Humanities 1100 - Selected Journal Entries (Short Essays)
In humanities 1100 at SLCC, every week we had a Journal assessment due. It was basically a short essay assessment. We would be asked a question and answer it in 150 words or more. This is a collection of my best entries.
Leave Comments and start a discussion on these topics at the bottom of the page.
Q: This week, we’ve been exploring the construction of individual, racial, national, or ethnic identities. Sometimes we see labels as damaging, but are there ways that labels are important, particularly when we choose them for ourselves? Are there important reasons why someone might choose to label themselves as “American,” or in contrast as “Native-American”, “African-American,” “Irish-American,” etc? Should assimilation be embraced, or fought against—and in ANY terms, not just racial/ethnic ones?
A: (Edited) I am American. I am white. I am Utahn. I am short. I am brown haired. I am brown eyed. I am a student. I am a hard worker. I am young. I am liberal. I am conservative. I am a friend. I am a brother. I am a son. I am a husband. I am proud... We all have many labels. And I know that no matter who you pick, any single person out of the 6.7 billion people on the planet, that person and I can be labeled the same. Everyone has at least one thing in common. Yes, labels are important. They are what we are. I make my labels. If someone chooses to make their own labels about me then so be it, but they won't all be right. It is sometimes important for us to know how other people label us so we know where we fall in society or in a culture. In all reality, who am I to say that I have labeled myself correctly?Unfortunately, most people are more comfortable in a society around people with whom they share labels. It's as if we would ultimately be more comfortable if we did embrace assimilation, so we were all one culture, all of one label. But with assimilation, we lose character, we lose variety, and essence. A society needs divergency and verve to function. What would a society be with no individuality?
Teacher's Comments: Very good points here. I would only pose the question that I'm not sure even we always know what labels are right for ourselves! We might know which ones we feel comfortable or uncomfortable with, but does that mean we're always correct? Is it possible to mis-label ourselves?
Race & Diversity: Labels
Q: This week, we’ve been exploring the construction of individual, racial, national, or ethnic identities. Sometimes we see labels as damaging, but are there ways that labels are important, particularly when we choose them for ourselves? Are there important reasons why someone might choose to label themselves as “American,” or in contrast as “Native-American”, “African-American,” “Irish-American,” etc? Should assimilation be embraced, or fought against—and in ANY terms, not just racial/ethnic ones?
A: (Edited) I am American. I am white. I am Utahn. I am short. I am brown haired. I am brown eyed. I am a student. I am a hard worker. I am young. I am liberal. I am conservative. I am a friend. I am a brother. I am a son. I am a husband. I am proud... We all have many labels. And I know that no matter who you pick, any single person out of the 6.7 billion people on the planet, that person and I can be labeled the same. Everyone has at least one thing in common. Yes, labels are important. They are what we are. I make my labels. If someone chooses to make their own labels about me then so be it, but they won't all be right. It is sometimes important for us to know how other people label us so we know where we fall in society or in a culture. In all reality, who am I to say that I have labeled myself correctly?Unfortunately, most people are more comfortable in a society around people with whom they share labels. It's as if we would ultimately be more comfortable if we did embrace assimilation, so we were all one culture, all of one label. But with assimilation, we lose character, we lose variety, and essence. A society needs divergency and verve to function. What would a society be with no individuality?
Teacher's Comments: Very good points here. I would only pose the question that I'm not sure even we always know what labels are right for ourselves! We might know which ones we feel comfortable or uncomfortable with, but does that mean we're always correct? Is it possible to mis-label ourselves?
A: (Edited) I am American. I am white. I am Utahn. I am short. I am brown haired. I am brown eyed. I am a student. I am a hard worker. I am young. I am liberal. I am conservative. I am a friend. I am a brother. I am a son. I am a husband. I am proud... We all have many labels. And I know that no matter who you pick, any single person out of the 6.7 billion people on the planet, that person and I can be labeled the same. Everyone has at least one thing in common. Yes, labels are important. They are what we are. I make my labels. If someone chooses to make their own labels about me then so be it, but they won't all be right. It is sometimes important for us to know how other people label us so we know where we fall in society or in a culture. In all reality, who am I to say that I have labeled myself correctly?Unfortunately, most people are more comfortable in a society around people with whom they share labels. It's as if we would ultimately be more comfortable if we did embrace assimilation, so we were all one culture, all of one label. But with assimilation, we lose character, we lose variety, and essence. A society needs divergency and verve to function. What would a society be with no individuality?
Teacher's Comments: Very good points here. I would only pose the question that I'm not sure even we always know what labels are right for ourselves! We might know which ones we feel comfortable or uncomfortable with, but does that mean we're always correct? Is it possible to mis-label ourselves?
Death
Q: Discuss another issue, conflict, or discovery related to your topic (death). Develop your discussion with quotes and examples from the text, as well as connections to your own life and experience. Try to make connections across different articles/materials.
A: When reading The Stranger, I felt a connection to the main character. He lost his mother, he went and did what he was ‘supposed’ to and be with her for a vigil and the funeral. He goes home, has a long weekend where he seems to accomplish nothing, then goes back to work and back to his every-day life. You can just feel him in his tone “...[I] ate my meal standing. I’d intended to smoke another cigarette, but the night had turned rather chilly and I decided against it” (The Stranger, p.1076). He seems to just mope around and have a lazy, lonely weekend. Then he says “It occurred to me that somehow I’d got through another Sunday, that Mother now was buried, and tomorrow I’d be going back to work as usual. Really, nothing had changed” (p.1076). This is how many people cope with death. They do what they’re ‘supposed’ to do, then they continue on as they were. So this got me wondering about the grieving stage. How long should one grieve? Is it okay to cry? Is it okay not to cry? So I looked at a couple of counseling websites: [(Understanding The Grieving Process) & (Coping With Grief & Loss)] to see what they say about the grieving process. The consensus is that everyone grieves differently, there’s not a “normal” amount of time one should grieve, they say that you should embrace your emotions, if you feel like crying, cry, if you don’t feel like crying, don’t feel that this means you aren’t sorry about the loss. On crying, one website states “Feeling sad, frightened, or lonely is a normal reaction to loss. Crying doesn’t mean you are weak. You don’t need to ‘protect’ your family or friends by putting on a brave front. Showing your true feelings can help them and you” (http://helpguide.org/mental/grief_loss.htm). When I lost my dog of 16 years and 9 months, I cried so much. When we were getting him euthanized, I decided to hold him in my arms as he died. Some people have said that they wouldn’t have been able to do that, but for me, it really helped. I was close to him and he was in the arms of someone he loved. My grieving process continues to this day (he died 3 months ago), but I don’t hardly cry about it anymore. But I just embraced my feelings right off the bat and accepted the reality of the situation. I think it helped in making the painful parts of my grief pass much more quickly and smoothly.
Teacher's Comments: Great! I love how let the story lead you to your own research on grieving. The concept of death is just as interesting when connected to those still living--perhaps more so, since that's really the only aspect of it we can personally know.
A: When reading The Stranger, I felt a connection to the main character. He lost his mother, he went and did what he was ‘supposed’ to and be with her for a vigil and the funeral. He goes home, has a long weekend where he seems to accomplish nothing, then goes back to work and back to his every-day life. You can just feel him in his tone “...[I] ate my meal standing. I’d intended to smoke another cigarette, but the night had turned rather chilly and I decided against it” (The Stranger, p.1076). He seems to just mope around and have a lazy, lonely weekend. Then he says “It occurred to me that somehow I’d got through another Sunday, that Mother now was buried, and tomorrow I’d be going back to work as usual. Really, nothing had changed” (p.1076). This is how many people cope with death. They do what they’re ‘supposed’ to do, then they continue on as they were. So this got me wondering about the grieving stage. How long should one grieve? Is it okay to cry? Is it okay not to cry? So I looked at a couple of counseling websites: [(Understanding The Grieving Process) & (Coping With Grief & Loss)] to see what they say about the grieving process. The consensus is that everyone grieves differently, there’s not a “normal” amount of time one should grieve, they say that you should embrace your emotions, if you feel like crying, cry, if you don’t feel like crying, don’t feel that this means you aren’t sorry about the loss. On crying, one website states “Feeling sad, frightened, or lonely is a normal reaction to loss. Crying doesn’t mean you are weak. You don’t need to ‘protect’ your family or friends by putting on a brave front. Showing your true feelings can help them and you” (http://helpguide.org/mental/grief_loss.htm). When I lost my dog of 16 years and 9 months, I cried so much. When we were getting him euthanized, I decided to hold him in my arms as he died. Some people have said that they wouldn’t have been able to do that, but for me, it really helped. I was close to him and he was in the arms of someone he loved. My grieving process continues to this day (he died 3 months ago), but I don’t hardly cry about it anymore. But I just embraced my feelings right off the bat and accepted the reality of the situation. I think it helped in making the painful parts of my grief pass much more quickly and smoothly.
Teacher's Comments: Great! I love how let the story lead you to your own research on grieving. The concept of death is just as interesting when connected to those still living--perhaps more so, since that's really the only aspect of it we can personally know.
More Death
Q: Discuss a third issue, conflict, or discovery related to your topic. Develop your discussion with quotes and examples from the text, as well as connections to your own life and experience. Use this question to synthesize some thoughts about the topic as a whole.
A: Why do we fear death? How do we come to terms with death? Is suicide always bad? You can’t talk about death without discussing life. Life is why we fear death. From the instance one is born, one values life and strives to live as long as possible. I couldn’t put it better than how this website states it: “suppose that we love life, and reason that since it is good, more would be better. Our thoughts then turn to death, and we decide it is bad: the better life is, we think, the better more life would be, and the worse death is” (Death: Stanford Encyclopedia). I think for most people, coming to terms with death is done through their religious beliefs. For others, its about understanding the natural way of life. With life comes death and there’s no other way for life to exist. I believe that, religious or not, acceptance comes with age and one’s placement in their life. I’m only 21, there’s so much more that I want to do and see, so I’m not ready to die. I can’t come to terms with death just yet. I feel that someday, probably when my kids are self sufficient, I could accept death. But for now, I want to live.
Suicide is a very interesting subject. Views of suicide vary from culture to culture, from subculture to subculture, and from individual to individual. As we read in our text books, the Japanese military had a guide book on how to sacrificially commit suicide in an attack on the enemy. And the Japanese samurai had a suicide ritual called seppuku where one would disembowel oneself with a short sword. These suicides were viewed as more honorable than dying in the hands of the enemy. In India, widows practice suttee where they burn themselves at their husbands funeral pyre. So why then did American society━Well, he actually has a lot of supporters━or the American justice system shun Dr. Kevorkian when he assisted sickly people who would rather die than live another day in agony? I believe modern American culture could be going in the direction where perhaps one day it will be legal to let one choose to die if they are sick enough. But as it is and will always be, suicide is still death. And there’s no real answer as to what happens thereafter.
Teacher's Comments: Great discussion here, and great examples of some suicide practices in different time periods or cultures. The idea of assisted suicide for the very ill/old/incapacitated is one I think we'll continue to hear more about in the future. It has certainly been a big deal throughout recent healthcare debates!
A: Why do we fear death? How do we come to terms with death? Is suicide always bad? You can’t talk about death without discussing life. Life is why we fear death. From the instance one is born, one values life and strives to live as long as possible. I couldn’t put it better than how this website states it: “suppose that we love life, and reason that since it is good, more would be better. Our thoughts then turn to death, and we decide it is bad: the better life is, we think, the better more life would be, and the worse death is” (Death: Stanford Encyclopedia). I think for most people, coming to terms with death is done through their religious beliefs. For others, its about understanding the natural way of life. With life comes death and there’s no other way for life to exist. I believe that, religious or not, acceptance comes with age and one’s placement in their life. I’m only 21, there’s so much more that I want to do and see, so I’m not ready to die. I can’t come to terms with death just yet. I feel that someday, probably when my kids are self sufficient, I could accept death. But for now, I want to live.
Suicide is a very interesting subject. Views of suicide vary from culture to culture, from subculture to subculture, and from individual to individual. As we read in our text books, the Japanese military had a guide book on how to sacrificially commit suicide in an attack on the enemy. And the Japanese samurai had a suicide ritual called seppuku where one would disembowel oneself with a short sword. These suicides were viewed as more honorable than dying in the hands of the enemy. In India, widows practice suttee where they burn themselves at their husbands funeral pyre. So why then did American society━Well, he actually has a lot of supporters━or the American justice system shun Dr. Kevorkian when he assisted sickly people who would rather die than live another day in agony? I believe modern American culture could be going in the direction where perhaps one day it will be legal to let one choose to die if they are sick enough. But as it is and will always be, suicide is still death. And there’s no real answer as to what happens thereafter.
Teacher's Comments: Great discussion here, and great examples of some suicide practices in different time periods or cultures. The idea of assisted suicide for the very ill/old/incapacitated is one I think we'll continue to hear more about in the future. It has certainly been a big deal throughout recent healthcare debates!
Sacred Texts
Q: As with any religious text, the words of the Qur'an can be interpreted in ways that encourage tolerance, peace, and liberation, or pride, violence, and oppression.
From YOUR reading this week, choose a theme to follow through several sections of the text. Think about the power of interpretation, and show how the verses on that theme could be used to liberate and/or oppress. Include specific quotes and page numbers, and be sure to balance your investigation. (Some themes to think about might include treatment of women, self-discipline and religious observance, interface with non-Muslims, etc.)
A: It is all about interpretation. One person can translate the meaning of the words very differently from another. A theme that I feel to be highly prominent is an unfortunate one. I often feel the tone of oppression. It’s through verses like “Allah will throw back their mockery on them” (2:15, p.232) and “Deaf, dumb, and blind they will not return” (2:18, p.232) that the character is very bleak. The Koran continues in this manner late into the reading with statements like “Into Hell? They will burn therein, ━an evil place to stay in!” (14:29, p.248) But, if you do more reading, the Koran is simply telling you what is expected of you, how you will be judged come judgment day, how you can easily be forgiven (as was Adam of his first sin) and what is promised to you for submitting to and believing in Allah. “[T]hose who believe and work righteousness will be admitted to gardens beneath which rivers flow,━to dwell therein for aye with the leave of their Lord. Their greeting therein will be: ‘Peace!’” (14:23, p.248). This is a simple promise to believers; an enticing one, nonetheless. The treatment of women seems to be slightly unfair as it does tend to lend an upper hand to men; however, the Surah on women does seem to teach us to handle situations peaceably: “Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then [marry] only one” (4:3, p.242). This does advantage men, but it seems to seek a form of justice for women, as well. And finally, it seems that all souls, come the judgment day, will be dealt with justly: “...not a soul will be dealt with unjustly in the least” (21:47, p.253). Who can complain about that?
Teacher's Comments: Great work here! It's interesting how these passages might be seen as inconsistent or contradictory, or as necessary to each other in order to bring balance. You have read them as balancing each other out, and I'm inclined toward similar interpretation. The inequal treatment of women is still troubling to me, but I think it's worth noting that when Muhammad received these verses, they were pretty revolutionary in giving women rights, though admittedly by modern standards they're troubling in places. This leads to the ultimate question of whether sacred texts are valid only for the time periods in which they are written and should evolve with the times, or whether they contain "eternal truths" for every time period. I suspect that most sacred texts are a mix of both.
From YOUR reading this week, choose a theme to follow through several sections of the text. Think about the power of interpretation, and show how the verses on that theme could be used to liberate and/or oppress. Include specific quotes and page numbers, and be sure to balance your investigation. (Some themes to think about might include treatment of women, self-discipline and religious observance, interface with non-Muslims, etc.)
A: It is all about interpretation. One person can translate the meaning of the words very differently from another. A theme that I feel to be highly prominent is an unfortunate one. I often feel the tone of oppression. It’s through verses like “Allah will throw back their mockery on them” (2:15, p.232) and “Deaf, dumb, and blind they will not return” (2:18, p.232) that the character is very bleak. The Koran continues in this manner late into the reading with statements like “Into Hell? They will burn therein, ━an evil place to stay in!” (14:29, p.248) But, if you do more reading, the Koran is simply telling you what is expected of you, how you will be judged come judgment day, how you can easily be forgiven (as was Adam of his first sin) and what is promised to you for submitting to and believing in Allah. “[T]hose who believe and work righteousness will be admitted to gardens beneath which rivers flow,━to dwell therein for aye with the leave of their Lord. Their greeting therein will be: ‘Peace!’” (14:23, p.248). This is a simple promise to believers; an enticing one, nonetheless. The treatment of women seems to be slightly unfair as it does tend to lend an upper hand to men; however, the Surah on women does seem to teach us to handle situations peaceably: “Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then [marry] only one” (4:3, p.242). This does advantage men, but it seems to seek a form of justice for women, as well. And finally, it seems that all souls, come the judgment day, will be dealt with justly: “...not a soul will be dealt with unjustly in the least” (21:47, p.253). Who can complain about that?
Teacher's Comments: Great work here! It's interesting how these passages might be seen as inconsistent or contradictory, or as necessary to each other in order to bring balance. You have read them as balancing each other out, and I'm inclined toward similar interpretation. The inequal treatment of women is still troubling to me, but I think it's worth noting that when Muhammad received these verses, they were pretty revolutionary in giving women rights, though admittedly by modern standards they're troubling in places. This leads to the ultimate question of whether sacred texts are valid only for the time periods in which they are written and should evolve with the times, or whether they contain "eternal truths" for every time period. I suspect that most sacred texts are a mix of both.
Marginalized Voices
Q: Your textbook's title for this theme is "Marginalized Voices," but in our online class we've narrowed that down to considerations of race and ethnicity. Yet there are many other types of power structures at work in the world that privilege certain groups or identities, and silence others. In your own experience, what power structures have you observed that validate some groups and silence others? If you could choose a different, non-racial focus for a unit on "marginalized voices" that would be relevant to yourself or your community, what would you choose, and why?
A: A big power structure right now that I feel has been popular is heterosexuality over homosexuality. It's been a big controversy for decades now, and we're hopefully approaching a time where homosexuals are no longer silenced. I think that homosexuality would have been a great topic to cover if we stuck the with the theme "Marginilized Voices" rather than "Race and Ethnicity," but we probably would have needed another week for reading, research, and discussion. It's been very interesting to me, because homosexuality seems to be a topic that keeps showing up randomly every week as of late. I watched the movie "Philadelphia" for the first time the other day, not knowing its plot. It's sad to know that homosexuals were kept so distant and closeted because of society's unwillingness to accept their culture. I had a Film and Diversity class last semester and when we watched "Brokeback Mountain," there were some students who got very offended and some very angered. We had an online discussion board in that class and it was hectic for about a week, with students bickering back and forth. It's still a very sensitive subject and it's something people, need to take time to understand. I think it would be a very strong subject to cover in a humanities class.
Teacher's Comments: Absolutely this topic belongs in a discussion of marginalized voices. I think it's a much more sensitive topic than race, which is interesting. People are quick to idenify the progress we've made in the last half-century combatting racism, but the controversies surrounding homosexuality and gay rights are still very raw. I suspect they'll stay raw for quite awhile, too! All the more reason to keep talking about them, though!
A: A big power structure right now that I feel has been popular is heterosexuality over homosexuality. It's been a big controversy for decades now, and we're hopefully approaching a time where homosexuals are no longer silenced. I think that homosexuality would have been a great topic to cover if we stuck the with the theme "Marginilized Voices" rather than "Race and Ethnicity," but we probably would have needed another week for reading, research, and discussion. It's been very interesting to me, because homosexuality seems to be a topic that keeps showing up randomly every week as of late. I watched the movie "Philadelphia" for the first time the other day, not knowing its plot. It's sad to know that homosexuals were kept so distant and closeted because of society's unwillingness to accept their culture. I had a Film and Diversity class last semester and when we watched "Brokeback Mountain," there were some students who got very offended and some very angered. We had an online discussion board in that class and it was hectic for about a week, with students bickering back and forth. It's still a very sensitive subject and it's something people, need to take time to understand. I think it would be a very strong subject to cover in a humanities class.
Teacher's Comments: Absolutely this topic belongs in a discussion of marginalized voices. I think it's a much more sensitive topic than race, which is interesting. People are quick to idenify the progress we've made in the last half-century combatting racism, but the controversies surrounding homosexuality and gay rights are still very raw. I suspect they'll stay raw for quite awhile, too! All the more reason to keep talking about them, though!
Freedom & Responsibility
Q: Consider Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail." King says we have a “moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” What is an unjust law? How can one show respect for law even while breaking it? Is there such a thing as civil disobedience, and if so, what is its role in preserving or threatening freedom?
A: Mohandas Ghandi, The students at Tienanman Square, The black students that “sat in” at the Woolworth’s store in North Carolina in the 1960s, these are all examples of civil disobedience. These are people standing up to the unjust laws that rule against them. An unjust law is one that disallows someone, or a group of people, to experience the same freedoms as all other citizens. The examples I previously noted are good examples because they were smart about what they did. Even if their physical safety was at stake, they stood up to the one law they wanted to fight against. They show respect to the other laws because they aren’t being violent, even if violence broke out against them, they stood strong. Breaking an unjust law while abiding all others really can’t be seen as disobedience, in retrospect. Civil disobedience does exist. It can be a very powerful tool in making a difference. Although, its effectiveness has seemed to wear in recent years; or perhaps, it hasn’t been used accurately. College students all over the nation have been protesting against the cost of college attendance. There have been some minor changes, but not enough to have a major impact. Protest may not be the solution to this predicament. If used correctly, civil disobedience preserves freedom by allowing the lawmakers and all other citizens to see the unjust law from another perspective.
Teacher's Comments: Interesting comment about the effectiveness of civil disobedience wearing off; I think we sometimes tire of protesters--yet you're also right that in some cases, protesting really makes a difference! Interesting to ponder why it might be effective in some cases, and not in others.
A: Mohandas Ghandi, The students at Tienanman Square, The black students that “sat in” at the Woolworth’s store in North Carolina in the 1960s, these are all examples of civil disobedience. These are people standing up to the unjust laws that rule against them. An unjust law is one that disallows someone, or a group of people, to experience the same freedoms as all other citizens. The examples I previously noted are good examples because they were smart about what they did. Even if their physical safety was at stake, they stood up to the one law they wanted to fight against. They show respect to the other laws because they aren’t being violent, even if violence broke out against them, they stood strong. Breaking an unjust law while abiding all others really can’t be seen as disobedience, in retrospect. Civil disobedience does exist. It can be a very powerful tool in making a difference. Although, its effectiveness has seemed to wear in recent years; or perhaps, it hasn’t been used accurately. College students all over the nation have been protesting against the cost of college attendance. There have been some minor changes, but not enough to have a major impact. Protest may not be the solution to this predicament. If used correctly, civil disobedience preserves freedom by allowing the lawmakers and all other citizens to see the unjust law from another perspective.
Teacher's Comments: Interesting comment about the effectiveness of civil disobedience wearing off; I think we sometimes tire of protesters--yet you're also right that in some cases, protesting really makes a difference! Interesting to ponder why it might be effective in some cases, and not in others.
More Freedom & More Responsibility
Q: Considering the many issues we have touched on this week in topics 4-7, what connections can you draw between them? Choose THREE texts or issues and discuss the questions/ideas that bring them together (for example, what do Harrison Bergeron and Executive Order 9066 have in common? Choose your own combination of issues, and place them in conversation with each other).
A: North Carolina Sterilization, The Final Solution, and the Japanese Detainment Camps can all be compared to one another when taking a look at the mistreatment of the victims in each case. In each event, the victims are forced into uncomfortable, life-changing situations. The governments found themselves justified in taking away the rights of helpless individuals. In the NC sterilization, the victims often didn’t know that such a significant part of their lives was being taken away. Once their natural right to bear children was taken, there was no going back. Somewhat like the action taken against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Once 6,000,000 lives were taken, there was no going back. What were the countries/governments situations to push them in the direction of eugenics? Eugenics became a popular topic in Europe and America because of the growing populations and increasing disease and homelessness. Both Germany and America, had a similar idea of how to at least reduce the effects of these problems by population control. In retrospect, they were clearly unjust laws and actions on the governments’ behalves. Compare and contrast the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and the Japanese detainment camps in the U.S. The main comparison the camps have in common are the racial discrimination. Germany’s camps were strictly based on a hatred for the Jewish race. Their war was fought in the name of creating a more desirable race. America’s detainment camps were created to detain a possible threat as a result of the World War. It was, indeed, race-based, but didn’t result in an ungodly amount of genocide.
Teacher's Comments: Good work here.
A: North Carolina Sterilization, The Final Solution, and the Japanese Detainment Camps can all be compared to one another when taking a look at the mistreatment of the victims in each case. In each event, the victims are forced into uncomfortable, life-changing situations. The governments found themselves justified in taking away the rights of helpless individuals. In the NC sterilization, the victims often didn’t know that such a significant part of their lives was being taken away. Once their natural right to bear children was taken, there was no going back. Somewhat like the action taken against the Jews in Nazi Germany. Once 6,000,000 lives were taken, there was no going back. What were the countries/governments situations to push them in the direction of eugenics? Eugenics became a popular topic in Europe and America because of the growing populations and increasing disease and homelessness. Both Germany and America, had a similar idea of how to at least reduce the effects of these problems by population control. In retrospect, they were clearly unjust laws and actions on the governments’ behalves. Compare and contrast the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and the Japanese detainment camps in the U.S. The main comparison the camps have in common are the racial discrimination. Germany’s camps were strictly based on a hatred for the Jewish race. Their war was fought in the name of creating a more desirable race. America’s detainment camps were created to detain a possible threat as a result of the World War. It was, indeed, race-based, but didn’t result in an ungodly amount of genocide.
Teacher's Comments: Good work here.
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...