fridasaka - Tumblr blog

[fridasaka]

My Manifesto

’You have it so easy.’

Nothing stays the same for very long, at least close to nothing. Generations change, decades change and time changes. As time goes by, people evolve. We move alongside time. It is two parallel lines. Time will always continue, while people will come and go, but there will always be someone.

‘If only you knew how tough it was for us growing up.’

We should never expect the same from different people, because all people are unique in some way. There is always something that separates even the most similar ones. That slight factor that makes that one person its own person.

‘Get yourself together.’

We should therefore not compare people. Embrace that everyone is different, that everyone has their own goals, own aspirations, and own way of going at things. No one is better than anyone, no one is worse than anyone.

‘Young people nowadays cannot handle anything. They are too fragile.’

People are both fragile and strong.

People should not be discouraged for being more fragile than strong.

People should not be idolised for being more strong than fragile.

People should be built up.

People should build each other up.

Not tear each other down.

No matter how or who they are.

‘You will get over it.’

From a young age, children try to figure out who they are as a person. Try to figure out what kind of people they want to be when they eventually grow up. Guidance is key in that moment, no matter how resistant the reaction might be.

‘You have everything right in front of you.’

Realisation of how things are different to what they once were should kick in when children, teenagers and young adults start to crumble. When the pressure of achievement is too much and breaks them. When the pressure of perfect is so unreachable they give up. When they realise that perfect is not something that can be achieved. This is when expectations and comparison has made the future unbearable. As generations and decades change, so should expectations.

‘You’re just overreacting.’

This is how hope dies, and depression begins. This is where one generation failed to encourage and build the next generation. This is where regret usually sets in, and questions start to rise.

‘Back in the day – back in the day – back in the day – back in the day…’

This is how ‘good enough’ turns out to not be enough, where ‘best’ and ‘perfection’ is too ambitious and unreachable, and giving up becomes the only logical solution. Because why bother when nothing turned out how you wanted it? Why bother working tirelessly for something you now know is not possible? Why keep stressing yourself, pressuring yourself, and working yourself sick when the end goal is not within reach?

‘I take everything back.’

Aim for the opposite, aim for encouragement, aim for no judgement – stop putting excruciating pressure on the future based on how you once had it.

[fridasaka]

Joreen / The Bitch Manifesto

If the person reading this manifesto has ever been called a bitch either once or several times, the person will for sure recognize him- or herself in this text. Joreen has written this manifesto in a way that makes it incredibly relatable to the reader. She wrote it in a way that makes the reader angry, angry at people for not accepting women for being strong in the same way they accept men for being ‘men’. She makes the reader engaged, and eager to find a way out of the predicament that women are in.

Throughout history, women have been looked down upon as dogs, because they have sex, looked down upon because they have worked hard and demanded equal rights, looked down upon because they were not afraid to voice their opinions. They have been called bitch, because women should know their place and do none of the matters above. Joreen wanted to change the way we look at the word bitch with The Bitch Manifesto. She wanted to change the word into something positive, because there is nothing wrong with a woman being sexually active, hard working or driven. Joreen strived to change the perception the world had of women and the word bitch, she meant that women should take pride in being a bitch and being called it because that meant that they were strong women.

Joreen is trying to reach out to women and men. Trying to make women realise that they should take pride when they are called bitch, because that means that they are strong women. While also trying to get men to realise what the word actually means, that when they call a woman bitch, they are calling them that they are driven, though and strong.

I agree with Joreens’ views on how women should be proud of being strong, that we should be considered human beings before we are considered female. I love when women are strong, when they stand up for themselves and refuse to bow down to anyone (either men or other women). All women should be the strongest version of themselves they can be, but I still do not think the word bitch needs to be incorporated in any way. Personally I feel that it is still a word men, and many of women, use to undermine women when they stand up for themselves or use to scold men who are not the stereotypical strong ‘man’.

If both sides use it, there will never be a clear definition for the word, and therefore not a clear way for anyone to use it. Even though one side use it to empower and in a positive way, the word will still be said by someone and then encourage the others who use it to undermine and deteriorate people.

“Women should be proud of being a bitch” is a statement from Joreen that I do not agree with. Being a bitch has nothing to do with being a woman, no matter what definition is behind it. I suggest we should distant ourselves from that word and instead just be proud of being women.

 Source: Jofreeman.com. (2017). The BITCH Manfesto. [online] Available at: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/bitch.htm [Accessed 21 Dec. 2016].

[fridasaka]

Brian Longhurst / National Identity

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

In this text the author talks about national identity, and how it is constructed. He says that all national identity is imaginary as all nations are imaginary, since there are no actual borders in real life, only in people’s head.

 2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

The language used is rational and formal, which makes it rather convincing. Also since he uses a lot of other sources to back him up.

 3.     Which audience is being addressed?

Considering both his style of writing and the subject I would think the audience is a small one, maybe those who are particularly interested in this subject and those related.

 4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

I would assume the author is leaning more towards the left-wing, since his views on national identity and national borders are quite abstract.

 5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I believe that national borders are a good thing, it gives people a feeling of belonging somewhere. That being said, I think there is a possibility for people feeling a national identity in several countries, just because you are born one place doesn’t mean you automatically feel connected or ‘at home’ there.

6.     Essay

Longhurst talks a lot about how national identity is imagined, which is something I don’t fully agree with. Even though there are no physical borders, the people within those boarders are not imagined, they are very much real. An identity of a person revolves a lot around a place, ‘People identify with place’ (Longhurst, 2008, p.117), but I believe that it is the people who actually create a place that they can identify with in the first place. What a nation stands for, and the national identity is something created by the people living there. So I feel it is natural that people can identify with a place, or several if that is the case.

Longhurst also wrote in his text; ‘[…] identities are always social constructions rather than simply matters for the individual.’ (Longhurst, 2008, p.117), which is also something I don’t fully agree with. I do think that a place, people’s surroundings and the culture around them have a major impact on how a person turns out to be. I don’t think there are any questions to that, but I do not believe that is the whole reason to how a person is. People are born with specific genes and unique DNA, and within that I think there is a lot that makes a person an individual without any social impact. If there wasn’t, wouldn’t everyone growing up in the same place with the same culture be exactly the same?

I didn’t really understand how much of my identity revolved around being Norwegian before I moved away from Norway. There is a lot that makes me different to for example British people because of my Norwegian upbringing and culture. Not only because I’m Norwegian, but also because I grew up in such a remote, isolated and constricted area compared to the huge and diverse city that is London.

But I have also met people who I am quite similar to even though they have been brought up in different cultures. I think that shows just how the individual persons DNA is an important part of that person’s identity, not only their surroundings.

Longhurst. B. (2008). Topographies of Culture: Geography, meaning and power. Pearsons Education

Questions:

1.     Do you guys think national identity is an important/good thing? If so, how?

2.     How has your home country, town, village etc. helped shape you as a person?

[fridasaka]

Stephen Tao / Bruce Lee: Narcissus and the Little Dragon

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

The main message of this text is how the west (mainly America) vs. the east (mainly Chinese) interpreted the Chinese nationalism and how the cinema scene in Hong Kong developed after the second world war. He talks about racism and prejudice, and how the Chinese wanted to stand up and stop bowing down to the east. He also talks about how Bruce Lee and his movies managed to connect the two parts by his characters and Kung Fu, even though the two parts interpreted it differently.

 2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

The language in this text I find to be quite neutral, I don’t see him taking much of a clear stand on anything. He relies much on facts and references from both other materials and Bruce Lee’s movies. He writes very formally and informative, but I still find it quite hard to grasp the text and even find it interesting.

 3.     Which audience is being addressed?

The text is very formal, so I would think it is aimed at an audience that is more intellectual. It’s not for every other person.

 4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

I would think that Teo has a left-winged political background and viewpoint, because of how he seems to agree with the viewpoint of Bruce Lee and how the cinematic scene in Hong Kong was run. Which was getting money from the Taiwanese and American sides, instead of bowing down to the pressure of the Chinese and Taiwanese governments.

 5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I find it quite difficult to agree on anything, seeing as I find the text quite neutral and can’t really pinpoint what the opinion of the author is. But I can say that I see where Bruce Lee’s nationalism stems from, and understand why it was important for the Chinese people. Which is maybe what the author is trying to get across, even though he’s doing it very subtly.

 6.     Essay

The west and the east has always been quite different, both the cultures and the way of living. They think and interpret things differently. Which is something Stephen Teo talks a lot about in this text. He talks a lot about how America and China was divided, especially because of how much racism and prejudice against each other’s way of living there were.

Teo also speaks of how Bruce Lee and his movies became equally important for both parts, but how differently they interpreted both him and the movies. “To the West, Lee is a narcissistic hero who makes Asian culture more accessible. To the East, he is a nationalistic hero who has internationalized some aspects of Asian culture.” (Teo, 1997, p.114) And that makes sense, seeing as the American culture would have to experience the Asian or Chinese culture to be able to understand an interpret the movies in the way they were intended. They see the movies with the American view of the world, while the Chinese see the movies the way that the movie producers intended them to be, since they grew up and experienced the same kind of cultural background.  

Even though Bruce Lee was understood and interpreted differently in different parts of the world, he still became immensely popular for both parts. “His death in 1973 spawned a legend and the world-wide scale of the cult which developed suggests that there was something universal about his figure. Lee is all things to all men.” (Teo, 1997, p.110)

“In his short career, Bruce Lee stood for something that in the 90s is hardly deemed politically correct; Chinese nationalism as a way of feeling pride in one’s identify.” (Teo, 1997, p.110) Although Bruce Lee fronted what then seemed like a radical Chinese nationalism to the west, it is still something people all over the world can recognize itself in. The fact that he felt proud of being Chinese and proud of the place he originated from, even though he was an American citizen.

Feeling proud of the country you originated from is nothing new, that is something people have done for centuries. Even though the culture isn’t as different as American vs. Chinese, I too get that feeling sometimes being a Norwegian in England. 

Teo, S. (1997). Hong Kong Cinema: The Extra Dimensions. London: BFI.

Questions:

1.     Do you think it’s wrong to feel proud of your national identity?

2.     Is media a good way of portraying and trying to explain nationalistic views from around the world?

[fridasaka]

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie / We Should All Be Feminists

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

The message of this book is clearly about showing people that everyone should be feminists, which is also simply stated in the title of Adichie’s book. Whether if you’re a man or a woman, we should all be a part of the discussion to make a change in today’s society, and part of teaching the later generation about equality so they won’t have to suffer through what many individuals have to suffer through today; gender inequality.

2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

She’s using very personal language, with a touch of rationalism. She’s building her text very much on her personal experiences and on events where her gender has played a big role, but she’s balancing it out with some more statistical notes such as; “52% of the world’s population is female but most of the positions of power and prestige are occupied by men.

She manages to engage the reader, and even though she uses a lot of personal experiences, she manages to hit the reader and make the personal very universal.

3.     Which audience is being addressed?

I don’t feel she’s targeting any specific group, it’s a very universal conversation that everyone (who can of course) should be involved in. It is ultimately something that affects us all, and I feel Adichie manages to write the text in a way so that several audiences will have a reaction to it.  

 4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

I didn’t really get any insight of where she stands politically, but more about her thought process and her moral views. She doesn’t seem that politically involved, she seems to talk more about the ethics and moral aspects of different cultural issues around the world.

5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I strongly agree with the author, this text really hit home with me and I found myself feeling a lot of the emotions she put into writing it. She has some very good points throughout the whole text, that I feel should be obvious in today’s society, but sadly aren’t.

 6.     Essay

Even though the overall subject and theme of this book is that everyone should be feminists, and a lot of her writing is about her personal experiences from back home in Nigeria, she also writes about universal problems that we all can and should identify with. Such as the way we should raise our children and the thought process we should pass on to them. This is something I find immensely important and maybe something more people should think about before they decide to have children.

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen news reports, documentaries, articles, Facebook posts etc. about people’s mindset on feminism, sexism and equality. And most of the time I’m outraged and saddened about what I see, I just can’t understand that some people can be so narrow minded and think that women are less worthy than men because of whatever reason they may have. It makes me wonder what kind of upbringing some of them had, and what on earth made them think this. And I can’t help but to think of their parents and compare them to my own, and what values and morals they, both consciously and unconsciously, thought me while growing up.

It is exactly this I find so important; what values and morals we inherit from our upbringing is the fundamental attitudes we bring on into our adult life. Adichie writes; “[…] we must raise our daughters differently. We must also raise our sons differently.” (Adichie, 2014, p.25) And she is absolutely right, we have to start teaching them that we may be different sexes, but we deserve the same rights, because in the end we are all human beings. We need to stop raising our children depending on what their sexes are, we need to start raising them according to who they are as a human. “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are.” (Adichie, 2014, p.34)

We need an attitude change, and we need it now. We have moved on from a lot of bad times, but we are nowhere near close to where we should be. Not only do we need an attitude change for the people living now, but also to make life for the next generations easier and less divided. We should all start living as one unit instead of being divided into men or women. And to do that, I believe we need to among other things, do as Adichie says; start raising our children differently.

Adichie, C.N. (2014). We should all be feminists. Fourth Estate. 

Questions:

1.     I know from experience that a lot of people who distance themselves from this conversation because of how feminism is portrayed by some people, how can we change that and show how necessary this conversation is?

2.     Have any of the males in this class ever experienced ‘male privilege’?

3.     How have your upbringing affected your viewpoint of equality?

[fridasaka]

Peter Singer / Animal Liberation

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs? 

The main message in this text is that equal rights for animals should be as important as equal rights for all human beings. He’s describing how animal rights was once looked upon as laughable and unsound, similar to how fighting for women’s rights was received, and how humans have become speciesists, where we only care about our own species and no other, i.e. animals.

  2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

Singer’s language to me is quite confusing and a bit hard to read. I feel he writes in a way that makes it hard for me to understand his point of view and what he actually means, he goes back and forth a lot.

 3.     Which audience is being addressed?

Considering the language he’s using, I would think that he’s addresses adults.

 4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

Singer is a moral philosopher, and in 1996 he unsuccessfully stood as a candidate for the Green Party in the Australian senate. He has said:

“Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy.

If we ever do find a better system, I'll be happy to call myself an anti-capitalist.”

Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer (Accessed 21.10.16)

 5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I agree with a lot of what Singer is saying about human beings not considering the life and value of an animal the same as they value the human species. The way he talks about specieists the same way as racists’ and sexist people.

 6.     Essay

The discussion about animal rights is an important one, and in today’s society it is widely discussed between all types of people, both teenagers and adults. The topics vegetarianism and veganism are very trendy today, and a lot of people are transitioning from eating meat, dairy and all animal produced products to not eating any of it. This is because these types of industries are quite harmful to our environment, but also because of the amount of animal cruelty that comes with a lot of the industries that produces these animal products. Nowadays there are a lot of documentaries and information floating around telling people about this topic, making people more and more aware of it. 

I have always been very divided on this subject, because on one hand I have grown up in a very free place where there are a lot of animals enjoying the nature and have therefore grown to love and respect animals, believe they should be treated with the consideration they deserve. They are living beings that live on this planet with us, not for us. But on the other hand, where I grew up is a place where a lot of people are very dependent on nature and living off the land. It’s their way of survival, because there hasn’t been much else choice before or now. That mentality has been transferred from my parents and grandparents and over to me.

I believe (maybe stupidly) that cruelty to animals is a different subject than what agriculture in a sensible way is, even though I’m finding it incredibly hard to find the balance between the two. I’m therefore very careful about voicing my opinion on how this subject should be approached and what the best solution is. Maybe out of fear of sounding stubborn and old fashioned.

Singer writes: “[…] we will see that we would be on shaky ground if we were to demand equality for blacks, women, and other groups of oppressed humans while denying equal consideration to nonhumans.” (Singer. P. 1975, p.3) and I strongly agree. It is not fair for one species to act superior when that might not be case and take advantage of another species just because they have the means to do so. Yet the question of how close we can compare the two different species and how we should consider that in terms of rights and treatment has to be raised. Just as Singer points out here: “The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.” (Singer. P. 1975, p.2)

Singer, P. (1977) Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

Questions:

1.     Where does the line between animal cruelty and agriculture go?

2.     What would happen if everyone stopped eating meat, or if everyone started eating meat? Is there a balance that would be best?

[fridasaka]

Naomi Klein / This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

The author is trying to express the urgency and importance of taking care of the planet, and the importance of reducing the amount of emissions that we collectively are putting into our environment.

2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

She’s writing in a very personal way, a lot about her personal experiences and her own opinions. Yet, she’s writing in a very convincing way. Using harsh language, strong metaphors and cold hard facts. I feel it’s a very balanced text, where she manages to engage the audience with both her opinions, but also the facts that she’s presenting.

 3.     Which audience is being addressed?

Young adults and upwards. I feel like she’s trying to encourage people who have the power to make a change, while also trying to show those with less power that we also should change our lives and maybe put pressure on our leaders to put words into action.

 4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

From her stance on capitalism and how the world is run by our leaders I would suggest that she is more left-wing than anything.

As a teenager she refused to be politically active to take a stance from her parents, especially her mother who were very upfront about being a ‘public feminist mother’.

But as an adult she’s been very active in several subjects, voicing her opinion and writing about several problems in books. Such as ‘No Logo’ which became a  manifesto of the anti-corporate globalization movement for a lot of people, she’s also criticized the Iraq War and Israeli policies.

 5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I agree with a lot of what Klein is writing about, she writes harshly, but truthfully.

 6.     Essay

“We know that if we continue on our current path of allowing emissions to rise year after year, climate change will change everything about our world.” (2014, p.4) This is just one of the more alarming lines Naomi Klein has written in her book about how if we don’t start doing something about the amount of emissions we let out into the system, we will face tremendous and catastrophic disasters. And they will become inevitable, if we don’t do something soon enough there is no way we will be able to stop it either.

Klein also writes; “A great many of us engage in this kind of climate change denial. We look for a split second and then we look away.” (2014, p.3) And it is the truth. I know a lot of people, myself included, that fully understands how dangerously we are living and what the consequences of our actions will be if we don’t start taking action. If we don’t start changing our lifestyles and help reduce the amount of toxic gasses that we let out into the atmosphere. A lot of people’s reason to just brush it off is that we don’t believe we alone can change anything about it, at least that is my excuse a lot of the time, so we continue to live in the same way that we always have and hand the problem off to the people with the power and resources to change it. The same people that has been ‘working on it’ for two ++ decades, trying to make it better, but failing. It is all just an evil, big circle, where everyone passes the torch off to the next person, hoping the next person will do something about it, getting more and more guilty for every time we do it.

In reality no one really does enough, we need big changes and we need it now. We actually need to start caring about what we do, or too many people are at risk for losing everything they have. Too much is at risk for us to not do anything, yet not enough gets done. We have to start changing our lifestyles and we need to start putting pressure on our leaders and the corporations around the world so they stop talking and start taking action. We need them to put their actions into words. We all need to collaborate and start preserving our planet. “The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing." (2014, p.11)

Klein, N. (2014) This changes everything capitalism vs. The climate. Penguin UK.

[fridasaka]

Stéphane Hessel / Time for Outrage!

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

To engage the youth in politics.  Show them that there are a lot of things in the world that one should care about and be outraged about.

 2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

Hessel makes a very strong argument, and he writes very convincing. He compares a lot from his time and our time.

 3.     Which audience is being addressed?

In this particular chapter, he addresses teenagers and young adults.

 4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example? 

He was a part of General Charles de Gaulle's group of Resistance members in 1941, becoming a member of the Free French intelligence service.

He was left-winged and joined the Socialist Party in 1995.

  5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

Yes, I agree with him.

  6.     Essay

The subject of this text is an important subject. It is important in several ways; firstly, because we need to know our history and how far we have come from what once was, and secondly because we need to know how far we still have to go. How much we have to work in order to shape our own future. Because the youth is the future, we are the ones who have to take charge and decide how we want to live and how we want the world we live in to be.

 Politics may be a big word, because it entails a great deal of stuff. Yet, it is a very important word. We as human beings have to take care of it and shape it in the best possible ways, and when groups of people or organizations rises up and radically tries to change it for the worse we have to stand against them to protect the future of not only ourselves and the previous generations but also the generations to come after.

 Stephane Hessel speaks of interconnecting; ‘We are interconnected in ways we never were before, but some things in this world are unacceptable. To see this, you only have to open your eyes.’ (2011, p.26) The world is becoming smaller and smaller, we can connect with people all around the world. It has become a regular thing, but with that people might clash and cause destruction. We have to open our eyes to what is happening and voice our opinion, be a part of the solution to solve all the problems that we all have on our doorsteps.

 And yes there are a lot of things going on in the world, and one person cannot put all their time and effort into all, but instead find one or two (or more) problems that they really care about – and show that you care. As Stephane Hessel says – be outraged! We all have long lives to live, hopefully, and a lot of situations will come up in that lifetime. It is vital that we all take part in making the world a better place for every single human being.

 ‘To you who will create the twenty-first century, we say, with affection,

TO CREATE IS TO RESIST. TO RESIST IS TO CREATE.’ (2011,p.37).

 Stéphane Hessel, Time for Outrage! trans. Damion Searls (London: Quartet Books, 2011).