The Militarization of Women in Japan

The lives of women and understanding of both themselves as well as the global sphere changes based on how one perceives things.  In all cases however, it is shown that their femininity is used as a tool of manipulation by the military.  In chapters 7 of Cynthia Enloe’s book, Globalization & Militarization she looks at Japan specifically and their use of women’s femininity over time.  It’s interesting to see how the female body can be used whether it be through exploitation or manipulation within one culture alone.

Women from all over East Asia were exploited in the World War II era by the Japanese governments.  They were used for sex by soldiers and lived in these spaces where everyone else had the same role.  They were called comfort women, and even though this is no longer practiced, it is still unjust that these women had to go through what they did.  What upsets me the most is the lack of empathy from the Japanese government about what happened; it’s like they try to erase history by not acknowledging that what they did cause many women to suffer.  A women’s organization in Japan (Violence Against Women Worldwide Network), set up a testimony system for the women that were a part of this exploitation.  Women from all over East Asia including, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and other countries testified about their experiences during their time as comfort women.  What they found is that they were treated like slaves and it was a form of using the female body as an object.  It was the military once again objectifying females for the “benefit” of male soldiers.

While the female body is a huge part of this exploitation by the military, it is also one’s identity that is being manipulated many of the times.  For example women that are joining the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are doing so for the idea of a better quality of life.  If we take a step back and see why there are a large amount of women doing this, it is because of the notion that it is safe and according to one woman, a good way to get ahead.

“Aspiring sincerely to international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes […]Land, sea and air forces as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

-Article 9 (Enloe p138)

Following World War II, the people of Japan felt as though they had suffered a great amount through war; the atomic bomb that was used on them left areas of the country devastated.  The attack alone wasn’t their main concern, but the health problems that preceded the event were catastrophic as well.  Thousands of people faced the health problems that came with the atomic bomb which led to Japan swearing off the use of war to settle international disputes.  In result, many women over the years thought it would be safe to join the Japanese Self-Defense Forces because of the lack of combat that would occur under Article 9.  But now with Japan sending ships off to the Middle East, many women feel as though this would be a violation of Article 9 and are unsure of what this might mean for them in comparison to what they thought they were signing up for.   A lot of them also don’t realize how consumer goods are encouraging them to sign up for the military or how these goods are militarized.

“ [..] Daughterhood, marriage, motherhood, secretarial and bookkeeping jobs, learning English, fast food, education, patriotism, entertainment, sexuality, consumerism, economic security, and fashion.  Militarizing femininities – in all their diversity—seems to be crucial for sustaining the Tokyo-Washington bilateral security agreement.  If no one pays attention to the politics of femininity in particular women’s lives, it is likely that any commentator on international politics will end up with an unreliable analysis on the politics that today perpetuate the Japanese-U.S. alliance. This does not mean that women control the alliance.  They clearly have little power in alliance negotiations.  But the male elites of both countries do rely upon a lot of women to think of their own feminized lives in ways that make militarization ‘normal’ and thus almost invisible.”

-Cynthia Enloe p153

Japanese Self-Defense Forces Flag

The fact that many of the women that have joining the Japanese Self-Defense Forces for easier access to goods and a certain services, really puts into perspective how this is working in favor of the military.  It also shows how goods are not always independent from the military but a part of militarization.  This is continued in Enloe’s final chapter in this book where she writes about how militarization happens on the personal level without us sometimes even realizing it.

“Once again, militarization happens to many more people than just those in uniform or just those who work in defense ministries or national security agencies.”

-Cynthia Enloe p158

Regardless of where we work or where we are, militarization is something that we are all exposed to.  Whether it is subliminally or more directly, we are constantly looking at things that make us want to promote military ideals.  This is extremely problematic because it teaches us to accept the ideas that come along with promoting militarization and ultimately cause us to look at the world in a way that exploits people, causes people to lose their identities, and form alliances that exemplify this patriarchal norm that encourages us to try to exert power over others.

If we can’t look beyond what the military is trying to teach us, regardless of where the military is from, it only causes us to continue to give into this cycle.  It brainwashes us to the point where we don’t even know what we are taking in from them.  Do you see this in your life? I definitely do; every time I walk into a clothing store I can’t help but be hit in the fact with products that promote the military fashion.  Besides goods, is this idea being pushed onto us in more subliminal ways? I think it would be interesting to examine how and where this happens.  It would also be equally interesting for us to try to see how this can be stopped.

Big boys don’t cry. Right? : A look at rationality vs. emotionality

Rationality vs. emotionality is discussed in chapter three of Cynthia Enloe’s book  Globalization and Militarism. Rationality is associated with manliness while emotionality is seen as feminine. This is seen throughout our social structure and in the way our society thinks about masculinity and femininity. Understanding these two concepts is vital to understanding how men and women are perceived in our society and in the military. The categorization of women as “soft” is used both to keep women out of the political and military field. It insinuates that they are not strong enough to handle the pressure associated with these professions. This categorization also pushes men away from acts that are perceived as “soft” or feminine like calling for peace and not waging war. An obvious flaw of this way of thinking is the correlation of peace to women and war to men. It insinuates that only real men declare war and enter into conflict while women are responsible for calling an end to battle. Of course this conceptualization is entirely problematic.

Acceptable military behavior

Unacceptable military behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, when it comes to the structure of the military and who get to “sit at the table” those who are allowed are only those who have shown a fierce, aggressive stance. According to this belief of rationality and emotionality the only acceptable participants are men.  To be allowed a part in the discussion of national security you have to be able to debate unpleasant things, and handle these talks with fervor. The way a person is able to gain access to be part of the discussion of national security is through this rational sense and expression. Consequently women are not included in this because they are perceived as emotional and soft.   The conception that women are emotional and in the eyes of our society there’s no room or place for the emotional meaning there is no room for women.  Of course the truth is that these concepts have been built through the perception of those living in a patriarchal society leading to a bias and sexist understanding or women’s role and women’s power.

An example of this rhetoric of women being emotional was seen overwhelmingly in the 2008 democratic presidential primary when Hillary Clinton was running. When in an interview Clinton was giving she began to well up while talking passionately about how she feels for the country and how she wants to see the country move forward (and away from the Bush era.) After this surfaced in mainstream news, reporters began condemning her for being emotional then for being cold and heartless. She was spoken of by every news reporter in the mainstream media in some sexist way. Clinton was badgered for being to emotional and other news anchors joked about her passion and her tears being fake. Stating that she was to cold and masculine to genuinely be able to cry. She was the only primary candidate that had this done to them, evidently she was the only female candidate. She was also badgered about the way she looked and the clothes she wore all through the primary election. There was one reporter who joked if Clinton won the presidency the US would be in crisis every time she got her period.  We would have to stop the country a few days every month because she wouldn’t be able to handle her responsibilities. Certainly women are incapable of controlling their emotional and mental capacities when they’re on their period.

The practice of our society is that women hold little value and little power. Women are seen as weak physically and mentally. The structure of the military holds up this conception through the ideal that men are rational while women are irrational. A recent statement made my Rick Santorum, (a candidate in the republican primary for presidency who of late, dropped out) embodies the patriarchal design of our society’s structure of masculinity and femininity. In the speech Santorum stated that women should not be allowed to hold combat position in the US military because it may affect how the male soldiers will react during times of combat. He states that the men will become to preoccupied by the women’s safety and feel the need to protect them like our culture has taught them to do, making the men lose focus on their mission. He’s expressing that men are rational beings but once you throw a women into the mix a man has to express his masculinity by protecting women. These women hold no value as soldiers they only amount to a burden which the male soldiers will have to pick up.

The women who gain access to the military are confined to feminized jobs. Women are not allowed to enlist in the front lines instead women are centralized in jobs that resemble domestic work; jobs like cooks and nurses. Because women are not seen as rational, strong, and valuable enough to stand in a combat role in the military. Although I would rather not see more of the population enlisting in the military that should not be used as an excuse to keep women out of jobs they should be entitled too.

In chapter four Enloe continues her discussion with the extension that feminized characteristics are not only looked down upon in our society and through that women hold no substantial power. But their labor is also used as a last resort when men are no longer available. This can be seen throughout American history. If you look at World War 2 when men were enlisted in the military and engaged in combat with other nations the country needed a workforce so they enlisted women. Yet, when the war ended and the men came back they also took their jobs back and women were supposed to go back home and continue with their domestic duties. The patriarchal structure of society systematically denies women’s power and devalues their labor.

Creating a Feminist Curiosity

“Using a feminist curiosity is asking question about the condition of women- and about relationship of women to each other about relationship of women to men. It is also not taking for granted- thus it is insisting upon exploring….”

Have you ever thought why and what makes you curious? Well usually most of the people are curious about the things that one can’t get or that they desire to get. Yet why curiosity doesn’t strike us for the things that we already have. I am sure we never learn fully about anything or anyone that we have in our life, there is always something new we could discover within them. But we always tend to stop at that one point thinking that we know everything about them. That’s when the false notion comes in and we start to take things for granted. Our attitude of taking things, people and matters for granted has become so strong and permanent that we often tangle it with social and cultural values. Until we realize our mistakes for taking things for granted, it is too late. The relationship and harmony that we once created is destroyed, just because we thought we knew everything, just because we took everything for granted.

With this creative thought Cynthia Enloe has beautifully started her first two chapters of Globalization and Militarism. One of the points that really struck me and made me think was how she said that “One is not curious about the things one takes for granted” (Pg 1). This whole idea is definitely true, but it amazed me how we are not curios to learn and gain more knowledge about something that we expect it to be there till the end of our lives. We become careless not protecting it yet at the same time we believe it to stay with us forever unchanged. Or looking the other way why do we still accept things even if it doesn’t satisfy us? Why are we not challenging those rigid structures with new ideas instead of just taking it for granted.

Reading the first two chapters was very insightful. Cynthia Enloe has thrown a great spot light on Globalization and Militarization. The most conflicting and contradicting part to me was how she shows that there are so many people who are employees of big companies that makes weapons for militarization. Thousands of people are being able to support and take care of their family through this very form of globalization and militarization. Yet at the same time due to this very reason thousands of innocent lives are being destroyed every minute. Another interesting thing for me was like how she points out that media tends to ignore people who are working to fight problems that are rooted within the society and culture (like people working for gender impact analysis). And I think she has made an excellent point bringing out this topic, because it makes her topic clear that media and society lacks the idea of feminist curiosity. They have taken the gender impact for granted; they don’t see anything new or unusual about it to be discovered or even changed.

The other thing that really caught my attention where I did a deep analysis was to see how the government had the power to change a woman’s identity according to how they wanted it to be. It was really interesting to see how the Korean government with the help militarism could change and make the whole conservative society accept women working outside the home boundary. They encouraged women to work in shoe factory, at the same time created a pass for them to be a “respectable” young women and an attractive candidate for marriage. As we could see that everyone who followed this lacked feminist curiosity. No one asked or even questioned the government for why all of these changes were being bought up all of a sudden. I think it shows a very important point that how globalization can take over your own people too. Like how Nike controlled Korean women through Korean Men.

These two chapters were eye opening for me, as it made me aware that I too had taken so many things for granted without realizing. She particularly talks about women as cheap labor which I was aware of this whole time. But after reading her text it showed me that I too was accustomed to this whole idea. It made me realize how and why I had never questioned for why women were paid less even if they worked the same hours and job as men did. It showed me that how we lack feminist curiosity which could be the most important tool to discover and find solution to so many problems and inequality that exist in our society. It guides us to have feminist curiosity but at the same time it teaches us not only keep the curiosity within us but us to share it with the world so that it would become an issue. Issue that many people could share and exchange thoughts to make it better.

 “But nothing can become an issue if the exercise of curiosity remains private or if what you uncover is deemed unworthy of public response”.

The other very fact that I completely agree with is how we just learn about big companies that are producing large weapons, as that media fails to cover the small companies. I think because of this a lot of us are unaware of the dangers caused by these very small companies. I would agree to a point that people do lack feminist curiosity in this matter too, but as far as I know the small companies themselves are very private and hidden away from the mainstream world. It is difficult to locate them but as from this text we learn that it’s always good to have at least a general idea about such small companies.

“While it is usually the large companies producing the large weapons system that make the news, small weapons kill more people day in and day out around the world”

Overall for me this was a great text and I learned much from it. It provokes people to have feminist curiosity for so many matters that you always felt like you knew everything. Or even the matters that you always accepted the way it was. And I think that was the best part because it completely changes the way you always use to see things, it generates interest within you to find something new about things that you had taken granted for all these years. I felt that feminist curiosity could be the tool that would build better and a peaceful world.

Work Cited

Enloe, C. (2007). Globalization & Militarism . United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield.

Masculining Women in Positions of Power and Militarism as a Fashion Statement

In our society why do women feel the need to act or present themselves as more masculine in order to be taken seriously within a position of power? Specifically within the military?  And why is dehumanizing violence a fashion statement in our country? These are two questions which Cynthia Enloe attempts to answer in chapters 5 and 6 of her book, Globalization and Militarism, Feminists Make the Link.

One idea that I took away from chapter 5 is the way in which women are pressured into presenting themselves as more masculine as they gain power in society. One place that we can look at this outside of the military is at everyday jobs. As women in different parts of the world are given the opportunity to be in higher positions of power more and more, the feeling of pressure to conform to masculine ideals builds. For example, when women are promoted to positions typically given to men, they often feel the pressure to conform to the standards set by the men in their position before them. At least, this is my common experience when dealing with women in position of power. We all know the story of the female employee going out to the strip club with her male co-workers to try to fit that role. I think that this masculinization is incredibly problematic and that it is something that we should use our feminist curiosity to explore. I’m sure you can think of other spaces in which women are challenged to take on a more masculine presentation in order to be able to preserve power.

So a main point she made was that female soldiers feel the need to sometimes be more violent than their male counterparts. While her focus was on American women in the Abu Gharib and Guantanamo, this can be seen in other parts of the world as well. Change.org actually did a story about the nation with the highest ratio of women to men, Israel. What they found was that Israeli women soldiers tend to be more violent towards Palestinian civilians than men.

“According to one soldier, “A female combat soldier needs to prove more … a female soldier who beats up others is a serious fighter … when I arrived there was another female there with me … everyone spoke of how impressive she is because she humiliates Arabs without any problem.”’

I think this is right on with what Enloe talks about when she talks about female soldiers becoming masculinized. So very obviously, this is not just a United States issue, but rather one that occurs in most if not all militaries that include women in their ranks.

So does this mean that we should not allow women into militaries for fear that they might become masculinized? Definitely not. The obvious problem is that women are not taken seriously if they do not conform to this male perpetrated stereotype that soldiers have to be masculine. So as Enloe points out in the book, the military’s big questions is how can we admit women into this male dominated space (the military) without making her masculinized while also keeping the military from becoming feminized?

My answer to that would be, maybe we need a little feminization up in there.

I think we need to be less scared of what a feminized version of the military might look like, because obviously our own military is infatuated with doing nothing but dominating other countries, and specifically the people within those countries (think about the prisoners of war  and the many civilians who are raped by American soldiers). But, as Enloe states:

“In a patriarchal culture – in rich countries and poor countries, in countries with diverse cultural traditions – any person, group, or activity that can be feminized risks losing his or her (or its) influence, authority, and even self-respect. So long as any culture remains patriarchal, then, feminization can be wielded as an instrument of intimidation. -Enloe 96

So on that note, chapter 6 talks about the way in which the violence enacted in militaries becomes a fashion statement, and how we perpetuate this violence by wearing things such as camouflage or khaki. Why do we feel the need to dress up as the people who systematically rape civilians and torture prisoners? In what way is this “cool”? I’ve always wondered why camouflage was so big, long before I realized the alarming rate at which soldiers rape civilian women or kill innocent people, but then again I was raised to be skeptical of the military. So that might have something to do with it. I think this fashion came out somewhere in the middle of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and has continued since. People have seen wearing camo as a form of patriotism and supporting our troops, which is why is has gained so much popularity.

  

I seriously do not understand a culture in which we idealize military strength and masculinization so much. What kind of image are you giving off when you wear these kind of things? And what does that say about the society that we live in? It may seem trivial to be so hung up on what the current fashion trends are, or what people are wearing but when media is telling us that what we need to wear is clothes that accept and perpetuate masculinized violence, then I think we need to look at that very seriously. It furthers the idea in society that the military is an institution that should be idealized, rather than trivialized.

So obviously, this talk about military fashion was part of a bigger discussion Enloe was having about demilitarization, because camo as a fashion statement shows just how militarized our whole society has become. When we don’t question a six-year-old wanting to look like someone in a hyper-masculinized institution, we aren’t questioning the ways in which masculinity and militarism and globalization influence our lives. I think we need to implore a feminist curiousity into everyday life, and not ignore the things that may seem trivial to us, such as fashion statements.

Fox’s Underlying Hatred and The War in Afghanistan

Fox News’s article on the 10 year mark of the United States’ war with Afghanistan was an interesting mix of resentfulness towards the White House for the lack of acknowledgment they had for the ten year anniversary and a strange denial of what they were supporting a little over 10 years ago.  The entire article seemed like it was an attack on the Obama administration without actually saying that it was. The article does not have a definite author except that it was produced by Associated Press but many would not be surprised about this. The article isn’t really news for those that have followed Fox’s track record of how they decide to report on things; but it is a clear example of the pseudo yellow journalism that they take part in.

In this particular article there is a lot of language that is used to convey a negative image of the current presidency.  By using the recent elections as an example of why the Obama administration is doomed for failure, it takes a biased approach on the entire situation.  They state that since there is an election year coming up, the Republican candidates might be willing to call President Obama out on the war in Afghanistan and foreign policy but those issues might be overshadowed by the economy.  It’s as though they are forgetting the ten year anniversary of the war with Afghanistan and completely focusing on national politics.  For the most of the article, the issue of president Obama failing at appeasing Americans seems to be the main concern with Afghanistan in the background.  That’s not premise for a news story that’s actually sticking to what’s happening, but instead a news story with personal biases as the main message to persuade readers to think a certain way.

The comment of the economy being President Obama’s main concern is a jab at his presidency and how the authors of the article feel like it the war in Afghanistan should have been remembered in a less muted manner.  There however was interesting data on the amount of people that were for the war in the 2001 in comparison to the amount of people that are now against the war.  What I did find interesting is that there wasn’t that much mention of why the war started in the first place.  They did mention the 9/11 attacks on this country and how that started the idea that we should be fighting the war on terror but they didn’t mention all of the “save the women” propaganda that occurred in the beginning of the war.  There were many people that believed that it was our duty to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq to liberate the oppressed women in those countries and simultaneously fight those that attacked us.  These weren’t mentioned at all nor were the rights they previously had and the rights they have now listed.

As much as the Obama administration had promised that they would bring the troops back home from Afghanistan and Iraq, which they have done only in Iraq thus far, people can’t expect wars to end overnight.  It’s especially hypocritical when it’s coming from a news source that strongly supported the U.S. occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.  While I too would like to see the war in Afghanistan come to an end, bashing the presidency for not ending a war that was widely supported under another president’s time in office is not the most productive way to go about reporting things to the public – it creates hostile political arena.

This is continued in the interviews that they included.  In an interview with a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations said that if we want to leave behind a Afghanistan that will actually function well, they are going to have to make some changes to how things are going politically.  He goes on to say that they have been doing well on the military front but not so well on the political part.  This was an interesting way to end the article because not only is the reader left with statistics about how many people want the war with Afghanistan to end but also that it isn’t as close to happening as many might have imagined.

The war in Afghanistan has been taking place for over 11 years now without any idea of when it might end.  Even though there are many people that think that the war should end, it is irrational to think that wars can end whenever a population wants it to end.  There is always a matter of rebuilding and stabilizing the country before leaving it; if we disregarded this we would be leaving Afghanistan in shambles which some might consider being even more immoral.  This article doesn’t do anything but try to shove numbers into the readers face without really informing them about what is actually happening.  It is almost as though they are trying to infuriate Americans by telling them about what a terrible job, even though there isn’t actual evidence to back that claim up, the current administration has been doing without explicitly stating that.

It’s ridiculous and a great example of the bias “news” Associated Press and Fox News present to us.  These media outlets brainwash us and make us believe things without providing information to back up their claims.  Their anti-Obama rhetoric adds to this and makes their message even more absurd.  This makes me wonder if others think that these “news” organizations should be held accountable for the evident biases.  I definitely think they should be – their representation of the news just gives people a misconstrued understanding of the world.  And if they are affecting the way people think and understand, which they clearly are, what negative impacts can that have on our society.  If Fox News is the only news source many Americans follow, the way that they learn about the world might only be through the eyes of conservative businessmen.  Utterly terrifying but sadly what’s actually happening.

— Ifath N. Iftikhar

Read between the lines: A media analysis

Trayvon Martin’s death has become a national topic and although it doesn’t center around globalization it still seems quite relevant to discuss as it has become such a buzz story in our popular media about racialized violence. Many different media outlets are covering this story and a lot of different analyses are being written and talked about. The article I looked at in particular Justice, not revenge, for Trayvon by LZ Granderson.

George Zimmerman, Left and Trayvon Martin, right

The author addresses the matter of the New Black Panther Party in his article and describes the statements made by the new party’s leader, Mikhail Muhammadf. Stating that they may feel empowering but the reality it “digging your own grave”.  Although LZ Granderson is not alone in this viewpoint on the separatist party one thing the article is missing is the reality that media is now bombarding this group for their opinion and viewpoint then condemning them when it is shared. Many of these mainstream media outlets are using these interviews and repeatedly playing or talking about certain segments of statements that have been made. This distortive reporting is beneficial to news outlets because it makes the story more interesting. The one thing a news article will never address is their tactics for higher ratings and the constant barrage of media coverage on this topic jacks up the ratings.
Granderson repeatedly addresses that revenge is not the solution, that trying to hunt down Trayvon’s killer will only cause yourself and others harm. Yet, he never talks about a solution. There is no discussion of what a person should do with their anger instead of acting on violence. There could have been discussion on the community events that have been taking place in honor of Trayvon or spark some discussion about the reality of oppressions that people face in that community. The author gives a lot of judgment calls on what he believes a person should feel about this situation. His sentiment is that you get mad but not that mad cause anger is risky. Yet, anger can be power when you’re fighting against an injustice, why should Granderson’s readers tame themselves because he is worried about the results of people’s emotions?
He then addresses the language used when discussing this case and although as a writer he makes points that are relevant about the prevalence of violence in our society and the language we use that is associated with that. However he disregards the reality of oppression, stereotypes, racism. He writes in a way that disempowers these words and makes them less real. I perceive his discussion about the language used as a very unrealistic view of how people discuss oppressions in our society, and it seems ineffective to say this language makes the case lack “togetherness” and “healing”.Grandersons biggest blunder in this article is his comparison of Trayvon Martin to Ryan white, a boy who was diagnosed with AIDS at the age of 13. The author call Trayvon Martin the “new Ryan White” while simultaneously denying the similarities other have brought by between Martin and Emmett Till, a 14 year old boy who was murdered in Mississippi.

Ryan White

Ryan White was an white teenager from Kokomo, Indiana, who became a national poster child for HIV/AIDS in the United States. During the time when White contracted AIDS it was a diseases that was only though to effect the gay community. White was one of the first faces in the public media that started to change people perception of this and gain a better understanding. He was expelled from middle school after his diagnoses; he and his family went through a legal battle with the school, and media coverage of the case made White into a national celebrity and spokesman for AIDS research and public education. The similarities between these two boys are few and far in between. White contracted this illness as a result of a blood transfusion, although that is quite unfortunate it is not the same as a young black man getting shoot. Granderson is trying to relate Whites story of contracting HIV and being put on public media as a new face of HIV to racial profiling. Stating that both HIV and racial profiling are things only those directly affected would talk about and because of that these cases both give leeway to talk about these things. The author is really stretching the connection here, Trayvon being a black teenager who was murdered as a result of a hate crime, a white middle class boy who received a bad blood transfusion is completely different.

Emmett Till

Granderson then denies the similarities of Emmett Till and Trayvon Martin, I question his reasoning for doing so as a reporter. Because clearly the raw facts show more of a resemblance between these two cases then Martin and White. Both Till and Martin were young black men who were murdered for because they were black. The similarity of the two boys although in different time periods is unquestionable.Whether you believe Trayvon was shot through an action of self-defense or because of racism, is not directly addressed in this article. Granderson talks around the subject when he lectures to his readers about justice vs. revenge but he avoids this direct dialogue of the topic. Another condition of this article that seemed a bit misdirected was his discussion of how he and another CNN analyst discussed this topic and how positive it was because they talked about it, they didn’t fight or debate. but talking about the issue. Granderson is saying a lot with what he is not saying. His remarks on this show how he believes we, his readers and others should talk, debate or discuss an issue. It seems to me as a reader that he’s making a point to show how much better it is to not get angry or question another’s viewpoint about an issue because in the end leads to uselessness and harm.

 

 

Peace Process, not exactly Peaceful!

Nepal is a small country between India and China. For the past 10 years and it still continues to suffer from a great Civil war that took place between the government forces (Nepal Army) and the Maoist fighters. The Civil War started in 1996-2006, by overthrowing of Nepalese Monarchy. (http://the-voyagers.tripod.com/maoists.htm). The Maoist party wanted each individual to have equal freedom and rights as a result this lead to the greatest Civil War till now in Nepal, which is also popularly known as ‘People’s War’.

The civil war has ended but the aftermath doesn’t look so bright. Citizens still suffer the same consequences and it keeps me wondering what actually has this achieved by destroying almost all the properties and not to the mention the uncountable number of deaths. The Maoist fought and won the war, but why weren’t they successful in bringing changes to the system even after gaining so much of political power? So with this question in my mind I found an article that really connected with my thoughts which got me to a lot of analyzing part.

The Growing fragility of Nepal’s peace process by Joanna Jolly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8417031.stm) is a very interesting article; it gives you broad information about the peace process in Nepal. The article talks about Maoist leaders in such a way that I felt that it indirectly tells that the Maoist rule would eventually be unsuccessful. What I agree most about this article was that writer highlights the main problem, it proves that both the parties were responsible for the war. The message is clear to the readers that peace process is something that needs both the parties to agree on. I feel most of the articles tend to ignore this part, as they just focus more on writing well about one party and blame the other one.

“Although neither side says it wants a return to conflict, neither is also taking part in the negotiations needed to shore up the peace process”.

The article highlights many perspectives of the war in depth. For me the article showed how both the government and the Maoist parties are more interested in properties (the whole land issues) rather than real democracy for people. It is a true fact as all the citizens are in dilemma even the article is raising questions regarding both the parties and their real intention. But the part which made me sad was that the article gave me the image of hopelessness. As I read more I felt that what the writer was saying was true but me as reader didn’t see any hope towards a brighter future of Nepal.

As I studied the article I felt that it makes the negative image of the Maoist party to be stronger. She puts a lot of emphasis and quotation on the Maoist groups when it comes down to trust them and their acts, which I would agree with to what I have seen till today. And raising such question highlight’s this article because, this is the same question that is haunting thousands of Nepalese till today.

“The main reason is that the Maoists are not sincere. They are not honest in implementing the process,”- Ram Saran Mahat, a member of the Nepali Congress.

The article really puts a spot light on the military forces which I like because it was the main source that the war lasted so long. The military part of the article shows that the Civil war has not only separated the political parties/leaders but overall it created huge gap between the citizens. Like how she talks about the Nepal army not accepting the Ex-Maoist fighters to be a part of army. As both of the troops are equally trained yet there is a huge gap between the fighters. It has created a difficult situation for them to reconcile everything and work together. The article reflects that Nepal is divided amongst its own people.

“Meanwhile the army looks increasingly unwilling to accept any Maoist fighters, expect at the lowest entry level, into its ranks.”

          Talking about India was another eye catching part of the article. For most cases many tend to believe that all the major political movements are backed up by India. And the article mentioning about India has just hit the right target for discussion. Though it points out that India supported the Nepalese government, it is a very controversial topic itself and I wouldn’t agree with  all of it. As many believe India was the breeder for the Maoist groups, where as some believe they helped the government. The matters now go beyond the national boundaries as always connected to India. And I agree to most of the connection being done because India really does have huge impact on Nepal, as they say if India sneeze’s Nepal catches cold. But for most part I like how India has been included in this discussion. It gives another perspective to look into.

“Many analysts believe its strong stance is backed by India, which maintains close ties to the national army, providing training and equipment.”

Over all she has done a great job, but I felt this article was lacking more on talking about the normal citizens besides the leaders, military forces and neighboring country. Half of the population doesn’t fall under any of these three categories. Including more viewpoints of the citizens rather than political leaders regarding the different parties would have been more fruitful. The other part which I thought could have been better is if she talked more about humanity. She talks about it in the last paragraph but would have been great if she would have inserted the questions about humanity in each new topic as everything about this war was related to humanity. She could have cut down more on military and the parties and focused a little more on humanity area.

“Not one person has been prosecuted for crimes against humanity committed during the 10-year conflict, during which more than 13,000 people were killed.”

Shaima Al Awadi, a Hate Crime? CNN Makes the Case.

In recent news, a media debate centering around the murder (or unfortunate death as some people put it) of Trayvon Martin in Florida has been circulating. People have been asking, “Is it a hate crime or not?”

Meanwhile, another brutal murder has taken place on the opposite side of the country that is not gaining as much media attention, but is also being questioned over whether or not it was a hate crime. This news article talks about the murder of an Iraqi woman, Shaima Al Awadi, in her home on March 21st. The authors mentions that Al Awadi will be flown home to Iraq for her burial, and then goes in depth about what happened.

The authors talk about what the police are doing, which from the way it is talked about, seems like a whole lot of nothing. They have the police investigators being quoted as saying the note found with her (telling her to go back to Iraq and calling her and her family “terrorists”) “threatening”. They then go on to point out that the police have note ruled this an official “hate crime” but that they have ruled it an “isolated incident”.

“Based on the content of the note, we are not ruling out the possibility that this may be a hate crime,” city Police Chief Jim Redman said Monday.

“Other evidence,” however, leads investigators to remain open to other possibilities, he said. “The possibility that this is a hate crime is just one aspect of what we are examining.”

I think that pointing this out about the police is the author’s way of trying to influence the reader (which I am completely influenced) to believe that this should be perceived as a hate crime and to be angry that it has yet to be. The way that the authors of this article present the investigator’s reports makes it seem as though there is little being done in order to figure out what has really happened to this woman in her own home. Redman does not say what the “other possibilities” are in this quote, and it sticks out because of all the evidence that the authors give about it being a hate crime. Without the evidence of the “other possibilities”, it just sounds like an excuse.

The authors use quotes by Shaima’s daughter:

“A week ago they left a letter saying, ‘This is our country, not yours, you terrorists,'” she said over the weekend. “So my mom ignored that, thinking (it was) kids playing around, pranking. And so the day they hurt her, they left it again and it said the same thing.”

The author chose to include this quote because it shows that this was a premeditated attack on a woman based on the fact that she was Iraqi. Other authors that were trying to convey the argument that this wasn’t a hate crime would probably have chosen to leave this part out, because this seems like pretty key evidence that it was in fact a hate crime. I think that the authors are trying to make the point that the evidence is so very obvious with this case that the police must not be doing their jobs very well.

What the article doesn’t talk about is the possibility of the  police’s own prejudice against this Iraqi family, and the possibility that this prejudice could be why they are hesitant to call this a hate crime. When looking at the comments sections, one person wrote that “it was the family who killed her, I’ve seen this happen many times”. This prejudice could very well be in the minds of the police, who may believe that this is just another case of an “honor killing” gone wrong.

Despite the amount of modern Muslim families that have lived in and moved to America, the stereotypes and prejudices that exist often see Muslim men as abusive towards their wives and daughters. This prejudice is furthered by all of the media surrounding isolated cases of honor killings of women in the United States. No one talks about all of the families who have moved here from their original countries that live completely normal “American” lives. People see the hijab and assume that the woman wearing it is a “servant of her husband”, rather than someone who chooses to wear it as a symbol of her faith (much like a kippah cap a Jewish Man might wear).

Globalization has brought the Muslim community to the United States, but it certainly has not explicitly helped broaden the minds of United States citizens about Muslim families and how they are no different than any other family (most of the time).

This article does not talk about the ways in which Muslim women in particular are also often targeted for hate crimes on the Muslim community because of the way in which it can be skewed to look like an “honor killing” committed by the family. Even given such explicitly obvious evidence as the note (which I admit, could have been fabricated and since I don’t know the whole story I should not say for sure that it is a legitimate piece of evidence) it seems as though this knowledge of honor killings in Muslim families could very well be what the police called “other possibilities”.

At the end of the article, the authors even liken the murder of Shaima Al Awadi to the murder of Trayvon Martin, likening Shaima’s hijab to Trayvon’s hoodie. By doing this, the authors are able to give their opinion that both cases were in fact hate crimes.

What do you think about Shaima Al Awadi’s murder? Do you think it should be seen as a cut and dry hate crime, the way these CNN author’s do? Do you think that globalization and America’s view of Muslim women have anything to do with the way the police are acting in being reluctant to call this a hate crime? And can we compare Hijabs to Hoodies ( Shaima to Trayvon) or are they cases that should be looked at as very different cases?

A Coalition Following War: The European Union

World War II was probably one of the most devastating wars that the world has ever seen.  Millions of deaths, millions more displaced, cities in shambles, and the great uncertainty that came with it were some of the outcomes of the war.  While World War II was bloody and awful in almost every way possible, there was still light at the end of the tunnel: a coalition amongst European nations.

The formation of the European Union came from the great uncertainties Europe faced after the war and from a fear of nationalism.  After seeing what a crazy nationalist leader, Adolf Hitler, could do with a country that was desperate for a change, most European states wanted to stay as far away from that as possible.

No one wanted another evil lunatic like Hitler.

The European Union is an international organization that is now comprised of 27 European nations that have similar governing policies.  While members of the European Union are countries from all over Europe, it was originally made up of Western European nations and formed after World War II.

World War II was a result of the problems that were left over from World War I. Germany especially had many economic instabilities and a lot of resentment from the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.  This allowed extreme nationalists like Adolf Hitler to gain public support and recruit members to The Nationalist Socialist Party (NAZI).   In 1934, Hitler became supreme leader and started spreading his idea of the “pure” race; he considered himself an “Aryan” and thought that members of the pure race should expand.

Hitler allied with Japan and Italy against the Soviet Union.  This later led to the occupation of Austria and the invasion of Poland in 1939 which begun the Second World War.  From the south, Italy under Stalin’s rule decided to invade the Baltic States.

The Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) gained support from other European nations.  Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria joined the Axis powers which lead to the ideology of the “pure” race to be spread around and enforced throughout Europe.

Hitler was against the Jewish race and thought that they “ruined” the pure “Aryan” race.  Throughout World War II, there were raids, captures, and killings that happened towards anyone that identified as Jewish.  There were camps set up to hold all the people that the Nazi’s captured and within these camps people were split up from their families and forced to work in severe conditions.  They were continuously killed through gas chambers or other cruel methods because a pure race was considered to be the ideal society.

People that were considered to be Jewish were not the only ones that were killed.  Nazi Germany exterminated anyone with disabilities (both mental and physical) and the Gypsies.   Their goal for the “pure” race was used to reason all of the murders that they were committing within and outside of these camps.

There were many deaths in Europe as well as around the world at the time.  The Axis powers tried to spread their rule over different countries while the Allied powers tried to stop what the opposition was doing.  The Allied forces fought back greatly throughout World War II and the war was officially over in 1945. 

Following the war, Europe had a great amount of instability.  Germany was separated into occupation zones that were controlled by the United States, The Soviet Union, Britain, and France.  There were 35 million to 60 million deaths that occurred throughout the war which caused there to be a huge impact in the way things were being run worldwide.  There were major losses and the states of many people’s lives were heavily changed after the war.

At the end of World War II six nations, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg and West Germany, signed the Treaty of Paris in 1951 to establish stronger social, political and economic ties with each other.  None of the countries was in favor of any kind of nationalism at the time because of what they saw with World War II.  Nationalism led to extreme measures that resulted in millions of deaths around the world.  No one really wanted that to happen again and Europe thought that it was because of nationalism that it happened.  So instead of only looking after their own national agenda’s, they believed that forming alliances with countries that felt the same way would be a good idea to help their own country without extreme nationalism.

This idea of building an alliance amongst the countries officially took effect in 1952 when the European Coal and Steel Community was created which allowed free trade when it came to economic and military resources amongst these countries.  In result these countries thought that there should be a committee to overlook what was going on within these nations which ultimately led to positions that oversaw just that.  This is considered to be the official start of the early stages of the European Union.

Overtime the European Community, as it was called prior to 1991, introduced many changes in Europe.  This included the first European currency: the Euro, and trying to enforce gender equality.  While there are still many gaps amongst the sexes, the European Union claims that they are working towards a more equal society.  There are yearly reports that document exactly that and there are efforts that are being made to make sure that there’s a brighter future for all the countries that are now a part of the European Union.

 

 

Massacre at Kwangju: The suppression of democratization for economic gain

The South Korean city of Kwangju is home to the Kwangju Uprising of 1980, named after the city it took place in. Motivated by the outrage of the newly passed marital law and the general dissatisfaction of Chun Doo-hwan’s military dictatorship, student protesters took to the streets on May 18^th. The protesting lasted until May 27^th when the militarized forces gained enough power to cripple the demonstration indefinitely.

On the morning of May 18^th about 200 students from the Chonnam University began demonstrating and by mid day more than 800 more people had joined them. With the approval of the United States, the military government released paratroopers to put an end to the demonstration. These paratroopers were trained for assault missions and behaved accordingly by brutally beating, and arresting the protesters.  Those of the students that had been forcibly arrested were then piled into various trucks where they continues to be beaten as they were taken away.  The next day, many more people joined the protesters that were still left (http://countrystudies .us/South-Korea/21.htm). Paratroopers once again resorted to brutality, even some policemen were against the incredible force being used against the protesters and when they tried to release captives, they too were bayoneted and beaten by the military forces. The paratroopers used lethal force and opened fire on the protesters with M-16s.

 

On May 20^th, the newspaper Militants’ Bulletin was published for the first time, and reported on the actual events of the uprising. That night the march grew to over 200,000 people in a city with a population of roughly 700,000 (http://libcom.org/history1980-the-kwangju-uprising). With the continued failure of the media to report on the situation in Kwangju, thousands of the protesters took their frustration to the media buildings and set them on fire, along with the tax offices and 16 police cars. The following day, in an effort to fight back against the bullets being shot at them, protesters started seizing military vehicles from a local military contractor. They soon had 350 vehicles and started driving these expropriated vehicles around the city, rallying demonstrators together and going to neighboring towns and villages to spread the revolt. Soon the protesters raided police stations and National Guard armories for weapons. The estimated amount of those killed ranges from a few hundred to over 2,000 people killed during the nine day uprising (http://www.jstor.org.gate.lib. buffalo.edu). During the time of the uprising the media was so censored that nothing was being reported.  Not even any of the deaths; instead, the reports that came out were fabricated stories of vandalism and trivial police involvement (http://libcom.org/history/1980-the-kwangju-uprising).

Women were an integral part of the demonstration, at one point during the protesting seven busloads of women textile workers went to Naju, where they seized hundreds of rifles and ammunition and brought them back to Kwangju. The protesters tried to bring the uprising to Chunju and Seoul, but it was unsuccessful. The military’s control on travel and media was very strong and it prevented the spread of the uprising to the rest of the nation (http://global.factiva.com.gate). By the evening of the 20^th the protesters had control of the city.

They kept that control for six days until May 27^th when military forces engulfed the city and took power back.

The US supported Chun’s suppression of the Kwangju Uprising in order to impose a neoliberal economic regime. The involvement of the United States was motivated by their desire to advance their economic relationship with South Korea, resulting in a meeting in the White House on May 22 discussing what they should do about Korea.  The result of this meeting was an overall agreement that order had to be placed on Kwangju by suppressing the protesters uprising The U.S. government “decided to support the restoration of security and order in South Korea while deferring pressure for political liberalization” (institute_US-gwangju.ppt.mov.ppt).  The following day in Seoul, U.S. Ambassador William Gleysteen had a meeting with Korean Prime Minister Park Choong-hoon during this meeting Gleysteen acknowledged that “firm anti-riot measures were necessary.” President Carter told a CNN interviewer on May 31 that security interests must sometimes override human rights concerns (http://www.jstor.org.gate.lib. buffalo.edu).  Subsequently, during this time the U.S. decided to allow the president of the US Export-Import Bank, John Moore to go on his visit to Seoul so that he could arrange U.S. financing of large Korean contracts for US nuclear power plants (http://global.factiva.com.gate).

At this time the Senior American officer in Korea, General John Wickham “accepted and agreed to the request by the Korean government to allow the use of certain selected Korean armed forces under his operational control in operations to subdue the crowds” (http://global.factiva.com.gate).  Furthermore, the U.S. Ambassador Gleysteen wrote in a telegram to Washington “..less concerned over the democratic development, if military leadership can develop an apparently stable structure and invigorate the economy than U.S. business and banking circles will be prepared to go back to business as usual (with Korea)” (institute_US-gwangju.ppt.mov.ppt).

The U.S. was worried that large American corporations wouldn’t want to do business with Korea do to this instability, so the U.S. encouraged Chun to provide stability by ending the protesters uprising. To further the business relationship with Chun and American investors, on June 13 after the uprising in May the U.S. had Chun dine with leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, including the president of 3-M and representatives of Bank of America, Dow Chemical, and Gulf Oil. As well as in September, Chun visited to America where he met Davis Rockefeller; their photo was printed in The New York Times. Then, not but three days later, the Korean government announced new policies about relaxed foreign investments, plus 100% foreign ownership of companies, 100% repatriation of funds invested from abroad, and foreigners’ ownership of land (institute_US-gwangju.ppt.mov.ppt).

It’s important to question the reasoning for the U.S. involvement in Korea during this time. What are some of the rationalities you might come up with for why we became involved with suppression of the Kwangju uprising, do you think it was purely economic gain?