Just A Blog

In class we had a seminar based on the question ‘Has globalization done more harm or good for the promotion of human rights?’ From the information and debates we had in the seminar I came to the conclusion that globalization has done more good fro promotion of human rights. This is it has brought an insight to the world of the human violation that occur and it has also brought education of human rights to those across. The term Globalisation is the process by which the world is becoming increasingly interconnected as a result of massively increased trade and cultural exchange. As many people travel all over to establish or spread their ides. Globalisation has brought an increased international relationships, trade and dependence on the global economy for countries.

            The fact that globalisation has given a view of what is going on around the world has greatly promoted human rights. This is because it leads to an effective response from the international community as they sanction countries, which goes against human rights. For example using a history from a South African student in class. She brought how the apartheid, one of the biggest racial segregation in the law in the world, came to an end because of the broadcast of the bloody Soweto uprising. This event led to the countries sanction by refusing to trade, which lead the collapse and caused their leaders to end the apartheid. This shows if the international brought to attention of a major humans rights violation they will bring a stop to it thus making countries learn and follow human rights laws.

            The education of human rights to people in countries with huge human violations will help promote and bring and to the injustices. This was point I was enable to bring up in the seminar but greatly by a Ghanaian student in the seminar. This pint of education bring a promotion right laws can be proved with the Arab Spring in the Middle East. The Arab Spring was when people from certain Middle Eastern countries decided to oust long ruling dictators and set up democracy for example in Libya and Egypt. This revolution came to play as the people of these countries like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were now educated on the rights they were supposed to have and were denied off for example democracy, freedom of expression, etc. This shows that human rights if taught and seen in play by other will bring up the promotion for it.

            A counter claim brought in class was that human rights were taken from people due to globalisation. Because big companies that come to trade in LEDCs (lesser economically developed countries) take advantage of the worker they employ from those countries. Initially, I agreed with this statement but after thinking about it I came to the conclusion that it was rather opposite even though these people are being maltreated the world is still watching and their people taking strides to improve their situation such as charities donating food an money. So I came to the conclusion that actually that this point rather supported globalisation promoting human rights.

In the past few class the main focus was about Human Rights. We learnt about the history and the definition of human rights. We read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a doctrine by the UN, which suggest the rights people in specific countries should be entitled to. Later on, in class we focused on the colonization of the Africa by European countries and if the colonization was justifiable.

  From my research in class the reasons for why the Europeans sort to colonize Africa were to bring trade to the Africans, to bring Christianity and to end Arab slavery in Africa (Davies). After reading the way the Europeans came about achieving their goals in colonization and with my prior knowledge and reading of laws of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). I came to the conclusion, the Europeans execution of their goals prove colonization to be unjustifiable as the methods were in breach of the laws UDHR.

  These methods by the Europeans were unjustifiable and brutal. Firstly, The Europeans method of bringing was them exporting raw products from the Africans cheaply at prices they set, whiles not allowing the Africans partake in the profitable manufacturing part of the economy but only on the production side of the economy (“The New Imperialism in Africa."). This injustice clearly goes against article 23 section 2 of The UDHR, which states that ‘Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work’ because the Africans were not getting the right amount of pay for their work as the Europeans were setting the prices ("The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”). In addition, The Europeans method of spreading Christianity to the Africans was unpardonable as they used violence on the Africans who rejected Christianity such as the Berbers and Fulani who were Muslim in northerner and the locals from Tanganyika (modern-day Tanzania) who believed in Maji Maji movement ("Religious Resistance"). The act violence goes against Article 18 of Universal Declaration Human Rights that instructs that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ as they denied these people the freedoms to practice their religions ("The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”). Lastly the Europeans methods of ending Arab slavery in Africa were hypocritical as ‘they killed thousands of Africans through forced labour (slavery by another name) in order to complete their building projects and bring the "benefits" of European civilization to Africa’ (“The Flow of History."). This shows that the Europeans went against Article 4 of UDHR that states ‘No one shall be held in slavery or servitude’ because the Africans were held in servitude by the Europeans ("The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”).  So in conclusion the evidence clearly shows the Europeans colonization was unjust as they denied the Africans of many important human rights during the process as they went in violation of the UDHR.

  Works Cited

Davies, Catriona. CNN. Cable News Network, 12 Aug. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/02/independence.africa.colonialism/>.

"The Flow of History." FC122: European Imperial Expansion in Africa (c.1870-1914) -. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/eme/18/FC122>.

"The New Imperialism in Africa." Learner.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.learner.org/courses/worldhistory/support/reading_20_2.pdf>.

"Religious Resistance." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/11chapter7.shtml>.

"Slavery and the 'Scramble for Africa'" BBC News. BBC, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/scramble_for_africa_article_01.shtml>.

A quote that will inspire me this year is

'Nobody knows what the future holds; said it's bad enough just getting old.' - Ezra Keoning

In class we were assign an essay on the argument that access to instant information has been a negative consequence of the technology age. In which we, the students, were to decide whether to disagree and agree. After that we then had a class debate on the matter. Whiles researching on the topic we were showed a documentary on media addiction in South Korea, which has become the technology hub of the world. In this documentary, We were showed that this has brought psychological challenges to this countries as many adolescents spends long periods of time playing video games to the extent it caused addiction. And also the South Korean government has put in place 2-week recovery camps for these addicts and also they have integrated Internet etiquette in curriculum for kindergarteners in which are taught how to use the Internet properly.

I oppose on the methods of South Korean government. This is because I don’t support the use of recovery camps and don’t agree with the methods teaching of children to use the Internet properly. Firstly, I don’t agree with the use of camps because I see them as very ineffective and unbearable. As it causes the child quit cold turkey after years of playing video games just for them to be miserable for two weeks then relapse by playing afterwards. For example after a child visits one of the camps he or she will stop using the internet and playing video games for a while for a bit, but when their in the camp they’ll be constantly thinking about the game and this thought will bother them, in the end they’ll ‘relapse’ whenever they get close a video game. As shown in the video we never see the boy’s progress after going to the camp. This shows that the camp is ineffective. In addition, I disagree with the early teaching of children Internet etiquette. This because I believe it not the right age to teach as they are taught something without giving them a reason to why they are learning this. I also think it’s ineffective as they will forget about what they have learnt. For example this is because the children will not understand why their learning and also most people don’t remember what they learnt when their children. So that is why I’m indifferent over the South Korea methods.

In the past three weeks on my issue, I learnt that the situation in Syria has cooled down and has been overshadowed by other events. Firstly, the heat of the situation has mellowed over times. This is due to Syria handing over its chemical weapons to Russia. As Russia proposed for them to place their ‘chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle it’ (Gordts). This is means that the threat of another chemical weapon attack occurring in the near future diminished. The issue has been forgotten about over the last few weeks. This is due to the new, fresh issues such as the Kenyan mall shooting taking its place in headlines. This is because this issue has more of an international interest as many diplomats and expatriates were slain in the shooting as Syria is issue is only of concern to the US, Syria and Russia.

My understanding of the issue has faltered and my predictions have not come true as the US did not battle against Russia, Syria gave up its chemical weapons and no more chemical attacks have occurred. Firstly, the US and Russia didn’t go against each other changed my opinion and prediction. This is because I thought the issue in Syria proximity was very high so it will lead to US intervening, which will cause Russia to retaliate, but it did not happen as no intervention took place. Another reason was when Syria gave up its chemical weapons. This is because I expected the Syrian government to continue to deny their ownership of chemicals and the blame the rebels. Finally, I expected more chemical attacks to follow the previous attacks. This is because since no one knew who caused the first time it would be perfect for another attack to happen as those who are responsible for it will get away with it again.

In my research I used opinionated blogs as well as news reports. I found nationalism and limiting debate biases in an opinionated blog by Julie Roginsky. Initially, I found nationalism in an article by Julie Roginsky in which she clearly stated her love of the US and her hate fore Russia was her reason for supporting Syria. Limiting debate was also used a lot in the Roginky’s blog. This is because she didn’t use any counter arguments to show that she at least aknowledge Russia and Syria’s reasons. This shows that Limiting debate and Nationalist bias was used extensively.

There was only one interesting thing that occurred whiles I was tracking an issue. This was the op-ed by Vladmir Putin, the Russian president. This was shocking as he directly address the United States on their place in the matter. This was shocking, as most politicians never directly address our state their opinions due to their fear of retaliation and especially in a news article. This was the only interesting thing that happen whiles tracking the issue.

    Craggs, Ryan. "Syria Accepts Russian Proposal To Surrender Chemical Weapons,

Foreign Minister Says." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10

Sept. 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2013.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-accepts-proposal-

to-surrender-chemical-weapons_n_3898941.html>.

  Gordts, Eline. "Russia To Push Syria To Put Chemical Weapons Under

International Control." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 09

            For the second part of the humanities tracking issue assignment we were asked to pick two articles on the issue we were tracking. For my issue I chose the conflict in Syria then I wrote a blog in which I explained the situation and how it will progress. We were supposed to find two different articles on the issue. And because the issue I focused on the recent op-ed by Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to the United States on intervening Syria and their exceptionality. It was quite hard to find to different articles, as most of the responses to his op-ed were neutral. But eventually I found these two articles titled ‘Are you nuts, Mr. Putin? The United States is exceptional’ by Julie Roginsky, a Fox News contributor, and ‘Vladimir Putin Op-Ed: Why He's More Right Than You Think’ by Yury Barmin, a freelance political analyst. So I chose and analysed these two articles for my issue.

            Of the two articles I picked, Barmin’s had more research and provided more information. This is evident to the links placed in Barmin’s articles and his extensive background information. Firstly, Barmin used links to thes source in his article when stating a fact. For example in a sentence when he says ‘John Kerry argued that "those men in those videos are disadvantaged by the U.S. response”’ (Barmin.) He cites the source by adding a link to the phrase to the actual article where he got it from. This shows that Barim had reliable sources to back what he was saying and was able to cite them unlike Roginksy who didn’t cite any sources. Secondly, Barmin had provided background information on the situation in Syria and Putin’s op-ed to inform them about the issue. This is shown in the first three paragraphs on his article. This was done so Barmin makes sure his readers are informed before he states his opinion rather than just stating his opinion like Roginsky. So in conclusion Barmin’s article possessed more information for the reader than Roginsky’s.

            I find Barmin’s article more interesting than Roginsky’s article even though both were quite interesting. This is evident to Barmin’s educated predictions on the outcomes, Barmin’s question of the US intentions, Roginsky’s nationalism for the US and the fact both these authors are Americans of Russian descent have dissimilar opinons. Firstly, Barmin’s predictions of the outcomes of the US really grabbed my interest. For example he brought up the idea that ‘An act of aggression by the U.S. could be interpreted as a full-fledged war by other states, such as Iran’ and that Iran can ‘engage in this war to defend Syria’ (Barmin.) This is very interesting to me, as I never came across this information as I researched the issueso it informed me more about Syria. Barmin’s inquiring of United States actions and intentions was also fascinating. For example he does this when he brings up the fact the rebels the US are supporting are shown to be ‘extremists of all stripes battling the government’ and that the rebels the US are to be aiding had been in a video mercilessly executing the Syrian solider (Barmin.) Thirdly, I found Roginsky’s nationalism for the US to be quite astounding. For example she does this when she claims that her family fled russia‘over 30 years ago because of religious and ethnic persecution’, and were ‘stripped of any nation’s citizenship’ and that the US has provided ‘opportunities…to generations of those who arrived at its ports with nothing but the clothes on their backs and the drive to succeed as Americans’ (Roginsky.) I found this flabbergasting as she’s feels an urge of acceptance as an American and is grateful for the opportunities and also is openly condemning Russia even though its her country of origin. So it shows me the national pride the US gives to its migrants.  Finally, the fact both authors are both Americans of Russian decent and have polar opposite opinions on this issue involving their home country. Such as Roginsky being totally against Russia on the issue and on the other hand Barmin being sympathetic to Russia on this issue. This was interesting as it shows that even though people can look like they are of the same cloth they can be absolutely different in thinking. Which has happened in history many times like in the French revolution even though the entire bourgeoisie lived Identical lives to each othe most were fierce rivals when it came to politics. So it makes you wonder if in the US those who are for the strike and those against it are like this. So in concussion the articles were interesting to read.

            The Barmin’s article poses no bias at all but the Roginsky’s contain three types of bias.  These are omission, limiting Debate and nationalism. Firstly, Roginsky’s article uses omission bias a lot. This is because she forgets to mention the US much criticized invasion of Iraq that is similar to its current involvement in Syria. She also fails to bring up the fact that the rebels the US are going to aid are cold-blooded, extremists. This shows she excluded some points of the article she should have covered rendering it bias. She also used limiting debate bias in her article. This is because she only stated the side of the US in the article and didn’t bring up the points of Russia and Syria for her to counter attack and prove wrong, but she chose the option of ignoring it. Finally she uses nationalist bias very openly in her article. This is shown as he constantly expresses her love and admiration of the US and her apparent disgust and dislike for Russia. Also explained as nationalism bias is defined as bias in support for a country, which is clearly what Roginsky is doing with the US. This shows that Roginsky was very bias in her article whiles Barmin had no bias.

            The Barmin article was quite liberal whiles the Roginsky had no apparent political stance. The Barmin article had a liberal standpoint as he brought up the idea of the US not policing the world which is the usual for the US. But rather to not take part or intervene in the civil war because of the negative consequences it will cause. This shows that Barmin is quite liberal, as he believes that the US should change its approach to this situation. And with liberalism being related to change in the government and society. This is shows that Barmin’s article is very liberal.

            So finally, this is my interpretation the two articles I choose and analysed for my issue.

Bibliography

Barmin, Yury. "PolicyMic." PolicyMic. N.p., 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 16 Sept. 2013.

<http://www.policymic.com/articles/63439/vladimir-putin-op-ed-why-

he-s-more-right-than-you-think>.

Roginsky, Julie. "Are You Nuts, Mr. Putin? The United States Is Exceptional." Fox

News. FOX News Network, 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 16 Sept. 2013.

<http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/12/president-putin-

The issue I chose to track down for the humanities assignment is the civil war in Syria.

The world has kept its eyes peeled as this Middle Eastern country situation gets more chaotic each day. Some might say this is caused by the Arab Spring, a period in which a few Arabian countries ousted their long reigning authoritarians. As the man described as a ‘Technocrat with an Iron Fist’ Bashar-al Assad, the ruler Syria, was targeted as Syrians thought it was time for democracy and broke into rebellion (Bashar Al-Assad). As the other Arab countries were able to dispose of their dictators such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Mummar Gadhafi in Libya the Syrians were unlucky as Assad’s resilience has probably come as a disappointment. So the rebellion still continues to this day and the media lost interest in the story. Until recently when chemical weapons were used on the citizens of Syria which has led to a massive massacre. So this has put Syria back in the spotlight. So in conclusion this is the situation in Syria.

The Chemical weapon attacks in the civil war have grasped my attention. This is evident to the speculation of who is responsible for the attacks and the possibility of these weapons being used again somewhere else. Firstly, no one knows which side is using the chemical weapons. Some like John Kerry, United States Secretary of State, believe it to be Assad due to his harsh ways with Kerry calling it ‘undeniable and a moral obscenity’ (John Kerry: Syria's Use of Chemical Weapons Is "Undeniable".) But others disagree with Kerry some stating that it was not possible as Bashar Al-Assad was winning the war and that ‘using chemical weapons it would isolate itself from any international support and invite a Western military response.’ And with even Russian President, Vladimir Putin, accusing Kerry of lying by saying ‘he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad’ (“Putin Calls Kerry a Liar on Syria."). Secondly, the possibility the chemical weapons could be used elsewhere as stated by Syrian deputy foreign minister, Faisal Maqdad. He claim that that ‘the terrorist groups are the ones that used (chemical weapons) with the help of the United States, the United Kingdom and France’ (Reuters.) And also claims that the weapons ‘will soon be used by the same groups against the people of Europe.’ This interests me as you wonder how that these countries have the resources to make these weapons that the rebels and government probably couldn’t be able to make. So this makes you wonder if the foreign minister might be telling the truth. This is why the chemical weapons have bought my interest much like media.

            The idea of western interference has attracted me to this topic. This is evident to the tension between US and Russia, the possible protesting causing and the similarity to the Iraqi invasion. The tension between the US and Russia is very compelling as the US want to air strike Syria, and Russia, an ally to Syria saying that Syria be left alone. So this feels like the last standoff between two opposing countries because one feels if the US do invade Syria then Russia will be quick to retaliate. One can assume with Russia having big allies of its own such as China, And the US having their own such as the UK and with the winter Olympics that are being held in Russia no less than 5 months away and the US opposing Russia anti-gay laws this seems like the perfect recipe for world war III. This could also lead to some protesting within the US. As polls show only 9% of Americans are for the invading of Syria. Finally the similarity of this to Iraqi invasion has enticed my attention. This is evident to how the invasion of Iraq was caused by the US belief that dictator Saddam Hussein was using WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) on his people which is similar to the how the Us believe Assad is using chemical weapons. But in the invasion of Iraq was unfruitful even though Hussein was ousted but no WMDs was found so you wonder if this will end up the same way. This is why the possibility of western interference has intrigued me about the civil war.