Pics - NFS Bake Sale

Not-For-Sale club bake sale. Sometime in mid-March.

This was definitely a success, especially since we had less than 10 people working on it - baking and selling.

And I think I remember we burnt a couple of batches of cookies because we were just talking about random stuff and then... we forgot about the oven. Lol.

Note for future bake sales: cookies sell faster than cupcakes. And cupcakes sell faster if we bring the cupcakes to the people.

RE#12: WW24 - Accelerating Global Interaction, Since 1945

"I think every Barbie doll is more harmful than an American missile" - Rahimi, page 723.

A very provocative statement, said by an Iranian toy seller regarding his view on the Barbie doll. It's interesting to hear the perspective of people from the other side of the world. Barbie has become a staple in American culture and more importantly, a symbol of the American idea of beauty. The Iranians' creation of Sara and Dara, dolls who "help each other solve problems, have loving parents who guide them, and dress modestly", shows how much they value human dignity and self-respect as opposed to the values Americans display in our "precious Barbie" - the revealing clothes, the high heels, and her "close association with her longtime unmarried companian, Ken". Growing up with Barbie myself, I did remember thinking at that time that Barbie was perfect - she had the perfect hair, face, body, clothes, but it was never more to me than just a thought, an idea. She definitely has, though, the power to control more than just thoughts as millions of girls, in extreme cases, look up to her and try more and more to achieve that level of perfection. Especially since she's been introduced to us since we were little, she has all these years to influence us. Looking at it in that perspective, maybe I won't get my kids a Barbie - Sara and Dara sound pretty awesome right now.

The introduction brings up the point that Barbie and Sara/Dara are manufactured in the same country, probably in neighboring factories. It's funny that they are willing to produce things for 2 different countries that have such great opposing views and who also don't like each other very much.

Furthermore, with this reglobalization, a prominent characteristic of this 'era' is the increasing number and degree of wars. The way I explain it to myself is this: once you get to know your neighbors, arguments and fights ensue because you realize that, well, you don't like them very much. Some people may say that the course to peace is through knowing and understanding, but at the same time, that new knowledge you obtain by getting to know them can reveal a WHOLE bunch of things you didn't want to know - things that can compromise your respect or like or trust in them. Perhaps that is one of the main reasons that isolationism works so well. You're in your own world, I'm in my own world, and no one bothers us. But it's a lonely world when you're living in it by yourself.

I like how the book describes the United States as running an "informal empire". An informal empire, in this case, is one who exerts a great amount of influence over other countries, and where other countries make accommodations to meet the needs and demands of the "ruling" country, while each country under the "rule" still has complete control over their people/government. There's no physical takeover or annexation or colonization involved. That's a nice way to sum up the political/economic system of America. And I don't think it's a bad thing. It's a nice balance between getting what you need/want without superimposing upon others your own religious beliefs or killing their people and taking their land. Would this have been possible to do back in the day, during the British/Dutch colonization era? I'm guessing not since this informal American empire works on the foundation that the first globalization built - the spread of English, the technological/economic/political advancement of each country, and just the overall global development has grown about 10000%.

I'm writing this as I read, so I'll be BACK TO EDIT!
Blog edited @ 11:34 PM

RE#11: DGP 15 - Religious Fundamentalism

Religion causes war. I said this in a previous blog, that its ironic how religion is centered around what is holy, pure, and sacred, but yet they are linked to warfare and large-scale deaths. And now I know the terminology for this phenomena, or at least how the book describes it: religious fundamentalism. A strict adherence to traditional, religion-based thought. I can identify with some of their arguments - that perhaps a more God-centered community would foster a peaceful, righteous way of living. But in that view, how/who would decide what the "righteous" way is? Then at the same time, I would not 100% swear off modernity - technology, a degree of secularism, and the desire for improvement/advancement is not completely sinful and evil. Is it really possible for an entire country to live without these modern values and things in this century?

It's pretty unbelievable how radical people can get that they'd resort to violence, and how many different reasons they use to justify it. I believe though that some people just have a genuine concern for mankind, for those who don't believe the same things they do, and they genuinely don't want them to go to hell, or whatever punishment awaits those who are "lost" or unbelievers. But no matter what the reason is, I firmly believe that violence is definitely NOT the answer - it does no one good, it hurts/destroys/kills, and I just don't understand their logic.

And the most ridiculous thing is this: how are we supposed to deal with these 5000 religions? We can't just tell them "hush, play nicely guys, you wouldn't want your mom to see you doing that, would you?". These people are not children, and they each have their own beliefs that they strongly, strongly hold on to. Will there ever be a world where these 5000 religious coexist peacefully? It's not fun to live in fear everyday - fear of terrorist attacks or global threats, and even on a smaller scale, fear of persecution from friends and families, all because of your religion.

Reading Osama's interview was particularly interesting. The interviewer asked him whether his "target" of Americans referred to specific Americans, or the American military, or the Americans in Saudi Arabia. And his answer was: "...America has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. [...] Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children?" Meaning that his "target" is ALL Americans - military, women, children, grandparents, my American pets... That's frightening. Actually, to say "that's frightening" is an understatement. But what I got from this interview was a new perspective - I never heard the other side of this story, straight from the source himself. The media only told us to believe that "Osama is bad, he's a terrorist, he's wrong, we're right". Seeing the story from his side makes me think differently - he has a purpose, a goal, and a reason for doing these things, a reason based on his religion. If the tables were turned, what would we, the Americans, want to do to them to set this "right"?

I seem to be asking a lot of questions in this blog.

And I know this TERRIBLE but after all my years of history classes and even a couple of religion classes, I still have the hardest time keeping track of which countries are which religions and which religions have a beef with which religions. Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Muslim. Just last week after reading the chapter on India, I finally know that India is Hindu and Pakistan is Muslim. Now I just need to get the rest of the countries and religions matched.

RE#10: WW23 - Independence/Development of the Global South

Nelson Mandela. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mahatma Ghandi. Amazing people with incredible character, determination, and vision. The introduction to this chapter speaks about Nelson Mandela's struggles towards achieving equality in South Africa. What's awesome is that he not only fought against white domination, but also black domination. He didn't want one to solely rule the other, but for both to rule and live side by side. This reminds me of a quote about friendship: "Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend." Strange time to bring up this up, but it popped in my head just now as I was writing this response.

Back to Mr. Mandela. 27 years in prison, hard labor at a stone quarry, floor for a bed, bucket for a toilet, write/receive only 1 letter every 6 months - only a brief glimpse of the hell he had to endure to ensure a positive future for his people. And his punishments are totally ridiculous - 1 visitor a year for 36 minutes?! Whaaat. How did they even arrive at those numbers. I'd like to know the logic behind torturing someone like this because of his plea for equality. It wasn't like he was gonna blow their heads off or physically threatening them. This deprivation of basic human rights is preposterous. I just can't believe how much Nelson Mandela and all the other greats sacrificed and suffered for what they believe in, so much that they were willing to give up their life. The power of the human spirit, especially his human spirit, is crazy amazing. And just like Hitler, all it takes is one person to start a revolution.

If the Europeans didn't dominate the world and forcefully impose their views upon the natives, there wouldn't be this need for freedom wars and intense human sufferings for the sake of liberation. But then again, they planted the seed of industrialization and advancement into the entire world, and where would we all really be without that?

Jumping ahead to the section on "Experiments in Political Order", one of the arguments as to why democracy was initially rejected in Africa: "Others suggested that Africa's traditional culture, based on communal rather than individualistic values and concerned to achieve consensus rather than majority rule, was not compatible with the competitiveness of party politics." - pg 707. That's an interesting point, that one's natural culture affects and facilitates what economic and political system works best for them.

The chart on page 712-713 consumed most of time; countries from every continent are stacked up against each other in the areas of population growth, income, adult literacy, and life expectancy. My judgement about success definitely varies depending on which measure I use. Population growth would leave Russia in last place at a -1% rate and Saudi Arabia the winner at a 2.8%. The US and Japan blows everyone else away with their income of $41,000-37,000, while Africa barely makes $400. Literacy rates are pretty surprising as well. Russia has a literacy of 99%, which would assume that their adult population are well educated and well trained for high paying jobs that can secure a positive future for the country, yet their income-per-capita is only $3000, compared to US/Japan who also have a 99% literacy but with a $40000 income-per-capita. It's the communism, huh. It's no surprise that Japan has the highest life expectancy of 78/85 years, a few years higher than US's 75/80. The Japanese mastered the art of tea-making, which is one of their secrets to a long, healthy life. Also, their religion and culture seems to foster a much healthier life than as well.

RE#9: WW22 - Rise/Fall of World Communism

I'm not gonna lie - I've put off blogging about this chapter for a while because it's, well, about communism. Not the most exciting topic when you try to read about it and teach it to yourself. The class discussions, however, brought some life into the idea, especially when we talked about how countries who didn't take the appropriate "steps" (feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism) to a communistic economy and society failed. It was interesting to view Marx's theory through this perspective, that countries who skip capitalism aren't successful because their people haven't developed a class consciousness that develops through a capitalist economy.

Since America is currently capitalist, and with Obama's new healthcare plan that definitely acts as a transition into a more socialist economy, it seems we are on the right track. Should we decide to turn communist, Marx would be supportive because we have correctly progressed into that system. But there is no way that America would turn completely communist. We are too individualist - freedom and liberty are values that cannot be compromised in a country like America. I think our "utopia" lies halfway between capitalism and socialism - capitasocialism.

Back to the reading. The section on Communist Feminism was pretty interesting. Women of the 2010's, in America especially, have come a long way from the traditional days. The great thing about the WWI was how beneficial it was in terms of the liberation of women. I guess it takes a world war for the world to realize how capable women really are. Hmm... :) Things like the end of concubines, permission of women to remarry, and allowed maternity leave for workers - it's sad that there was once a time when women were deprived of these basic human rights.

One of my friends constantly makes it a point that whoever she marries MUST let her keep her maiden name as her last name instead of taking her husband's surname. And I don't blame her - her last name is verrry unique. And it is allowable/legal for women to do that - I guess she owes that to Communist Feminism and WWI. I'll be sure to tell her that tomorrow when I see her.

RE#8: WW21 - Collapse/Recovery of Europe

I've read over and over again how the Europeans successfully conquered this country and that country, but it wasn't until we did the map activity on Monday that I visually saw how dominant they were on a global scale: they literally took over the entire world, marking each continent with some European ideal or belief. That left me wondering - if I were the most dominant and powerful country in the world (particularly the British and the French) and I've just finished dominating all the other countries in the world, what do I do now? The sensible answer would be to just... leave everything be. I'd be content with my achievements and work on my own country's happiness and success. I guess that wasn't a viable option for the Europeans back in the day, since they obviously chose to further perturb neighboring nations with their territorial, political, and economic greed. And like the analogy used in class, a full house facilitates angry siblings, especially if all the siblings are power hungry monsters who aren't willing to share their toys.

A positive thing came out of World War I - female involvement. Since all the men were gone fighting the war, women were left with the responsibility to carry on their work. Women even had the opportunity to rebel and shake up tradition, with their new social opportunities, new fashion styles, and taking part in voting. It's hard to say that without the war and this shift in perspective and lifestyle, that women would not still be stuck in the household and reduced to childbearing/housecleaning machines.

I particularly enjoyed reading the section of World War II. Not because I enjoy or encourage the suffering and pain of the war, but because of how close this war hits to home. Literally. WW2 officially started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. And Pearl Harbor is literally my backyard, specifically the backyard of my high school. Every morning of my junior/senior year, I would park my car in the back parking lot and take the scenic walking route on my way to homeroom. I would take a few minutes to just stare into the harbor, with all the navy ships and the shouts and noise from the workers. While it may seem like just a bunch of old, rusting ships to the rest of my classmates, I always stare at that harbor in awe - knowing that 60 years ago, all hell broke loose on these very waters and grounds. Within a few minutes, bombs exploded, fires ensued, soldiers died for our freedom. Such epic history lay right before me. It's such a shame that the kids my age don't appreciate things like that.

By the way, the identity of Russia always confused me. Are they part of Europe or part of Asia? They way I see it, they seem much more closer to the Europeans in terms of physical features, cultural practices, and phonetics of their language. This is similar to the question I raised in an earlier blog about whether the Philippines is part of Asia or considered a Pacific Island. The dictionary describes Russia as "part of Northern Asia and eastern Europe", but I think they should officially list it as a European nation. Plus it would save the dictionary printers a few words, and therefore save ink, and therefore save money. And super therefore, the govt can use that extra money to fix the residence halls on this campus. Hey, positive thinking :) But really, I don't understand what the big deal is, or perhaps there was/is some major tension between Russia with both Asia and Europe that they don't want to fully associate themselves with either one.

RE#7: WW20 - Colonial Encounters

As I continue reading these chapters, I realize more and more what horrible things Europeans have done in the past. Not to be an anti or racist, it's just the way the history book explains it in reference to their colonialization/industrial/trade acts - when you read page after page of how Europeans brought diseases killing 90% of native populations, introduced alcohol and killer machinery whose smoke contributes greatly to the depleting ozone layer problem we have today, and their (somewhat selfish?) desire for political, territorial, religious conquest resulted in massacres, wars, drastic demographic changes ... it's hard NOT to say that the Europeans back then have, well, behaved horribly. Lol.

"Every soul was either shot or bayoneted... We burned all the huts and razed the banana plantations to the ground."- 1902, British soldier in East Africa.

This quote from page 594 prompted those thoughts up above. Especially with the Industrial Revolution added to the mix and the creation of guns, firepower, and weapons of mass destruction, the use of force and threats with these kinds of military tools against the innocent natives generate such dreadful images in my head. The picture I drew up while reading the 1902 quote was even more devastating. The natives live so humbly, their huts and their plantations are literally all they have. What kind of human being could have the heart (or lack of) to do those kinds of things to entire villages, communities, countries?

It is explained that the motives of the Europeans consists of many things, such as the need for resources, trading routes, and even a genuine belief that natives are in dire need of God, and some form of structure and law. But really, who are they to say "No, your ways are wrong and yes, our ways are right, so convert"? With the use of force and through introducing all those diseases, they've killed off most of the native peoples like in Australia and New Zealand (p. 592). Colonization and advancement is, of course, a beneficial thing and the Europeans may have argued that what they are doing will immensely benefit the natives - it's for the greater good. But how are the new Europeans ways supposed to help the greater good if the greater good is dead and gone? Furthermore, they've caused a severe disruption of cultural practices that have peacefully and successfully fostered and governed individual lands for centuries.

It makes me wonder though: would these lands be better off without European influence and colonization? It's hard to argue against such things though, since our adaptation to those ways and the luxuries we are used to as a product of them are so ingrained in our everyday lives that it is impossible to think of a life without it. Colonization, in our eyes now, was and is necessary to sustain the comfortable life we live now.

The conversion of certain African/Asian states to European colonization differed in each case, but a successful one was in the case of Ethiopia and Siam who could avoid complete European takeover through their strong diplomatic and negotiating skills.  Also in the Mughal Empire territories where the people had nothing and there was an "absence of any overall sense of cultural or political unity" (p. 592), it seems right and even necessary for outside European powers to colonize it. It's the stable, rightfully governed, peaceful states that should be left alone, or at least consist of peaceful negotiations that don't include killing off most of its native population.

The global world would be pretty boring if each country had the same European culture, government, and people.

RE#6: WW19 - Internal Troubles, External Threats

"Now that's some racism right there!" A common declaration made by a friend of mine.

I have a friend who is extremely observant of people and their actions, and is quick to point out when moments of discrimination have been made, whether directed towards herself or others around her. Any type of discrimination always has the possibility of being rooted in a dislike for the other person's ethnicity, which I assume she would definitely agree with. She points out "racist" moments so often that we've come to use it for silly things as well - if at breakfast, the chef randomly gives her one of the smaller pieces of french toast while he gives me the larger one, she would say that it was due to racism, that his act was against her "just because she's (insert ethnicity here)". Of course, she wouldn't say that to his face and she didn't seriously mean it - it was simply a lighthearted joke in that situation. But reading the section on the European perspective of race at during the 19th century reminded me of how serious the issue of racism is.

To the Europeans, society was divided into two main kinds of people: "heathens" or non-believers, or Christians or believers. These were rooted in their strong value for religion; rightfully so since religion governed their lives, ran their societies, organized their priorities and laws of conduct. The Industrial age, however, drastically changed their views on the human population with their new-found knowledge and utilization of machinery, nature, and science. Through the dissection of human bodies, they discovered that the brains and skulls of white people were bigger than all others. Obviously, to them, this meant that they were the physically and intellectually superior race. While it may seem logical to think this way and it may be true that a certain level of intelligence/physical attributes are heredity for certain races, to act so strongly on such a belief is ridiculous. Especially their belief that "contact with 'inferior' peoples threatened the health and even the biological future of more advanced or 'superior' peoples" (pg. 563). The European evolution chart on page 564 also astonished me - monkey ->africans->aboriginals/natives->asians->whites. To say that that's offensive would be an understatement, but I'm glad that I live in a time period where such affirmations have drastically changed and people are, for the most part, no longer looked at as being part of a "evolutionary hierarchy" as decided by their race.

It's important to point out the fact that while Europeans have aggressively taken over neighboring countries and transformed their religions, boundaries, governments, and people, the victims were not entirely passive. They also willingly adopted some, if not all, aspects of European society and rule. Where would Japan be if not for their adoption of Western industrialization? We would be living in a world without PlayStation. Gasp. Of course, Japan's modernization is also credited to the centuries of peace ruled by shoguns, where the ancient samurais and fighters traded in their swords for the benefits of commerce.

On a final note, the intro spoke about Japan altering their textbooks in an attempt to remove the blemishes on the perfect face of their Japanese history. History should portray not only the oppressor, but also the oppressed. While the truth may be ugly, its much better for them (students, society) to hear it from you than for them to find out on their own. Learning life lessons through a history book. :)

RE#5: WW 17 - Atlantic Revolutions

I really like the intro to Part 5 - I totally didn't realize the Eurocentric nature of everything we do. Time is noted according to their offset from the time in Greenwich, London (-10 hours for Hawaii), and location according to their distance from Europe. For the longest time, when the Middle-East countries were spoken of, or when I learned that China and Japan were part of the Far-East, I wondered, "east of what?". Now I know - east of Europe. Hmm... I appreciate how the textbook has a chapter entitled "Countering Eurocentrism" to display their neutrality - it shows how much more well-rounded the information given to the public has become, and leaves it to the reader to make their own opinions rather than the earlier years when the argument, viewpoint, and opinion was given to you instead.

The European Enlightenment brought to life the belief that social and political order could be improved by human action. The power of the individual, of the people were made aware, strengthened, and ultimately idealized. It's interesting to see how the values and ideas that fueled the American Revolution originated from the very place they were trying to distance themselves from. And while the United States at that time were heavily influenced by their European oppressors, it was noted that the US had less social divisions, less black-and-white laws, and overall more open and free - a new and improved Europe.

"How far should liberty be extended?" - page 501
Democracy. Letting the people have a say/control the government. Sounds sensible since political decisions affect not only the ruler, but every citizen. But who exactly are "the people"? Government officials, schoolteachers, supermarket managers, the general public... prisoners, murderers, babies? If you were to put the future of the country in the hands of uneducated, reckless people, democracy doesn't sound like such a good thing. By this definition, I should be able to murder someone just because I feel like it, and not be punished. There can be no such thing as purely democratic government - it's impossible to please everyone and standards must be kept to maintain a safe, orderly society. Quite the irony.

Random note: Being an art major and taking a class the requires lots of reading like this one, I tend to rely on the pictures to get me through the pages of text. I'm a visual learner, so I like to spend some time on the diagrams, maps, and artwork that correspond with what I'm reading. So I'm going to comment on another picture, which is something I've in almost every post so far. On page 502 is a map of the United States, pre-50-state-ified, which is supposed to display the "original thirteen colonies". The map, however, is divided into 10 colored sections over the entire US, which confused me for a while since I thought they were referring to those colored sections as the original 13 colonies. Then I noticed the small text on the east coast which stated "THIRTEEN ORIGINAL COLONIES" near a bunch of black dots, but then I only counted 10 of them as well. It just would've helped a lot if the map clearly marked the 13 colonies , like this one on the right. It would've saved me 10 minutes of confusion... :)

RE#4: WW 16 - Religion & Science

Being a member of one of the non-Catholic, Protestant churches myself, I always wondered what the real differences were between my religion and Catholicism. I knew the general differences, such as the numerous traditions and rituals within a Catholic church that my church never did and how they have a priest/father and I have a pastor, but I did not know the specifics. The chart on page 464 was really helpful to me. Just wanted to point that out since this information was particularly interesting to me.

I think its ironic how religion is centered around what is holy, pure, and sacred, but yet they are linked to material ambitions, warfare, and large-scale deaths. The very thing that is supposed to bring people, societies together is actually tearing them apart. When I came across page 465, it surprised me at how many wars/actions were the product of conflict between the Europeans and the Catholic church - war between the Huguenots, Edict of Nantes, 30 Years War, Peace of Westphalia... Hah, that is quite a list.

The Protestant Reformation, however, was a vital and necessary part of European history because of what came of it - established divisions, separate countries that have agreed to run their people their own way. In many ways, it is a much better idea to divide the "work" rather than trying to control an entire continent of unhappy, suppressed people. In my religion class, I remembered a saying that all religions - Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism - have the same message/goal that are expressed to different groups of people in different ways. I like that. Perhaps if the early Europeans saw it from that perspective in the first place, they wouldn't have had to go through those hard, murder-inducing times.

And to think that all it took was one man to stand up and say something against the Catholic church, which I'm fairly sure were problematic for thousands of people as well.

I can't imagine what it would be like if there were only one religion in the world. It would pretty much suck to be forced into believing something, just because there were no other options. I don't think faith can be forced upon an individual because then it loses the joy that should come along with such beliefs.

RE #3: WW Chapter 15 - Global Commerce / 21st Century Chickens

original article [x]

Global Commerce. Asia to the Europeans were like the Fountain of Youth to Ponce de Leon. The journey across the Indian Ocean towards the East would result in valuable benefits that could revive and strengthen their economies and personal well-being and wealth, often referred to as "riches". Among these benefits were various goods such as spices/textiles and the development of trade systems and relationships between countries. The main contestants in this race to obtain the Eastern riches were the Portuguese and the Spanish. When I think of dominant European countries, France/Spain/Italy come to mind - not Portugal. Being that Portugal is one of the smaller countries of Europe today, it is strange to think that they were such a force to be reckoned with back then. There isn't much attention paid to them, so it was weird for me to think of them as sailors and a leading pioneer in Europe's journey to the East and an integral part in the creation of a global trading system.

The section on the Spanish invasion of the Philippines revealed a lot of information I was unaware of. I did not know that the Spanish settled there to "get ahead of" Portuguese in the "race to gain access to the riches of the East". The Philippines proved especially important to Spain during the Silver trade, as it was the destination for Spain's hoard of silver which were collected from all around the world (Bolivia>Mexico>Pacific>PI.. WOW. Now that's what I call a trip. And I thought my 5-hour flight from Hawaii to California was ridiculously long.) Random note: I thought it was interesting how the Philippines was considered an Asian country in this book. There is a lot of debate going on about whether or not Filipinos are considered Asians or Pacific Islanders. Being Filipino myself, I always considered myself Asian, but other sources seem to suggest not.

Silver is described as the fuel that got the vehicle of trade traveling across international borders - even more than the spice trade, the silver trade "gave birth to a genuinely global network of exchange". The Chinese especially benefited from their role in this industry, which resulted in a stabilizing and increasing economy, and enough funds to continue manufacturing other goods such as textiles. Because Chinese goods were "cheap and well-made", their European counterparts found it difficult to compete. I found it amusing how laws were made in 1717 that prohibited the French from wearing fabric created in India and China, so they may protect the French industry.

While their economic success is reason for celebration, the Chinese poem by Wang Dayue snaps us back to reality as he describes a result of commercialization. One result if deforestation - "hills resembled heads now shaven clean of hair". I really like this line: "they felt an anxious mood / that all their daily logging might not furnish them with fuel". It's a vicious cycle: they need to exploit natural resources to produce goods, but if they use up too much too often, they won't have enough to use as the fuel for their factories and cars, or even enough to use as warmth or food, things for their for basic survival. The saddest effect of global trade is the kidnapping and use of people for slaves. Too make a long story short since my post is getting really long, its such an unethical issue, but at the same time, they've helped build industries and countries, so there is much to be thankful for if you look at it from that view. Not to say that slavery is at any point a good thing, but its true that there are benefits from that system.

-------

21st Century Chickens. I really don't know how to approach this issue, since they both seem right and wrong from either side. If I were forced to pluck and kill the chicken myself, I would most definitely be forced to become a vegetarian since I cannot stand the idea that I am murdering a living being for my own enjoyment. I would say that animal cruelty altogether is an extremely horrible thing, but modern packaging does put the image of a live animal in the farthest part of my mind. I think that packaging is necessary, however, to enforce safety and good health standards in the modern society. I can't imagine the kinds of dangers and diseases that people would suffer from if food like chicken and beef were left up to the consumers to clean and prepare themselves.

RE #2: WW4-14, DGP15

Regarding Columbus' voyages during 1942, which marked the beginning of globalization, it is interesting to see how the explanation of history changes. While history itself does not change, people can interpret and see it from different perspectives. I remember in elementary school, Columbus was described as a great traveler and explorer who discovered America. When told in that manner, we focused only on what a great person he was and whom without, we wouldn't be here in this land today. I always wondered what happened to the Native Americans who lived here before Columbus, but was under the impression that they willingly gave in and Columbus' people accepted and treated them well. Gratefulness and awe is how we were taught to look at this man.

I appreciated that this history book told us the other half of Columbus' story - one that fills in the cracks of what my elementary school days taught me. While the Europeans may have had good intentions in taking over the Americas, with the missionaries desire to spread Christianity and save the "savage" state of the people and land, I think its horrible that they brought along with them diseases. Also, it was stated that many of the Natives were forced into slavery and/or looked down upon by the Europeans. I understand though that it must have been a difficult process to try to communicate with the natives, and that possibly to Columbus, this was all purely business - for economic and territorial reasons. I am still not completely sure of the details of how the Europeans tried to communicate with them and how many rights/freedom they had in the Americas at that time.

As an American today, little attention is given to our land's history. And while I am not 100% proud of what Columbus did to the natives and how the European domination of the Americas killed off most of their people and culture, it's amazing how far America has evolved since then.

RE #1: “In Vietnam, Teenage Daughters Sold Into Sex Slavery “

original.article [x]

I used to think that the worst thing that could happen to me right now would be my laptop crashing or getting a root canal (since I hate the sound of drills and the taste of flouride). After reading the Boudreau article, I realized that my fears are absolutely nothing compared to those Vietnamese families – people who face the problems of extreme poverty, sex slavery, and no government help everyday. A typical day for me would consist of getting 3 meals a day (either mom's cooking or eating at a restaurant) and enjoying various forms of entertainment such as a movie or shopping - so I'm guessing that would total to at least $20, not to mention bills for all the basics (electricity, gas for the car, etc). I could not possibly imagine what it is like to survive on $1 a day, for an entire family. What kind of food could one get for that amount of money? How could they have possibly landed in that kind of situation? Random note: And since those families survive on so little, how was it possible that one of the kidnapped teenagers and her family could afford a cell phone and an accompanying service plan?

A few things I’d like to comment on about this article…

It was noted that the Vietnamese families were tricked by a “motherly woman and kind gentlemen”. The fact that those people took on that façade greatly disturbs me. A mother and kind gentlemen are role models in any society, and they willingly exploited these figures, using their positive connotation and how those figures emanate feelings of kindness and safety for horrible motives.

After the kidnapped teenagers were blessed with the opportunity to return home, the article ends by proposing an imaginary situation where she would be stuck in Cambodia's sex slavery game:

Seventeen-year-old Truong, who lives in a cramped thatched home elevated over water with nine family members, said she has not given much consideration to what would have happened to her had she ended up in Cambodia. "I don't think about that," she said passively. "If it had happened, it would have been because it was my destiny. That's the life."

The teenager responds to the situation with passivity, and this bothered me. As someone who has been brought up in the American culture, one that stresses the values of self worth, independence, free will, and choice, I would have approached that “imaginary” situation with anger at the government for not taking action or something proactive, instead of just saying “it would have been my fate”. Don’t get me wrong: I do not intend to offend Vietnamese or Asian cultures in any way for their values of humility or perspective on one’s destiny. It’s just such a different way of thinking, and it's sad that anyone would think that being sold and used like an object can be excused as a proper "destiny".

I find it hard to think of a solution to this dire situation. Off the top of my head, I’m thinking of much more patrolling and police/government watch, which is an obvious answer. The multiple rehab centers are such a great idea and provide a much needed service. I touched upon this subject in high school but it was never stressed or stuck out in my mind until now, so I definitely think awareness of this problem is something that could be improved.

Overall, just the fact they have to live in fear everyday, living off a dollar a day, is something that no human being should have to experience. And it is unthinkable that some of the families were willing to sell their daughters.

As I sit here in my single dorm room, dressed in warm clothes, typing on my personal laptop while my TV is playing on the side, and even the fact that my family is able to afford my college education, I realize that at every second of the day, I am immersed in luxuries, things that those families can never fathom owning or even seeing. If I were to take only one thing from this article, it would be the realization that I really shouldn’t take anything for granted.