Month: October 2019

This article talks about some of the class tensions in colonial America during the time leading up to the Declaration of Independence. While the majority of the American Revolution leaders that we learn about today, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, were wealthy, they needed to convince the poor and middle class to join their cause in order to be successful. One way that they were able to do this was through Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense. Paine was very specific about the colonists’ grievances against the British, and used language that would create a feeling of patriotism between people of all classes. Paine himself was an immigrant who had grown up poor in England, so he understood how to appeal to working class people better than other revolutionary leaders.

I thought it was interesting that several of the revolutionary leaders were upset by Common Sense because although they wanted a more egalitarian government, they “wanted to make sure it didn’t go too far in the direction of democracy.” The author seemed to be arguing that they used poor and middle class people when it was necessary for the cause, but then once they achieved their goals they returned to living separate lives. For example, when a political group in Boston called the Loyal Nine needed rioters to get the Stamp Act repealed, they organized a special dinner for the rioters. However, once the Stamp Act was repealed due to this resistance, they severed these connections and did not invite the rioters to any celebrations.

1 Comment

Tyranny is Tyranny

Susan Nevin

The reading we read for this lesson, Tyranny is Tyranny, focused on the process the United States had to go through to separate from British rule, and gain their independence. The reading opens discussing how the English needed the Colonies wealth for than the Colonies needed the support of England. This was one of the bigger reasons that lead to the rebellions and eventual war, because the English needed America more than America needed them. In addition, the article showed how the people had the power, especially the lower class. 

Specifically, Tom Paine, author of Common Sense, made the first real argument towards the idea of American independence. I found this super interesting, as Common Sense was a pamphlet geared towards the common people. After writing this, Paine became a figurehead for this movement, and emphasized the power of the common people. He did this through relating to them, as Paine was just a poor immigrant who came to America. He initially seemed to give a voice to the lower and middle class, but later on showed his allegiance to the wealthy, when he became an associate of Robert Morris. I found this switch of side interesting, as his rise to popularity through this speeches that connected to the lower class

2 Comments

The reading titled Tyranny is Tyranny is about early American history before and the beginning of its independence. It illustrates the problems the colonies faced under the ruling of Britan with taxes. In the article, it stated, “so, the American leadership was less in of English rule, the English more in need of the colonists’ wealth” (pg.60). This shows one of the major problems that made the 13 colonies freedom from Britan, causing a rise in revolts. This problem, however, does not end with freedom from Britan, because the U.S. seems to still not understand taxation and the entirety of its effects, as the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich due to taxation. This again lead to riots. 

What I found most interesting however, was the analysis of the paper does on The Declaration of Independence. It highlights the statement, “all men are created equal” and how the word “men” was not used as an umbrella term from all people, rather specifically used to not include women. It is also important to point out of course the lack of inclusion of other races, identities, and social classes even if the statement did not say, “wealthy white men.” 

The article at the end also points of the inequalities seen when it came to be having to serve and how one could get out of it by “paying for substitutions.” This leads me to ask, in our society and government today, what are some things that deliberately or non-deliberately exclude minorities and that in effect allow the privileged to be a foot ahaed of the game like in the case of paying to not go to war?

2 Comments

I think that this article really illustrated the idea of “power to the people.” If you can motivate a lot of people to care about an issue you can make a lot of progress. Many of the instances of rebellion described in the reading were situations of the poor being upset about wealth disparity in the colonies. This was not the most powerful group in society by any means. The poor, however were able to get a large group of people together to illustrate how they felt about the issue and that was impactful. It was a real case of strength in numbers. If you are able to get the masses upset enough about an issue, actions will be taken.

I found the part of the reading that talked about “the myth of the Revolution– that it was on behalf of a unified people,” to be very interesting. The Revolution was being caused by a large group of colonists, many of which wanted different things. Despite them all wanting different things, they all had a similar end goal that they thought would further their cause. I think that this goes to show that it is still possible to lead a group that is motivated by different things, to a common goal. The leader just needs to understand the different motivations and target them.

1 Comment

Through reading this article I became very confused and recognized the complexities that exist when it comes to fighting inequality, particularly between those who are oppressed and those who are considered to be in the oppressive position. In early American history the vulnerable population of poor labor workers, mechanics and artisans were fighting to be treated equally and respected by the rich people who employed them. Instead of opposing them, the article spoke about how there were rich individuals representing these poor populations and broadcasting their issues. The rich “linked to the artisans and laborers through a network of neighborhood taverns, fire companies, and the Caucus…that gave credence to laboring-class views and regarded as entirely legitimate” (Zinn).  After reading this, I was pushed to question what benefit would the rich have in helping the poor. In this case, they are the oppressors and the ones who should be making changes but instead, they are siding and advocating for those who are oppressed. Although this is beneficial to the poor workers, the changes should come directly from the rich. This connection reminded me of the fight for racial equality and the presence of white allies in the Civil Rights movement. In a similar way, the white allies helped advocate for their disenfranchised counterparts. However, with this situation, I am able to understand that those who were advocating had levels of power but not political power that could change laws. In making this comparison there are many questions to be asked about who can be allies, who can help the opposing population and what exactly needs to be done to create changes in these situations.

Further in the article, Zinn wrote about the Regulators and their attempt to rebel against their oppressors. A major part of their problems revolved around taxes and not being able to vote on taxes which heavily affected them. In contrast to the earlier general population of workers, the Regulators were much more organized and even created revolts against the rich to assert their opinion in matters which affected them. They even went as far as ” organiz[ing] to prevent the collection of taxes, or the confiscation of the property of tax delinquents” (Zinn).  This group, without the backing of the rich, were able to create their own changes and rules. This additionally complicates the question of why allies are necessary, if they are necessary and what is their purpose?

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

On Thursday, October 24th from 12:00-1:00 PM, the Office of Common Ground and the Boatwright Memorial Library presented Dr. Camilla Nonterah of the Department of Psychology. Her program covered how the social, economic and physical environment in which one lives influences his or her overall health and well-being. Dr. Nonterah introduced the concept that humans conceptualize health differently– health is typically seen as a byproduct of things that one is not doing right such as exercising, eating well, or other habits. However, factors such as income, class, education, social support, genetics, access to health services, sex, and gender identity. Dr. Nonterah explained the concept of social determinants of health, which are nonmedical factors associated with overall health. Examples of the social determinants of health include living in a food desert, living in an area affected by violence (walkability), racial discrimination, and the stresses associated with living in severe poverty. Social determinants of health can result in health disparities, which are differences that are preventable such as disease, injury, violence, and access to optimal health. 

 

Dr. Nonterah’s discussion related to leadership and the humanities through her connection of health disparities to public health policy as well as the connections to intersectionality, implicit biases, and race issues. In order to reduce health disparities, local, state, and federal political bodies must act to close the gaps in overall health. In class, we discussed how implicit biases against disadvantaged groups occur all the time without us realizing; this may seem harmless in conversation, but in the scope of healthcare, implicit bias is extremely detrimental. For example, Latinx and black patients were found to not be treated for health conditions due to implicit bias; Asian Americans were not being screened thoroughly for cancer symptoms, resulting in cancer advancing and becoming fatal. We see the history of redlining and discriminatory housing policies putting minorities in the most unsafe, inaccessible, lowest-funded areas and therefore diminishing their access to good health.

 

Anna Marston

Leave a Comment

The Silence of Others is an award-winning documentary that was released in 2018. This documentary, directed by Almudena Carracedo & Robert Bahar, is about the movement to repeal Spain’s 1977 Amnesty Law AKA the “Argentine Lawsuit”. The film follows this lawsuit over the course of 6 years and tells the stories of many who were abused and mistreated under Franco’s 40 years of dictatorship. It isn’t an easy documentary to watch (I cried three times), but it is impactful and I sincerely hope it only adds fuel to the fire and that Spain concedes and finally acknowledges the war crimes of the Franco era and brings those responsible (those who can still be brought) to justice.

As the title of the film suggests, this lid over Spain’s violent history applies not only to Spain, but to other countries as well. There are pictures of Franco with various US Presidents (one being Nixon), French Presidents, and other leaders of countries. And just like Spain doesn’t teach their children about it in school, I never learned about Franco in any of my World History classes. The forced omission of this period for Spain is contagious. One of the people in the film said “justice has no boundaries”. And it’s that thinking that brought on the Argentine Lawsuit. These traumatized people had to seek justice from a country that isn’t their own.

To tie this to leadership, I could talk about Franco who very much led like Hitler and incited fear to control his groups. I could make an argument that he is a toxic charismatic based on the footage that they showed and the intense following he had in life and–unfortunately–continues to have in death. However, this film isn’t about Franco. It’s about the families and it’s about the horror and the tragedy. Franco enforced–and the loyalists carried out– permanent inequality. What started as something based on the “Eugenics of Spanishness” grew and spun into a cruel regime that abused anyone who wasn’t in the dominant group. People were taken as prisoners, tortured, and executed for the most minor forms of dissent, or even for nothing at all (wrong place, wrong time). A group of women in the film banded together to get justice for their babies who were stolen from them in hospitals (“We want out children back, dead or alive.”). Permanent inequality breeds a mindset that sees the outgroup as inhuman–that’s the only possible explanation that all the loyalists could behave this way, it’s the only mindset that would make anything about this situation easier to swallow.

(I watched this documentary at the 10/24, 7:30 showing in Jepson 118)

Leave a Comment

In this article, Zinn challenges modern mythology that shrouds our contemporary understanding of the American struggle for independence and equality. Instead of a fight for freedom from a tyrannical, monarchical rule, Zinn explains how colonial elites persuasively manipulated and mobilized the working classes that were needed to garner the support to challenge England. Working classes were used as pawns in the elite struggle to establish a new, privileged ruler. They used persuasive language and propaganda in order to unite the masses with colonial elite, mobilizing this workforce by exercising ideas of enlightenment and equality. However, the colonial elite made sure to maintain the distribution of wealth and power among themselves, and effectively restrained the poor when they became too enthralled with ideas of democracy and freedom. The interest in the lower classes was only taken when the elite realized they could use these people to their advantage, which they accomplished in doing so. It is also important to note that many were entirely excluded from this mobilization attempt, such as women, who Zinn notes were seen as politically invisible. Native Americans and African Americans were also outside this sphere of influence and were seen as groups that needed to be suppressed since the British were trying to incite rebellions among them against the colonists.

 

This article explains the foundation of American hypocrisy and the effort of the elite to mobilize working class voters to their advantage. This act has taken place over the entire course of American history and can be even seen in political debate today. Republican and Democrat politicians have both used their privilege and influence to use the working class to benefit their own priories and maintain the status quo of wealth and power. Donald Trump’s huge gains in the Midwest in the 2016 election parallel the issue Zinn discusses. Trump’s campaign to put America first and pull back the reigns of the progressive Obama administration  won him great support among white working class that had previously voted democrat. Despite low unemployment rates, Trump’s tariff policy against China has hurt these same rural agricultural workers and followed the arc of Zinn’s argument. This is nothing new. Many forms of political leadership throughout history demonstrate that those who do not have a voice in the affairs of the state are regularly exploited, manipulated, and ultimately end up paying the price for forms of political or economic revolution.

1 Comment

I honestly think it’s fascinating how people can be persuaded to do things that they would not otherwise.  Jonestown was a community that offered hope and change from normal day to day suffering. Jim Jones knew that and was able to exploit it using his extreme charisma to convince people of his way of life. Jonestown is a very extreme example of what cults can do and the dangers they pose. Jonestown is where the saying ‘drink the kool-aid’  came from,  FOllowers were ushered in by drug recovery programs and offers of hope and change that resulted in such complete ‘brainwashing’ that the majority of people in the cult killed themselves. I think the groupthink in this is very apparent. When you have one leader who is telling you what to think and there is a group of die-hard supporters ready to ‘learn’ from this person, no one is willing to question qhat is going on and the choices that the leader is making. This results in large scale bad decisions such as mass suicide. Jonestown is an example of both toxic charisma and group think resulting in a great tragedy and many many unnecessary deaths.

3 Comments

This podcast was so interesting. It’s just so extremely fascinating to me that Jones began as an activist of racial, economic, and social inequality before transitioning into these dark and twisted practices.

What is also intriguing is how reluctant everyone was to leave the place despite the russian roulette of suicide drinks. This is representative of the impact Jones had on the people, and how powerful a leader can be. Although they were claims of the people to be brainwashed, these people wholeheartedly followed Jones because they believed in his message. This demonstrates that the powerful of a leader, despite the detrimental consequences of Jones’ practices in particular, is unmatched.

1 Comment

Today on October 23rd, 2019 I went to a presentation by Thomas Pickering who is the former U.S. ambassador to Iran. His talk was informative and additionally gave some possibilities for future relations. He is in a very unique position of power – one where civility and diplomacy are prioritized over any other aspect of a scenario which he has to deal with. This allows Pickering to make decisions and state opinions that other powerful figures would not be able to make or state due to other ties and other priorities.

Pickering began his presentation by explaining a brief history of United States relations with Iran. He explained that Iran’s nuclear interest and its comprehensive plan of action to build up its nuclear repertoire created tensions with the U.S. Regardless of administration, the same problems would remain. These issues existed during the Obama administration, remain to this day during the Trump administration, and would be inevitable to cease whether the Trump administration was elected for another four years or a new more progressive agenda was elected. Under the Shah, Iran had a lot of great ambitions which led to attempts to utilize more chemical weapons and in greater quantities. These ambitions to be more of a force also led to developing a Nuclear program which was based especially around a French reactor. Using equipment from Pakistan, Iran tried to make Plutonium. U.S. sanctions were promptly placed on Iran as an incentive to get Iran to stop this production.

Currently, Iran is still working on the reactor to produce Plutonium. However, the legislature passed under the Obama administration indicates that if any one party finds Iran in violation of this resolution, all of the former sanctions will be reinstated. President Trump took the United States out of this agreement, and Iran has taken up the quantity and quality of its enrichment, and is now moving closer and closer to producing nuclear weapons. The U.S. tightened its sanctions on Iran, and the problems continue. At the end of the day, United States policy is essentially villainizing Iran. As Pickering admitted, Iran has made mistakes in its policy, but not unlike the United States, or any other nation. To conclude, Pickering delivered a powerful final line: “you have to negotiate with your enemies, not your allies.” Despite controversial choices by the Iranian government and the United States government alike, it is absolutely essential that there is some negotiation between these two nations if these continuous and repetitive problems are ever to come to an end.

Leave a Comment

I found this podcast very interesting. I was surprised I have never heard of Jim Jones and the things he did previously to listening to the podcast. It so intriguing how Jim Jones a person who started off as a leader with good intentions and practices turned insane. Jones is a good example of power changing someone completely. He admired Hitler and ultimately became a version of him by creating a massacre. It was ironic how someone who believed in racial equality would admire someone like Hitler.

One thing they said in the podcast I thought was interesting was that if a couple of things had went differently, we could be talking about Jim Jones as a hero rather than a murderer. He would still have his flaws as all leaders do, but he made decisions that made him go from charming and charismatic to evil.

6 Comments

The story of Jim Jones and Jonestown is one of deception and manipulation. Jim Jones’s personality was contradictory; even though he was a huge advocate for civil rights and racial equality, one of his childhood role models was Adolf Hitler. Tony and Albert from the podcast “Big Ideas” describe how Jones was drawn to the preciseness in the discipline and order of the Nazis, while most kids wanted to act like American soldiers. His persona of a benevolent preacher was also a façade, as he engaged in extramarital sex and heavy drug use. Furthermore, he acknowledged and justified these things to his congregation.

 

Whether his actions were genuine or not, Jones could be extraordinarily kind to his followers. He did his best to know every single member of his congregation, and when someone needed help on bills or rent, he would often times rally his followers around this person to help them.

 

In today’s polarized political environment, I think that it is incredibly important that we do not “drink the Kool-Aid.” It should go without saying that a mass murder-suicide is unlikely in our modern era, but with today’s mudslinging campaigning style dominating politics, it is crucial that we maintain the ability to see both sides of an argument. Evaluating each sides’ motive is the first step, and it further than concluding that they just want to win a particular position.

 

 

 

 

 

3 Comments

I thought this podcast was extremely interesting. It delves into jones town and Jim Jones as a leader. A very interesting point that was made was that Jones was a very good charismatic person and had really encouraged his followers to make an impact on racial inequality. Being able to learn and take in what he had accomplished before the peoples temple had gone crazy out of control and that’s what caught my attention during the podcast. I thought it was extremely interesting how people would join the church not for religious reasons but instead for Jones thoughts. This explicitly shows his charisma and how he could really command his followers.

It was really sad to hear about how Jones was turned negatively with all of his great ideas and charisma. He was going in a really solid direction and then went south very quickly and was very interesting to see how that spiraled down.

4 Comments

Economic inequality has cemented itself as one of the most prominent features of American politics, There is a lot of discussion about how to share the wealth, “trickle down economics” and the 1% by politicians, the working class, the upper class, and pretty much everyone else in America. It is a common discussion point with regards to the American future and how to fix this problem, but it is rarely talked about in the context of how this dilemma came to be. Reading these excerpts, a lot suddenly made sense about how America got to where it is in terms of a huge wealth gap that is growing every day.

I never would have connected the American Revolution with America’s current economic issues, but it makes sense that the struggle to gain independence from the British was the “forecast of the long history of American politics, the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians.” This is still one of the most significant aspects of American economic equality; upper-class politicians sympathize with lower-class citizens and recognize their grievances in order to gain their support, but few of these upper-class leaders actually do anything about the lower class’ struggles. In order to ever overturn this cycle, it is fundamental that some politicians actually reciprocate the lower-class energy and support which they gain.

Leave a Comment

On November 18th I performed along with Ngoma African Dance Company in the Celebration of Dance concert. Bringing together many different groups and styles of dancing this concert intended to build and celebrate dance in all of its forms. By including dances of Hispanic descent, African dance, hip-hop, traditional South Asian dances and many others the concert not only succeeded in showcasing talent but introduced many different cultures and traditions onto one stage.

For my specific performance, we performed Kuku, which is a traditional coming of age dance for youth in West Africa. The message of this dance intends to unite young adults as they all move into their next stage of life as adults. By dancing, we tried to replicate the group dynamic that is in the tradition itself throughout our performance. There were a few ways we tried to achieve this: firstly by interacting with each other throughout the performance whether that was by us talking, making small gestures, eye contact or depending on one another to know when our transitions were. This created a group dynamic that was very dependent on each other but encouraged us to work more closely with one another. In addition to simply dancing along with the other performers, there was an extra emphasis on group structure because we depended on the drums for cues rather than counts or a specific accent in the music. Working with the drummers brought the group even closer as we had to truly rely on each other to know what to do and when. Part of this reliance goes back to the nature of West African dancing and music. Our instructor taught us that in dancing to African music it is important that your movements follow the rhythm of the drums but in a way that seems natural and authentic. Although this was hard to envision, personally, because I was used to having choreographed movement, I came to understand his point.

Leave a Comment

On Wednesday 23 October I went to hear ambassador Thomas Pickering speaking about US Iran Relations.

He first focuses on the history of the relationship. First, Iran was focused on economic development, specifically with their nuclear program. They even promoted education of nuclear physics and other nuclear technologies. Their focus was on plutonium production and uranium enrichment. Many other nations, through the UN, began to worry about this. In return, Iran went into a two year standstill to show that everyone could trust them. The US was not involved but made it clear that they did not want Iran to go back to doing this. The Obama administration believed in containment without production and wanted nuclear inspection program. Then, in January of 2015 an agreement was made for limited enrichment and remodification of machinery. There was also an agreement to not make nuclear weapons nor burning of fuel in these power reactors.

When the Trump administration took office the US was pulled out of the agreement, which means we were no longer monitoring Iran. Iran has increased both the quantity and quality of enrichment. They have also increased violent events but there has been no major military retaliation. There are many theories of where we go from here, the majority of which including negotiations rather than violence, to which Pickering adds that it is much easier to pay diplomats than to afford war. Pickering ended on a note of solving problems through one on one contact and continuing these conversations between the two places. Even though they do things we don’t like but vice versa, you can’t negotiate peace with your allies.

 

Leave a Comment

Over the weekend I watched a leadership lecture given by Sen. Jennifer McClellan titled, “Where Do We Go From Here?” In her presentation, McClellan began by defining leadership as the guidance of a group through the present and to plan for the future. She makes it clear that leadership is the goal of moving forward, but to do so, one must know where they are, and where they come from. She gives an example of governor Bob McDonald of how past actions, affect present ideals. When he faced her with the question of how Virginia was doing with race. She responded progressively as there was an African American president at the time, but also addressed voter laws that were still in place not allowing minorities of color to vote. This was an example of how past actions still affect the present, and how learning that, the governor was able to change that in the future. 

 

McClellan went on to carry that example to show how change can happen within leadership by knowing the past, understanding how it still affects the present, and using that knowledge to change the future in a positive direction. Interestingly, she also went over some America history to illustrate how equality was so difficult to obtain by the laws that were first created for the white males. She also blamed bigotry and ignorance for the fact that equality for all not yet being accomplished. 

 

What I found interesting too is that she explained cultural lag when it comes to new people in leadership especialy as more minorities were gaining places in government. An example she presented is the Chorletville riots in the announcement of Obama winning the presidential elections. As she continued to explain more factors that still impact our society when it comes to race, she ended on a high note stating that there is hope in the reach for equality if we have hopeful leaders and help from everyone.  

Leave a Comment

This story/podcast may be the most interesting podcast we’ve listened to. I knew about the massacre but I had no clue about the leader behind it. It’s amazing to see how power can change someone so much. Jim Jones began as an amazing activist who did great things for people but slowly started to turn mad. Many people have attested to his kindness and charisma so it’s interesting how a person can seem one way but turn out to be completely different.

I also find it interesting how he claimed to God. It made me think of divine right and how previous kings in England had this same belief. History has shown us that when people claim to be God they tend to do tyrant like things because they believe that they are either god or God personally told them to. I wonder why people continue to follow leaders who make similar claims even though history proves that we shouldn’t. We are supposed to learn from the past so I wonder what keeps compelling people to make the same decisions. Maybe it is the charisma that people like Jim Jones have or is it that people want something to believe in that they can see?

7 Comments