Born of mixed race, Obama incorporates his multiracial family into the stereotypes and prejudices that deprive our country from reaching true equality. He utilizes his own family decent to express the many racial issues that black and whites have towards each other, conveying his idea that each race is as responsible for stereo types and discrimination as the other. For an example, minorities are trying to over come their past of oppression, while whites have repressed resentment for the social advantages that minorities receive.
As an example of a true leader of equality, Obama refers to his minister. Even though his child hood preacher lacked the hope for change of the society, he believed in equality for man kind and loving one another as thy brother. This means to help each other through struggles instead of acknowledging other persons adversities as a personal problem. His minister practiced the action of selflessness and viewing races as all equal.
Obama focuses on the main wall that is keeping our country back, which is race inequality and discrimination. Instead of focusing on anger displacement, we should all appraise one another's backgrounds and come together to develop solutions for a brighter future for the next generation. In unison, our country can then create change, for the best. Even though Obama has been looked down upon at because of his idealistic views, I believe that thinking in a positive mind set is the one factor that our country needs. Do you believe that Obama's methods to strive for a better future are reachable?
I feel that this reading is very important to all humans on the face of this earth. Breast cancer has become very serious now then ever before. More and more women are being diagnosed with breast cancer. So many families are losing beloved mothers, daughters, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, and cousins. The other sad part about is that chemicals in the air may be the cause of this deadly cancer. There are plenty of other cancers that have been proven that it was caused by certain chemicals in the air. We're killing ourselves! Without I believe that these things are known in advance, but yet they're still released without any care about the earth's atmosphere which if harmed will effect all humans. I feel this way because cigarettes are deadly. I like to call them cancer sticks. The company who makes them have no problem with increasing the effectiveness of the nicotine to make it order to quit smoking, so that customers will continue to buy only to make a profit. Its no okay to walk up to someone and kill them, but its legal to kill millions of people to make a profit. So I really like this reading. It caused me to do a lot of thinking. Sometimes I just wonder if America really cares about it's citizens' welfare?
I think that Williams touches on a controversial topic in her writing. We have all heard about the Red Scare and the Black Lists that took place in the 1950s-60s; a dark hour in our countries' history in which if you didn't go with the flow (so to speak), you were obviously a Communist. It's funny to think of this after growing up into today's society, seems almost unfathomable, that the leaders of our country believed this. Today, differences are what make us the wonderful country that we are. We are all valued aspects of a growing nation.
Williams' story is compelling and somewhat tragic all at the same time. It is horrible to think of the the amount of loss her family has had over the years, that because of our government's ignorance in the past, people have died. How could they have deemed this legal? It is amazing what a few years of research can do to a country, but it is crazy to think that this happened to hundreds/thousands of Americans not too long ago.
Was she right in standing up for what she believed in even though, technically it was against the law? Do we shy away from what we truly believe by fear of being 'black listed' by our peers? Although we might be able to predict the outcome, is it okay to let issues as this slip through the cracks when they can possibly be prevented? One voice can make a difference.
This all plays back to our original question of social justice. Are we 'just' in questioning our government and the laws in which they pose? Do we let something happen even though it is wrong? Williams' parents knew that the cause for all the illnesses were because of the bomb testings that had occurred years before, were they wrong in not questioning authority?Or were they law abiding citizens who did not want to undermine authority?
In “The Clan of One Breasted Women” Terry Tempest Williams informs us of the plight the women in her family have faced. Several members of her family have died from breast cancer and she believes that it was caused by the nuclear testing done in Nevada during the Cold War. Williams also informs us what it was like to grow up in a Mormon household. They were taught never to question authority and that they were to keep their feelings to themselves. Williams feels this blind following of authority lead to no one questioning the Federal Government on the testing nuclear weapons on our own soil and that this practice contributed to the deaths of many civilians. In 1988 Williams trespassed on a government testing facility Nevada and was arrested while making a stand for what she believed in. The lesson learned is that more people should stand up for what is right when they see an injustice in the world. How can we incorporate this in our everyday lives? And are we willing to stand up against something we know is wrong, even if there are consequences for doing so? If we all could answer yes to both of those questions, I believe the world would be a better place.
Tempest Williams wrote about the history of cancer in her family and how it pertained to people being part of a obedient silence to the government that controls them. When I first started reading I did not know where she was going with the family history and was very suprised to find out what she thinks caused the pattern of breast cancer in ther community. What caught my eye the most was, "The fear and inability to quesiton authority that ultimately killed rural communities in Utah during atmospheric testing of atomic weapons was the same fear I saw being held in my mother's body. Sheep. Dead sheep. The evidence is buried." I think this is such a strong statement because sheep are just herded around and don't question where they are going or what their purpose is. It made me question whether or not the government planned to do this kind of testing in an area like this because they knew that a lot of peope that belonged to the Church of the Latter Day Saints lived there and did not think they would cause a problem or if this was just a coincidence. But it also shows that anyone, even people whose religion teaches them to be quietly obedient, would see that this is something that should be questioned. So, how far can things go and how bad can they get for people to question the authority that is supposed to be looking out for them? She even gives examples of how the government officials at the time denied that the tests were causing people problems or bad at all for the area. This shows that you cannot always settle for what people tell you and as part of a society in which the people in power are supposed to have your best interests in mind, it is never too late or not right to question what they are doing and ask for compensation when they come up short.
In this Reading Terry Tempest Williams' family has a long history of cancer. What she suspects, and probably rightfully so, is that atomic testing in Utah is causeing cancer within her family, particularly the women. She is a Mormon and, despite the fact that Mormons are strict believers in civil obedience, Terry and other women take a stand. These protests land some women in jail and others stranded in the desert (which did not bother them considering this was where they grew up). Whether or not her protests made a difference or not I think they where definately in order, because what the government was doing was infact harming American citizens. I seriously doubt their intention was to cause harm to people, but their lack of research and attention to detail showed recklesness. It takes people like Terry sometimes to stand up for what is right. We know there are times we should stand up for what is right and protest like this one, but a question we need to ask ourselves is: what difference will it make if I stand up and do the right thing, and if it does not make a difference, is it worth the reprecusion anyway?
In "The Clan of One-Breasted Women" the author discusses nuclear testing in Utah and the negative effects it has had on her family and others. In the writing she describes how she came from a family which nearly every member suffered cancer and was not quite sure the reason until her father explained to her about the nuclear testing that caused the cancer. She has a dream in which women stand up for their rights and cross military boundaries to make a stand and reclaim the desert for themselves and their family. This dream inspires her to stand up for her rights and boycott the nuclear testing. This gets her arrested, but through this she felt as if she is making a step in the right direction. After being released in the middle of nowhere in the desert with fellow activists she states that, "we were home"(Williams). Amongst a society that was conforming to government rules, these few women stood up for what they believed was right. So, could you do the same? And does it even make a difference at all?
This excerpt by Terry Tempest Williams is an inspiring story about someone who is brave enough to question what she's always been told. She grew up thinking that the women in her family were contracting breast cancer due to bad genes, but with further investigation found that a nearby bomb test site was likely the cause. She states that "Tolerating blind obedience in the name of patriotism or religion ultimately take our lives." Most everything we know to be true today was once frowned upon by those who were satisfied with what they were told to believe and nothing more.
Williams not only questioned what she was taught but sacrificed in order to learn more and spread awareness to others. The government was wrong to lie to its people so as to avoid compensating for their losses. They obviously new that there could be harmful repercussions of the bomb testing or they would not have chosen a nearly desolate area to perform the experiments. It's scary to think that they would not at least issue a fair warning to people living nearby that they were about to set off a bomb near their homes.
The United States needs more people like Williams who are brave enough to take action in order to induce change. How far would you go if it were your family who had directly suffered from chemicals released by government experiments?
Like any other civil movement, Williams story demonstrates the power that we as Americans behold. As discussed before in our class, it was written in the constitution for citizens to be able to overturn the government when American's do not feel well represented. But actually initiating in that activity is easier said then done. Many people sit around and complain about things they disapprove of, but it's the people who come together and raise awareness that bring about change. The government had chosen areas of Utah as testing sights for nuclear bombs because it was more remote and uninhabited, but it was still unfair for the people that did reside in those areas to reap the consequences of the governments actions. So against their upbringing and religion, Williams and "the clan of one-breasted women" rose to the challenge of fighting for what was just. And in the end, they succeeded. When it comes to exercising our right to overturn the government, all we are taught is of the "major" movements: Black rights, Women's rights, even rights discuss by Williams. But the constitution does not limit the "significance" of what American's disapprove of, meaning it does not have to be a violation of a "major" right to be retaliated against the government, but ANY. So if significance is irrelevant what are other issues that might need to be acted against, but we feel aren't important enough to?
This writing details the hardships of a family and a community in a zone where nuclear bombs were tested. Honestly, I have never heard of this before. I had no idea that there were people in the United States that were victims of nuclear radiation. It renews a cynical attitude towards our government in me. I'm not against nuclear testing, especially in this time period where it was necessary to keep up with the Soviets for the sake of national security, but couldn't it have been done a different way. Even if there was no completely desolate area available, the people could have been relocated.
It was new information to me when I read that at one time, there had supposedly been no consensus that nuclear radiation caused cancer. Where they really unsure about this, or was the government just making an excuse? The government claimed to have such sovereignty that it could apparently throw away your life at a whim if it liked, for military purposes. This is the same rationale that went into the draft of just before that period, and the draft may be viewed upon as a more necessary evil, but many more soldiers lost their lives in World War II than I'm sure died of nuclear radiation during the cold war. Preventative is better than cure. Again, I believe nuclear testing was necessary, but that the government should not have been so careless about it.
In "The Clan of One-Breasted Women", the narrator talked about how nuclear bomb tests conducted around her home town caused cancer for many people. She discussed how it was part of her family's faith to stay quiet and obedient, even if their thoughts were the correct thing to do. She talks about how her and nine other women went against that eventually and protested against the bombings. Years later, the bombings stopped, as told in the beginning of the story. This form of protesting also helped during the civil rights movement. Results were not seen immediately in either of these cases, but they eventually worked years later. So my question is, are extraordinary forms of protest the way to get your point across when nobody will listen?
Terry Williams' "The Clan of One-Breasted Women" is about the affects that nuclear testing had on her family. Her mother and grandmother, and several other people within their Nevada community, died from cancer. Williams' believed that the nuclear testing that the country did in Nevada during the late 1950's was responsible for making people sick.
I really liked the part that said "Public health was secondary to national security." "Gentlemen we must not let anything interfere with these series of tests, nothing." I feel like almost 60 years later we are still in the same boat. Public health remains secondary to national security even though public health is much more of a concern, and it kills so many more people than any national security threat.
I also liked the part when she talked about the woman who testified in court saying that she didn't want money. She just wanted testing to stop in order to spare others lives. You can complain about something until you are blue in the face, but sadly, the government and people in power will ignore you until it is too late. To me, the fact that she didn't want compensation means that she really deserved it. The testing had to have played a part in her family dying from cancer.
Why is there so much red tape involved in anything that is actually good for our country, yet when it comes to starting a war, nuclear testing, or anything with big money backing it, we never question a thing?
I think that my question kind of answers itself. Anything that has money behind it will prevail over the good. And, people don't care about something until it affects them. I know I'm guilty of it too. It just seems like we all need to start thinking about the long term affects of our decisions.
In "The Clan of One-Breasted Women" Terry Tempest Williams discusses her opinion that nuclear bomb testing in the 50's and 60's is to blame for the prevalence of cancer in her family. While she makes a good argument about the possibility of this happening, I find it difficult to believe that every occurrence of cancer in her family can be blamed on this. When she finds out her dream of the bright light is true her father tells her "The bomb. The cloud. We were driving home from Riverside, California. You were sitting on your mother's lap. She was pregnant." In the beginning she blames 7 deaths on the nuclear testing, although her mother was the only death that was in the car at the time. She never tells us how far the family lived from the testing, only that at this time they were traveling. Williams makes a good argument about having blind faith in government and religion. She says, "Tolerating blind obedience in the name of patriotism or religion ultimately takes our lives." It is always important to remember that having faith in something is a good thing, but it is never good to follow something that you cannot make sense of on your own. Do people today seem more inclined to blindly follow what they are instructed to do?
In reading Terry Tempest Williams' "The Clan of One-Breasted Women," I was strongly reminded of Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed. Like Ehrenreich, Williams seems to be a fan of employing pathos (the appeal to an audience's emotions):
"I watched the women in my family die common, heroic deaths. We sat in waiting rooms hoping for good news, always receiving the bad. I cared for them, bathed their scarred bodies....I held their foreheads as they vomited green-black bile and I shot them with morphine when the pain became inhuman. In the end, I witnessed their last, peaceful breaths, becoming midwife to the rebirth of their souls" (94).
The language in this passage is very powerful and the imagery is extremely vivid, procuring from the reader a sense of empathy and disgust at the possible effects of nuclear testing. While I am fairly certain this is what Williams wished to accomplish with her article, does she push the limit? Is this yet another example of abusing the rhetorical device of pathos, or does the subject matter require such a strong use of it?
Terry Tempest Williams had several relatives that died from cancer. She was convinced that nuclear test done in the 50's and 60's were to blame for the deaths of her relatives. Though she could not prove that the test were the reason, she said that she could also not prove it. The clan of One-Breasted Women is an organization of women that are thought to have been affected by the nuclear fallout through their mothers. They want to be united with the earth arround them and feel they carry the burden of the burning desert. She speaks of how she is one with the land and how she is part of the land. These test, she is convinced, have caused hundreds of cases of cancer. She even states how it took 14 years for her mother to show the symptoms of cancer. This directly correlates to what Howard L. Andrews, an authority of nuclear fallout, says it takes for nuclear fallout symptoms to occur. If the nuclear fallout is most definitely the reason for causing the cancer then is it necessary for the people affected to be compensated?
In this journal, Terry Tempest Williams dwells upon a reoccurring dream of a "bright light in the desert". Her father reveals that her dream had been real life. The bright light happened to be a mushroom cloud. Williams' fore mothers were victims of, not this particular cloud, but of many radioactive bombs performed. Women in her family have all suffered a form of breast cancer due to this true nightmare. The government at the time silently perceived that health was secondary to the patriotism of our nation. Instead of creating a safer way to make weapons of war, the government hid or did not acknowledge the danger and health effects of the bomb testings in the deserts. Many of these issues were brought to court from the concerned American citizens, but there was still no sign of improvement. It wasn't until May 10, 1984, when federal court realized that the nuclear testings were harmful. Unfortunately, by that time the government was invulnerable or "immune" to the deaths caused by these harsh testings.
Williams, a women of Mormon religion, was raised in a more passive culture. Mormons are able to have an opinion on topics yet were only allowed to bury these thoughts with in their souls, never to share with another. Her mother stated "Just let it go... you know how you feel and thats what counts". After a lifetime of oppressing her voice, Williams came to the conclusion that we should not hide what we truly believe in by become "immune" to the wrongs in society. As cliche as it sounds, we should stand up for our rights and stand our ground. Terry had another reoccurring dream of the mothers taking back the lands of the desert, which symbolized taking back mother nature before it was tainted by lies of the government and nuclear bombings. She then had the courage and guidance to not let "obedience sway her in tolerating the lives taken by religion or patriotism" by trespassing the Nevada test site to take back the land for her fore mothers.
I completely understand and agree with T. Williams' main point of the story. We should never agree or form immunities towards actions that we know are wrong, even if that means to go against the authority. We should take advantage of our weapons of opinions and thoughts to protest against injustice. If there weren't any radical thinkers or courageous ones to protest for what is right, then our country would have never reached change for the better. At what length should we wait until "the price of obedience became to high" to finally take action in what we truly believe is right?
As I read Nickled and Dimed, Ehrenreich makes certain arguments and suggests that the idea that the middle to upper class has of why the poor are poor is flawed. As I tried to ascertain whether her claims had any truth behind them, I found that I simply didn't know enough, and this in itself helps to prove her point. Yes, I've worked fast-food before, but never because my livlihood depended on it, and never with the idea that this was the best job I was ever going to get.
Ehrenreich was apparently unable to even support herself without dipping into a fund that a minimum wage worker would not even have. I decided to do some quick research and math to figure out how much it would really cost, living with the bare essentials (Apartment Rental Rates). The cheapest apartment rates I found were $493 monthly. For food, ramen noodles are probably the cheapest you could get. If you buy in bulk you can be eating for about 10 cents per meal. Add in the price of gas and car insurance. I'll say $300 a month. I suppose we really need health insurance, so add in $250 monthly for that and add all of that together to get about one thousand dollars a month. Minimum wage is $7.50, so at that price, you'd need to work a little more than 5 hours assuming taxes take 10 percent of what you make. That's just to break even. You could work ten hour days, save a thousand dollars every month, get your G.E.D., and learn some kind of trade to get out of this mess.
All of that being said, the biggest variable is apartment rate. In cities like New York the rate is too high for any minimum wage worker to possibly pay themselves (Apartment Rental Rates). I think it's not so much about working hard as working smart, and living in an impoverished environment, a person might not have as much sense about managing their money. They might never stop to think, "Hey, if I moved out of NYC I might not be struggling to make ends meat," becuase they haven't been exposed to enough enrichment. I hope I've illustrated that living in and even getting out of poverty is at least financially doable, although there is one more thing to consider, which I don't have an answer to, which is whether even a minimum wage job could be obtained. I think becuase of minimum wages, the human market is kept artificially high, which causes many of the poor to be unable to obtain minimum wage jobs. I'm not saying to abolish minimum wages; I don't think there's an easy solution to this. I just know that some people can't get jobs at all.
In Nickel and Dimed Ehrenreich discusses her experiences as a minimum-wage worker. She is correct about the rigorous work a lot of low income jobs require. However, in this piece she makes the assumption that all low income workers work this hard, and that higher income people do not. I disagree with this point of view. There are plenty of low income workers who work hard and care about their job, but there are also plenty that do not take pride in their work or care about the quality. Her point of view hints that higher income people were just born into it, and have never had to work hard for what they have. Many of these people have worked hard and taken great risks to achieve what they have. She also says the minimuim wage should be raised, when many economists have proven this only reduces the number of jobs available. I like Ehrenreich's blunt and to the point writing, but I don't think scrubbing toilets for a year gives you the insight to change federal policy.
Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed confronts some of the norms we have about work and social status. Too often, we think of the poor and homeless as lazy, but many times much of the working poor is write along side them, making next to nothing doing fairly tedious work. This piece sets off to challenge some of our norms by showing a woman who begins a period where she enters the world of the working poor on her own accord. The piece asks the audience to challenge some of these long held views. I really liked the author's honesty and frankness in the piece, and it was a highly unique piece to read.
I have mad respect forBarbara Ehrenreich. She humbled herself to learn what it really means to make only a minimum wage. Yes, minimum wage is barely enough to pay utility bills. Those who make more money, have no idea what it feels like to struggle financially. Most of the time those who make minimum wage receive such paid because they didn't or just cannot do any better. It's always a plus when any individual put themselves in someone elses shoes in order to understand more about them, instead of just judging. Since these types of things do occur in the world today, the government could show some consideration, and try to make things better for their citizens. Although many earn minimum wage, they shouldn't be look down on in a negative perspective. There are plenty of single parents in the world, and they do their best to provide for their children. Some even work 2-3 jobs to try and give their kids the neccessitites of life. It's never easy to struggle financially.
This reading is probably one of my favorites. Ehrenreich puts her life on the line by becoming a part of the working class to get the full experience. She describes many day to day situations of the dirtiest and worst parts of her job in order to explain the actual life of a low paid worker. Even though these situations are very common and happen everyday, they seem new to us in a sense that we have not all experienced the struggles and hardships of the working class. The middle and high class of society tend to not appreciate the sacrifice of the working people unless they themselves have started from that point and made it up to where they are today. The classes typically believe that it is the less unfortunate classes fault by not taking advantage of their opportunities and are being lazy. In reality, we are not all given the same opportunities or live a different life to where the education of higher living never came about or never seemed like an option. We are all born in different circumstances that for some, may not be as easy or as obvious to get out of. Also, if it weren't for the sacrifice for the working class, than the higher class could not live as luxuriously. Society tends to take for granted of the people who work for a living by labeling them as the "working poor", but to be honest they should be appraised for working so hard. The working class of society are hardworkers who appreciate "nickels and dimes"which should be a positive way of looking at life for society.
I believe that working for nickels and dimes is a way to appreciate your own hard work which most of the time leads a greater happiness. This greater happiness helps you notice the little things in life are the ones that count the most, so maybe we can all learn a thing or two from the "hardworkers" in society.
How can one show appreciation for these hardworkers?
"I grew up hearing over and over, to the point of tedium, that "hard work" was the secret of success: "Work hard and you'll get ahead" or "It's hard work that got us where we are." No one ever said that you could work hard-harder even than you ever though possible-and still find yourself sinking ever deeper into poverty and debt." This quote from Barbara Ehrenreich'sNickel and Dimedsums up what she was attempting to explain throughout her book. What Ehrenreich exposes seems deceptively simple, hard work does not always lead to success. As Americans we are taught that if an individual works hard enough they will obtain the American dream. This type of thinking has lead to class elitism from those "hard workers" who have been lucky enough to rise above the statistics of poverty. Ehrenreich's book is important because of the type of debate that it fosters. The topic of hard work not necessarily raising people out of poverty is a taboo subject but one that needs to be address and because of people like Ehrenreich this debate is beginning to happen. My question is this, what type of work is truly valued in America and why are certain types of work valued more?
This reading was a real eye opener to what it's like to be part of the "working poor." Barbara Ehrenreich choses to live off of minimum wage for a couple of years as a sort of social experiment, and even this small excerpt of her story reveals how unbelievably difficult it must be to work so hard for so little pay.
Not everyone is presented with the same opportunities to succeed. People are born with all different IQ's and personalities, and into all kinds of different environments; we don't all begin the race of life at the same starting line. Many people chose to ignore this, but it's what makes us all different.
I feel as if privileged people often justify the fact that the working poor work so hard for so little by saying, "Well, you should have gotten an education." Yes, an education is attainable, but it is so much more easily attained by those who have been taught its value.
In my opinion, there is nothing more respectable than hard work. Our society could not function without these people, and they deserved to be at least recognized as being just as essential as doctors and lawyers. As Ehrenreich writes, "the appropriate emotion is shame-shame at our own dependency, in this case, on the underpaid labor of others."
How can we help these people? I feel as if only good things can come out of paying them more. It not only provides initiative, but hard work should be rewarded regardless of whether it requires brain power or elbow grease.
Nickle and Dimed #4 In this excerpt from Nickle and Dimed Barbara Ehrenreich writes about or societies unappreciation for the working lower class citizens. I always try to keep an open mind when reading someone’s opinion, but there are a few things Ehrenreich says (or does not say) that keep me from agreeing with her. She says how hard many poor people work for not very much money, and then compares them to an unappreciative upper middle and upper class. And she is right; many poor people do work very hard, but so do many upper class citizens. Take doctors for example. Most doctors dedicate the majority of their lives to medicine. That includes going to school from kindergarten until they are nearing or in their thirties. Then they work to pay off student loans from so much school. Other similar examples are lawyers, chemical engineers, college professors, business managers, and various types of salesmen. All of these people have worked hard since they were in school and should not feel, as Elrenreich puts it, shame. I understand that not everyone has equal opportunity and as a nation we need to strive to reach that goal someday, but how can a man or woman who has worked hard their entire life to earn a good job feel shame that someone else gets paid to clean a bathroom. I do share Elrenreich’s opinion in that it does not matter if someone is poor, wealthy, or somewhere in between they should be treated with common respect. But I feel in this excerpt she did not give the working middle to upper class the respect they deserve.
In the excerpt from Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenriech, Barbara informs us of what it is like to live the life of the working class poor after taking two years off from her own affluent life to be employed as a minimum wage worker. She also effectively points out how it is easy for people of higher income classes to not appreciate the amount and difficulty of the work that minimum wage employees endure. However, I do not agree with her suggestion that the minimum wage needs to be raised so people can sustain themselves solely on a minimum wage job. Raising the minimum wage will force employers to do one of two things, neither of which is very good for the overall economy. One, the employer will have to lay off employees to become more efficient in the production of the product. In this case unemployment rises, and the people that were once working for minimum wage now have no source of income. The second option is that the owner raises the cost of the product to compensate for the increased cost of the labor. In this case, inflation rises and the worker is back in the same spot he or she was to begin with, because although the worker is making more money, the buying power of money has decreased. The question that we should be asking is how do we make these people’s hard work more appreciated? And how do we afford these people that are working so hard the opportunity to learn more job skills to better their earning potential? These are hard questions to answer because I do not think you can ever to get someone to truly appreciate what these people go through in their day to day lives without experiencing it themselves. And even if courses or job trainings are offered to the working poor for free, how do they make the time go? However, the only sure way to earn a sustainable income is to differentiate oneself from the rest of the workforce.
I'm not real sure what to say about this reading. There are definitely ups and downs, through out this article. One thing that is for sure, is I do sympathize for people who work extremely hard just to barely get by, but at the same time I do not think that the minimum wage system is corrupt, or unfair because without it employers would pay even lower wages to workers for the same job. A plus to minimum wage in America is that it is continually growing, which is also good considering inflation rates. But at the same time I have to question the reasons why people find themselves in these "hard" predicaments. Whether or not you are born into a poor or rich family, you still have the same opportunity to go to school including college--it's the luxuries that makes the differences. Me personally, I have had a privileged life setting and always knew if I didn't get the TOPS scholarship or any scholarship for that matter, I knew I could still attend college because of my parents or even with loans. The same opportunity is available for all high-schoolers throughout the US--maybe not TOPS specifically--but where there is a will there is a way. Some of the people today made the choice not to do things with their life that has led to them having to accept minimum wage and hard labor. Nothing comes easy, and even if a single individual was born into wealth, it came from someone who originally started out without anything. So although I sympathize I cannot fully say that it's unfair. So for my inquiry I'm asking the question: If everyone is given the same opportunities by way of the government and life, can any of this truly be as unjust as it may seem to the less-fortunate?
The division of the working class is basically what Ehrenreich is addressing. She describes a world where she takes lower class jobs and experiences that the job came with. These experiences were part of her reasearch for book "Nickel and Dimed." There are differences in class because of several different reason. First, you could be born into a family where you are taught to submit to authority and obey the rules. Or, secondly, you could be born into a family where you are taught to think on a higher level, question authority and question why things are done. Both of these are ultimately how the seperation of class happens. The people that are taught to "obey" are usually the manual workers and the uneducated. Yet, the people taught to think for themselves are the ones that are born in the upper class. Also, distribution of power, which ultimately decides what you will do in life, is aquired by those who have more ability. Ability usually abounds within the upper class. Example, having the ability to attend higher education and better one's self. This does not undermind the lower classes the least. Usually people in the lower class will work their way out of what they have to better themselves and not do what their parents did. This transition is very important in the developement of society for reasons such as: working to accomplish something that no one thinks you can do, working to develope the skills that you need to succeed, and working to better one's self. People are at different levels and things are different for these reasons above. the question is, what would you change about the way things are done?
In an excerpt from her book Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich brings to her readers' attention the problem of a too-low minimum wage through her use of descriptive language. In the introduction, it is stated that Ehrenreich "considers language a weapon" (240), and this is shown in several of her phrases:
- "[T]heir floors are cleaned only with the purest of fresh human tears" (241). - "That's not your marble bleeding,...it's the worldwide working class" (241). - "Here, sweat is a metaphor for hard work, but seldom its consequence" (242).
These three simple quotations are extremely poignant, appealing to the rhetorical device of pathos (the appeal to the emotions of the audience). The language Ehrenreich uses evokes strong language of hard work and suffering; it creates empathetic characters, appealing to the readers' sense of justice.
In his Rhetoric, Aristotle writes, "It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity" (Bk. I, Ch. 1). In other words, Aristotle believes that while pathos does have a small place in the rhetorical tradition, it is the most base of rhetorical devices - that it is dishonorable to manipulate an audience's emotions too much. Does Ehrenreich do this? In her appeal to pathos, does she overstep any boundaries?
What an interesting read! I love how initially she states , " I am always prepared to be surprised by my research and ready to go where it takes me, even if that doesn't fit with my starting assumptions and convictions". That in itself caught my attention and in my opinion is what makes a great writer. When someone can leave behind what they know about their world and look at the world in the eyes of another, that is when true understanding and compassion sets in.
She talks about how she was a maid briefly along with some other minimum wage jobs. I found her descriptions of the '3 types of shit stains' to be HILARIOUS!!(so much that I had to stop and read them to my boyfriend).
It is so true though, you do not necessary understand the work that is done before you appear into situations. Before I became a server or before I worked in retail, I didn't understand the amount of 'background' work that goes into it. And I agree with her in that we should not perceive those that obtain such jobs as below par or be disgusted assuming that they are just living off of the government.
I believe that there are so many cases where single mothers are forced to depend on welfare, not because they want to, but because of the sanctions of our society. Pulling yourself out of debt is difficult and most people don't, but assuming people are being lazy is the wrong way to think.
I really enjoyed reading about how Barbara Ehrenreich, an upper-class woman, dropped everything to live in the life of the lower-class for two years. This was alarming because I do not believe that I can think of anyone who would willingly give up a perfectly good lifestyle just to experience life at the bottom. A part that really stuck out to me was when Ehrenreich stated, "The poor can see the affluent easily enough- on television, for example, or on the covers of magazines. But the affluent rarely see the poor" (Ehrenreich, 243). This is something that makes complete sense, but also something that I had never really thought about before. I agree with Ehrenreich in that people take for granted the things in life that are made possible by workers who can not afford to enjoy these things themselves. I also found it interesting how she makes the point that the people who work the hardest in life are usually struggling to get by (Ehrenreich, 243). This is ironic because you most often pair hard work with success, when in reality most of the people at the top are just their because they were lucky and were born into an upper-class family. Of course, this is not true for all cases but I feel that this is true more times than not, especially with politics. Ehrenreich is really trying challenge everyone and make them think to themselves whether or not they could handle a lifestyle at the bottom of the food chain. So, could you?
Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed talked about her experience temporarily working a maid. During that period, she earned minimum wage. She also gained a new respect for women who work minimum wage jobs, especially those with children.
My favorite part of the reading was the part that says "No one ever said that you could work hard -harder even than you ever thought possible -and still find yourself sinking ever deeper into poverty and debt."
I completely agree with her thoughts about how it isn't fair for someone to hard at something and not be able to support himself. Minimum wage cannot supply a person with enough money to support himself, and this is what so many people don't understand. It isn't fair. And, it should be a surprise to people why the welfare system is out of control. People are rewarded for doing nothing, and they are punished for working. I feel like most of the problems America faces right now is because of this problem. People in the working poor cannot afford or has the time to provide their family with a good, healthy meal. And, they probably cannot afford health insurance either, which all plays a part in our health care system. And, the shaky health care system plays a huge part in our economy.
How can we make people/employers understand the importance of paying people a salary that they can live off of?
I don't have a perfect answer to this question, but I do think that something is the country will give-in soon. I think if people do not realize the burden placed on these people, they will soon be forced to realize it.
It was really funny reading the part about the upper class shedding their pubic hair at an alarming rate. A couple of summers' ago, I worked offshore for a catering company. My job was to clean all the rooms and restrooms for the people on the oil rig. These toilets had so much hair on them, I wondered if these people shaved above the toilet at times. I never shed hair on my toilet but maybe that will start happening once I finish school and start making "real" money (That was a joke). Anyways, I thought it was really cool for her to try living in a minimum wage worker, but she really did not get the full experience. Many of these minimum wage workers have kids and have to worry about being laid off. She was able to control factors like the ones' I just mentioned. I know upper class people hate when the lower class complains because they feel as though they have earned the write to live a privileged life. While this is true for a huge percentage of the upper class, many of them are upper class just because of who they know (Their parents, friends, etc). That is the way of the world. However, lower class people have the opportunity to work their way up from nothing these days. I can name countless examples of this, and I feel I will be another example of this in a couple years. There is not much government can do to solve the problems of the lower class, in my opinion. Government certainly can help a lot, but the key to solving the problems of the lower class revolves around parenting and getting children out of bad neighborhoods. Once a child is influenced by the wrong crowd, it's hard to get that child back on the right path. Another child on the wrong path means a growing lower class, and a more powerful upper class.
In this interview Sunaura Taylor discusses how she lives her life with physical disabilities and how society looks upon disabled people. She makes good points about how many people are not very accepting of disabled people in society. Sometimes the way disabled people do things make certain people uncomfortable, but to the disabled person that’s how they live life. That is how they can operate best. She mentions how she can move without her wheel chair but it might not be socially acceptable. This interview reminded me of a professional bass fisherman who is extremely handicapped. I cannot recall his name but by looking at him you would assume there is no way this man can fish. He has no knees, shins, or feet his legs end about mid thigh. He has no left arm (I think it’s his left arm) and his right arm has no elbow or hand. And this man can cast, reel, and catch fish better than most average anglers. My point in bringing him up was that Taylor was talking about using certain parts of her body for tasks that we might not be accustomed to. This bass fisherman uses his chin to steady his rod and nods his head in correlation to his right arm to reel in. It’s really remarkable, and if I was in his situation I hope that I would have the courage to still fish. However my dilemma is that our bodies are made so exact and certain body parts have certain functions. So if we use other parts of our bodies for functions that they were not intended for then there would most likely be consequences. Like Taylor using her mouth to paint, this increases her chances of getting sick by having a foreign object in her mouth unless she periodically sterilizes her paint brush. Or in the fisherman’s case he stands on his nubs (??? not sure on the terminology) all day when fishing because he does not have feet. But our feet are padded and made to withstand our weight were his legs are not. It seems like this could become very painful and begin to cause damage to his legs. So my question is what is the price disabled people are willing to pay to accomplish the things they wish to accomplish? (I assume it would be a very steep price.) Orwould someone who could move unconventionally without a wheel chair really want to if it meant causing harm to their bodies?
Overall, I thought the passage was interesting in that it attempted to approach a subject not often talked about in a radically different approach. I especially enjoyed the opening portions about Taylor's feelings on the definition of walking and what it means to her. I would have to agree with her sentiments that social norms and values can sometimes distort our ideas about even mundane things like this. Nevertheless, I thought some of the interview was a little bit hypocritical. I did not like it when she criticized those people who have had little interaction with the physically disabled and who can be awkward in situations as a result. In these people's defense, I do not consider them bigoted or ignorant in the slightest. How can we hold them responsible for knowing what is the proper protocol for aiding the physically disabled? That said, overall I thought the piece was definitely intriguing and brought a great perspective to the subject.
I think that Taylor brings up a lot of good points in how there sometimes are not as many things in our enviroment that would help out those people with disabilities. But it also seems like she has a negative view of people and this makes her overanalyze something that others may not have noticed. This part of this interview that really struck me was the discussion of how people would feel awkward helping her. She says, "They won't know how to help you and you'll have to explain to them how to help...And it's something looked down upon and not really taken care of in this society when we all need help, when we're all interdependent in all sorts of ways." (196) It really bothers me that she says that helping people is looked down upon down because I think that's completely untrue. I know I personally would want to help someone if I could and I do if I am presented with a situation where my help is needed. I think that in the same way that she wants people to consider that she has a disability, she should consider that not everyone knows exactly what to do and assuming that because they don't know how to help means they don't want to does not seem fair either. So, what about people who do want to help but don't know how? And because you are aware of a situation that may put you at a "disadvantage" does it make you feel like others are judging you or are you just too hard on yourself?
This excerpt from the Examined Life involves an in-depth interview by Judith Butler with an individual, Sunaura Taylor, who has lived with a disability her entire life. She argues that many peoples’ perceptions of the handicapped as restricted and overly dependent are flawed because nobody functions in a manner that is entirely independent. This is an innovative idea, and I can see that it would be beneficial for people to seriously consider her case. However, both Butler and Taylor have a very cynical view of the American public that I do not think is warranted. In fact, I believe this cynicism distracts greatly from her argument. At one point Taylor says, “it was the matter of asking for help, which in this society is looked down upon” (196). In my experiences, most Americans pride themselves on lending a hand to people that ask for help. But the question is: how do we make people comfortable enough to ask for help? Perhaps people need to go out of the way to offer help to all others that need it. This will remove the initial awkwardness of someone asking for help and will lead to everyone feeling more at home in our communities.
I would like to know when this interview took place, because it seems outdated. If this conversation took place recently as in the last 5 years, I would have to say I don't think I would agree with some of what Sunaura Taylor says about society accepting and interacting with disabled people. Personally I have never been anywhere up north, but I know for sure here in Louisiana there is never a side walk without the "ramps" needed by people in wheelchairs, and it's state law that any risen public building has to have ramp access for disabled people in wheel chairs. But I think when Ms. Taylor refers to people "not knowing how to help or interact with the disabled", I think she's mistaken. I don't think its the fact that they don't know how to help, it's that they don't want to. People in today's world are very selfish and rude when it comes to helping people, especially complete strangers. Back a long time ago, it was normal and usual for people to hold doors open for other people and lend a helping hand when another's were full or unable...but now-a-days people are always rushing and don't have time to stop and help. Here in the South (from what I've heard from other people) it is more common to see a gentleman hold doors and offer help than it is up north. But all this scenario changes on when this interview took place. If it took place a longer time ago, yeah I can see where she's coming from about the accessibility being available for people like her. But I still don't think that it's a matter of people not knowing how to help. Seeing someone in a wheelchair is not an intimidating circumstance, especially when compared to other disabilities such as blindness, retardation, and people who can not hear. Yeah people may look at her funny when she does odd things with her mouth, and that was a point I did agree with, the fact that there is a set of "rules" that our body parts are suppose to function by. I'm not real sure there's any question I want to "inquire" about, but I do know it makes me think about our present government. Everything is about minority/majority. The majority of people are able-bodied, therefore leaving disable people in the minority. And because of this there is not a need to have these "disabled-assisting" features within society, or cities (ramps, etc.). And anyone who is considered a minority in government always feels like they're being unaccepted or unimportant or whatever because they're different and require different needs than the majority.
This article really did open my eye to a new issue. There are many cities that are disabled friendly but there are many that are not. In my opinion, Baton Rouge needs to make more sidewalks and curb cuts. This would not only make walking around easier for disabled people, but would make walking and riding bikes easier for able-bodied people. This would possibly make more people use bikes and walking as a means of transporting themselves, which in turn would promote physical fitness and a cleaner environment. What would be the point of driving down the street to the store if you had a clear sidewalk to ride your bike or walk there? Another good point was made in this article. If we had more curb cuts, that would encourage more disabled people to go out for walks more, which would give able-bodied people more of an opportunity to get to know disabled people and their needs. One thing we need to work on as a nation, is putting ourselves in the shoes of someone less fortunate, and trying to understand what they go through so we can do more to help them.
In this interview Sunaura Taylor talks about living her life with a physical disability. I seems like a lot of the thoughts she thinks able-bodied people have about disabled people are simply in her head. When she lived in Brooklyn it may have been different, but I don't know to many people that would have a problem lending a hand to a disabled person. Overall, Taylor does a good job of explaining how small parts of every day life can be a big deal when you are disabled. I think Butler ruined the interview by continually bringing up gender issues and anti-capitalist rhetoric. She states, "That depends on ... the social-service economy not being decimated by the effects of capitalism." This implies that capitalism is somehow making it harder for people with disabilities to live, when in reality our country has been capitalist since it began and it is the most handicapped accessible in the world. Do capitalist societies hinder disabled people?
I am very impressed with this interview. Every thing about it hits reality. What I like the most about it is that, it brought out specific details about how the disabled are viewed in society. Today, many disabled individuals are viewed as abnormal compared to what is considered as culture accepted. Many may not even recognize it, but they may be contributing to those who feel uncomfortable around ones who aren't disabled. Culture can either reject or accept. In some cases, rejection can be unkind. I like the part in the interview when the young lady brought out that we're all dependent on something. This is really true because we can't go through life without needing something or someone. This interview took the word walk to another level and I appreciate the interview.
In this interview we are shown a different way to view people with disabilities or that are impaired. Butler seems to want people to look at disabled people in a different way. She tells how people with disabilities can "creatively do or reinvent movements" that people without disabilities do. In other words we "shouldn't look at them awkwardly when they could be showing us a new way to do things." Our culture is surounded with the idea that disabled people are not normal. It is not necessary to categorize people with disabilities into a different group. After all, aren't we all human? Shouldn't all people we treated with equality and shown the same amount of respect? In my experince it is important to treat people as you would like to be treated. After all isn't that the golden rule? With several options of how we should treat people there should definitly be a right and wrong way. Other than that making facilities available to every type of disability is very important. Having easily accessible facilities is also necessary. My question to you is, what do you think is important for making readily available to things that are most necessary to disabled or impaired people?
Taylor's point of view in life is very intriguing. Her theory gave a new meaning to "a walk in the park". She explains how, as human beings, we all go for our walks for clarity, in a metaphorical sense, and we all have our different dependencies in doing so. We all either need physical, mental support and are dependent some way in another. Also as we take our walks we are all perceived differently through our interdependencies.
Living in San Francisco, Taylor believes that it is the most mobility stabled environment in the U.S. which brings a more disabled populated environment, so being disabled is not so shocking or alarming to people. She feels that it is nice to not be the "pioneer" of the bunch, and that its convenient for people working at stores or coffee shops to offer help rather then her inadvertently creating nervousness for people who are not used to a disabled person. Taylor also points out "how disabled people can creatively redo or reinvent those movements," and in doing so brings to light how abled people are "taking their body for granted and that using your body is socially constructed in our society". Butler emphasizes on the socially constructed views differ between an abled and a disabled person. At a baseball game, we all eat in some what inhumane ways, yet abled people are not looked at differently, but if a disabled person uses their body in a qwuirky way to get stuff done it seems rather unconventional. There is a political issue for disabled humans, and there are two different ways of which they are looked upon as: impaired or disabled. Impairment in Taylor's view, is just their way of making things work for them, but disability is a more derogatory term that places repression on our fellow disabled people.
I admire Taylor's way of living. Many people, even myself, sometimes fall into the trap of a life obstacle that is hard to get out of, which we may create an excuse or use as a crutch. Taylor lived through this "disability" everyday of her life which we all do some form or another, yet she finds a way to make it her own and get through, while diminishing the label of being disabled. Reading this article reminds you that we all have our issues, or physical mental adversities, but we should never let it get us down. There are ways around anything if you put your mind to it, believe in one's self and go against society's belief in what is normal and do what works for you.
This interview completely blew my mind. Judith Butler and Sunaura Taylor's conversation was unlike anything I have ever read or even though about before reading this interview. My mother is a special education teacher who teaches high school students who have varying levels and kinds of disabilities. I have always fancied myself as being comfortable and non-judgmental around people with disabilities, and I still feel that I am, but this interview caused me to reflect on every interatction I have had with various disabiled people. The part of the article that I found most interesting was the dialogue about using your mouth in ways that are culturally unacceptable. I love the language in Sunaura Taylor's quote "Something I am very interested in: how disabled people can creatively do or reinvent those movements. Or how they can create a concept of what a movement is..."(191). Once again this completely blew my mind. The idea of breaking down something so culturally ingraned and basic, such as how one should use your mouth, is an awe inspiring task as well as theoretically fanscinating. I loved this article and hope to read more about the study of disability.
Examined Life is an interview that provides wonderful insight into the world of someone who lives a life very similar to many of ours, but through different means physically. While Sunaura Taylor expresses that she has faced many hardships do to her lack of complete mobility, she chooses to focus more on society’s reaction to her situation, and how it has affected her. Because of her unconventional methods of performing everyday tasks, people often get “freaked out.” She has learned to adapt to her physical limitations as best as she can, but when she does need assistance, people often become nervous.She explains, “In a way, it’s a political protest for me to go in and order a coffee and demand help because, in my opinion, help is something we all need.” Sunaura Taylor rationalizes that while she does require a little extra help from people, everyone needs a little help in life; no one is completely dependent, for we all need each other to survive.I think that as interdependent individuals in the world, we should all strive to accommodate each other as best we can.No person should be considered less valuable than another. As a whole, how do you think society can be more accepting and cooperative with those who are less able bodied?
When I was in high school I was a hostess at a white tablecloth Italian restaurant, and I remember one night a lady with no lower arms, she just had 1 finger on each elbow area. She opened the door, ate... did everything perfectly normal and I was floored by her. I mentioned to my buddy the bartender how amazed I was in which he responded, "How dare you be amazed by her. Don't dumb her down because she is different. She has compensated to what we call average life so there is no reason to think of her any different". This stuck with me (and I remember specifically what he said because I wrote in my journal about it as soon as I got home). This reading made me remember this because she moved to a place where she would feel more "normal" and the people were more accustomed to helping the disabled. It is interesting the idea of total independence being fiction. Even taking an action as simple as walking and proving how one does not do it 100% on one's own. This is an important idea to take in because for greatness to happen, one cannot act alone. Whether it's involved in brain storming for brilliant ideas, or a shoulder to cry on, dependency (to a certain extent) is vital to success. One thing that I still wonder about is not how "average" society should act with a "disabled person", but would it be offensive to be impressed and amazed by their compensations? It is totally normal for Taylor to open a door with her mouth, but is it right for "normal" people to find this alternative function admirable? Or would it be better to play it off as normal?
As a person who has always viewed social values and norms as something highly synthetic, a lot of what is mentioned in Examined Life seems to be merely stating the obvious to me. One thing that this excerpt attempts to get at are the reasons that prejudice is directed towards people who do things differently. It is suggested that this is to make those who exhibit this prejudice feel superior, or that people would like to eliminate anything which does not support their own views. I'm not really satisfied with any of these explanations. They just don't seem adequate to explain these people's behavior. I don't pretend that I have the answer, but I will at least speculate. Perhaps while the explanations mentioned above may apply to a minority, the larger group of people haven't even come very far at all in their line of thought and are simply jumping on the bandwagon with those types of people, for various reasons which may include their own fear of standing out and thus being persecuted by the rest of the sheeple.
There is clearly a lot of bias towards the end of Examined Life. Capitalism and the Republican party are both bashed. This is alot like Nussbaum's idea that humans have certain dignities, and certainly I believe we should extend a hand to those who are disabled within what is reasonable, but towards Examined Life paints a picture of a world where people aren't measured by what they can contribute to society, which is great in theory, but that means that people have no reason to contribute anything to society. Capitalism isn't perfect, but neither are people and that's why it works. People in general aren't motivated to work hard to help others, and however pessimistic that might sound the nature of human-kind isn't going to change.
One good point examined life does bring up is that our bodies are essentially dependent. We cannot control all of the factors that affect our bodies. What does free will really matter when you can control someone by exerting some kind of power over their body? Even our minds that we think are free are contained within our bodies. If our bodies can be so affected by the outside how is it that our minds which need our bodies even to live are self-sufficient. There are even such methods as drugs which can be administered to the body to restrict the mind directly. With all these annoying social norms that place limits on us all, certain people more than others, and with the bodies vulnerability, it makes me think that maybe we'd be better off if we were all invisible ghosts, minds without body or form but with normal senses. I view our bodies as a tool which we use to interface with the outside world, no different from a computer or a cell phone, except that it is much more advanced, so yes, if we didn't have to go through this tool it would be much more convenient.
This interview was very compelling. At first I thought that I would not necessarily be able to relate to what I was reading, but I was initally mistaken. Commonly, I do not think of myself as being dependent on others. I work for what I have and I pay my own bills an have found myslef saying that I am 'self-sufficient' on a regular basis. After reading this, my thinking is somewhat skewed from the truth. I DO depend ob others whether I have realized it or not; society as a whole depend on others all the time, regardless if we vocalize those so called needs. There were a few parts of the interview that stuck out to me. The first was in the beginning--where Sunny talks about how she goes for walks; how her definition of 'going for a walk' was the same as mine, even though, technically, she is not walking. Some people see this as an example of a disabled person as a hinderance to society, that they are something that we have to deal with; this way of thinking is completely wrong obviously, the way they go about doing things is just different from the majority. The way they tend to their lives is different from the ordinary for its just not 'socially normal'. My favorite part was this when Butler says, "Nobody takes a walk without there being a technique of walking. Nobody goes for a walk without something that supports the walk, something outside of ourselves".... This is so true. Why should our thinking be any different? An what constitutes a 'disabled person'? When in actuality they are not really disabled, they just do things differently, in a way that society of the majority of the population has plagued as 'inappropriate', With regards to 'social justice', this way of thinking should be neglected. We need not think of human value based on terms of productivity but in terms of quality!
While reading this interview I was given a new outlook on the human body and what exactly is normal. I had always had this false sense of what was normal and came to realize that this word has a different meaning to everyone. Taylor states in the interview, "I've always seen the body as a creative tool and that we're taught to use this tool in certain ways" (204). This stuck out to me because I had never thought to myself that everyone has had to learn to do different everyday tasks their own way, disabled or not. I had always thought that being disabled was so different and tough because these people had to learn how to do things a different way. What i realize now is that if they never knew any other way, then their way of completing a certain task is 'normal'. So, what do you feel is the true definition of normalcy?
Astra Taylor's Examined Life is an interview with Judith Butler. They discuss Butler's disability as well as her views on everyone's dependence on certain things as well as our interdependence on each other.
She also talks about how she thinks her experience and certain acts are political. She thinks "when you are intervening in social space in a particular way, you're challenging protocols. You're asking for that that social world to open, not only to you personally, but to all the people who are in your situation."
The interview goes on to talk about how differences in the way people carry-out their lives tends to make some people uncomfortable. And, these people who are feeling uncomfortable tend to hold others back mainly because "their ideas have to be rethought." She goes on to say that it "threatens our most basic categories that we've built our systems of power on."
The part that I liked most about this article was Butler's views on the value of human life and our capacity to flourish however we might flourish. I also liked her views on how capitalism has affected this, too. In a lot of ways, it has made our culture obsessed with the "bottom line." And, I feel like this has lead us to become obsessed with being perfect and fitting into this cookie-cutter cut-out of how we are supposed to look, act, and think. And, it isn't supposed to be like that. Like Butler, says its about accepting different people's ideas and ways of living. We are all independent, yet dependent on each other.
Do you think that disabled people deserve a place in the workforce?
I think that there are certain qualities that each person can bring to the table. And, I feel like everyone can be taught to do something. If we invest in this, they could teach us just as much as we could teach them.
In the Butler/Taylor interview from Examined Life, self-sufficiency as a sort of false consciousness (no one is ever completely independent), that something as simple as taking a walk is dependent upon an array of different support systems: "[T]he existence of sidewalks and paths show that able-bodied people also depend on spaces designed for them" (Taylor 188). Not only do people rely on their physical surroundings, but on social ones as well; it is the way we are perceived by others that dictate our behavior, attitude, even movement (Butler 207-208). While I believe that we can control others' perceptions of us to a certain extent, Taylor and Butler raise an excellent point in this observation. Also, when we see an impaired person, we often think of the physical obstacles they face but never of the social ones. While I did not necessarily agree with all of Taylor and Butler's theories, their interview has helped me expand my concept of social justice by sharing their ideas of what it means to be impaired (physically hindered) versus disabled (socially hindered).
This was an amazing piece of rhetoric, in my opinion. It's obvious that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was truly an intelligent man. From what I understand, he was actually from Atlanta (where things were a lot better) and went to Birmingham for the "Birmingham campaign". Although Atlanta had their own problems, he knew he had to attack the heart of the problem (Birmingham), if he was going to make any progress with solving civil rights inequalities in the U.S. This reminds me of the war against terrorism in a strange way. People over there (Afghanistan/Iraq) are so deprived of basic rights, especially women and children. However, they are too afraid/weak to fight for their rights, just like most minorities in Birmingham were. People always say it's not our problem whether they are free or not, but we need to help the citizens get control of their country from extremists. My brother is in Iraq right now and he said its a entirely different place, for the better, then it was when we first arrived. I know this is kind of random, but just like MLK helped fight the battle against segregation with his work in Birmingham, we are helping to fight the battle against Islamic Extremism with our work in the Middle East. We are slowly giving women and children their basic rights in those countries, while slowly giving our own country more security from extremists. Of course there are still major issues in that region, especially in Afghanistan, but hopefully we can one day get those people control of their countries again just like MLK helped get civil rights for minorities here in the U.S. This will not only helped them, but it will also help us just like the end of segregation helped the entire U.S., and not just "the South". This might seem like an impossible battle we are facing, but I wonder how many people thought it was possible that minorities would one day have all the basic civil rights granted to them?
In Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' King describes his views on the segregation issues that face much of the area and reasons for why segregation should be abolished. In the letter, King describes how he has been thrown in jail under means of an unjust law. He also goes into detail on why he broke segregation laws and how important it was that he and his fellow men did so. I'm sure this reading posed the same question for me as it did many others which is, what exactly is the difference between just and unjust laws? Also who decides wether or not this law is just? I agree with Dr. King that "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God." However I understand how hard it must be for the white population to understand what it felt like to be cast away from society. I can relate because although I know there are problems in the world, I do nothing to try to fix them because I am content with the life I am living. I believe that this letter from Dr. King achieves exactly what he is trying to achieve, which is to let those who have not experienced segregation understand the demoralizing effects of it. So I ask, how do you think you would act in a similar situation as the white moderate; would you fight for what you know is right, or continue to do nothing about it because it has no affect on you?
Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail was his attempt not only to clarify the reasoning behind his demonstrations but also to publicize his beliefs. I believe that he wrote his letter with the intentions of inspiring any “outsider” of society to take a stand. He states that, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” True justice cannot be attained amongst selfish people; the wellbeing of each individual must be taken into account.
King explains that “an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Often when laws are made, the minority isn’t considered. There will always be corruption, and without extremists, reforms are nearly impossible. As citizens of America, the aspects of life we tend to value most are the ones we’ve fought for. As my father says, “Anything worth having doesn’t come easy.” Passionate individuals are left to fight for those who can’t or won’t; it is up to these people to induce change.
Can pure equality and justice ever be established within the eyes of all the people? Probably not, as we each have varying perspectives, but it is surely something every country as a whole should strive for.
This was actually my first time reading Dr. King's letter from Birmingham jail. Dr. King certainly used a great approach in convincing the audience of the clergymen. A combination of education, passion, determination, and love were the main ingredients in winning his historical argument.
In his letter, Martin Luther King states that the oppressor is not going to be the one to change for the better, but change should be demanded through the oppressed. Unfortunately it took the minority a couple of centuries to finally break the unjust ways of our government because of their adjustment to inferiority. The minorities were struggling to make a change, until Dr. King gave them the tools to make their dream of equality true.
What is justice? King emphasized on just and unjust ways of our government. He describes "unjust" as not justice at all. There is a plethora of views of the definition of "justice". It is a word that has been manipulated into what the government believes is right for the generation. It was justice for the government and unjust for the our minorities, but what about the white middle man? Dr. King explained their position and why they are not consider innocent bystanders. They were in the middle of the war to freedom yet did not stand for what they believed in because they were not effected at the time. This is an on going problem of America in the sense that natives believe they should not take risk if it did not concern or disturb their way of living which leaves the it difficult to achieve a better future. In order to make a change, King confronted the group that broke the barriers of the segregation. If the white middle man finally took a stand then the White conservative and government would take into consideration because there was relativity.
King also took a great approach by using non-violence protesting. Our world is immune to hate, which only brings more negativity. "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"-MLK. It took courage of a radical thinker to create such an ingenious method to initiate the break of hatred with love. Thats the most significant factor that governments lack.
With out Radical thinkers could our world move forward? Is time moving forward constructively or destructively?
Alright, so first and foremost I wanted to comment that no matter which side you stand on, no one can doubt that Martin Luther King Jr. was a intelligent man. Not only was his letter very well written, but he quoted SO MANY different famous philosophers and the bible etc... That being said, the audience for MLK's letter was clearly meant for the clergy who had written the previous letters in the newspaper--and he was addressing the concept of social justice, or how he worded it "Just and unjust laws". I thought he made a good point in the way he distinguished the difference: "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." He also continued to describe these differences with words like personality, natural and eternal laws, and the human soul. I also thought that he made a good point in when he was addressing the terms "wait", "extreme", and "non-violent" using references that would most appeal to a clergyman who follows Jesus Christ. I definitely think that MLK did a great job with catching the attention of everyone and having something that imposes thought instead of emotion. So, was MLK right by his actions and by his words? I think yes.
Dr. King's message is one of perseverance. Whilst those around him call for a temporary halt to their fight for equality, Dr. King rebuts by essentially paraphrasing William Gladstone's famous quote "Justice delayed is justice denied."
The letter's rebuttal of the arguments made by the 8 white clergymen offers an interesting perspective of the famed Civil Rights leader. Dr. King elevates civil disobedience as a moral issue, one which is a tenet of a democracy and as the greatest weapon against "unjust laws."
Interestingly enough, many of these same principles and teachings could be applied to other fights for equality here in the U.S. or in various other countries around the world.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke about taking action in “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. He states that “justice to long delayed is justice denied”. The men to whom this letter concerns where advising Dr. King to wait before taking action, because of the election of the new city administration. But Dr. King felt that he had waited long enough and did not see any other time in the future being any better than the present. Quite the opposite in fact, it seemed that he saw that if the African Americans of the south waited now then that just meant that more of them and their children would be abused and mistreated. Therefore by waiting justice would be denied for generations to come. He saw that God gave him the courage and ability to be the leader the nation needed to fight against unjust laws and racial inequality. By deciding not to wait and being an activist Dr. King saved many African Americans from blatant discrimination. Similarly Thomas Jefferson gave our nation independence by acting when he knew he was right and writing the Declaration of Independence. Where would our nation be if activists like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Thomas Jefferson had waited? However, surely there are times in which we should wait instead of acting immediately, and where exactly is that balance?
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote the Letter from Birmingham Jail in order to set a few critics straight. He took his time to answer this criticism because he felt it necessary to explain his actions. King explains that he was invited to Birmingham for a nonviolent direct action against the injustice of the Negro society. Dr. King felt that it was his duty to "spread the gospel of freedom" (155). He knew that the actions he must take should be relatively silent yet moving.
The issue is that of injustice or justice. King quotes St. Thomas Aquinas when determining the distinction between an unjust law or a just law. Laws are based mostly from the law of God. Even though King's audience is most likely involved in the church, what about those that do not have the same beliefs? How can laws be based upon the human personality and the law of God when not everyone sees these things in the same way?
King did a great job in getting his point across and explaining his plan and reasoning. However, people have different religious and political views that affect their decisions. People are afraid of change, especially if they have been raised a certain way and are set in those ways. Can people leave their comfort zones and adapt to a much needed change? Can they see the differences of a just law for them as an unjust law for another?
In a "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Martin Luther King classifies the Negro community into two groups. These "forces" fall into categories that come up in a later topic of extremes and they are the force of complacency versus the force of bitterness and hatred. This made me wonder how Dr. King would join these two groups, fighting for the same cause, to come to some kind of agreement as to how they should resolve things. Did this cause discrepancies amongst the oppressed? He states that some of the middle class Negroes were just comfortable with the way things were so they did not feel the need to do anything about the unjust situation. This had to have outraged people that were not in the middle class, who suffered miserably but watched their "brothers" do nothing about it. While on the other hand, some people were filled with bitterness and hatred and wanted to take things in their own hands and most likely make things worse for themselves. How did Dr. King address these two very different groups of people and bring them together. And on the topic of extremes, what else would you expect in such a desperate situation. Does everyone have the inherent desire to turn to extremes if they feel like they have no other choice? And who is to blame that it even got to the point for people to consider such extremities? Maybe the middle-class Negroes did care but they were too scared to say anything for fear or persecution. What would you do if you could possibly be beaten or arrested and seperated from your family if you stood up for complete strangers because it was right? I doubt that people who did act out of hatred were evil people. Perhaps they felt forced to act this way because there was no other way to bring attention to the evil that provoked what they felt they had to do. To what extremes will people to go to accomplish what they think is right?
During a tumultuous time in American history, Martin Luther King Jr. led the movement for civil rights in an honorable manner. At the time he wrote “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he had been thrown in jail for peacefully objecting to the racist Jim Crow laws of Alabama. He was responding to his fellow ministers in the area that were critical of him leading a movement that disturbed the status quo, even though they agreed with him in principle. Dr. King’s thoughts on just and unjust laws especially stood out to me. In the letter he goes over several examples of laws that were very obviously unjust, but what happens if the morality of the laws is not so clear? How do we decide that laws are just or unjust? At first one would say that moral laws are just and immoral laws are unjust. But what sets the guidelines for morality? Dr. King based most of his moral stance on the Christian Bible, but should the guidelines be based upon the views of the majority of the people in a population? Both of these options present problems. Christian values could be viewed as unjust by atheists or people of other religions, and throughout history, the story of the majority neglecting the needs of the minority continually repeats itself. So how does one know whether a law is just or unjust?
Quite reminiscient of Paul, King wrote this letter from prison to his brothers in Christ in love but with the ultimate goal to rebuke them. King was burdened heavily because of the racial injustice that was so prevalent for centuries and the lack of compassion that those that shared his faith and those that were in government had shown. He knew that direct action was the only way to wake people up to the wrongs that were being tolerated and ignored on every level. I wonder, how would Martin Luther King Jr. respond today to the injustices around the world and even in our own backyard? When news is instantaneous, and with little effort we can read about all the wrongs that are happening all around the world are we just as indifferent and ignorant as the people in King's time? What are we doing right now for those, who just by circumstance, are less fortunate than us? How will we work to bring justice in our world? How will we respond to the great crisis' of our day? To sex-trafficking? To children being forced into armed combat? Defining and exploring the subject of justice is good and necessary, but in times such as these I believe there needs to be less meditation on meaning and more action.
In the letter he wrote from prison, Dr. Martin Luther King responds to the criticisms of church officials towards his protests in Birmingham. He is being accused of moving things along too quickly and of being an “extremist,”.
King defends against this first attack by saying that justice can never be enacted too quickly. Being a clergyman, and addressing his fellow clergymen, he uses the word of God to back up his statements. The Bible demands swift justice, so perhaps this is where Dr. King got formed the basis of the idea that he expressed by quoting that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” (Letter From Birmingham Jail 158).
This second accusation, he first tries to explain away, saying that he is more of a moderate considering the violent extremists, and this itself would have been decent argument, but King goes further to say that he proudly accepts the label of “extremist.” Even today, there is a negative connotation attached to this word, but Dr. King had a point, that it’s not being an extremist that is bad, it’s what one is an extremist about. He provided legitimacy to this idea by providing examples of historical extremists who accomplished great things for the side of good.
What do Dr. King’s views on extremism mean for the Islamic world today? The idea being promoted by the media is that Islam is neutral and extremists are bad, but Dr. King’s philosophy would suggest vice-versa. A third option could be that it is merely the combination that is bad, but it can be surmised that being a clergymen in a nation that was very Christian at the time, that this was not Dr. King’s view.
It’s an interesting thought to look across time at the different groups that have arisen, and have fought for their rights, and to note that all of these movements were inspired by the movement that Reverend King headed. One must ask, then, should he still be alive today what would he think as he looked upon his legacy? Would Dr. King consider races to be equal in America today? There is an idea that some people use their race as a crutch. Perhaps King would join the ranks of Bill Cosby in trying to remove this crutch while promoting the prosperity of African Americans through hard work instead of welfare. He was a man who believed in true equality, not just to try and get ahead, and whatever he decided to do, this is what he would work towards.
Inquiry papers should each be a new post, and should be labeled with the number as well as whatever title you like (for example: "Inquiry 1: whateveryouwanttocallit"
1) Summarize the argument or the thesis of the reading in 1-2 sentences.
2) Pose a question that the reading raised for you. It should be a thoughtful, open-ended question that is likely to provoke discussion and debate.
3) Speculate on the answers OR the context of the questions (why they matter, who they matter to, what's at stake, etc) OR delve deeper by asking more questions.
response posts: guidelines
Your response papers should be in the "comment" section of the inquiry post to which you are responding.
1) Read a classmate's inquiry paper that has not yet been responded to.
2) Address your classmate's question(s) using what you've learned from this and other readings. You may not feel confident in your answers; that's okay. Speculate, brainstorm, explore, pose other questions, relate it to your life experience, expand on the stakes of the questions, etc.
*be sure to use something from the day's assigned reading (a quote, paraphrase, or general idea) and to cite that reading as its source in order to receive full credit.
