Milgram Experiment Reflection

I have decided that I'm going to start entering my free writes into this blog so I won't lose them as easily. After watching this video I was a bit surprised more than anything. I thought it was remarkable how all of the men protested against giving out a shock at one point... This doesn't seem to add up to the Nazi's though. It makes me wonder if any of them refused to harm any of the Jews. In this video it made it look like all of the "testers" challenged authority at one point, but in the story of the Holocaust you never really hear of any officers in the camps all fighting back and saying no. Would I stop? Would I be afraid to stop? Would that drive me to keep going just to save myself?
The tester that kept going to 450 was probably the worst to me. You could obviously tell that the man was very emotional and upset about what he was doing.

Spiegelman

close analysis of one image
where's your head at after the discussion and what's one idea you want to explore


After the discussion, I find myself emotionally... jumbled. Since I was younger I have heard stories of the Holocaust. Of the brutal genocide that murdered thousands of people, but it always seemed very far away. A story that was so far in the past that it in no way would affect the society in which I lived in. I think this was because whenever someone would talk to me about this they made it seemed very official and complicated, but Spiegelman discussed it in a way that I can look at it on a different level. He stripped away many of the strenuous details and just left the facts that were needed to convey the pain inflicted upon the people in concentration camps... While I was reading the story, I was grateful for the easy read, but during the discussion I got kind of angry that Spiegelman was talking about the Holocaust so nonchalantly. It was nice to have the bare necessities of the story because it definitely helped me view it in an easier way, but I don't think it really did the story of the Holocaust justice. During the discussion I felt like i just couldn't word what I was trying to say because I am not sure how I feel about the style of Spiegelman's writing. None of the wording was very difficult, and sometimes i think that the pictures were more affective than the words.

Sweartshops

Things Noticed by the Class
- sweatshops considered positive
- boycotting could be harmful
- most workers are women
- $2/9 hours = decent pay
- pollution considered biggest problem
- workers want long hours
- parents are pleased kids have jobs
- creating middle class
- higher wages = fewer people have jobs but if you keep the low wages, then more people can have a little
- $1-2 a day keeps people out of poverty
- 1/4 of world's economy

Questions thought of through the reading of the article and thinking of some of the statements from UDHR article 23
- Do environmental questions outweigh personal gain?
- How can conditions be improved?
- Will this ultimately lead to better working conditions?
- Will exposure to U.S. lifestyle change how Asians perceive sweatshops?
- How does governing body affect fair labor standards?

15 year old girl -> father prefers her to have a job instead of going to school... how this differs from the things that 15 year old Americans do

First Thoughts
I was surprised to get a different view points on such a popular topic. In the U.S. you always hear about how awful sweatshops are and that they should be shut down, but this article provided me with a more positive outlook on the factories.
Although the $1-$2 a day wage is extremely low, it still can help some people out of the deepest parts of poverty. If people stop buying things from sweatshops, it is actually just going to hurt the CHinese people in the end. Less incoming profit = less jobs available = more women without jobs...
higher wages-> less jobs for women -> more women in poverty
lower wages-> more jobs-> although no one has a lot, they have enough

Modern day congo article 2

I got very lucky and was interested in the first two articles that were on the NY Times web page. What really caught my eye on this one was the picture of the young child who is so malnourished that his ribs are protruding from his sides. This article was entitled "Congo’s Death Rate Unchanged Since War Ended" and the author is Lydia Polgreen. This article highlights the fact that even after billions of dollars have been put into rebuilding the Congo, nearly 45,000 people die every month from disease and sickness alone. Although the violence from the war has decreased, the total deaths in some places, such as in Central Congo, have actually increased. It discusses how it takes a country much longer than would would assume to recover from such a destructive event such as a war. Less than half of the deaths were caused by violence, showing that sometimes "the after math of war is sometimes more deadly that combat itself". Were the diseases that these people are dying from caused from the "invaders" from different countries? Were they the ones brining it in, kind of like the Europeans bringing in the disease when Leopold was in charge? Have those diseases been destroyed or were these new ones just adding to the old ones that were never taken care of? The Congolese government spends a measly $15 a year on health care for each citizen, and obviously this has hindered them. Maybe the government should have been focusing more on the health of the people instead of purely on the physical violence being presented by the invaders. If disease is taking out more people than violence, then this obviously a sign that the death tolls are rising due to the face that the government is ignoring the state in which their people are in. SHould the government have spent more time/money attempting to give people immunizations and antibiotics instead of focusing purely on force WOuld this help the death total and decrease the number of lives that are being lost in the congo every month due to the peoples poor health?

The Congo - Modern Day - Article 1

I found my article on The New York Times website. It is titled "Frenzy of Rape in Congo Reveals U.N. Weakness" and is by Jeffrey Gettleman. This article discusses how the Congo has ultimately become both the U.N.'s greatest investment and greatest failure. Although they have spent much time attempting to improve the lives of the people in the Congo, they have still failed to achieve their main goal which is to protect the civilians. The beginning of this article tells of a story in which a 70 year old woman is raped by four armed men while U.N. peace keeping officials were stationed right up the road. The area of the Congo still continues to be rich in goods to this day, and that causes for large amounts of rebel groups attempting to take control over the mining of such materials as gold, tin and ore. The government claims to be in control, and attempts to flush out these groups by shutting down mines and halting the production of the goods in hopes of leading these groups away from the Congo, but most of the mines aren't even run by the government, thus they have little control at all. Although the U.N. has been working towards improving the lives of the civilians, women are still being raped and the people are still in danger. The officials are getting a little too wrapped up in the production of some goods instead of really focusing on keeping the people of the Congo safe from rebel forces. Why are the U.N. officials staying outside of the town? Why are they not staying in the heart of these villages so that they could stop these atrocities (the raping of women) before they even begin? It seems that the officials aren't focusing enough on the safety of the people and instead worrying about the bigger picture. Although that is a good thing, and will help the people in the long run, right now the main issue is the safety of the people of the Congo so that there will indeed be a future.