VIII. American History According to Zinn

American History According to Zinn

            Howard Zinn was a man of convictions when it came to the concepts of human rights, war, and equality. He had been a professor of political science at Boston University for twenty-four years (1964-1988) and had championed his views on these concepts during his teaching career and after his retirement from Boston University. Zinn firmly believed that political power did not lie in the hands of those who possessed great wealth or military might, but in the hands of the common man. Even in his writings, such as his book A People's History of the United States, Zinn approach the subject of American history from the prespective of a common citizen. By doing so, he recalls the story of America’s past from the prespective that ordinary people, who were put into dire circumstances, shaped historic events instead of the political or economic elite of the time. His passion as a social activist clearly comes through with his writing and his involvement in the 1960s Civil Rights movement of the South seems to be the underlying message of his American history book. A message that history is made because of social changes where people want a better world for the future.

During his tenure at Boston University, he taught a very popular class on civil liberties. The class was not a university requirement, but one that many students took as an elective. In doing so, I would suspect that they wanted to challenge themselves to think about civil rights. With certainty, I suspect that Zinn encourage them to “stand up” to civil injustices. I think that Zinn spoke out about the past in an effort to educate the present. Perhaps he recalled the words of the twentieth century novelist George Santayana who stated this concept most eloquently when he said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In Zinn’s views, those who forget about the struggles for human rights, the causes of war, and the inequality in society are condemned to repeat history.

VII. Backyard Gardens: Self-Sustaining Food Source

Bibliography

Brown, Patricia L. “In Latino Gardens, Vegetables, Good Health and Savings Flourish”. The New York Times. 16 Jan. 2010. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/us/17backyard.html.

Hallberg, Basil. “Using Community Gardens to Augment Food Security Efforts in Low-Income Communities”. Virginia Tech edu/papers. 2009. Web. http://www.ipg.vt.edu/Papers/Hallberg%20Major%20Paper.pdf.

Howard, Manny. My Empire of Dirt: How one man turned his big city backyard into a farm: a cautionary tale.  New York: Scribner. 2010.

Slack, Debbie. “Benefits of a Backyard Suburban Garden”. Gardening Know How. n.d. Web.  http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/urban/benefits-of-a-backyard-suburban-garden.htm.

Wehr, Kevin. DIY: The Search for Control and Self Reliance in the 21^st Century. New York: Routledge. 2012.

VI. The Future of Food and Multinational Agricultural Biotechnology Corporations

The Future of Food and Multinational Agricultural Biotechnology Corporations

When one hears the line “Whoever controls the seeds controls the food”, they should take a moment to think about the meaning of that statement. It is a quote from the 2004 documentary film The Future of Food which looks at how genetically engineered foods are being sold in America’s grocery stores. The public is not aware that they are eating this food because corporations like Monsanto do not want it labeled as being produced from genetically modified seeds. They fear that consumers will question the safety of their products (web). Multinational agricultural biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto have financially acquired most of America’s seed companies and their former employees have taken control of U.S. government agencies. The U.S. government has allowed Monsanto to form a monopoly and there will be adverse consequences associated with this political decision. There are two consequences that come to mind. The first one is that when a mono-culture crop is a dominate species; there is a higher possibility for crop failure. The other is that when we treat seed as a commodity, there will be starvation because all people will not have equal access to food.

            It has been repeatedly proven that when a farmer plants only one crop there is a higher possibility for failure. Monsanto promotes the idea that they have improved the genetic strain of the seed, but in reality, they have altered them to resist only specific climate changes. Through centuries of agriculture, mankind has developed multiple strains of seed and whenever there has been a crop failure of one strain, another strain has compensated for the lose. In my opinion, Monsanto thinks that food supplies need to be produced using their modified seeds with an assembly line approach. We, as the consumer, are not paying attention because our main concern is food cost and not food security. When a crop fails, we automatically assume that corporations have our best interest in mind. Since they control the seed market, they control the food production.

            Monsanto also claims that genetically modified seeds are the answer to ending world hunger. According to The Future of Food, a farmer will enter into a contract which allows them to plant modified seeds and new seed stock must be purchased after each harvest. This adds to the cost of food production. Family farms are gradually being eliminated and corporate farms are becoming the norm with reliance on biotechnology companies for their seed. Over one-half of the world's farmers reduce operating cost by saving seeds from each harvest to plant the next year. When biotechnology companies begin to treat seeds like a commodity, there will be the inequality to afford them for food production. The biotechnology companies will gain control of food supplies by contracting with only the producers that can afford their seeds. Thus, world hunger will increase as the population is unable to afford the food produced from corporate farms.

            Monsanto is taking more control of the foodstuff market each year. They already dominate the herbicide and insecticide markets and within the last few decades, they have begun to monopolize the seeds that are planted to produce food crops. They argue that genetic engineering is a simply modification of the plant breeding processes; therefore, it does not require regulation. Monsanto scientist can achieve in months what it takes nature decades to accomplish. These same scientists do not know the long-term effects of genetically modified grain on human health. I think we should seriously question how America can trust the security of our food to a corporation that produced toxic chemicals like Agent Orange and dioxin. They have a long history of deception.

           

Works Cited

Garcia, Deborah K.“The Future of Food”.  2004. Sat. 8.Sept. 2012. http://vimeo.com/38269476.

V. The Power of Propaganda: Brokering Brokeback Mountain-a local reception study

The Power of Propaganda: Brokering Brokeback Mountain-a local reception study

            In an article entitled “Brokering Brokeback Mountain-a local reception study” by Harry Benshoff, the reader is informed about the reaction of the filmgoers in the Metroplex area surrounding Dallas, Texas concerning the movie Brokeback Mountain which premiered in 2005. Benshoff gathered his information from two surveys and judged the amount of fear, anger, disappointment, and moral offence generated amongst the community. In other words, the surveys helped him gauge how people accepted or rejected the propaganda that was associated with the film. There were two specific reactions that I found interesting from the results. The first one deals with the feeling that the movie threatened the concept of masculinity. The other one deals with how the film dealt with the concept of infidelity.

            When Benshoff studied the responds, he found that the movie was watched by gay men, followed by urban heterosexual couples, women, and teenage girls. He concluded that women are not threatened with male intimacy on film, but heterosexual men are scared. In fact, some of the male respondents said that they were afraid to see the film. Fear is not a masculine behavior and fear of a movie is certainly not a masculine behavior. Benshoff gave several reasons why this may have occurred. He cited peer pressure from other men, the idea that watching this movie would compromise their sexuality, and that the movie threatened their masculinity.  In my judgment, the propaganda spread by groups such as the American Family Association who claimed that the movie would have patrons vomiting in the aisles also contributed to their fear.  Brokeback Mountain had two masculine characters that married women, had children and did all the activities associated with marriage. They also exhibited the masculine behavior of internalizing their emotions. For myself, I thought it strange that both gay and heterosexual men would not identify those behaviors as being masculine. It was obvious that some of the men believed the propaganda.

            With the concept of infidelity in the movie, Benshoff’s article mentions the response from Dale Carpenter. He is a former official in the Texas Log Cabin Republicans (a group of self-proclaimed gay Republicans). Carpenter spread the propaganda that the gay community had not considered the moral message of the film, but Benshoff found in his surveys that both homosexual and heterosexual filmgoers thought about the complexities of adultery and betrayal of family values. In my opinion, the film dealt with the emotional tragedy of infidelity on several levels. There was the emotional tragedy between the two main characters, their families, and near the end of the movie when Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) had died; Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) has the emotional visit with Jack’s parents. In contrast to the propaganda, the film dealt with dishonest, betrayal and infidelity in a very stern manner.

            Benshoff’s surveys reflected how different groups of people reacted to the film. There was the assumption that the entire Christian community was hostile toward homosexuals, that heterosexual men would become gay if they watched male intimacy, and that homosexuals have no concept of fidelity or family values. All the propaganda was wrong. Brokeback Mountain was a fictional film, but it made people think about their attitudes regarding homosexuality and moral issues. When one fails to evaluate their own attitudes and listens exclusively to propaganda, they are walking through life with their eyes closed.

Works Cited

Benshoff, Harry M. “Brokering Brokeback Mountain- a local reception study”. 2008. Fri. 31. Aug 2012.  http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc50.2008/BrokbkMtn/index.html.

IV. My Political Views

My Political Views

When I was asked about my political views, I had not examined them with any considerable thought. I felt that my political view was like many young people in America who have become discouraged with today’s political system. The political view that it does not matter which major party is in control of the local, state or federal government. There are little changes occurring in our future. In my judgment, there are many citizens in this nation which see two segments being developed in society. There is an elite society which control the economy, politics, and social issues and a poor society who have modest decision making power in their life. There is a phrase, “All politics is local” which was supposedly said by Tip O’Neil, who served as the U.S. Speaker of the House from 1977 until 1987 (web). The meaning of the statement has to do with politicians and the influence from the people who elected them to office.  In my opinion, local politicians are like higher levels of politicians. They look out for the special interest of the people who finance their political campaign and for the best interest of themselves. They take care of the elite in society.

            After completing the survey questions in the political compass test (web), I found that my political views lean toward the left-libertarian. I agree that there should be a government structure where the leadership is geared toward the common good for all in the community. I do see a flaw in this outlook because the majority may demand some social conformity that would be destructive to a minority. For example, the community may demand that all homosexual/transgender citizens be removed from the community or they face harsh restrictions while other citizens in the community are not subjected to those restrictions. Nevertheless, I believe that if the leadership comes from all segments of society, the tendency to divide the community between majority and minority can be avoided. All citizens should take responsibility to become informed about the decision making process on community issues. In my view, the community can only be strengthened through education and encouragement to become responsible individuals who will participate in improving their community and sustaining their local economy.

            In regards to a participatory economy where the workers make the decisions about what is going to be done in the workplace, I would have to give considerable thought to the concept.  The main goal of a participatory economy is to break down the present economic inequality in the capitalist system and reach a level of one class of workers. Each worker feels they have the equal opportunity and ability to contribute to the workplace. Personally, I believe people are not always equal in the workplace. There are those who have the mental capacity to achieve greater goals, like cardiologist and engineers and those who have the physical capacity, like athletes that excel from the other workers. In a participatory economy, these individuals would be discouraged.

            My political views are developing in an on-going process. As I educate myself, my perceptions are changing based on the information that I learn. My greatest concern is that the economic elite are not permitted to control the poorer people's lives. A person who examines the world around them, debates the possibilities, and evaluates the alternatives will make better decisions in life.

Works Cited

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index, n.d.  Tue. 28. Aug. 2012.

http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/All politics is local. n.d, Tue.28.Aug. 2012

III. Age of Enlightenment

Age of Enlightenment

            When we consider the concept of enlightenment, the image of 18^th century philosophers standing around in a dusty library or gathered in the back corner of a coffee house come to mind. This image is far from the truth. Enlightenment began as a cultural movement in the 18^th century when intellectuals began to question man’s role in religion and traditions.  They publically debated the notion of advancing man’s thinking beyond the teachings of the church and state. It was a radical concept in those days. We as a modern society in the 21^st century need to expand on these concepts of enlightenment to address the issues that we are encountering on a global level. Historians link the enlightenment movement of the 18^th century to political, social and economic factors that lead to local revolutions, but in the 21^st century we need to become enlightened with how a global society needs to interact. Our society is challenged to advance not only individual national goals, but long-term global goals.

            In the YouTube videos of Taylor and Robinson, they each make interesting points that enlightenment is an ongoing process. The ideals proposed in the 18^th century still hold importance today. The videos point out that humans are always re-inventing their concepts of life and are adapting to the demands of social living. Taylor said that globalization and the concepts of addressing long-term concerns over national concerns have to become a priority. We need to acknowledge the problems, honor them with respect toward each other, and debate the solution to these problems. Robinson focuses on education and the global need to move away from the current educational system which was conceive during the industrial revolution. He makes a very good point when he stated that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) should not be medicated and the world education system needs to discontinue the production line mentality of education. Divergent thinking should be encouraged with an education that will stimulate the mind into new directions. Robinson is correct when he says that for every question there can be more than one answer.

            The age of enlightenment may have begun with 18^th century society, but we must agree that we also need to be enlightened to address today’s social, political, and economic issues. There needs to be a revolution in the educational system. We need to change the attitude of looking at our own national concerns and move toward addressing the long-term concerns of the planet.      

Works Cited

Taylor, Matthew. “21st century enlightenment”. n.d. Sat. 25. Aug. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=relmfu.

Robinson, Ken. “Changing Education Paradigms”. n.d.  Sat. 25. Aug. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= zDZFcDGpL4U&feature=youtu