halkhateeb-blog

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Post #9

Professor David Morton AMH 2020 Course Reflection 

 History has never been an easy subject to teach. It's hard making old facts and historical figures interesting and, more importantly, relevant to a younger audience. It's also hard for students to remember the information they are learning. Each historical event is made to seem like an isolated situation, and there are very few cause and effect relationships analyzed. Because of this, most US history classes tend to leave the same impression with their students: that it was boring, useless, and they most likely won't remember any of the information covered. 

 I can confidently say that Professor Morton's US History course does not fall into this mold. Professor Morton has a deeper understanding of the topics he covers, and this becomes evident through his teaching style. He connects the various historical events and figures of a time period to one another, until it becomes somewhat like a story. His connections between things like the rise of the Titans during the lack of authoritative government power, and how Theodore Roosevelt was able to change this and many of the human rights problems surrounding the Guilded Age are just one example. 

 The most interesting part of the course was analyzing the importance of media. Because he is a media major, Professor Morton placed great emphasis on the role of media and film in the time period we were studying. This really made the information more relevant to us, as media is also a central part of our lives today. Noticing how great the effects of something as simple as a movie can be really opened my eyes and made me more aware of the information I was receiving through films. If the movie, "The Birth of a Nation," can cause the resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), be used as a recruitment tool by them, and even bring their grandmaster to almost win the democratic primary election in the 20's, then the media is a far more powerful tool than I had originally thought. I previously believed that news outlets were more powerful, but it seems that both can have a tremendous impact on people.

 One of my favorite topics covered in this course is the topic of social justice. Usually, when studying the Holocaust or other cases of genocide throughout history, teachers don't look at who is to blame. Other countries' silence at the time, and their choice of appeasement rather than action makes them allies. I love that we also looked at whether or not the concept of "never again" is possible, since so many atrocities are happening near us and around the world. It's easy to blame people of the past for their lack of action, but when we are also remaining silent and inactive about many of the thing happening around us, one could say we are doing the same thing. It made me realize that I should be taking more action towards changing the world around me. I think Professor Morton is playing an important role in expanding awareness of modern human right violations. If every 30-40 person class he teaches walks out more aware of some of the problems people around the world are currently facing, and even a few of them find a passion to change it, then there will definitely be an impact.

 I'm glad I made the decision to take this class and would recommend it to other students in the future. 

  P.S. This is my honest reflection and it is not effected by the fact that you will be reading it. 

Thank you for a wonderful semester professor. You honestly managed to keep me awake and attentive for your 4:30 PM class, which is a feat in itself. I hope you continue to inspire other students in the future. 

It's been a pleasure,

Hadaya Alkhateeb

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Extra Credit 2

X’s Presentation of Syrian Film

X's presentation focused on how film began in Syria, and how it has changed over time. 

Film has always been an important part of Syria. Since the beginning, it has been used by the Syrian people as a form of expression, and as a way to portray their thoughts and feelings about the the period of time they were living through. Because of this, it is an important source of historical information, as it really portrays the people's thoughts and attitudes at the time. 

Today, although Syria is a war-ridden country falling apart, film still plays a fundamental role in its people's lives. It has become the main form of documentation they have, and the only way to truly express their opinions. Official news and media outlets tend to be biased, and because they are under government control, are highly censored. Thus, the people have turned to mobile filming and sharing to get their side of the story out to the rest of the world. 

 As X spoke about her country, there was one other thing she really wanted to emphasize: the fact that Syria wasn't always the way it is now. It wasn't always a country marred by war, and was once a very modern and successful country. 

The words X spoke resonated with me deeply. Although I am not Syrian myself, Syrian film played a big role in my earlier life, and I had personally experienced some of the things X was talking about. Growing up, my mother and I were always watching Syrian dramas. Of all the Arabic channels that we received through our satellite dish, the Syrian channel was the best and always had some amazing show playing. I absolutely loved it. I remember running home from school to watch some show that aired at that specific time. The plots were always amazing, and I still remember many of them. I knew exactly what X was talking about when she said Syria hadn't always been that way. It really was once a beautiful country that I had wanted to visit when I grew older. I couldn't believe it when news of the uprising got out. I remember entering our usually lively living room only to find my parents fixated on the television screen, listening to an Arabic news report revealing the terrible conditions facing the Syrian people. I turned to my dad in disbelief and said, "Dad, really? Syria?" "Yes, Syria. Who would have ever thought." 

This was back in 2011. Even then, I brushed it off as the effect of the Arab Spring and believed that the conflict would be resolved shortly. I didn't realize back then that it would grow into a full blown war that would last for another 5 years, and who knows how much longer. It's not something any of us expected to happen. 

I think the most shocking part of it all to me was the fact that, while all other channels were in upheaval at the time, rapidly reporting stories of Syrian rebellion against the regime, the Syrian channel was the calmest. It barely showed what was happening to the Syrian people, and mainly supported the actions do the Syrian government instead. It even showed in person interviews with Bashar Al-Assad as he justified his actions. It was so disgusting to us, we couldn't bare to turn on that channel ever again. Government censorship was so high, there was no hope of receiving any valuable information from it. 

Yet regardless of this, it amazes me that people like X and the other Syrian film makers are fighting to keep Syrian film alive. Regardless of the threats that are facing them, they choose to continue to share their own experiences and opinions of what's happening. They continue to share the injustice that is happening in Syrian with the rest of the world. I find that incredibly inspiring.

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Extra Credit Film Review

Selma is a 2014 movie directed by Ava DuVernay, focusing on the civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery in 1965, led by Martin Luther King Jr. In terms of historical accuracy, it does a good job of depicting the events surrounding the marches, including the lack of voting rights for African Americans in the South, he killing of Jimmie Lee Jackson, the events of Bloody Sunday, and the multiple parts of the march (it didn’t succeed after a single attempt).

 The Bloody Sunday depicted in the film is accurate, and is supported by a report from Martin Luther King’s wife, Coretta Scott King. She wrote:

 “The whole nation was sickened by the pictures of that wild melee. Tear gas, clubs, horsemen slashing with bullwhips like the Russian czar’s infamous Cossacks, and deputies, using electric cattle prods, chasing fleeing men, women, and children all the way back to Brown’s Chapel.”

 One critic of the film is the confrontation between King and President Lyndon B. Johnson. Based on the comments of one of kings aides, the meeting wasn’t as confrontational as he movie made it seam. Although the same topic were discussed, King wanting voting rights for African Americans and Johnson wanting to postpone the suffrage movement till later, no one really knows if they spoke menacingly to one another or not. But, it is a very small historical inaccuracy, if at all. 

Usually, when learning about historical events, such as the Selma march, we only see the topical layer of the story. We see the success, the success speech, and the smiles of the people that took part. We don’t get a feel of the anxiousness that surrounded the people as the date of the march approached, the “air of death”, as Coretta King described in one of the scenes from the film. We don’t witness the smaller conflicts they had to face, before finally mustering up the courage to take their battle to the streets. This film really helps shed light these minor details, giving a face and personality to each name surrounding the march. It is an example of “good” history, as it is an accurate and detailed account of the events surround the Selma march.

 In class, we discussed the film “Birth of a Nation” and its effects on the people of its time. A single film that depicted African American from a racist perspective was able to revive a nearly extinct terrorist organization, the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), even becoming their recruitment tool later on. It was so effective, the leader of the KKK once nearly one the Democratic primary, which would have propelled him to becoming the president of the United States. He only lost by a small percentage of votes. This is an example of how powerful, and even dangerous, a film can be. 

We can say that we’ve progressed, from a time where African Americans had absolutely no control over how they were depicted in films, to a time when films like “Selma” are possible, a film about black history, directed, produced, and told entirely by African Americans themselves. But, even in our modern times, there seem to be inevitable problems with racism. Many have been critiquing the racism of the Academy Awards and the Oscars. It’s a wonder that a film on the level of Selma didn’t receive even a single award. Even if the film didn’t receive any awards, it is widely agreed upon that David Oyelowo did a phenomenal job playing the role of Martin Luther King Jr, and yet didn’t receive any nominations. Although various excuses have been given, none truly justify the snubbing of this amazing film by both platforms.

 “Selma” was release released in 2014, a time when the Black Lives Matter movement was just beginning to take off. 2013 marked the murder of African-American teen Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman. Then, in 2014, America witnessed the deaths of Micheal Brown in Ferguson, and Eric Garner in New York City. These deaths would open America’s eyes to the institutionalized racism that still existed even today. This is the perfect time for a movie like “Selma” to make its appearance. It’s displays of peaceful protest, even against harsh police brutality, are very to activists of the Black Lives Matter movement today. It helps them realize they aren’t a part of an isolated movement, but rather, they are continuing the work of great leaders such as King himself.

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Post #8

Review of TED Talks: How to combat modern-day slavery

The 3 TED Talks reviewed-

Witness: Illuminating the World of Modern-Day Slavery: Lisa Kritine

Kevin Bales: How to combat modern slavery

Sunitha Krishnan: The fight against sex slavery

The three TED Talks all focused on the topic of modern slavery. The Talks by Lisa Kristine and Kevin Bales were very similar, even mentioning similar statistics and examples of modern-day slavery. Sunitha Krishnan specifically focused on sex trafficking and her experiences working with victims in India.

Lisa Kristine's talk succeeded in bringing her experiences with the slave trade to life. Although Kevin Bales' talk covered similar topics, she was far more detailed and descriptive, and had photos to go with each story. Her approach was emotional, and did a very good job of presenting examples of modern day slavery from around the world. She included stories about the India and Nepal brick kilns, the children carrying stones down the Himalayas (Nepal), the sex slaves of Kathmandu (Nepal), the children enslaved on Lake Volta (Ghana), and the gold sifters and minors in Ghana.

What stuck out to me most was how personal she made each of these instances of slavery. It was as if the viewers were there, witnessing what she had witnessed: the dust and heat of the kilns, the back-breaking work of the Himalayan children, the sweltering heat of the Ghana mines. I'll never forget the images of the men literally soaked in their own sweat, as if they'd just taken a shower. She made us realize just how harsh of a job the children of Lake Volta were facing, being forced out onto a Lake when they can't swim, thrown into the waters when nets got tangled, and made to pull thousand pound nets full of fish. Most of these children ended up drowning.

While her talk brought these experiences and many more to life, she failed to tackle one very important topic: what happens next? How can the viewers take part in the moment against slavery? She did mention one organization that we she was working with, but she didn't specifically mention that the audience should research that organization or visit their website. There was no call for action.

Bales' talk did a really good job at tackling some important issues that surrounded the topic of modern-day slavery, one of which was the lack of awareness. When he first heard that 27 million slaves still existed in the world today, he couldn't believe that a professor such as himself didn't know about it. He then did an analysis of 3,000 articles with the keyword "slavery", and found that only 2 were about modern slavery, and neither contain any solid information. He then took it upon himself to find more information, and presents that information to us. He begins by defining slavery, and emphasizing that this is REAL slavery that we are dealing with. He explains where around the world slavery exists (everywhere but Iceland and Greenland), and that areas with high instances of slavery are also linked with higher environmental pollution. He noted that area with high poverty are ones that have experienced:

Population explosion

Extreme poverty and vulnerability (caused by civil war, ethnic conflicts, climate change, natural disasters, disease, etc) sometimes all at once

Corruption, especially police corruption (Absence of the rule of law)

All slaves are caught with the promise of a job, which they soon realize is a fraud. Finally, he explains what it takes to truly FREE a slave. He emphasizes that slaves are not bought out of slavery, as that is the equivalent of paying a robber to return what was stolen. It's supporting the crime. But, he says that liberating slaves through a legal process and helping them become a part of a society once again does take money, and gives the price to really put things into perspective. That alone was enough to help me realize how easily I could help.

Krishnan's talk was the most shocking to me because of the extent of the gory details she gives. Girls as young as 3 and 4 years old, raped by hundreds of men at a time, to the point of having their intestines turned inside out. The details are horrifying, cringe worthy, and they're what Krishnan deals with on a daily basis, as she works to help victims of sex trafficking. She speaks to an Indian audience, and illuminates the problem that is very eminent in their society. At the end of presentation, after shedding light on the problem and showing the success stories of the survivors, she shares her biggest problem thus far: society. The problem that these girls are yet to overcome the lack of acceptance into society. Even after everything they have been through, and yet surviving and coming back to work and earn a livelihood, they are still looked down upon by the people around them. They aren't welcomed into people's home. That is the problem she asks the audience to start tackling. She leaves them with the final call for action: to leave this room and share the story with one other person, and convince them to share it with two other people. She believes that by spreading awareness, by ending the "culture of silence", only then can this problem be eradicated.

After discussing topics such as the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust in class, I questioned if "never again" can really be possible. It made me realize that it takes a LOT to stand up for justice. In our time, we constantly wonder how people of the past allowed things like the holocaust to happen, how they allowed Japanese interment camps, slavery, and segregation to happen. But things weren't so cut and clear back then as they are to us now. They didn't think that one day people would look back and see them as bystanders to some of the world's greatest atrocities. They were just looking out for themselves, as many of us are now. They wanted to stay safe, keep their social status, and remain comfortable. I now know that standing up for something you believe in means you may have to give up some of these comforts. The people giving these TED Talks are modern day heroes. They chose not to stand by, and took it upon themselves to go out and help those in need. Krishnan has helped 3,200 victims thus far. She's been beaten 14 times, has lost hearing in one of her ears, and one of her staff has been murmured during of their rescue missions. She has risked so much in order to stand up for what she believes in. It's never an easy task, and we can sit here and point fingers at the past generations, but we're in the same position as them unless we also take action. At the very least, we can do our research and remain aware of these events that are happening around us everyday.

[halkhateeb-blog]

AT CLOSE RANGE No.1 / 32x48 / Mixed media artwork by Stev’nn Hall

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Post #7

"Louis Farrakhan: Angel or Devil?" documentary review 

The documentary features a 'rare' interview between Louis Farrakhan, the current leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and Alex Jones, radio host and a well known 'conspiracy theorist'.

In the interview, the two discussed many topics, but they all linked back to a single cause: the overpowering evil in disguise, working in the background and slowly bringing humanity to its doom. There are three groups of people: the 85%, the 10%, and the 5%. The 85% percent are those being controlled, who do not understand the concept of cause and effect, and that for every evil effect, there is an evil cause (the secret evil organizations). They are kept in ignorance by the 10%, those who are actually in control and are perpetuating evil. Finally, there are the 5%, those who are aware of the truth and aren't kept in ignorance like the rest of the 85%. Both Farrakhan and Jones believe they are among the few that are in this 5%. 

They spoke about the illusion of a race war. Although it seems real, the problem isn't race. The "overpowering evil" are the ones working in the background, giving rise to hatred within communities and further arming these communities, and then sending them out to fight against one another and kill other innocent people. 

They discussed the human genocide that is occurring, and that it is specifically targeting black communities. Police are killing more black people, abortion centers are killing more black people (both parties or the interview are strongly against abortion), and black people are killing one another, but only because the government isn't doing its part in serving justice, causing the people to take matters into their own hands. 

Overall, the interview was interesting as it showed the perspective of two well known "conspiracy theorists", which is rare. Usually, no one is concerned with what they have to say and they are only ridiculed for their ridiculous views. This interview does well in opening the minds of the viewer up to a new perspective.

But the arguments made by Jones and Farrakhan are still very vague. They all lead back to a single cause, and that is the evil secret organizations that control everything. There are no real facts for their claims. There's also little criticism from an outside source, one with differing views from them. It almost seems like two mad men in closed conversation theorizing and making conclusions about the evil world that we live in. Not to say that these theories aren't or can't be true, but there's no evidence being provided. It would have been nice to have a third interviewee in the video, adding an opposing opinion to the conversation. 

There definitely are examples of demagogues in modern politics. The most popular one that comes to mind would have to be Donald Trump. Very few of his arguments have any rational basis. They are vague and unprofessional, yet he manages to gain support by feeding off of people's prejudice.

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Post #6

Brothers of War: Documentary review

This documentary covered the Vietnam War, specifically focusing on the story of Charlie Company (Company C) and the brotherhood they shared during their time together. 

The Vietnam War took place from 1954 to 1975. The conflict was between communist North Vietnam and its southern allies, and South Vietnam and it's main ally, the U.S. The goal of U.S. involvement in the war was to prevent communist take over of South Vietnam. The war ended with 3 million casualties, including 58,000 Americans. 

 Charlie Company was one of the last companies to be trained and sent to Vietnam during the war. They served from 1966 to 1972.

The documentary first began with the training of Charlie company. It showed them building bonds that would become their main emotional support during the war. There was a sense of unity being portrayed, as Americans from all walks of life came together to work towards a single goal. One African American soldier said all he had known before then was a "white America and a black America", but he didn't see this kind of segregation in the army.

When the training was done, the soldiers were shown visiting their families for what could be their last time. The documentary focused on emotional stories of last minute engagement rings, strained goodbyes, and hopeful promises towards the future.

From there, the documentary focuses on the the various battles Charlie Company took part in, the personal losses each soldier suffered, and the emotional scars they would carry with them afterwards. Each soldier killed in the battles was given a story, and the impact of their death on their friends and family, even on the Vietnamese civilians (see Benny Bridges and little Vietnamese girl from Dong Tam) was heavily emphasized. 

Overall, the film portrayed good men fighting both a physical and psychological battle against the viscous Viet Cong who were slowly destroying the mental health of the surviving Charlie Company with their guerrilla warfare tactics and booby trapped fields. Any losses Charlie Company suffered were heavily emotional. Any interactions with Vietnamese civilians were heart warming and friendly (see Dong Tam). And even the killing of a Vietnamese war prisoner, the cruelest action committed by Charlie Company throughout the entire film, is given a light impact. The prisoner was shot by one of the veterans because he "wasn't worthy enough" to ride the helicopter back with the veteran's friend. The viewers know the strenuous situations the veteran had been through up to that point, and can easily sympathize with the veteran. A nameless Vietnamese prisoner doesn't stand a chance. 

 After going through all of this for a year, Charlie company finally returns home, only to be greeted with angry protesters cursing at them and throwing garbage. The good men fighting for their country were completely disrespected by the very people they risked their lives fighting for. 

 At the end of the film, we are left feeling that the members Charlie Company were victims, who couldn't find support from anyone but their own company.

The film does a wonderful job of sharing the struggles of these men, but it fails to share the other side of the story and the amount of suffering endured by Vietnam itself. It tells the story of a 160 man company that only served a year (1967-68) out of the entire 21 year span of the war. This doesn't properly depict some of the incidents that occurred, especially considering that the My Lai Massacre, one of the biggest atrocities of the Vietnam War, happened only 3 months after these men left (Mach 1968) by men also serving under the name of Charlie Company. Between 347 and 504 civilians were killed. These civilians were unarmed, and included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated. Of course, it would be unjust to mar the efforts of the brave men discussed in this documentary based on the actions of the men involved in the My Lai Massacre and incidents like it. But it's even more of an injustice to disregard that it ever occurred. 

 I don't think the US was justified in its involvement in this war. It dragged on for far too long and the pressure and psychological scarring the soldiers suffered weren't worth it.

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Post #5

Reflection on the film “Untold: Women Who Changed the World”

 The film discussed the rise of the feminist movement in the late 1900’s and the many changes it brought about with it.

Feminism became widespread in America by the 1970’s. Some of the reasons for this is the change in how women were portrayed in the media. In 1966, actress Maria Thomas challenged the norm by playing an unmarried, working woman. Up until then, women had always been portrayed as the daughters or wives of someone. They didn’t play their own significant characters. This was beginning to change.

One show in particular that helped change the way women were viewed was “Battle of the Sexes,” which nationally broadcasted a tennis match between former male tennis champion and misogynist, Bobby Riggs, and the best female tennis player in the world, Billy Jean King. King won. This was the ultimate challenge against the accepted view of women in the sports world: that they couldn’t beat men. Women would receive less prize money than men, if they received prize money at all. King recalled the year 1968 as the first year she received prize money. Ron Wimbledon received 2000 pounds while she only received 750. By winning against an open misogynist in a match that was broadcasted on national television, King was able to inspire many women to challenge gender roles in their communities.

Some of the first changes to gender roles began within the average American home. Women no longer wanted to work hard outside the house, only to come home and have more work expected of them. They wanted to divide up the housework, and this sudden change in female attitude and the spouse’s lack of ability to adapt to it caused the divorce rate, which was already on the rise, to skyrocket. There was an obvious incongruence in couple’s views on gender roles within a marriage, and it was causing people to separate.

Another change came with the distribution of the birth control pill. It finally allowed women to have the decision of whether or not they would like to get pregnant. With pregnancy no longer a factor, women had the power to explore their sexuality and take part in America’s sexual revolution. Once they were pregnant, however, they had run out of options, as abortion was still illegal. But as more and more women were being elected into government offices, becoming a part of congress, and working as lawyers, this was also able to change. Lawyer Sarah Weddington was able to argue the case of abortion to the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, where it finally won 7 to 2.

The part of the film that I was really affected by was the part that spoke about Title 9, and how it helped female students in federally funded colleges receive equal opportunities as male students, in both sports and medical/law schools. The fact that medical schools had a quota on the number of female students they could accept is shocking to me. Before the feminist movement, it was as little as 5% and by the 1970′s, it rose up to 30%. As a female aspiring to become a pediatrician, its scares me to think that had I been born in a different time, my chances of getting into a medical school would have dramatically decreased, simply because I wasn’t born a male. It woke me up to the true impact that the feminist movement has had on today’s society. Many of the comforts I enjoy today as an female American citizen would not have been possible without it, and for that, I am grateful to the women that decided to stand up against the accepted gender roles of the older American society.

To close, I’d like to leave us with one of my favorite lines from the film, the response of a congresswomen when asked how she could be a mother and congresswoman at the same time:

“I have a brain, I have a uterus, and they both work.”

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Post #4

Religious Freedom? Today, there is a big debate as to what constitutes as religious freedom and what doesn't. To begin with, let's establish the difference between the term 'religious freedom' and the term 'religious liberty'. 'Religious freedom' refers to the freedom to follow the religion of your choice, or to not follow any religion at all. This is simply a matter of personal beliefs. But 'religious liberty' refers to the actions associated to those personal beliefs. Are we allowed to carry out certain actions associated with our beliefs? What is the limit? When are we overstepping the boundaries of religiousness and when should the law intervene? This is mainly the matter that was discussed in the video clips and articles we were given. Are more and more states passing specific laws on religious liberty in order to protect the rights of religious groups, or in order to attack homosexuality? Is it an attempt to allow citizens to not serve gay customers based on the excuse of "religious liberty"? In one video clip, it was pointed out that the CEO of Apple chose to boycott a state for passing laws that encouraged religious liberty, while he continued to do business with some Muslim countries who openly expressed anti-homosexual sentiments. The reporter found this hypocritical, and believed it was more of an attack on Christianity than an attempt to stand up for the the rights of gay community members. Whether that is true or not is questionable, but the reporter did make one other valid point; that equal treatment for homosexual community members doesn't necessarily equate to forcing everyone to accept and support it. In another clip, the focus was on the Christian-run store "Hobby Lobby" and their refusal to provide contraceptives to their employees under ObamaCare, with the justification that it goes against their religious views. And in other clips, we see this underlying theme of religious people facing discrimination for their views and feeling pressure to give them up. The main cause of this is people's constructed definition of the term 'religious freedom'. They believe it means that everyone must follow the same set of liberal ideologies, and if not, then they aren't considered 'free' and their institution isn't one that values 'freedom'. Rather than this close minded interpretation, an institution that functions under the value of 'freedom' should allow both liberal and conservative individuals to live together as peacefully as possible. It should respect the views of those who would like to challenge norms and explore boundaries, as well as the views of those who prefer to remain more conservative in their ways. Both of these very different groups believe they are living a life of freedom, so long as no one attempts to impose or force their views on them. Government intervention is necessary when either of these two groups begins abusing their freedom and using it in a way that causes harm or discomfort to other members of their community. Freedom of religion is one of the important founding principles of the United States, and it shouldn't be disregarded simply because of recent problems and misinterpretations in relation to religion. America is going through an identity crisis and is reshaping it's views on what was thought to be already established and set ideologies. I can only hope that both religious freedom and liberty will remain as some do the core values of this country once it's regains its self of identity and defines where it's stands on such important issues.

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Post #3 “Make America Great Again.”

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, until our country's representatives figure out what the hell is going on." 

This was the statement made by Trump at one of his rallies on December 7, 2015, one that has pleased some, and offended many more people across the US, and even the world

What concerns me the most about Trump's actions is that he is attempting to create this "us vs. them" mentality amongst his audience. The terminology he uses in order to refer to the Muslim and Mexican communities is always vague and non-descriptive, treating use as this distant 'other' group of people completely unrelated to the American demographic. 

 The following is a statement by Trump referring to Mexican immigrants:

 "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists."

There is a constant use of the distancing term "they", coupled with fear striking words such as "drugs", "crime", and "rapists", in order to fully alienate a group of people that could easily be our neighbors, colleagues, and co-workers. Trump makes no attempt to refer to the Mexican community as one of our own. Rather, he creates this illusion that they are this violent, foreign group that needs to be dealt with in order to "insure the safety" of his audience. Note that this is not unlike anti-immigration propaganda used against Italian, Irish, Japanese, and Chinese immigrants in the past. 

In fact, Trump proudly likens himself to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, under whom Executive Order 9066 was passed, sending 120,000 Japanese expatriates and citizens of Japanese descent to internment camps as a safety precaution when America was at war with Japan. Trump says that the actions of this “respected” president were appropriate back then, as his own ban on Muslims is appropriate now. “We are at war,” he says.

The following is another statement made by Trump, this time in reference to his views on mosque surveillance: 

 "We have to look at mosques, we have no choice. We have to see what's happening, because something is happening in there... Man! there's anger. There's anger." 

 Once again, he uses extremely vague terms to create a fearful illusion. He's attempting to convince his audience that "something" is happening in mosques, the Islamic places of worship, something so bad that he has "no choice" but to deal with it in a drastic manner. What is this grand and atrocious "something," you ask? The best description he can give is "anger." 

 By alienating both Muslim and Mexican communities, Trump believes he is making America great again. But many have acknowledged that this may simply be an attempt to please the bigoted views of his supporters. He is aware of the type of people that are supporting him, and that is why he continues to make such controversial, blatantly racist remarks. 

"He is giving a voice to a fringe in America that is full of all kinds of hatred and paranoia," reports ABC News.

We can only hope that the number of his supporters remains small enough to be a considered a “fringe” of America, and nothing more. With the growing Islamophobic rhetoric, more and more American-Muslims are beginning to fear for their safety. But nonetheless, they are reaching out to fellow members of the community in an attempt to combat Islamophobic views. They are proud Americans, just as they are proud Muslims, and they want their community to be aware of this. Islamic school teacher Amen Asari put it best:

“We are inviting the greater American community to remember we’re with you. We’re American. We will fight for our country. We will fight for our rights.”

[halkhateeb-blog]

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkhateeb- Post #2

Review of “We Shall Remain- Wounded Knee”

The documentary mainly covers the siege of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, which was taken over by the Native American activist group American Indian Movement (AIM) in the 1970's. The documentary first shows the actions and decisions that immediately led to the armed protest in Wounded Knee, followed by a day-by-day account of the protest itself. Initially, one is left to wonder if the actions of this activist group are too drastic: taking up arms against the government simply because they wouldn't cut loose the neighborhood bully, Dick Wilson, seems a little over the top, and one is immediately reminded of the recent armed protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregan, which has even been referred to as an act of terrorism. But, as the documentary continues to cover the siege, we are given first-hand accounts from Native Americans that have suffered at the hands of American colonization and what they referred to as the "de-Indianization" of native peoples. We learn of the boarding schools whose purpose is to change the native child into the "white child". Native American children were taken away from their families and forced to attend. They were taught to dress differently and speak differently in attempt to have them forget their culture. Those who recall the experience could only describe it as lonely and cruel, one that robbed them of their identity. We also learn of the relocation program, where Native American families are asked to relocate to bigger cities, away from their land of origin, and are in turn promised homes and jobs. Although this program was not forced, it was filled with false promises. Families that accepted relocation found themselves jobless in drab parts of cities. After learning about these two events, we being to understand the Native American side of the story. The armed protest seems like less of an act of terrorism and more of an act of self defense. This view is further supported by the documentaries focus in AIM's hardships and losses during their protest. They are the ones getting fired at. They are the ones suffering from food shortages and media blockades. Two of their unsuspecting men, Frank Clearwater and Buddy Lamont, are killed, even though they weren't attempting attacking at that time. These one sided depictions of the struggle are a little questionable, as they really only portray AIM as the victims. What were their guns for then? A decoration? There was very little talk about the casualties caused by AIM. At the end of the documentary, AIM hooded to surrender I the government, as they didn't want to incur any more losses. Yet, even after their surrender they still suffered at the hands of Dick Wilson, who now truly shows his colors as an oppressor. But, regardless of their losses, AIM did succeed in spreading awareness of Native American existence and the problems that they were dealing with, which, to AIM, seemed with the trouble they went through.

[halkhateeb-blog]

Hadaya Alkateeb- Post #1

Past experience:

I’ve had two very different experiences with my History classes. There are two that I can remember: one in the 8th grade and one in the 10th grade. Both were American History courses, although the one I took in 10th grade was an AP level course and was taken through a virtual school.

The better of the two experiences was my 8th grade class. I absolutely loved how my teacher brought our dead history books back to life. I remember when she split our class into either North or South when we were learning about the American civil war. Any further assignments we did had to be in the perspective of the side we were on. I also LOVED the first person writing assignments she’d give us. We would have to write a small biography in the perspective of our chosen historical figure, and then act out the piece in their character in front of the whole class. I loved how it allowed me to really delve into the personality of this person that was once forgotten in history. It was so fun, I even remember the names and stories of the people I had to do writings about. Sojourner Truth was one of them, with her terrible experience as a slave. Just out of memory, I remember she was separated from her child through slavery, and was both physically abused and raped by her master before finally becoming free. Alexander Hamilton was another figure I wrote about. I remember he had a very hot headed personality, which is what eventually lead to his death. He hastily agreed to entering a gun duel over an argument, fired the first shot, missed, and ended up getting shot by the opponent and dying. I also remember getting to reenact the execution of John Brown, who went on a killing spree and murdered slaveholders in an attempt to fight against slavery. I acted out the part of John Brown and clearly remember walking across the classroom with “handcuffs” towards the execution stand where I would be “hanged”, all while a “judge” stood at the front of the classroom and read aloud the list of crimes I had committed against the nation. All of these experiences made that class one of my favorites and allowed me to vividly remember the historic facts and figures we were taught.

Sadly, the same can’t be said about my 10th grade AP US history class. I’m sure the online set up added to my dislike of it, but it mainly consisted of reading out of a text book, remembering out of order dates, and taking long tests about detailed information I wouldn’t have paid attention to while reading. While I managed to get out of that class with an A, I got a 2 on the AP exam. That experience is not one I would like to repeat. The teacher was really helpful whenever she was contacted, but that didn’t necessarily make the course more interesting. There is very little information I remember from that class, other than the interesting facts about medical hygiene during the Civil War (which I mentioned in class), some vague facts about the Great Depression, and more vague facts about the Holocaust. But that’s about it.

When comparing the two classes, my 8th grade class was interactive and involved creative assignments, while my 10th grade class was a textbook-based failure, with very little creativity involved. My ideal American History experience would be similar to that of my 8th grade class. This doesn’t mean we necessarily need to go up and act out historic scenes, but I would love it if the class was taught with energy, interactive, and involved creative assignments (Your class seems to fall into this categoryJ)

Brief explanation of our historical fiction:

The historical fiction I chose for this class is a book titled, “My Brother Sam is Dead,” by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier. It covers the story of a young boy named Tim living during the time of the Revolutionary War. His family is loyal to the British Army, but his older brother, Sam, has gone off to fight with the Rebel Army. I liked this book as it really shows how this war tore families apart.

My partner chose the movie, “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.” It takes place during the time of the Holocaust and covers the story of two little boys who become friends, although they can only meet each other from behind a fence, as one of the boy is held in a prison camp.