abandoned buildings -- The downtown area is filled with abandoned old buildings which really could have a lot of potential. As the "McMansions" of the suburbs eventual loose their attractiveness, and people begin to desire a more urban, convenient location, hopefully these buildings can be renovated.
decentralization -- In the "out-migration" that occurred with the addition of more counties, St. Louisans left behind a lot of city culture and connection to their city. There is now a divide between the counties and the city area which causes a lot of tension, especially because of the stereotypes projected on each one.
chains vs locally owned businesses -- Locally owned business tend to give back to the community. They can provide jobs and also directly affect the St. Louis economy and environment. Supporting more local businesses will help create a better atmosphere within St. Louis and also help boost the economy.
11 January 2011
01 December 2010
29 November 2010
research questions
...brainstorming ideas for HR presentation...
> was the social atmosphere of South Africa already changing before Nelson Mandela took power?
> were there other factors which allowed for Mandela's success?
> how did Mandela achieve his goal of uniting a previously very segregated
country?
> how was the UN/international community involved in South Africa?
> what was the historical/cultural/international importance of Mandela's success? How did it impact South Africa, but also other countries as well?
to do:
- research before and after
- rewatch Invictus
- maybe talk to Mr. Kark
- look up news stories from the time period from multiple countries
- what was the international attitude towards racial segregation, apartheid, etc.
sign from the apartheid era:
> was the social atmosphere of South Africa already changing before Nelson Mandela took power?
> were there other factors which allowed for Mandela's success?
> how did Mandela achieve his goal of uniting a previously very segregated
country?
> how was the UN/international community involved in South Africa?
> what was the historical/cultural/international importance of Mandela's success? How did it impact South Africa, but also other countries as well?
to do:
- research before and after
- rewatch Invictus
- maybe talk to Mr. Kark
- look up news stories from the time period from multiple countries
- what was the international attitude towards racial segregation, apartheid, etc.
sign from the apartheid era:
20 November 2010
HR presentation proposal
I'm interested in Nelson Mandela and how he managed to united a country that had a very long history of extreme racial segregation. Mostly watching Invictus caused me to be interested in this, but then even just reading half of the Wikipedia article was really fascinating. Other than that I haven't really done much research yet. My questions mainly concern the technicalities of the issue, as I think I only really managed to get up to the 1950s in the Wikipedia article, so I will want to read more on the topic.
06 October 2010
Current Events in the DRC
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMGkcxCx9iZPrr-0G3QgoHKE4YpgD9IL0KAG3?docId=D9IL0KAG3
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/africa-states-independence/2010/10/2010104111239448417.html
http://accra-mail.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25086:dr-congo-un-helps-seize-rebel-leader-presumed-responsible-for-mass-rape&catid=70:africa&Itemid=219
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=2&language_id=1&headline_id=12119
Basically, there is still a ton of human rights violations going on in the DRC. Recently, a man who threw a stone at the president was jailed and then found to have committed suicide with a pillow case, although it is a known fact that DRC jails do not have pillows. There was also a huge mass rape that occurred during the summer, and although the leader responsible for ordering it has been seized, people are still very concerned about making sure that the victims are compensated. There is not much going on to prevent these things from happening or stop them. Mostly people are being punished after the fact. Everything is very chaotic, and the yearly income is $300, less than when it was still under Belgium control. This makes the Congo the poorest country in the world. Although the UN is trying to be helpful, it does not seem like there are any long term improvements or plans being made. It is difficult to do this though because there are so many crimes to deal with, both present and past. I feel like perhaps because the attitude of the world towards the Congo is so negative, the country does not feel supported, especially in the past where there is a history of sort of contradictory interference by other countries (BBC). Another problem is that leaders of the Congo seem to not last very long, and it is very difficult for them to get a leader that is popular. Because of the difficulties of leading the Congo, most leaders seem to resort to extreme violence, especially because the rebels as well are very violent. However, this gives the Congo the appearance of being very chaotic and dangerous. Although Aljazeera claims that the DRC is a "sleeping giant" and could potentially be a world power with all of it's natural resources, it also says that because of all the violence and human rights violations in the DRC, this is not likely. Really, the Congo is just a huge mess. Not really sure if this is because of what Leopold caused there, however, because of the Belgium government's hasty withdrawal and poor management skills, plus killing off the only extremely popular leader the DRC has had, I think there is definitely a cause and affect here. Much of what has happened in the DRC is an affect of the treatment the Congo received from King Leopold II and the Belgium government.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/africa-states-independence/2010/10/2010104111239448417.html
http://accra-mail.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25086:dr-congo-un-helps-seize-rebel-leader-presumed-responsible-for-mass-rape&catid=70:africa&Itemid=219
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=2&language_id=1&headline_id=12119
Basically, there is still a ton of human rights violations going on in the DRC. Recently, a man who threw a stone at the president was jailed and then found to have committed suicide with a pillow case, although it is a known fact that DRC jails do not have pillows. There was also a huge mass rape that occurred during the summer, and although the leader responsible for ordering it has been seized, people are still very concerned about making sure that the victims are compensated. There is not much going on to prevent these things from happening or stop them. Mostly people are being punished after the fact. Everything is very chaotic, and the yearly income is $300, less than when it was still under Belgium control. This makes the Congo the poorest country in the world. Although the UN is trying to be helpful, it does not seem like there are any long term improvements or plans being made. It is difficult to do this though because there are so many crimes to deal with, both present and past. I feel like perhaps because the attitude of the world towards the Congo is so negative, the country does not feel supported, especially in the past where there is a history of sort of contradictory interference by other countries (BBC). Another problem is that leaders of the Congo seem to not last very long, and it is very difficult for them to get a leader that is popular. Because of the difficulties of leading the Congo, most leaders seem to resort to extreme violence, especially because the rebels as well are very violent. However, this gives the Congo the appearance of being very chaotic and dangerous. Although Aljazeera claims that the DRC is a "sleeping giant" and could potentially be a world power with all of it's natural resources, it also says that because of all the violence and human rights violations in the DRC, this is not likely. Really, the Congo is just a huge mess. Not really sure if this is because of what Leopold caused there, however, because of the Belgium government's hasty withdrawal and poor management skills, plus killing off the only extremely popular leader the DRC has had, I think there is definitely a cause and affect here. Much of what has happened in the DRC is an affect of the treatment the Congo received from King Leopold II and the Belgium government.
20 September 2010
Blehhhsdjkfhdkj discussion stuff?
1. Lingering ideas/questions from discussion.
What exactly was going on in Belgium at this time? Hochschild didn't really go into it, besides saying that some Belgians were developing interest in the colonies. But besides assuming that the Belgians were once again arguing over their language, I have no idea what is going on.
2. Evaluate group discussion. What worked? What didn't? How can you improve?
Umm...it definitely was not the best conversation. We had moments where everyone was participating and moments where lots of people were definitely not paying attention. However, I also felt like we struggled with finding questions we could really talk about.
What exactly was going on in Belgium at this time? Hochschild didn't really go into it, besides saying that some Belgians were developing interest in the colonies. But besides assuming that the Belgians were once again arguing over their language, I have no idea what is going on.
2. Evaluate group discussion. What worked? What didn't? How can you improve?
Umm...it definitely was not the best conversation. We had moments where everyone was participating and moments where lots of people were definitely not paying attention. However, I also felt like we struggled with finding questions we could really talk about.
07 September 2010
King Leopold's Ghost Reading #1
"Stanly cannily sprinkled his tale with picturesque chiefs, exotic sultans, and faithful servants, and he introduced it with the sweeping generalizations that allowed his readers to feel at home in an uncivilized world: "The Arab never changes"; "The Banyan is a born trader"; "For the half-castes I have great contempt"" (30).
I found this interesting not only because it shows the extreme lengths Stanley went to to protect his alter ego, but because of the striking similarities to the sort of touristic stereotypes that are considered very common now: "The French are snobs"; "Americans are fat, rich, and lazy"; "Muslims are dangerous." These are obviously the more offensive ones, but generalizations like this still exist today. Even the perhaps not so offensive ones -- the Canadian "Eh", the British sense of humor, the Texan drawl -- can still be very harmful and insulting. Even though today we probably have the best understanding of the other cultures on our globe -- and the best access to information -- many people still rely on these generalizations to "feel at home." Xenophobia is still common. I think it is shocking, considering how far we have come, that people today can still be just as unaware of other cultures as those at the end of the 19th century.
- What parallels can you see between tourism today and Stanley's stab at touristic literature here? What differences?
- Do you think that people still make these sorts of generalizations? Why or why not? What purpose would these generalizations have?
I found this interesting not only because it shows the extreme lengths Stanley went to to protect his alter ego, but because of the striking similarities to the sort of touristic stereotypes that are considered very common now: "The French are snobs"; "Americans are fat, rich, and lazy"; "Muslims are dangerous." These are obviously the more offensive ones, but generalizations like this still exist today. Even the perhaps not so offensive ones -- the Canadian "Eh", the British sense of humor, the Texan drawl -- can still be very harmful and insulting. Even though today we probably have the best understanding of the other cultures on our globe -- and the best access to information -- many people still rely on these generalizations to "feel at home." Xenophobia is still common. I think it is shocking, considering how far we have come, that people today can still be just as unaware of other cultures as those at the end of the 19th century.
- What parallels can you see between tourism today and Stanley's stab at touristic literature here? What differences?
- Do you think that people still make these sorts of generalizations? Why or why not? What purpose would these generalizations have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)