Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

After reading “The Unreported Resistance” in PHUS, I am left with a feeling of disappointment and distress about the relationship between the United States government and its people. This chapter really highlighted the “permanent advarial culture” during the late 1900s that plagued our country. I had always thought Reagan was one of our best presidents, but after reading about the number of contested and controversial events that happened during his time, now I am not so sure. For example, on the topic of nuclear war, the fact that there were 151 meetings on college campuses as well as the largest political demonstration in history of the country taking place in Central Park protesting the arms race, is concerning. I have never even learned nor heard about the Central Park protest, which I think is a significant thing to learn, as it was the largest in history.

I couldn’t help comparing the public unrest and resistance to the government during this time period of the reading, to today’s political climate. I find it crazy that more than 20 years later we are still protesting against the government, almost more than ever before, and the government still doesn’t know how to deal with it. Will there ever be a day when protests and riots mean something to our government? Will we ever have an authoritative figure who cares enough about their “people” to listen to what they are arguing against and fighting for? I believe there is a large disconnect between the government and the citizens of the United States, a gap that has always been there and continues to widen with each passing day, and will only worsen unless something is done. With the election of a new president this year, it will be interesting to see how our country responds to his policies, and whether the protests and resentment towards the government as a whole will change.

3 Comments

In the chapter, “The Unreported Resistance,” Zinn makes the effort to point out the “permanent adversarial culture” that goes unmentioned. Whenever there is resistance to any institution or any part of the government, the first response is to act surprised as if it’s something new and unlike the norm. As much as this happens, I don’t think this is actually what is going on. I think no matter what, there is always going to be an opposition, but at times it isn’t always heightened and so the media doesn’t feel the need to highlight it. Even when there is heightened resistance to problems, the media doesn’t always feel the need to cover it. For example, this year, there were many protests across the nation and even the world for many different reasons. Although the number of protests was a rising phenomenon, the reason for the protests wasn’t anything new. There have always been people that spoke out against, abortion rights, police brutality, the president’s racism, and many other reasons, but the media made it seem as if these issues were new to America and that people were just starting to have a problem with them. For a while, the media was covering a lot of the protests and demonstrations that were going on but eventually, they stopped, even when the people didn’t. It made it seem like a large part of the country stopped caring about these issues when that was not at all the case. Long after the media stopped covering protests in New York, the people were still out there on a daily basis. The media has the ability to create the feeling of strong ups and downs in institutional opposition, even if it is always there, and is a factor in the “permanent adversarial culture” going unnoticed.

In Ezra Klein’s podcast, he talked about the polarization of American politics. I question how polarized American politics actually are, and if the polarization has more to do with our perceptions of each party. The reason I say this is because when we look at what each president is able to accomplish during their time in office, it has little effect on many peoples’ daily lives. I feel like during presidential campaigns, there is always an emphasis on what each candidate will do differently and how much better they will make the lives of Americans. Yet, regardless of each candidate or what political party they represent, the changes they do make have little effect on many people or they never get around to the big promises they made during their campaign. In Zinn’s chapter “The 2000 Election and the War on Terrorism,” he talks about the democratic and republican candidates Albert Gore and George W. Bush. Although they were from different parties, their views on certain issues were very similar. Neither has plans for health care, low-cost housing, or environmental control. They both supported the death penalty, prison growth, large military, and actions against Cuba and Iraq. They appeared to be completely different just because they represented different parties when in reality, they agreed on many of the same issues. I think our ideas of what the parties are and represent are very polarized, but in action, the parties themselves are close to the same.

 

2 Comments

Zinn’s chapter, “The 2000 Election and the “War on Terrorism” was extremely interesting for me to read. I think that the elections in the 2000s were similar to this year’s as it was really close as we were waiting for the last few states to announce the winner. Besides, the Democratic Party then, asked for a recount and the issue was taken to the supreme court which was conservative, and thus, Bush was announced as the president of the States. I see a similar pattern of events being followed during this election as Trump is not happy with the results and is trying to call for a recount or take it to the Supreme Court to decide in order for him to win. 

When talking about 9/11 which is obviously a horrible attack that should not have happened. I think it is really important for  Americans to understand that Muslims have struggled a lot as well after it. In the United States, there is discrimination against them, especially when affiliating them with terrorism. And when looking at the Middle East innocent people are still paying the price with the US bombing the area as we see in Syria and Yemen. People need to start acknowledging that although this issue has affected a lot of Americans, Muslims had a hard time in the Middle East and America especially under President Trump’s rule who “signed an Executive Order that banned foreign nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from visiting the country”.

I think that there is an issue with the system that allows people to associate terrorism with Islam. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mentioned that “white men invoking white supremacy and engaging in mass shootings are almost immune to be labeled as domestic terrorists” however any attack committed by Muslim Americans is always labeled as domestic terrorism which shows a relation of terrorism to one’s identity as a Muslim. I believe that a lot of Americans form an idea about a person as soon as they hear something that makes them related to Islam. Because of my name, I was stopped at the airport as soon as I arrived in the United States and the first question I was asked was about my affiliation with Hezbollah (a terrorist organization in Lebanon) despite the fact that I don’t consider myself a Muslim which they did not even care about. I think that the system itself has allowed such discriminatory and harmful behaviors and stereotypes to be spread among US citizens against Muslim people.

3 Comments

I think Chapter 25, The 2000 Election and the “War on Terrorism”, couldn’t be more fitting post-election with our own election disputes and with the dramatic increase in Islamophobic hate crimes. Although I knew Florida held particular significance in an election, as it has many electoral votes and very few presidential candidates have won without Florida’s votes, I did not know that the voting discrepancy in Florida came down to just a voting technicality. What I found particularly interesting was the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Bush v. Gore; the Conservatives attempted to prohibit any more counting of ballots using the “equal protection of the laws” as a defense because each county had different standards, whereas the Democrats argued that the Court did not have the right to interfere with Florida’s court at all insinuating that a new election should be held in the state instead. I found these opposing opinions particularly interesting with the coming court cases Trump has filed in regard to the 2020 election. Personally, it would be extremely difficult and unreasonable to attempt to hold a new election in certain states even if each county had different standards, and the argument against Supreme Court involvement made by the Democrats seems laughable. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to act as a check and balance for other courts and for the law, meaning this most important court is given the right to decide any case that is presented to them. It is even in the best interest of the liberals to appeal to the Supreme court and was the right of Gore to do so, as Bush had key government connections in Florida which could have swayed any lower legal decisions. One parallel between this time period and our current election is the continual lack of standards across counties, or even states when it comes to voting, which I feel could be easily fixed through inter-communication. I wish I lived through the 2000 election so I could have some context to what the larger legal debate was like, and so I could relate our current presidential race to that time period. 

Once Bush was elected and the “War on Terror” was declared, I found the intense rise in patriotism and Islamophobia to be disturbing and reminded me of the McCarthyism period. During the McCarthyism period during the 1940s and 1950s, hundreds of Americans were accused of “being communist” or “communist sympathizers”, and target specific groups, many of who were in the public eye like politicians, actors, and musicians, and labor-union activists. During this period, people were fearful of being reported by their neighbors for harboring sympathies and therefore portrayed even more patriotism. America really does not learn from its short history, as the McCarthy period definitely reminds me of post 9/11 America with specific groups and “types of people” being targeted, rise in patriotism, and deportation of perceived “enemies”. Both of these conflicts also had an intense use of violence abroad, which was said to defeat the enemy but also hurt the people and spirit of the country whom they were attacking.

3 Comments

It’s obvious that Islamophobia is on the rise in America and in the world.  And the rhetoric being used now is much more openly Islamaphobic instead of the coded messaging used before.  I never really thought about Islamophobia before 9/11, and I thought it was interesting how Elba brought it all the way back to slavery.  Once again I was ignorant about some African slaves practicing Islam, as I was alway taught about Traditional African Relgions.  Although it makes sense that many slaves would have practiced Islam when they were brought to America, as it is one of the oldest and most widely practiced religions in the world.

I found the article’s definition of Islamophobia to be very interesting, “The presumption that Islam is violent, inassimilable, and prone to terrorism.”  The amount of Americans who believe that Islam is a violent religion by nature is drastically high.  Where Pew Research Center did a poll and found a whopping 41 percent of Americans believe that Islam encourages violence.  Overall, the rate of Islamophobia is definitely on the rise.  Recent rhetoric has shown that Americans aren’t only indifferent to it, rather they invite anti-islam rhetoric.  If we are supposed to be a “melting pot” we need to be accepting of all cultures.  Unfortunately it seems like we are failing.  

6 Comments

“The 2000 Election and the ‘War on Terrorism’” begins by discussing the lackluster candidates for the 43rd presidency. What makes this election notable, however, is how controversial it was. Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote while Republican George W. Bush won the electoral vote. This happens (only twice before this in 1877 and 1888), but not to this extent. Florida was the deciding state, and Bush was deemed the winner by merely 537 votes. Gore wanted to continue the recount, so the Republican Party took the election to the Supreme Court, which, to the benefit of the Republican Party, was Conservative-ruled. Naturally, the conservative justices took the position that benefited their party, and the liberals did the same with theirs. By the end of the election, Bush was crowned President of the United States, and held that position for two terms. 

Only nine months into his administration, however, he faced the first attack on American soil in sixty years. On September 11, 2001, three different passenger airplanes were hijacked by terrorists. One flew into each of the World Trade Center buildings in New York City, and one flew into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. The haunting site was broadcasted on televisions all over the world. Everyone in America saw those towers fall and kill thousands of people. 

Everyone who lived through 9/11 knows where they were when the Twin Towers fell. Most of us freshman in college were either newborns or hadn’t been born yet, leaving our parents to wonder how they could bring a child into this kind of world. We say “we remember” every year and we honor those who lost their lives on that terrible day. However, as we remember our own citizens who lost their lives, we often forget about those who lost their lives due to American retaliation. 

As described in Elba’s article, an anti-Muslim sentiment was present in the United States prior to 9/11. Muslim Africans brought to the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries were forced to convert to Christianity. However, the attack brought Islamophobia to the forefront of American fear. Bush declared the “war on terror,” and we have been involved in conflict in the Middle East since. Nearly twenty years later, Muslim Americans still face prejudice based on their heritage and religion. It’s a sad reality to think of how many more casualties there really were due to 9/11. While we will never forget those who died in the United States that day, we must remember those who died in the Middle East as its consequence. 

3 Comments

Before today’s reading, I thought I understood Islamophobia in America, including its complexities and origins; however, after today’s readings, I realize that there is a lot more history to it than I initially thought. Indeed, before tonight, I understood Islamophobia as something that arrived in America in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. I believed that George Bush’s Administration played on existing fears of Muslim people to convince the American public to go to war and submit to more draconian security measures. I also believed that a different result in the election of 2000 could have drastically changed the American response to the attacks. After today’s readings, I have come to understand this is not true.

 

In the Elba article, the long history of Islamophobia is explained, dispelling my understanding that the fear of Muslims in America was birthed after 9/11. As Elba explains, immigration policy systemically discriminated against Muslims long before the year 2001. Indeed, Muslims were prohibited from becoming citizens for almost 200 years because they did not exhibit whiteness. Laws like these prohibit Muslims from becoming a part of the American community and further isolated them from Americans. Additionally, Muslims in media were often stereotyped. This made it difficult for Muslims to become viewed as modern citizens and excluded a large amount of Muslims who were not Arab.

 

In the Zinn chapter, he explains how these seeds of Islamophobia were exacerbated after the events of 9/11. While I originally thought Al Gore would have implemented extremely different policies in the aftermath of 9/11, Zinn contends that by painting Gore as a very similar candidate to Bush (with the exception of environmental policies). Later, Zinn explains that the rampant Islamophobia encouraged by the Bush Administration should not have been justified as retaliation for an incomprehensible act. Indeed, the chapter continues to reveal that American leaders in the 90s understood that a terrorist attack from the Middle East was a likely response to US foreign policy in the reason. The proof that US officials new that an attack was likely and still encouraged Islamophobia in the aftermath is proof that the US’s reaction to 9/11 wasn’t the start of Islamophobia in the country but rather a continuation of its history.

4 Comments

Zinn’s chapter, “The 2000 Election and the “War on Terrorism” sparked many similarities between the 2000 election and the 2016 election as well as some aspects of this most recent election. It was interesting to see the parallels between 2000 and 2016 and how the role of the electoral college changes the results and how the results are viewed. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote while Bush won based on the electoral college. Zinn expressed that this had only happened two times before which was surprising to me because I remember the 2016 election as being the same way. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and had a few more percentage points than Trump, but due to the electoral college Trump won. I think it’s interesting that the electoral college causes so many discrepancies, but people only argue with it being used when it affects the results in a way that they don’t want to accept. This makes me think of the whole idea of recounting ballots and Trump’s idea of “illegal votes” and how it is definitely hard for people to accept the results of an election, especially during a time where the country is increasingly ideologically polarized.

In Zinn’s chapter, we saw this idea of inconsistencies between states of how the ballots are counted and what regulations there are on voting. Zinn explained that the Supreme Court had to decide whether recounting should be allowed and the more leftist judges argued that if there was no uniform standard for counting the votes, then a new election in Florida with uniform standards should be implemented. I think we’re seeing a similar issue with this current election, especially due to new processes that have emerged as a result of the coronavirus. There has been a lot of questioning of absentee ballots, especially from the more conservative side, because there has been a lack of uniformity in their regulation. In my government classes we were talking about absentee ballots and how different states have historically used absentee ballots as a common form of voting. Colorado, for example, has seemingly perfected its use of absentee ballots because they have been using them for a long period of time. Comparing this with another state that generally doesn’t use them can cause conflicts when deciding the best way to count absentee ballot votes.

Moving on to the “War on Terrorism” part of Zinn’s chapter, I found several ideas interesting especially in contrast with the article by Mariam Elba. The first thing that I didn’t find surprising at all is that after 9/11, even if people didn’t necessarily agree with how the government was handling the aftermath, it was still difficult for them to criticize the government. We’ve historically seen that in times of crisis such as the Great Depression, that people turn to authority for comfort and advice. In fact that’s when governmental approval ratings are generally the highest because we turn to them for support and don’t question their actions. What I did find surprising is the idea expressed by Robert Bowman at the end of the chapter, that the US has been hated and therefore targeted by third world countries because we tend to turn a blind eye to their struggles. He says that we should “do good instead of evil” and then we wouldn’t be as much of a target. It’s really hard for people to think this way especially after something as traumatizing as 9/11 but it is definitely an important perspective to consider. For this reason, I really liked reading Elba’s piece and seeing a different perspective about Orientalism and Islamophobia and how these deep rooted negative sentiments can really affect Muslim Americans.

3 Comments

This week’s reading in PHUS, made me think of a couple things, especially in the midst of the recent election. I found it interesting that the 2000 election was so similar to this year’s election in the sense that the last few states were very close calls. However, it is interesting to see the views on the issues when party lines are switched. The common narrative lately is that President Trump is unfairly pushing for a recount and that he is unwilling to concede the race. However, according to this reading, it seems like that is almost exactly what the Democratic party did, as the case went to the supreme court. On the flip side, Republicans in 2000 seem to have taken steps to avoid a recount. Democrats in 2000 argued that “the court did not have the right to interfere with Florida’s Supreme court interpretation of the law. It is so interesting to me to see how dead set both parties can be on their opinions of this issue today, yet 20 years ago they were entirely flipped. It makes me question the intentions of the parties. If they can’t be consistent on their opinions, it makes them both look self centered and narcissistic.

In terms of the war on terrorism, this different perspective gave me a new lens. I was not old enough to remember 9/11 or its immediate effects, but I hear stories of the way that this catastrophe brought our country together closer than almost any time before. I understand that this event made people proud to be an American because they all had gone through something together. However, I didn’t really think about the Muslim population’s viewpoint. I agree with president Bush’s statement that there needs to be a distinction between the dangerous Muslim terrorist group and Muslims that have no connection to it at all. Otherwise, there is widespread discrimination against an entire religion. To hear the stories of Muslims that were affected by the United States aggressive response to the bombings gave me a new perspective to think about.

The last quote from Robert Bowman is very important to consider at all times. He says “We should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? who would want to bomb us? That is the truth the American people need to hear” (Zinn p. 682). I think it is an important point not only from a national standpoint, but also in our day to day interactions with others across all areas of race, ethnicity, and religion. Doing good to others, often returns in mutual feelings of respect and appreciation.

4 Comments

In Zinn’s chapter, “The 2000 Election and the ‘War on Terrorism’,” I was fascinated by the election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Zinn talks about how Gore winning the popular vote was not enough to win the election due to Bush winning the electoral vote. Instead of considering the results, the conservative Supreme Court turned a blind eye and allowed Bush to walk into office without reconsideration. I wonder if the United States’ responses to the terrorist attack in 2001 would have changed tremendously if Al Gore won the election. Even before the terrorist attacks in 2001, Bush pushed for an increase in the military budget. Once the World Trade Center was attacked on 9/11, Bush immediately announced the “war on terrorism.” After declaring war, Bush called for the bombing of Afghanistan which most Americans supported, thinking that being strong and violent against terrorism was the correct response the United States should take. It was not a political case, with both republicans and democrats believing in the cause. Americans supported the actions that Bush took, but never fully saw what actually was happening from the bombings of Afghanistan.

Not knowing the full story created suspicion from certain groups of people. I had no idea the extent of precaution that the Department of Justice took, as well as how unfair it was for innocent non-citizens. The paranoia that people felt made created distance from their non-citizen peers. Families of the victims were against the strong military force used. What this seemed to me was another example of Americans not knowing or seeing the full story of what is happening with a United States’ response. News sources were not giving the full extent to what the bombings were doing to Afghanistan. In my opinion, this made the public more inclined to support the use of violence since they did not witness the immediate impact and tragedy that it was causing. I wonder if the people who supported the violent actions on Afghanistan saw the full impact of what the bombings were doing to them, would they have still sided with it? This seems to be a common theme, that the United States does not tell its people the full truth about foreign affairs that they are involved in if they know that it would create resistance to that action.

5 Comments

In her article, “How Islamophobia was ingrained in America’s Legal System Long Before The War on Terror”, Mariam Elba discusses how Islamophobia is deeply rooted in American culture. This shocked me. I had always believed that islamophobic feelings and fears began after 9/11. One quote from the article that really stuck me was, “has always been a legal framework in place that defines Islam and Muslim identity as incompatible with Americanness.” (Beydoun). This is very hypocritical in my eyes. America is suppose to be a place of religious refuge and religious freedom. Why is that not the case for Islam and Muslim peoples? Why do many Americans view islamic religion as different than any other religion? I found it interesting that in the article Islamophobia is linked to Orientalism. I do see a lot of the comparisons. Do Americans constantly need a race/religion to demonize? This article left me with one main question: How does the government get away with putting in policies that promote the discrimination of a religious group?

4 Comments

This is my first experience with Leadership. My eyes have been opened on so many different occasions regarding the fallacies and the misconceptions of much it of what makes the United States what it is today. Understanding the United States relationship with middle eastern countries has never been something I have thought about. For a place that is founded on a dream (the American dream). A dream that entices millions to immigrate away from their home countries in search of a better life. We certainly don’t seem to value or appreciate all races, ethnicities, and cultures equally. I am honestly surprised at how little attention the inequalities among different races and cultures has in America.

Having just recently watched Just Mercy the reality of the inequalities within the prison and court systems in America is a harsh reality I am just now understanding. While that is a powerfully painful reality, I think it is equally as painful to think about the inequality that middle eastern families experience in America. The generalization of the entire Islamic faith has brutally oppressed and changed the ways in which people view muslim people and families. I think that generalization is so hateful and so judgmental that the quality of life for muslims living in America has to be low. Through these two example of oppression and judgment, we are able to see the results of that mistreatment in the way school districts are drawn. Growing up in Richmond, there are several different school districts that I could reference that show great signs of segregation. There are socio-economic differences that can also lead to a pile up in low income areas having one or two schools that are poorly funded. While on the other side of the county there are several well funded public schools that the low income area communities don’t have access too. My question is why? Why in the year 2020 is there still such a strong sense of segregation? People’s hearts might have changed, but I still struggle to see how you can call this country equal.

3 Comments

Zinn’s chapter on the 2000 election and the war on terrorism was eye opening once again on the horrors of our government system and terrorism. My first surprise was how Bush was elected. It’s clear that Bush only won because of his advantage in the system. He had powerful people rooting for him that made it possible for him to win the Presidency. After the bombing of the World Trade Center, the fright of terrorism was high among Americans and it seems the response taken by the President to bomb Afganistan came out of that fear. This was just another instance in which the government acted almost too harshly, similar to Ford’s bombing of Cambodia. Although, the American citizens at home were much more aware of the cruel nature of things. I always thought the mentality among Americans after 9/11 was revenge, but the way Zinn puts it, that does not seem to be true. Many people disagreed with Bush, “urging that he not match violence with violence” (681). The view of the people was once again not in line with the government. The basis of democracy lies in the hand of the people, but with what we see in history, it seems as though the way the US has been run, it is often not so much of a democracy. 

Meanwhile, The Intercept article by Meriam Elba highlights how Islamophobia has been around long before 9/11. The article was very informative and I gained a better understanding of the origins of Islamophobia and how it’s still very apparent in the world today. Something that surprised me was the conversation about black Muslims and how they are rarely represented in the media. I didn’t realize black Muslims make up a quarter of the Muslim population, and it’s obvious there is a reason for that. The media and language used by them and the government has put an image in our minds of what a Muslim is supposed to look and act like. This framework has created this Islamophobia feeling amongst American people, which needs to be broken down. I also found it interesting how Elba talks about Trump’s role in Islamophobia, and the direct correlation he plays to the apparent spread of it. His very campaign of “Make America Great Again” focuses on white supremacy, which is the complete opposite of what the nation as a whole should be doing, when trying to dismantle racism. When the country is being told by the leaders of the country and the press certain things about groups of people, their ability to be persuaded is increasingly high. This shows how the citizens, the people, need to be the ones to say something, as Zinn’s chapter showed before, democracy relies on the people, not the government.

3 Comments

In Mariam Elba’s interview of Khaled Beydoun, an incredible documentation of how the American public came to associate Islam with terrorism is recorded. I  didn’t know that many of the people captured in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade were Muslim and as such I didn’t realize that the religion has been present in the United States for so long. As a white non-religious person in the United States, the only real education I have received about Islam has been in association with terrorism. The first case of the media using its influence to negatively impact the public’s view of Muslims was during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Media coverage since the incident continued to create the association between violence and Islam. After 9/11 Islamophobic fear and hatred was at an all time high in America. Muslim Americans massively suffered in the aftermath of 9/11 and, just like throughout all of American history, the pressure to pass as white was present. Beydoun speaks about the “good Muslim/bad Muslim ” ideology that was created within American society. This way of thinking implies that only Muslims who wish to assimilate and move away from their Islamic roots deserve to be treated as good people. Conversely, Muslims who wish to maintain their cultural habits are viewed as dangerous and a threat.

The issue of how race and religion intersect is not something I have learned about extensively. Beydoun emphasizes that American culture explicitly groups black and Muslim people into two categories without giving much thought to the considerable overlap. Intersectionality seems to be a common theme throughout many of the topics we have covered, however, it hasn’t seemed to become common knowledge throughout the American public. President Trump has created a hateful environment where the spread of information about the dangers of Islamophobia is all but impossible. While former presidents have also engaged in Islamophobic policies, none of the recent presidents were so openly derogatory. Trump’s irresponsible statements and actions have put Islamic people at home and abroad in unnecessary danger and hopefully with him out of office things will improve.

1 Comment

I never understood the idea behind tourist attacks and maybe a reason behind 9/11. “We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations.” The United States appeals too many because it seems like we are a country with open arms accepting anyone who would like to come… The United States isn’t exactly like that. We are not a melting pot in which we say. The United States is still very segregated in its ways.

The Henrico Country school system is segregated based on economic status and race. A Prime example would be Glen Allen High School and Hermitage High School. Henrico Country had built a new school, Glen Allen, when they were districting the lines between neighborhoods they placed the wealthier families to be districted to Glen Allen, and then those who aren’t as fortunate would be placed at Hermitage High School. These schools are about 1.5 miles apart. I have had first-hand experience with students who attend Hermitage. They have to worry about how other schools and police officers will treat them at football games— home or away. It makes me sad that when a game would be at Hermitage, me included would normally choose not to go to the game. Where the majority of the school would attend the games in other counties. I strongly believe that Henrico Country needs to redraw the line and not listen to the money from parents. The United States is absolutely not a melting pot and doesn’t accept everyone. In many documents for the United States, they talk about freedom and justice for all, but that is not the case here. This country has work that needs to be done to make a change so that maybe one day we can be a melting pot but until then.

2 Comments

In Zinn’s chapter, “The 200 Election and the ‘War on Terrorism,’” he found a different way to address the war on terror. Instead of condemning the terrorists involved in 9/11, he argued that our response was the same, another act of terror. He states that fighting terrorism with terrorism does not work, and I agree with him. Obviously what happened on 9/11 was unfathomable and scary and hard for millions of Americans, but Bush’s reaction may not have necessarily been what the American people needed at the time, nor do I think it was particularly warranted  because the bombings carried our in Afghanistan did not kill Bin Laden, they killed civilians. I think Zinn did a good job of putting these acts of terror in perspective and in turn forcing the reader to really think about what they classify as an act of terrorism.

I also found the other in-class reading, “How Islamophobia was Ingrained in America’s Legal System Long before the War on Terror,” to be very insightful and challenge me to think about things I did not even consider prior to reading. Beyduon, the man interviewed specifically talked about Black Muslims and the idea that people never really consider this large group of people. Today we talk about anti-black racism, but we never consider how that effects people that are also facing the brunt of islamophobia at the same time. Beyduon also stated the idea that people had to prove their “whiteness” in order to become citizens under the Naturalization Act of 1790 and in order to do this they would increase anti-black sentiment to show that they were on the side of the whites and should be considered white as well.

 

2 Comments

These readings were really interesting to me and made me think a lot about the present and future of America. First, in Zinn’s chapter, he doesn’t explicitly say it but he touches on American values that are still so present today, almost 2o years after 9/11. Throughout history, it is clear that in order to prove American patriotism citizens and the government alike have to embody extreme, toxic nationalism which in turn leads to xenophobia or prejudice against people from other countries. Our idea of patriotism is so skewed that it is contingent on seeing anyone who is not American as less than. This applies to the idea that we learned earlier in the year, where we take difference to mean inferiority and this process thus justifies us dehumanizing them and treating other human beings however we want. This happened in the Vietnam War and clearly, the American population did not learn from these past injustices when the US as a whole promoted the War on Terror. I obviously recognize that it was in response to 9/11, however it is different to retaliate against a group of terrorists than to bomb innocent civilians and children. It is crazy to me that given the pushback from the Vietnam War and the horrors that stemmed from it, the media and civilians alike were ready just to do the same if not worse things to another group of people. It is clear that America has not learned from their past mistakes in the slightest, and it is just a constant rotation of us enacting injustices on civilizations that we perceive as “other”. These injustices happen domestically and externally, and the root of it has to do with people we perceive as other we then think it is justified to treat them badly. Everyone in the US plays a role in this ignorance of history and we will continue to burn our bridges with other nations and within our own if we do not take a hard look at history.

The quotes by the US colonel really resonated with me. “We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations.” Further, he said that, “instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild infrastructure, supply clean water, feed starving children.” This would instill reciprocity in our relationships between us and developing countries instead of this unbalanced form of imperialism that we currently have. Our foreign policy is contingent on force and military pressures, and this can only continue for so long. We are not going to create long-lasting relations with other countries if we just use them to exploit their goods without giving them anything in return.

 

2 Comments

The Gore vs. Bush election has some extra significance to the election that is still going on today.  Lawsuits and court battles are keeping Trump and his team in the race when the election is all but over.  The Gore vs. Bush election came down to tight margins in Florida, but the Republican held the supreme court.  The court essentially decided the election by voting against a proper count of all votes.  The politically driven court should not be the deciding factor in an election, because all votes should be counted.  The idea that every vote should be counted is simple, yet somehow was put into question again this year.  The Trump campaign team tried to call for all votes to stop being counted even though it was established that late mail in votes would be counted in many states. When it comes down to it all that matters in the election is that the correct candidate is chosen based on the people.  The supreme court denied Gore and the American people the right to a fair election, because of petty politics.  It is important that lawsuits do not overtake this election, and the American people get to choose the president, because in the end that is what democracy is all about.  

Zinn discusses the flaws of attacking terrorism as if it was a clear enemy.  Violence should not be retaliated with more violence if possible.  Bush killed millions of civilians in Afghanistan, because of his approach to the untraditional war.  The media played a major role in the times surrounding 9/11 and the war on terror.  Some news sources hid the fact that more people were being killed out of vain, because of the national pride it brought to many people.  Other news sources, however, showed the point of view coming from injured civilians in Afghanistan.  It is important for the media to not provide biased information that alters the minds of American citizens, so having new sources with opposing viewpoints such as Fox and CNN is important.

2 Comments

In Zinn’s chapter, “The 200 Election and the ‘War on Terrorism,'” Zinn discussed the early 2000’s and how the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers affected American’s views on Muslims. What I found to be most interesting in this chapter was the fact that Zinn didn’t agree with most Americans in the sense that he believed Americans had started this war. He didn’t believe the “full extent of the human catastrophe caused by the bombing of Afghanistan was not being conveyed to Americans by the mainstream press and the major television networks, which seemed determined to show their ‘patriotism'” (679). He says that immediately after the attack, President Bush declared a war on terrorism and said that they should do their best to keep terrorists out, which is what led to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, “gave the Department of justice the power to detain noncitizen simply on the suspicion, without charges, without the procedural rights provided in the Constitution” (680). This led to all Muslims being grouped as terrorists in the eyes of Americans. To me, this was an interesting look view on the 9/11 attack, because most American’s agreed with Bush and didn’t see it in the sense that they had bombed Afghanistan first.

In the Article written by Mariam Elba, she discusses an interview between Khaled Beydon and the Intercept about his experience of Muslim and Christian immigrants. What I found most interesting about this piece was that Beydon believes Trump plays a large role in escalating the War on Terror. He says that the war is “best characterized as a transparent, brazen, explicit unleashing of Islamophobia that is spear headed by the likes of Donald Trump” (Elba). I’ve never really thought about in in the sense that the presidents would play a large role in the way American Citizens view Muslims and the War on Terror. For example, he says that the difference between Trump, and Obama/Bush is the narrative they relay to the public. This makes complete sense and the broader idea I took from this was that the kind of person a leader is and the way they portray other people will reflect how those citizens then treat them. In this case, because Trump enhanced the War on Terror, it led American citizens to hold on to the believe of grouping Muslims as terrorists.

4 Comments

In Zinn’s chapter, “The 2000 Election and the ‘War on Terrorism’” he discusses the U.S government’s reactions to the 9/11 attacks and describes fundamental changes to American foreign policy that could be the change needed in the War on Terrorism. I thought an interesting point was that it has been clear throughout history that violence could not defeat terrorism, but the U.S decided to do that anyways. The common theme throughout many of these historical events was present here too, the government went to great lengths to control the flow of media showing the horrific effects of their bombings. Zinn brought up the question that perhaps if the U.S changed their foreign policies to create more peaceful relations with other countries, then who would hate us and want to hurt us? I thought this was a very powerful moral question that addresses the power hungry attitudes of America in the global community. This seems like an easy solution that comes with large consequences and sacrifices that many would be hesitant to give up. 

Mariam Elba’s article about Islamophobia describes how this has been a part of the U.S legal system and culture. I was surprised that from 1790 to 1952, the Naturalization Act required whiteness as a condition for citizenship. An immigrant had to prove that they were white in order to be considered for citizenship. I thought it was interesting to look at the different views among the Presidents. Bush created a good Muslim versus bad Muslim attitude. Obama had positive rhetoric toward Muslims, but his policies differed from these ideas. Trump believes that all Muslims are bad. These extremely prevalent leadership roles reflect and influence the beliefs of the U.S as a whole. They are endorsing negative stereotypes that have been entrenched in society for many years. How will we be able to defeat these stereotypes and disconnect the Muslim identity with terrorism?

2 Comments