Jacob Mensah

The term Globalization is defined as the spread of a certain product or idea on the international scale, to the extent at which other nations are impacted socially and economically by it. Looking at globalization form the perspective of development, it is probably the single most important key to human progress. There are many fragments of society other than the economy and society that are altered by globalization.  Human rights have only been around for a short extent of human history. Globalization is generally what led to the creation of human rights however many people and corporations take advantage of globalization in order to infringe upon others human rights. The question is; has globalization done more harm or good for the promotion of human rights?

Human rights is a complex issue that is being used more and more in modern society, and with modern society, globalization also becomes more prevalent. I believe that globalization has most certainly contributed to the spread and upholding of human rights across the planet. Because of globalization many minority groups and women have the same rights as any other races/genders. This example can be seen through programs such as Affirmative action, where every race as equal changes as work opportunities. Around 6 weeks ago, the Islamism group Boko Haram kidnapped 200 school girls in northern Nigeria, because of Globalization the international community had sent and continues to send organizations, military personnel, drones, and more in order to save the girls’ lives.

 Many great organizations and companies have been created because of globalization such as Run for the cure, which is a breast cancer aid group. It issues aid to people that do not have the ability to test for breast cancer, contributing to their overall human rights. Another example is the Red Cross; it is an international symbol for medical safety and service. One of the best examples of a great organization that works for human rights is the UN. This group of nations has lead to the institution of Human rights in almost every nation worldwide, and its one true priority is to combat any person who goes opposes human rights. Nike is an example of a corporation that uses globalization to take advantage of people in LEDC’s in order to maximize profits. The Nike employees in Indonesia essentially have no Human rights due to their extremely low pay, appalling living conditions and, no freedom of speech/expression. These people have no other choice but to work at Nike, which forces them to live and be treated as animals.

  During the past 3 weeks in our humanities course, we have been focusing on the idea of human rights, how they came to be, why they are there, and how they impact our lives. Recently, we have been concentrating on the more specific but largely known issue of the African slave trade. This unit has been very interesting and I have been wondering how The Scramble for Africa was the only way to ‘deal’ with the African continent and the African people and if the colonization of Africa by Europeans really contributed towards its development today.

I wonder how The Scramble for Africa was the only way to ‘deal’ with the African continent and the African people, when it was a clear violation of almost all of the human rights of today. I do not see why Europe had any permission to invade Africa and call the general population savages, then proceed to “civilize” them. The term civilization is defined as the stage of human social development and organization, which is considered most advanced. This definition completely contradicts the so-called “civilization” that the Europeans brought to Africa. African society and culture had no orderly function during and shortly after the centuries of slavery forced upon them.

 All the years of slavery were exploited by European nations to become wealthier states and therefore become more developed through the resources of Africa.  Let use take Nigeria as an example, now it is the most rapidly developing nation in all of Africa, this is because the nation is able to harness its resources in its favor. 300 years of natural resources that could have been used to improve each culture had gone to nations such as France and Britain.

                 The term Coldless is defined as the planet wide freedom, peace, and happiness among nations and people. A Coldless world is an existence where social division is void and equality is all. This is a reality that could not possibly exist as the foremost methods of achieving this utopian society are, attaining one true ideology and equality between everyone and everything. Due to the fact that no matter whom a person is and what their background is, there will eternally be conflicting beliefs.

               One of the two major methods to live in a Coldless world is for every human to give up their own beliefs for a singular worldwide ideology. This ideology, must explain why there are moons and stars, what the purpose of mankind is, what is sinful and true, and what is to come from, in the future. This almost seems like a religion, but could also be based upon the belief no celestial beings. We could definitely not be allowed to have any sort of freedom because as James madison explains, “part of the creation of the American constitution, said: ‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary.’ But of course we are not angels, and so we need government. There’s plenty of evidence to support this basic claim: wars between nations and crimes within societies to start with”(Madison). This statement significantly supports other sources that state man has a sinful nature (Old testament).

               The second of two major methods to life in a Coldless world is to create a system that makes everybody and everything equal from the beginning of its/his or her lifetime until the end of it. And the issue with this method is that humans will never be equal, no matter the effort that is put into it. Whether it is genetic differentiation or mental differentiation, no human being will have the ability to think the same ideas and dreams as another human. There will always be a difference in thought or ability that will eventually lead to conflict. The one way to create a world with equality as its purpose is to live in a realm similar to that form the novel “The Giver”. Once that point in control has been reached, everything that has made us human is abolished. We would no longer have culture or individuality, we would think and work like a hive of ants where everyone is working only for the purpose of the colony. But due to mans sinful and lustful nature, it almost makes it impossible for humans to work for anything but themselves (Studymode).

  Article 1 CNN

Article 2 Aljazeera

State the reliable information found in the article

1.The reliable information found in the article states that Russia is trying to stop war, while Putin did not mention the fact that Russia is a huge arms dealer with Syria.

2.The reliable information found in this article states that Putin is making the right choice for the wrong intentions.

Selecting interesting words/ideas presented

1.That Putin is just trying everything in his power to stop the attacks.

2.That Putin has been Assad’s arms dealer with China since the civil war began.

List the biases being used

1.The main biases being used in this article are clear and are the bias of Nationalism, word choice and conservative bias.

2.The main biases being used in this article are not too noticeable but are liberalism and story framing.

State whether the article seems more liberal, conservative or neutral

1.This article seems a more conservative, because it convinces the viewers (Americans) that Putin’s perspective on change and peace is wrong, and the only right thing to do is side with Obama.

2.This article is more liberal because it is somewhat agreeing with Putin’s perspective on change and peace. They agree that violence and force will not lead to anything less than war.

Between the two sources (CNN and Aljazeera), I believe that Aljazeera was more convincing. Even though they were both biased, the article on Aljazeera was more liberal. Between both the articles, Aljazeera used a wide variety of facts and statements, and that is why that article seemed most convincing. Most of the time the article would use quotes from Putin’s article to support their argument, just like when Putin said it was alarming that it internal conflicts in countries had become a “commonplace” for the United States (Putin pens Syria appeal for Americans). The article shows how common it is for America to become part of a country’s internal conflict, but also it shows how it is wrong for the United States to take part in such activities. This article also seemed more convincing due to the amount of arguments they possessed. The Aljazeera article used many perspectives from other countries and the UN itself to explain why they sided with Putin. They explained how the UN was even against the military action, or how attacking Syria was stir up many more issues around the Middle East. The article expresses how Obama’s opinion was invalid as he is attacking Syria to stop the mass civilian casualties, but by attacking Syria civilian casualties will be inevitable. I agree with the statements proposed in this article because they have meaning to them and show that not one or two, but many countries agree with this proposal. The reason why CNN’s article did not convince me, was because its blatant bias for Nationalism. Even the title suggests that he is against the country by being against Obama. The article says that, “Putin has made his argument clear, he wants nothing to do with force. But that is the opposite of what we are hearing from the president. He says to get any diplomatic solution out there you need to keep military action” (Putin jabs U.S., Obama in op-ed, says Syria strike would be 'act of aggression'). I bolded some words that had some clear bias. Opposite is used to say that Putin’s claim is completely wrong, we is used to emotionally get to the readers and reveal that their beliefs and the reporters beliefs are the same. President is used instead of Obama because it is reminding the readers that Obama is the leader and his choices are the right ones. This clear bias is what deterred me from believing in this article.

I found the Aljazeera article more interesting because they sided with Putin and then did not, this is because they agreed with his claim at the beginning but near the end the tone changes to “we think that he is doing this for the wrong intention”. The wrong intention being that Putin does not want anything to happen to Assad, because Russia is a large arms dealer to him. And thus Assad is large economic necessity.  This went on while CNN was just putting down Putin’s arguments with statements from Obama, so it felt like the article was written from a patriot in America. 

          The Conflict in Syria is the problem I have chosen for the tracking an issue project. The civil war in Syria has been going on since the 15th of March 2011, and has escalated to the point where Chemical warfare is being used. The UN has been involved in this conflict for good amount of time. This is a debated issue all over the world and certainly many articles and videos made by the media have some bias in them about this international crisis.

          This is a very interesting issue mainly because it is international and has a profound impact on many countries, mainly those is close proximity to Syria. These countries include Iran, Israel, Syria, and Hezbollah (a regime). This issue will have so many angles that the story can be told form. Such as why the US is attacking, if the US is even going to attack, what will happen after the US attacks, and why is it even necessary to attack (who benefits form the attacks). I am interested in tracking it because it is also a big debate in the UN and I am part of the MUN comity at LCS, so there are constant mock debates with the some of the main topics being on conflicts in the Middle East. This is also going to expand my knowledge on the subject and it will help me in many ways.