RDHGR 1.0 @rddidit-blog - Tumblr Blog

Globalisation and Human Rights

The question put forth, concerning the impact of globalization on human rights is not one that can be answered, for the most part, and has two sides to it, as does every other topic. In many cases, globalization has rescued humanity from the downfalls it faces, but has also been the cause of many of those circumstances. As an example, Portugal’s slavery abolition act in 1542 proved the first of many for European for many years to come. That spread throughout Europe and the Americas, and in the long run, slavery was abolished. In such a case, globalization played a significant role in ensuring the end of slavery. However, we must also remember- globalization was the very cause of slavery, in the first place. Had various European powers refrained from indulging in their quest for world dominance, there would be no slavery.

Economically, it is fair to say that globalization is positively impactful for wealthy, developed nations, much more so than it is for those that are developing. Globalization is a system that keeps the poor poorer, and makes the rich richer. For example, because of the high demand for labour in third world countries, wealthier nations are able to exploit poorer nations, and find cheap labour within. For example, when looking at the United States of America, a nation that takes up 5% of the world’s population, yet uses up to 25% of the world’s resources is a clear indication of the division between the rich and poor. The rich will stay rich, and the poor will stay poor. With an organisation such as the IMF, a system initiated purely because of globalisation, we see the USA control 16% of it. The IMF was an organisation made to help nations develop, and simultaneously eradicate poverty globally. However, we see underdeveloped nations that are crippled and indebted to the IMF, simply because they attempted to rise from poverty. The United Nations, for example, was brought to maintain peace and harmony throughout the world, but is still essentially run by global powers. Such examples are clear indications of how “worldly” systems almost inevitably end up being run by global powers.

Equally, globalisation has brought about trade that has provided numerous jobs and has increased revenues for every nation globally. There is trade between many various nations worldwide, and it is fair to say that every nation needs other nations for stability, these days. Trade is one positive, but is also one negative. Trade created interdependency between many nations, and is responsible for the divide between the rich and poor- again. For example, it is much easier to exploit poorer nations through trade, by putting on the illusion of ‘helping.’ Ghana- a nation that only recently discovered oil makes less than 15% of revenue from oil drilling. Because of globalisation, the Ghanaian government imports chickens, chocolates and bananas. Because Ghana must rely on wealthier nations for some reason whatsoever, the country imports the very things that it produces. Why should a nation that was once the top cocoa producer globally be importing chocolate? Yet there is still a fair-trade symbol implanted on the packaging? If such things were in the world’s best interest, less developed countries such as Ghana would not be relying on other nations for the very things that are right under their noses.

Globalisation- as a whole cannot be put on a scale to determine its impact, but through a humanitarian perspective, it has failed for what it once promised. Globalisation should promote a system in which all the worlds economies flourish, but it will never be that simple. For the rich to be rich, there need to be poor people. There will be no rich if there is no poor. Simultaneously, if the poor become rich, the definition of rich must change. Everybody stays ‘normal,’ until somebody begins to manipulate others and build up riches on the foundation of exploitation. Globalisation has brought forth a lot of good in the world, and has brought up many nations, but it is not to forget that in many of those cases, it has initially brought up those circumstances. It is not fair to give a final answer on whether globalisation has had a positive or negative impact on the world. The answer to the question remains indefinite. However, because this is a question and it requires an answer, the most prominent choice in my

The Scramble for Africa: A Right or Wrong Dealing

Despite the fact that the occurrence of the ‘scramble for Africa’ occurred centuries ago, its shadow looms large, and is most certainly still existent in our world today. Today, we see traces of European culture in Africa, previous generation Africans claiming different nationalities as a result of the slave trade, and some may say- the ‘underdevelopment’ of many African nations. Previous African culture has been changed in seemingly unimaginable ways, with the adoption of western languages, the institution of non-African surnames and even religious values- for that matter. In Mozambique- Portuguese has been institutionalized as the official language, in Nigeria, English, and in Togo- French. In addition, foreign investors and governments monopolize major institutions in Africa, to the disadvantage of many African natives. Then again, Africans have been forced to accept such a reality, considering the economical and numerical shortcomings that the continent was made to face during this time period, thus creating the conclusion that the ‘scramble for Africa’ was in fact the worst possible way to deal with the continent. In actual fact, there was absolutely no way to deal with the continent- there was no need to ‘deal’ with it. Such a statement is only true because- Africa is not for one man to ‘deal’ with, or for one nation to ‘deal’ with. Africa is solely for Africa to deal with, unless in cry for foreign intervention. The way in which European nations went about playing a game of cards over the continent was wicked, illicit and unbeneficial. Such a time period only brought about the decrease of African population by eleven million, the economic deferment Africa still faces today, and simply the perception that Africans are inferior. Though it was centuries and decades ago, there are still detrimental, non-beneficial effects on Africa, which can still be seen today. Regardless of whether African culture was different or seen as less 'civilised', the scramble for Africa was a cycle including colonising multiple tribes, setting borders, assuming responsibility for the nation's economy, education, culture and trade, and ultimately, leaving the nation to fend for themselves, with the lost knowledge of proper ruling and democracy. After most African countries gained independence, they were left with no resources and little idea of how to run a country, and are currently still suffering from it. It was not only pre-colonisation or during colonisation that Africa was dealt with wrongly. Ever since independence, the world does not want Africa to know it can be independent. For to make a 'United States of Africa' like Kwame Nkrumah, Haile Selassie, Muammar Ghadaffi and Jomo Kenyatta tried to do would most likely mean the rise of the underdogs- Africa's global domination on every stage. It was in everyone's best interest to monopolise Africa from start to finish, as a means of prestige, power, kingdom expansion, and more recently, just simply to keep Africa where it is. Letting Africans understand that they could once again rule themselves akin to the likes of Tshaka the Zulu or King Jaja- that they could use their own natural resources, the brains of their very own would only be the last page of Africa's underdevelopment. In terms of achieving what I have just explained, the scramble for Africa was a brilliant means, however, for the good of the continent, it was the worst thing possible for Africa.

This week, I must say, I have made sufficient progress on my chair sculpture. I say sufficient, because I have made satisfactory progress, although I do know I could have made much more. I completed the base for my stocking sculptures, and am yet to cover the wire, as well as starting the designing and painting of my actual chair sculpture. I must admit, this was the week in which I faced the most challenges, because it brought me to the realisation that what I had planned to do initially was extremely difficult, and I would have to be extremely focused and dedicated to complete it successfully. I began painting, only to my frustration that it was extremely hard for me to paint straight lines and smooth patterns, which caused me to re-paint multiple times. The sculpture looks okay as of now, but I do understand that I will have to dedicate extra studio time if I want to create my chair successfully and with quality. In the past few weeks, I have not made as much progress as I would have liked, but I am 100% sure I will in the coming couple of weeks. According to my five-week plan, I am not exactly on track, however, as I said, it will take extra studio time, which I will use to create an aesthetically appealing chair with finesse and quality.

livetolearnandlearntolive-blog

Begin the Conversation

The power of speech can transcend tension

The beauty of discourse reveals our insecurities

The curiosity of relationships bridges differences

No longer can we fear the ‘other’

We live in a time of connection, correction and clarity

Peeling away the layers of...

rddidit-blog

I completely disagree with the fact that communication can bring about world peace. Despite the Treaty of Versailles, to the annual G20 summits, to the Treaty of Lisbon, no matter what we do, there will NEVER be world peace. When Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, they went into debt, and the infamous Adolf Hitler came about. It is said that the pen is 1000 times mightier than the sword, but that statement is completely untrue. Our communication and word- filled pacts usually turn into violence and conflict. No matter how much we communicate, history and philosophy shows that we will NEVER find total peace on the face of this earth.

jassemh

Since 1945 wars have been decreasing over the years and scientists have noticed that a pattern does occur as overtime there will be no more feud and instead peace will be restored in the world. This ay is possible but the simplest and slightest sparks may cause more violence, which may cause a...

rddidit-blog

I must say, I completely disagree with the fact that you see the feasibility of the prospect of a world with complete peace. For the most part, you mention that it is near impossible, but that is where I believe you are mistake. It is impossible. Everybody has a different perspective of peace, whether it be eliminating people distant from your cause, seizing war, or even creating war. Our diversity and our seemingly un-robotlike characteristics ensure that we will never achieve the worlds multi-millenium ongoing quest to reach the zeitgeist of present and historical world peace.

This documentary is a study as to whether it is a realistic possibility to obtain and maintain a world without conflict. It focuses on three aspects of society- a political, philosophical and religious.

gaddiel888

2013 was a year of development and realisation for me. We are often told that the teenage years are when you become who you will be in life. I feel that last year, I developed myself in this way as I am gradually becoming what is now referred to as my future self. As I have grown both physically...

rddidit-blog

I certainly do agree that saying no is something everybody has to do once in a while, despite the fact that it could ultimately upset people you care about.

New Year.... Same Old Me

I must say, 2013 was like any other year to me, nothing special. Now, the only thing I can do is look into the future with a viable plan. Although change is inevitable, it still is, and will always be the same me. i certainly do have some things I would like to achieve in 2014, although I would never comprehend the way in which society is desperate for what they believe is a clean slate (the new year) to make a change. If you have a dream, aspiration, plan or resolution, why wait for the new year? The only difference between 2013 and 2014 is 31 December 2013, 11:59:59 PM, and 1 January 2014, 12:00:00 AM. Yes, the month changes, the day changes and the year changes, but why can't one simply decide to change in merely one minute. Why not make an instantaneous decision to change? It takes one second to change, not a whole year. Though I may have a seemingly uncommon view on this topic, I do have my own ambitions and plans.

They include having less tolerance towards stupidity, whilst handling such events with a calmer demeanour. Although I would like to change that, I also do feel as though there is a certain aggression, intensity and fire within me, that does make my who I am. I would also like to set and achieve high educational standards for myself, which is a goal I constantly set for my self. Reflecting back on the year 2013, I wouldn't say I surprised myself, with the sole reason being the fact that I know myself too well to surprise myself. I would say I was a bold person during 2013, when I decided to have a more laid back yet rightly intolerant approach (to certain things, people and attitudes). I however used those two approaches at different times, when each was necessary. 2014, however is a year in which I am going to be serious, honest, hard-working, appropriately aggressive as well as making a conscious attempt to have a calmer demeanour (although it will certainly be challenging). The way I see it, the only way for me to accomplish the goals I have set for myself, is to think, and constantly play out the consequences and benefits of various circumstances, to make better choices. At the end of 2014, the word I want to use to describe my year would be 'SUCCESSFULL'

"Being angry is punishing yourself because of somebody else's stupidity."

Digital Nation: A Response

In the Digital Nation documentary we watched in class, I thought of the Korean governments’ efforts to eliminate “digital addictions” as redundant and impractical, as I view the problem more as a conscious decision to stay glued to gadgets, rather than an addiction. At a part in the documentary, when asked if rehab would change his lifestyle, he rather scoffed the question, by declaring its insignificance to his life. Such a way to eliminate digital ‘addiction’ was most certainly wrong in my opinion, possibly because the participants felt it wasn’t an addiction, and quite rightly so. That point of view certainly played down the significance of the issue, and had the Korean government gone about it in a different way, results could have proved more effective. My theory as to why rehab didn’t work, was that because it wasn’t an addiction, but rather a constant, conscious effort to choose gadgets over other aspects of life, that could not be “cured” through rehab. It was a chosen lifestyle for the people, and forcing them out of it proved an unfeasible strategy.

Had the Korean government run campaigns against the issue, counseling and simply presenting other ways to go about life. The method they used only made the participants long for the restoration of their digital privileges. I felt it was right for the government to intervene, as it should be in their best interest to make Korea a better place, but they also should have realized that it was more of a home issue, and it would rather take a conscious effort from people, rather than rehabilitation, that was most-likely abhorred amongst the participants. The government plays a massive role in restoring the sanity and rationality of its citizens, however I feel this is too minor an issue for the government to take part in, but rather a home-issue, that should involve family, and in more extreme cases, a counselor. The resolution for this issue needs the setting of ground rules from parents and people in authoritative roles, and a conscious effort from people affected by this issue, to focus on more important things.

Syria Crisis: Tension Settled- Or Not?

During the past three weeks in which I chose to follow the conflict between Syria, Russia and the USA, I learned a lot of information, despite the fact that I was previously well-aware of the issue. In that space of time, the major point of discussion was when Bashar Al-Assad was accused of attacking his own people with chemicals by US president, Barack Obama. In opposition, both Vladimir Putin and Bashar Al-Assad turned the blame towards Syrian terrorists, leading to Obama’s threat to Syria, proposing that he would perform a strike on Syria, in order to correct Assad’s corrupt, unethical regime. During those three weeks, I learned about Vladimir Putin’s stance on the issue, Barack Obama’s stance on the issue, and Bashar Al-Assad’s stance on the issue, as well as English Prime Minister David Cameron’s stance on the affair, in which he chose to be neutral, much to everyone’s dismay. After the annual G20 Summit hosted in Saint-Petersburg, US president and secretary of state Barack Obama and John Kerry, delivered an ultimatum to Syria, which was later retracted following Vladimir Putin’s involvement. Barack Obama had asked Assad to give up all chemical weaponry to be destroyed, and as Putin stepped in, he claimed to have the issue under control. After this story had emerged from the news, as of now, it has looked to be non-present from the news, as there is little productivity concerning the issue.

My understanding of the issue during these weeks hasn’t necessarily changed, although my predictions did not come true. After having been aware of upcoming issue years before this, the issue has only become more complex, but has not changed my understanding of it. At the time of my previous blog posts, there was a lot of tension concerning the matter, although it has seemed to calm down in the past days. Vladimir Putin took control of the issue, and since then, no significant news regarding the issue has emerged. My predictions weeks ago were for the US to perform a strike on Syria themselves, after Barack Obama and John Kerry made it absolutely clear to the world where they stood, and their discrepancy for Bashar Al-Assad’s administration. However, the issue, as I mentioned has seemed to be tranquilized, and no significant or controversial stories have arisen.

During this particular media bias unit, I feel as though I still use the same news sources, seeing as I have been using them for years. Personally, I am often opposed to change, however, I am able to recognize bias much easier currently, because it has been planted in my head how, where and when to look for bias in the media. I often found that the main types of media biased that were being used in the broadcasts I watched, articles I read and videos I watched were consistently appeal to nationalism, conservatism and word choice. The news sources I utilised were CNN, BBC and SkyNews, which all seemed to be opposed towards Vladimir Putin, and biased towards Barack Obama and the USA. I felt as though this was because of the recent comments made by Vladimir Putin about The UK being a “small island that nobody paid any attention to,” thus sparking an opposition with SkyNews and BBC. Apart from that, CNN is a trusted network, and seeing as it is situated in the USA, I would have expected them to be biased, which they were. These news sources often criticised Vladimir Putin, and were obligated to justify Barack Obama’s argument, in making a chemical strike seem a legitimate option to put an end to the predicament and civil war. The word choice epitomized Vladimir Putin as a villain, war-promoter and liar, portraying Barack Obama as a guardian angel for Syria, only attempting to do the right thing. There was a definite nationalistic approach to the majority of articles and broadcasts I saw and read, seeing as I usually listen to news in favour of countries such as the USA and England, who have strong political ties. Thus, it makes sense that news corporations from those countries would be incriminating Vladimir Putin in order to enable their countries to see (Especially the USA) that their governments have valid claims as to what they are doing and why.

I thought it was interesting that after I listened to any news after, I felt I had to judge everything that came across the radio or the television screen, due to my recent experience in monitoring media bias. I was able to look at news stations with more of a critical eye, and I was able to catch bias in the news much easier. From then on, when I watched or listened to the news, I subconsciously looked out for bias, and was able to recognize, much easier than before. Something strange about the concepts is the possibility that me not recognizing bias as straightforwardly in the past meant I was naïve. However, I know for certain that I have developed sharp eyes and ears for bias in the news and in media, and I will most likely continue to do so. One very interesting thing I found whilst tracking an issue was the fact that every news station had a nationalistic approach depending on what country they are situated in. Firstly, I thought that whatever news station I watched, concerning this project or not, every broadcast section had an appeal to nationalism. For example, SkyNews continued to broadcast England’s achievements, economic stability and rising stock markets, in order to assure the citizens that their economic situation, which they were recently worried about, had been solved. There were stories about positive stock market changes, pension reforms and the rise of the UK’s various industries, from fashion outlets to cars. CNN, on the other hand, constantly praised the USA, and always backed Obama’s opinions, obviously, opposing Vladimir Putin’s. There was the constant use of words such as “Putin jabs the US,” or “Putin Playing Good Guy.” I was quite intrigued by the use of this specific form of bias, because no matter what news station, that is the type that has stood out to me the most. This, of course, brings up the question, “Are the most trusted news corporations legitimate and true to audiences around the globe.”

Putin VS Lennard- "Plea for Caution"

In a recent article posted on the New York Times, Russian president Vladimir Putin introduced a “Plea for Caution from Russia,” which was directed towards the American politicians and people. Putin used his article as an opportunity to get the American public to see the Syrian chemical crisis in his eyes. In order to persuade people, however, Mr. Putin absolutely had to be biased. The forms of bias he used included word choice, appeal to nationalism, conservatism and story framing, which were all to persuade readers that U.S president Barack Obama’s plan to perform a strike on Syria was only going to influence violence and terrorism. The whole time through, Putin presented only his argument, although he added some facts. Those facts, however, were examples of wars in the past, that would aid him in convincing people to be on his side. One example of this was when Putin wrote, “No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.” In this statement, Putin indicated that a chemical strike would completely destroy the purpose of the United Nations; similar to what happened to the League of Nations, formed after World War 2, which then lead to World War 2. In addition to that, Putin mentioned the way in which the US and Russia were able to recover from the tensions in the Cold War, to joining forces to defeat Hitler’s Nazis. This particular example was used to show the American public that Putin was willing to work with the U.S, allowing them to see the cooperative and justice-seeking part of him and Russia as a whole. Using such examples was Putin’s attempt to show what a devastating, disastrous effect a strike on Syria would in return have on the world. Apart from this, the whole point of the article was to have an effect on nationalism, but in a completely different manner. In this article, Vladimir Putin’s point was to potentially turn citizens and supporters of the U.S.A against Barack Obama, by using all these various forms of bias. His word choice showed his condemnation of the plan to strike Syria, as he used words and expressions such as, “Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future,” “A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism and could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance,” and “relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together.” Associating Russia with words such as peaceful and associate the U.S with words such as relying solely on brute force and their potential to unleash a new wave of terrorism only epitomizes the U.S as disturbers of peace and supporters of violence, and Russia as supporters of peace and corks of violence. Writing from a conservative point of view (towards Russia), Putin failed to include certain aspects of the issue, such as the fact that Bashar Al-Assad used chemical weapons upon his own people. Instead, he only put forth the negative effects of a chemical strike, and rather turned the blame for Assad’s chemical strike elsewhere, towards other terrorist groups. He failed to mention all of the wrongs imposed on Syria by President Assad, and rather mentioned the fact that Russia’s sole purpose in this was to help Syria preserve a brighter future for their people and politicians. His article was blatantly biased towards Russia, seeing as the Russian president himself wrote it, and would have it no other way.

After Vladimir Putin wrote his “Plea for Caution from Russia” in the New York Times, a response was written by renowned journalist from Columbia University, Natasha Lennard. Lennard wrote in her article, about Putin’s plea, and showed, although not blatantly, that she felt Vladimir Putin was rather putting on an innocent, peaceful mask, to a vicious, scarred face. The different forms of bias used by Natasha Lennard were word choice, appeal to nationalism, conservatism and story framing. In her article, she used words and phrases such as, “Kremlin playing games,” “This is Putin playing the good guy,” “The Russian president framed the complex geopolitical quagmire,” and “Putin took direct aim at the language of American exceptionalism employed by the Obama administration.” By using such language, she clearly possesses a conservative view, and suggests that Vladimir Putin is playing good, when he really is the exact opposite, saying he framed the issue, and is attempting to hit a massive blow towards Barack Obama and the United States. Briefly, the point of Lennard’s article was to put forth the bias Vladimir Putin included in his piece, and in turn, wrote a rather biased article, completely condemning him and everything he wrote in his plea for caution. Her word choice and overall demeanor was against Vladimir Putin, rather supporting Obama’s decision. That, in all created a sense of nationalism for Americans, as Lennard completely downplayed all of Putin’s claims and views. Her point of view was certainly conservative, as she clearly supported Barack Obama, and rather insulted Vladimir Putin’s point of view. This view played a massive, dominant part in her article, and completely limited the debate, as she presented only one side- the conservative, nationalistic side. Her word choice and demeanor played a vital role in maintaining her point of view. The evidence for this is her portraying Putin as a liar. In my opinion, both articles are extremely biased, and rightly so, seeing as they are both attempting to prove two extremely different things.

Personally, I found Vladimir Putin’s article far more interesting, seeing as I have previously followed him in the news. I also felt as though his article was sort of a cover-up, to make him seem more peaceful, although the explosive side to him came out, when he stated that Barack Obama’s ideas were pointless. In the past, I have read, heard and seen in the news that Putin has called the U.K a “small island nobody pays any attention to,” and I have observed that he maintains a cynical, sarcastic and extremely bold demeanor and tone. For me, it is ironic that after his recent behavior, comments and threats, he now resorts to peace. However, these are my views, and they may be biased due to the fact that the news I listen is dominated by British and American networks, who maintain a good relationship. In these news sources, I find that Vladimir Putin is often put under scrutiny, and is often criticized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/putin_writes_to_american_public_pleads_for_caution/

jennylema

For the next few days I will be tracking an issue that is currently happening. The issue that I am picking for this is the “Siert Bruins” case. Siert Bruins was a SS officer about 70 years ago. He shot a dutch resistance fighter back then and is now accused of murder. The dutch soldier was called

rddidit-blog

This seems like an interesting topic, however, do you think that it could potentially be unfair to Siert Bruins, seeing as he was required to kill the Dutch soldier under Adolf Hitler's commands. He possibly had to do it to make a living, and in those times, he could have viewed it as "normal." I do agree that murdering somebody was wrong, but I also don't necessarily feel it fair to blame him for what he did decades ago, under a radical ruler such as Adolf Hitler.

myheadis-ananimal

LGBT. LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. Recently the LGBT community has been in the news a lot for the past couple of years. The LGBT community is a vibrant community and is currently in the news a lot, and for the past couple of years. The issues the LGBT communities had...

rddidit-blog

This is quite a controversial issue you chose. I think the world in itself has extremely diverse and different views on the LGBT. Because of this, do you think it would be possible to sway people away from their beliefs and maybe religions in order to legalize and maybe even recognize gay rights in "extremist" countries such as Uganda, and possibly countries that built their foundations on Christian or Islamic beliefs?

Syrian Civil War

Since May of 2010, there has been much political tension and uprising in Syria, which inevitably became a civil war. Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad's regime has brought unrest to the people of Syria, who feel oppressed and worthless. There have been countless protests in the streets of Syria, and those various protests have been the last of many Syrian citizens. Assad had detained many political prisoners, for their views in support of a democratic governmental system. In attempts to protect his administration, Bashar al-Assad has slaughtered and injured many people, and millions having fled, which brought the country into a state of crisis. As the Syrian people continued to cry for help, there were UN gatherings in contemplation of taking action against Assad, which have been going on for years. Recently, there was a chemical strike on Syria, in which U.S President, Barack Obama blamed Assad's government for. Assad had recently been put under scrutiny for alleged connections and support for Lebanese terrorist group, Hezbollah. After the chemical strike in August 2013 brought international political tension to a climax, as it produced disagreement between Russia, China, The United States of America and England. Barack Obama felt it necessary to perform a "limited strike" on Syria, to control Assad's regime, although in the 2013 G20 Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have made it clear that they would be extremely condemning and intolerant of any violent action taken against Syria. British Prime Minister David Cameron has made clear England's stance, in taking no side. This then lead to Vladimir Putin being in disagreement with both Barack Obama and David Cameron. Rather than coming to terms of a larger-scale world issue, the major world economies have caused uprising and tension between themselves. There are still ongoing efforts to cure the widespread disease of unrest in Syria. Personally, I am interested in this issue, because it is a story that has dominated The news for many months. Recently, after the chemical attack that killed over 300 people, I watched an emotional video that was a cry for help, from an innocent, injured Syrian citizen. It sparked up anger in me, and I wanted to see an immediate change. Although there is absolutely nothing I can do about the issue, I would like to see a massive improvement. I feel like in the coming weeks,there definitely be a strike authorised by the United Nations of Syria, which would further increase tension between the United States of America, China and Russia.there will possibly be further violence, deaths, and possibly the end of Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Design Thinking in My Eyes

Design thinking is the basic concept of innovation. This is the idea of thinking of a concept, developing the idea, and executing it. The first step is thinking without limits. With this, one can think of anything they please, as long as it solves an existing problem, or invents a new concept. The development of the idea includes narrowing down the ideas into realistic possibilities and goals. That entitles the budgeting limitations, design limitations, and limitations of materials in existence. After gathering and accepting limitations, the next and final step is executing. That specific stage is the product of all the ideas and development. The execution of the product embroils turning all ideas into a reality. After that, the end result is a new creation, or an improvement in something ancient. This concept of design thinking has exceptionally embraced and enhanced the development of the world, which has brought us to where we are, in the 21st Century. Although the world is changing fast, in both positive and negative ways, as far as I am concerned, school and learning has only recently grasped the concept of modernization. These changes are inevitable, seeing as the world continues to produce newer, better-quality, and highly advanced products. Such changes include the use of laptops, interactive SmartBoards and barcodes. However, these are the little changes we see in school, as students generally still sit at desks, occasionally writing with a pen-and-paper method, listening to the teacher talk. Personally, I think school is somewhat better that way, as I am the "old-school" type of learner. Occasionally, I would like to have a session sitting comfortably on a beanbag or couch, but I prefer learning the old, "normal" way. Personally, my ideal learning space is desks in rows, where the teacher can be seen at the front. I detest the idea of being comfortable to the extent that learning becomes unimportant. In my opinion, students are in school to learn, and extreme modernization of schools could lead to what many, if not most students want- change in a negative way (for school curriculum), but in a positive way (for students). These changes include low attentiveness, power over educators and freedom for students to do what they please. As far as I am concerned, design thinking is good, but should not be implemented in such ways that may seem brilliant in the beginning, but may have a negative impact in the future. Design thinking should be used in other aspects of society such as technology, science, medicine, architecture, and in other subjects. Design thinking should be used in schools, but not to the extent that student desires overtake learning. This could prove to be inefficient in the future when students may not always have their own choices. When given directions in the future, the students may be undisciplined and inattentive, choosing not to follow them, potentially jeopardizing opportunities for them. Thus, the idea of modern thinking is a brilliant one, but could cause issues in some aspects of life.

My Passion: Football

When I think about one thing I am passionate about, the first word that comes to mind is football. Growing up in both a country and family where football is almost a religion, it was only normal to play it, watch it and breathe it. From my uncles, to my aunts (Although my aunts supported any random teams for whatever reasons), from my parents to my siblings, football was a big thing. Growing up, I looked up to my older cousins, who I all saw playing and watching football passionately. With this, I became accustomed to living a life where football dominated my mind. Growing up in a midst of Manchester United supporters, it was fast before I would become one of them. Ever since then I have loved, lived and breathed football. The way in which I keep up passion for football is simple. It goes by the saying, "the grass is green where you water it." All I do to keep my passion is to play and watch football. I am a die-hard Manchester United supporter, and I make sure to watch each and every one of their games.ever since the first grade, I have joined every single football team, and have tried to play in every tournament possible. Up to this day, I am still always around friends and cousins who are passionate about soccer- almost as passionate as me.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

RDHGR 1.0