Mississippi Burning

In class, we watched the movie "Mississippi Burning". A few weeks later we had a test where we had to choose between a couple of questions and write a text. This is the text that I wrote.

The movie Mississippi Burning is based on a true story and it focuses on the hatred against colored people, the segregation and Ku Klux Klan. Back then, colored people were treated very badly in the southern sates. For example, they had to go to their own churches and live in their own little communities outside of the town, as shown in the movie.

When people from the North came to the southern states, they thought that everyone there were racists and that everyone hated black people, just because many of the citizens thought of black people almost as animals. We know that some people thought of black people of animals, because in the movie, when Agent Alan Ward (Willem Dafoe) asks one of the citizens if he would kill a “negro” he answers: “I wouldn’t have given it more thought than twisting a cats neck.” I think that this line expresses some of the white people’s way of looking at the African-American race. Another example is when a news reporter asks a random lady about how she thinks that the blacks have been treated “down here”, she answers “about fair”, even though they obviously have been treated awfully badly for a long time.

When the people in the North look at the people in the South and think “They are all ugly racists” and “they should all be ashamed of themselves”, do they not almost do the same thing as the racists in the South did to colored people? They generalize them, think of them as all the same, just as the racists thought of all the blacks as thieves and bad influence. They were not all the same, the people in the South, even though the racists that controlled the city wanted them to be. They wanted everybody to hate colored people. Just as Mrs. Pell said; “At school, they say that segregation what’s in the bible.” They did the same thing to kids as Hitler did, during his time of controlling Germany. Propaganda. Teaching them that colored people are dirty and less worthy than themselves from when they were young and gullible, and not able to think and reason for themselves. When everyone tells you that “these people hate, they hate our country and they came here to destroy everything for you!” enough times when you are that young, you believe it. When the hatred is a part of the society, it becomes a part of you. “You live it... You breathe it.”

I think that what Mrs. Pell meant by the quote was that even though people may think of everyone in the South are racists, there were many persons that were not. She said that she thinks it is disgusting that they teach kids to hate colored people, but she understands that it is hard for kids to understand that this is wrong. I think that this was a great movie, and it brings up a very important subject, racism.

The picture shows Agent Alan Ward (Willem Dafoe). The picture is taken from the movie. You can read about the movie and watch its reviews here and you can watch the movie trailer here.

Digging our own grave

Arne Næss was a Norwegian philosopher and environmental activist. He was the youngest person ever to achieve a masters-degree in philosophy, and he was 27 years old when he was hired as a professor in philosophy at the University of Oslo. Arne was an active man. He was an active mountain clamber and boxer his entire life, and he led climbing expeditions to the mountain Tirich Mir in Pakistan. But the thing that Arne Næss bacame most famous for was not climbing a very high mountain or winning a boxing match, but it was to create the ecosophy and deep ecology.

Ecosophy means wisdom of nature or nature wisdom. The ecosophy and deep ecology is basically the same thing, but the deep ecology is a branch of the subject ecosophy. The deep ecology platform, which is the basics of many environmental activist groups, is that:

1. Every life is equal valuable
2. Every species in the world knows that every life is equally valuable, and that has value itself.
3. The human beings have got no rights to reduce the amount of life forms for no other reasons than vital means.
4. The population growth must be limited
5. The humans way to act with nature now-a-days is destructive
6. At the political level, changes in the economic growth to sustainable development, the ideal of equilibrium society where production correspond to the exhaustion, the birth rate correspond to the death rate, exhaustion concentrated on the basic needs, decentralized subsistence societies.
7. People should focus more on life quality than on life-standards.

The deep ecology focuses on the belief that the humans are, like every other species on this planet, a part of an ecological community, meaning that humans can not live without the nature. That means that if a species is extinct then that will have an impact on the human race as well as the rest of the world. Arne Næss founded the deep ecology in the believe that to solve the global problems we are facing, we need to think about the nature on a deeper level, by including both philosophy and ecology in the way of thinking. Thats why it is called deep ecology, because it reflects and thinks about the nature on a deeper level, asking questions concerning “how” and “why” concerning the humans impact on the ecosystem.

One of the biggest mistakes that us humans do according the ecosophy is pollution. We chop down the rain forest, extinguishing species after species, ruining the eco system and poisoning the air by driving big bulldozers to do this work. We poison the oceans, drilling after oil while ruining wonderful nature and making it impossible for fish to live while we are doing it. After we have brought the oil up to the surface (which also takes a lot of energy) we use this oil to make plastic or gasoline, just to use this to destroy our own planet. And the reasons that we are ruining our own world is to make it better for ourselves to live. I think that that is a little bit ironic. We are ruining the only way for us to live by polluting the air and ruining our sources of oxygen to “live” better. Because people nowadays apparently needs hundreds of unnecessary gadgets and clothes to be “happy” and live good. We are actually destroying the source of our lives to be able to live better. I think that if we think about it we all understand this. But what should we do about it? I sit behind this computer, writing my opinion about this and trying to make everyone else out there look so bad, when the truth is that I am just as bad as everyone else. I also want more useless stuff, bigger house and a faster car. But why do we have this eternal thirst for new things? Is it instinctual? I guess we will never know.

At least one thing is clear as the water was before: we need to change our behavior if we want to continue to live on this planet. I think that this is what Arne Næss and the deep ecology wants us to do. Change our behavior to the benefit of both us and the planet. Because no one can live without this earth even though we act like we think that we can. So therefore: better for planet earth = better for the human species

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_N%C3%A6ss 24/01 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology 23/01 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosophy 23/01 2012

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98kosofi 23/01 2012

Toåring overkjørt 2 ganger - ignorert av forbipasserende (nyhetvakt uke 42)

17. oktober gikk en liten jente på 2 år ved navn Yueyeu ut i gaten i byen Foshan i Kina. Jenta ble overkjørt av en lastebil og ble liggende bevisstløs og hjelpesløs i veien. Tre personener gikk fordi uten å bry seg om den lille jenta. Mens hun ligger i veien blir hun overkjørt av en bil til. Denne gangen blir jenta passert og ignorert av 15 personer. en mopedist stopper til og opp, ser ned på jenta, for så å fortsette å kjøre igjen.

Etter å ha ligget livløs på bakken i 7 minutter blir jenta hjulpet av en eldre kvinnelig søppeltømmer. 

Toåringen, som fremdeles var i live, blir sendt til sykehuset i all hast. Men etter fire dager på respiratoren døde den lille jenta av hodeskader.

Hendelsen ble filmet av ett overvåkningskamera langs veien og videoen ble lagt ut på internett. Du kan lese mer om lignene hendelser her.

Jeg syns at denne artikkelen er veldig relevant til dagen idag, altså Global Dignity Day. Det at folk kan gå forbi en liten jente som er påkjørt to ganger og som ligger livløs på bakken er helt ufattelig.

Kilde: http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/utenriks/toaaring-kjoert-over-to-ganger-ignorert-av-18-forbipasserende-3612986.html

Kilder presentasjon: Mystisk død kvinne: http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/utenriks/trodde-mystisk-doed-kvinne-i-danmark-var-norsk-3613964.html, Mann funnet død i Klemetsrud: http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/krim/klemetsrudoffer-fryktet-aa-bli-oppsoekt-3614494.html, Kannibalisme i Fransk Polynesia: http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/article3253665.ece, Dyr mat i Norge: 

http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/innland/article4259043.ece, Styringsrenten holdes nede: 

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/okonomi/styringsrenten-holdes-uendret-3614790.html, Smartphones = drålig for øyne, nakke og armer: http://www.aftenposten.no/forbruker/digital/article4259204.ece, Toåring i Kina overkjørt: http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/utenriks/toaaring-kjoert-over-to-ganger-ignorert-av-18-forbipasserende-3612986.html , Nordmenn er ikke rikest i verden!: http://www.na24.no/article3254371.ece, Gadaffi er død: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.7841895

Etikk

Mitt navn er Michael Koblenz og jeg bor i Øst-Berlin. Året er 1964, og den kalde krigen raser. En dag fikk jeg ett forferdelig brev. Brevet var fra Stasi, og de ville at jeg skulle være en av deres mange informanter. Stasi er et hemmelig politi som ble grunnlagt i DDR i 1950. De hadde som hovedoppgave å sikre DDRs fremtid, altså å undertrykke opprør. Satsi er kjent som ett av de mest effektive hemmelige politiene gjennom tidene, mye på grunn av de 600 000 uoffisielle informantene deres, som ga dem opplysninger hvis de så eller hørte noen si eller gjøre noe som kunne bli regnet som opprørsk. Og nå ville de at jeg skulle bli en av disse informantene! I brevet sto det at hvis jeg ikke ble informant ville ikke datteren min få plass på Universitetet. Dette er en metode som Stasi ofte brukte for å "tvinge" folk til å  bli informanter. Datteren min har veldig gode karakterer og fremtiden hennes så lys ut helt til jeg fikk dette brevet. Hva skal jeg gjøre? Du kan lese mer om Stasi her og den kalde krigen her

Muligheter
Slik jeg ser det er dette mine valg:

1. Jeg kan bli informant for Stasi og fortelle dem viktig informasjon.
2. Jeg kan bli informant og velge å ikke gi Stasi viktig informasjon.
3. Jeg kan si nei og velge å ikke bli informant

Pliktetikk
Hvis jeg tenker pliktetisk burde jeg følge lovene i landet mitt. Det er plikten min som statsborger i DDR å gjøre som Stasi og lovene våre sier, altså bli informant og rapportere om alt mistenkelig som skjer (valgmulighet nr. 1). Dette har positive sider, som at datteren min for gå på universitetet og får seg mest sannsynlig en jobb i fremtiden.  Det gjør også at hvis jeg eller noen i familien min skal få seg ny jobb kan Stasi hjelpe oss ved å anbefale arbeidsgiveren å gi oss jobben.
Negative sider ved dette valget er at det kan hende jeg må rapportere inn noe om min egen familie eller vennene mine. Da kan de bli avhørt, satt i fengsel eller straffet på en enda verre måte, noe det hadde blitt vanskelig å leve med i ettertid.

Konsekvensetikk
Hvis jeg tenker konsekvensetisk må jeg tenke på hva som er best for meg og mine nære. Jeg kan velge å bli informant for Stasi og bare rapportere om uviktige ting, slik at jeg ikke risikerer at noen av de jeg er glad i blir straffet på noen måte (valgmulighet nr. 2). De positive sidene ved ved dette valget er de samme som ved valgmulighet nr. 1, men det at jeg bare rapporter om uviktige ting kan gjøre at Stasi blir mistenksomme på om jeg er til å stole på, og de kan begynne med etterforskning av meg, familien min og/eller vennene mine. Hvis de finner ut at jeg lot være å fortelle dem om noe viktig, men i stedet fortalte dem noe uviktig kan konsekvensene bli store for meg og familien min. Datteren min kan miste plassen hennes på universitetet og det kan bli vanskelig for meg og kona mi å finne nye jobber i fremtiden.

Jeg kan også velge å ikke bli informant. Da slipper jeg at noen som jeg er glad i blir arrestert på grunn av meg og det fører til større frihet fordi da slipper folk rundt meg å bli arrestert eller avhørt hvis de sier noe negativt om DDR eller Stasi. Det kan også gjøre at datteren min ser opp til meg fordi jeg turte å trosse staten og ikke var såpass feig at jeg bukket under. Eller det kan gjøre at hun ser ned på meg for å ha ødelagt fremtidsplanene hennes. Hun kommer sannsynligvis ikke til å få jobb hvis hun ikke får gått på universitetet og det kan hende at Stasi blir mistenksomme fordi jeg valgte å ikke bli informant.

Mitt Valg
Etter å ha tenkt over dette i noen dager kom jeg frem til svaret mitt. jeg velger alternativ nr. 1, og blir en av Stasis informanter. Det er ikke bare ut av pliktetisk tenking, men også ut av konsekvensettikk.
Det nærmest sikrer datteren min sin fremtid og gjør livet generelt sett lettere for vår familie. Sannsynligheten for at noen av vennene eller familien min gjør noe som kan regnes som opprørsk eller ulovlig er liten, og hvis de gjør det får jeg bare bite tennene sammen og rapportere det inn. Hvis de gjorde noe ulovlig visste de nok at de gjorde det, og det er derfor deres egen feil. Hvis ikke jeg rapporterte det inn, kom noen andre til å gjøre det uansett.

Konklusjon
Selv om ingen kunne komme seg helt unna Stasi og selv om ingen av valgmulighetene var helt tilfredsstillende, føler jeg at jeg valgte det som var best for meg og de jeg brydde meg mest om. Det er en måned siden jeg tok valget, og datteren min gjør det veldig bra på universitetet. Jeg er fornøyd med valget jeg tok. Hittil har jeg ikke måtte rapportere om noe viktig til Stasi og jeg håper at det forblir sånn.



Kilder:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

The Vietnam War

The Vietnam War was a product of the cold war, and occured in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The war began on 1st of November 1955 and was fought between North Vietnam and its communist allies, and South Vietnam supported by the United States and other anti-communist forces such as France. 


The war, which was originally fought between North Vietnam with its communist allies and South Vietnam started out as an independence war. The Viet Minh was a league wich fought for the independence from France and was controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam. This all happened during World War 2. In January 1946, Viet Minh won elections in central and northern Vietnam, but France still controlled the southern Vietnam (French Indochina). The North Vietnam (the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) was now a free republic in the French Indochina.
The disagreement of whom that controlled Vietnam led to other countries supporting north or south to determind who that should controll Vietnam. Among them USA and the Sovjet Union.
The fear of that the country should become a part of the opposite side started this war.


The north Vietnamese side fought two different wars. One conventipnal war and one guerilla war. The conventional war was fought by the Vietnams People's Army, and the guerrilla war was fought by the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong was a lightly armoured communistic force stationed in South Vietnam.


The war caused massive protests in the U.S and Vietnam. In Vietnam some monks even burned themself one the street to show their disgust of the war.



From the beginning of the war in 1st of november 1955 untill the fall of saigon 30 April 1975 (end of the war), the capitalistic side had lost the war and 350 thousand soldiers, while the communistic side had won the war but lost 1,17 million soldiers.










The picture shows american soldiers carrying a dead soldier.