Inquiry#5

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?

Inquiry #5: The Clan of the One-Breasted Women

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?

"The Clan of One Breasted Women" Inquiry #5

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.

Inquiry #5

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.

The Clan of One-Brested Women #5

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?

Inquiry 5

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?

Inquiry 5: "Clan of One-Breasted Women"

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?

Clan of the 1-breasted Women

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.

Inquiry # 5

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?

Inquiry#5 The Clan of One-Breasted Women

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.

Inquiry 5

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?

"The Clan of One-Breasted Women"

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?

Inquiry #5

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?

Inquiry#5: The Clan of One-Breasted Women

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?

-C.Mueller

Inquiry #4

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.

"Apartment Rental Rates". M/PF Yieldstar. .

Inquiry 4

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.

Inquiry 4

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.

Inquiry#4

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.

Inquiry#4: Nickels and Dimes

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?

C. Mueller