What to do about Darfur...?

We all know about the current situation in Darfur. Today I read an article which was reporting on the activities of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Currently he is on a state visit to the neighboring country of Ethopia. On March 4 an arrest warrant was issued for him by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. al-Bashir is responsible for the 300,000 deaths and 2.5 million homeless citizens that are a result of his campaign against rebels, but it seems impossible for him to be arrested for his crimes. Only the countries who are members of the ICC could take him into custody, and Ethiopia is not one of them. They claim that arresting him would be "not in the interest of peace".

As we have been discussing the causes and effects of war in class, this article made me think about how situations like this can be handled. al-Bashir has forced 13 international aid agencies to leave the Darfur region. These aid agencies are in many ways the dieing peoples only chance of help, and it is becoming increasingly clearer that actually arresting al-Bashir is a lot harder than issuing the warrant. People in Darfur are dieing every day, and I completely believe that it is up to other countries to help stop it. America has taken action against genocides in the past, like in World War II, but we are already in way over our head in the Middle East. So, who's responsibility is it to come to the Darfur people's aid, if anyone? One is hardpressed to find countries with a history of deploying troops to aid in foreign conflicts like America. It's hard to say that the world should stand by as innocent people are being killed, but its equally hard to ask whos job it is to fix it. I would say that every country who can help, should help in a situation such as this. Obviously, this would never happen, but if it doesn't then it is difficult to predict when the violence will end. I don't have too many ideas on the subject myself, but I think our class could definitely brain storm a few possible ways to help the situation. I will say that reading this article has definitley reminded me of how terrible the Darfur conflict is, and I will certainly be paying more attention to it in the future.

Here's the article if you want to read more.

Worsening situation in Afghanistan. Who will be the victims?

As our class has begun to discuss what war is good for, I have been increasingly interested in the fighting going on in the Middle East and when, if ever, it will end. Earlier today I watched this video on the worsening situation in southern Afghanistan. As of now there are 39,000 troops stationed in the country. According to several generals they are seeing an increased lose of control due to the Taliban's power in a few areas. The generals blame this on having too few troops. Consequently, 8,000 more Marines will be arriving in Afghanistan in the coming weeks. The Generals interviewed in the video say this will mean more casualties as they begin to break down the Taliban's control. Currently, they are searching for a man who goes by 'Zakir'. He was released from Guantanamo Bay 2 years ago and is a "serious threat" to the military effort in Afghanistan. Along with this, there have been more and more occurrences of road side bombs, which result in the lose of many innocent lives.

The video as a whole brought me back to the first artifacts we observed in this unit. My table group studied pictures which presented one main question: can war be fought without harming those that are not the direct targets of violence? In Afghanistan, one can easily answer this question with a strong NO. With the constant risk of road side and suicide bombs, insurgent violence, and Taliban kidnappings every day people are constantly falling victim to this war for no reason. As the number of troops rises from 39,000 to 47,000 it is hard to tell whether the unnecessary violence will go down or up. U.S. Generals conceded the fact that more of their troops will be falling in the future, but what about the innocent Afghan people? They play no bigger part in this war than I do, yet they wake up every morning fearful for their lives. In my opinion, no human should have to go through the day worried about whether they will be the unsuspecting victim of war time violence. In our modern day, it is the responsibility of every human being to try and right the wrongs of our past by working to eliminate unnecessary casualties. Hopefully, American efforts in Afghanistan will work towards this cause instead of against it.

Ancient Cultures of Privilege

Earlier I was on CNN.com checking out their most recent articles and I stumbled upon one discussing an archaeologist who is attempting to clarify the modern perception of Cleopatra. Kathleen Martinez has been excavating at Abusir for the past three years in an effort to find the burial grounds of Marc Antony and Cleopatra.

Martinez is interested in far more than just the archaeological aspect of this ancient Egyptian queen, however. She believes that Cleopatra was a woman who was thinking way beyond her time. In the article, Martinez says: "spoke nine languages, she was a philosopher, she was a poet, she was a politician, she was a goddess, and she was a warrior."Also, modern debate has pondered at the idea of her beauty. Was she truly a fascinatingly beautiful queen? or did she possess more strikingly raw features? Many historical accounts of her say she was gorgeous beyond words, but coins from the era which depict her tell another story. On them she is portrayed with a large forehead, big nose and pointed chin. So how jaw dropping was the real Cleopatra? We can never be too sure.

As of late we have been discussing cultures of privilege and poverty. Reading about Cleopatra caused me to question what these cultures were like in ancient times. Cleopatra definitely does not stick to the common modern success stories of most women. She was quite possibly a homely looking woman who certainly had a strong opinion. Obviously, there was no 'bringing yourself up by the boot straps' in ancient Egypt, so she must have been born into her privilege. But, her use of it was unlike most during and long after her time. Speaking nine languages and being an active politician, philosopher and warrior is not usually part of the job description for a privileged woman in any society across the ages. Cleopatra transcends traditional views of cultures of privilege because she accomplished so much, despite being born into a ruling family. In 2009, most of our examples of woman born into privilege follow the story line of Paris Hilton, someone who has abused their privilege all the way to the courthouse. Cleopatra is the opposite. She used her privilege as a stepping off point to achieve so much that she is still being spoken of 2,000 years later. If you want to get a more in depth look at the search for her burial grounds check out this article.

But it looked good in the commercial...

Shortly after my most recent blog on the romanticism of Marine experience through their television ads, I saw another commercial that seemed to be riding the romanticism bandwagon too. It was an add for Nutrisystem weight loss product. The commercial portrayed several different men and women who had supposedly used the product with success. They talked about how great and delicious the food is, and how quickly and easily you loose weight. There were pictures of all the great food you get to eat, and it even looked pretty good.

It was clear that the ad was romanticizing the Nutrisystem product. It was making it seem easy, quick and even delicious; three words that usually are not characteristic of a weight loss program. I learned how untrue all of this was when my own parents started to use the product. They eat it every day, for every meal, and according to them: it sucks. The food looks absolutely terrible, and judging from my Dad's cringing face after he eats it, it really is awful. I took it upon myself to try it, just for fun. I thought maybe a Nutrisystem chocolate chip cookie could be decent....wrong. As I threw half eaten cookie into the garbage can, I thought back to the commercial. No wonder it contained so much blatant romanticism. Without it, my parents and many like them would not be forcing down tiny, flavorless microwaveable meals every day.

The romanticism of the few and the proud

We've all seen it. You know, that one commercial where the guy is climbing that mountain with his bare hands. There is really beautiful, inspirational music playing in the background. And there is some low voice using fluffy words to describe how heroic and awesome this guy is. But honestly, the end is the best. This guy, all dressed up looking spiffy in his marines uniform, reaches the top of the mountain. His uniform is in perfect condition, his face is stern, and he didn't even break a sweat. And then comes the punchline: "The few, the proud, the MARINES!"

When we were assigned to blog about something that we, as Americans, romanticize, I could think of nothing better than the glory of joining the armed forces. The commercial I just described isn't the only one. They have them for every group there is: the Army, the Navy and even the National Guard. Every commercial portrays people from these groups in a heroic manner. The Marines one is definitely the most extravagant one I've seen to date. 

Honestly, I think they are just ridiculous. It is fair to assume that at no point during your service in the Marines will you climb a mountain with your bare hands. And if you did, you know you would be on your knees crying and bleeding and wishing you were home. Unfortunately for the Marines, a commercial depicting what actually goes on would not bring in as many soldiers as they desire. This leaves it up to them to romanticize the Marine experience to the point where it has become completely unrealistic. The saddest part is that sometimes these commercials actually convince people that joining the Marines is a super heroic thing to do. I beg to differ.

I really wish I could find a video of this, but I was unlucky in my search. Keep your eyes peeled for it to pop up on T.V. again. 

Progress in an economic recession...

As we all have heard, this year's holiday shopping season was the worst it has been since the 1970s. So what's to blame?

The economic recession, deep discounts, and brutal winter weather have been cited by the International Council of Shopping Centers as the main reasons for the lack of shopping. According to the ICSC, sales in U.S. stores during the week of Christmas have fallen almost 2% from last year. Despite retailers efforts to draw in consumers with incredible discounts, the numbers show that things are bad as ever for the U.S. economy. 

As for me, my post-Christmas Day account of my friends and family's gift load did not seem like the holidays as usual. Furthermore, I have been thinking about how the economy's ability to force people to disinterest themselves with material possessions could actually be a form of progress. 

Once again, I feel the need to quote the transcendentalist genius of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Property also holds of the soul, covers great spiritual facts, and instinctively we at first hold to it with swords and laws, and wide and complex combinations."

Material possessions hinder our perception of what is important, and ultimately what is part of the true reality of our world. In his essay "Self-Reliance", Emerson points out how "property also holds of the soul". It controls us. Our thoughts and our actions are heavily swayed by our quest for material satisfaction. 

This holiday season, Americans did not go all out on material goods as we have in the past. This article from CNN.com proves it. I argue that this is an example of real, honest progress. Even though we were basically forced to detach ourselves from the usual department store spending spree, we still got through the holiday season with less material rewards than before. From my own account of things, nobody seemed to be complaining. I mean how badly do we need that new iPod after all?

In the end, I hope that this year's unavoidable downturn in holiday shopping could lead to purposeful relinquishing of over the top spending in the years to come. Perhaps we could make a progression in which more Americans can begin to act from Emerson's principles regarding material goods. I am trying to realistic on this topic, so I do not want to cross my fingers. However, I cannot deny my desire for American society to one day make this undeniably true progression. 

The Object of Clothing is...?

Earlier today, I read an article on CNN.com about the activities of an interesting organization. It is called Dress for Success, and it's an international charitable organization that helps provide business class clothes for the less fortunate. The main goal of the group is to equip people with the clothes that will give them the image they need for a job interview. 

In the article, Sonia Jacobson, executive director of the organization's Miami branch, commented on the importance of proper apparel when attending a job interview, "Immediately when that interviewer sees you, they're making an assessment based on how you dress, how you look, your grooming."

Jacobson's comments beg the question: Why are interviewers making assessments based solely off of a candidate's clothing? Shouldn't they be ultimately concerned with the quality of their character and their experience in the field?

Henry David Thoreau, the renowned transcendentalist author of "Walden", would certainly agree. 

"Let him who has work to do recollect that the object of clothing is, first, to retain the vital heat, and secondly, in this state of society, to cover nakedness"

According to Thoreau, clothing serves two practical purposes, and nothing more. Unfortunately, his values are not reflected in the opinions of many job interviewers or those of the general public. 

In the chapter Economy, Thoreau continues to say: "I sometimes try my acquaintances by such tests as this,-- Who could wear a patch, or two extra seams only, over the knee? Most behave as if they believed that their prospects for life would be ruined if they should do it."

After reading the article on Dress for Success, I feel that society truly does ruin the prospects of life for those that do not have the best clothing. I fully support the work of charitable organization, but I really wish that the efforts of Dress for Success were not necessary for people to get a good job. To read more about the recent activities of Dress for Success, click here.