Archive | October, 2012

Eve Ensler’s take on Social Justice

16 Oct

Eve Ensler drones on for an excruciating nineteen minutes. I say excruciating, not because it is boring, but because the Ensler made you imagine what horrific things happen to women in Africa. She casually talks about sexual abuse, mutilation of female genitalia, and rape of girls. She makes it very clear that little girls are raped, cut, beaten, and abused. Not only this, but she described one girl’s account of her experience, that she actually ran from her father at fifteen. This girl, like very many others, was going to be sold and trafficked. Most of the girls whom are trafficked are then made into sex slaves. Their ages vary, but they are primarily young girls. Ensler uses these horrific accounts of what happen to support her thesis, social justice. How is it socially just for little girls to be treated as if they are meat? Hell, meat is treated better! She cites from primary sources that these atrocities happen and has written multiple books about it. She has donated thousands of dollars to help women in Africa. She donates to a missionary, that takes in these girls whom are running from traffickers. Many of the traffickers are their fathers trying to make ends meet. Essentially, she sums it all up with support to back her idea, saying she is trying to stop these atrocities from happening in Africa…  Ensler sets a much different mood than other speakers. She introduces a subject that makes the audience think about social justice in a new horrific, gory light. She uses these things to support the idea of social justice. Many other speakers do well by describing social justice, but few do not make the audience understand fully what the thesis is. Ensler grips the audience’s attention and makes them understand. She doesn’t use civil rights to describe it, which may lose interest, but a seemingly fictional idea to back her main idea. It seems to awful to be true, so it grabs the audience’s attention versus other possible speakers.

Although, she does have a common thread like other speakers. Ensler uses several lines of support to bring one common idea up. She supports her thesis to the end and holds the audience’s attention. Her support was more ground breaking which makes her stand out versus others. And that is what makes the difference between good and great. 

Venting about research process

11 Oct

So far, the research process has been confusing in various aspects. I suspected it would be labor-intensive and time consuming, but I also thought there  might be able a slight chance to put off working on the subject, procrastinating for a little bit, and work on my other subjects… but I was wrong. You have to hop right on the subject once you have an inkling of what you want to do or you’ll be persuaded by inner thoughts. Persuaded by your inner-thoughts to hop around from different aspects of the topic to another, like oh that’ll work or that too! We started and had to think of a topic and my head was SWARMING with ideas, controversial topics. I had a few ideas in mind and I thought the research project is a broad idea. I, again, was wrong. The subject was to be narrowed down to a research question that defines the paper. It was a relief to know the question would change over time, but it killed me it had to be narrow. What would I write specifically about this topic? I hardly know anything about my topic. Hell, I’m a straight white boy… I have no background knowledge of the topic other than my best friend is gay and so is my cousin. So we had to dive into research and surface with an even narrower topic, basically an aspect of the topic. I felt cornered, since you can go about the topic in many ways. I still feel cornered because I’m uncertain about my research topic. I know the subject definitely, but to narrow it down and skim off one aspect of that subject I do not know much about.. That’s difficult for me. I thought at first finding resources would be an issue, then the floodgates opened. I was flooded with resources and I had to choose which resource would fit. It’s like deciding which enzyme fits into the catalyst.  With more added to the process, I continue to be frustrated by my inner-self not knowing of which aspect I want to narrow my topic down to. Although, I have a feeling I’ll figure it out.

Three Very Late Night Annotations

11 Oct

Robertson, Campbell. “An issue of gay rights, but not a simple one.” New York Times. 12 May 2012: A1(L). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.

A New York Times writer, Robertson, writes about something that hits close to home, locally, in Charlotte. He does not speak about Charlotte’s rise in banking jobs, but the same-sex marriage debate. Within the first sentence Robertson says, “North Carolina is as good a place as any and possibly better than most to explore the often contradictory sentiments at the heart of the same-sex marriage debate” essentially dispelling the thesis without making the audience think hard. He informs the reader that, North Carolina is now another one of the thirty states that ban same-sex marriage. He is not surprised of the ban, because of N.C.’s progressive past, with a population that is still majorly socially conservative; although, he is surprised how decisive the citizens of N.C voted. Also, Robertson found the decisiveness of the state to pass this law to be contradictory. To support this statement, he polled a survey at Elon University, a liberal arts college, which stated two-thirds of the participants, supported some legal recognition for same-sex couples. Robertson observes various vantage points to why N.C. banned same-sex marriage, thus making the article neutral since he shines light on all ends of the spectrum from religious figure heads, which are socially conservative, to gay rights activists. I will compare the recent ban of same-sex marriage in our own state to other states views on same-sex marriage. I will provide examples how and why the ban of gay marriage in our state is socially unjust.

“Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.” Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 408-409. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.

The author writes the thesis in the first sentence saying; the Defense of Marriage Act is a law that federally denies recognition of same-sex marriages and lets states refuse to some same-sex marriages licensed in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 and signed by Bill Clinton. Congress enacted this law because they did not want homosexuals to have the same federal benefits as legal heterosexual married couples. There are two parts to the actual document. One part says no other state or Indian tribe is required to legally recognize the same-sex marriage of someone of another state or Indian tribe. The second part defines marriage and spouse to federally bar same-sex marriage from recognition through these definitions. The author goes on to explain many more topics, like the opponents views of the law. This is the second source on the Defense of Marriage Act, but multiple sources make the information much more credible. The information on Opposing View Points will be useful for credible background information, since the information is coming from an Encyclopedia of American Law. I will be able to add more information, since this source has more information.

“What is the Defense of Marriage Act.” Wall Street Journal (Online): n/a. Feb 23 2011. The Wall Street Journal. Web. 11 Oct. 2012 .

The Defense of Marriage Act was created in 1996, signed by Bill Clinton. This federal law defines marriage as the partnership of a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Marriage of same-sex couples is legal in few states, but the people who are married in these states are not considered married under federal law. This makes it impossible for a partner to inherit tax benefits from the deceased spouse. The anonymous Wall Street Journal author states the thesis clearly as, “The law says the federal government will only recognize marriages that are between a man and a woman.” The anonymous author explained that the opponents of the marriage law believe the law violates the Constitution’s equal protection of the law. Under careful consideration of the current judicial administration, they believe the marriage law is unconstitutional. The law will not be overturned and most likely will not be changed, unless a court overrules it. A similar thread appeared recently in California, where voter-approved state law, Proposition 8, banned gay marriage. It is now being considered unconstitutional and the Defense of Marriage Law is being reconsidered. This source gives light to what the Defense of Marriage Law is. The Defense of Marriage Law essentially bans same-sex marriage at a federal level, so this source will give me credible background information on the law.

Library.helped.alot

9 Oct

After going to the library and listening to ‘our personal librarian’… He helped us understand how to use databases, ebooks, and how to search for research documents. With this knowledge, I can know find resources easier. I can go on the Johnson and Wales Library website to look over credible resources. This is time saving versus slaving over tens of books, that will not end up helping. These databases and ebooks will end up helping me save time and in the end find better sources. Databases and online resources pool information together, thus making it easier to find more resources. These are not just resources, but credible resources. I know all of these resources are credible, because they have been verified credible. For a source to be on this website, it must be published. With this knew found knowledge, I can find credible resources for my research project.

Aside

Huey defines Social Injustice.

6 Oct

Huey essentially defines social injustice as the oppression or unequal treatment of a populous; using the Lakota Native Americans as an example to thoroughly define how oppressive the American government is. Through the fifteen minutes of depressing examples, he explained their modern existence. He explained the majority of the population is Alcoholic and there is constant domestic abuse in the tribe, which leads to grandparents raising children.

Huey describes the Lakota’s past history in chronological sequence. He said the Lakota Native Americans of Blackfoot Hills, North Dakota, the majority, were killed or pushed out of the area. He showed the audience a map of the U.S., that if the Lakota were treated fairly, would have a reservation the area of Iowa. The Lakota now have a one-hundred mile area to fit their population. The American treated the Lakota’s unfairly and still are receiving little compensation for what they did in the past.

Social (In)justice

2 Oct

Stephenson is what one would consider a charismatic speaker. He lights a fire under you and you want to continue watching what he has to say.  I watched this video two days ago, so I am cloudy on how Stephenson defined social (in)justice. Webster’s Dictionary defines social injustice as the distribution of advantages and disadvantages in a society. This is also known as Egalitarianism.
I vividly remember Stephenson saying that when he went to Germany, he asked about their capital death policy and the people at the meeting looked appalled. This is ironic, considering Germany’s dark history. They have no room to talk! He believes deciding someone else’s life is socially unjust.
To add to this, Stephenson speaks of a thirteen year old African American boy that was held accountable for an adult crime, such as murder, in adult court. I personally do not believe this is socially unjust since he committed murder, but I agree with him whole-heatedly, thinking children should not be tried in adult court with the high possibility of capital death. He jokingly tells the crowd that if the jury tried the boy as a seventy year old Caucasian man, the end result would be different.
Stephenson speaks of when Rosa Parks, his grandmother, and elderly city officials reminisced of their past. As they reminisced, Rosa Parks spoke of the time she knew clearest; being kicked off the back of the bus and she held her own, staying there. Rosa Parks described to him how difficult being a black woman was at the time and how it was socially unjust.