Reiya

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya Iyub- Tumblr Post 9

This history course dramatically changed my perception of history from when I first started this class. It helped me realize that historical events do not stop and end with the dates given to us, nor are these events as black and white as they appear to be. Since we did not live through those time periods ourselves, we are simply given the details and it is up to us to draw our conclusions based on them. However, before doing so we must analyze all perspectives involved. For instance, prior to this course I never knew George Washington with the depth that I know him now. I was simply told that he was the first President of the United States. In this course we looked at all of the factors that contributed to George Washington becoming such a great President and leader. I was not merely told that Washington was humble and soft-spoken, but I was shown this through the events in his life, such as the death of his mentor in the War of 1812, that molded him into that person. We not only look at some of his best qualities, but also some of his imperfections, such as his incompetence in developing tactics during the Revolutionary War. This is perhaps demonstrates the slant/bias that this class takes on; history is dynamic. More significantly, I like how this class shows us that early events in our nation’s history manifest itself in some way into something relatable today. For example, in the course we examined demagogues in our nation’s past, demagogues like Andrew Jackson that manipulated the political system to gain power. Then our assignments allowed us to get a glimpse of demagogues in our political climate today, and this furthermore shows that history is not as disconnected as it appears to be. It is ever-changing, it is multi-faceted, and it is most certainly relatable.

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya Iyub- The President’s Lady (1953)

My chosen film, The President’s Lady (1953), portrays the dynamic relationship between Rachel Donelson and Andrew Jackson from the moment they met, up until Jackson’s presidency. Although the film’s title suggests that the film would show Rachel’s role in Jackson’s presidency, it actually shows more of the controversy behind Andrew and Rachel’s marriage. During that time period, it was heavily looked down upon for Andrew to court Rachel while she was still married to her first husband. This controversy took a toll on both their relationship and Jackson’s presidency. Political opponents used the marriage as a political tool to damage Jackson’s reputation in the Election of 1828, which makes it evident how this election was one of the “dirtiest political campaigns in history”. Nevertheless, Jackson firmly defends his wife’s honor, and the film depicts glimpses of Jackson’s notable anger in doing so. Through their story, the audience is better able to understand how this ultimately sets the stage for Jackson’s Presidency.

This film was historically accurate, with the exception of a few small details that were added for dramatic effect. The depiction of Rachel and Andrew Jackson’s meeting and marriage was correct; Andrew and Rachel met while she was still married to her first husband. Rachel’s first marriage was an unhappy one, with Rachel often leaving her husband to return home with her mother. Rachel and Jackson’s relationship does not really begin until Rachel signified the end of her relationship with her first husband, but she was legally still married to him. The complications with their divorce and the scar it left on her honor was shown in the film. The attack on Rachel and Jackson’s reputation by political opponents demonstrated the mudslinging tactic that came about during that time. Jackson’s famous temper was indicated in the film as well, with a glimpse of one of his duels that left him wounded, and another scene with an altercation involving him beating a man with his cane. However, these were only small glimpses, both of which were downplayed. The film otherwise seemed to shape Jackson into this competent, hard-working, and passionate individual by placing emphasis on his love for Rachel. This helped the audience see Jackson as less of a President, and more as a regular person. This was apparent when Rachel Jackson died, and Jackson is left heartbroken over her death. We are able to sympathize with Jackson, and understand that the trauma must not have placed him in the right psychological state when he began his presidency. The film also portrays Jackson as individual who meant well, but was dramatic in his approach to solving matters. For instance, Jackson challenges a man to a duel for attacking his wife’s honor. Later in his presidency, the O’Neil Affair takes a similar course as Jackson defends the wife of one of the Cabinet members by firing members of his Cabinet for refusing to associate with her. We can even go on to draw a parallel to Jackson’s extreme decision to destroy the national bank based on his distrust, and belief that it is harming the American economy. He was evidently not a man who contemplated before acting. Perhaps the film could have showed more of Jackson’s campaign and election process to better illustrate this because it was a bit rushed. The film shows his qualities by highlighting his relationship with Rachel, and the audience is better able to see how this sets the tone for his Presidency.

I wouldn’t consider this piece a good piece of history because there is not much history depicted in the film, other than Jackson and Rachel’s relationship. The prominent historical moments in the film were mainly shown toward the end of the movie, such as the election of 1828. This was not until the last 15 minutes of the film. I felt as if these historical points were hastily depicted in contrast to Jackson and Rachel’s marriage. Had the film given more time to narrate these events, and even some time to narrate some of Jackson’s presidency, the audience would better connect the effect that Rachel had on his election/presidency. As far as the film goes to recount Jackson and Rachel’s marriage, I would consider that portion a good work of history. This is due to the fact that their relationship was narrated with respect to all the love and factual details involved in the marriage.

The film was filmed in the 1950s, when America’s economy was doing well and during which  “Golden Age of Television” was taking place. As a result, I think the film focused more on the positive aspects of Jackson and his presidency to inspire a sense of optimism in the audience. In the 1950s, the economy was recently climbing out of the aftermath of World War 2, so it was important for the filmmakers to instill confidence in the audience about the state of America’s economy. Perhaps this is why the film doesn’t focus on the negative aspects of Jackson’s presidency, such as the termination of the national bank that led the country into one of the worst financial crises in our history. With television being such a big influence during the 1950s, it was critical that filmmakers presented audiences with the least controversial subjects. This is why there is no mention of Jackson’s abuses of power during his term, such as the shutting down of the branches of government. Had the film shown this, then it would have an encouraged a pessimistic outlook on the American government, politics, and even the economy.

[ireiya-blog]

Tumblr Post 8-Reiya Iyub

The featured documentary “A Hidden Genocide” exposes the severe persecution of the minority group of Rohingyas by the majority group, the Rakhines, in Myanmar. The film narrates how tensions between the two groups have been brewing long before their recent eruption. Through interviews we discover that the Rakhines believe that the Rohingyas are a threat to their Buddhist nation, and therefore they have a right to defend their religion. The Rakhines formed Nationalist parties directed towards controlling the Rohingya populations by restricting their rights to citizenship, controlling their populations, and denying their existence overall.

I was truly taken aback after watching this documentary to see how far country’s government can go while under the mask of defending its nation. Even in the interview with the Rakhine Buddhist monk, who asserts that his religion preaches nonviolence and peace, we see a contradiction in his beliefs as he defends the Rakhines who attack innocent Rohingyas. These influential leaders and governmental officials continue to defend the violence against Rohingyas as a protection of Rakhines culture and religion. These individuals even propose that they believe the Rohingya are deceiving people, who want to undermine their government in order to progress their culture and religion. In reality, from the events shown in the film we can see that the Rakhines are doing to the Rohingyas exactly what they fear the Rohingyas will do to them. It is astounding to see what results from a government who supports the majority group of people, while denying the minority group of people.

There was definitely a heavy bias in the film to the plight of the Rohingyas. Although I agree that the circumstances they are facing are outright horrifying, I don’t think the documentary did a very good job showing both sides. For instance, I noticed many of the interviews in the documentary with the Rohingyas were personal interviews with those affected severely by the Rakhines cruel acts. This was meant to help the audience sympathize with the Rohingyas. However, the interviews with the Rakhines in the film featured only individuals with governmental and leadership positions, perhaps to further emphasize that their beliefs are corrupt. The documentary only briefly mentions the attacks of Rohingyas on the Rakhines, but downplays those attacks. I felt that it would have been better to get a Rakhine civilian’s perspective on the Rohingyas because the government officials interviewed did not have as personal a connection to the conflict as the civilians do. Moreover, this was also a major missed opportunity in the film to educate the audience on more of the Rakhines motives behind their attacks on the Rohingyas. If the documentary covered both sides of the conflict in the same light, then I feel that the audience would be better able to evaluate the issue.

The documentary reminded me a lot of Native Americans encountered in the 1800s. Similar to the Rohingyas, the Native Americans were being denied their existence as a people, and treated as aliens in a nation that is more indigenous to them than it is to any other group. The Native Americans were forced off of their land into isolated areas in Oklahoma, while the Rohingyas were isolated in areas of west Myanmar. Both groups are left unprotected and denied their basic civil rights from their government. The Native Americans were subject to this through the Indian Removal Act that later paved the way for the Trail of Tears. These acts were targeted towards erasing the presence of a group of people that makes these instances truly “hidden genocides”. Both the predicaments of the Native Americans and the Rohingyas illustrate what can occur when a government fails to stand for the equal rights of all of its people.

I believe “never again” can become a reality, but it would be a very long way to go. What is occurring in Myanmar is occurring in so many other parts of of the world. This institutionalized oppression on a group of people takes root in governments that are biased towards the majority. This is why these issues persist because the majority receiving support from the government make it almost impossible for the minority’s voice to be heard. I believe the best way to help this is to raise awareness of this ongoing problem. This documentary was a good place to start because it helped me realize that instances such as genocide really are still occurring. Many people others like me do not know of the horrors that are taking place globally. Raising awareness on these issues would better give these groups suffering from oppression hope of an intervention to free them of the shackles that have been placed on them.

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya Iyub-True Women (1997) Reflection

The movie True Women (1997) narrates the lives of women impacted by arguably one of the most difficult decades of Southern U.S. history. What the movie really emphasized was how these seemingly disconnected all built off of, and weaved together, to paint the picture of some of our nation’s key points in history. These key points include the Texas Revolution, and its conflicts that include the seizure of the Alamo and Battle at San Jacinto. The film covered the Mexican-American war, the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the women’s suffrage movement. More implicit, but notable conflicts such as the tensions with slavery and conflicts with Native Americans make a constant reappearance throughout the movie.

I would not consider this film a good or bad piece of history, but I would consider it moderate. I enjoyed how the filmmakers showed the lives of the women affected during this era because it is often a side that many do not see. When we are told about history, it seems so male-dominated prior to the women’s rights movement. However, this film does a great job expressing that the lives of these women were no walk in the park. They have endured the loss of their children and husbands, they are caught in the crossfire of conflicts, they are forced out of their homes, and they are left to run entire plantations on their own. We are able to connect these factors back to what makes these women “True Women”. On the contrary, I think the film aiming to cover such an extensive time period doesn’t give some issues the depth that they deserve. Had the filmmakers picked a few significant events and portrayed them with special attention, then the audience would be better able to connect the events. For instance, slavery is not really addressed in the movie until the approach of the Civil War, which was allotted a mere few minutes of the film. In actuality, the tensions surrounding slavery began long before the Civil War, and even the Texas Revolution. The Texas Revolution was actually fueled by the uprisings of plantation owners who disagreed with the idea that Mexico abolished slavery. This was one of the major blind spots and missed opportunities in the film that makes it a slightly less effective piece of history.

Although this film does not provide some topics the important background information necessary, it is mostly historically accurate. The events are shown in correct chronological order, beginning with the Texas Revolution, and ending with women’s suffrage. I liked that both sides of the conflicts with the Native Americans are shown. The main character, Euphemia, is introduced to the violent wars with Native Americans, specifically the Comanche tribe, after the Texas Revolution. At some points we see that she shares the contempt for Native Americans as any other Texan, and later on she discovers that they are not necessarily the cause for the conflicts. They have been forced off of their land by the Indian Removal Act, through the Trail of Tears, and provoked constantly by settlers in their new lands. Euphemia’s childhood friend, Georgia, also introduces a different perspective of Native Americans because of her partial Native American heritage that makes her vulnerable to those who detest this group. As a result, she is empathetic to their plight. Euphemia and Georgia’s experiences and backgrounds since their separation in childhood has created rifts in their friendship. While Euphemia and her family do not heavily practice or believe in owning slaves, Georgia and her family see slavery as an essential way of life. This discrepancy in viewpoints illustrates the tensions between the pro-slavery and antislavery proponents prior to the Civil War. Another thing that this film stresses is that Native Americans and African Americans were alike in the way that both groups that were stripped of their essential rights, and as a result faced many hardships.

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya Iyub-Tumblr Post 7

Louis Farrakhan is a popular Muslim minister from New York that was formerly known as the Nation of Islam (NOI) leader. He was converted at a young age to Islam when he discovered the NOI, and was a strong believer in the teachings of former NOI leaders such as Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad. He has a gained a reputation as a religious and social leader for Muslims and African Americans alike. Farrakhan’s teachings are both heavily supported and criticized for being anti-semitic, anti-white, and black supremacist.

The film was a one-on-one interview between Louis Farrakhan and Alex Jones to uncover Farrakhan’s true perspectives on some of the issues prevalent in the U.S. Farrakhan shares that he believes that there is evil lurking in our government that is plotting against the American people. Jones and Farrakhan discuss the government’s tactic to “divide and conquer” by getting the public to turn against one another, when in reality the real enemy is the government. Specifically, they believe that our government is part of the globalists’ plot to establish full control over the common people by stripping us of our civil liberties. He cites eugenics as one of the government’s strategies to control population and decrease the existence of a certain race. Farrakhan also believes that our government purposely creates conflicts like what is going on in Syria, where they arm dissatisfied citizens against their countries. He elaborates that this is what causes a refugee crisis that could have been preventable in the first place. He believes that other issues, for instance, police brutality, is a scapegoat for the real evil: the government and the globalists. All of these conflicts are what Farrakhan believes gets the public to participate in the government’s plot without realizing it.

The interview with between Farrakhan and Jones actually left me feeling very conflicted. The film opens with Farrakhan’s earlier speeches to the NOI and black community that were transparently anti-white. However, in the interview there is no trace of his former views on whites. His ideas shifted to more anti-globalist and were more non-violent. It made me wonder how a man who asserted that “Whites and those who support whites are devils, and cannot be reformed”, and “The only way to stop them is to destroy them”, can go on to do an interview with a white man and also state that his religion would not allow him to harm another individual. This was perhaps a major blind spot in the film. I felt like it was ambiguous as to how Farrakhan came about this shift in his ideas. Aside from this, Farrakhan spoke in a very convincing and convicting way on his ideas. It was clear to me how he was able to gain so many followers because he makes you want to listen to what he has to say. However, I’m not completely sold on Jones’ and Farrakhan’s globalist ideas. I felt like their evidence was not sufficient enough to expose the globalists’ agenda to gain control over the masses. For instance, the statistics given on the 1,134 deaths that result from police brutality each year was used to show how the globalists create issues that distract us from the real problems. While this may be true, I think it may be a bit of a slippery slope to say that this is part of the globalists’ plot, when there could actually be other reasons behind the deaths of innocent people. Nevertheless, the video helped me to see things from an alternative perspective. I found it interesting when Farrakhan references that Trump is justified in his ban on Muslim refugees into the U.S. because these refugees harbor a lot of hatred for America for causing a disrupt in their countries. I never actually thought of things this way, but it did hold some truth. Moreover, I had not considered that America creating this hostility for Muslims was another way to cause a divide among people. The film gave a lot of information on how these issues continue to separate individuals, but to label them all as a part of the globalists’ plan is not yet evident.

It was blatantly clear that this documentary was biased toward exposing globalism. From the very beginning, Alex Jones even states that he agrees with a lot of Farrakhan’s views. Farrakhan also begins the interview by stating that he and Jones are very similar in their quest for discovering the truth. Therefore, the interview was centered on confirming and adding to a lot of Jones’ perspective on globalism. Jones would often give a lot of background about his ideas of globalism, and in turn he would ask Farrakhan to elaborate or share his ideas on those views. For example, toward the end of the film, Jones brought up America’s involvement with Al-Qaeda and ISIS by stating that the U.S. arms them, and then uses them as a target to create dissent towards Muslims. He then asks Farrakhan if people cannot see that this is a set up, and he asks how the government can get away with this. Jones does not ask Farrakhan whether or not he agrees, but assumes that he agrees with these statements because of his anti-globalist ideas. As a result, this video does not give the audience a look into the other sides of the issue, rather it is very one-sided.

The topics addressed in the film remind me of both the Jacksonian Democracy that we discussed in class, and instances in our political climate today. Both the globalists’ agenda and Jacksonian Democracy hoped to establish control over the people. Jacksonian Democracy hoped to accomplish this by abolishing the electoral college system, disregarding checks and balances, and shutting down sovereignty in Congress. Similarly, in the film Jones shares that the globalists’ plot is to dissolve the Bill of Rights in our Constitution and control mass populations. In both cases we see that those in power abuse their position to silence any disagreement. According to Jones, globalists use mass killings as a tactic to rid of populations that they cannot control. In Jackson’s case, he uses his position as President to intimidate dissenters, for example, in the O’Neil affair he unreasonably fires members of his Cabinet that disagree with him. Presently, I see this common trend of demagoguery still exists in our government. Although Farrakhan appears to have come far from his anti-white speeches, he still had heavy influence over the African American community during that time. Farrakhan’s anti-white and anti-semitic views remind me of Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant views that has helped him gain influence as a presidential candidate. Trump and other politicians exploit Americans’ fear of terrorism and unemployment to direct the blame toward a certain group of people. In turn, he then creates a seemingly plausible solution to the issue, such as banning Muslims, to make Americans feel like something is being done. In the end, these individuals are just harnessing their followers in order to gain power.

[ireiya-blog]

Tumblr Post 6-Reiya Iyub

The Gulf War of 1991 was a war largely between the United States along with their allies in the United Nations, and Iraq. It began as a result of Iraq’s President, Saddam Hussein, invading and seizing its neighboring country of Kuwait. This caused alarm among the countries allied in the United Nations because they feared Iraq would go after its real target of Saudi Arabia, which would mean that Iraq would gain control over 50 percent of the world’s oil. The United Nations condemned the invasion, and agreed that if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait, they would take further action by launching an “international operation” against Iraq. The real war began when relentless Iraq maintained positions in Kuwait. The United Nations agreed that the United States and Britain would be the major driving forces behind the war. The war was mainly one-sided, with the U.S. and its allies having a greater advantage over Iraq a majority of the time. It began in January of 1991 and ended in a few, short weeks with the United States weakening the Iraqi regime, liberating Kuwait, and ultimately scoring a victory for the United Nations.

The documentary’s angle was focused on analyzing the play-by-play events involved in both sides of the conflict. The film placed heavy emphasis on how communication, weaponry, and strategy led to the the the effects of the war. It was interesting to see how two nations with large armies, strong military leaders, and advanced weaponry went about the war. The war was full of anticipation, calculation, and retaliation. The film laid out the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. The Iraqi army’s strength lied in its chemical gases that posed a constant threat to the U.S. army. The American army’s strength rested in its advanced technology, such as its F1-17 stealth bombers that were undetectable by radar. What I enjoyed most about the film was the way that it depicted the animation of the war throughout various points. Rather than explaining what a “left hook” was, I was actually able to see how it was carried out. Moreover, rather than being told about how difficult it was for U.S. troops in the critical conditions, I was shown a demonstration of how stressful it was for a soldier to participate in combat with a gas mask. I believe these things gave a more accurate representation of what the Gulf War was really like.

Although the film strived to show both sides of the conflict, there was a bias towards the United Nations side over Iraq’s side. Perhaps this is due to the fact that this was a British documentary. While it was only a slight bias, it showed in the way that the film portrayed the Iraqis. Their acts in the film were described as “violent” and shown in a negative light. In reality, both sides inflicted a lot of damage in the war. The Iraqi army did so with use of missiles, and the U.S. army did so with use of the its stealth bombers in its air campaign. However, the Iraqi attacks were shown in a more severe manner than American attacks. For example, when instances such as the American stealth bombers mistakenly bombing civilian bunkers in Iraq happened, the film redirected the situation by discussing the media representation of the tragedy. When Iraq launched a missile on Israel that caused destruction but no deaths, the film emphasized the violence of the Iraqis. I felt like there should have been more time dedicated to covering the Iraqi side of the war to allow for a more neutral look on the war. Another thing that would have been helpful in gaining the full picture of the war would be personal interviews from both U.S. and Iraqi troops, commanders, and civilians.  

The biggest thing that I was able to take away from the documentary is that much more plays into the outcome of a war than we think. There’s more to winning a war than a military having ample resources at one’s disposal. It is careful calculation and coordination, among other things, that goes into achieving the desired effect of certain tactics. I was able to see how this common trend has continued from what our class has discussed in the War of 1812, all the way until the Gulf War of 1991. For example, in 1812 following another failed invasion of Canada, the British retaliate by invading Detroit and getting the state to surrender using deceptive tactic to intimidate the Americans into thinking their army was larger than it actually was. Similarly, in the actual ground combat of the war of 1991, the commander in charge of American troops, Norman Schwarzkopf, employed a clever “left hook” tactic, in which he sent troops head-on into the Iraqi defenses, while also having a massive army of troops attack from another direction. This plan, known as a “Masterpiece of Deception”, could not have been possible without the leadership of a strong commander, or without the coordinated efforts of the troops. Furthermore, resources and strategies were not the only things that influenced the war, but  propaganda and public opinion played its part. The documentary stressed how pivotal it was for Americans that public opinion supported the war, therefore the media displayed footage on the war as “bloodless” and very successful. They knew that the fear of another Vietnam War was lurking in the minds of every American, and confirming this fear would only jeopardize America’s involvement in the Gulf War. This proves that even the most miniscule details were critical to certain outcomes in the war.

From the information presented in the documentary, I concluded that the U.S. was justified in its participation in the Gulf War. America’s participation was in the best interest of many other nations, not just its own. Iraq’s aggression jeopardized almost half of the world’s oil supply. If the U.S. and other countries in the United Nations allowed Iraq to obtain control of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, who knows what destruction may have resulted? The United Nations also gave Iraq ample opportunity to discuss a non-violent solution before going to war. I also think America was also the nation that could stand the greatest chance against Iraq’s regime because of its experience in war, its technology, and its resources overall. In this war, America fought with and/or on the behalf of many countries, which is a justified reason enough for its entry into the war.

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya Iyub-Tumblr Post 5

The documentary “Untold Women Who Changed the World” shed light on the movement behind what enables women to have the rights that they do today. The film highlighted all of the progress and setbacks involved in fighting for women to have equal rights in the United States. The documentary did so by featuring accounts of the women who were involved in the process to re-live their stories for the audience. Starting from the birth of the feminist movement, the film explores a multitude of reactions and effects of milestones in the feminist movement. These include events that fall under the umbrella of the feminist movement such as the Women’s Health Movement, the American Sexual Revolution, the representation of women in politics, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), introduction of Title IX, and especially the controversial subject of abortion. All of these events played a pivotal role in the history of women’s rights.

Had it not been for the women and the events depicted in the film, where would I be right now? The film forced me to re-evaluate all of the effort that went into giving me the privileges that I currently have. In doing this, I realized that I underestimated the power of the feminist movement. I never really considered that there were abortion clinics burned down after the legalization of abortion, or how marriages were severely impacted by the introduction of feminism. The documentary included a nice dynamic of interviews such as couples whose relationships changed as a result of the movement, interviews with female political leaders, and interviews with planned parenthood advisors. Many of the women in the videos reminded me of the women that support me through my scholarship, Support Our Scholars. The scholarship sponsors young women’s college education every year because they believe that once you educate a woman, you educate a generation. I think this empowerment of women is what encompasses a major part of the feminist movement. We see this evident when women gathered to campaign in favor of the ERA. I enjoyed how the documentary showed us how strong women can be if the stand together to support what they believe in.

I felt like the documentary did have a bias towards pro-feminism. Although the film did a good job portraying both the light and dark parts of the feminist movement, it definitely highlighted the brighter moments and downcasted the darker moments. For instance, the Conservative woman, Phyllis Schaffley, that led the movement against the passing of the ERA, was shown in a negative light. She was portrayed as a “hypocrite” because her lifestyle as a female campaign leader was the lifestyle that women supporting the ERA were fighting for. The successes in her campaign carried a disappointing, melancholic mood in the documentary, whereas the successes of the feminists were more celebratory.

I noticed that the documentary heavily focused on some topics more than others. Abortion was a topic that was revisited multiple times throughout the film. The film covered all aspects of abortion, including its very early roots when abortion had to be administered outside of the U.S., up until the aftershocks of the Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion. Something that I felt like should have been covered more in depth is the double standards between men and women. I know that this is an issue constantly addressed by today’s feminists. For instance, women often note the discrepancy between how women are judged for their sexuality, whereas men are praised for their sexuality. The film could have included this in its brief introduction of the American Sexual Revolution because it would have shown the other, less positive side to the Revolution. I think this emphasizes that even if progress has been made to give women rights, there are still setbacks. It also shows how sensitive feminism is, and that change is not going to come over night. It’s a process full of ups and downs.

My question for the director is: If the documentary were to continue in addressing the feminist movement today, what topics would be emphasized?

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya Iyub-Tumblr Post 4

There is no doubt that there is a small, but significant, difference between religious liberty and religious freedom. While both phrases denote the same things: the right for individuals to practice their religion without oppression, they do carry different connotations. Religious liberty is used in the context that an individual has the right to resist certain practices due to their religious beliefs, while religious freedom is more used to defend an individual’s right to hold certain beliefs without being persecuted. Furthermore, whereas religious liberty is more commonly associated with defending Christianity, religious freedom is more so related to defending other minority religions.This explains why many conservative Christians business owners that are targeted for their refusal serve certain customers on account of their religion, feel as if their right to religious liberty is being threatened; it also explains why those who are against law that protect conservative Christians feel as if their right to religious freedom is being abandoned. So which side should the government rule in favor of: religious freedom, or religious liberty? The real question is: Should a side be favored?

The articles and videos dealing with religious freedom and religious liberty seeks to answer the question above. Religious liberty defenders feel attacked when certain laws require them to accommodate things that they are uncomfortable with due to religious beliefs. For instance, the conservative Christian craft store, Hobby Lobby, resisted the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide contraceptives to its workers by referencing an infringement on their religious liberty. Religious freedom defenders feel forsaken when certain laws restrict individuals who have other convictions. The law passed in Indiana as an extension to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that makes it acceptable for business owners to refuse customers on the basis of religious reasons, has been criticized for encouraging discrimination. One can see that among the conflict between religious freedom and religious liberty, there is also a conflict between religion and the law.

Something that I noted in the articles and videos discussing these issues, was that both sides threaten genuine religious freedom or liberty in the process of trying to defend it. Although I believe in tolerance of all types of people and faiths, I do not believe that it should be forced upon anyone. After watching “The Rebel” commander, Ezra Levant, share his views on the hypocrisy in protecting religious freedom, I began to understand the perspectives of those in support of religious liberty a bit better. At the beginning, I agreed that religious freedom was being abandoned in support of those protecting religious liberty because I did not see how certain laws that worked to protect minority religions affected the conservative Christians. I agreed when Levant stated that a person should not be forced by law to support anything against their religious beliefs, such as employers being forced to pay for contraceptives for their employees that go against their religious beliefs. To coerce someone participate in something against what they strongly believe in is not protecting their right to practice their religion. However, I disagreed with the Indiana law that makes it acceptable for business owners to turn customers away due to religious reasons. The Daily Show reporter was justified when stating that this is an approval for discrimination. If this law were to take effect, then this would cause widespread discrimination of people of all backgrounds, such as Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. The Syrian Refugee ban that was discussed in our class was similar to this law in the sense that it encouraged discrimination against those of Muslim backgrounds. It is at the forefront of the government responsibility to protect every individual’s civil rights, even with matters of religion involved. As Clinton so promptly stated, “There should be a space between government and religion”. I furthermore agree with the Daily Show reporter in his analogy of when the Bible was used to justify slavery because it shows, yet again, that the core values of our government should triumph in these cases. In the end, I believe that if the government wants truly wants to use the terms “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” interchangeably, then they should establish laws that protect both sides, not laws in favor of one over the other. No law should force an individual to do something they do not agree to based on religious grounds, nor should any law allow the right to discriminate against another person.

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya-Tumblr Post 3

The ongoing Syrian Refugee crisis has caused a divide in both the American public and American government. Several articles and videos have shown that while some believe that the U.S. should welcome the Syrian refugees with open arms, many others believe that we should ban the refugees altogether. There are concerns about terrorism, crime, and the security policies involved in screening refugees. For instance, politician Ted Cruise proposes that if we do allow refugees, then only Christian Syrian refugees should be permitted by conducting some sort of a religious test, citing that there are no traces of ISIS in other denominations but Islam. Those that call for banning all Syrian refugees propose that Americans’ safety comes first by referencing catastrophes such as the Paris attacks, and statistics of the high crime rate among refugees who are already settled here. Yet still, opening our borders to Syrian refugees brings other issues as well. There is controversy surrounding what policies should be implemented in the background screening refugees, and even the concerns about the lack of rigour in the border policies of our allies. Specifically, Canada’s “fast track” policy to adopt 25,000 new refugees has caused alarm among the U.S. Senate, being that the U.S. and Canada are so closely related by their shared border. Another issue is the difficult process of resettling refugees in the U.S. by resettlement agencies. In the face of it all, the Syrian refugees cling to this glimmer of hope as they bare through the critical conditions of the refugee camps.

I liked how the articles and videos portrayed the diverse opinions regarding the Syrian refugee crisis. I was really able to see the different sides of the issues, and I was able to relate to each one. The video about the Syrian family that resettled in the U.S. really struck a chord with me because it reminded me of when my family and I first moved from Guyana when I was four years old. Similar to the family in the video, my parents wanted a better life for us. Also like the refugees, we were submerged in a culture so different from our own, but today I can say that I identify with many Americans. Going through this has allowed me to empathize with the refugees, and see them in another light. I noticed that some politicians and Americans expressed concerns about what place the refugees have in the U.S., but we have seen and heard it done many times where immigrants assimilated into a new culture. It can be done. On the other hand, I understood where those that propose a ban on refugees are coming from. As an American, I am concerned genuinely about our security policies. Letting such a large number of Syrian refugees in poses a threat because in a crowd so large, we can never be too sure about who we are letting in. That is why our border and screening policies must be so diligent.

While some of the arguments in the video were justified, there were some comments made by politicians that I disagreed with. One of which was the comment made by Ted Cruise that we should ban all Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the country, especially by conducting a religious test to distinguish the Muslim refugees. I found that particularly offensive because it was almost as if he was implying that Muslims are terrorists, which is not true because terrorists can affiliate with any religion. Coming from a family of Islamic background, I find opinions like these unsettling. It would be one thing if he was proposing that due to the security concerns Syrian refugees should be banned, but it is another thing when he isolated a specific group of the refugees. I would have actually have to agree with Donald Trumph that we do not know who among the groups of refugees are Muslim or Christian, however I only partially agree with his statement that “We do not know them” when referring to the refugees. It is true that we really do not know who we are letting in, but that is also true of anyone coming into the U.S. Terrorists can pose as any group of people, even a reporter in the video references terrorists posing as French citizens in the Paris attacks. This is why security procedures should be strict overall, for any group of people, to ensure our country’s safety.

There are several parallels between the Syrian refugee crisis and what we are learning in class about the thirteen colonies. A major similarity is between the Puritans in the Great Migration and the Syrians in this refugee crisis. Both groups were driven out of their own countries and forced to resettle elsewhere in places so different from their own. Another uniformity is this lack of tolerance that still persists today. For instance, Charles I  of England persecuted other religious groups that did not practice the beliefs of the church of England, and among these groups, the Puritans went on to persecute those who did not follow their Puritan doctrine. That relates to the intolerance that some Americans have towards other groups of people, such as Muslims. The fear of terrorism that plagues our nation can even be comparable to modern-day Salem Witch Trials; people pointing fingers at groups of people who have different beliefs.

What caused me to react most strongly is the comment made by the Pennsylvania governor that we must realize that Syrian refugees are trying to escape the same terror that we are facing. The reporter in the video also stated that many of the attacks by ISIS have been done at mosques, and against the same group of people that we are labeling as terrorists. This depicts the reality of the misconceptions among both American citizens and the American government alike. Until these are resolved, there can be no real progress in this Syrian refugee crisis.

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya Tumblr Post 2

The documentary, American Red and Black: Stories of Afro-Native Identity, sheds light on the struggles that Afro-Natives currently face with being associated with these ethnic backgrounds. Coming from two of the racial and ethnic backgrounds that have overcome, and are still overcoming, so much has made life anything but easy for these individuals. Their personal stories reveal the racism and stereotypes associated with being dual heritage, especially with being Native American descent. These individuals are forced to embrace one or the other of their dual heritage, and often face people trying to tell them who they are. As a result, many of the people in the film are on a quest to keep their Native American culture alive by learning more about where they come from, and preserving some of the core values of their culture.

The film overall did justice in depicting what it is like being an Afro-Native in today’s day and age. I liked how the filmmakers featured the stories of a variety of people from the Afro-Native background, including Sequoyah, Makah, Muscogee, and other Native American tribes. More significantly, they all identified with their heritage in different ways. Some were more in touch with their Native American Heritage, while others were more in touch with their African American Heritage; some were very informed of their Native American lineage, while others knew very little of their background. I felt like this was important because it showed that Afro-Natives from different backgrounds were similar in the problems that they encountered. I also found it interesting that the film portrayed the racism, oppression, and stereotyping of Afro-Natives among the Native American community, African American community, and the general public alike. For instance, the woman in the film from the Muskogee Creek community spoke of this community being insensitive to her African American heritage. In another instance, the woman faced the African American community being judgmental about some of her Native American traditions. The general public in essence were either ignorant of the Afro-Native culture, or were trying to suppress it altogether. As a result, many of the individuals of Afro-Native descent were driven to save their heritage in face of this resistance, but some did succumb to the pressure associated with their Native background. The dynamic stories in this documentary were pivotal in giving us insight into the plight of Afro-Natives.

As mentioned before, the documentary did a great job of including individuals from different Afro-Native backgrounds, who had different experiences with being dual heritage. I think this is what eliminated a lot of the bias in the film. The only slant that I noticed was that the film focused more on the Native American heritages of the Afro-Native identities, rather than the African American heritages as well. I felt as if it would have been more powerful if the individuals in the film were asked to share some of their African American backgrounds because it would have shown the correlation between the circumstances that both cultures faced. I know that the film was mainly meant to shed light on the complex issues that Native Americans faced, but the film was also supposed to portray to the audience why the combination of these two heritages caused these complex issues.

Although the documentary touched base on a lot of things, I believe that it should have educated the audience more on why the Natives are facing these issues. The documentary only shows what the Natives are going through, not why they are going through it. It doesn’t answer one of the most important of the 5 W’s: Why? For instance, one of the men in the film shared his personal story of his own family, his teachers, and even trained professionals trying to convince him that he was a black man, when he is in fact mixed heritage. Viewers are left wondering: What has driven his family to embrace their African American heritage, and reject their Native American heritage? Perhaps it is society’s prejudices against Native Americans has played its part. I believe that the filmmakers did not make it a point to enlighten the audience on some of these reasons because they assume that the audience already has a general picture, and wants the viewers to develop their own hypotheses. However, this missed detail is important in fully understanding the magnitude of what Afro-Natives are going through.

[ireiya-blog]

Reiya Tumblr Post 1

I have lost track of the amount of times that I have taken an American history course over the past couple of years. Four, perhaps five times? I had the high school football coach that tried to cram a semester’s worth of AP American Government into one month; the senior class coordinator that assigned students to read the textbook during class and take their own notes; the bored teacher that read straight off of the power point slides. You could say that I have experienced it all, yet after all of these years I find myself taking this course again. However, I decided that history is worth giving another chance. I am optimistic that this time around I will be engaged and inspired enough to actually enjoy the course.

You would suppose that after taking so many American history courses over the past couple of years, I would know our nation’s history like the back of my hand. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. I know no more history than the average high school freshman. I think a significant part of this is due to the fact that I have never had meaningful learning experiences with history. My teachers championed the use of rote memorization. While I did learn a lot of information this way, it still didn’t mean anything to me, and therefore I forgot most of what I learned later on.

I realize that American history is not one of those courses that you think, “This does not apply to me at all”, or a course that you question, “When am I going to use this?”. Learning history allows us to gain insight into past events, and allows us to form our own judgments based on those events. We are able to see the connections and discrepancies between the past and present. Most importantly, we learn that history is in the making; it keeps going on. I recognize that I may not be someone that students read about in their history books one hundred years from now, but I know that the events that I come across everyday will be part of history. For instance, there is a lot of controversy today surrounding police brutality, especially among African Americans. Many Americans compare this to police brutality in the 1960’s. Everyday I come across these occurrences in the news or hear accounts of these instances, and I am able draw my own conclusions on these matters. That is exactly what history teaches us to do; contemplate past events in order to determine their place in the present. I realize that one day when I’m old and wrinkly, I may even be a living historical account of how life was during my time.

I read a historic and science fiction novel, Kindred by Octavia Butler, many years ago and remembered absolutely enjoying it. It was about an African American woman in the 1980s who was transported back in time to the 1800s on a Maryland plantation where her ancestors lived. Each time she is transported, she is gone for a longer period of time, and is forced to make a way of life in a place and time so different from her own. I love how the main character is much like the average person; someone who never really considered where she came from. The experience gives her a newfound appreciation of her roots, and gives her a sense of connection to those times. It also brings to life issues such as slavery and discrimination. Another piece of historical fiction that I was introduced to is the movie Twelve Years a Slave, which is very similar to Kindred. It tells a story of a free man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the years prior to the Civil War. Both pieces illustrate the main characters being thrust into a life that isn’t their own, but show how the characters become a part of it. These pieces of historical fiction further depict the wonderful lesson that history teaches: how we are connected to the past more than we think we are.