Race By: Jeff Goodemote

Tim Wise critique's our America by saying that racism is very much apart of our society. An example of this is that people judge others by not only race, but by what their job status is and social status. This indicates that everyone is not equal. Tim wises example of this is saying that when you tell your kids you can be anything you want to be which is is not true because if you grow up in a poor community you wont have the same opportunities than someone who has alot of money and lives in a good community. He also mentions that another form of racism is occurring in the united states which is called institutional racism which you see on a daily basis in different forms in businesses especially for example whites and Mexicans and cheap labor. The white person would want a higher wage or would not do it at all. The Mexican would do the work for any wage because he would just want to earn some type of living. Also he would not care what the conditions are. The reason for this is inheritance of disadvantage, because alot of whites can find better jobs easier than alot of Mexicans just because of race.

In the pbs documentary they relate race with the real estate market. The example pbs gives is when the black or Hispanic live in a neighborhood. White people wanting to buy the homes, take one look at the neighborhood and don't buy a house just because the white buyers perceive the neighborhood to be trashy or of less value then say an all white suburb. According to the pbs documentary the whites makeup about eighty percent of the housing market. While the other twenty percent are Latino's or Blacks. That means that eighty percent of the housing market is absent. This is because those eighty percent white make up the suburb. Also according to the documentary that when property prices go down then taxes go up. So not only do your neighborhoods suffer but then so do services and businesses and then you eventually hit rock bottom. This is all because of race, which effects our economic system. So we essentially leave our economic system in the hands of race.

These two pieces relate to Robert Higgins reading because under the Accounting for Racial Environmental Inequities section of the article he goes on to say "Minority workers are disproportionately represented in industries with high levels of occupational health risks, and in the most hazardous jobs within those and other industries." (Higgins 253). This quote represents what wise says about racism and in this case it happens in the work place. This happens by giving minorities poor working conditions, which is completely immoral and cruel because they don't have much of a choice in the first place, because they have to provide for a family. Also its even harder for them because even when they do finally make enough they cant get out so its a form of slavery in a sense. How this relates to the pbs documentary is because just like white buyers not wanting to live in a Latino or black populated suburb the whites don't want to do hard labor and get paid low wages they want good paying corporate jobs. Then I raise the question what if Latinos or blacks and etc are not the minority anymore and then they don't want to the labor for us? Then do we not have anymore cheap labor and no one to produce in our shop?

Inheritance is if you are born a white male or female you are given more opportunity versus if you are born a minority then you are given usually less of an opportunity at success. Identity is how you are identified as a person, your beliefs your values or in physical skin color eye color, etc. Inequality is in short racism or treating someone as if they are below you in any way. These three characteristics relate to each other because when you inheriate an identity say Latino this that's when equality comes into play, because right from the start you are looked at as less and judged by your identity and then treated poorly, which is how inequality plays a part in our society.

Race, class and gender intersect in a myriad of ways the prime example is the white rich male.

In saying this the black rich male versus the white rich male society wouldn't think twice about how the white male became so successful, but the second they see a successful black they automatically think he must have been dealing drugs or the money is stolen. Never in a million years would they think I bet he worked hard for his money just like the average white male. Gender is the same way between a man and a women you typically see a male CEO rarely do you see a female CEO this is just in everyday business.

Race in my opinion is not erased from our national narrative and contemporary political discourse. This is because we simply make decesions and policies based upon gender and race all the time. Take gay marriage for example it still is not legalized just because of religious beliefs and not only that but moral beliefs as well which is part of someones identity. Society is still under the impression that love is only between a man and a women as well as sexual intercourse. Then i guess my question would be what is the true definition of moral?


Sexsim photo:spinsucks.com

Racism photo:studygroup-bd.org

Work condition Photo:thewe.cc

Access without the Toxins

Every day we are trashing our planet, we are trashing each other and we are not even having fun. Our own electronic production system is in trouble until we start to understand the system we will start seeing many solutions. Design for the dump is a key strategy for the companies that make our electronics. In 1960 Gordon Moore created Moore’s law which describes the long term increasing trend in history that consumers were replacing their electronic every eighteen months. This thinking only created an unstable material of economy. The electronic that are being made now are easy to break, hard to upgrade and impractical to repair because it is cheaper to buy a new electronic rather than take it to an electronic specialist to be repair. There are about twenty five million tons of electronic dump either burned or recycled which most of the electronics are not green friendly. A study for IBM stated that about 40% of their female workers will be in the risk of miscarriages and also including all workers the risk of blood, kidney and brain cancer. The conditions in the third world countries are not any better, China one of the leading countries in recycling our electronic waste have even worst working conditions they are expose to the toxics head on because they extract the valuable metals then burn the rest which result in polluting  their air quality. This called for a global toxic emergency. The objective for these electronic companies is to eliminate externalize cost, which instead of paying for better working conditions the workers will have to pay with their health. Instead of better recycling techniques villages will pay with their resources like clean drinking water. Many companies feel that because they make these electronic products for the consumer that they should deal with the aftereffects when really consumers should have an attitude of “you make it you deal with it.” The brains of the company should be on the consumer sides by demanding product take back with which in the long run will cause their products to be cheaper to make and longer lasting less toxic more recyclable. Companies should make electronics where if they do break it is easy and inexpensive to buy rather than buying a whole brand new electronic. Consumers should demand greener electronics and green laws that will protect and strengthen the Moore’s law. We should also be aware of recycling techniques and avoid export recycling at all cost.  Every step for greener electronic will be a brighter and healthier future.

 

 Robert Melchior Figueroa and Lawrence Summers discuss environmental justices, which includes toxic communities and toxic workplaces. Majority of these toxic communities and workplaces are in poor communities’ mainly in communities of color people, Robert Melchior Figueroa and Lawrence Summers conclude that environmental justices also include environmental racism. These target communities are underfunded, unequal and a land field to all the unwanted waste most Americans would not accept in their own communities. So why in these communities? This comes down to the triangle of inheritance, identity, and inequality. Inheritance boils down to what happen in the past for example many Native Americans are still suffering for what happen to their ancestors. With these poor communities many people feel that it is link to Redlining which was when houses were distribute to white and people of color after World War II, but they were in separate neighborhoods. The white Americans received houses in very nice up class neighborhoods where as people of color lived in “ghettos.” Identity ask the question “who are we talking about,” if we lose the identity of the environment we are basically losing who Americans really are. There are thousands of languages, cultures, and people that are dying out due to toxic communities. Inequality discusses the unequal reactions from the federal and state government. This includes enforcing laws on cleaning toxic communities, the time it takes for clean up, unequal compensation, unfair penalties, and deliberating targeting poor people of color communities. We do not think about the environment and how to live in the environment or even how to use it. Environment issues dates back to the 1910s but 1962 was the second wave of environmental protection movement. Silent Springs was the Uncle Tom Cabin for the environmental movement; Silent Springs was due to the use of DDT as a pesticide that killed off many birds. The readers were to imagine a spring that was silent due to the wipe out of all the song birds. Many people threw out the idea because the author was a woman and they believe that she was thinking irrational but others saw it and started to wonder. In 1970 the first Earth day and also EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, was created. Earth day was not how we celebrated Earth day nowadays the very first Earth day was a global success in the awareness of the environment. This was the beginning, people started to recognize that they must take care of the environment because the environment is a part of them, a part of their identity.

“racial discrimination in environmental policy making, and the unequal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations . . . the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic waste facilities . . . the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in people of color communities for toxic waste facilities . . . the history of excluding people of color from the leadership of the environmental movement (Chavis 1993, p.4). Robert Melchior Figueroa: “Environmental Justice,” The Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, edited by J. Baird Callicott and Robert Frodeman, (Thompson Gale: 2008). 

There are five different types of justices; retributive, distributive, participatory, recognition, and restorative. Retributive justice involves punishment the famous sang “an eye for an eye.” Distribution justice involves with economics and policies, of who get what. Participatory justices involve the institutions, are a different way of asserting rights and facilitate access to justice. Recognition justice involves a symbolic meaning and identity, like a famous figure because if people see you as important they will listen to you. Restoration justice involves transformation, if the views of environmental issues transform how people see certain things then an action can take place. These justices are the steps for a brighter and healthier future. 

Connecting with the media piece above, they talk about how the brains of the companies should come together with the consumer for better greener electronic and laws that protect and strengthen green electronic. The actions that they take would result in Restoration justice because the consumer is taking into action to transform the idea of a green electronic. By doing so we can have celebrities or the top brand electronic companies to start taking action, this is recognition justice because the consumer will see that their favorite electronic brand is trying to make a difference in cleaning up the environment. Nowadays many people are going green so therefore if a name brand company starts going green there customers would follow. Also with the attitude “you make it you deal with it” contributes to NIMBY “Not in My Backyard” these attitudes would force companies to take the responsibilities of their waste, and instead of dumping it on American soil and the third world soil companies can produce longer lasting electronic which would cut down dumping costs and many health risk costs. Americans must stand up and change the master narrative in order for a brighter and healthier future.

The Naive Farmer

Picture found on: http://stuffedandstarved.org/drupal/taxonomy/term/170

The first video here shows how the Monsanto Company is trying to create ways for farmers to be able to produce their crops more efficiently and abundantly that way the world can have a sustainable agriculture, which we need with our growing population. Monsanto is working with farmers so they can increase what they can grow on an acre of land. They are also working to reduce the amount of land, water, and energy it takes to grow the crops. While they are trying to do all those things, they are also trying to improve the lives of farmers and their families by promoting innovative technology to give farmers better tools so they can provide for their families, communities, and people around the world. Their philosophy is that if farmers prosper, then so many others will too, through healthier diets, greater educational opportunities, and brighter economic futures. Agriculture has always had a role in shaping humanity, and it will take more than just this company to shape the future of agriculture. They believe that we as a world are in this together and have to work with each other to have a brighter and more sustainable world for everyone. This is the world that Monsanto is hoping and working toward everyday.

This next video (couldn't find the embed code)shows us how committed the Monsanto Company is towards making the world a better place. They use their time, money, resources, and technology to travel around the country and show people what the conditions are like for farmers and what they have to go through. They show them that it is not as easy as it seems and that what they eat comes at a higher price than what consumers pay for in stores. It also shows an interview with a real farm family, to make it more personal to the viewer. The video shows all of the different techniques these farmers have used and continue to use through four generations of family farmers. The final points of interest in the video are about modern day farming, the tools that are needed to do it, the science behind it which incorporate the biological advances that help increase production and conserve resources. Monsanto's idea is that modern farming will be able to feed the world. The United Nations predict that by 2050 there will be nine billion people in the world, which is forty percent more than now. However, the Monsanto Company says the American farmers are up to the challenge. Agriculture plays a big part in today's world; one hundred billion dollars is exported from America's agriculture; twenty-four million jobs are created by it as well.

Although the Monsanto Company's claims sound good to the average American, the average American is unaware of the destruction that GMO's cause. The intent behind Monsanto's vision is one to be commended; however, its method is one of madness. GMO's not only will eventually destroy the family farmer and the land he loves, but forces him to produce crops that are nutritionally inadequate as well as heavily contaminated with herbicides and pesticides. For example, "Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans, designed to be resistant to herbicides, lead to the destruction of biodiversity and increased use of agrochemicals. They can also create highly invasive 'superweeds' by transferring the genes for herbicide resistance to weeds. Crops designed to be pesticide factories, genetically engineered to produce toxins and venom with genes from bacteria, scorpions, snakes, and wasps, can threaten non-pest species and can contribute to the emergence of resistance in pests and hence the creation of 'superpests.' In every application of genetic engineering, food is being stolen from other species for the maximization of corporate profits." (Shiva 16) Monsanto is a company that endorses the concept of the "Green Revolution." Briefly, the Green Revolution is defined as the introduction of high-yielding varieties of seeds and the increased use of fertilizers and irrigation on a reduced amount of acreage thereby preserving millions of hectares of biodiversity. However, for instance, in India, "instead of more land being released for conservation, industrial breeding actually increases pressure on the land, since each acre of a monoculture provides a single output, and the displaced outputs have to be grown on additional acres." (Shiva 13) If farmers are forced to continue to utilize this concept of farming, the land will very quickly be worthless because of the level of contamination. In my opinion, Monsanto is cutting off its nose to spite its face. One of their goals is to feed the world and eliminate starvation, when in reality they are contributing to the increase of starvation in the world. "In several of the biggest Green Revolution successes -- India, Mexico, and the Philippines -- grain production and in some cases, exports, have climbed, while hunger has persisted and the long-term productive capacity of the soil is degraded." (Poole-Kavana 2)

It is my hope that someday government and big corporations will consider the devastation that their greed is causing, from the annihilation of fertile soil to the extinction of a healthy humanity. My hope is to see an increase in small organic farms that produce nutrient rich crops and which provide a decent living for farming families. "Small farmers typically achieve at least four to five times greater output per acre, in part because they work their land more intensively and use integrated, and often more sustainable, production systems... A World Bank study of northeast Brazil estimates that redistributing farmland into smaller holdings would raise output an astonishing 80 percent. (Poole-Kavana 2-3) In summation, the words of Gandhi say it all, "The earth has enough for the needs of all, but not the greed of few." (Shiva xv)

Addressing Animal Cruelty

In the article concerning the two Wayne County men who stole, killed and then ate a calf, claiming they were hungry and needed a meal, and the news broadcast about the Ohio Dairy Farm that was brutally torturing animals for no reason, the question is whether or not these are exceptable acts of cruelty, considering what already goes on inside of factory farms and CAFOs. I personally believe that if you only look at these acts after analyzing what goes on within factory farms, and comparing the two, then yes, according to the standards that have been set by the industry, that neither of these acts are any worse than what is already happening. However, just because it is already happening does mean that it is necessarily moral correct. In Peter Singer and Jim Mason's article titled "The Way We Eat Why Our Food Choices Matter" they make a good point, illustrating how sometime just because we do something, does not mean that it is right, and also does not mean that it is not something that we should work to change. They discuss how in the American culture, it use to be acceptable to own slaves, and for a long time nobody saw anything wrong with it. The slaves were being seen as the property of white males, and being dehumanized, and treated like animals. Singer and Mason stated "Biases against woman and agaist people of other races have been, and in some places still are, culturally significant. If a widespread cultural practice is wrong, we should try to change it" (pg 7). Although what the two men in New York did to that poor calf was uncalled for and extremely cruel, if our culture continues to evolve, then maybe we will learn that what was once considered acceptable is no longer something that we should be participating in. The incident at the Ohion Dairy Farm is a prime example of how we no longer view animals as living breathing creatures, and now simply see them as objects that we can take advantage of and do with as we please. Humans view themselves as being above animals, and able to control them, even torture them. In "Brave New Farm" by Jim Mason and Mary Finelli they discuss everything that goes on behind closed doors in factory farms that they believe we as consumers should know about. A point that they make that I find to be interesting is that we have "reduced chickens to the equivalent of living machines" (pg 160). Is this not true? When a chicken is part of a factory farm they are there for one purpose and one purpose only. To supply humans with eggs and meat. They are not seen as living, breathing creatures with feelings and thoughts. Mason and Finelli also talk about the living conditions of chickens in which they are given about "50 square inches of floor space" (pg 160). This is the equivalent of about half of a sheet of notebook paper, and is unbelievable to think this is how they have to spend their entire lives, if you would even call that a life. To an extent humans practice severe speciesism toward "farm" animals and those that we call pets. Humans would never treat a dog the way that cows, pigs and chickens get treated within factor farms. In fact, there are laws against treating dogs and cats cruely, and they are punishable. People can even do time for mistreating a dog in a way that is considered inhumane. So why then is there a double standard? Each animal should have equal consideration in the sense that they are all living organisms capable of feeling and emotions. There are studies done in which there is proof that pigs are just as intellectual of beings as dogs are, and in some ways may be even more capable. So this brings about the question of whether or not we should re-evaluate how we treat pigs. Should we be eating dogs instead? This would be unheard of and would cause controversy of an unknown amount, but it just goes to show how we seem to suffer from moral schizophrenia when it comes to what we consider to be morally correct and incorrect.

I've included a video in which a girl is trying to teach her piglet how to sit, and is treating the pig much like most humans treat their pet dogs. Miraculously the pig learns to sit, and is able to take commands from it's "owner" showing clear evidence that pigs have the capacity to be intellectual, they have simply been reduced to nothing more than pieces of meat. Regan is a philospher who works to give animals the rights that they deserve. If Regan were to be asked what his opinion is about the Ohio Dairy farm insident then he would state that the men portrayed in the video, visciously abusing and causing unnecissary pain to those poor cows is barbaric.

The video shows cows being prodded with pitchforks, kicked, and beat, and the men doing the harm seem to be getting some kind of pleasure out of it. Regan makes the point though his animal rights position that much like humans, some animals should have rights, and the rights of the animals in the Ohio Dairy farm video were taken away. Regan makes the argument that "human and animal experiences and interests may be "comparable" or even "equal", human and animal experiences differ in degree but not in kind, and no traits that are universal among humans are exclusive to them." What Regan is trying to say is that even though they may not experience emotion to the same degree as humans do and feel pain in exactly the same way, they still experience them in their own way that are unique to them. The abuse that animals have to go through with being debeaked, being put into farrowing crates, and being exposed to diseases is sickening and maybe like Singer and Mason discuss it truely is time for us to make a change.

A Lesser Man

When we think of Catholicism, the idea of guilt tends to commonly follow. Confessing your sins helps to guide you on the path to forgiveness and get that awful feeling out of your gut. Although religion is so vastly different throughout the world, guilt is commonly addressed in a specific way in each religion. Whether we must pray for forgiveness, wash our sins away or confess to what we have done, we are commonly searching for a way to feel better. Despite our wrong doings, we search for a way to make whatever it is that we did sit right in our gut. The irony is that much of this guilt could have been avoided if we listened to that little voice inside of head that told us not to do what we knew we shouldn't have done in the first place that has led us to this queasy feeling. We are consistently searching for forgiveness that we would have never needed had we done what we knew was right at the current time. Too often, as a society, we look for rationalizations for what we have done. We push blame onto others, avoiding accepting any responsibility for our own actions. We look for forgiveness instead of asking for permission. We turn to anyone and everyone to search for the person that's going to tell us "it's okay". We search up and down for any rhyme or reason to evade acknowledging that what we did was wrong.

This is so pertinent in the following article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-think-Iraqis-humans-says-U-S-soldier-raped-14-year-old-girl-killing-her-family.html I couldn't 6 separate excuses this soldier listed when explaining why he raped and killed this 14 yr old girl and her family. He blamed being in a war zone, the "lack of leadership in the army", being emotionally distraught from seeing 2 others in his platoon die in front of him, an "altered state of mind", drugs and alcohol and that he "didn't think of Iraqi's as humans". Not once did he say, " I was wrong" or confess that he knew better; that rape was wrong. I feel as though the most interesting justification that he made was dehumanizing Iraqis. It's as if he thought raping and killing a species that's not human is perfectly okay. By dehumanizing he believes that he's lessening their value to point where he can treat them any way he feels and its perfectly okay. Unfortunately, this is an extremely common view for so many people, regardless or military status, race, culture or religious faith. This proves that this misconstrued view of humanism is cross cultural. It's not only Americans to blame this time. This video illustrates Palestinian leader, Hamas, trying to convince people to "destroy the Jews" by comparing them to animals. He makes this comparison to lesson the value of the Jewish People. By saying this he also is making the point that animals are lesser than people and therefor have less worth. even though he couldn't be from a more different country and religious faith than the American soldier, is he still not trying to justify a wrong? He is rationalizing destroying an entire religious group simply by lessening their value as a whole. I will never be able to understand the religious wars people are consistently battling over. How is it that someone can feel so strongly about their own religion and then demean and try to overcome someone for having that same feeling of pride? I find it extremely Ironic that we are the ones who are labeling animals as the lesser species when we are the only species that kills its own. We destroy our own habitat to create things that we know we can live without, as our history has proved that we've done it before. We make our greatest concerns making life easier and better, instead enjoying the quality of what we have. We make the same mistakes and expect different outcomes. We continue to choose the easier wrong, instead of the harder right, regardless of the effects. Although we are the ones that make the mistakes, we search for justification so that we can overlook it and make what we know is wrong, okay. Animals, although they look different from us, have the same emotions and have to figure out a way to make it through life as we do, however they are able to do so without destroying the life around them. Despite this fact, we still like to label them as the lesser species. This next video is extremely hard to watch, but illustrates a lot of so called "greater species" feels is justified. Our country specifically has outlawed "cruel and unusual punishment", but if this isn't cruel and unusual I'm not sure what is. We look the other way in this circumstance because the victims are animals and they don't have rights. These definition ally violent acts are okay not because morally they're right, but because we want them to be; because it's more profitable for this to be okay, its better for us that this happens, it makes food for us less expensive so we everyone can afford it, its easier for us to be able to to farm this way, they're just animals. These many, many justifications for why we must do this are simply ways to evade the guilt that we feel because we know this is wrong. Corporations can't deny that they know this fact as they hide behind private property signs and close off their factories to public eyes. If this really was okay they wouldn't have to hide it. They shield our eyes to protect us from the guilt unless we're unable to come to their same rationalizations that make factory farming okay. We dehumanize these animals simply to avoid the guilt we know we should be feeling. We have this grave sense of privilege that we should be able to make whatever choices we want without having to accept the consequences. This behavior of endless rationalizations has developed into a form of intersectionality between many of our greatest problems as the human race. The oppression this time, is not racism or sexism, but evasion of guilt and responsibility. We dehumanize not only animals but our entire earth. We put animals and nature at the bottom of our hierarchy so we believe that they deserve less than we humans do, as we sit at the very top. But as with any great pyramid even the strongest structure will fall without a base. We need to realize the importance of what we are putting beneath us and know that they are supporting us. We cannot survive without a world to live on, we cannot nourish ourselves sustainably as a whole without meat. When so much of our own lives depends on the ground we walk on, the air we breathe and the food we eat, we must reconsider the place of all these things. We have to quit looking at animals and nature as lesser and start viewing them as equal. To begin this extreme transformation we need to stop factory farming and continue farming on small family farms. We need to think about the humanity of how we are treating these animals when the reality is we need them. This switch will mean that we have to eat less meat as a society, because Small farms cannot support the vast amount of meat we are currently consuming. By lowering our meat consumption on an individual basis, it gives us the ability to do what is morally right. We then can save our energy that was being used making excuse after excuse to evade the guilt we felt about our wrong doings, to do what we know is right in the first place. We can make responsible decisions based on morality so we don't have to constantly be seeking forgiveness.