Buffers Between Peace and Violence

After reading a few posts, I looked more into an article on the Franz Fanon's view on violence against injustice. I believe that these controversial ideas were brought about by the harsh extremeness of the times, and the lack of systems for the people.  Before colonialism, most major revolutions, that brought about good change, were actually achieved through radical uprisings and violence.  Ironically, this violence was able to bring about a more just world, as it did during the French Revolution.  With this prior knowledge, his belief in necessary violence is not surprising.  Although I too do not believe that violence should be the path to freedom, we have to take into account the differences between our society today and the times he lived in.  Currently, we have many established organizations and systems, such as the United Nations and our government, that help maintain the peace.  What I mean to say is that we have the means to bring about change in a civil way; we just have to work the system.  In order to more fully understand his position, we must realize that his society was completely different from ours.  He lived in a time where there were no systems to work, no means to help the people's voice be heard, and consequently no buffers between peace and violence; just two distinct groups - the oppressors and the oppressed.

Dinesh D'Souza- religious scholar

In a recent debate with the self-pronounced atheist Christopher Hitchens, Dinesh D'Souza flung himself into a worldly argument in an attempt to justify virtually every aspect of Christianity. His defense was formidable, as Hitchens' attack was relentless. From the beginning, one could sense D'Souza's immediate disadvantage as a theocratic scholar. He began by calling out and condemning a society that had conformed to contemporary social values rather than the Christian based morals that had guided people's lives for thousands of years. He clung to his faith in the heat of Hitchens' accusations that pertained to science, politics, and historical indications of religious immorality and ruthless behavior. It is almost impossible to deny the arguments of Mr. Hitchens, as their validity could simply be justified by "any person who could think." However, I couldn't help but respect the way D'Souza valiantly and credibly defended his position. With every Hitchens offensive, he found a way to counter the accusations by pointing out, ultimately, that his opponent's strongest arguments were purely circumstantial. Even in the scientific arena, Mr. D'Souza indicated the presence of scientific embodiments in aforementioned religious ideals. How could the electron know to be attracted to a proton? How are scientific laws justified? Were humans only coincidentally developed/placed upon this earth with a natural compatibility and knowledge of our surroundings? He provoked questions that certainly challenge atheist arguments on non-sensical aspects of theism. Science could be evidence of a greater and universal scientific mind. However, despite the hope that D'Souza laid out for us wishful thinkers, every part of his argument was grounded by a foundation defined by faith. If faith was absent, his arguments were simply irrelevant. In his mind, atheists were shutting out the evidence and effects of God and confining themselves to what appeared to be a rational and more appropriate belief system (especially in our modern world). But he seemed to be unaware that even though the idea and possibility of God is undeniable, that does necessarily correspond to absolute religious belief. He had the advantage of genuinely  believing in Christianity and God. Some of us, unfortunately,  do not.

Frantz Fanon

Frantz Fanon was an African psychiatrist and writer who lived from 1925 to 1961. He openly protested colonialization and all of the negative effects that the people under imperialistic rule had to experience. He was one of the main inpirations for the leaders of the Black Power movement in the United States. During the time in which Fanon lived, all the countries of Europe were posessed by racist ideas regarding their colonies. Black people were expected to give up all of their traditions and culture and adopt the white way of living. Fanon was a main supporting force in many of the colonial independence movements, mostly supplying them with supplies.

I found this article extremely interesting as it talks about Fanon's extremely controversial beliefs on combatting colonialism. He believed, not only that it was necessary for colonised people to use violence to combat their oppressors, but also believed that violence was a way to unite all people fighting for independence and "binding people to the liberation movement." I do not share Fanon's belief that violence is necessary to break colonialisms hold. There are surely other ways to fight for independence that do not involve direct combat with the oppressors.

Dinesh

I used this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4

The video is a debate with Daniel Dennett. Daniel Dennett raises the question, is god a human invention? *the question was proposed by Dinesh

Another big question raised is why is the youth turning away from religion? I think that this is an obvious question. People are getting smarter. People aren't believing things because "they should" because its "just right," but because they ration through it. People can think for themselves, and with all of these scientific discoveries, it really is quite irrational to believe in a religion or god. Back when Christianity was formed, things were far from scientific. If people in the town were sick, it must be because of that black cloud in our head. Atheism goes with liberalism and religon, while Religion goes with conservatism. The bottom line is that liberals embrace everyones rights, while conservatives only care about their own. That is what it comes down to. If you really took the time to rationally think about things (life) you would realize how accurate that statement is. Can there be an atheist conservative? NO. Can there be a religious liberal? YES. That says a lot if you think about it. 

Dinesh is simply crazy! He is a master of rhetoric. A master of saying so much, but meaning so very little. He tries to rebut Dan's FACT that the only reason Islam is growing is because of families having children and not because of converting, but is wrong in his attempts. Dinesh also thinks that religion is growing in America. Not really Dinesh, did you listen to Dan at all? Dinesh, life must be so easy only seeing the things you want to see. Anything that proves you wrong, doesn't it make life just so much easier for you to ignore it? Doesn't that make your lame points about religion seem even more valid to yourself? Dan pointed to the New York Times (a valid source last time I checked) which said that when the children today become adults, only 4% of them will believe in the bible. Yes Dinesh, religion is really growing (remember he ignores FACTS that do not support his theory). Go back a couple hundred years ago and everyone believes in the bible. Look at this study, 4%? I wonder why people are turning to atheism? Does that tell you anything? He then points to countries and say "hey look they are growing from a decade or so ago!" Dinesh, the population is growing to. The majority of the growth isn't from conversions! Some atheist must have rubbed him the wrong way when he was a child, because he really has an axe to grind. His agenda is huge. Of course Dinesh is going to side with religion. Duh! He is religious himself! He makes Sam Parker arguments (very broad over generalizations).

I cannot stand Dinesh!

*I did not mean to attack anyone's religious beliefs in anyway. I respect everyone's beliefs. As I said, liberals support everyone's rights religious and non religious. 

Dinesh D'Souza: What's So Bad About Atheism?

This is a response to Ryan's post (and the interview with Dinesh D'Souza he discovered), found here.

I have a pretty different opinion of this interview. My parents are Christian, and though they brought me to church when I was younger, I never really identified with this—or any other—religion. It's not my intention to start a dispute over religion (these kinds of wars are often pointless and counterproductive), but I do think a non-religious viewpoint is needed.

D'Souza does not only say that "atheism is becoming more of an option for young people", he goes further, arguing that "atheism is more attractive to young people". He also claims that "new atheism accuses Christianity for being behind most of the war, suffering, and terrorism in the world". While I do agree that the atheist population has grown—especially among younger generations—I find it frankly a bit offensive and hypocritical of D'Souza to accuse atheists of blaming religion for suffering and tragedy in the world while so vehemently defending Christianity. I think that what D'Souza has done is misunderstand many people. I do not think that religion is to blame for the suffering of the world, but rather religious controversy. These are two seemingly similar opinions that are often lumped together, and inaccurately so. I doubt that all atheists are so hidden under their "garbs of morality" that they can reconcile with blaming the belief system of millions for wars that humans would have found reasons to fight anyway.

D'Souza calls many atheist writers "witty and stylish", but he forgets to count himself among them. He seems to do the invoke the same tactics, sinking to the level of the atheist authors that use "witty" language to denounce religion. D'Souza says quite plainly in his interview that his book, What's So Great About Christianity?, is meant to "challenge atheism and beat it". This goal seems very immature to me, because at the simplest level his book is merely retaliation against other published works, seeking to prove why he is right and they are wrong. I'm disappointed that D'Souza has described the aim of his work in such a way, because in my opinion this is how wars are started. I would have more respect for him if his book had stood alone as a modern and compelling work on religion, calmly proving why other beliefs aren't valid without him falling into the easy trap of "right vs. wrong" that was the tone of this interview.

Just A Piece of Literature?

While I'm not quite sure if someone already used this website (no one had used the site link in their blog) it is basically an excerpt from Fran(t)z Fanon's book The Wretched of the Earth.   Going into it with basically no knowledge about Fran(t)z Fanon except that he was an African American that was an advocator of decolonization, from his rhetoric you can definitely tell that he is a speaker/advocator calling upon his comrades and brothers to hear his words and take action.

One thing that I find particularly interesting is that he says that Europe is falling down into an abyss.  This piece was published in 1961 which was right smack in the middle of the Cold War.  It is almost imposing a doomsday thought into those that are reading his piece.

Fanon says that the only colony to catch up with Europe is now the monster superpower the United States, and that therefore his goal is to have his own country catch up in the same way to "create a third Europe."  This seems fairly different than the decolonial advocate that I thought we were supposed to be researching.  Unless of course he is arguing that colonialism hinders the places that are colonized so that when they are free they catch up into more superpowers that can get involved in more affairs/wars.

If Only Dinesh D'Souza Came to Menlo...

Play it through your head. Dinesh D'Souza is introduced to the school by...the young conservative's club...my mistake that does not exist at Menlo School (and probably never will.) Nevertheless he is introduced somehow, perhaps by an outspoken teenager who feels their views on politics in the world are being crippled by those around them, or maybe by a teacher... Let's face it, a speaker like D'Souza would never be accepted at Menlo School. To be brutally honest, the points he makes about American Society are so anti-liberal that they would be bashed by the majority of politically correct thinkers of our school.

Nevertheless if* Dinesh D'Souza came to Menlo School he would see that we pride ourselves upon political correctness more than most everything else. He would see that there is not an American Flag in our quad, but instead a Gay Pride flag. What's So Great About America would have insight into the reasons for why our school placed a Gay Pride flag up in the quad before the American Flag, and it would also have a take on why most at Menlo would not even put an American Flag up at all. 

I will admit, I was/am a bit of an America hater, and have even imagined living in a foreign country for my adulthood. I have grown to be a critic of America, and lately all I see are flaws. However, D'Souza makes several valid points on why America is "Great." He says -- It is the country that has the most "rags to riches" stories. It is the only country where the poorest of people still own a cell phone and a television. It is the country that all other nations look upon as great; however, many within speculate whether or not our country is as great as others think it is.

Sometimes I think Menlo sees America as far from "Great." Perhaps Dinesh D'Souza would be an influence upon our school. He would be able to give us that conservative outlook that most are deprived of these days.

Armenian Genocide and Politics

In a BBC article, titled Armenian Diaspora Bound by Killings, Steven Eke touches on how modern day Armenian identity is greatly connected to the events of genocide. Also a law was passed in France “forbidding denial “ of the Armenian genocide. In a second article from the BBC, police investigated the theft of an Armenian genocide monument in Paris. It was said that the Armenia bill might have triggered this attack because there were influences against the bill including Turkey, which still strongly denies the past genocide, and the EU, which also criticized the law. In 2007, Turkey “threatened to restrict US access to a key military base used for its operations in Iraq” states a third article from BBC news, as well as provoke “anti-Americanism throughout Turkey if the bill is passed.”

Fran(t)z Fanon

Franz Fanon was a great philosopher, physician, and a leading campaigner for decolonization in the forties and fifties, publicly speaking against the French controlling remote territories, especially Algeria.  His findings about the influence of brutal French control for generations were frequently referenced after his death by other anti-colonialism leaders.

I found it interesting that this website, named after one of Fanon's pieces about the fight for freedom in Algeria, is full of literature by Aime Cesaire, who was of course his teacher and fellow advocate of anti-imperialism.  One of the first listings is a piece about Toussaint L'ouverture, which is cool because we know about him.  Like Franz Fanon, he was a minority living on French-owned land who rose up against the French establishment, became a figurehead for anti-colonialism, and became wanted by the French government.  Unlike L'ouverture, Fanon didn't actually bargain or debate with the French, and he never held any official power after resigning from his government post.

Arc de Triomphe

Arc de Triomphe (Paris, France)

The Arc de Triomphe is a famous monument located on Champs Elysees Avenue in Paris, France. This monument honors those who fought for France in the Napoleonic Wars. Under the arc is a tomb of an unknown soldier from WWI, who was buried there in 1920. This arc was designed by Jean Chalgrin in 1806. Napoleon commanded him to build an arc that was to represent the glory of the French army. Since Napoleon admired Roman empires, following the example of a famous roman arc, Napoleon decided to build a monument himself for France. Construction began in 1806 and was only completed in 1836. 

Websites:

http://www.france.com/docs/547.html

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/arctriomphe/arc.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/18/world/bomb-near-arc-de-triomphe-wounds-17.html

Since I've never been to Arc de Triomphe, I was interested in what people had to say about their experience.

Interesting website ... people provided reviews on the Arc de Triomphe:

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-reviews-2776016-prod-travelguide-action-read-ratings_and_reviews-i;_ylt=A9j8e6xE1utJ.HsBiAasFWoL

After reading the reviews, I found out that most people had excellent things to say about the arc. Some said they liked the architecture while others said they liked the view from the top. Although the Arch is so amazing, there is one thing the people that left bad reviews are concerned with; the traffic around the arc is so dangerous and its really hard to drive around it and it destroys the peaceful nature of the statue. Frustrated by this, a very few people gave the arc bad review. However, there must be a reason why its at the center of attention. Perhaps it represents French pride and glory because of the many names of war generals inscribed on the inside of the arc. In the picture below are the names inscribed on the inside of the arc. 

Dinesh D'Souza: Exposed

"A national disgrace," "a childish thinker," who "hates America" and "insists on joining forces with the Satanists." Ever since he hit college in the early 1980's, Dinish D'Souza has faced criticism towards his disputable, yet not extremist views. "I came here because the United States gives me freedom to make the life that I could not have made in India." D'Souza sometimes comes off as a supporter of Bin Laden and his followers, but he argues that no man would chose to leave his family and community behind to migrate to a country that he hated. In this article, written in the Washington Post, D'Souza must once again clarify himself and his views published in his books and those that have caused controversy among many scholars. But this man is a high scholar himself, who poses great questions and only further explores the relationship between the Muslim community and the Americans, more so the "left" or liberals. 

This article goes in depth about the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. D'Souza says that the build-up of actions from many presidents, such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, not just Bush, have angered the Muslims. After that day, people wanted to know why they hate us, but "no one wanted to comprehend the enemy -- only to annihilate him." I know I was only in third grade at the time, but I know that even now I can't comprehend how a person could do such things. Reading this article on D'Souza has really changed my views on this war we're in right now, but I still don't understand how a group of people could kill thousands of people, now matter their race or background. 

Many people argue that the Muslims hate us because unlike in many of their societies, Americans have a great amount of freedom. D'Souza uses the example of Planned Parenthood International, who went into Eastern countries giving contraceptives to young girls, and human rights groups, that "used their interpretation of international law" to make countries change their laws on abortion/homosexuality, to support his statement. When I think about it, being on the other side of this situation would really upset me. If I had people from the East coming into my home (or community) and pressuring my peers and me to change our views, I'd be annoyed. If a group of Muslims convinced all my friends to wear traditional clothes like the hijab, and they all looked down on me for not following, I'd blame the people who brought this into my life. This is a bad example, but since America is a relatively free country, I can't think of many things outsiders do that we take offense to. 

I respect Dinesh D'Souza greatly. "I have no sympathy for Bin Laden or the Islamic radicals. But I do respect the concerns of traditional Muslims." This Stanford graduate has found a way to balance his views and interpret both points of view. Reading this article has given me more insight on the Muslim culture and their reasons behind their feelings toward America. 

Armenian Genocide Memorials/Monuments

http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/memorials.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsitsernakaberd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marseille_Genocide_Memorial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montebello_Genocide_Memorial



The three links above will hopefully help me in researching Armenian Genocide Monuments. The first link is the home page of the The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute. Their mission statement is, "The Armenian Genocide Museum & Institute (AGMI) is a non-profit organization based in Yerevan, Republic of Armenia. The mission of the Museum-Institute is the academic and scientific study, analysis of the problems as well as exhibition of the textual and visual documentation related to the first Genocide of the 20th century." Another piece of information I learned from this site was that the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day is April 24. The second site is the most important because it features Armenian Genocide Monuments from all over the world. Countries included on this site consist of Chile, Canada, Bulgaria, Germany, U.S., U.K., Syria, Greece, Venezuela, etc. So far my favorite monument is located in Glendale, California. It is called Memorial Khachkar (cross-stone) and it is a beautiful carved rock that has the date 1915 inscribed in it. The final link is the wikapedia page of Tsitsernakaberd which is a Genocide Memorial located in Yerevan, Armenia. This memorial is special in it's own way because I have never seen anything like it. The two following links describe to other Genocide Monuments one located in France the other in California.






The picture to the right is located New York on the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day.












The picture to the right is located in Glendale, California and it too is commemorating the horrible genocide that took place in Armenia in 1915.











Finally I found this other blog written by Goran Sadjadi called Recogonizing and Remebring the Armenian Genocide. I find his information to be valid and his opinion to be quite interesting. I plan on contacting him and talking to him about his beliefs on the Armenian Genocide. http://zaneti.blogspot.com/2007/04/recognizing-and-remembering-armenian.html

According to Mr. D'Souza, the real threat to America is at home.

On the night of January 16, 2007, well-known, somewhat inflammatory conservative Dinesh D'Souza appeared on the Colbert Report expecting to advertise (in a serious manner) his book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. This being the Colbert Report, Colbert was trying more for comedic effect through exaggerating D'Souza's claims. D'Souza however, kept on rolling with the punches and retained a semblance of seriousness with Colbert.

D'Souza's main point in his more or less 7 minutes of airtime was that depraved liberal culture (homosexuality, promiscuity, maggot-eating, etcetera) is responsible for the rest of the world's relatively negative view of America. He goes on to explain that this insane, excessive, glam America (The America of movies and Hollywood) is something we know is not "really" America, but that for the rest of the world it is all they are presented with, and all they know. In this I would have to agree; American media (with a few exceptions) is largely biased towards the liberal viewpoint, and this becomes reflected in what people from other countries hear about America from their own media. According to D'Souza, the rest of the world only knows the depraved liberal America.

Naturally, an America of homosexuals, out-of-control sex, non-traditional-ness (not a real word), rapists, pillagers, plunderers, capitalists, and atheists (oh, those evil atheists...) is not well received among people of more traditional cultures and values. In this, I agree with D'Souza.

However, that is where my agreement with him ends. In his book, D'Souza conveniently misconstrues or picks and chooses certain facts to further his arguments (and conveniently ignores others in the process). One person who reviewed the book on Amazon (Scoff not- there are a surprising number of very intellectual reviewers there) made one of my points as clear as it could be: "He attempts to explain away American torture and rendition claiming that PFC Lindie England was acting out her "blue state moral depravity" when she was abusing and humiliating prisoners at Abu Ghraib with unusual cruelty. This has all the logic of a psychoanalytic diagnosis made under the influence of a jug of white lightning rather than an insightful probe of the collective unconscious. He fails to mention the FACT that there is a higher rate of divorce, murder, illegitimacy, and teenage births in red states than in the morally depraved blue ones, that "traditional Muslims" in Brooklyn and neighboring New Jersey enclaves were warbling in celebration at the destruction on 9/11, or that American flags were adorning most homes and modes of transportation here in decadent New York City. " (Edwin C. Pauzer of New York City: Post linked here )

As such, I do not think that The Enemy At Home is a book that contains purely truths, but is merely a stepping stone on a journey to truth (as corny as that sounds). We analyze history not by seeing one source and taking it as the truth, but by taking in as many sources as possible to see the big picture.