholic priests were not at all bothered by the slavery, but they were absolutely against selling a slave to a Protestant.
“Alfonso's life spanned a crucial period. When he was born, no one in the kingdom knew that Europeans existed. When he died, his entire realm was threatened by the slave-selling fever they had caused. He was a man of tragic self-awareness, and he left his mark...A native of the Knogo knos the name of three kings: that of the present one, that of his predecessor, and that of Affonso.” p 11
-converted to Christianity
-did nothing but study
-fan of European skills such has medicine, woodworking, masonry
-fluent in Portuguese
-once sent a bunch of slaves to his “brother” king in Lisbon as a gift
Did Affonso do everything he could to stop the Kongo slave trade? Did he assist or make any part of it easier for the white Europeans?
“Because virtually everything we know about this part of Africa for the next several hundred years comes to us from its white conquerors, King Affonso I provides something rare and valuable: an African voice.” p 12
Do you think the voice of Affonso correctly represented the voices of his people?
How did the Kongo slaves view the white man? Great traders, cruel, rich? Myths were created! Plus, “From that time to our days now, the whites have brought us nothing but wars and miseries.” p 16
Why did the whites never take up white slaves?
“When the ship bombarded a Confederate fort in North Carolina, Stanley became one of the few people to see combat on both sides of the Civil War.” p 25
This gives him a unique perspective and later probably helped him to see from the Africans' POV - to see that what the Europeans were doing was wrong.
“But to nineteenth-century Europeans, celebrating an explorer for “discovering” some new corner of Africa was, psychologically, a prelude to feeling that the continent was theirs for the taking.” p 27
Why did Europeans think that just because they found some place new that they had a right to take it (when they were obviously NOT the first to discover it and when there were already people living there)?
We can only hear the voices of the Kongo slaves through the voices of their white conquerors, and at least one white man was known to make things up. How do we know that we are right about anything we know about the Kongo slaves?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
33 Chilean Miners Trapped (Brainstorm)
33 Chilean miners trapped on Aug. 5th
drill came up w/ paint and a plastic bag with letters inside saying that all the miners were alright
men above ground need to move 4,000 tons of rock
risky to get them out bc they don't want the mine to collapse and further
miners working together
taking leadership positions – man in charge of medicine after a 6-month health class 5 years ago
sending down food/medicine/letters through a 4” tube
could take 4 more months to get them out
three different kinds of tubes, plans A, B and C
miners are very connected, organized, wait or everyone to get their food before they eat
mental health, down there away from family for months in the dark
simulating sunlight
three chambers – night – work – daylight
letters and one minute videos to family
family above is unreasonably supposed to continue on w/ life, many ppl have to go to work
who does their money go to? Miners had affairs
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/americas/01chile.html?_r=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)