Welcome to Kassy's HIS blog. Read some of the entries, comment on them or leave me a comment in the box below, if you'd like. Thank you :]

Profile
Portfolio
Wiki

AP English
Anatomy
Dance
Global Ethics
Humanities
Science
SRC

What is Baldwin's intent in writing Stranger in a Village?

Baldwin uses Stranger in a Village as social commentary on the treatment of blacks and the idea of white supremacy, especially in America.

"There is a dreadful abyss between the streets of this village and the streets of the city in which I was born, between the children who shout Neger! today and those who shouted Nigger! yesterday—the abyss is experience, the American experience. The syllable hurled behind me today expresses, above all, wonder: I am a stranger here. But I am not a stranger in America and the same syllable riding on the American air expresses the war my presence has occasioned in the American soul."

This paragraph is central to the essay, and is also part of Baldwin's intent in writing this piece. He is comparing the difference in treatment of blacks in Europe and America. He is criticizing the American experience for shaping the way Americans think and treat others.

Baldwin wishes to bring across the message that throughout history, blacks have gone through nightmare after nightmare of being "trapped in history, and history [is] trapped in them."
He also uses this essay to explain and bring awareness to the "rage" and "contempt" that the black people feel against their treatment.

Baldwin is expressing his belief that white people should no longer "keep the black man at a certain human remove because it is easier for him thus to preserve his simplicity and avoid being called to account for crimes committed by his forefathers, or his neighbors.Blacks have been outcasted and treated like strangers for too long. "[N]o other people has ever been so deeply involved in the lives of black men, and vice versa." It is time for change; it is time for equal treatment for "[t]his world's white no longer, and it will never be white again."

Labels: AP English

How do we become conscious of the ethical and social rules in our societies?

Are humans born inherently good or evil? If we are born good, then straight from the beginning, we would always do what is right. We would not defy the ethical and social rules; we would act according to them. I would like to believe that humans are born good. I don't think, however, that I have really given this idea enough thought and decided on an answer to be able to write about it, so I will approach this question another way.

One could say that we are born neither good or evil. It is later in life that we make these decisions, decisions that will change the way we go about the rest of our lives. When we are born, we do not have a sense of right and wrong. We do not know what defines right, or what defines wrong, or why there is even such a thing as right and wrong in the first place. I think we become conscious of the ethical and social rules in our societies by external factors, such as through experiences and what we are taught.

When we are young, we are taught what is right and wrong because we are unable to see the difference between them. We generally accept what we are taught, once again, because we are too young to question authority. However, as we grow older, we may begin to question what the adults have taught us; we may decide that we want to make these decisions for ourselves (generally when people are in their teenage years). This means, we try things. We try things that we have been taught as "wrong", just to see what would happen, what it would feel like and what the consequences will be. Through experiences such as these, we would then know that we can do things that are wrong, but we would probably feel an overwhelming sense of guilt and would have to face the consequences of our actions. However, once again, the idea of "Are humans born inherently good or evil?" is brought up here. If a person is born inherently evil, they may not feel guilt for doing something "wrong" and continue doing it.

Through experience, we become conscious the ethical and social rules the hard way, but it is this way that is probably the most effective. As we grow up, we also become exposed to the harsh reality of the world. We become more experienced to a point where we can develop a common sense; and do what is right to lead a good life.

However, I have often pondered why there is a good and bad in the first place. What defines good and bad? Why is killing a bad thing? Most of us despise killing, and this sentiment in some ways, prevents most of us from committing this crime. Is there some sort of proof that killing is bad? How do we characterize the actions that are bad from those that are good? Is there proof that killing is a bad thing? Maybe we don't become conscious of ethical and social rules afterall. Maybe having ethical and moral knowledge is impossible...

Labels: global ethics

In Global Ethics class, we watched two TED talks. One by Phil Borges called Documenting our Endangered Cultures and the other by Wade Davis called The Worldwide Web of Belief and Ritual. I will focus mainly on the talk by Wade Davis because it appealed to me more.

Both Borges' and Davis' talks were about endangered cultures and the disappearance of our ethnosphere. Borges talked about a program that links indigenous kids with the US kids in order to expand the insular views of the US. Davis talked about a myriad of different cultures and their viewpoints on life, the purpose of life and providing possible answers to the fundamental question, "What does it mean to be human and alive?"

The different cultures Davis spoke about really intrigued me. For I had heard of some of these cultures before, yet I had never really taken the time to understand their philosophy, or their outlook on life. Davis, in his talk, using only a few examples of different indigenous cultures, really struck me. I began to discern, and understand the different views of the world. I had never given much thought to the different cultures of the world for I was ignorant and selfish. Growing up in a so-called "advanced" society, I thought of nothing but myself. I did not know much about cultures other than our own; I did not care for cultures other than our own. I had a vague understanding for different cultures, but I had never thought them important enough to pay attention to. But after listening to this talk, my eyes were opened. I was, and people like the "old" me are, the reason that these amazing cultures are disappearing, unknown and unappreciated.

Some believe that we are all brothers and sisters. As Davis put it, "All people are merely cultural options, different visions of life itself." This brings up the idea that different peoples and societies choose to pursue different things. For example, in the west, we choose to pursue technology; we choose to advance our race. However, some indigenous people choose not to pursue such technology or advancement, rather, they spend their time in nature, appreciating its beauty. We chose to pursue knowledge that will put us out into space, while the Polynesians chose to pursue knowledge of the sea. We all began the same; we just made different decisions that led us towards separate paths. Who are we to judge these indigenous people if we are all interrelated?

We made our choice, and in the same way, they made theirs. Just because they chose to pursue things different than our own, we think of them as inferior and "unadvanced". This is such a falsified belief. When you strip us down, back to where we started, we are all the same. We all feel, we all go through life, wondering and searching for our purpose. We just chose different ways to find the answer to this question, subsequently creating different cultures. We are but a small part in the world. We may consider ourselves advanced but what about the indigenous people? They are, in their own way, advanced also. They just chose to pursue different aspects of life, aspects of life we have neglected. We see these people as primitive and inferior but we do not even consider that they do not do the same to us. Some of them even pray for us, we who have harmed our world. They forgive us for our wrongdoings to them and the world. But we are so vain and ignorant as a people that we do not understand that they too, deserve respect. Davis said that these cultures are not "failed attempts at being us or being modern." Rather, we should take on the perspective that they are just unique answers to the question of what does it mean to be human and alive?

Every two weeks, a language becomes extinct. Of the 6000 languages spoken in the world, only 3000 are taught to children. The world is losing its diversity. Cultures are either being assimilated or lost completely. We are losing what makes us a world.

In the end, it all comes down to choice. Our choice to pursue advancement, knowledge and technology has led us to where we are today. The indigenuous people's choice to pursue things different to us has led to the diversity in the world. We may choose to continue living the way we are, unaware of the dying ethnosphere. We may choose to learn, understand and appreciate cultures we have never heard of before. We may choose to think of the indigenous people of the world as inferior and primitive. We may choose to see them as our equals, and learn from them. Every choice leads us towards a different road, a different journey for us to travel. There is a way, a way to treasure the diversity in the world and it starts now. We need to begin to take small steps in humbling ourselves. We need to go back to the beginning, to the time when we were all the same. We need to go back to this time and learn. We need to learn from these cultures, not only that, we need to learn to help preserve these cultures. They are what makes our world the way it is, a rich tapestry.

Labels: global ethics

Unknown to many of us, human life is bound by many limitations. Both limitations brought about by society and limitations that were brought about by ourselves. In this age, our minds and subsequently our speech and actions are controlled by factors unknown to us.

Before civilization came about, there was just man and nature. The man could live freely, as nature does not expect any favours from him, or any actions that he has to abide by. Man could do whatever he pleased for he has no need or desire to please others or nature. Man's mind was free to wander into the depths and realms that had yet to be discovered.

I am not critiquing religion or its principles but by putting our faith into God, or any other form of religious idol, we automatically snap ourselves into the grid of religious laws and principles. Unlike nature, religion has expectations of us. Using Christianity as an example, the first and foremost of these expectations is faith; we need to blindly put our faith into God and his existence. The other expectations then follow, such as the ten commandments, and following Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. We believe in God, therefore we must do what he expects of us. Religion constrains us, in order for us to live a life of good. Choosing to put our faith in God is like choosing to put ourselves into an invisible cage which limits what we do and think.

In the beginning, it was man and nature. Nowadays, it is society. Although it may seem so, we are never alone, and we are not entirely free. In accordance with Michael Foucalt's theory of Panopticism - the idea of behaviour control through constant surveillance, our behaviour will be influenced by the constant surveillance, much like in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. In this sense, our behaviour is influenced by society. Society, in this case, is the surveillance, exerting control over us. Society, like religion, expects many things from us. In our postmodern world, we are actually constantly controlled by the power of society. We are not free; in order to fit in, we have to 'please' society by following its laws and expectations. Man had created society in order to feel a sense of belonging and security, however, with its creation, we lost our free will and individualism.

Technology is also another aspect of human life that can be likened to a gorilla going from a forest to a zoo. In the past, we did not have technology, however, with the advancement of the human race, we created technology. Nowadays we are heavily reliant on technology, in fact, it would be extremely difficult for us to survive without it. Technology holds an extremely strong power over us and continues to do so. With this, the question of whether one day the costs of technology will outdo the benefits and lead to mankind's ultimate destruction has been raised.

Maybe it was time we took a break from these limitations. Maybe it was time we questioned whether we are truly free, and if we really want to be.

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." - Henry David Thoreau

Labels: global ethics

The current global situation can be interpreted as good or bad, depending on the person and their belief. One may choose to believe that our situation is really good, the best that it has been in centuries. We are making new discoveries each day, we are aware of the importance of knowledge, we have succeeded and are continuing to succeed in advancing the human race. However, one may choose to believe that our situation is disastrous and we need to take action immediately. In an effort to advance our race, we have harmed nature and the Earth in the process. Global warming, climate change, and pollution are only some of the issues facing the world today.

Speaking in a more specific sense, each person has made their fair amount of choices which have led us to where we are today. We may choose to litter, or we may choose to put the rubbish in the bin. We may choose to throw everything out, or we may choose to recycle. We may choose to drive our cars for convenience, or we may choose to walk or use public transportation. We may choose to leave the water running, or we may choose to turn off all unused taps. These choices all, in some way, affect and change the global situation.

With every choice, there is a benefit, and a cost. The good and the bad are complements, it is not possible to have one without the other, and it is ultimately up to us to choose how far we are willing to risk the well-being of earth and nature to achieve our goals.

Labels: global ethics