Blog Feed

Intro

Hey ya’ll! I present to you my Advanced Essay #4. I’m actually really proud of this one. Before writing this essay, I used my free write space to get out all of my thoughts and potential ideas. I ended up with many topics/ideas, but I had to choose one. That’s when I decided to write about violence as consumerism. I chose to write about this because I can relate to it and it’s just very interesting to me. To understand why people buy into violence. To My goals for this paper were to open my readers’ eyes to the perspective of violence as consumerism, manage my time wisely, to not overwrite my essay, stop by the Lit Lab and include a great, larger idea.  I very happy to say that I accomplished all of my goals with no problem at all. If I had to do this again, I think I may build a little bit more on my larger idea. I hope this essay affects your perspective on violence. Enjoy!

Essay

When it comes to violence, there are two perspectives involved. The first perspective is of  those engaged in the violence. The second perspective is of those seeing the violence. Many people believe that focusing on those engaged in the violence is the most important thing when it comes to these sorts of situations. However, those seeing the violence is just as important. In today’s society, violence is ingrained in most of the things that we consume, such as movies, television, social media and, most strikingly, in video games. I can relate the most to the last one.

Growing up, I would see violence in TV shows, movies and games a lot. One time in 2011 or 2012, I went over to my best friend Tim’s house to hang out. When I walked into the house, I saw that he was playing his Play Station 2 as usual, but, today was different. He had a new game called “DC vs. Mortal Kombat.” I had never heard of it, so I sat on the couch next to Tim to see what was going on in the game. This game was so bloody, grotesque and brutal. It involved a one on one fighting game that only ended in death. I had never seen anything like it before that day. Any kind of violence I had seen before this game never involved blood and death, just kicking and punching. This game disturbed me, yet my eyes never left the television screen. After ten minutes into this game, I had become intrigued. It was at that point that I joined Tim in the game and then, days later, got the game myself.

As I had, many people have given into the sway of violent video games. Games such as, “Call of Duty”, “Mortal Kombat”, “Battle Field” and many more. The imagery that’s displayed in violent video games has a strange quality that draws many people into buying them. This is what the mixture of violence and consumerism looks like: People taking pleasure in involving themselves in violence. In a TED talk with Peter Mantello, he explained the phenomenon of violence and consumerism merging together in the video game world. He stated, “In the first person shooter game, the battle field transforms into a market place. And so the key prerequisites to capitalism, production and consumption, revolves around production (the killing of adversaries for cash-kill points) and consumption (the trading of cash-kill points for weapons and body armor). So the more you kill, the richer you become. The richer you become, the more weapons you can buy. The more weapons you can buy, the more powerful you can become.” This quote gives you the reason as to why people react this way to violent imagery in video games. Indulging in this violence makes them feel powerful. This makes sense too because, speaking from personal experience, when you shoot someone down, or take someone out with your immaculate fighting skills and/or powers, you feel on top of the world and unbeatable. It’s an oddly amazing feeling.

This is one of the things that capitalism comprises. It took violence and put a price tag on it. Capitalism understands the powerful feeling these violent games give people. So they continue to manufacture more of these games. We, as a society, continue to consume these games. Capitalism prospers while society gradually becomes more violent. The more society buys into violence, the more it's safe to say that violence is human nature. People have been trying to end violence for many decades, but the result is always the same: more violence.

Bibliography

"Consuming War: Peter Mantello at TEDx." The Vision Machine. Accessed March 20, 2017. http://thevisionmachine.com/2014/10/consuming-war-peter-mantello-at-ted/.

3-16-17

Advanced Essay #4

Violence is a book, filled with many stories, but only one truth. However, it can be seen through many perspectives. However it seems to be most common that people think of violence as a physical act, in which could cause damage such as bruises and bleeding. The idea of violence is different for many people. Let’s also think of it as if it  an arrow, it can point in many different directions. It could be towards family, friends, enemies. Generally it isn’t an easy thing to deal with, and sometimes people use it because they don’t know how to deal with their own lives.

Violence doesn’t just include fists, words can also be used harshly against someone. They can be just as bad as a punch in the stomach or being shot in the head with a gun. Someone may use gun to kill someone else, or they could use it against themselves. Self harm can fit within the category of violence, however it can be seen as a coping mechanism, when in reality that not the case.  Causing that kind of harm to yourself, is not exactly the greatest way to `cope with struggles. Seeing self harm as a way to cope, is a perspective that certain people can have. That can become someone's reality, while others may not think that. Others may use self violence in a more mental way, like saying negative things about themselves, or saying that you’re not worth any effort.

I’ve personally had experiences with different kinds of violence. I was tossed on the floor by my own father, I was called several different names, however all of those experiences made it into a bad habit of me pointing all the violence towards myself. Think of that as if it were a routine, something that is consistent, you have other people point the violence towards you so many times. That could cause a negative impact on someone, making them think poorly of themselves. Therefore it becomes that cycle where it actually sticks in your mind, that you should be treated poorly. It begins to become something normal for you. This mainly happens because of the negative impact the people around them give.

Self harms fits into the category of self violence, like a glove. So right off the dot you automatically think about cutting. Well, that’s not the only way of self harming. Mental Health America states that there are multiple different types of self harming such as burning, head banging or hitting. That’s mainly the physical way of self violence. Saying bad things about yourself or someone saying things verbally can certainly have a huge impact on how they see themselves, or how they see other people. It takes time to heal from those sorts of actions. Especially when you basically have to learn how to do it yourself, since you’re the only one who knows what works for you.

Now, I know you're probably thinking; how can I help someone who faces self violence?  How can I help myself when I experience self violence? There are multiple way you can help yourself, and others as well. If someone you love is experiencing self violence, you just need to constantly tell them,”It’s going to be okay”. Remind them how beautiful/handsome they are. Push them through the struggles that they face. When you're suffering from self violence, you feel like the whole world is falling apart. Just know that you’re not alone. There are many ways to help yourself through those bumps in the road. Sarah shared her story on Reachout.com. She told her story through a letter to her old self. The one who suffered so much, it felt like she wasn’t living. It felt like she was dying.

Introduction:

My goals for my paper was to include 3 or more quotes to support my argument, to go over the minimum word count and to persuade my reader to agree with my argument. I also wanted to ensure that I sharpened some of my grammar errors and I even tried something new by using descriptive scenes to start of my essay. I worked on my essay a lot, I did a lot of deleting, editing and revising before I got a finished product. If I was to do this essay again I would write a lot more so when it comes to deleting I would not have as much to read and I would also get more peer edits. Overall I am proud of myself and my essay. I worked hard on it and gave it my best.

Stop The Criminalization

He walks down the street with all black on. Black hoodie, black jeans, black sneakers and don’t forget he’s black. Stopped by the police, quickly patted down and thrown in the police car. They didn’t find anything on him but as the police said: “He fits the description.”He fitted the description of some crime. The cops aren’t sure about what crime he “committed” but they are sure it is something.

This scene presented above is so common considering it’s one of the everyday norms African Americans face mostly males. For a long time, things have been this way back since racism. Racism has impacted the way things ended up occurring in today life. So many African Americans face the same troubles and worries considering this is such a norm and they often have to think how can I dress, talk or act so that I don’t get pulled over or attacked by police authorities.

We as a community and a society have criminalized everyday social interactions from our African American males. We have allowed our males to think that they will be punished for being themselves. Allowing them to second think their outfits, what neighborhood to be in and what to say considering they could be accused of something illegal based on stereotypes and accusations of their race.

Violence in the society has only gotten worse throughout the years considering the situations we have been facing. Your race, your gender, and your clothing can determine so much to a police officer nowadays. Walking down the street and you fit the description of a suspect. But it’s the same one suspect a black male and anyone can fit this description. The community is endangered and it's sad that enough people aren’t informed.

Statistics imply that “ 6.66 Black, 3.23 Hispanic/Latino, 2.9 White and 1.17 Asian/ Pacific Islander.” Of all the different races, the African Americans have the highest percentage of deaths due to police brutality. Statistics like this have allowed the males in our community fear for their race considering their race is the most endangered. Endangered considering huge populations of their own race have been getting killed and it's nothing they could do about it. The only thing they can do is worry and hope that they won't be next.

“Seeing so many black men killed by police and having negative experiences with law enforcement have made him less empathetic to the police.” African American males can not even feel comfortable or trust police enforcement considering they have often been accused and attacked just because of their race. “I’ve had a gun in my face from a police officer before,” he said. “I didn’t feel it was warranted, but he (the officer) did. I’ve been pulled over for a tail light that wasn’t out.” when you are being accused of something for no reason you have to stop and rethink everything action to ensure your safety.

You have to think should I turn here? Should I wear all black? Should I wear a hoodie? And I think this something that should not be a norm in today’s society. We have allowed black men to believe that everything they do, wear or say is a crime and that their race is automatically a target.

One resolution would be to work harder on fighting towards police brutality. If more people stood up and spoke out on situations there would be justice and statistics wouldn’t be as high. Another solution would be rebelling against things and being yourself. Don’t allow police brutality or your race stop any of your social interactions. If you like who you remain yourself.

“Along with racial profiling and other legal harassment, like stop-and-frisk, being pushed through a window by police has apparently become a new reality for brown-skinned kids. Yet how is such aggression and violence justified by law enforcement, and are these incidents to be imagined as mere coincidence” although this is considered a “reality” it should stop occurring.African American males should be able to love themselves and should never feel like anything they do, wear or say is considered a crime.  Stop the criminalization and start to love the African American males in our community for who they really are.

Intro: My goals for this paper were to learn about violence, and after I chose my thesis, really learn when violence is okay.  I think it is a super difficult question I am still struggling with.  The process for writing this paper was harder than any of my others and I feel I could work on this for another week, keep it the same length, and improve the quality of it.  I got a lot of feedback that I tried to use, but only some of it could make it in the essay unfortunately.  If I could write two essays, I still would have had a lot to say, because there are so many different ways to write this, and so many levels to violence.  I wish I could have had a different essay structure.  I am glad I was able to keep my body paragraphs in line with my introduction and thesis.  

Central Idea or Question:  When is violence justified?

Violence is justified when it brings more positivity to a situation than peaceful conflict resolution could.  Sometimes, it is unavoidable and the best way to deal with a situation.  Yes it can cause pain, but it can still be the right thing to do.  For my purpose of this essay, violence will be broken down into two categories, physical and psychological. I will explore examples of each, showing how certain actions are or are not violent.  Also, I will address the question, “when is an act of violence justifiable?”

First off, Physical violence involves actions like punching, kicking, shooting, etc. It is a type of behavioral violence, and has intent behind it.  If a doctor cuts open a patient during surgery, this is not violence.  However, if a murderer cuts his victim in the same physical manner, it is violence.  There are times when physical and psychological violence can overlap.  If an army encircles an opponent and set up a blockage towards their resources, this would be a form of violence lying somewhere in the middle.  They are physically affecting their enemies, but not directly and they are also affecting them mentally with a choice.  Overall, any action that can be classified under physical violence has the potential to be moral.

Physical violence is decent when it is used in order to combat a worse violence.  The other violence may be worse in its extremity or the intent behind it.

There are a vast number of scenarios in our not so perfect world, where the answer is violence.  Should I be able to use self defense?  Can I attack someone who is in possession of a bomb that could wipe out millions?  Can I torture someone to tell me a secret, if it would save the lives of millions? Surely the answer is yes, because by acting with violence, a more positive outcome is reached.  Therefore, it is an acceptable process in some circumstances where it will produce better results.  

Psychological violence is most commonly verbal and emotional abuse.  Because the words we use and the way we treat other people can hurt them, it is one type of violence.  Some examples of this would be calling someone a mean name, or ignoring someone to get revenge on them. Donald Trump tweeted, “Ariana Huff is unattractive both inside and out.  I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man- he made a good decision.” This social media post is a prime example of psychological violence, because he purposely takes a shot at another person's emotions. I wouldn’t say this was justified however, because it was unprovoked.   

Psychological violence is warranted when it is done in response to other violence. If someone wrongs you or steps on your toes, it is right to stand up for yourself.  It could be something like yelling at your kids for making a huge mistake, or harshly criticizing someone who has been told and told again, but has yet to change.  Sometimes too much kindness will not get the point across, and some aggressiveness is good.  If using psychological violence can make something positive click in someone's mind, it can be worth making them feel a little hurt at first.

Both types of violence can be justifiable, especially and usually in harsh circumstances.  Violent actions have purposeful intent of harm and negativity.  Whether someone's being hurt on their body or in their mind, they are usually a victim of violence.  Wrapping up the bulk of the essay, violence is acceptable when the act of violence is fitting to reach the quintessential solution.

Work Cited

Borghini, Andrea. "What Is Psychological Violence?" ThoughtCo. N.p., 6 May 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2017. <https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-psychological-violence-2670714.>

Gleave, Rob. "Debating Matters: Global Uncertainties | Opinion | When Is Violence Justified." DM Banner Graphic. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2017. <http://www.debatingmatters.com/globaluncertainties/opinion/when_is_violence_justified/>.

Sebastian, Michael . "29 Times Donald Trump Has Been Completely Insulting to Women." Cosmopolitan. N.p., 21 Oct. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017. <http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a44629/donald-trump-insults-women/>.

"Structural Violence." Structural Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2017. <http://www.structuralviolence.org/structural-violence/>.

This essay for me meant a lot being able to talk about something that I am very passionate about.  I’m happy I was able to really dig deep not just on catcalling but also non-violence.  This whole process of writing I can say was really good for me because as I wrote, my beliefs grew.  I think it is very important when you really feel what you are writing and get into it and I feel that’s what I did.  The goal of my paper was to show why women are silent when they are being cat called.  That the act of silents was oppressed on women by men.  I think I did really good on this essay it’s my favorite one out of all my advanced essays.

A woman walks down the street with her head down avoiding the eyes of men around her.  Looking at the ground like she is trying to memorize each step she takes.  Her hands are in her pockets making her body as small as possible.  She would do anything to not be noticed by the men around her.  This won’t help though, no matter what she does she will be noticed with her long hair and inviting eyes.  Her friends tell her, “Why don’t you just make yourself look ugly?”  She’s tried that, not putting makeup on and wearing sweats, trying to do what it takes to be a blur to the men around her.  Why should she have to underdress to not get attention by men.  It doesn’t work anyways, they will always holler no matter what you look like, “Yo baby girl with the book bag!” “Yo ma’ can I get your number?!” “You want a ride sweety!”  Women are trained to be silent in these moments.  In the source, Here is What Street Harassment is in Eight Counties, it says, “The general public is pretty lax about it and girls are often advised to ‘just ignore it’”  In the midst of street harassment is silence the best non-violent response?  

In this world we live in, women have always been looked down on - from not being able to vote to not earning equal pay.  It is hard to escape such oppression with all the past lingering events women went through.  Not all men realize when they catcall, they are saying the unspoken history of sexism.  Men try to grab the woman's attention and most of them won't take no for an answer. This shows how men think they are a higher power to women.  As soon as a woman walks outside of her house, men start to view the woman through a gender lens, that is,  being looked at as a sex object or just someone that a man feels the need to take control of.  

Through all these years of oppression women were trained to keep their  mouths shut.  I am an advocate for the non-violent community, but do we truly  think this is the best way to fight with non-violence or is the “silent response” something created by men?  Your brain learns from the world around you and the people who raised you.  Being in a world where women are told to look a certain way and act a certain way, can shape women into beings who don’t have a voice.  Why should we just accept this?  Why do we go with the way history wants women to respond, by looking forward and putting our headphones in.  Women need to fight against this oppression!  As a women in this men ruled world, I can say that I have experienced this restriction to my words.  For instance,  when I am walking down the street and get cat-called and even followed sometimes, I still find myself tying my eyes to the ground and moving forward.  As someone who is all for women’s rights why do I do this? I find this question going through my head over and over again.  I find that I am scared -I’m scared of the response from the man.  Again, I restrict my words because I am afraid of the MAN’S response!  In the TED talk “Fighting With Nonviolence” Scilla Elworthy tackles the right way to handle things with non-violence and one of them is confronting your fear.“Sit down with the fear like a child you're the adult you're in charge.  You ask the fear what it wants.”So as women we need to confront our fear of men, look fear in the eye, and say “I am the adult and what do you need.”  We have to do what is best for ourselves we can’t sink into our fear forever because then are tongues will always be tied.  Confront the fear and  and push it out by standing up for yourself.  I’m not saying you got to yell at the guy but know when the right moment is to speak up for yourself.  

Knowing the history of women and where women are at today, we can still see the rooted sexism in our world.  So I would say that silence is not the right non-violent response, instead it is the responce of years of oppression.  This quote from Martin Luther King Jr.  says that we have to know how to fight the hate. "Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” I believe this with my whole heart.  Don’t let the oppression of years from men affect your pure women power.  Becoming immune to the men around you that are catcalling isn’t the right response, stand up and make a change.  Not for just yourself but for all the women out there.

Biography-

​"What Does "Nonviolence" Really Mean?" ​PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.

Elworthy, Scilla. "Fighting with Nonviolence." ​Scilla Elworthy: Fighting with Nonviolence | TED Talk | ​ TED.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.

Rossalyn Warren, Marie Kirschen, Lane Sainty, Jina Moore, Rachel Wilkerson Miller, Hannah Giorgis, Nirali Shah, Bibiñe Barud. "Here's What Street Harassment Is Like In Eight Countries Around The World." ​ BuzzFeed. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.

Street harassment is an issue in society that not only affects women, but it also affects men. When thinking about street harassment, you have to ask yourself questions like what is considerably good or evil, do you think that people are good or evil, and are people returning to their animalistic state. These can help determine what your view is like on the topic of street harassment. Street harassment doesn’t just affect people in the U.S., it affects people all over the world. We mainly hear stories about women getting sexually harassed and not having anyone there to defend them, and if there is a witness, they don’t do anything about it. We don’t normally hear stories about men being sexually harassed, but it is just as relevant a topic that sexual harassment is for women. When this happens, people are being disrespectful to both genders and degrading them. We should keep this in mind and try to answer the question what causes street harassment and how can we stop it?

“Part of the problem lies in how the general public defines sexual harassment in public spaces. At work, there is a government-approved definition: ‘unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.’ There are rules to be followed, departments to hear grievances, and punishments issued to offenders.”, quoted by Emily Smith from CNN. She answers the question of what sexual harassment is and mainly where it can happen. People seem to have this idea that it’s okay to go up to a stranger and treat them in a disrespectful way, just because there is someone to mistreat. It is stereotypically said that men will just go up to women and start treating them in this way, but some women will do the same to men. The question that needs to be asked is why do people think they have the right to walk up to a complete stranger and just undermine them. This can also go into the topic of whether people become animalistic when they sexually harass someone.

“When I was introduced to catcalling, it was like a game, just trying to be funny or look cool. We saw older guys doing it, then started in ourselves around 13, 14. It was as easy as saying hi to your neighbor. If she looked developed, there was a comment for her. If a girl frowned across the street, it amused us. We weren't necessarily looking for a response.”, quoted from an NPR radio piece. This answers the question of why people sexually harass others and catcall. This also relates to the topic of whether there is good or evil in the world and what people consider to be good or evil when “choosing” a side in terms of sexual harassment.

“I think it depends on who you ask and where you are in the country. While there are many, many women who are vocal about how much they hate it, there are still a lot of people who dismiss it as no big deal, or who simply don’t understand how prevalent it is. I know that one of my male co-workers a few years ago didn’t realize how big of a problem it is until we started taking an afternoon walk each day, and he saw how often I got honked at. Even among the men who don’t do it, and who agree it’s shitty, I don’t think most are taking active steps to discourage it.”, quoted by Rachel Miller on Buzzfeed News. “I was on the metro on my way home this evening and a man sat next to me and began to loudly talk about how nice my legs looked. I told him to stop and he wouldn’t and I couldn’t get out of the seat. He continued to encroach on myspace so I turned my head, and could feel everyone looking at me but not doing anything.”, quoted from Hollaback. This asks the question of whether there is good or evil in the world and it also answers that question. The way you decide to answer this question or how you perceive the perspective of this, all depends on what you consider to be good or evil.

Paragraph Introduction

So this is my essay about Sexual Harassment and I wrote an essay on this because I feel like there is so much going on in our society but people are forgetting that Sexual Harassment is really important to prevent as much as possible. My goals I feel like i've done is check my spelling and grammar and my wording is better. The feedback I got from my peers really helped me a lot so that's good.

My goal for the paper is to make the readers think, think about whether or not violence is something embeded in the human nature, or is it something that is taught by the society. I think my process is fine.

The actual thing:

Is violence, the desire to fight, something that is embedded within the human nature?

Some might argue that violence is something we are born with.It’s something that make us human. Like Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, he argued that all men are born evil.

In the earlier days of human history, in the days of hunter gatherer, human had to fight other animals for our own survival. Slowly, it became a part of us. Violence is what lets us survive all these years. If we are not violent, we would not have survived given all these enemies human have in the nature. Violence is what has kept humanity alive until this day.

“Why are we seemingly so hard wired toward violence? Well, it might be evolution. It is possible that aggression is an innate trait in human. And under the right conditions, may be it finds its expression in violence and war. ”

Without violence, we are not complete. We could not consider ourselves human anymore. No matter what, violence is something that is hidden deep inside the human heart. More or less, it’s there, waiting to be triggered, explode, and emit. Once it explodes, it’s hard to collect them, and seal the all back up.

Some might argue that humans are not born with violence or anything of the sort. When we were born, we were like pieces of blank papers, pure and innocent. Society put emotions into us. Emotions of violence, greed, envy, gluttony, anger and much more. Like John Locke, also an English philosopher, who argued that at birth, all minds are blank.

When babies were just born, the babies wouldn’t know anything. The babies wouldn’t hate, or have any negative emotions at all. It’s only when they start growing up, when they start to get in touch with the society, did they start learn to hate.

But no matter what, love, the opposite of hate exists in our heart. It’s the human nature. More or less, there’s love in our heart, everyone has love somewhere in their heart. Love is what motivates us to help others, without love, humanity wouldn’t survive till this day, we would have kill each others already.

To me, everyone is born with violence, greed, and negative thoughts, somewhere inside. But they are all hidden away in a box, somewhere in their heart, masked by things such as love and happiness. Love, happiness, warmth, everything seem to be going so well. But when the right moment comes, the seal breaks, the Pandora's box flips open, and it will flood the heart with all kinds of negative thoughts. Violence, greed, envy……, waves of them, will flood the heart. Once the Pandora’s box is open, it will take much more of an effort to close it. And once the Pandora’s box has been open, it will be way easier to open it again and again and again, until the heart have soak up all the evil it can. It is so hard to close the Pandora’s box, most people give up trying really soon, or they didn’t even bother to try at all. But until the heart have been eaten up by negative thoughts, and starts to rot, there will still be love somewhere in the heart, somewhere.

Bibliography:

Crashcourse. "War & Human Nature: Crash Course World History 204." YouTube. YouTube, 31 July 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.

History prompts the question of, when can you justify torture?  Throughout history, people have found ways to make torture more brutal and more complicated. Destroying minds and bodies torture leaves a path of destruction. However, does torture get answers from people that would not have given up secrets otherwise?

A prime example of the ethics of torture is the trolley problem. The trolley problem is a dilemma where there is a trolley moving on a track and will hit and kill five people who are tied up on the track. You have the ability to pull a lever which switches the tracks and the trolley would hit and kill one person. You could do nothing and five people will die or, pull the lever and one person will die. One can argue that you do nothing and you have no blood on your hands. The other argument would be that you have an obligation to pull the lever and save the five lives while killing the one person. Torture can be connected to this situation. The military can torture one person who has information about a possible terrorist attack and prevent it. Or, they could question the person without applying force and get little to no information and many people die in result of that. The answer to this seems straightforward, torture the one person to save the lives of many. However, in war, things are not so simple. There are rules and laws set in place to protect the enemy. In war there is a rule that people are told to follow, “Jus in bello” it “means justice in war, and has traditionally been concerned with the treatment of the enemy.” During war rules and laws get broken and lines get crossed, people make decisions on behalf of others and many people suffer.

Another issue with torture is the person that you are torturing. If the person who is the victim of torture is someone who has committed heinous crimes the morality of torture becomes easier to deal with. However, many times during war when dealing with torture it is innocent civilians who are tortured and who suffer. Red Cross is a protective organization for victims of war, on the red cross website they write “a neutral protective sign for those helping the victims of conflict was adopted; a red cross on a white background, the exact reverse of the Swiss flag.” When a story comes out about a civilian being tortured all arguments for torture goes out the window. There is an uproar of anger and the military is the antagonist.

Torture also happens in the field between a soldier and a civilian. Chris Hedges a pulitzer prize winner and anti-war activist writes “I think for those who are in combat, it very swiftly can become an addiction. War is its own subculture. It can create a landscape of the grotesque that is, perhaps, unlike anything else created by human beings. There is that rush of war.” Soldiers get carried away and forget what they are supposed to do. Civilians become the victims of a gruesome war that they take no part in.

As the world becomes more humanitarian, acts of torture are outlawed. Waterboarding is one of the most known outlawed forms of torture.  It is a devastating act that destroys a human being. So to answer when can you justify torture one has to look at the specific action at hand and decide whether or not torture in that circumstance is justified. To those who wish to outlaw all forms of torture, look at the events where torture prevented terrorist attacks. To those who wish to legalize all forms of torture; look at the lasting effect torture leaves on millions of people all around the world.

Roscini, Marco . "World Wide Warfare-Jus Ad Bellum and the Use of Cyber Force." Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 14 (2010): 86-132.

"War and international humanitarian law." ICRC. October 29, 2010. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/overview-war-and-law.htm.

"January 31, 2003 ~ Interview: Chris Hedges." PBS. May 10, 2013. Accessed March 16, 2017. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2003/01/31/january-31-2003-interview-chris-hedges/13987/.

Emba, Christine. "Opinion | Just War Theory: A primer." The Washington Post. November 30, 2015. Accessed March 16, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/11/30/just-war-theory-a-primer/?utm_term=.52908b130ad2.

Lacewing, Michael. "Just War Theory." 1-4. Accessed March 23, 2017.

Introduction:

This essay has been one of my best works in terms of talking about how I feel about a certain issue. I honestly had fun writing this, because it allowed me to voice my opinion on a worldwide topic. I focused on taking on certain perspectives on the topic and feel like I have accomplished that goal in this essay. As well as improving on my grammar, I think I did a much better job. Hopefully you enjoy reading this essay as much as I enjoyed writing this.

Street harassment has unknowingly been installed into our society and way of life. As street harassment continues to live in our society, women are becoming more accustomed to the harassment but does that means it’s acceptable? Ignoring the ignorant men has been incorporated into some of woman's daily life routine. Most people would say that street harassment is only a problem in the United States but in reality it's a worldwide problem. People across the world no matter what their cultural background, race or ethnicity is, are still being affected by this problem. In a source I read about worldwide harassment, there is a heavy issue with women being harassed in packed/full trains. We could bring this back in history where it all started. Have women been viewed as less from the start?

Although I find it interesting that street harassment is not only a U.S issue. I still ask myself, can women be harassed even if they are not dress in provocative attire? The answer to that is yes. Being in the shoes of a women is something men won't be able to handle. women are strong individuals who are targeted for the wrong reasons. A women’s body image has a great affect on if a man ‘harrases’ her or leaves her alone. This has been the case for all men, but in the generation I was born into. Things that are said to women may have long lasting effects on her mind more than you think. In this generation, there are different things you can do to survive through street harassment.

I find it ridiculous that their is an actual mobile app for street harassment. “That's where Hollaback! comes in. The original app, released in 2010, was basically a mobile extension of the webs”. Not at the fact that there is one but at the fact that it exists and was needed for people in our society. It just disgusts me this issue is really big and we need to have an actual movement to stop this. People just need to control their mouths and censor their words. Also learn to respect personal space, but can we stop that? Is it possible to stop every single person from harassing?

Most of the posts and sources I have read have been about men targeting women. Is there any such thing as men street harassment? Yes, there is such thing as street harassment towards men. Coincidently, I was so called “harassed” two days ago when I was heading to practice. I had a regular outfit on, a black plain t-shirt, ripped jeans and some black heavy boots. I seen a group of girls walking towards the direction I was walking towards so we were bound to pass each other. That's when one of the girls said “My friend want the oop with you”. That slang, is another phrase for “My friend wants you”. I personally believe that the way I reacted and felt after what she said would have determined if that was considered harassment. I responded with a smile, ignored her and kept walking. It did not make me feel bad at all but just boost my confidence in my looks. Now, I haven't been harassed enough times to understand if that feeling would change if I were harassed on a daily basis or more often. This is where the differences between men and women street harassment intervenes. There are a lot of variables to this like age group, aggressiveness, and emotional feelings. In what ways they are different is definitely something that can not have a direct answer but their is a distinctive difference between both women and men street harassment.

“I am by nature warlike. To attack is among my instincts,” Said Friedrich Nietzsche. Combat has been a staple throughout human history in many different forms. From the earliest raids between groups of hunter-gatherers, to modern occupation, conflict, and everything in between. Whether we are playing football with friends, or piloting drones gunning down foreigners, does warlike nature apply only to Nietzsche? Or are we all composed of the same aggressive building blocks?

In ancient hunter-gatherer societies, humans lived in groups or tribes. Communities were very closely knit, prompting a very us-vs.-them mentality to rise through evolution. Those ancient people looked after their own. However, some groups would attack others for resources, as sometimes it was the easier way to find food. These raids were very different from the wars of today: Small groups of warriors would attack when they were unsuspected, killing other communities and taking what they needed. For a long time, this was the primary form of conflict.

However, as time went on, raids grew more elaborate, and tribes, based in raiding began to excel. Some even speculate that agriculture began, in part, due to the dangers of raids. One of the best defenses against a raid is to gather people together in a group. Along with the resource benefits of agricultural settlements, this brought in a new age of living.

Fast forward thousands of years. Politics have evolved with the human race, and oligarchic societies have become the norm. Democratic or otherwise, a small group sets laws to be followed by the populace, and countries gained individual power. This means war. War evolved, becoming increasingly politically driven, and so politics became the second reason for war.

The era of colonialism is a poster child for resource wars. Small countries, such as England and Portugal, who possessed advanced technologies, especially concerning weaponry, began to reach outward, conquering surrounding countries, and draining them of resources. Whether food, materials, or even humans, colonialism was a resource war on a massive scale.

On the other hand, looking at a revolution, such as the American Revolution, which came about primarily due to the idea of ‘taxation without representation,’ it is clear that most revolutions are almost entirely politically driven. As people rise against a political regime, conflict becomes inevitable. Force is inevitable. Politics rose from disagreement, as did conflict. While politics were most likely introduced as an alternative to fighting, they have not only coexisted, but have become intertwined.

Scilla Elworthy, founder of the Oxford Research Group whose goal was to avoid conflict through dialogue in the case of nuclear warfare, did her best to create a conflict-free world. Elworthy realized that at the base of all political warfare is anger. In her words, “Wherever there is injustice, there is anger. But anger is like gasoline, and if you spray it around, and someone lights a match, you’ve got an inferno.” Citizens often find themselves becoming frustrated with an oligarchy. Frustration leads to anger, and all it takes is a match to set ablaze the flame of war.

Afghanistan,1978. The soviet army invaded Afghanistan, with the hope to get out of the soviet crisis. The US army sent weapons to the mujahideen for self defense, US and the U.R.S.S were in the cold war. In 1992 the soviet ran away because they couldn’t defeat the local guerillas supported by the United States. At that moment that look like huge victory, but then in 2001 the same person who were trained by the the US army attacked the World Race Center. All world were wondering why they did that.  The answer is clear: violence only bring more violence. I don’t want to go in details.

My point is that conflicts had never been solved with with violence, in anytime. In all case that violence had develop in a pacific resolution. The only way to get a solution in any situation is with the peaceful way. And here in most in the cases, they were able to keep the peace much time \after . We can look to the history and notice that.

The most popular is India. This country was a U.K colonie, where they committed abuses, like most of the colonies.  After world war II, people in India wanted to be independent, and the riots started.

But them appear Gandhi, and start the disobedience  civil, basically was to protest in peaceful way, and ignore the security forces who try to stop them. This worked, after almost 10 years, the british were out, and India was indepencie.

After the independence, the country was in peace, because they didn’t use violence, so nobody wanted to hurt them.  Probably if they had used the violence, the conflict had been longer, with thousand of deaths in both sides, and  even the Indian win, the violence inside of the country still present time after the independence.

But not only India got the resolve conflict the peaceful way. This year, in Gambia, small country in Africa, a dictator ran away, because the country was against him, and the other choice was a civil war. This time he didn’t took the war, because some countries, like Senegal were ready to invade this country. So the dictator with this situation chose the peaceful way, and resolve a conflict that other way will thousand of deaths, and don’t resolve the conflict

Even the actual democratic government offer him to live there, with no punished and the rights as the other people from Gambia.

In the history of the humanity, most of the events happened because someone lose or won a war, but most of the wars that happened in the last 2,000 years is because war in the past.

But the conflict resolved by the peaceful way are less, but it didn’t cause more violence or war after that. You can think in Gambia, or India as a country, or even social problems, like the apartheid in south Africa.

Yo vivo en Sur Filadelfia. Mi barrio es bien. Me encanta mi casa, pero me gustaría moverla a otra parte. Hace 9 años que vivo en Sur Filadelfia. Creo que mi barrio no es malo. Si tu vas 4 cuadras desde mi casa lo es una vista mejor. Cuando pienso en mi barrio yo imaginar yo joven y jugar con mis amigos. Pero lo que no me gusta es que ya no pasar el tiempo en mi barrio. Todos mis viejos amigos no son buenos. Ellos no está mal pero sus solo no cerca de mis mejores amigos. Lo haría una visión más agradable moviendo cosas más lejos lejos de uno a. A la gente no le importa dónde tiran la basura. La gente de mi vieja escuela vive cerca de mí y alguna familia mía.

Esta es una pared en Sur Philly. Un cantante famoso que creció aquí fue Bobby Rydell. South Philadelphia es conocida por todos los festivales que tienen casi todas las semanas. También son conocidos por los lugares de comida pequeña que tienen en cada calle y esquina. South Philly es muy diversa, pero también en grupos pequeños. Debido a esto sucediendo esto causa luchas entre calles.

Mi mural es un negro y blanco tigre. Mi mural es ubicada en 11th y Fernon. El propósito es a demostrar que somos fuertes juntos y todos somos familia. Me encantan los tigres. Ellos ven apagado muy poderosos. Así juntos podemos superar cualquier cosa. Quiero hacer este diseño porque no sólo nos hace más fuertes pero hace que todos sean iguales.

Voy a incorporar imágenes de las cosas que representan a nuestro barrio, gusta cheesesteaks o guantes de boxeo. Voy a incorporar las palabras “fuerza, familia, igualdad y juntos siempre” porque eso es lo que somos cuando nos unimos. Aunque todos estamos en pequeños grupos con en nuestra comunidad podemos romper esto y convertirse en uno. En vez de quedarse en grupos pequeños podemos expandir nuestro barrio en la otra. Debido a esto sucediendo a causa de mi mural eso podría comenzar un movimiento muralista. Estoy muy orgullosa de que este mural puede ser diseñado por mí y también pintado por mí.

Strictly scientifically speaking, there are only two purposes in life: to survive and reproduce (and truly life only wants to survive so it can reproduce, so they can even be grouped as one concept). Philosophers may theorize and others may speculate about higher purposes, but a lot of the basics of biology revolve around those two concepts. Pretty much anything else is either biologically pointless or can be reduced to the basic function of survival. Even many higher functions that we attribute to more advanced or intelligent species (such as humans and chimps and other primates) usually have their roots in survival. War and violence are no exceptions to these rules, as they have remained from a few million years ago to now. We fight and kill for the same reasons anything fights and kills: to survive. And nothing is going to change that.

An extremely old debate between philosophers (with plenty of other people’s opinions thrown in) is whether humans are naturally peaceful or naturally warlike. There are a lot of varying opinions on the matter, with a surprising amount of variety. But whoever is right doesn’t really matter. It’s a moot point as we don’t need to know the truth of it; all we know is history and the present day, and that’s all we need to worry about. It doesn’t matter whether humans are violent or peaceful because we know what has happened in the past. Humans have fought and killed before, but in a different form than today’s wars (excluding the technological differences of course). As John Green says, “For the vast majority of human history, war consisted of raiding. It was about taking stuff from other people's kin group so that your kin group could have that stuff. For 99% of human history, that's how we fought.” This is an effective survival strategy that many animals use. Chimps do it, even some ants, and more modern territorial wars are an extension of this.

Now, when John Green says “for the vast majority of human history”, he means for the vast majority of human history, which is somewhere around a few million years. And up until the last 10,000 or so, humans fought by raiding. But then things changed, and whether wars were the cause or effect of that change is another highly debated topic (there are many of those). As John Green also says, “Cities began as settlements, which, because they were stationary, were targets for raids. And so to deter raiders, cities built walls. But those efforts required coordination, or else coercion, and resources which states are good at.” But after cities and states and countries and all the innovations and progress that came with them, war had to change. John Green continues, “Concentrated urban populations were the basis of civil militias, made up of soldiers who were also citizens. That meant that they were both effective fighting forces and political catalysts. They built civic pride and diminished the power of wealthy warrior elites, who couldn't defeat these new, larger armies.” And so then we come to the modern era, where newer, bigger, more powerful and destructive weapons threaten to destroy the things you want to take from other people. So what do people do?

They create international accords and conventions to constrict warfare so as not to destroy the world or kill too many people, some prime examples being the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross defines international humanitarian law as, “International humanitarian law is part of the body of international law that governs relations between States. IHL aims to limit the effects of armed conflicts for humanitarian reasons. It aims to protect persons who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, the sick and wounded, prisoners and civilians, and to define the rights and obligations of the parties to a conflict in the conduct of hostilities.” But these international laws are good for peacetime and not much else. Once the actually fighting starts they get thrown out the window. The first time they used poison gas in WWI, they tried to find ways to have it not violate those laws, but soon neither side cared enough. Survival and self preservation instincts are too strong, we won’t let ourselves be beaten because we are abiding unenforceable laws, because they are unenforceable.  The International Committee of the Red Cross says: “The International Committee of the Red Cross is regarded as the “guardian” of the Geneva Conventions and the various other treaties that constitute international humanitarian law. It cannot, however, act as either policeman or judge. These functions belong to governments, the parties to international treaties, who are required to prevent and put an end to violation of IHL. They have also an obligation to punish those responsible of what are known as “grave breaches” of IHL or war crimes.” And those other countries aren’t going enforce the international laws because once the other side violates them they start violating them too.

Humans have tried to maintain a lasting peace time and time again. After each World War there was a “never again” period where people vowed that this sort of thing could never be allowed to occur ever again. But humans aren’t going to stop. World War I was the war to end all wars, and so was World War II. But it probably will never work because fighting for survival is an ingrained instinct in humans, and “survival” is a very loose definition. Anything can be classified as survival, whether it seems like it to someone else or not. The types of wars fought change, from raiding to sieges to poison gas and nuclear bombs, but the reasons stays the same: survival.

No matter how far we come, it appears we always have to go a few steps further in order to get what we want. Simply itching to be looked at the same; something seemingly simple yet unable to be accomplished even after centuries of coexisting. Women have been attached to thousands of words making us out to be inferior, stamped to our foreheads and pasted to our curves. It feels as though we are trapped in a never ending cycle of being treated as lesser by men, and greater yet by the media, leaving the need for a drastic change.

One of the biggest issues in existence is the fact that no one tells the man “no”. Throughout countless encounters a woman is taught to be quiet, keep her mouth zipped shut with the utter defeat of pain searing inside of her lungs, begging to be released into the world singing of all the torture she has endured. The key is thrown away, with the words always being locked away deep down. This is due to the utter sense of fear women live in everyday. Walking down the street alone is no simple task. You become fragile and exposed to the world around you dominated by the male ego. Shouts pour out of their mouths. Their eyes lock onto you, scanning you from head to toe, like you are the prey. Your head tilts, and suddening the only thing you fixate on is the specs in the sidewalk pavement. Your pace picks up, the frightened scurry of your shoes scuffing the ground cannot be heard against the thumping of your heartbeat. Whistles, kissing noises, yells, all follow you down the street. It feels like you are being hunted.

Women are degraded to feeling like animals. The act of walking down the street can be as violent as having confrontations in war. An author of a poem describing experiences in Vietnam wrote: “muzzle down, sniffing like a hundred-dollar dog. Keep it on automatic. Anything moves in the bushes you open fire”. This relates to exactly what a woman can feel, how all humanity is extracted from the man who is entitled enough to threaten your security as a person. It is like an instinct, almost dog-like. Any female they can find will be subjected to the harsh realities that we are still not equal.

For centuries, humans have played the game of trying to decide who the alpha is and who is the omega. Once the idea that women were lesser came to be, society latched onto it with a full force. Everywhere you turn, you are blinded by the movies, pictures, music, and blatant ignorance the media carries.

Violence towards women is made almost appealing. Harming women can even lead to a means of pleasure. 50 Shades of Grey took the world by storm, everyone enraptured by the intense lifestyle led by the main character. He forced the woman into a relationship without love; only submission. Americans everywhere gobbled up the plot, fixating on the glamorized Hollywood faces portraying the characters and the sensuality coated with a thick layer of sexism. The Huffington Post released an analysis of this movie saying: “For some women, the themes of control and rape are not a fantasy. These women see their own abusive relationships echoed in the supposed love story of Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele, but efforts to have their voices heard have been roundly squashed by those who seem to believe that if women enjoy something, its feminism is above reproach.” Denial is a key contributor to these inequalities our society is facing. People absorb the subliminal messages so far sunken into the fabric of everything we do and it becomes increasingly difficult to pull apart.

The masses of America who were enraptured by the cruel nature of the movie are part of the larger issue, but not aware of their perpetuation. This blind ignorance, this adapted behavior, has normalized so many pressing topics that they are hardly even seen as problems. Women have learned to put their heads down as a mechanism to defend against cat calling, and men have only learned to do it more. The media has learned that abusing women sells, and Americans have only learned to adore it. This form of violence is hard to weed out from the overgrowth of mistreatment, and we must push through this and break the cycle. These problems need to become problems again. They need to stop being accepted and begin to be questioned. People must be aware of how they are being treated and how they treat others, and only then can we advance to an environment where anyone can walk down the street and feel safe just being themselves.

Introduction:

The goals of this paper were to investigate how war impacts and leaves an imprint on people in communities. I also go into how these impacts can be beneficial to the people or how the system can advance or deteriorate because of these changes. My process was overall productive and I was able to use my time wisely and efficiently. When reviewing my final product, I was overall satisfied with the paper and how my goals were accomplished.

Essay:

While war and violence may seem like an easy thing to define and understand, it actually is a lot more complex than what first meets the eye. War and violence is not only a physical being in the moment, but it also has a mental effect during and after the circumstances. One of these mental effects is how war has affected the home country (or countries) during and after the bloody battles. War always imprints on the societies that were involved for better or for worse.

One effect that Karl Marlantes points out is that our mentality as a people changes towards the government after a war. To provide more context, Marlantes wrote about the specific aftereffects of the Vietnam War. He writes “We have switched from naïveté to cynicism. One could argue that they are opposites, but I think not. With naïveté you risk disillusionment, which is what happened to me and many of my generation. Cynicism, however, stops you before you start. It alienates us from ‘the government,’ a phrase that today connotes bureaucratic quagmire. It threatens democracy, because it destroys the power of the people to even want to make change.” This quote not only shows how the people have evolved their views on the government and war, but how it has improved. This can also show how people learn from immediate history and how this imprint from war causes changes throughout history.

Another way war has affected the mass afterwards was the opinion of the public of war efforts. Karl Marlantes also writes “For many people, it eroded the notion, once nearly universal, that part of being an American was serving your country.” It can be seen here that people further experience that cynicism Marlantes refers to earlier. War doesn’t actually solve a lot of issues. The people learn this concept because of their desire to change the ideals of war and violent conflict. The idea of what it means to be an American in relation to war has led to numerous debates and differing opinions.

Furthering this notion of being American and not wanting to serve, there are in fact a lot of different instances where some do not have a choice to be called back into the military. This also causes a lot of issues of dividing the people and the nation. Rita Nakashima Brock writes “Forcing people to stay in service means the military abrogated their contracts and made the question of whether or not they volunteered moot.” This means that there is no choice involved when the military always has the option to reenlist a person back into active service. Even if a person has grown and took things out of war and are against it (no matter if they volunteered the first time or not), they can be forced back into it, disregarding their morals and beliefs in the present. So sometimes even when a people have evolved opinions based on past events, the system doesn’t have to follow those opinions in the same time or even ever.

In conclusion, war leaves an after effect on the communities involved that can impact how that community grows in the future. Sometimes people can become more aware of the violence happening around them. And sometimes the system refuses to change because it it more “beneficial” to them.

Works Cited:

Marlantes, Karl. "Vietnam: The War That Killed Trust." The New York Times. The New

York Times, 07 Jan. 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/opinion/sunday/vietnam-the-war-that-killed-trust.html >.  

Rita Nakashima Brock. "Just War Theory: Are We Protecting the Moral Conscience of

Soldiers?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2017.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-nakashima-brock-ph-d/in-gates-afghanistan-what_b_758090.html>.

Yo soy una artista y mi declaración es un mural de mis bisabuela una mujer de amor por su familia y su comunidad. El lugar fue en Norte Philadelphia. Pienso que un mural de Anita DeBrest debe ir aquí. Ella fue la creadora de una comunidad desarojo  COLT Coalition en la Universidad de Temple. Ella ayuda la comunidad con casas. Ella es mi bisabuela. Las palabras en el mural es “inspiración mujer”.

Yo vivo en Mt. Airy. Yo vivo en el barrio por toda mi vida. Yo pienso muchos árboles y animales en mi barrio. Me gusta mi barrio es muy amigable no me gusta que no más niños. Me gusta Mt. Airy a causa de que es muy pacífico. Uno temo importante es saludable comer y amigable. Pero más mi familia vive en Norte Filadelfia. Lo corazón de mi familia es en Norte Filadelfia.

El mural tiene la cara de Anita DeBrest muy grande y con más colores. El mural también incluida negro y blanca. Las palabras “Mujer de Inspiración.” Yo necesito no mas pinta por el mural.Yo quiero mas gente de la comunidad pintamos el mural en el dia de unidad. El mural es en la locación pero mi bisabuela gusta la escuela secundario de Central. Todos sus ninos van a la escuela. Ella es el modelo de seguir de niños en la comunidad.

En fin mi mural es arte público porque es accesible a todos los comunidad. Los niños y gentes viejo puedan ver el arte. Arte es para todos el gentes del mundo, pero este mural es en Norte Filadelfia. Para mi creo arte le alegra a la gente.