plot twist: you wake up for school fully rested and ready to socialize
occasionally subtle

★
YOU ARE THE REASON

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
No title available
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Sade Olutola
No title available
Stranger Things
Peter Solarz
Not today Justin
Mike Driver
tumblr dot com
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Game of Thrones Daily
ojovivo
trying on a metaphor

pixel skylines

JVL
Cosimo Galluzzi

seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Italy
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Kazakhstan

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
@rpatellcs
plot twist: you wake up for school fully rested and ready to socialize
rihanna is a gift from god
FBI’s priorities.
i got 20/20 but i still can’t see my haters
i dream of an america united under one universal iphone charger. the way it used to be. the way our forefathers intended it to be.
Has Globalization Done More Harm Or Good For The Promotion Of Human Rights?
The phenomenon, globalization has been introduced to the world and has brought the planet closer together than it ever has been before. Globalization in many ways, has had many positive influences on the human race, however, one can argue that success and the promotion of human rights are not the only by-products. With globalization comes many issues such as human rights violations and in most cases, does more harm than good for the promotion of human rights.
People today choose to only see the benefits globalization brings to the world, and fail to see the dark, masked side of the exploitation and abuse of the human rights of innocent people. Globalization has helped with the promotion of human rights through western education and the Internet. The Internet has provided an instantaneous access to communication, which allows people to share their opinions, fight for their rights, and join together to make a change. Large populations of people have the ability to join forces to plan a protest through the use of technology. This has all been made possible by globalization. Although it has provided the world with a chance to fight for their rights, globalization also promotes the violation of human rights. Developing countries are often left out of the process of globalization because they still need to catch up to the scale of development that wealthier countries have achieved. Wealthier countries often work with other wealthy countries and don’t really seek to help developing countries. This separation allows poorer countries to be bullied and exploited by the wealthier countries. In addition, wealthier countries use developing countries for their low labour costs. Workers in developed countries may lose their jobs because the cost of labour is much more expensive, however, the people in developing countries have to suffer more. This is because they get paid much less and have to work in gruesome working conditions, which would be considered illegal if conducted in a wealthier country.
An example of a violation of human rights is in Nike sweatshops in Indonesia, a developing country, where workers are paid a dollar a day and are expected to survive off of that. Not only are their pays low, but they have to work in terrible conditions. Sweatshops have been known for many years and yet people choose to ignore it because it is benefiting all of the large companies and generating larger profits because of the reduced labour costs. The UN is utterly useless in this situation because they haven’t bothered to take any action. In their defence they have a lot to deal with but when will they eventually put a stop to it? If you think about it, Nike sweatshops are known by a majority of people and yet it is still being allowed to happen. Why? Because globalization only helps the developed countries and wealthier companies. No one is coming to the aid of those at the bottom of the business food chain; the labourers. They have no other option because it’s their only source of income. It’s between vigorous labour and death that labourers have to choose between. Some would agree that wealthy companies who are implementing low salary jobs are doing the people of developing countries a favour by providing jobs. However, offering the bare minimum to keep a person alive is nothing to be proud of. Putting product before human rights is immoral and should not be allowed. If sweatshops were implemented in wealthy countries, NGO’s and human rights activists would be on their case. But in developing countries, it’s another story. Developing countries are being left behind in this world of globalization where only developed countries are benefitting. Although globalization was meant to improve all countries no matter what stage of development they are at, it’s evolving into something much worse. It’s abusing the rights of those who can’t fight for their well-being, and is doing more harm than good for the promotion of human rights.
Respond To This Statement: The Scramble for Africa Was the Only Way to ‘Deal’ With the African Continent and the African People
In a way the European countries were trying to help the African continent by trying to abolish slavery in the 1880’s but for the most part, the Europeans perspective of ‘dealing’ with Africa meant changing and exploiting it’s cultures, land, resources, and it’s people. If they wanted the resources, violence and exploitation wasn’t the only way to go. What they did was immoral.
The word deal was used here as if Africa and its people were considered a problem that needed to be solved, but it didn’t. To the Africans, their continent was what they thrived off of and they were fine with the way it was. In the eyes of the Europeans, the African standard of living wasn’t dependent on technology, therefore it wasn’t civil, so they felt the need to change it and make it the same as their home country. In truth, their main motives were not to improve Africa, but to exploit its markets and resources in order to benefit their own. Overwhelmed by the amount of raw materials available, the Europeans separated Africa into several parts to avoid conflict amongst themselves. They paid no attention to kingdoms, local cultures, tribes, and ethnic groups, and in the process of doing so, they left people from the same communities on separate sides of the European made borders. This created civil wars, which were easily suppressed by the army’s of the colonizers, but set back development. Once they divided up the land, they began to collect resources to make a profit from. Soon enough, European labor forces weren’t enough for them, so they enslaved Africans and shipped them off to different colonies to work under gruesome conditions.
Instead of barging into the lives of Africans by dividing communities and families, the Europeans should have come to a treaty with as many tribes as they could, to see if they could take raw materials in exchange for technology. This would have worked out well as they both would benefit from what each other have. If one community agreed to the deal, they would benefit from it and soon enough other tribes would notice the tribes’ advancement and want in on it too.
Instead of enslaving people because they needed a larger labor force to extract resources, they should have thought of the moral implications and hired locals instead. That way the locals in tribes would profit and they could have invested in technology that the Europeans provided. It would have created a fair and equal society where both parties would benefit once again.
The Europeans felt that they were the better race and that Africa needed help because it was full of savages, but this is not true. It wasn’t the duty of Europe to change Africa, they didn’t have the right to exploit innocent people and resources. Africa was never a problem that needed to be dealt with. It was just Europe’s wrong perspective on Africa and it’s belief that they were better and more civilized that needed to be changed. There are so many other ways that the Europeans could have approached this situation, but they put their greedy and selfish motives first.
"Politics, Religion. People sure do have a hard time agreeing these days." - Tumblr
Our world can never be conflict free.
I surely agree with you. Only from looking around us, we face conflicts everyday. From what we see/experience, we feel that the world can never be free with conflicts, but maybe it just depends on how we think. From my research, I found that human thoughts/intentions can alter reality. If we think differently and change our view point, maybe we might face conflict-free world one day. Also, we develop and learn from conflicts. Of course there are side-effects of the conflicts, but do you think human would have been able to develop this much without conflicts?
rpatellcs:
That is an interesting question that hasn't occurred to me. I never really thought of conflicts as a benefit to society, but it actually is in a way. I guess you mean we learn from our mistakes and this is very true. In a way, you are right, when we make a mistake, we correct ourselves in the future to avoid making those same mistakes. However, even in our society which is full of many mistakes, history seems to keep on repeating itself. It's almost like people refuse to learn and want to do things their own way because they are correct in their own eyes. In a way I agree with you, but don't you think that people still don't learn from past conflicts and instead, fight over the same things and make the same mistakes?
Have you ever wondered if you could wakeup every morning without ever hearing “governments crisis” or “war” on the news? A cold less world seems to be far from reality especially with the many power hungry leaders and impoverished areas that are prevalent in today’s world. Yet, one may argue the...
Ray I think this is a genuinely powerful piece of writing and I completely agree with you. It's both interesting and captivating. My original opinion was that the world cannot be cold-less under any circumstances however, after reading your piece it made me think beyond what is possible now, but what could be possible in a Utopia and how a cold-less culture could work. I thought this phrase, "we need a medium, a network , something that would allow us to synergize on the same basis/principle" was interesting. Do you mean that there needs to be an opinion that we all share so that we can relate to every single person on the planet? Or do you mean a social media where people can share their opinions and be accepted?
Once upon a time there lived a princess called Amy in a magical musical land. It was a cheery, peaceful place where animals and humans live, bake and sing and get along perfectly fine together. Have you ever wanted to burst out singing and have cheerful and kind people sing with you? She had...
I think your story is very well written and powerful. It shows the reality of the harsh world that we live in compared to the seemingly perfect fairytale world. It goes to show that our world is far from being peaceful and there is a lot of work to be done. From crime, to varying standards of living, we as a society have lots of issues to mend. Even in the fairytale world, the stepmom displayed greed by banishing her son's wife in order to gain power. I think this accurately reflects how people are today, even if we were able to eliminate conflict, people's natural competitiveness and need to be better than others would make them do horrible things. However, studies show that people are wired to be empathetic, do you believe that this is enough to eliminate conflict?
Personally I find that the basic reasons for conflict are religion and oil and any other goods that are short of supply and high in demand. I got this idea from an interview with a teacher (Ms. Biegert). I decided to draw some doodles to portray this idea and spark some...
I really like how you creatively incorporated a specific aspect of conflict (oil) into your drawing. I’m also interested in how you thought of supply and demand’s role in conflict, it made makes a lot of sense and I agree with you because once things are short in supply, demand becomes high and people fight over who gets it, creating conflict. Overall your project looks good however I don’t really understand the last picture. Does it mean that oil should be shared which means no one can get more oil than others, thus eliminating conflict? Another question of mine is do you think that there are other key factors which create conflict other than supply and demand and religion? What about political and economic stability, or strongly opinionated people, and ideologies?