Today as I was walking down Upper Wacker Drive at Michigan Avenue, I was greeted by Kurdish protesters outside Turkey's embassy trying to raise awareness about the raids by the Turkish government into Kurdish villages. On December 28, 35 people were killed, most of them children. As I approached the protesters, I was handed an informatory letter describing the issue:
"Current Turkish government, Mr. R.T. Erdogan's cabinet, claims to be a democratic and liberal Islamic country in the Middle East, lectures Syria and Libya for democracy, and accuses Israel of being cruel against Palestinians."
This clearly speaks to the hypocrisy of the Turkish government; the saying "practice what you preach" comes to mind. Certainly this is not the first time in history this has occured. The U.S. government advocated for democracy across the globe, but at the same time did not offer all it's citizens equal rights, for example African Americans were not granted equal rights until 1964.
As I crossed paths with the protesters, I couldn't help but wonder, how does one even begin to get the government to change? Is protesting enough to get the government to recognize the problem and do something about it?
The protesting Kurds would argue yes. The first step to solving a problem is to recognize there is a problem in the first place. What about protesting in the U.S.? Does this help their cause back in Turkey?
It is interesting to see what the media emphasizes and what it does not. As my classmates and I read the signs of the protesters, we were confused as to what the issue was. But us simply being there and recognizing the issue is part of the process of solving it. As I stated above, recognizing the problem and raising awareness is just as important as solving the issue itself.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Teaching Both Sides
Most of what students learn about is what their teachers force them to read. If a teacher assigns a reading on how Columbus discovered America, they are most likely to believe that Columbus was the first one to reach America and completely ignore the fact that there were previous inhabitants. Of course when students get older and wiser, they learn to think for for themselves. But what happens when students only learn one side of the story?
What teachers choose and choose not to show there students greatly affects how students perceive the world and history. One issue that I have with school is that usually only one side is showed (not to say that this is always the case). Recently, I was assigned to read The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll for my AP Biology Class. This book focuses on evolutionary history and provides factual evidence as to how natural selection allows for evolution to occur over time.
While I really enjoyed reading this book and learned more about evolution, I can hear the other side of me crying out, "Hey! What about the side that says evolution doesn't exist?" I do believe in evolution, and can see how evolution fits in with the history of the world. But I am simultaneously interested in the other side. Why can't evolution exist? What are the counter examples to evolution?
I understand that it is a science class and my teachers job isn't to present the other side. But religion does play a role in science, just as ethics does. I can't help but wonder if we lived in a predominantly/extremist Christian or even deeply religious area if the curriculum would be different. Would I even be allowed to read this book in school? To what degree does the majority religion influence education?
This also speaks to how society has become more liberal. Society is changing, evolution is more widely accepted, but this doesn't mean only one side should be taught.
What teachers choose and choose not to show there students greatly affects how students perceive the world and history. One issue that I have with school is that usually only one side is showed (not to say that this is always the case). Recently, I was assigned to read The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll for my AP Biology Class. This book focuses on evolutionary history and provides factual evidence as to how natural selection allows for evolution to occur over time.
While I really enjoyed reading this book and learned more about evolution, I can hear the other side of me crying out, "Hey! What about the side that says evolution doesn't exist?" I do believe in evolution, and can see how evolution fits in with the history of the world. But I am simultaneously interested in the other side. Why can't evolution exist? What are the counter examples to evolution?
I understand that it is a science class and my teachers job isn't to present the other side. But religion does play a role in science, just as ethics does. I can't help but wonder if we lived in a predominantly/extremist Christian or even deeply religious area if the curriculum would be different. Would I even be allowed to read this book in school? To what degree does the majority religion influence education?
This also speaks to how society has become more liberal. Society is changing, evolution is more widely accepted, but this doesn't mean only one side should be taught.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Mitt Romney: Religion in Politics
Religion is something that everyone chooses to believe or not to believe in. By not making a choice, you are inevitably making a choice. Because it affects all of us in some way or another, to what degree should religion influence politics and elections? This is an extremely wide and controversial topic, so I am going to try to condense it down to a few recent issues throughout several blog posts.
1. Mitt Romney and Mormonism
As many of you already know, Mitt Romney is running for the GOP presidential candidate in the 2012 elections. He was raised a Mormon, which is not resonating with a group people in America. Mormonism is not widespread throughout the U.S. at all, constituting a mere 1.7 percent of adults in America, and because of the lack of knowledge of Mormons America has difficulty understanding them through any other lens besides that of the people who practice polygamy. As seen in this picture, some people do not even connect Mormonism to Christianity:
So why are Americans so quick to judge? Personally, living in the Midwest, I have never met a Mormon, and if I have I wouldn't know it. The only preconceived notions I have of them are seeing reality shows on TV of men who have multiple wives.
The great majority Mormons do not practice polygamy, including Mitt Romney. As previous president of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley stated,
“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church.... If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”
It is important that we judge Romney based on his political views and aspirations as president, not on his religious principles or stereotypes we hold against his religion.
As can be seen from the map, Mormons constitute a small group in the U.S.— more than one would expect. They are the second fastest growing religion. While highly concentrated in Utah, Mormons have recently spread out. This speaks to the tolerance and more widespread amount of freedom in the U.S. There are currently 15 Mormons in Congress. So what makes Romney so different? Because he is a front runner in the election and has a serious chance of being elected, people feel the need to scritinize him more than other previous Mormons running for political office.
My issue with people being so critical of Romneys religion is that if we can have an African American president, a female secretary of state, what is so wrong with having a Mormon presidential candidate? Isn't America all about freedom and acceptance? If we can put aside our issues with race and gender, shouldn't we be able to do the same with religion?
http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/mormon.gif
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Is the world ready for Hillary Clinton's LGBT policy?
Hillary Clinton 12/6/11 in Geneva giving a speech on Human Rights Day
Two days ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in front of the United Nations that discrimination against people because of their sexuality is a violation of their human rights, and that the United States will now have a "Global Equity Fund" aimed at helping human rights groups fight prejudice against this minority. I first read about this event in an article by James M. Lindsay in the Global Public Square blog, and he cited some interesting points by Republican Candidate Rick Perry on Clinton’s latest policy:
“Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money. But there is a troubling trend here beyond the national security nonsense inherent in this silly idea. This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong.”
Perry raises some valid points, and a few questions come to mind:
1. Is it America’s duty or place to try to promote its own values in other countries?
2. How will Americans react to this policy? Will it be well received because it coincides with our values about equality and freedom of expression, or will the conservatives balk and complain?
3. How will other countries perceive this?
4. And finally, however they decide to promote LGBT rights, will it be successful? What defines success in this realm, and how can one measure it?
Although America’s acceptance and tolerance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people has generally increased, this same feeling is not true around the world. I can understand where Clinton is coming from; her intentions are good at heart. The policy they have laid out appears to be substantial and well thought out. But looking at this issue from the inside out, many countries are simply not ready to take the step towards acceptance, and American intervention is not going to make the process go any smoother.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Be Thankful
Every year at the Thanksgiving table, salivating at the succulent turkey, mashed potatoes, and cranberry sauce, welcoming each person into the family, whether a divorced friend or distant cousin, my family and I go around and reflect on what we are thankful for. Each year the meal changes slightly and the people are different, but what we are thankful for is usually similar. Health, opportunity, friends, family, and food seem to be the big ones.
But this year was different for me. In English we have been reading Reading Lolita in Tehran, and before the big feast I had finished my reading for the following class. The story is centered on women living in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the challenges they face as being women in a society that persecutes them and deprives them of their freedom in nearly every way. A group of women are selected by a female teacher, Azar Nafisi, to meet on Thursdays to discuss literature. A particular passage from the book struck me:
"I raised my glass of water to him and said, who would have thought that such a simple meal would appear to us like a kingly feast? and he said, We must thank the Islamic Republic for making us rediscover and even covet all these things we took for granted: one could write a paper on the pleasure of eating a ham sandwich."
The man is highlighting the difference between society before and after the strict law enforcements, and how once common objects and daily rituals seem foreign and suddenly special. The contrast between this society and our own is huge. Freedom is often taken for granted in America, and I have been reminded of this through Reading Lolita in Tehran. I feel so lucky to be a woman living in America: to be able to voice my opinions, go to whatever school I desire, and simply be blogging right now.
While many people complain about their issues with the United States and the government, I am thankful. Sure, there are many things that need to be fixed, corruption and the economy as a whole for example. But we are so lucky to even be able to voice our opinions on what we think is wrong. As we say our thanks this Thanksgiving, it is imperative that we are thankful for what we have, and not contemplate what we want to have.
But this year was different for me. In English we have been reading Reading Lolita in Tehran, and before the big feast I had finished my reading for the following class. The story is centered on women living in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the challenges they face as being women in a society that persecutes them and deprives them of their freedom in nearly every way. A group of women are selected by a female teacher, Azar Nafisi, to meet on Thursdays to discuss literature. A particular passage from the book struck me:
"I raised my glass of water to him and said, who would have thought that such a simple meal would appear to us like a kingly feast? and he said, We must thank the Islamic Republic for making us rediscover and even covet all these things we took for granted: one could write a paper on the pleasure of eating a ham sandwich."
The man is highlighting the difference between society before and after the strict law enforcements, and how once common objects and daily rituals seem foreign and suddenly special. The contrast between this society and our own is huge. Freedom is often taken for granted in America, and I have been reminded of this through Reading Lolita in Tehran. I feel so lucky to be a woman living in America: to be able to voice my opinions, go to whatever school I desire, and simply be blogging right now.
While many people complain about their issues with the United States and the government, I am thankful. Sure, there are many things that need to be fixed, corruption and the economy as a whole for example. But we are so lucky to even be able to voice our opinions on what we think is wrong. As we say our thanks this Thanksgiving, it is imperative that we are thankful for what we have, and not contemplate what we want to have.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Response to Alex Burma's Presentation
A few weeks ago Alex Barna, from the University of Chicago's Center for Middle Eastern Studies, gave the Glenbrook Academy of International Studies a presentation on American stereotypes on the religion of Islam and Muslim people. His goal was to educate us on how the Middle East is viewed and how these views affect how future generations view it. After seeing the first day of the presentation, these were the most important things that I took away:
1. It is imperative to realize that Islam is a peaceful religion, and only certain Muslim groups are extremists
All too often people associate Muslims with terrorism. This is a dangerous stereotype and completely untrue. Not all Muslims are extremists, and not all extremists are Muslims. Grouping all Muslims together as terrorists would be like saying all Americans are blond with blue eyes. I told my family the other day I would love to travel to Egypt or a Middle Eastern country to study abroad one day and they immediately said no. There is a fear of the Middle East in general because of the violence that is concentrated in certain areas. The whole entire area is not characterized by this.
2. Islam is not a monolithic religion
There are multiple factions of Islam, and grouping them together as one would be incorrect. First of all, there is the Sunni-Shiite split. Then within these two groups there are even more divisions based on what people individually believe.
Living in the North Shore area, I can honestly say I do not know many Muslim people. I think the problem is that people around where I live do not know many people who practice Islam. We characterize people of the religion because we do not know many of them. I think that if we knew more Muslims, we wouldn't be so quick to judge or stereotype them because we would have a more personal connection.
3. Breaking the stereotype is difficult
Mr. Barna's job is incredibly important and what he does helps people realize that their way of thinking, or other people's way of thinking, is wrong and needs to be changed. But sadly, educating a small group of people about Islam isn't going to change the general perception of the religion and middle eastern area. Because of the Arab Spring and Muslim extremists, people associate Muslims with these negative images. These images reinforce how people already feel. Unfortunately, I don't think these stereotypes are going away anytime soon.
1. It is imperative to realize that Islam is a peaceful religion, and only certain Muslim groups are extremists
All too often people associate Muslims with terrorism. This is a dangerous stereotype and completely untrue. Not all Muslims are extremists, and not all extremists are Muslims. Grouping all Muslims together as terrorists would be like saying all Americans are blond with blue eyes. I told my family the other day I would love to travel to Egypt or a Middle Eastern country to study abroad one day and they immediately said no. There is a fear of the Middle East in general because of the violence that is concentrated in certain areas. The whole entire area is not characterized by this.
2. Islam is not a monolithic religion
There are multiple factions of Islam, and grouping them together as one would be incorrect. First of all, there is the Sunni-Shiite split. Then within these two groups there are even more divisions based on what people individually believe.
Living in the North Shore area, I can honestly say I do not know many Muslim people. I think the problem is that people around where I live do not know many people who practice Islam. We characterize people of the religion because we do not know many of them. I think that if we knew more Muslims, we wouldn't be so quick to judge or stereotype them because we would have a more personal connection.
3. Breaking the stereotype is difficult
Mr. Barna's job is incredibly important and what he does helps people realize that their way of thinking, or other people's way of thinking, is wrong and needs to be changed. But sadly, educating a small group of people about Islam isn't going to change the general perception of the religion and middle eastern area. Because of the Arab Spring and Muslim extremists, people associate Muslims with these negative images. These images reinforce how people already feel. Unfortunately, I don't think these stereotypes are going away anytime soon.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
America's Future
With the presidential elections coming up next year, the Republican candidates don't look so promising. After watching an interview of Herman Cain discussing what he would have done in the place of Obama regarding the Libyan revolution, I am a little worried for the future of America:
Cain doesn't seem to know what he is talking about, and spends about a long time at the beginning trying to get the interviewer to clarify the question. On the other hand, Mitt Romney is not well educated on many issues and feels he could have handled situations, such as the Iranian "nuclear crisis", better than Obama.
To read more about Romney: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/politics/before-primaries-romneys-team-looks-ahead-to-obama.html?_r=1&hp
Now that I am 18 and can vote, I see all the more reason to follow politics. Before this year, I never really saw a reason to get involved and read about what was going on. But things in the world seem to be getting ever more complicated and being knowledgeable in today's affairs is extremely worthwhile. Perhaps this is why these candidates upset me so much.
These candidates are not well informed. They make generalizations and place blame on others who they feel have not done a good job. After taking U.S. and World History, I feel I have a good understanding of how past events have impacted today's world. If an 18 year old can have this, I firmly believe that the Republican presidential candidates should have the same, if not better, knowledge.
I hope that my generation and generations behind me educated themselves because it is so important to our future. We cannot have a president who doesn't know how to handle situations. If these candidates think they will get elected by getting barely passing grades in foreign policy, they are wrong.
Cain doesn't seem to know what he is talking about, and spends about a long time at the beginning trying to get the interviewer to clarify the question. On the other hand, Mitt Romney is not well educated on many issues and feels he could have handled situations, such as the Iranian "nuclear crisis", better than Obama.
To read more about Romney: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/politics/before-primaries-romneys-team-looks-ahead-to-obama.html?_r=1&hp
Now that I am 18 and can vote, I see all the more reason to follow politics. Before this year, I never really saw a reason to get involved and read about what was going on. But things in the world seem to be getting ever more complicated and being knowledgeable in today's affairs is extremely worthwhile. Perhaps this is why these candidates upset me so much.
These candidates are not well informed. They make generalizations and place blame on others who they feel have not done a good job. After taking U.S. and World History, I feel I have a good understanding of how past events have impacted today's world. If an 18 year old can have this, I firmly believe that the Republican presidential candidates should have the same, if not better, knowledge.
I hope that my generation and generations behind me educated themselves because it is so important to our future. We cannot have a president who doesn't know how to handle situations. If these candidates think they will get elected by getting barely passing grades in foreign policy, they are wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)