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.

King Leopold: Bad Father or just blinded by power?

Something that really stuck with me was Leopold's ignorance towards the needs of his family.
Question number 14, How did Leopold's failing family life affect his actions in the Congo, really made me think more about the sacrifices that Leopold made in order to get further. Although Leopold liked about being a Humanitarian I still semi-respect him because he put the Congo as number one on his priority list. His dedication was amazing. He put his family on the back burner to focus all of his efforts on the Congo. He in a way did use the Congo as an escape from his family. He had many issues at home with his daughters and when he would fail as a father things in the Congo would progress.

DIALOGUE
me → Why would you ever choose to stay in a place like this?
Louise → I had put up with so much for so long and I was sick of following the rules. I dealt with the expectations of my family for so long and I was about to crack. The mask I had been wearing began to fall away and I realized that I could not let my family ruin my life. I knew that I had to finally stand up for myself and get what I wanted:love. I took a risk by having an affair, but I don't regret it. In a way it freed me of my chains as a daughter of King Leopold. I chose the asylum because in here you don't have to hide a thing. You don't have to wear a mask. They accept you, even if what you are is merely a loon.

DESCRIBING THE INDIVIDUALS LIFE
If Louise hadn't attempted to elope with her lover, she would have never been sent to an asylum. If she hadn't had the courage to attempt to leave she would have been stuck unhappily in her marriage forever. Louise matured as she aged

Questions
Why were people quick to believe Leopold was a good humanitarian? Did anyone suspect him of putting up a front and not having pure intentions?
How did Leopold's family past affect his idea of family when he was older?
Did Leopold's trouble at home push him to succeed in other aspects of his life (The Congo).

Questions in Class 1

Was it a good decision for Stanley to explore with men who had no experience as travelers? Why or why not?
Stanley's decision to explore without experienced companions was not a very wise idea, but he knew exactly what he was doing. "Out of the twelve hundred men who applied to join the expedition, some of them highly experienced travelers, he chose three unsuitable companions: a pair of sailor-fishermen, the brothers Drank and Eward Pocock, and a young hotel clerk named Frederick Barker"(Hochschild 49). "None of three had had any experience exploring" (49). "Stanley was always uncomfortable with anyone whose talents might outshine his own" and that is why he chose people that would have no chance of making him look bad or doing/finding something significant on their own. He planned it out so that he would be the star and that people wouldn't even remember the names of the other men. Stanley was practically exploring alone. If something would have went wrong, he would have had only himself to rely on. A hotel clerk, a bugle player... he didn't go out with a group schooled in the ways of the exploration. It was not a good idea at all, but he knew of the risk that came with taking incompetent companions on a trip where nothing was unexpected.

Quotes!

quotes that i found interesting...

“Leopold's letters and memos, forever badgering someone about acquiring a colony, seem to be in the voice of a person starved for love as a child and now filled with an obsessive desire for an emotional substitute, the way someone become embroiled in an endless dispute with a brother or sister over an inheritance, or with a neighbor over a property boundary. The urge for more can become insatiable, and its apparent fulfillment seems only to exacerbate that early sense of deprivation and to stimulate the need to acquire still more” (Hochschild 38).

“He has a script: the dream of a colony that had been through his head since he was a teenager. But he has as yet no stage, no cast” but “one day in September 1877,” the “Stage and star have appeared, and the play can begin” (Hochschild 46).

Stanley -> "The thin-skinned Stanley was remarkably frank about his tendency to take any show of hostility as a deadly insult. It is almost as if vengeance were the force driving him across the continent" (Hochschild 49).

"Stanley was always uncomfortable with anyone whose talents might outshine his own" (Hochschild 49). -> Even though this quote is short, I think it is important to realize that Stanley was a very proud man who loved the fame of being an explorer as much as the next person