Justifications to Hold Power

The Mandate of Heaven is a justification for ruling based on the idea that one is chosen to govern because his or her moral code is aligned with that of a “cosmic all-pervading power.”  Though it may seem unfair to citizens that a leader could claim approval from a higher power, I believe that the Mandate of Heaven was the most morally acceptable justification to rule in lieu of leaders being democratically elected. 

Throughout millennium, leaders have used a variety of justifications to legitimize their power. An example of these justifications was the Mandate of Heaven, an idea that a cosmic force concurred with a leader’s moral code. Another example of a religious justification for power was the Divine Right of Kings. Of course, neither of these justifications could have actually been proven true, because as far as people knew, no leader was told by God that he/she had the right to lead.  Despite the manipulation involved, I believe that between the Divine Right of Kings and the Mandate of Heaven, the Mandate of Heaven was the more morally responsible justification for a leader to have. 

When a leader used the Mandate of Heaven to justify his reason to lead, he claimed that the previous leader did not have the right virtues. The individual with the correct virtues was consequently able to overthrow the morally compromised predecessor. This might have given someone the appearance of being a self-serving, power-hungry individual, but the basis for this reasoning nonetheless influenced individuals to assume leadership with a moral code.  If a leader used the Mandate of Heaven to justify his reason for leading, then he must have led a life with good virtues. Otherwise, he would look like a hypocrite. A government that was run based off of a moral code and humaneness would have functioned much more smoothly.  In the interest of self-preservation, a government would have had to had to show that its moral code was acceptable so another government could not claim that its virtues were superior.  The competition for power fueled by moral codes ideally might have influenced leaders to strengthen their moral codes.

It was not until the development of democracy that leaders no longer needed justification from a higher power for their right to lead. A leader’s given right to hold power was simple; he or she had been chosen by the people.

All in all, the Mandate of Heaven may have not been a fair claim to leadership, but it was the most morally responsible justification to lead in lieu of a democracy.

The New International Response to Abusive Leaders

In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that the leader that stays in power for the longest amount of time is the leader who can strike fear into his/her citizens' eyes so they show respect. He explains that if one’s power is based on friendly relationships and not fear, then one’s “friends” can easily turn against him and he will lose power.  Therefore, a leader’s power should be based on subjects having a measure of fear and respect towards their ruler, so that he/she “can endure very well being feared.”  I agree that this might have been a foolproof method of leading centuries ago, but in current times, this no longer stands true.  

The concept that a leader could hold power for an extended period of time by subjects living under the “dread of punishment,” works if there is no opposition against a leader’s methods, either within or outside of the country. If other nations do not involve themselves in conflicts that are not domestic or relevant to their interests, then leaders can do whatever they want to the people they govern.

However, in the past few centuries our world has become more globally connected.  Technology and globalization allow people from around the world to have access to information about events around the world.  This access to information drives people to care about how other people are being treated around the world. Now, people in other countries and their governments can involve themselves in foreign affairs in countries hundreds of thousands of miles away.  This means that the mistreatment of individuals is now not only a domestic problem, but problem that sometimes involves the whole world.  

A very recent example of the international community getting involved in a domestic human rights violation is the response to Moammar Gaddafi's treatment of Libyan citizens.  For over 40 years, Moammar Gaddafi ruled Libya similarly to how Machiavelli describes a long-lasting leader.  He showed little compassion to his citizens and treated many inhumanely.  Gaddafi was able to maintain is position as because of his ability to strike fear into his citizens.  

However, in 2011, a revolutions sprang up in Tunisia and Egypt, both North African countries like Libya.  The individuals living in Libya saw how the people of a country could overcome a tyrannical leader and decided to proceed with their own revolution.  After months of war between the rebellious revolutionaries and the Gaddafi loyalists, Gaddafi was killed and the rebels took power.  Yet, the rebels’ victory and Gaddafi's death were not accomplished solely by the individuals in Libya.  Most of the funding for the weapons and the support for the rebels were actually given by countries half way around the world.  NATO, the North American Treaty Organization, gave money and weapons to the rebels and also used their own aircrafts to hunt down Gaddafi.  The revolution in Libya that started because citizens felt like their leader was treating them unfairly was funded and supported by countries all over the world.

What is concerning is that there are still cases where abusive leaders continue to lead without opposition from the rest of the world.  Often, the reason that powerful countries such as the United States get involved in domestic conflicts elsewhere over the world is because the land that these nations rest on contains some natural resource that can be useful to powerful nations.  An example of this is oil.  In Libya, America and other powerful nations involved themselves in helping the rebels not only because it was the noble decision, but because there is oil in Libya that many countries would love to profit from.  In cases where abusive leaders rule in countries that do not contain valuable natural resources to powerful nations, the powerful nations are less likely to get involved in those conflicts. 

Therefore, I would argue that Machiavelli's opinion of what allows a leader to maintain power for a long period of time is no longer valid in many cases. In current times, countries from all over the world will intervene if there is a conflict concerning citizens' human rights.   However, there are still areas with abusive leaders where the people are left helpless.  I believe Machiavelli's ideas should be used by powerful nations as guidelines for what kinds of abusive leaders need to be taken out of position. Ideally, even if land may not be able to produce valuable resources, the international community should always come together to help the citizens of a nation with an abusive leader. 

The Evolution of the Right to Lead

Before leaders were democratically chosen to govern, they often times needed to give justification for their legitimacy.  This meant that in order to make sure no one would oppose his or her right to govern, a leader would justify his right to be in power. One of these justifications was the Mandate of Heaven.  

The mandate of heaven revolved around the idea that one deserved to lead because his or her virtues were supported and endorsed by a heavenly force.  If one were to overthrow another leader, he or she could claim that the fallen leader was not leading in a virtuous manner and therefore did not deserve to be in power. In the Shu Jing text, Yi Yin tells the heir-king that if he is not “virtuous, be it in large things or in small, it will bring the ruin of [his] ancestral temple.” In other words, if the heir to the throne lived a virtuous life, there was no “rational” justification that could prevent him from holding the position of power indefinitely and passing it on to his descendents.

It was not until the French Revolution that a major shift in political thinking occurred, regarding a monarch’s right to power.  People began questioning the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, a justification for leadership that claimed that all kings had god’s stamp of approval. How could mortal monarchs know what god wanted?  As the period of Enlightenment emerged across Europe and the New World, questioning leadership became a trend.  Revolutions in Europe had begun.

When democracies emerged, leaders no longer needed to give divine justifications for their right to govern.  Their reason for leading was that they had been chosen by their citizens.  I believe that this is one reason why democracies are beneficial to the citizens of a nation.  Rather than a leader keeping power for an extended period of time because of a religious justification, a leader can only serve for a set amount of time if he/she is voted to lead by the citizens of a nation.

I agree that voting for leaders is the most rational way of picking someone to lead, however I do not believe that there should be a time limit on how long a leader can lead for.  I believe that in the United States, if a leader is repeatedly reelected, it means the leader is accomplishing enough for the citizens of a nation to keep voting for him/her.  The leader is therefore deserving of his/her leadership position.  I am aware that the reason for a two-term limit is to stop leaders from growing greedy with their power, but if a nation likes the way an individual is leading, I do not understand why he/she cannot lead for a longer amount of time.

A leader's legitimacy to lead is valid if he/she is elected to lead.  I believe that in America, a President should be allowed to lead for as many terms as he/she is elected for.

Pericles' Athens

1. According to Pericles, what precisely makes Athens great?

Pericles, a famous orator, believed Athens was great because of the structure of its government and its peoples’ way of life. The government was “in the hands of many and not few,” a democracy. Because of this, the citizens of Athens were afforded privileges such as equal justice in private disputes, and recognition in society based not completely on one’s background (such as class) but upon one’s personal accomplishments. He insisted that citizens were prevented from doing wrong because of respect for authorities and for the law. Pericles also thought that the citizens of Athens make the state great.  The citizens were able to adapt to the varied forms of action with “versatility and grace.”  They were brave and intelligent. Finally, Pericles believed that the city of Athens was a unique place. Pericles stated that poverty was never an “obstacle” in Athens.   In times of peace and war, businesses thrived and there was no exclusiveness in public life. Throughout the city architecture was beautiful and elegant. The city was filled with recreation for the purpose of balancing hard work and relaxation. The education system in Athens taught kids to be smart and brave. Lastly, Pericles states that because Athens was prominent in the trading world, they were able to enjoy both their goods and the goods of foreign nations.

2. How does Athens compare to other city-states in regard to the above?

Athens compared to the other city-states by being an example to them all. The Athenian government was original in how it structured its democracy. In Pericles’ view, it was model to other city-states. In terms of its citizens, Pericles insisted that Athenians were braver and had more heart than the people of surrounding city-states. Pericles described Athens as having the bravest citizens in times of war. In addition, Pericles marveled at Athens’ military. It was “superior to all of their enemies.” The army did not find difficulty in wars and extended its hand in friendship whenever it could. It was a safer, more prosperous, and more beautiful city than any other.

3. What are some problems you see with Pericles' Athens?

I see that Pericles’ Athens sounds too good to be true.  It seems to me like Pericles had his head in the clouds.  He was so excited about his city that it seems that he was not looked to further progress and improve on what his city had already accomplished.  Second, even though Pericles thought of his government as a democracy, like in any democracy, not everyone could have been represented and happy.  Pericles described everyone in Athens as being respectful and prosperous and living an honest life.  Though this ideally sounds wonderful, I believe that there is no way that Pericles could speak for everyone in Athens. There had to be individuals who didn’t follow the rules and didn’t live the wholesome Athenian life.   What is concerning to me is Pericles’ negligence to any problems in Athens.  I understand the Pericles’ role during that speech was to glorify his city, but his words were perhaps too adoring and not realistic enough.

The Reliance on Agriculture

Throughout history, leaders have often risen to power and maintained power because of their ability to ensure that people have food and water. I would argue that in every nation and empire, the leadership structure held power because of its ability to supply food and water. Today, in the twenty-first century, this is still true. When food and water become scarce, governments are in danger.

In feudal times, the very core of the leadership structure was strung together by agriculture.  Peasants worked the fields so their lords had food and money to collect armies of knights.  They then had armies with which to serve the kings.  The relationship between the members of the different levels of the hierarchy relied upon whether or not there was food.  

Another example of how food is linked with government and leadership is the French Revolution.  Preceding the French Revolution, famine and economic hardships had struck France.  The food supply was depleting and prices were skyrocketing. When the French people saw that their leaders were not supplying them with their basic needs (food), they revolted. French Revolution is a radical example of how a shortage of food can tear apart a nation.  The absence of food in France had left a bloody mark.

Because the possession of food is so closely linked to the success and prosperity of a government, modern day governments are in danger of losing power when their citizens’ basic caloric needs are not met. If food prices were to skyrocket and the population at large cannot afford to feed themselves, then governments, especially in underdeveloped nations, find themselves facing destabilization.  People will always look to their leadership to supply them with their basic needs, and when governments cannot deliver these necessities, people will revolt. 

Han Fei-tzu's Problematic Leadership Structure

Han Fei-tzu’s Legalist Views on Good Government focuses on the need for strong enforcement of laws and the role of a single unchallenged power. The main points of Han Fei’s views are as follows: if a government has a strong leadership structure that is able to ensure punishment to whomever does not follow strict rules, then the government will be effective. Han Fei also believes that being able to capture the hearts of the citizens is not necessary to a successful nation, and that even though the citizens may think that a leader is making bad decisions, they must always trust the leader because the leader knows what is best.

            This idea seems ludicrous to me. It states that the leader is always right and the people should not question him/her.  Over the past millennia, people have been subject to slew of tyrannical leaders that inflict pain upon people and ruin societies.  In those situations, were leaders right?  People sat and watched Adolf Hitler destroy Europe because they were forced and chose to listen to their leader without opposition. No one question what he or she was told. Should people be forced into being tolerant of tyrannical leaders? To me, this idea is inhumane. 

            Han Fei claims that the people have “minds of infants.” He states that a leader would accomplish nothing if he listened to the people.  Instead, the people need to be nurtured by the leader.  They must be guided, for on their own they would not be able to prosper.  This idea is slightly reminiscent upon Alexander Hamilton, an early American leader who had limited faith in “the people” to progressively run their nation without a strong governing body.  The problem that I see with Han Fei’s idea is that it will result in leaders having absolute power.  With absolute power comes corruption and often times horrible lives for the citizens of a government.  Han Fei underestimates the peoples’ ability to think.  Even though a leader might thing he/she is doing the right thing, it is always essential to listen to the people. 

            The Han Fei views are extremely dangerous and can jeopardize humans’ unalienable rights.  Outcomes such as censorship, cruel and inhumane punishment, and terror would occur out of a government structured like this.  The Han Fei views on government lack the importance of a healthy relationship between the leaders and the led.

Confucius' Superior Man

When the master was asked about the characteristics of a humane superior man, Confucius answered that this type of man must have the willingness to pursue learning.  Most of Confucius’ answers highlight humility and the motivation to pursue a higher level of humaneness. This idea is brilliant for it shows the importance of always believing that there is room for improvement.  Therefore, it makes me wonder whether there is ever an end to how humane one can be or how much one can know.  Is there always room for someone to learn more and become a better person?

In XVII.2, Confucius says that “by nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart.”  He believes that at birth, everyone is the same.  However, by learning, individuals become better or worse than others.  Confucius also says that “the progress of the superior man is upwards; the progress of the mean man is downwards.” This also shows that the best people are always progressively becoming better or learning how to improve.

Yet my question is whether the superior man can ever reach the end of “progression.”  Can there be an end to knowledge and being humane?  Personally, I believe that there can never be an end to righteousness, but there can be an end to knowledge.  At some point, I believe everything can be figured out.  Knowledge is based on the accumulation of facts.  However, righteousness is based on feelings and emotions.  Righteousness is based on morals and the knowledge of what will make ones self and others happy.  There is always room to learn more about how to become a better person.

Therefore, I believe that Confucius was right about the best people realizing that there is always a way to be better and therefore always having the motivation to learn.  There may be an end to factual learning, but never to becoming more righteous.  

The Qualities of a Great Leader

In the Themes in World History textbook, it explains that an effective leader is "both intelligent and charismatic- he knows what's best and he can convince the average person that he is right." Though everyone may have a different idea of what an ideal leader is, I believe that these qualities are not the ones that make leaders great.  Instead, I believe that an ideal leader is someone who is almost selfless; willing to take risks that can jeopardize his own life or career.  A leader can listen with an open mind to the people he/she represents, and whether the leader knows how best to do so, the leader is always trying to bring its represented population the best lives they can live.

A leader must be willing to make decisions for the benefit of his/her people even if it jeopardizes his/her own career. Before the times of advanced military technology, the best military leaders such as George Washington, would lead their armies into battle from the front lines rather than the back. In current times, I believe that when a leader needs to make decisions that will greatly affect the world, he/she must make the right choice even if it defies the opinion of the individuals who voted the leader into power.  These kinds of decisions may make an individual very unpopular and even voted out of office, but it is a risk that a great leader must take.  This demonstration of leadership shows bravery and selflessness.

The second quality that a great leader must have is the ability to listen open-mindedly to the people he/she represents.  If a leader has his/her own agenda, the decisions made will most likely not be beneficial to the people he/she is supposed to represent.  A leader must always have the best intentions of the people in mind and in order to know what they want, he/she must listen to them.  This is also vital to a great leader because in order to hold his/her power, the leader must maintain a positive relationship with the individuals he/she represents.  By keeping close tabs on what the represented people need, the relationship will ideally stay strong. 

The last quality that a leader must possess is the motivation to do what is best for the people he/she is representing or the greater good of the world.  Often times, leaders make decisions not for the benefit of the represented population, but for their own good.  For example, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia because he wanted more own power and fame.  Invading Russia was not necessarily what his country and his people needed, but he thought it would be beneficial to his power and fame.  This is an example of a self-interested and therefore horrible motivation.  Leaders’ motivation must always be to bring its represented population the best lives they can live.

Of course, qualities like intelligence and charisma help leaders accomplish their goals, but without the three main qualities stated above, I believe a leader can never be successful.

The Allegory of Knowledge

Socrates describes two kinds of people in his Allegory of the Cave.  The first kind is the prisoner in the cave, who stares at shadows projected on the wall of the cave. He does not have any idea that he is looking at reflections of reality and not reality itself. This person has never known any other reality than his shadow in the cave. The second person that Socrates describes is the person who walks back and forth with shadow puppets in the cave.  He knows that the shadows are projected from a fire in the cave and they are not real. However, if you ask him what the sun is, he will describe the fire that he has seen for his whole life.  He is also shaded from the outside real world, and has never known anything else than what is in the cave. This person knows more than the prisoner, but is still not exposed to reality. Socrates believes that if someone were to escape the cave, they could see and know what the real world is.  This individual would then be “enlightened.”

I believe that this allegory can be a metaphor for the stages of the development of human knowledge. I believe that the prisoner in the allegory represents humans when they are born.  At that stage in life, a human knows nothing more than what he can see.  A recently born human’s reality is simple.  As far as I believe, a baby does not go looking for answers to philosophical or scientific questions that humans have been asking for decades.  He only knows and is interested in what he sees.  

I believe that the second kind of person who recognizes that the shadows are not real represents the adult human population today.  As relatively more learned individuals, adults understand more about reality than babies do. In addition, adults and society at large are pushing to answer the fundamental questions about science and philosophy.  What is real?  Though some ideas may have working answers, as of now, we do not have the full picture of reality. For example, we do not know if there is an afterlife or what causes certain diseases. The meaning of the second individual is to show that for all humans know, there may be reality outside of what is familiar to us.

In the allegory, the hypothetical “enlightened” person represents something that humans will never reach.  Yet, I believe that enlightenment is what humans are aiming to do.  Every day, with scientific advancements and growth in knowledge, we may be inching closer to answers that we have always wanted to know.  Even the question of how our world was created has been explored and many believe we may have the answers. 

In Socrates’ Allegory of the Cave, he describes the enlightened individuals going back into the cave and leading the others to reality. If Socrates’ allegory is a metaphor for the development of human knowledge, then I pose the question of whether this is what we want. Should we want to know all of the answers to life’s philosophical and scientific questions? I strongly believe that the answers to some questions will never be uncovered. Personally, I think that some questions should be left unanswered even if there are answers that can be found.  If humans knew the answers to how we got here or why we are here, I don’t think that there would be any motivation to keep on living.  It is life’s unanswered questions that motivate me to live the best life I can live, because I don’t know if I have a predetermined purpose.  I can pursue whatever I love. 

I believe that Socrates’ allegory of the cave can be a metaphor for the history and future of human development and knowledge.  Should we want to keep on learning, or should some question be left unanswered?

Haiti Paper Outline

I. Thesis

            Immediately after the earthquake in Haiti, there seemed to be a clear plan to distribute aid and to rebuild the country with the billions of dollars that had been collected and so many supportive organizations. Yet, the world has still not seen many changes in the conditions of Haiti. Therefore, who is at fault for the slow progression? Although many blame the slow recuperation exclusively on the lack of leadership shown by the historically corrupt Haitian government, the disconnection between the that NGOs and Haitian, the lack of NGO urgency to work on improving living conditions, and the excessive amount of NGOs that are damaging the already fragile economy have slowed down the recovery that is essential to the health and safety to the citizens of Haiti. 

A.             The citizens of Haiti have suffered from a history of Corrupt government leaders

                                               i.     Duvalier Family

1.     1971 -1986

2.     Ordered the death and torture of 20,000 to 30,000 Haitians.

B.             Currently, the situation in Haiti is devastating, and the amount of progress made in rebuilding the country has been close to none, despite the large quantity of NGO’s operating within Haiti’s borders.

- The earthquake killed more that 200,00   (8)

- More that 300,000 injured   (8)

- More that 250,000 homes destroyed (8)

- Over 1.5 million people displaced (8)

- Cost damage estimated at $14 billion (8)

- As of January 2011, thirty-nine governments sent aid (8)

- Haitians disappointed with lack of progress from United Nations   (8)

-       As of 18 Nov 2010, only 262 houses built out of a total of 4,931 planned (2)

-        More than 9,000 organizations (3)

-       - Only 20% of pledged aid had been received (December 27, 2010) (7)

-       - No major infrastructure rebuilding has started  (roads, houses)

C.             Haiti is not recovering quickly because there is a disconnection between what NGOs are doing and what Haitians really need

- "The Haitian people would be better off receiving foreign 'aid' monies as direct budgetary support, instead of indirectly through the inflated salaries of thousands of foreign NGO workers," said Haynes.    (2)

- "Let's be clear, I have nothing against NGOs - we need them. What I need is to have control over what they do in my country, where they do it and with whom they are doing it, and at what cost," (prime minister of Haiti)   (7)

- “Cash for What” video: explains that Haiti is buying food from other countries. Food needs to be grown and bought in Haiti

- NGOs think that what they are doing is good for the Haitian people, but things like buying food from other countries is poor for the economy (9)

- Many believe that the United States, Canada, France, U.N., the World Bank and International monetary Fund aren’t helping with the right objectives  (8)

- They aim to help their own “investors, farmers, manufacturers and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s)  (8)

- Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC) made up of members from foreign organizations and countries (Bill Clinton) and some Haitian representatives (Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive. Maybe, there should be more Haitians on committee (8)

- “Haiti needs....to fold the serious NGOs into a coherent, Haitian-directed strategy.”  (3)

-       - NGO’s ignoring countryside of haiti - only focusing on cities (11)

D.             NGOs in Haiti aren’t helping to improve living conditions because a lot of work that they do is for the benefit of their organizations and not the good of the country

- money is not going to Haitian businesses  (5)

-       - U.S. contracts worth $267 million - only $4.3 million worth of contracts have gone to Haiti
- Rest gone to U.S. firms -- a lot of money reinvested in United States
- United states took advantage of investments

-  OXFAM – 103-  $66 out of $97 given to Haiti in report -However they claim that all of their money is going to Haiti, Where is the extra $31 million dollars????   (10)

Catholic Relief Services – 62 =
- Only spent $60 million out of $192 million
- Claim that the rest will be given to Haiti over a long term period of time (5 years)   (10)

- NGOS NEED TO START THINKING SHORT TERM - HAITI ISN’T RECOVERING - START GIVING MONEY NOW

E.             The presence of an excessive amount of NGOs themselves in Haiti is hurting the economy and slowing the country’s ability to recover from the earthquake

-       "In addition to their lack of progress on the ongoing housing crisis, the presence of thousands of foreign aid workers has exponentially driven up the rent prices of the scarce housing that survived the earthquake.” (2

-       NGO money and activities have disrupted the economy (4)

-       - Make Haiti dependent on foreign aid and make it difficult for Haitian government to meet basic needs of citizens (8)

-       In 1970’s, foreign aid and investments in Haiti started  (FDIs = foreign development investments)  (8)

-       U.S. and World Bank turned Haiti into supplier of the cheapest garment labor in region.   (8)

-       Went from producing 80 percent of own food in 1980’s to large importer of food for America   (8)

-       -Food and drug donations stop sustainable local production (4)

-       U.N. Nepalese soldiers brought cholera outbreak that killed over 3000 people by January 2011  (8)

o   In the process of trying to help, new problems are occurring in Haiti because of too many NGO workers

Mixed Neighborhoods

If the areas in Chicago that are most dangerous during heat waves are the industrialized neighborhoods with few green spaces, what can be done to move the people living in these neighborhoods into safer conditions?

During the 1995 Chicago heat wave, the temperatures were high across the city but were even higher in the neighborhoods that tended to have less parks and trees and more factories, concrete, and smokestacks.  This is because parks and trees and vegetation soak up heat from the sun and make it less uncomfortable for the people living in the area.  The neighborhoods without these luxuries tend to be the neighborhoods with more public housing and relatively low property values such as the former Cabrini Green and Englewood.

One commonly discussed solution to moving people from these neighborhoods out of dangerous conditions is to crate more affordable housing in higher income neighborhoods.  Many people say that they support more affordable housing throughout the city and inviting the residents of poorer neighborhoods into that housing..  However, when it comes to building affordable housing in one’s own neighborhood, people tend to back away from this idea.  This is and example of the NIMBY syndrome (not in my back yard

People don’t want these kinds of neighborhood changes for a number of reasons. First off, as more affordable housing is built in somebody’s neighborhood, people assume that the price of real estate for the market price homes in the area will drop.  This will make it difficult for people to sell their houses and make money when the values of their homes diminish.  Secondly, people have of perceptions, right or wrong, about the residents who come to live in the affordable housing. They are often fearful of how the new residents will interact with the community. The property owners in the market value homes may not want their kids running around streets that they worry may be unsafe.

Therefore, I believe that one way to move people from industrial areas to more environmentally healthy neighborhoods without raising opposition from the local residents is to work towards the long term goal of ending poverty.  The best way to do this is to improve the education system within these neighborhoods.  Because schools are often ineffective in low-income areas, local residents don’t receive the skills they need to find good jobs and break their families’ cycles of poverty.  If the city of Chicago would invest more in quality schools in all neighborhoods, then the residents could have access to higher income and better living conditions.  As a result of this, Chicagoans would be more prepared to deal with environmental crises such s heat waves.

Social Responsibilities In Chicago

In the interview piece with Eric Klinenberg, the author of the “Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago,” he explains that a main reason for the high death toll during the 1995 in Chicago heat wave was the lack of social connection between the citizens in Chicago.  Many people were living alone and were disconnected from others when the heat wave hit. There was no one to care for them and they didn’t know where to go for help. In this situation, the environmental hardship and the lack of social relationships that Chicagoans shared were directly linked to the death of so many people. 

The absence of a social fabric during the Chicago heat wave is a similar reason to why many people die in other natural disasters.  For example, when there is a flood and someone is trapped in their house without anyone around or looking out for them, they will die.  When there is an earthquake and someone’s home collapses on them, and there is no one around to rescue them or even go looking for them, then they too will inevitably die. 

This shows a major flaw in human nature. In our modern day world, especially in America, close community bonds between individuals of different backgrounds are uncommon.  Typically, people who live in one part of city don’t go out of their way to look out for the health of someone in another part of the city.  Usually, young people aren’t going out of their way to look out for elderly women that may need help in their city. But living in a city does require a social connection.  It is important for citizens to realize that in times of crisis, they must look out for the well-being of everyone.  For people to live exclusively with others of their same ethnic background, age, or even gender leaves many individuals without someone to look after them.   

During the Chicago heat wave in 1995, many elderly people that were living alone died because there weren’t people checking on their well-being. It is not enough rely on emergency and rescue organizations when a natural disaster strikes.  When a crisis rises in a city like Chicago, it is everybody’s social responsibility to look out for the health of others whether they have ever met them or share any commonalities with them.  A sense of community is the only way for cities to get through environment hardships.

P.A.P.E.R. Giovanni Boccaccio

Purpose of the author in preparing the document:

The author wrote this document to share his reasons for why the spread of the Black Plague occurred.   Throughout his account of the event, there were several references to how people tried to heal victims of the Black Plague through attempts at religious cures. The author also states the religious connection between the spread of the Black Plague and god’s view on humans.  He says that the plague came “either because of the influence of heavenly bodies or because of god’s just wrath” as a punishment for humans being wicked.  This shows that the author believed that the plague came because of religious reasons.  He believes people died because they didn’t live by religious standards.  This shows that the point of this piece is to show that the Black Plague occurred because of a deity or other religious figures wanted to punish humans

Argument and strategy used to achieve goals:

The author used great detail when exclaiming how gruesome the symptoms of the Black Plague were.  He talks about the size and gruesomeness of the swelling on victims. By doing this, he makes the reader feels sympathy and sadness for the victims. Then, as the reader asks himself, why such a thing could happen to so many people, the author provides an explanation: that people were not acting righteously. The author put his audience in a position where they wanted an explanation for why the Plague struck, and then he gave them his reasoning.

Presuppositions and values:

Based on the time period that the author was writing in, there weren’t many rational scientific reasons for why a plague like this could start.  Religious punishment was the only reason that many people could agree with.  Today, we can scientifically find why plagues like this have occurred.  Therefore, I disagree with the author’s reasons for why the plague hit. If I were to use facts for this text in a paper, I would not use the information about religious reasons to share my reasoning for why the plague occurred.  I would only use facts that the author could back up with evidence

Epistemology

The truth content in the text seems very credible.  Seeing as this author was in Florence while the plague hit, he had very solid information about what the infected people and city looked like. Accounts of what happened and what things looked like are most likely true. However, his reasons for why the plague hit cannot be evaluated as true, because that is his opinion.

Relate to other texts:

This text is similar to another text about the Black Plague in Florence by Marchione di Coppo Stefani, called The Florentine Chronicle.  This second text also explains the mass chaos and death in Florence very similarly to how Boccaccio did.  Because of this, I feel comfortable trusting Boccaccio’s account of what Florence looked like during the spread of the Black Plague. 

Religion Is The Answer

In a time of destruction, death, and sadness, what have people turned to for support?  How do people feel comfort in times of crises?  These questions were on my mind as I read about the surviving individuals during the black plague. 

During the 1300's, the Bubonic Plague spread through Europe and Asia killing millions. In cities, the Plague was triggered by the infestation of rodents that thrived by feeding on the immense amounts of garbage.  According to Giovanni Boccaccio, a witness at the time, the symptoms of the plague were usually swelling "either in the groin or under the armpits" to around the size of apples.  Then, people would start to see spots on their bodies.  At this point, they knew they were facing sure death.  After a short period of time, cities became littered with countless numbers of corpses lying in the streets.

I would assume that the survivors looked around for a rationale for what had happened.  They needed an explanation for the destruction of their world.  They also needed hope and faith and something to look to for support.

They turned to religion. During the Bubonic Plague, many people looked to a god and their religions for reasons as to why people were dying and what could save them. In a piece written by Giovanni Boccaccio, the author explains how he believes that the black plague was brought upon people because they didn't live by the righteous standards of their religion. Praying to a god gave people hope that they could survive. The people both blamed their problems on their lack of religious observance while they also looked to a deity for help.

To address my question from earlier, I believe that even today, religion is the only thing that can give people comfort and answers.  Since the scientific revolution, many people have turned to rational reasons for answers.  We now know that the spread of the Black Death was not because a god was punishing humans, but rather because humans were living in unsanitary conditions. However, this answer brings me no comfort.  If I were living during the time period of the Bubonic Plague, this answer would have given me no comfort.  Sure, it is a reason for what was going on, but it doesn't give any hope that the situation will improve.

Therefore, I believe that looking to a god or a religion is the only way for people to find answers that both comfort them and bring them hope.  Whether religious reasoning is rational or not, people need comfort in times of crisis, and religion supplies just that.

Nature Controls the World Population

I believe that environmental disasters and diseases are nature’s way of preserving resources by controlling the world’s population.

In our technologically modern world, we have created countless ways to avoid death and destruction in the midst of natural disasters. These include systems for anticipating future tsunamis, hurricanes, and volcanic eruptions. Developments of medicine have extended life expectancy to over 70 years in most developed countries. Though we are extremely fortunate to have technology and medicines that allow us to better control how our environment treats us, these advancements have come with a price.  

There are far more people being born than dying everyday, a balance that is supposed to be relatively even.  This massive growth in human population is a problem because our world is running out of natural resources. In the chapter called Disease and the Growing World Population in our textbook, it describes how the Black Death and other plagues lead to horrific numbers of victims in the European and Asian populations. Even though a mass amount of death is never something we hope for, the drop in world population also had its benefits. After the Black Plague ran its course, there were less people alive and therefore more food and water for the living. The Black Plague may have been nature’s way of saying, hey humans, stop growing so fast; you need to conserve resources! I do not mean to make a joke of on something that was catastrophic to the human race.  However, the point that I am trying to prove is that the Black Death had benefits for the preservation of resources.

Another example of a disaster that inadvertently helped the environment was in ancient Rome.  In ancient Rome, the government was thinking too much about supplying its people with food in the short-term, and not enough about running out of resources for the future.  In order for the government to produce that much grain, “they had to cut down thousands of trees to create farms.” Fewer trees led to soil erosion, which then led to flooding of the Tiber River. When the floods receded, they left a malaria-carrying mosquito infestation. This wiped out around 10 percent of the Roman population, later causing the resource-scarce empire to collapse.  Could this spread of this disease have been nature's way of stopping the Romans from further ruining their environment?

The constant growth in our population will eventually lead to more and more scarce resources, regardless of whether we effectively conserve right now.  I hope I do not sound unsympathetic to the millions that die in horrible natural disasters. However, I do see that when people die, there are less resources being used.  This is just how our world works. My only hope is that in the future, the human race can find away to survive while preserving our natural resources. Their needs to be an equilibrium between what humans take from the world, and how fast resources can be replenished.  If we cannot find a way to coexist with our environment, we may face new environmental disasters that could kill millions just like the Black Plague.

The Roman Populists

What could the Roman civilization have done to save itself from destruction? Was it the government's fault that deforestation occurred and the environment was ruined, eventually resulting in the end of this world power? The Romans coexisted with their environment perfectly well until they started cutting down trees to make free food (not something that needed to be done).  Was this poor decision made for the wrong reasons?

According to our reading, the Roman civilization's downfall started when the government came up with the idea to grow crops to feed Rome’s common people for free.  It was a politically intelligent decision, because if the government could convince the citizens of Rome that their leaders had their best intentions at heart (feeding them for free), chances were high that the common people wouldn’t revolt against the governing body.  The free food bought the people’s loyalty.  In addition, in the case of a revolt, the people could be deprived of the food they needed.

Yet, this idea turned into a catastrophe for Rome.  To produce free food for such a large quantity of people, Rome needed to develop large new farms.  They needed to clear out the land by cutting down tons of trees.  This idea eventually backfired. The removal of trees led to soil erosion, which made the land unfertile. Then they couldn’t grow enough food to sustain life in Rome.

Further, the removal of trees created conditions for disease. Soil erosion allowed the Tiber River to flood more easily. As the Tiber River floods receded, the land was hit by an overwhelming growth in the mosquito population.  This brought a disease that Rome had not encountered before: malaria.  Malaria wiped out at least 10% of the Roman population.   But it got worse. Because of the drop in population, fewer taxes were paid. This led to the end of public work projects (like operational sewage systems), which led to further unsanitary living conditions, and less financing for the military.  The infrastructure of Rome crumbled and so did their ability to keep their civilization safe.  

I would argue that the environmental catastrophes that ended the Roman Empire were caused because the government cared more about staying in power than in doing the right thing for the Empire.  It was trying to be too populist.  The ideals behind populism are great.  The lower classes get to have influence on the government and have a say in how their country is run.  A government should look out for the welfare of common citizens for the purpose of creating a fair society. Yet in ancient Rome, the government chose to feed the common people for free because it was probably a way to promote their political careers. If the common people weren't happy with the way they were being treated, they may have revolted.  

I believe every government should pay attention to the interest of all of its people, but not become too populist be partially populous. Instead of taking it upon themselves to provide for the common people, a government's job should be to create conditions in which people can obtain what they need.  Governments should support businesses and agricultural projects, not take full charge of them.  As seen in Ancient Rome, if a government is in charge of all food production, then decisions can be made that will negatively effect the environment because of political interests. The only situation in which a government should be in charge of food production or distribution is when the companies that are in charge of it aren't providing enough food for everyone, including the common people.

A major reason for the fall of the Roman Empire was due to an environmental collapse of the civilization.  I believe that the reason for this catastrophe was the fault of an overly populist Roman government.

The Government's Role in Saving Our Environment

Should a country's government make laws against harming the environment, or should there just be various kinds of financial incentives given to individuals who live environmentally conscious life-styles?

Today, our world faces a crisis that was not attended to sufficiently in the past. With the rate of pollution that we are releasing into our atmosphere, into our water, and onto our land, we are facing consequences.  We are watching our poles melt from global warming, we are losing fresh water sources, and seeing our cities get ruined with immense amounts of garbage and litter.  Despite the damage to natural resources, individuals still aren't motivated enough to start living more environmentally healthy lives.  This is because it is more expensive to live environmentally conscious life-styles.

It is obvious that someone needs to make people think about what they are doing to our world.  The pollution that humans create is an externality. (The definition of a negative externality is a spillover cost that has to get paid eventually even if people did not agree to the action that creates that cost).  No one is paying to cover this cost now, but we will all pay soon with the loss of our resources.

I believe that in order for people to be more conscious about how important it is to save our environment, our government needs to get involved.  It is the only structure that has the money and ability to reach every household. However, our government cannot make this change through creating new laws. When a government makes its citizens protect their environment through laws, it can lead to laws that are inconvenient and expensive for citizens. If the government feels that everyone should only buy goods that were manufactured without releasing a lot of pollution, it probably means that the goods are more expensive.  This leads to a large percent of the country probably not being able to pay for them.   

Our government shouldn’t try to protect the environment with laws, but rather to create incentives to live environmentally friendly lives by rewarding the people who do so.  The government can give tax cuts or free public parking to individuals who live by the environmentally friendly standards that the government recommends. Whatever the benefit might be, people need to realize that not only are they helping their world and their future generations by making environmentally conscious decisions, but that they can also benefit (financially) in the short term.  

If people do not want to live environmentally healthy lives because of the financial costs for doing so, then simple economic incentives like saving money on taxes is an attractive way for a government to convince its citizens to help the world. 

Constant Scapegoating

Throughout history, minorities have often become scapegoats for all kinds of problems. Even though many people realize that the use of scapegoats is inhumane and unjust, why do humans still scapegoat today?

In the chapter called Disease and the Growing World Population in our history text book, the reading explains that during the times of the Bubonic plague, people felt the need to blame their misfortunes on someone.  In Europe, one of the minorities at the time were the Jews.  It became the Jew's fault that this disease was spreading. People said that Jews poisoned peoples' water and gave them the Bubonic plague. 

The scapegoating of Jews was something that had been around for a very long time.  The Jews were considered at fault for the unfortunate events that took place was when Judas, who people believed to be Jewish, gave Jesus up to the Romans.  During the middle ages, the Christians continued to blame the Jews for many of society’s worst problems, including the Bubonic Plague.

It is concerning to me that even though that people see that scapegoating minorities in the past was unfair, individuals continue to do it today, even if subconsciously.

A few weeks ago, a group of actors came to our school to perform a mock trial.  The reason for the trial in their performance was because a rich white man accused a poor black woman of stealing his watch without any solid evidence that it was actually her who had taken it.  The woman then accused the man of believing it was her just because she was black.  The man then called the woman’s boss and told her that he thought that the black woman had stolen his watch. Because of this accusation, the woman lost her job.  The woman came to court to sue the man for liable.  I found this scene extremely thought-provoking because it underlined a major issue in our society today.  People continue to have stereotypes about racial, ethnic, and religious groups.  These stereotypes develop and are allowed to persist because people who are different from the majority are often seen as scary or threatening.   It is also convenient to find a scapegoat for a problem that is hard to deal with or solve completely.

Even though many people realize that it is unfair to use minorities as scapegoats or to even scapegoat anyone at all, it is still purposefully and subconsciously done today.  Without substantial evidence of who is to blame for a disastrous event occurring, it is unjust to blame a misfortune on a scapegoat. 

Research Sources

(First four sources are already on source cards in a previous blog)
_________________________________________________________________________________


Day 1 Research:


http://search.proquest.com/docview/740247605/132AB48931D382803E0/10?accountid=3360
- background information on Haiti (state department)


http://search.proquest.com/docview/816539271/132AB4D7B656A8EAD08/2?accountid=3360
- NGO's not doing good job
- Amount of money Haiti received from American people from Red Cross
- Foreign money should go straight to people


http://search.proquest.com/docview/786538046/132AB4D7B656A8EAD08/3?accountid=3360
- What SERIOUS NGO'S need to do in order to help haiti - why improvements are slow


http://search.proquest.com/docview/840360015/132AB4D7B656A8EAD08/10?accountid=3360
- Why is improvement slow?
- NGO's not doing what's best


http://search.proquest.com/docview/896067959/132AB5CC04C1E00B56/14?accountid=3360
- Amount of money that goes to businesses (where is money going?)
_________________________________________________________________________________


Day 2 Research


http://search.proquest.com/docview/246834657/132C4CB3AD63F822A65/3?accountid=3360
- Lack of coordination between U.S. and UN


http://search.proquest.com/docview/816539271/132C4CFABD37A1D6250/16?accountid=3360
- NGO's inflated salaries taking money aways from people that need it


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12082047
- Haiti officials questioning NGO's help


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706511.html
- Dependance of foreign aid makes it hard for Haiti to grow on its own (economically)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/haiti-still-buried-under-_b_805839.html
- OXFAM and other NGO's blaming each other for lack of help
- Lack of jobs and money NGO's are creating


http://www.scribd.com/doc/46320380/OneYear-Followup-Report-Transparency-of-Relief-Organizations-Responding-to-2010-Haiti-Earthquake
- Report on progress
- Describes the different NGO's jobs and what they have done