Thursday, November 10, 2011
Thanks :)
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Islam in America: The Negative Effects of September 11th on the Muslim Faith
Islam in America: The Negative Effects of September 11th on the Muslim Faith
Islam, currently the largest non-Christian religion in the United States, has carried a negative perception by American society since the September 11th attacks, when the radical militant Muslim group al-Qaeda took the nation by surprise. Since these attacks, the Muslims have been victims of discrimination, racial profiling, and hate crimes. It is important to note that much of this seems to sprout from the common misconception of the Islamic faith. It is due to this that it is imperative to explore not only a brief background on the religion and beliefs of the Muslims, but also look at some of the negative effects that September 11th has had on these people.
In order to understand the Islamic faith, one must begin by looking at the religion’s origin. For starters, Islam is a monotheistic faith that was founded in 610 by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, most commonly known as, “The Prophet Muhammad.” He left his birth city of Mecca and established himself on a cave in Mount Hira. It is there, where Mohammad was called to be a Prophet of God and was able to receive revelations from God – “Allah.” For the following twenty-two years until his death, Mohammad received these oral revelations. These revelations were later written down by scribes and are now formally known as the Koran – Qur’an.
The beliefs and practices of the Islamic faith are also essential to understanding the Muslim religion. The most important beliefs and practices are those discussed in the Muslim holy book – The Koran. The Koran, “Muslims believe…is the final, complete, literal, eternal, uncreated word of God, sent from heaven to the Prophet Muhammad as a guide for humankind (Koran 2:185)” (Riggs 358). It is important to understand that because Muslims believe this to be God’s literal word, the Koran has never been changed or altered by humans so that it remains truer in its form. This ‘guide for humankind’ sets the foundation for what Muslims should follow in order to live a life as true believers after submitting to Allah. One of the most commonly known sets of guidelines is The Five Pillars, which set the basic standard for all Muslims. The first pillar is the Testimony of Faith, which states that, “A Muslim is one who bears witness, who testifies that ‘There is no god but God [Allah] and Muhammad is the messenger of God’” (Riggs 361). Proclaiming this statement is the first step into becoming a Muslim. One must first profess and truly believe that there is but one God and that He revealed himself to Muhammad – His messenger to the people of the world. The second pillar is Prayer. Muslims pray five times a day and “Prayer is preceded by a series of ablutions, which symbolize the purity of mind and body required for worshipping God” (Riggs 361). As it is noted here, ‘purity’ is essential to the worshipping of God and prayer serves as the first step into trying to achieve this sense of pureness. Also, it is this idea of remaining pure that influences the dress of Muslims. They use very modest dressing to avoid any desire of the body which will corrupt their purity. The third pillar is Fasting. During the month of Ramadan, seen as the month when God first revealed himself to Muhammad, Muslims must refrain from eating, drinking, or taking part in any form of sexual activity from dusk to dawn. “The primary emphasis of fasting is not simply on abstinence and self-mortification but, rather, on spiritual self-discipline, reflection on human frailty and dependence on God, and performance of good works in response to the less fortunate” (Riggs 362). As it is noted here, fasting isn’t done as any form of penance but, rather, as a form of cleansing of the individual based on the reflection of one’s dependence on God. The fourth pillar, also seen as a social responsibility and religious obligation, is Almsgiving. This pillar refers to the caring of those in need by others, as Muslims are required to give back two-and-a-half percent of their wealth to the poor and the sick. The fifth pillar, also known as the Hijad, is the pilgrimage to Mecca that, “[e]very adult Muslim who is physically and financially able is required to make…becoming a person totally at God’s service at least once in his or her lifetime” (Riggs 363). Here, this last pillar can be seen as an obligation as it is being described to as something that is ‘required’ from the believer.
Lastly, now that one has a general understanding of what the Islamic faith entails, a closer look at how September 11th impacted the Muslim community in America is imperative. The majority of the public accepts the belief that al-Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden, was the brains behind the horrific attacks of September 11th. Al-Qaeda, a Muslim extremist’s sect, besmirched the perception that the American society had on the Muslims in the United States. It was because of this that Islam was viewed as a violent religion and American’s feared anything that was associated with Islam. A CBS News/New York Times poll found that “Thirty-three percent [of Americans] believe American Muslims are sympathetic toward terrorists” (Carty). The belief that Muslim Americans were supporting the terrorist cause of al-Qaeda is for the most part, wrong. The majority of Muslims in America rejected the ideas of the terrorists and they immediately condemned their actions. Deen Mohammad, a well-known Muslim leader, stated, “We believe that the one God calls us to be peoples of peace. Nothing in our Holy Scriptures, nothing in our understanding of God’s revelation, nothing that is Christian or Islamic justifies terrorist attacks and disruption of millions of lives” (Nimer 77). This statement not only proves the majority Muslim condemnation of the terrorist attacks, but also, touches on how the Islamic faith itself does not believe in such violent actions, as they are not supported by the holy scriptures of the Koran. This in fact, is stressed more clearly in the Koran itself, “[a] Muslim’s obligation to be God’s servant and to spread his message…” (Riggs 359) Like many other religions, it is important for the believers to not only adhere to God, but to also keep the faith alive and spread it out to other people. However, aside from this obligation, “[t]he Koran [also] stresses religious tolerance, teaching that God deliberately created a world of diversity…” (Riggs 374) One can draw from this that the extremist Muslim groups who do not accept other religions can be seen as not adhering to the Koran, and therefore, not following the guidance’s set forth by Allah. Most importantly, the “Koran stresses that ‘there is to be no compulsion in religion’ (2:256)” (Riggs 374). From this, one can say that the use of force by extremist groups to try and create a perfect Islamic world is again not the correct following of the Koran or Muslim law. It can be safe to say that for the majority of Muslims, terrorist attacks, which are obvious uses of force, are not accepted in the Islamic faith, as they are discouraged by the Koran. In a “Washington Post-ABC News poll, 31 percent of respondents said that mainstream Islam “encourages violence” (Morello). After what has just been discussed, one can say that such beliefs are incorrect and the Islamic faith should not be seen as one of violence, but rather one that is accepting of other religions. Also, it is important to note that Islam rejects the use of force for conversions, as submission to the Islamic faith is strictly voluntary.
Trying to cope with the losses of the September 11th attacks, the American public found it hard to understand how such tragic events could have happened. In the midst of it all, a sense of pride and nationalism arose in Americans, but it brought about a resentment and hatred for those of the Muslim faith, as terrorism was being generalized as being Muslim. This in turn, brought about a surge of discrimination, racial profiling, and hate crimes against Muslims in the United States. It is because of all this, that “[i]n the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, American Muslims have had a complicated relationship with their own country” (Carty). It isn’t difficult to imagine how hard it must be for an American Muslim to live in their home country and come to terms with the idea that their religion is not only being looked down upon, but also makes them sole targets for injustice. As an American Muslim noted, "‘Yes, it's easy to be a Muslim in America as far as religious freedom, but there's a sense of being under greater scrutiny’" (Carty). Like it was mentioned earlier, these attacks brought a negative focus to the Muslim groups in the United States. Muslims were now being singled out in the most common places and were being damned terrorists. This was done especially in airports, where Muslims were being racially profiled, in fear that they could potentially be the next suicide bombers. On average, “Americans largely agree that Muslims face greater scrutiny in the country - a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 78 percent think Muslims and Arab-Americans are unfairly singled out” (Carty). This data goes on to stress the idea that Muslims were believed to be unfairly targeted in American society, as an astonishing 78 percent of Americans agreed on the issue. The fact that the majority of the American public acknowledges this unfair treatment of Muslims in this country goes to show how much of a large scale issue this has become. Yet, although American’s have accepted that there is an issue in the negative perception of Muslims, “A significant number of Americans [still] remain wary of Muslims” (Morello). “Just last month [October 2011], the Associated Press reported that the NYPD, with the help of the CIA, has been aggressively monitoring Muslim communities in New York and beyond” (Carty). This here is a perfect example of how the American society and government still are suspicious of the Islamic faith today, even a decade after the September 11th attacks.
It is evident that the negative effects of these terrorist attacks have taken a long and strong hold of the American society. It is no wonder that “[A] large portion of American Muslims feel that Muslims are unwelcomed in the public sphere” (Martin 44). The first step in reversing such hostile attitudes towards this peaceful faith is by educating the public about the religion itself. Until then, Muslims will continue to face unfair treatment by the American society in the United States.
Works Cited
Carty, Daniel. ""Mixed Bag" for U.S. Muslims since 9/11." CBSNews. N.p., 10 Sept. 2011. Web. 9 Oct. 2011.
Martin, Richard C., ed. "American Culture and Islam." Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 41-45. Print.
Morello, Carol. "Muslim Americans Say Life Is More Difficult Since 9/11." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines. N.p., 29 Aug. 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.
Nimer, Mohamed. The North American Muslim Resource Guide: Muslim Community Life in the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge, 2002. 46+. Print.
Riggs, Thomas, ed. "Islam." Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices. Vol. 1. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2006. 349-79. Print.
Candide vs. Frankenstein on The Enlightenment
Candide vs. Frankenstein on The Enlightenment
During the 17th century, an era known as The Scientific Revolution, brought about new knowledge that changed the way people viewed nature and the world around them. Philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, and many others created a structure of natural laws that governed the entire universe. People were now becoming more interested in how things worked in the world and the reasons as to why they did. As a result of these new discoveries, the 18th century’s era of The Enlightenment became concerned with wanting to change the way that the people viewed science. Candide, the satirical novel written by Voltaire and published in 1759, highlighted some of the key ideas that were very essential to the Enlightenment. Voltaire argued that organized religious figures were corrupt, as their depicted actions were seen far from the righteous teachings of God. Optimism was rejected by Voltaire as he rather stressed that philosophy alone could become destructive and useless, therefore, people had to use their sense of reason to build on their own judgment. On the other hand, Mary Shelley a Romantic writer argued against the enlightenment. In her book Frankenstein, she focused on the belief that knowledge could lead to self-destruction – the search for the unknown was dangerous as some things were meant to remain unknown. It is because of this, that Shelley felt the need to restore the individual by bringing him back to nature and away from the scientific world. Although both stories hold strong arguments about The Enlightenment, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein could be seen as more convincing because it is more realistic unlike Voltaire’s extreme scenarios.
Through the use of characters, Voltaire argued that those who were found to be the more religious were the ones who caused the most suffering for others in the world. He criticized orthodox religion by depicting the most faithful as the most corrupt. For example, when Candid, the protagonist of the novel, reached Holland after much torment wondering through lands, he found himself asking a Protestant pastor for bread. The pastor, who had just finished orating about charity, denies Candide of bread and claimed that he didn’t “deserve to eat” because he was indifferent about whether or not he “believe[d] that the Pope [was] Anti-Christ” (Voltaire, 9). From this example, one would think that a pastor, Protestant or not, would find it right to help someone in need and help his fellow man. Yet, the concern for one’s beliefs were more important than that of helping the individual, which only goes on to stress that even the most faithful believers were flawed. When Candide came across Cunégonde’s brother, who was now a Jesuit, they had a dispute in regards to Candide wanting to marry the Jesuit’s sister. This Jesuit is seen as being more concerned with differences in social status than the fact that Candide rescued his sister. Candide responded with his claim that “all men are equal…” but the Jesuit exclaimed “We shall see about that, you dog!” and goes on to strike Candide in the face with his sword (Voltaire, 9). From this example, not only is the Jesuit’s inconsistencies of righteousness evident, but also his violent and un-Christian like response to the issue. It is clear, that Voltaire felt as though those who practice organized religion were more at fault than those who didn’t. Jacques, the Anabaptist, was an example of how good and kind those of unorthodox religions could be. He took care of Candid and Pangloss when they were both in need, and he was not concerned with the faith of either of the two – he was willing to help them regardless of this.
Religion, as it is depicted by Voltaire, seems to be the cause of a lot of the chaos and suffering that happened in the story. When shifting the focus over to the utopian city of Eldorado, a single religion seemed to bring peace and harmony amongst the people there. When asked about the religion of Eldorado, “The old man flushed again. ‘Can there be more than one religion? We have, I believe, the same religion as everyone else: we worship God from night till morning…We do not pray to him at all…We have nothing to ask of him…he has given us everything we need; we thank him unceasingly.’” (Voltaire, 47) From this dialogue, one can say that this perfect city lived in harmony as “everyone [there] is of the same mind” and not much can be disputed between the people if they were all unified in thought and faith. Also, the fact that these people had everything they needed from God that they no longer had anything to ask for, brings about the question of optimism. Pangloss held the belief that “private ills make up the general good, so that the greater the sum of private ills the better everything is” (Voltaire, 12) and because “everything is made to serve an end, everything is necessary for the best of ends” (Voltaire, 4). This philosophy is constantly questioned throughout the novel as Candide realized that much of the suffering that these characters were undergoing wasn’t bringing about any greater good for the society as a whole. Also, the fact that a perfect city like Eldorado could exists without any form of suffering, completely negated this form of thought. Cunégonde, the old lady, Candide, and even Pangloss, among other characters, underwent extreme constant and gruesome suffering, yet nothing was gained from it. Here, Voltaire was trying to stress the importance of not simply accepting philosophy alone as the only truth, but to also draw on one’s own experiences and judge for one’s self. His extreme and almost radical dilemmas make it difficult for the reader to fully come to terms with what Voltaire wanted to make a reality – a society that is able to practice reason without the restraints of organized religion or accepted philosophy. These essentials for the Enlightenment were constant throughout the novel, yet they weren’t easy to grasp in the midst of such extremes.
On the contrary, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein created a stronger argument on the Enlightenment as she focused on a more moderate stand point and on fewer extremes. Although her views were against the Enlightenment and were focused on Romanticism, her opposing views still gave a clear idea of the held values for this era. The Enlightenment was the time when education was encouraged and intellect was respected. The thirst for knowledge became inevitable in a light of many scientific findings. People wanted to almost in a sense become omniscient and unravel all the secrets of the world. Shelley’s concern with this was that people were now trying to become equals with God and have knowledge of everything that governed the universe. Yet, she believed that such a desire could become dangerous and result in the self-destruction of the individual. She felt as though the only way to return the individual to happiness was through the reattachment to nature. Through Victor, the protagonist, Shelley makes this argument. Victor once “ardently desired the acquisition of knowledge…” (Shelley, 46) for “the world was to [him] a secret which [he] desired to divine…it was the secrets of heaven and earth that [he] desired to learn” (Shelley, 38-39). Here, it is important to note that Victor doesn’t just have a mere thirst for knowledge, but a knowledge of things that only perhaps God, ‘the divine,’ holds. This, as previously mentioned, was seen as dangerous, as people were attempting to become godlike. Victor becomes dedicated solely to science in search for the secret of life and “[a]fter days and nights of incredible labour and fatigue, [he] succeeded…[and] became [himself] capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter” (Shelley, 53). Here, one can see how Victor has found the godlike power to create life. However, “beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled [his] heart” (Shelley, 58) as he realized that he had created a “miserable monster” (Shelley, 59). Almost too quickly does this exciting power of giving life vanish from Victor, once again emphasizing that this thirst for divine knowledge is far too dangerous for humans to tamper with. What was once his passion, now becomes his misery, “[e]ver since that fatal night…[he] had conceived a violent antipathy even to the name of natural philosophy” (Shelley, 68) the “chemical instruments….were to be afterwards used in putting [him] to a slow and cruel death” (Shelley, 69). The instruments which once helped him in his discoveries were now a means of torture for him. From this, one can say that Victor has grown to dislike science and anything related to it, as it reminds him of his unwanted creation that still brings him much pain, which he feels will soon cause his death. This pain arises not only from his creation, but from his neglect of nature. As the summer season passed “[he] was…engaged, heart and soul, in one pursuit. It was a most beautiful season; never did the fields bestow a more plentiful harvest, or the vines yield a more luxuriant vintage: but [his] eyes were insensible to the charms of nature” (Shelley, 56). Here, one sees Victor, as being detached from the real world as he is no longer sensible to the beauties that nature holds and he misses out on one of the most beautiful of seasons because of it. This in turn, stresses Shelley’s idea that knowledge derives people away from nature and so there is a need to shift this focus back, as nature restores balance. Throughout the book, Shelley makes it clear to the reader that nature serves as a healing for the human individual soul. The unpleasant results of the quest for knowledge are introduced in the beginning of the story, when Victor meets Robert Walton, a sailor who is also in search for knowledge of the unknown as he sails the North Pole. When describing Victor in a letter to his sister, Walton writes “no one can feel more deeply than he does the beauties of nature. The starry sky, the sea, and every sight afforded by these wonderful regions, seems still to have the power of elevating his soul from earth” (Shelley, 30). In this account, nature is seen as a good to humanity, as it holds the power to restore Victor and elevate his soul to the heavens. For Victor, who found himself “on the brink of destruction,” (Shelley, 26) such restoration becomes a necessity for the improvement and well-being of the individual. This form of restoration for the individual by nature is again seen later in the story when Victor is returning home after learning of the death of his brother William. When Victor reflects on the scenery he encounters on his way home – the mountains and the lake – he comments that “by degrees the calm and heavenly scene restored [him]...and when [he] could hardly see the dark mountains, [he] felt still more gloomily” (Shelley, 76). Again, the importance of nature for the restoration of the human soul is evident and even more stressed when Victor is described as more ‘gloomily’ when he begins to depart from it. This notion that individuals need to reconnect with nature, highlights once again Shelley’s opposing view on the need for knowledge, which was very prominent during the Enlightenment. Shelly uses Victor as a way to warn her audience of what could be of humanity if individuals seek unknown knowledge that is restricted to the divine and turn away from nature; hoping that like Robert Walton, one would give up the unmet dedication for this pursuit, in fear for loosing against the powers of nature.
Overall, is it evident that both works Candide and Frankenstein are true classics that form an argument based on the Enlightenment. While Voltaire uses more extreme measures to make his point and get his ideas across, one can see that Shelley’s use of more realistic and probable instances holds a stronger argument on the issue. Reasonably, it easier for someone to believe in an argument whose events are more probable than the other. Such is the case with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein over Voltaire’s satirical novel Candide.
Drug Cartel Violence, Lack of a Reliable Government, and Poverty in Mexico
The Three Horrors of Mexico
Throughout the history of the United States of America, immigrants have been flowing in and out constantly adding to the nation’s melting pot. The United States is continuously troubled by the large number of immigrants that are coming into the country illegally from south of the border – Mexico. Every year, millions make their way into the U.S. in search of the “American Dream”. To many this dream is having the opportunity of moving up in the socioeconomic ladder and being able to provide a better life for the many generations to come, through the basic principle of hard work. What makes this “dream” so important that people are willing to uproot themselves and begin a very difficult journey? What is making them flee their own country? The conditions in Mexico have made it impossible for some people to live comfortably in their humble homes, so they leave their native country in search of something better that will allow their families to live peacefully. The violence and chaos from the Mexican drug cartels, the lack of a reliable government, and the poverty that engulfs Mexico have all been the leading causes of people abandoning their homeland in search for a better life.
Due to the life-threatening violence from the drug cartels many Mexican natives are leaving their country. The terrorism of the Mexican cartels causes fear to consume the lives of the innocent people of Mexico. The drug cartels have a significant influence, aided by special military training, force, and power, which is used to intimidate and coerce others to meet their demands. The main goals of these cartels appear to be power and money; their industry is worth billions of dollars. Last year, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman—a Mexican drug lord—was placed on Forbes’ list of the world’s billionaires; on Forbes’ current list of ‘The World’s Most Powerful People’, there are sixty-eight successful people represented from all over the world. Among these most powerful is El Chapo, the kingpin for El Cartel de Sinaloa (Forbes). His renowned status of having the sixtieth slot on the Forbes list is one predominantly due to the wealth he has attained through drug trafficking and other illegal conquests, but his ability to recruit many followers and gain such a large influence in Mexico, and countries surrounding it, also makes the significant feat more remarkable. According to Elmer Mendoza, in 2009 there was an average of twenty three drug-related murders each day all around Mexico; altogether about 30,000 people have been killed since Mexican President Felipe Calderon declared war on drug traffickers in 2006 (Finnegan). The war on drug trafficking had the intention to end the violence and control the drug cartels have had on the country, the public declaration of this war has instead resulted in growing fury and power of the cartels.
The photograph above is just one of the many that depict the gruesome deaths caused by the drug cartels; there are bounded corpses piled on top of one another, people barefoot, men and women strewn across the street. The Mexican drug cartels are merciless; they kill anyone that gets in their way. Those being killed are, like Mexican Senator Rosario Ibarra stated, “the civilian population unrelated to any political social conflict of the narcotraffic…The majority…are executions of the civilian population, of youth, both men and women, and the poor” (Cockcroft 6). It seems as if when President Calderon declared war on drugs the drug cartels responded by declaring a war on innocent Mexican people. The constant threat of death would make any person want to escape; and it is not just death, but rather the slow, agonizing torture before death that elicits this fear as well. Just like life is not promised, death should not be either. Watching the horror others have to suffer gives the Mexican people two difficult options: staying where they are now and risk the possibility of torture, or embarking on a perilous journey to cross the United States/Mexico border. Although the risk may mean death, the odds of a better life makes the sacrifice worth the possibility.
Another result of having a country driven by drugs is poverty. Poverty has always been a problem in Mexico, but just recently the amount of people living in poverty has increased significantly. “Since 1997, the number of people living in extreme poverty – defined as workers earning less than $2 a day – has grown by four million, or twice the growth of the population” (Millman). The information states that as the rate of population grew the rate of poverty increased by twice as much; if this pattern continues, the percentage of the impoverished will continue to grow. Currently, about twenty five percent of Mexico’s population cannot afford basic necessities (Rich). These necessities range from food and clothing to healthcare. “At a [Mexican] health clinic…many of the illnesses they dealt with resulted from malnutrition and other dietary problems” (Sanders). When Bernie Sanders visited the home of a woman in Juarez, Mexico, he described the home as, “the dilapidated shack of a young mother: one light bulb, a dirt floor and no healthcare available for her sick child.” What Sanders depicts is not an uncommon scene in Mexico; as the majority of the Mexican population becomes poorer, situations like these will become a norm. Simple necessities that are taken for granted in America are unavailable to many people in Mexico; among these necessities is running water and electricity. Poor living conditions like the ones Sanders describes is what many Mexicans are leaving behind when they set their journey for America. In Mexico, there are a plethora of “Mexicans without salaried jobs [who] enter the vast off-the-books economy as street vendors or kiosk operators or even juggling three balls at street corners for drivers stopped at red lights, a not uncommon sight” (Uchitelle). The citizens of Mexico have very few options when it comes to employment, and since everything costs money, the only way to survive is to find any way of making money. In 2000, thirty-three percent of Mexico’s working population was making less than $4 per day (Rich). Jobs in Mexico pay very low and have little to no benefits for the employees, and that results in the large quantities of people living in poverty. Since NAFTA –which allows for the importation of cheap, subsidized U.S. corn – was enacted in 1994, 1.3million jobs have been lost in the Mexican industry of agriculture (Sanders). Farmers find it impossible to compete with the low prices of the U.S. and this agreement has resulted only in less job opportunities for the already-struggling Mexican population. Mexicans are unknowingly hoping for something that may never come; hoping for a better life, or trying to seek a better life, when there may not be another. They have little to look forward to in their own country because there is no hope for change, for things to get better, or to ever leave.
Not only do Mexican citizens have to be weary of the drug cartels and be concerned by their plight of poverty, but they have an unreliable government to fall back on. Many Americans do not truly understand what it is like to not have any support, which is what most Mexicans have to live with daily. Describing Mexico Dennis Blair, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, said “Basic security is undermined and instability marked by crime, corruption, and ingovernability is growing” (Cockcroft 5). In other words, there is no sense of security, not even an illusion of security that can make them feel comfortable, in Mexico. The government is polluted with so much corruption that its residents stand alone against the wrath of the drug cartels. The Central Intelligence Agency has named Mexico one of the most unstable nations in the world; this lack of stability results from Mexico being a “state of ‘failed law’” (Cockcroft 5). Mexico’s corrupt government has had a long hold on the country and even the Mexican military has been condemned for its “shameless corruption” (Cockcroft 6). The absence of a stable government has led to an increase in violence because criminals know there are little to no consequences to their gruesome actions. As James Cockcroft states, “Hardly ever is an assassin or kidnapper ‘found’, much less charged!” (6) Mexico does have laws and a government much like in America, but the majority of the time those laws are neither obeyed nor enforced.
The Mexican law enforcement departments are “filled with underpaid, undertrained officer [and] are heavily infiltrated by criminal organizations” (Archibold). Mexican policemen see a fight against the drug cartels as impossible; the police lack the skills, firepower, and intelligence to combat against these offenders, so they would rather join them. In Tijuana alone, 2,600 members of the police were believed to work for the narco-traffickers (Archibold). Because police offers are underpaid and undertrained to fight off the cartels, many drug cartels secure the services of the law enforcement by offering them hefty wages. In a nation engulfed in poverty, the temptation of money is extremely hard to resist, especially when it comes with other benefits; for example, not only are the policemen getting paid to not do their job, but they are also guaranteed their safety. “Normally, in Mexico, narco-traffickers don’t tolerate aggressive law enforcement. Local police chiefs who annoy them are simply killed” (Finnegan). One police chief was murdered with fifty shots to the face and chest; another was gunned down at his home along with his family (Finnegan). In Sinaloa, fifty “poorly armed and ill-outfitted federal and state police” were killed by the drug cartels (Mendoza). Randal C. Archibold states, “Several [Mexican mayors] spend the night in the United States out of concern that the local police cannot protect them.” If the mayors – the supposed law enforcement and citizen support – do not feel safe in their own county, how can the poor majority of the Mexican population feel? If the government cannot put an end to the drug traffickers and their actions, how are Mexican citizens expected to sit back and watch the bloodbaths continue?
Evidently, there exist difficult problems in Mexico that seem to be taking over the entire country. Deaths of innocent people keep rising each passing day, corruption has overtaken the government, and the immense poverty that the majority of the population lives under is increasing. The Mexican people have extreme difficult circumstances with very little options. They are pressured by the vicious drug cartels, their failed government, and their crumbling economy. It would be more appropriate to call these immigrants from the south “refugees” for they come to America to find a safe haven; yet they only find a “Keep Out” sign metaphorically posted on the door. Mexicans are willing to spend entire days walking for hours, without any food or water, carrying nothing but a backpack, across a dry desert, under the scorching sun, past dozens of “booby traps” set up by Americans to keep them out; they are willing to sacrifice their life for a sad, desperate hope for something different than what they have – a chance for a better life.
Works Cited
Archibold, Randal C. "Mexico Seeking Unified Police." New York Times 2 Oct. 2010: A1(L). Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Nov. 2010.
Cockcroft, James D. "Mexico: "Failed States," New Wars, Resistance." Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 62.6 (2010): 28-41. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 Nov. 2010.
Finnegan, William. "In the Name of the Law." New Yorker 86.32 (2010): 62-71. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 Nov. 2010.
"Forbes - Joaquin Guzman Loera." Forbes.com - Business News, Financial News, Stock Market Analysis, Technology & Global Headline News. Mar. 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.
Mendoza, Elmer. "In Mexico, Scenes From Life in a Drug War: Ground Zero in Sinaloa." New York Times 17 Oct. 2010: 9(L). Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Nov. 2010.
Millman, Joel. "Is the Mexican Model Worth the Pain?" Wall Street Journal. 8 Mar. 1999, Eastern edition: ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web. 14 Nov. 2010.
"Rich is rich and poor is poor." Economist 357.8194 (2000): 11-13. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
Sanders, Bernie. "The View From Mexico." Nation 278.4 (2004): 13. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
Uchitelle, Louis. "Low Mexico Jobless Rate Is Deceptive.(Financial Desk)." New York Times. 9 Mar. 1993. Academic OneFile. Web. 18 Nov. 2010.
Nullifying SB1070
*Note* This paper was written about a year ago
Nullifying the Arizona Anti-Immigration Law SB1070
The unsafe environment of the Mexican-American border and the large quantities of illegal immigrants arriving in the United States is creating a wave of concern throughout the bordering states. The ruthless Mexican drug cartels constantly smuggle narcotics and people into the U.S. The impotence of the federal government pushed the state of Arizona to create its own anti-immigration law, SB1070, to combat the drug-trafficking organizations that are causing violence and chaos in the state. Many argue that this law is necessary in order to protect the state; however, this law strays away from the original purpose of diminishing the drug cartels power and instead focuses on discriminating against people of Hispanic descent. Therefore, this law should be nullified by the federal government because it encourages racial profiling and targets the wrong group of people.
One of the sections of Arizona’s anti-immigration law states, “If reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.” the law enforcement has the right to question the individual (Senate Fact Sheet). The provision, however, noticeably lacks a definition of “suspicious.” This lack of specificity allows the police to implement the law based on their own criteria, which, in some instances, can be stereotypical. Clearly, this ambiguous law can lead to racial profiling by the police. Would the system be justifiable if an individual is vulnerable to arrest based on a law enforcer’s personal biases? During a news conference, Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona, was asked “What does an illegal immigrant look like?” Surprisingly, the person who mandated the law allowing police to identify illegal immigrants responded, “I don’t know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that there are people in Arizona that assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I don’t know if they know that or not” (Holub). How does the governor plan to enforce a law targeting illegal immigrants when she does not know what they look like? The governor will not bluntly describe what an illegal immigrant looks like, simply because it is impossible to tell the immigration status of an individual based on their appearance. Unless a person is seen coming into the country illegally, pointing out an illegal immigrant is really impossible.
Is it safe to say that everyone of Hispanic descent can be seen as “suspicious” since they are the vast majority of undocumented people? Arizona Senator Russell Pearce stated, "Ninety percent of the illegal aliens in Arizona come from south of the border, so [appearance] certainly may be a factor" (Thomas). In other words, because most of the illegal aliens in Arizona are Hispanic, appearance will definitely contribute in determining suspicion. It is clear, that in order for this law to be enforced, policemen would have to pass judgment of a person’s citizenship status based on their race. As defined by the American Civil Liberties Union, this act of “discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of a crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin” is considered to be racial profiling. Therefore, it can be assured that Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB1070, is currently promoting the unconstitutional practice of racial profiling.
Not only is the law promoting unconstitutional practices, it is affecting the wrong group of people. The intended purpose for the anti-immigration law was to decrease the violence the Mexican drug cartels bring into this country. Yet, the law is not appropriate for its so-called purpose to safeguard the state against the trafficking of narcotics, firearms, and humans. The state has an insufficient amount of resources to carry out both the obligations: safeguarding the state against crime and apprehending illegal aliens. In fact, after the law came into effect, “some [Arizona] residents calling 911 in need of an emergency police response could expect to wait 16 minutes before a squad car shows up” (Friedersdorf). Therefore, if a resident of Arizona was victim to a drug related crime by the Mexican cartels, the residents would have to wait longer for help to arrive. This is because the law enforcement would be so preoccupied on detaining illegal immigrants. SB1070 is so focused on detaining the entire illegal immigrant population, most of whom are not criminals, that it completely misses its target. Then, how is this law beneficial to the residents of Arizona?
Another one of the provisions in SB1070 “makes it a state crime for any foreign resident of Arizona to fail to carry federally-issued immigration documents at all times.” Before the law came into effect, the paranoid law enforcement of Arizona was already beginning to start acting ruthlessly towards its residents. According to ABC News, in April 2010, a Hispanic American citizen named Abdon, claimed to have been arrested and racially profiled in the state of Arizona. While stopped at a weight station, Abdon was asked for proof of U.S. citizenship by an Arizona policeman. He provided the officer with his drivers license and social security number, but the police officer was relentless and asked for his birth certificate. Since he was unable to provide his birth certificate, he was handcuffed and sent to an immigration detention center. When his wife arrived at the facility, she delivered the birth certificate necessary to release Abdon. Needless to say, his story is one of many that prove that racial profiling is directed towards Hispanics. The law’s ineffectiveness is stigmatizing Americans of Hispanic descent and wasting the state’s resources of law enforcement.
As the Arizona law enforcement departments are spending time finding probable cause to detain Hispanics to determine their citizenship status, they are becoming distracted and are allowing the cartels to continue their violent and ruthless attempts in the transportation of drugs and other illegal contraband. Since this law has not been successful at affectively deterring cartels, it would be in Arizona’s best interest to nullify SB1070, and look for a new way of combating the war against drugs on America’s southern border. There needs to be a new, more efficient law to replace SB1070. This law needs to effectively minimize the activities of the drug cartels and maintain the civil rights of all individuals.
Persuasion through Speech, Visuals, and Audio in The Field of Dreams
Blind to Persuasion
In the 1989 American film, The Field of Dreams, Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) builds a baseball diamond on his cornfields in Iowa. With no one coming to the baseball field, Ray and his wife Annie (Amy Madigan) consider replanting their crops. It is here that Terence Mann (James Earl Jones) along with the ghosts of a few baseball players appear in the field, as Mann reassures Ray that, “people will come.” As all of this is going on, Ray’s brother-in-law, Mark (Timothy Busfield), is pressuring Ray into signing the papers to sell his house or he will, “lose everything.” Throughout this scene, the director of the motion picture, The Field of Dreams, successfully uses all three elements – speech, visuals, and audio – of the rhetorical triangle in order to persuade both the audience and Ray to believe Mann’s argument.
With both the cinematography and sound, Mann is depicted to the audience as the hero. The visuals involve a lot of close-up shots on Mann as he gives his speech to Ray. This effect places the audience’s attention on him and what he has to say. Once the attention of the audience has been captured, Mann remains the main figure in the clip. Also, through the use of pan shots, the director creates a sense of sympathy for the players by focusing on their eager faces and desire to play. This unique camera angle creates the illusion that the audience is standing on the field watching the players. This, in effect, connects the audience to Mann and the baseball players.
The scene’s audio is another key aspect that aids in the persuasion of the audience. Here, Mann is once again illustrated as the greater character. Every time that Mann begins to speak or is going on about “the people,” the music starts to build up in the background. On the contrary, when Mark tries to get Ray’s attention about selling the field, the music diminishes to a point where it’s barely heard. This pattern continues as Mark interjects into Mann’s speech, but never actually interrupts it. As a result, both characters get the chance to get their point across but, Mann remains dominant, even vocally. This creates a biased scene and the audience is more likely to believe Mann’s heartfelt speech instead of Mark’s “logical claim.”
Although he does not have the advantage of visuals and audio, Ray is persuaded by Mann’s speech. Throughout his speech, Mann describes to Ray how people will be coming to his baseball field, “for reasons they can't even fathom.” This quote depicts the baseball field as something that is innately attractive to people. The unknown attraction is beneficial to Ray since it will bring the baseball field to life. As Mann describes, “this field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.” He is laying out the possibility that all good things aren’t gone and that if Ray keeps the baseball field, good things will exist once again. Mann makes Ray feel as if baseball is not simply a part of history, but also a part of his life, which creates an emotional attachment between the two. As the speech continues, Mann tells Ray that money won’t be the issue, “for it is money [people] have and peace they lack.” In this statement, Mann appeals to Ray’s financial needs. Since Ray made the decision to build this field on what used to be corn crops, Ray expects to profit from his decision. Mann’s speech is effective because it emotionally attaches Ray to the field and it gives Ray hope that keeping the field will be financially beneficial. Mann effectively utilizes rhetorical devices to persuade Ray by appealing to him emotionally and logically.
Evidently, persuasion is used not only in writing, but also in film. It is not something that is limited to just language. As we see in the film, The Field of Dreams, a director can incorporate rhetorical devices into picture to make a persuasive argument. By manipulating effects such as sound, images, and speech, a director can unknowingly bring out desired emotions from the audience. Although many times persuasion goes unnoticed as a result of this subtle manipulation, it is a highly effective technique.
Strength, Bravery, and Determination/Honor in both Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
Medieval Heroes
Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight are both poems that give an insight on medieval heroism during two different time periods. In both works, the ideal hero is defined within a masculine society. In the poem Beowulf, the story line takes place during the early medieval era, when men would speak proudly and praise themselves in speech. Boasting, as it was called, was a way for men to express their true worth in society, by reasserting to all others that they would uphold masculinity through their actions. However, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which takes place during the high medieval ages, men often speak humbly about themselves and do not brag about their great accomplishments. Instead, they do so through their actions, proving themselves worthy by doing. Now although the heroes in both works carry themselves differently, ultimately, both Beowulf and Gawain portray the ideal values the society of their time celebrated: strength, bravery, and determination/honor.
One major and important trait that had to be met by all heroes during these time periods was that of strength. Strength ruled in this world and not many possessed it. Because strength was one of the many traits that these people admired, in Beowulf, time and time again, the poem stressed how its hero, Beowulf, was the strongest of all men, and like him there was no equal for, “There was no one else like him alive. In his day, he was the mightiest man on earth, highborn and powerful” (Beowulf, 196-198). In other words, Beowulf’s strength was one of a kind—his might stood above all other men. This same notion is again seen in the poem on line 788-789, when Beowulf is depicted as, “the man who of all men was foremost and strongest in the days of his life.” Once more, the poem stresses to the reader that Beowulf was in fact the strongest man during his life time. This great strength of his was known to all people; they would describe him as, “a thane…with the strength of thirty in the grip of each hand” (Beowulf, 380-381). Here, one can say that the people’s perception of his strength was one of amazement, as the strength of thirty men is seen as the equivalent of the strength of one of his hands. Beowulf’s strength was so remarkable that even in the worst of times—when he found himself near death—he gathered the strength to speak, “in spite of his wounds, mortal wounds, he still spoke” (Beowulf, 2724-2725).
In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, strength is not mentioned as much, but it is stated as a quality of Gawain’s, the poem’s hero. However, in the beginning, Gawain denies any strength and instead modestly regards himself as being “the weakest” (Gawain, 354) when he asks for permission to step up to the challenge of the Green Knight. Here, it is evident that Gawain does not wish to glorify himself in speech; rather, he belittles himself, making himself seem lacking of the qualities of a hero. Later in the poem, Gawain’s actions prove otherwise. It would be rare if “he not met some monstrous foe, And that so fierce and forbidding that fight he must” (Gawain, 716-717). Here, one can see how unlike what Gawain claims, he does possess some strength, for if he did not, he would have lost his life to the beasts he fought, since they were “so fierce.” As it is said, “Now with serpents he wars, now with savage wolves, now with wild men of the woods…Both with bulls and with bears, and with boars besides, And giants” (Gawain, 720-723). From these lines, one can say that these creatures that Gawain is taking on are quite the challenge. The bulls, bears, and giants, would require much physical power from the hero to fight off and defeat, since they are known for being of such great size and of great strength. Serpents and savage wolves are known to be dangerous and therefore, not easy contenders for Gawain to take on, and if he was in fact weak as he claimed, he would have soon met death in those fights. Thus it is safe to say, that the knightly hero Gawain, does possess strength much like the other warrior hero Beowulf.
Along with strength comes bravery, because, after all, strength is worthless if the one who possesses such gift does not exercise his power with bravery. However, Beowulf and Gawain, the ideal medieval heroes, possessed both masculine traits. Beowulf first introduces its hero’s courage when he finds himself eager to defeat Grendel, the evil monster that had perturbed the hopeless Danish king. Beowulf takes it upon himself to “seek out that king, the famous prince who needed defenders,” (Beowulf, 200-201) and “fulfill that purpose…[to] prove [himself] with a proud deed or meet [his] death” (Beowulf, 636-638). In these lines, one can see how courage drives Beowulf to the defense of this king. Although he was well aware of the possibility of death, he was willing to risk his life to prove himself to the rest of society by taking on this challenge. When he arrives, Beowulf openly expresses his fearlessness for this deadly beast he wishes to battle as he says, “I mean to be a match for Grendel, settle the outcome in single combat” (Beowulf, 425-426) and “I hereby renounce,” my armor and sword “hand-to-hand is how it will be, a life-and-death fight with the fiend” (Beowulf, 436-440). Here, not only is he showing his willingness to fight, but he is taking it a step further by saying that he will take on the beast with his bare hands, surrendering protection from his sword and shield. In saying so, Beowulf is trying to prove himself to all others that not only is he strong, but brave enough to take on the beast that murdered and fed on many innocent people. Sure enough, Beowulf is able to kill the beast, “display[ing]…the whole of Grendel’s shoulder and arm” (Beowulf, 835). Later, when Grendel’s mom tries to avenge her son’s death, Beowulf cuts “deep into her neck bone,” with a sword “and sever[s] it entirely” (Beowulf, 1566-1567). Later in the poem, when Beowulf grows old and dies at the wrath of the dragon, Wiglaf reproaches the warriors who “turned and fled and disgraced [themselves.] A warrior would sooner die than live a life of shame” (Beowulf, 2889-2891). Here, one is shown with the contradicting ideal of courage—cowardice. Beowulf’s men abandoned their king in time of need, a shame to their honor. Wiglaf makes it clear that such behavior is unacceptable in this society, and disgraceful, as warriors would rather die than to live as cowards.
Much like Beowulf, the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight illustrates its hero as one that is full of courage. Much like Beowulf, Gawain takes it upon himself to challenge a beast, and risk his life for that of a king. When Gawain wishes to take on the Green Knight’s challenge, he tells the king, “the loss of my life would be least of any; that I have you for uncle is my only praise; My body, but for your blood, is barren of worth” (Gawain, 355-357). In these lines, Gawain again devalues his own worth, in this case that of his life. Making his life seem of insignificant, he is serving the purpose of speaking meekly about himself, but also showing himself brave enough to give up his life for that of his uncle, the king. Later in the poem, when the hero sets out in search of the Green Knight, he states, “In destinies sad or merry, True men can but try” (Gawain, 564-565). In other words, no matter the fate, a man that values his own worth can only be brave enough and try—see what destiny has to offer. In this case, Gawain is referring to himself. He doesn’t know whether or not he will survive the Green Knight’s challenge, all that he knows is that he must try, have courage, and test fate. After the servant of the castle leads Gawain to the Green Chapel, the servant offers to never tell a soul if Gawain were to flee for his life, but Gawain replies: “if I turned back now, forsook this place for fear, and fled, as you say, I [would be]… a coward; I could not be excused” (Gawain, 2129 – 2132). Here, Gawain makes it clear that he will remain brave and encounter the Green Knight, even if he is to die, he cannot flee and be a coward because that will be the biggest dishonor of all. When Gawain finally meets the Green Knight, he says, “Bestow but one stroke, and I shall stand still” (Gawain, 2252). In this one statement, the hero knows that he is now facing death, yet he accepts it and is not afraid, for he will “stand still” and not flinch as the blade comes down his neck. It is this act of courage like others that proves Gawain’s bravery in the poem. Like Beowulf, Gawain is not afraid of death, for he is brave enough to accept it.
As if being strong and brave wasn’t fulfilling enough for a hero, both heroes possess much determination. Knowing that the reward for their actions will be honor and recognition, they must prove themselves victorious in the face of a challenge. In Beowulf, throughout the entire poem, the hero manages to take on dangerous and life threatening challenges, but always follows through with his plans and never gives up so that he can prove his worth to others. This becomes more evident towards the end of the poem, when Beowulf suffers from old age and is still as willing and open to any challenge as he was when he still possessed all of his strength. When his kingdom is tested by a dragon, Beowulf states, “I marched ahead…always there at the front of the line; and I shall fight like that for as long as I live, as long as this sword shall last” (Beowulf, 2497-2500). Here, Beowulf is reassuring his men that even though he is now timeworn, he will not give up fighting. He will fight till the very end of his life, as the warrior and hero that he is, leading the way for others. Then, Beowulf begins to recall his earlier life and says, “I risked my life often when I was young. Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning” (Beowulf, 2511-2514). Once again, Beowulf is announcing his willingness to continue to fight for his people, because as king, it is his honorable duty to do so. This act in itself is very heroic, as he again puts himself in a position where he will risk his life for the safety and well-being of others. His determination proves him honorable.
Gawain, much like Beowulf, is very determined to fulfill his duty. He presents himself with the Green Knight’s challenge and spends an entire year in search of him, in an attempt to fulfill his debt. He wishes to meet the Green Knight again than to “gain the world’s wealth!” (Gawain, 1064) and he “would as soon sink down dead as desist from [his] errand” (Gawain, 1067). Here, Gawain is describing his desperate need to follow through with his part of the deal. Duty becomes more important than life and money, since it would be an offense to his honor if he did not finish the task at hand. The value of agreements in this masculine society then becomes evident, as a man must hold his word true, or live a life of dishonor.
Overall, it is evident that the two heroes Beowulf and Gawain valued the same ideals of valor, strength and willpower/ pride for a heroic society, although they differed in character and time setting. In both poems, the main characters, unlike most men of their time, were able to stay true to all those masculine values, and since they each represented the ideal male in their society to uphold them, they were regarded as heroes, and thus celebrated.
