This is my journal about the Magnificent African Cake movie. Europe had a huge role in shaping African development; especially France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. It is amazing how the actions of a few can affect billions of people's livelihoods present and future. 13 European countries met at the Berlin conference to divide Africa for themselves in 1884. There was not even one African present at the meeting. They had no concern for the African rulers already in power, and set up arbitrary boundaries that did not take into consideration the many different cultures, religions, languages, and ethnicities that already divided Africa. In some cases their boundaries kept two enemy-nations inside the same boundaries. The impact of European influence in Africa is shocking. The way European nations competed for the opportunity to exploit African’s gold, copper, and diamonds is disturbing. It makes me think that these colonizers should pay the African states back for what they took. I wonder at what point grievances expire. Would it be possible for African nations to bring to the ICC or ICJ or a court of their own against the crimes that Europe committed against Africans? It is not still relevant since people are still suffering from the effects of colonialism? European replaced notions of traditional communal land sharing and flexible boundaries with privately owned plots of land. Europeans replaced the traditional African way of life and transplanted European traditions, cultures, and languages. How can Africans ever get their culture back? They cannot. They have had their most intimate and valuable treasures permanently stolen. How did the colonizers not see what they were doing was wrong? Competition is no justification for their actions. Maybe they did know, but they decided to hide their guilt because the profits were too big to voluntarily stop. It is sad how they made nations specialize in one thing so that they had to import so much and depend so much on international trades. They had no concern for the people who lived in those nations and needed food to survive. They specialized in chocolate and things that many African people had no use for.
It is detestable how they took Africans' resources and often sold it back to them! What they did was a crime. How they taxed the people so that they became slaves to the oppressor is outrageous. Although European countries helped African nations have a more active role in international trade and investments in technology, the ills they brought outweigh any of those advantages. It was interesting to learn about the differences between the influence of the French and the British on their colonies. I was upset the way the British and Dutch thought of themselves as superior. I guess the world only realized the danger of that kind of thinking after World War 2 when 6 million Jews were killed simply because of their lack of superiority. I was equally upset by the way the French thought that their culture was superior and that Africans needed to transform themselves into French men and pledge their allegiance to France. From a western perspective, I think that some good probably came out of some of the colonization. Greater opportunities for education, global travel, improved medical treatment, transportation routes, and international trade were hurriedly spurred to growth with colonization. In addition the British outlawed slavery, and made the Boers stop selling slaves. However, I do not think much good came out of the Belgian and Portuguese modes of colonialism, because they were very harsh and mean to the Africans. They took control and the model of their leadership left an awful impression of what leaders should be like. Perhaps the Belgian and Portuguese were harsher because they felt like they had less land than the British and French. They also felt like they had to compete with Britian and France who were much stronger powers, so they felt that they had to suck dry and control everything they could get their hands on. As previously mentioned, however, it is very sad the impression Portuguese and Belgians gave to Africans about the ways leaders should perform—which affects them to this day. It is very interesting and saddening to learn about how those influences still impact the nations today. The lack of concern for African peoples sadly marks the legacies of colonialism in Africa. I am so glad that formal colonialism lasted only 80 years and not much longer. Time does not seem to heal all wounds since many Africans still have to deal with the ills of colonialism.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The Congo River
This is my journal about what I learned from the Congo River series. The 3,000 mile long Congo river plays an important role for many people's lives. The river traces around the boundaries of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Making it very important for trade and travel to far away parts of the country. People call it a floating market and the backbone of the nation, because it brings the nation food, water, a place to wash themselves and their clothes, the ability to travel and trade opportunities, and most of all it brings the nation inspiration and unification. It is funny how many people bathe in the river privately behind the barge, but many are curious and a lot of rubbernecking goes on especially when there are foreigners on board. I could not imagine a life so public! I need my space and privacy. Some days I prefer to stay home and be alone. I now realize that being alone and having privacy are luxuries that some people in the world cannot enjoy like I do. Life on the river sounds interesting. It is really interesting to learn about how people carry on with their day aboard a ship and do not get tired as much as I would expect them to. People are up at even 3:30 in the morning to get to work, I'd want to go back to sleep! Many myths and stories are about the river because it is so special and crucial to their survival. Men catch fish with baskets and some can even catch fish with their teeth "a style born of experience"! Even if people do not have jobs, they still can catch fish and feed themselves! They can still gather fruit and try to sell the food to their neighbors or foreigners. I imagine that the river relieves some of the poverty that they experience. Without the river, their lives would look very different.
It is interesting to contrast the way in which we treat our rivers in California in comparison to those in Africa. We do not depend on our rivers in the same way that people in the Congo do. Hungry people in the US can get food stamps, they do not have to rely on rivers for their food like those in the Congo. We do not praise our rivers, or use them for trade as much as they do. The only time I have been on a river was for recreational purposes. I hardly think of a river maybe once a month, but for people who live in the Republic of the Congo think of it all day long and make use of it. I could not imagine being on a river for days let alone weeks! I would be just as impatient as many of the people who travel the Congo River--maybe more so. To live on a cramped boat with live animals and so many noises of people and children would drive me crazy. I would probably get into many fights if I had to depend on a single river and the captain to get me to where I wanted to go. We have the luxury of driving in cars --all alone-- with relaxing music and perhaps air conditioning for when it gets hot or heating when it gets cold. The most we have to spend traveling is several hours--and that is considered a very long trip!
Oh how people on the Congo River are different than us! They partake in a completely different world than we do and a completely different history. It is so sad that their history is characterized by poverty, colonization, conflict, and pain. Millions of natives died in King Leopold's ruthless pursuit of rubber and ivory. Many people had their hands cut off if they did not perform to certain expectations. It is so sad that people in the West would take the little people in the rest of the world had and oppress them. With technology in the Democratic Republic of the Congo so much behind ours, the world to them must seem so much larger. Many people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are very poor, and jobless. Maybe one day things will be better for them and we could play a crucial part in helping them have a better way of life as they define it. At the end of the journey, taken by people who travel on the river, everyone has to share their things with the others. Everyone on board gets very excited to see the land that they are approaching. Everyone shares their leftovers. What a community and a nice tradition! It is interesting to learn about how common hardships can bring people together.
It is interesting to contrast the way in which we treat our rivers in California in comparison to those in Africa. We do not depend on our rivers in the same way that people in the Congo do. Hungry people in the US can get food stamps, they do not have to rely on rivers for their food like those in the Congo. We do not praise our rivers, or use them for trade as much as they do. The only time I have been on a river was for recreational purposes. I hardly think of a river maybe once a month, but for people who live in the Republic of the Congo think of it all day long and make use of it. I could not imagine being on a river for days let alone weeks! I would be just as impatient as many of the people who travel the Congo River--maybe more so. To live on a cramped boat with live animals and so many noises of people and children would drive me crazy. I would probably get into many fights if I had to depend on a single river and the captain to get me to where I wanted to go. We have the luxury of driving in cars --all alone-- with relaxing music and perhaps air conditioning for when it gets hot or heating when it gets cold. The most we have to spend traveling is several hours--and that is considered a very long trip!
Oh how people on the Congo River are different than us! They partake in a completely different world than we do and a completely different history. It is so sad that their history is characterized by poverty, colonization, conflict, and pain. Millions of natives died in King Leopold's ruthless pursuit of rubber and ivory. Many people had their hands cut off if they did not perform to certain expectations. It is so sad that people in the West would take the little people in the rest of the world had and oppress them. With technology in the Democratic Republic of the Congo so much behind ours, the world to them must seem so much larger. Many people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are very poor, and jobless. Maybe one day things will be better for them and we could play a crucial part in helping them have a better way of life as they define it. At the end of the journey, taken by people who travel on the river, everyone has to share their things with the others. Everyone on board gets very excited to see the land that they are approaching. Everyone shares their leftovers. What a community and a nice tradition! It is interesting to learn about how common hardships can bring people together.
Reaction to the Somali Pirates
This is my journal about the Somali Pirates who kidnapped two individuals.
As I read about the experiences of Rachel and Paul, I felt very sad about what they had to go through at their age. They were old and just wanted to be with each other. They had done no harm to the Pirates. Why should they be treated with such disrespect? I couldn’t imagine being a hostage for 6 months. I would go crazy. I don’t know what I would do with all my time. To be taken away from my husband, and beaten would make me so angry and sad. I would have lost hope much easier than Rachel and Paul. I admire their strength. I was somewhat outraged by the fact that kidnapping was a business for the entire community. I find it hard to believe that people would be willing to make money off such inhuman behavior. However, I know that many people make money off of oppressing others. Businesses often pay people undignified amounts to their workers. Prostitution and trafficking is rampant even in the US. The victims are often silenced. Many people never even here of the oppression that is occurring in their neighbor’s homes. I wonder if the behavior of the Pirates was out of the good desire to survive and provide for their community—which made me think that maybe some oppression can be stopped by giving people opportunities to provide for themselves by using good means to fulfill the good desire. I also thought it was interesting that the British government has a policy of not paying ransoms. At first I thought that was a bad policy, because Paul and Rachel were citizens and should be protected. But, I realized that if the government started to pay ransoms with the situation of Rachel and Paul, they would feel responsible to pay for all future kidnappings. Not only might this action encourage more kidnappings to occur, but also might allow the kidnappers to raise their prices. In addition, choosing the limit for how much to pay for the life of a person is would be much more difficult for a government than an individual who has much smaller limits. This is partly why the Pirates settled for much less of a ransom than regularly, because they recognized that Paul and Rachel were not very rich. If the government were responsible for paying the ransom, then perhaps Paul and Rachel would have remained in captivity for much longer so the British Government could lower the ransom enough from its gigantic government. It is just an unreasonable responsibility to ask of the state, and would create worse problems for everyone.
I was very pleased to hear that Rachel and Paul were welcomed back to London and they arrived safely. I was also pleased to hear that the couple was able to regain most of the money they had lost and repay their debt. I wasn’t expecting a happy ending. I thought that Paul and Rachel were going to die because of their age and the conditions that they had to face. I also was surprised to hear that the couple wanted to go back to sea. I thought that Paul and Rachel would be afraid of going back on the ocean in their boat, but they didn’t give up on what they enjoyed and their dreams to travel and explore the world. There ending was happy, and that made me happy! I was sad to hear about how another woman was kidnapped. It reminded me that the solution to save Paul and Rachel was not the real solution to end the Pirate’s business. A real solution might have been to help Somalia rebuild and invest more in businesses, so that the people could have better opportunities to provide for themselves and their families instead of having to resort to such evil things. With their recent famine and rampant poverty, it is really sad that other nations are not helping them restructure their nations to work around those ills and invest in sustainable development for those who live in Somalia. Although the British government could not pay a ransom, they could work to the real solution—healing Somalia. It is also sad that the situation is getting worse, and more pirates are kidnapping and treating people like Paul and Rachel inhumanly. Somalia is an example of how a nation suffers from lack of rule of order, and lack of proper governance combined with natural disasters. Many Somalis are refugees because of the conflict and natural disasters that have impoverished Somalia. Rachel and Paul are examples of how the conditions of far off nations affect the rest of the world. We are all interconnected and should help each other.
As I read about the experiences of Rachel and Paul, I felt very sad about what they had to go through at their age. They were old and just wanted to be with each other. They had done no harm to the Pirates. Why should they be treated with such disrespect? I couldn’t imagine being a hostage for 6 months. I would go crazy. I don’t know what I would do with all my time. To be taken away from my husband, and beaten would make me so angry and sad. I would have lost hope much easier than Rachel and Paul. I admire their strength. I was somewhat outraged by the fact that kidnapping was a business for the entire community. I find it hard to believe that people would be willing to make money off such inhuman behavior. However, I know that many people make money off of oppressing others. Businesses often pay people undignified amounts to their workers. Prostitution and trafficking is rampant even in the US. The victims are often silenced. Many people never even here of the oppression that is occurring in their neighbor’s homes. I wonder if the behavior of the Pirates was out of the good desire to survive and provide for their community—which made me think that maybe some oppression can be stopped by giving people opportunities to provide for themselves by using good means to fulfill the good desire. I also thought it was interesting that the British government has a policy of not paying ransoms. At first I thought that was a bad policy, because Paul and Rachel were citizens and should be protected. But, I realized that if the government started to pay ransoms with the situation of Rachel and Paul, they would feel responsible to pay for all future kidnappings. Not only might this action encourage more kidnappings to occur, but also might allow the kidnappers to raise their prices. In addition, choosing the limit for how much to pay for the life of a person is would be much more difficult for a government than an individual who has much smaller limits. This is partly why the Pirates settled for much less of a ransom than regularly, because they recognized that Paul and Rachel were not very rich. If the government were responsible for paying the ransom, then perhaps Paul and Rachel would have remained in captivity for much longer so the British Government could lower the ransom enough from its gigantic government. It is just an unreasonable responsibility to ask of the state, and would create worse problems for everyone.
I was very pleased to hear that Rachel and Paul were welcomed back to London and they arrived safely. I was also pleased to hear that the couple was able to regain most of the money they had lost and repay their debt. I wasn’t expecting a happy ending. I thought that Paul and Rachel were going to die because of their age and the conditions that they had to face. I also was surprised to hear that the couple wanted to go back to sea. I thought that Paul and Rachel would be afraid of going back on the ocean in their boat, but they didn’t give up on what they enjoyed and their dreams to travel and explore the world. There ending was happy, and that made me happy! I was sad to hear about how another woman was kidnapped. It reminded me that the solution to save Paul and Rachel was not the real solution to end the Pirate’s business. A real solution might have been to help Somalia rebuild and invest more in businesses, so that the people could have better opportunities to provide for themselves and their families instead of having to resort to such evil things. With their recent famine and rampant poverty, it is really sad that other nations are not helping them restructure their nations to work around those ills and invest in sustainable development for those who live in Somalia. Although the British government could not pay a ransom, they could work to the real solution—healing Somalia. It is also sad that the situation is getting worse, and more pirates are kidnapping and treating people like Paul and Rachel inhumanly. Somalia is an example of how a nation suffers from lack of rule of order, and lack of proper governance combined with natural disasters. Many Somalis are refugees because of the conflict and natural disasters that have impoverished Somalia. Rachel and Paul are examples of how the conditions of far off nations affect the rest of the world. We are all interconnected and should help each other.
Friday, December 4, 2009
In Him We Live, Part 2
There are so many verses that claim that as a Christian you live IN Christ, Christ also lives IN you, we live IN Him.
Jesus said to the audience, "I told you these things so you can have peace IN me" (John 16:33).
Jesus prays to the Lord, "Father, I pray that they can be one. As you are IN me and I am IN you, I pray that they can also be ONE IN US. (John 17:21)
Jesus continues praying, "I showed them what you are like, and I will show them again. Then they will have the same love that you have for me, and I will live IN them." (John 17:26)
Its hard to say what these verse mean. It seems that as Christians, we are desired to become part of God, to be ONE with God just as Jesus is ONE with God!! Many people, including Jews and Muslims would never be able to fathom this. However... something tells me that not only is this true but it is a remarkable and humble gift.
Jesus said to the audience, "I told you these things so you can have peace IN me" (John 16:33).
Jesus prays to the Lord, "Father, I pray that they can be one. As you are IN me and I am IN you, I pray that they can also be ONE IN US. (John 17:21)
Jesus continues praying, "I showed them what you are like, and I will show them again. Then they will have the same love that you have for me, and I will live IN them." (John 17:26)
Its hard to say what these verse mean. It seems that as Christians, we are desired to become part of God, to be ONE with God just as Jesus is ONE with God!! Many people, including Jews and Muslims would never be able to fathom this. However... something tells me that not only is this true but it is a remarkable and humble gift.
Monday, October 19, 2009
In Him We Live
'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Acts 17:28
This is an interesting bible verse, from which flows a lot more foundational concepts about humanity. Read this commentary and we will later discuss its possible implication on humanity.
This info is found: http://bible.cc/acts/17-28.htm
Wesley's notes:
17:28 In him - Not in ourselves, we live, and move, and have our being - This denotes his necessary, intimate, and most efficacious presence. No words can better express the continual and necessary dependence of all created beings, in their existence and all their operations, on the first and almighty cause, which the truest philosophy as well as divinity teaches. As certain also of your own poets have said - Aratus, whose words these are, was an Athenian, who lived almost three hundred years before this time. They are likewise to be found, with the alteration of one letter only, in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the supreme being, one of the purest and finest pieces of natural religion in the whole world of Pagan antiquity.
Jamieson-fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
28. For in him we live, and move, and have our being-(or, more briefly, "exist").-This means, not merely, "Without Him we have no life, nor that motion which every inanimate nature displays, nor even existence itself" [Meyer], but that God is the living, immanent Principle of all these in men.
as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring-the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose-to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism. (Probably during his quiet retreat at Tarsus. Ac 9:30, revolving his special vocation to the Gentiles he gave himself to the study of so much Greek literature as might be turned to Christian account in his future work. Hence this and his other quotations from the Greek poets, 1Co 15:33; Tit 1:12).
This is an interesting bible verse, from which flows a lot more foundational concepts about humanity. Read this commentary and we will later discuss its possible implication on humanity.
This info is found: http://bible.cc/acts/17-28.htm
Wesley's notes:
17:28 In him - Not in ourselves, we live, and move, and have our being - This denotes his necessary, intimate, and most efficacious presence. No words can better express the continual and necessary dependence of all created beings, in their existence and all their operations, on the first and almighty cause, which the truest philosophy as well as divinity teaches. As certain also of your own poets have said - Aratus, whose words these are, was an Athenian, who lived almost three hundred years before this time. They are likewise to be found, with the alteration of one letter only, in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the supreme being, one of the purest and finest pieces of natural religion in the whole world of Pagan antiquity.
Jamieson-fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
28. For in him we live, and move, and have our being-(or, more briefly, "exist").-This means, not merely, "Without Him we have no life, nor that motion which every inanimate nature displays, nor even existence itself" [Meyer], but that God is the living, immanent Principle of all these in men.
as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring-the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose-to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism. (Probably during his quiet retreat at Tarsus. Ac 9:30, revolving his special vocation to the Gentiles he gave himself to the study of so much Greek literature as might be turned to Christian account in his future work. Hence this and his other quotations from the Greek poets, 1Co 15:33; Tit 1:12).
Thursday, September 10, 2009
White Privilege and the Grass
In Peggy McIntosh's essay "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack", she tries to persuade the fact that white people are privileged because of their color. She lists over forty ways she is more privileged than any other race. Then she argues that all other races are oppressed because they don’t share her privileges.
There are several things wrong with her assumptions, however there is one main problem with it that I'd like to dwell on today. It’s the idea that someone is oppressed when someone else has it better.The first thing that is wrong with this notion is that someone else always seems to have it better! The hill is just greener on the other side. This makes the problem impossible for us to solve; especially for massive groups of people. Differences are inherent in our nature; this is what makes an individual an individual!
Second, what makes oppression wrong is not the fact that there are others that are not oppressed! Oppression is wrong all on its own. If only women are oppressed it’s wrong. If all women and all men are oppressed it is still wrong. Saying that oppression is wrong because others aren’t being oppressed, is to sell the argument short of any real weight. Oppression is a real issue; it’s not the result of a comparison!
I think this idea is the main problem with most feminists today. They believe that men are privileged, and thus women are oppressed. But the first half of the sentence undermines the message! If we want any real feminist progress, if we want to help the woman that are actually oppressed let’s talk about those women and let’s talk about how to help them!
Only when we stop looking into our neighbor's yard will we be able to focus on our own; and only then, will we be able to grow the bright green grass that we envy.
There are several things wrong with her assumptions, however there is one main problem with it that I'd like to dwell on today. It’s the idea that someone is oppressed when someone else has it better.The first thing that is wrong with this notion is that someone else always seems to have it better! The hill is just greener on the other side. This makes the problem impossible for us to solve; especially for massive groups of people. Differences are inherent in our nature; this is what makes an individual an individual!
Second, what makes oppression wrong is not the fact that there are others that are not oppressed! Oppression is wrong all on its own. If only women are oppressed it’s wrong. If all women and all men are oppressed it is still wrong. Saying that oppression is wrong because others aren’t being oppressed, is to sell the argument short of any real weight. Oppression is a real issue; it’s not the result of a comparison!
I think this idea is the main problem with most feminists today. They believe that men are privileged, and thus women are oppressed. But the first half of the sentence undermines the message! If we want any real feminist progress, if we want to help the woman that are actually oppressed let’s talk about those women and let’s talk about how to help them!
Only when we stop looking into our neighbor's yard will we be able to focus on our own; and only then, will we be able to grow the bright green grass that we envy.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Diversity is Suicide
In class, diversity is taught to be the greatest characteristic a country can have. In fact, this seems to be one of the only characteristics of the U.S. that is not criticized within our class rooms.
However, this admiration is counter to the way other countries see diversity. They often don't want the western culture or any other cultures to infiltrate their lands. As I have studied why they oppose diversity, it makes a great deal of sense.
Diversity is like a nonrenewable resource. If we like it, we will eventually run dry. Diversity brings a variety of people together. Which seems great, however, threw globalization we see that the more we are around each other the more we influence each other, and the less diverse we ultimately become.
If every country was as diverse as ours, the offspring of those countries would forget about the cultures that their parents once lived in. Eventually, everyone would be the same, and diversity would never be recovered. This result is already displayed within the U.S., many people here feel as if they have no culture to identify with. We owe this to our pursuit for a more diverse world.
It seems as if the diverse world that we seek, if attained, would be a short lived one. Diversity is its own killer.
However, this admiration is counter to the way other countries see diversity. They often don't want the western culture or any other cultures to infiltrate their lands. As I have studied why they oppose diversity, it makes a great deal of sense.
Diversity is like a nonrenewable resource. If we like it, we will eventually run dry. Diversity brings a variety of people together. Which seems great, however, threw globalization we see that the more we are around each other the more we influence each other, and the less diverse we ultimately become.
If every country was as diverse as ours, the offspring of those countries would forget about the cultures that their parents once lived in. Eventually, everyone would be the same, and diversity would never be recovered. This result is already displayed within the U.S., many people here feel as if they have no culture to identify with. We owe this to our pursuit for a more diverse world.
It seems as if the diverse world that we seek, if attained, would be a short lived one. Diversity is its own killer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)