Ideology & Citizenship - The Orange Revolution"On election day, numerous allegations of election fraud, voter intimidation, multiple voting and the burning of ballot boxes in areas of strong Yushchenko support. Yanukovych was declared the winner of the election. Nov. 22 – the following day massive protests erupted against the election results. On November 22nd 2004, one million citizens poured into the streets of Kyiv wearing orange (Yushchenko's color)and took up residence there. They marched in protest and formed human barricades around government buildings, paralyzing all state functions. Restaurants donated food, businessmen sent tents, and individuals brought blankets, clothing, and money. At night, rock bands energized the protesters. It lasted 2 weeks, eventually a new election was held and Yushchenko won. A group of ordinary citizens engaged in extraordinary acts of political protest. Through the eyes and in the voices of the people in Ukraine, Orange Revolution tells the story of a people united, not by one leader or party, but by one idea: to defend their vote and the future of their country." The Orange Revolution made a huge impact and set an example of how people, who are robbed of their right to vote, can protest and put an end to dictatorship. Ukraine is a key part of Europe. The democracy founded during the revolution sets an example. These individuals that took part in the protest had the same views towards the Ukrainian government and the political parties. They made a choice and stood together to better their society. This peaceful protest led by citizens made history, and changed the history of an entire country. Authoritarianism - Fidel Castro"Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was a communist and politician who governed the Republic of Cuba as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976 and then as President from 1976 to 2008. Castro established the first communist state in the Western Hemisphere after leading an overthrow of the military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959. He ruled over Cuba for nearly five decades, until handing off power to his younger brother Raúl in 2008. During that time, Castro’s regime was successful in reducing illiteracy, stamping out racism and improving public health care, but was widely criticized for stifling economic and political freedoms. Castro’s Cuba also had a highly antagonistic relationship with the United States–most notably resulting in the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The two nations officially normalized relations in July 2015, ending a trade embargo that had been in place since 1960, when U.S.-owned businesses in Cuba were nationalized without compensation." Human rights in Cuba are under the inspection of human rights organizations, who accuse the Cuban government of systematic human rights abuses, including arbitrary imprisonment and unfair trials. It's also said that Cuban law limits the freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press. This statement being presented goes to show that the government actions are not justified if they are causing harm to the citizens of Cuba. The cuban government has not given any justified reason as to why they are treating their citizens so poorly. Rise of Extremism "Extremism is is an example of a response to the rejection of liberalism. It may advocate action that are considered socially or morally unacceptable, such as the violent targeting of innocent civilians. Sometimes the mainstream absorbs extremist views, however, and views that were considered extreme in one era become conventional in another - for example: women’s right to vote and desegregation).The judgement of “extremist” depends entirely on one’s point of view - There can be extremist views on both sides of the right and left political spectrum. Some terrorist groups claim that in a world of injustice where military, political, and economic power is concentrated in the hands of a small group and used to keep others powerless, extreme measures are the only way to arrive at justice. While attacks by and inspired by ISIS continued throughout the world in 2017, a noted terrorism expert said this year has been a real “wakeup call” about the dangers of right-wing extremism -- a threat he says Canadians have been all too complacent about. A shooting at a mosque outside Quebec City on Jan. 29 killed six people and injured 19, making it the second-most deadly right-wing act of terrorism behind the Air India bombing in 1985." Social media. It would be quite a stretch to state that social media causes extremism, but it does contribute to it. Social media enables individuals. Right-wing extremism isn't ideally an ideological movement, but more so a social one. Individuals can express their ideologies in 140 characters or less. Right-wing extremists talk about violence way more than they actually engage in it, but all that talk leads up the expectation that "everyone is doing it, so it's okay." Right? Extremist violence seems to be almost celebrated on social media, thereby encouraging status-seeking violence. Right-wing extremists have benefited from social media's capacity to turn everyday lives into dramatic performances. If the ability to become an instant celebrity from one viral act can inspire livestreamed rape, torture, even murder on Facebook Live, it certainly can inspire violence in the name of hate. Let's take our outrage offline and stop feeding the beast. Let's stop being the audience the extremists want. If we walk out of the show, the extremists might be forced to close the curtain.
0 Comments
Carbon TaxTo what extent should Alberta embrace the carbon tax? I believe that the carbon tax needs to be implemented. Especially on the larger industrial emitters. These large corporations are emitting the most emissions into the environment therefore causing more harm. I believe that with keeping the carbon tax, it still won't be enough. Taxing them won''t prevent them from emitting more emissions. It's almost like there should be a provided limit that large corporations are allowed to emit, as well as the carbon tax. This would be more beneficial for our environment. InfrastructureTo what extent should we embrace the current infrastructure? I believe that the most important ideas is prioritization and improvisation. It's important to improve what we already have first instead of creating new infrastructure, when we already had the same thing but just needed some touch-ups. I really agree with the Liberal Party's view on this topic. "We need to work on repairing rather than rebuilding". I also agree with UCP on their views of prioritizing hospitals, roads and schools as their main focus in infrastructure. Health CareTo what extent should we embrace change in Alberta's health care? I believe that change can be a good thing. I think there is definitely some improvement needed in the Alberta Health Care system. Most parties advocate towards wanting to shorten the waiting times for surgical procedures. I don't know which party i would agree with most. A agree with the Communist party because they mainly want public health care that is accessible to everyone, They want to improve senior facilities and promise that every student that goes to university for medicine, there's a job waiting for them as soon as they finish. I agree with UCP for wanting to create more mental health and addiction centers, because mental health is a serious issue that affects a lot of individuals and it hasn't been brought up enough. EducationTo what extent should embrace change in the education system? I believe that schools need some improvement. Some of the topics covered will not help students after high school. I agree with UCP in wanting to look over the current curriculum and make a new one that makes more sense, I agree with the Liberal party in wanting the invest in more educational assistants (EA) because I feel that we definitely need more than what we have. I agree with NDP in wanting to build more schools (which will decrease classroom sizes to improve education for every student) and modernize the system. NDP also wants to make post secondary more affordable and get rid of the application cost, which I agree with completely. Post secondary is extremely expensive, which is one of the reasons why some individuals debate even going into post secondary. The application cost is bizzare and I believe that it needs to be gone. I also believe that people shouldn't have to pay to upgrade high school courses. Highschool education is supposed to be free so it should be free at any age. Influential PhilosophersThomas Hobbes was an English philosopher, and considered one of the founders of political philosophy. His vision of the world is original and still relevant to say the least. His main concern was how human can live together peacefully and avoid the danger of civil contact. He believed that a man should be protected by himself, through the state. Hobbes believes that people are evil. He believes that the government needs to be solely based on power and to protect individuals from themselves. Hobbes believes that people don't need to be represented by a ruler, as long as the government does their duty to protect individuals. "John Locke defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments." Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher that believed that people are genuinely good and society is what corrupted them. He opposed to the idea of having elected democratic representatives. Instead he thought individuals should actively participate in a direct democracy. “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man. I personally mainly agree with John Locke. All individuals are born with rights and freedoms. All individuals have the right to have rights. But we also do need government to promote the public good and protect our rights. Also to have a set of "rules" to follow I guess. Even though it can be annoying, if there wasn't a planned out society, it wouldn't be functional. Albert Einstein, “An Ideal of Service to Our Fellow Man,” from This I Believe (essay collection)". . . it is glaringly apparent that mankind finds itself at present in grave danger. I see the nature of the current crises in the juxtaposition of the individual to society. The individual feels more than ever dependent on society, but he feels this dependence not in the positive sense—cradled, connected as part of an organic. He sees it as a threat to his natural rights and even his economic existence...that which drives his ego is encouraged and developed, and that which would drive him toward other men (a weak impulse to begin with) is left to atrophy. It is my belief that there is only one way to eliminate these evils, namely, the establishment of a planned economy coupled with an education geared towards social goals. Alongside the development of individual abilities, the education of the individual aspires to revive an ideal that is geared towards the service of our fellow man, and that needs to take the place of the glorification of power and outer success. " This is an excerpt from Albert Einstein’s “An Ideal of Service to Our Fellow Man” essay collection. Within the excerpt there’s powerful connotations to the words crises, cradled, connected and development. These message of the excerpt is that the have a successful and prosperous society we need to have a collective goal oriented society. Einstein was a collectivist. Einstein states “The establishment of a planned economy coupled with an education geared towards social goals”, which portrays Einstein's view towards collectivism. Similar to individualism, collectivism isn’t one ideology. It’s actually many different ideologies that are solely based off of collectivist ideas. Except all of them stress the importance of human interdependence and the importance of having a collective, rather than importance of an individual. Collectivism focuses on goals as a group or society rather than individual goals, but with collectivism also comes collective responsibility. Personally I'm a collectivist. I believe that human interdependence is important and changes in the way society functions can be important. I'm actually a Socialism Liberalist, which I recently found out by taking a quiz during social class. Before I took this quiz, I had no idea, I knew I was somewhere in the middle though, and I am. Health Care: Private or Public?Canada has provided public health care for quite some time now. It does have benefits, but there’s also a lot of non-beneficial aspects to the system. With public health care comes long waiting room times, long surgery wait-lists and possibly not the best care. Most doctors believe that after a couple decades, the medical system has not gotten any better. In fact it has gotten worse. Many doctors similar to have witnessed their patients in need of medically necessary surgeries, but suffering due to the long waiting lists for surgeries. Dr. Brian Day believes that having at least sixty private health sectors is essential in the province of B.C. Day stated that these public restrictions prohibit patients from seeking the best care possible, thereby violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I agree with Dr. Day. There should be quite a few private health care options for those who can afford it and for those who want faster care. But there should be mainly public health care for youth, those who can't afford taking the private health care route, and those who are okay with the wait. POV #4 To what extent should individuals and groups in Canada embrace a national identity?6/18/2018 In the second half of the 20th century (1950 on) the federal government changed Canada’s immigration policies and began to welcome immigrants from many different parts of the world. In 1971, Canada became the first country to adopt multiculturalism as official government policy. This policy which was affirmed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and enhanced in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988, is reflected in Canada’s pluralistic society. In Canada today, all governments must find ways of finding a balance between honouring Canada’s traditions and fostering a vision of the future that Canadians of all backgrounds and heritages can unite behind and promote. The CMA (Canadian Multicultural Act) affirmed that Canadians have a constitutional right “ to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination and that everyone has the freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association and guarantees those rights and freedoms equally to male and female persons…” I think that multiculturalism is important because it dilutes and dissipates the divisiveness of ignorance. It is important because it encourages dialogue, often between radically different cultures that have radically different perspectives. There’s many benefits of Multiculturalism. Immigrants are a source of diverse knowledge and experience. They can increase innovation, creativity and prosperity in our city. New residents also enrich the cultural fabric by introducing new foods, music, traditions, beliefs and interests. Responsible government is a government that answers to the people rather than to colonial governors. The concept was introduced in Canada in the 1840s by LaFontaine and Baldwin. Their common desire for responsible government in Canada aided in bringing together Canada West and Canada East. Although responsible government is more than just being responsible. Both Lafontaine from "Canada East" and Baldwin from "Canada West" both had a goal to make sure that Francophones were not assimilated into anglophone society and culture. In 1841, the British government merged Upper Canada (mostly anglophone) and Lower Canada (mostly Francophone) into a single province called Canada. The population of Canada East was much higher than Canada West and English was the only language allowed in the legislature. In order to solve this, the British plan was to assimilate francophones into anglophone culture. LaFontaine wanted francophone culture to survive and Baldwin supported this goal. They set aside differences, joined forces and worked together to demand responsible government. “There is, and must be, no question of races” By 1848, they had reached their goal of responsible government in Canada and also French was restored as an official language of the legislature. In Canada responsible government is more commonly described as an executive or Cabinet that is dependent on the support of an elected assembly, rather than on the monarch. Responsible government is a key and an important part of Confederation, in my opinion. The British North American Act (BNA Act) which created Canada defined two levels of representative and responsible government. The federal government was to look after national affairs, and the four provincial governments would manage their own regional affairs. This arrangement assured that Quebec could affirm and promote the French language and culture of the province's francophones. There was a couple problems with this. The Metis people weren’t recognized at all. The federal government ended up implementing their responsibility through the Indian Act. As the Aboriginal contribution to Canada became more widely recognized, some people began to refer to “three founding nations”: Aboriginal people, French and British. The concept of three founding nations excludes the contributions of immigrants from countries that were neither French nor British. Tied aid is help that is given with strings attached. These strings may include agreements that the country receiving the aid will buy goods and services only from the country or organization supplying the aid. There's a lot of different criticisms that come from tied aid. Opposing views would argue that donor countries may not offer the highest-quality goods and services and also that this arrangement doesn’t allow receiving countries to buy from a source they want to. Another problem is ensuring that aid reaches the people who need it. Some corrupt officials sometimes seize aid money and supplies instead of distributing it to needy citizens simply because they have the power to do so. Personally, I mainly disagree with tied aid. I understand that wealthier countries are helping developing countries, but why do strings have to be attached? Can't people just help out of kindness or compassion? Why do strings have to be attached to everything? The majority of people do an act looking for something to gain, which is ridiculous. WTO stands for World Trade Organization. The purpose of the WTO is to ensure global trade commences smoothly, freely and predictably. The WTO creates and embodies the ground rules for global trade among member nations, offering a system for international commerce. WTO is funded through the WTO's regular budget, voluntary contributions from WTO members, and cost-sharing either by countries involved in an event or by international organizations. The WTO has many criticisms such as how they only serve the interests of multinational corporations, they trample over labor and human rights, they’re destroying the environment and killing people, they undermine local development and penalizes poor countries, they’re increasing inequality, and the WTO undermines national sovereignty. Like everything, there is always pros and cons. I think that there are more obvious cons than pros. But the WTO has still done some positive impacting things. WTO helps promote peace between nations, raises income among nations, reduces the cost of living, and makes life more efficient through policies. The United Nations Children's Fund is a United Nations program headquartered in New York City that provides humanitarian and developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries. UNICEF was established on 11 December 1946 by the United Nations to meet the emergency needs of children in post-war Europe and China. Its full name was the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. UNICEF advocates for the protection of children's rights, to help meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential. UNICEF is supported entirely by the voluntary contributions of governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foundations, corporations and private individuals. UNICEF receives no funding from the assessed dues of the United Nations. Again, there is pros and cons for everything. UNICEF has been criticized at times for its focus or for specific policies. In 2004, the editorial in the Lancet argued that UNICEF's rights-based approach to child welfare, based upon the Convention on the Rights of the Child, whilst in accordance with international development policy, leads to a lower emphasis on child survival and mortality. The Catholic Church has also been critical of UNICEF, with the Vatican at times withdrawing its donations, because of reports by the American Life League and others that UNICEF has used some of those funds to finance sterilizations and abortions. Catholics have also accused UNICEF of supporting abortion through their endorsement of "good quality abortion services" at the International Conference on Better Health for Women and Children in Kenya in 1987. UNICEF has also been criticized for its financial endorsement of China's allegedly coercive one-child policy through the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) by increasing donations from $2 million to $5 million in 1993. I personally think that UNICEF is an amazing organization that has dealt with so many negative situations, and improved many of them. NPT stands for the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. The NPT was opened for signing 50 years ago on July 1, 1968. This treaty effectively bars any state outside the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom) from possessing any sort of nuclear weapons. There's three aspects of national interest. There's economic prosperity, security and safety, then beliefs and values. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) otherwise known as the Law Of the Sea Treaty. This treaty was set out as a a guideline of "who owns what" and just the general rights and responsibilities of each nation to respect the oceans and natural resources. Within this law, countries have sovereignty for 22.2 kilometers of sea from their coastline and ownership of all resources in and under the sea for 370 kilometers. When it comes to claiming sovereignty over land or territories, national interest is almost always involved. The Arctic sovereignty was sparked up when there was a discovery of resources in the Arctic (example: oil) and the possibility of a huge economic gain if nation-states had control over the Arctic. Many different nation states like Canada, Denmark, Russia and America starting calling "dibs" on different parts of the Arctic. Russia was the first to claim parts of the Arctic. In my opinion, I think that the waters should be an international route. Since there's already so much tension over the land claims, which having all this tension could lead to bigger problems like another war. The Holodomor was a huge event in Ukrainian history. When Stalin became the leader of the Soviet Union around 1928, one of his first acts was to confiscate land owned by farmers & create collective farms owned by the state. Those who objected to this were executed. The crops from these far,ms were shipped to the Soviet Union to gain profit. When Ukrainian farmers refused to give up their land, Stalin confiscated their crops. As a result, up to 10 million Ukrainians starved to death. In 2006, the government of Ukraine declared the Holodomor as an act of genocide. In my opinion, I believe that the Holodomor was a genocide. The literal definition of a genocide is killing off a large group of people, especially targeting particular ethnic groups or nations. Holdomor specifically targeted the people of Ukraine, hense why it's known as the "Ukrainian Genocide". Also the deaths of millions of people could have always been prevented. But Stalin didn't care about the people of his country, it was all about what he could profit, and he would do anything to gain money. The bomb in Hiroshima happened on August 6th 1945. At the end of World War 11, the US dropped this atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima as an act to end the World War. They felt it was an obligation because Germany had already surrendered, but Japan kept fighting. They're plan didn't work for this bomb, but Japan eventually surrendered after the second bomb was dropped in Nagasaki. I don't really have much of an opinion, I feel like there could've been other options that didn't destroy entire cities. But if Japan was refusing to surrender, this may have been their only option, I guess it ended up working eventually. Horseshoe debate: John A. Macdonald and Robert E LeeRobert E. Lee was an American Confederate solider. He commanded the army of North Virginia in the American Civil War from 1862-1865 (when he surrendered). Robert E. Lee also happened to be a slave owner. Robert E. Lee did not believe in black equality. He did not develop an elaborate philosophy to support his reason why. He had no fears or doubts about owning slaves or disciplining them, but neither did he develop a justification for enslavement. John A. MacDonald is mainly held responsible for putting the Indigenous peoples into residential schools. Confederate statues, therefore, do have a place in 21st-century America: in museums, where the monuments of leaders belong. To say Confederate statues mean different things to different people, but the debate is still on going. In my opinion these monuments and the names of schools and buildings shouldn't be taken down. But these leaders need to be recognized for the shitty things that they did, rather than focusing on the positive. For example, instead of having this statue of Robert E. Lee represented as being the greatest and most powerful leader during the American Civil War, there needs to be a plaque or something explaining all the negative things he has done or contributed to and explain why this monument has been put up. Vimy Ridge is a war memorial site in France dedicated to the memory of Canadian Expeditionary Force members killed during the First World War.Many individuals consider the Canadian victory at Vimy a defining moment for Canada, when the country came forth from under the shadow of Britain and felt capable of greatness. Canadian troops also earned a reputation as effective troops because of the success. But it was a victory at an extremely terrible cost, with more than 10,000 killed and wounded. But many individuals think that it was a waste of money to build the monument. But I think it's a great thing that the monument was built because it's a way of memorializing the event and honoring the lives lost during the battle. It's a reminder. Plus, it also marks the day of a victory and the birth of our nation. The Boston Tea Party was one of the most significant events in the American Revolution, It was a political protest in 1773. The goal was to protest British Parliament's tax on tea. "No taxation without representation." To keep this short, the colonists were upset because the government had started to raise the taxes and the costs of tea to the point where they stormed onto the ships carrying the boxes of tea (which was around 374 chests and worth over one million dollars) and dumped all the boxes into the ocean. I personally think that this event was significant and was needed. I'm normally not okay with solving situations with violence or destructive behavior, but in this case it was needed. With taxes going up, they needed to provide for their families. If the taxes kept getting higher, raising their families with a decent quality of life would become extremely difficult. POV #3: To what extent does globalization contribute to sustainable prosperity for all people?6/13/2017 Globalization has had many impacts on many different cultures and people. Some negative and some positive, but without globalization we wouldn't be where we are today. There's many different topics and events that have shaped what exactly globalization is. But globalization can take so many resources, and if we keep taking these resources there will be no more left for future generations. Globalization could ruin our sustainable prosperity. For example our ecological footprint, resource gap, Kyoto protocol and water privatization. The first topic is ecological footprint. Ecological footprint is the area of the earth’s surface necessary to sustain the level of resources a person uses and the waste she or he creates. Canadians have a much larger footprint than most other countries - if everyone consumed as much as Canadians, four more planets like Earth would be needed to meet their needs. Our ecological footprint is the area of the earth’s surface necessary to sustain the level of resources we use and the waste we create. Bangladesh has one of the smallest ecological footprints in the world. Consumption of resources is far lower than that of Canadian - so they Bangladeshis produce less waste. Bangladesh also has a footprint of 0.6 hectares per person compared to Canada’s 7.25 hectares person (Note: most sports fields are about one hectare in size.) There are many different perspectives of ecological footprints. The ecological footprint of 70% of the world’s people is smaller than the 1.89 hectares available for each person. The remaining 30% of people take much more than their share - in fact this remaining 30% consume about 90% of the world’s ecological capacity. The next topic is the resource gap. Which is the gap between the resources the earth can reasonably supply - 1.89 hectares per person - and what the people of the world now consume - 2.8 hectares - presents a challenge. People are using up resources that could be left for future generations and at some point the earth will not be able to sustain - provide the basic necessities needed to support life - actions like this. Over the next 4-5 decades, the world’s population is expected to grow by 2-5 billion, the earth's resources are fixed, but an ever-increasing # of people will need to share them. Many of the world’s people are striving to improve their material well-being by consuming more goods and services, but he more they consume, the bigger their ecological footprint is. This increasing consumption will affect sustainability. Individuals and groups, such as the United Nations are promoting the idea of environmental stewardship - this involves accepting responsibility for ensuring that the earth’s resources remain sustainable. The next topic is the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the fact that (a) global warming exists and (b) human-made CO2 emissions have caused it. At a 1997 conference in Kyoto, Japan, 141 countries, including Canada, signed an agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol - The Kyoto Protocol called on countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some people believed that meeting the Kyoto targets would mean huge job losses - by 2007, the federal government had taken no decisive actions. The last topic is water privatization. Water privatization is a practice used by the IMF and World Bank where once a country owes them some money they send in private companies to take control over the public water system. In some developing countries, governments are encouraged to privatize water utilities. This can result in high costs and affect the sustainable prosperity of the very people who can least afford to pay for water. With water privatization, water becomes more expensive fro everyone. Some say that the next wars won't be over oil but over water. In conclusion, globalization has a huge impact on sustainable prosperity, in a negative way. It takes resources like water, and destroys the environment for future generations. Large companies are taking advantage of this and charging everyone for water and air to make a profit! With the point we're at right now, the earth won't be sustainable for much longer.
Globalization is everywhere, it's our history and it has been around for such a long period of time. Our country and globe plays a huge role in globalization, whether it is good or bad. There are many different opinions on when globalization started and what had a negative impact. I personally think the Indian Act, the Silk Road and the Scramble of Africa. The Indian Act was passed in 1876 and was used as a method to assimilate Indigenous people into European culture. In this act the government forbid certain activities, applied strict rules and set up residential schools. Residential Schools were schools used to assimilate younger children. Children were abused, raped and not treated like an individual. This act was simply designed to wipe out the Aboriginal culture completely. The Indian Act was a cultural genocide. In my opinion, I disagree with this act, it was a completely wrong and shouldn't have been a method or even been considered. The rules that they had to follow were so limited and didn't give them any opportunity. For example, if and Aboriginal woman were to marry a white man she would lose her Indian status. Aboriginals could not be doctors, lawyers or even attend a university or else their status would be taken away. During this time, to the government a person meant an individual other than the Indigenous. The Silk Road was a network of trade routes. Many items were traded such as silk, precious gems, spices, art, literature, knowledge and languages. Another key concept that was travelled down the Silk Road was diseases. Such as smallpox and many more. These trade routes went from China all the way to the Mediterranean. In my opinion the Silk Road was a new and interesting concept to view and learn about. It was interesting to hear how the Arabic system was adapted and that different languages and cultures were passed on. The Scramble for Africa, this topic was probably one of my favourites to learn about. This event took place in the 19th century when Europeans found gold in Africa and invaded the space. They destroyed the land and the Indigenous peoples freedom. King Leopold sort of started or "sparked" the scramble when he claimed all of the Congo as his personal land/property. Once he claimed the land he forced the Indigenous people to work for him. Millions upon millions of Indigenous people died during King Leopold's takeover. The globe started to hear his claims and representatives from all over started dividing Africa among themselves. In my opinion, I believe this is a huge negative impact. They had to regard to the people living in Africa. Before the Scramble for Africa, it was loaded with plenty of natural resources! Now look it. The natural resources was stripped from their land, and now they're left with the bare minimum. All of these topics that I chose to talk about are legacies of historical globalization. To what extent should contemporary society respond to the legacies of historical globalization? I personally believe that justice should be served to those that went through the tough ways of the Indian Act and the Scramble for Africa. The Canadian government has looked over and made a few adjustments to the Indian Act, but the act still exists to this day.
The Nike Sweatshops. Nike was always accused of using sweatshops the produce their popular products. Nike placed their sweatshops in foreign countries and hired locals to work. These workers were in terrible condition and paid on an extremely low wage. These workers wages were so low they could barely afford their costs of living, or food. Globalization had a huge negative affect on these people. Globalization stripped them of their freedom, quality of life and identity. They barely got to spend time with their families, yet afford to provide for their families. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
June 2019
Categories |