Quote:
"In this economic context, the "natural law" of equality tends to be obscured leading people to believe that inequality between people is the normal and natural state of being"
My interpretation:
This is exactly what I feel "they" want. The truth of the matter is, I am an American Citizen, born and raised, by immigrant parents. Yet I truthfully do not know who are the people that manage our government or our politics, besides big guys like the President of the United States, and a few senators. I understand that there is a system. I don't know who works for that system. That's the sad personal truth. So in a greater sense, of course they would want us to forget the "natural law". Of course they would want us to believe that inequality between people is normal. Because "they" are at the top. Anyone at the top, would claim that there is nothing wrong with society, and that everything makes sense, while the opposite holds true for the people at the bottom. It's an ILLUSION that we are unequal. We are all human. If anything, our biology should determine whether we belong at the top, and not class or money. But we are all human. We all eat, live, and experience. We all have a brain, and we all are born and die. Inequality only exists because social constructs exist that determine the experience of any given man, and a man is a product of his experiences. I agree with the fact that the obscurity of "natural law" is leading people to accept that inequality is normal. Inequality exists, but it is definitely not a normal and natural state of being. That has been socially constructed over many years, and generations.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Homework#3 POL166
This is from "The Federalist No. 51", "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments."
Quote: "Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
My Interpretation:
When reading this, aside from the rest of the article, I felt like this was speaking to me. It's very much true, there are always going to be two different kinds of people, the majority, and the minority. I do agree, that the issue at hand, and if you read this quote carefully, is that while we divide the level of interests among the people, we simultaneously dismiss the interests of the minority. It's false to think that the interests of the minority are inconsequential. They are still very much important. They exist, in the realm of life, and are problems that truly exist, and need to be taken care of, as much as the majority's interest need to be taken care of. That very well may be the problem with our government today. We have "surrendered our power" for them, because they are supposed to help and support us, but now power is shaped and bent to their will, and there are people that have real problems that aren't being addressed because it doesn't affect a certain other group of people. I am not saying either, that the right of the majority needs to be dismissed either, but it should not be that the concern of one group gets addressed and the other dismissed. There should be a system where the concerns of both groups are handled, because at the end of the day we are all human beings, and some of us live in the slums, while other's can't even imagine what the slums are. So it that sense, just this one quote stood out to me, because that alone, says enough about how our government, and the system is unjust.
How it relates to class:
We spoke about bias in class. Here lies, an obvious bias for the "majority", whatever that consists of.
Quote: "Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
My Interpretation:
When reading this, aside from the rest of the article, I felt like this was speaking to me. It's very much true, there are always going to be two different kinds of people, the majority, and the minority. I do agree, that the issue at hand, and if you read this quote carefully, is that while we divide the level of interests among the people, we simultaneously dismiss the interests of the minority. It's false to think that the interests of the minority are inconsequential. They are still very much important. They exist, in the realm of life, and are problems that truly exist, and need to be taken care of, as much as the majority's interest need to be taken care of. That very well may be the problem with our government today. We have "surrendered our power" for them, because they are supposed to help and support us, but now power is shaped and bent to their will, and there are people that have real problems that aren't being addressed because it doesn't affect a certain other group of people. I am not saying either, that the right of the majority needs to be dismissed either, but it should not be that the concern of one group gets addressed and the other dismissed. There should be a system where the concerns of both groups are handled, because at the end of the day we are all human beings, and some of us live in the slums, while other's can't even imagine what the slums are. So it that sense, just this one quote stood out to me, because that alone, says enough about how our government, and the system is unjust.
How it relates to class:
We spoke about bias in class. Here lies, an obvious bias for the "majority", whatever that consists of.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Homework#2/POL166 Fall 2016
Chose Passage from Text:
"Indeed, it is not uncommon for the eager Anglo- Saxon who goes to a vivid American university to- day to find his true friends not among his own race but among the acclimatized German or Austrian, the acclimatized Jew, the acclimatized Scandinavian or Italian. In them he finds the cosmopolitan note. In these youths, foreign- born or the children of foreign- born parents, he is likely to find many of his old inbred morbid problems washed away. These friends are oblivious to the repressions of that tight little society in which he so provincially grew up."
My Response:
What I took from this piece, and why it stood out to me, is because I feel this is saying, that Anglo-Saxon's prefer to be with "foreigners" because "...[they're] oblivious to the repressions of that tight little society in which he so provincially grew up". It almost feels like, they are using other people's cultures as a way to escape their own, and it works out because the other foreigners have no idea what the Anglo-Saxon goes through being as an Anglo-Saxon.
It can also be looked at in a positive way, because it is saying that without the "acclimatized" foreign born people, it implies that the Anglo-Saxon prefers to not be with their own people. It gives meaning to being different, shines light toward how different cultures can be used together, even if it's just to be an escape from your own.
"Indeed, it is not uncommon for the eager Anglo- Saxon who goes to a vivid American university to- day to find his true friends not among his own race but among the acclimatized German or Austrian, the acclimatized Jew, the acclimatized Scandinavian or Italian. In them he finds the cosmopolitan note. In these youths, foreign- born or the children of foreign- born parents, he is likely to find many of his old inbred morbid problems washed away. These friends are oblivious to the repressions of that tight little society in which he so provincially grew up."
My Response:
What I took from this piece, and why it stood out to me, is because I feel this is saying, that Anglo-Saxon's prefer to be with "foreigners" because "...[they're] oblivious to the repressions of that tight little society in which he so provincially grew up". It almost feels like, they are using other people's cultures as a way to escape their own, and it works out because the other foreigners have no idea what the Anglo-Saxon goes through being as an Anglo-Saxon.
It can also be looked at in a positive way, because it is saying that without the "acclimatized" foreign born people, it implies that the Anglo-Saxon prefers to not be with their own people. It gives meaning to being different, shines light toward how different cultures can be used together, even if it's just to be an escape from your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)