I must admit that I was a little anxious about the mentor's coffee all week. I was sitting in my room trying to think of what I was going to say, and thinking of ways not to embarrass myself. I felt it was important to let everyone how this internship had change my outlook on life. I feel I am more able to spot injustices in my community through the testimonies of my clients, and I feel more entwine with their suffering and share their need for justice. I feel I have become more human. I can no longer say this is wrong and walk away from an issue. I now understand how all people are interconnected and it is almost impossible to stop thinking about how to make things better. I have experience this compelling need for action after reading Kant or Marx, but it is different when you have a person in front of you telling you their whole lives and still not noticing how they are victims of their societal structure. I simply feel awful when the people blame themselves for being the victims, and not understand how outside forces shape their unhappy circumstances. After listening to all the student's testimonies I got the sense that everyone was in the same boat. I felt Neethu's discontent with our educational system after dealing with teenagers in her agency. I agree that it is not entirely the students fault to be in High School and not be able to read. Why are this students able to move up the grade ladder without mastering this basic skill? Why is it okay to leave this population ignorant?

I also got the feeling that a whole new door of career options has opened up for us this year. I used to feel upset when people asked me, "So what are you going to do with a Justice Studies degree?" I was mainly upset because besides law school, I had no clear idea what else I could do. I must say that now law school is not my only option, but it is still my first choice. I gotta to thank Vera for opening my eyes to life. Overall I though the mentor's coffee was a success because the students demonstrated how much they had grown due to their experiences in their agencies and through our great discussions in the classroom. I must say I agree with Danielle when she said, "I will be so jealous of me next year." I want to know how everyone felt about the mentor's coffee, and would also like to know how the Vera Fellowship has altered everyones outlook on life?

Our Visit to Vera

I must say that our visit to Vera was very inspirational! Being able to visit the main site (where everything happens) and having Michael Jacobson speak to us about Vera’s mission and its spin-off process for its agencies was mind-blowing. It reminded me of what our ultimate mission is at our agency – which is social justice and/or delivery of services to a population that is in dire need of it. He brought our attention to the quote of Herb Sturz’ that was inscribed on the wall: “Wonderful way of building knowledge is doing something” which really stood out in his discussion about the spin-off process. Although some projects (i.e. Project Greenlight) did not produce the results that they needed in order to keep it running, they at least tried to create an agency for that population.

What also caught my attention was how each of them ended up at Vera. In each case, they were at some point interns for Vera! I feel that we are very lucky to be a part of this fellowship and to be a part of this process where we can learn how social justice can be accomplished with organizations like Vera. As Michael said, “Vera is very different from other organizations as other organizations spin off their problems and Vera spins off successes.”

Professor Stein brought up an interesting question which was, “Why isn’t Vera dealing with the sex offender population?” The sex offender population is a growing problem, especially with child pornography. Although Karen Goldstein said that there isn’t a need in that population, I believe that it may also be due to the high recidivism rate with that population. I personally believe that sex offenders often times get a slap on the wrist and do not get sentenced to enough time for their crimes. What are everyone else’s thoughts on that?

It was also very interesting to hear from Michael about Vera’s involvement all over the globe, especially in China. I’ve visited China a handful of times and know that, because they’re a communist country, they don’t like outside help. China is also full of corruption within their system. In August of 2009, an outspoken politician, Xu Zhiyong was arrested for advocating for legal rights. An excerpt from the New York Times, “Xu Zhiyong, 36, a soft-spoken and politically shrewd legal scholar who has made a name representing migrant workers, death row inmates and the parents of babies poisoned by tainted milk, is accused of tax evasion. The accusation is almost universally seen here as a cover for his true offense: angering the Communist Party leadership through his advocacy of the rule of law.” China operates in a mysterious way… If one were to speak out about the country, they would either disappear or be imprisoned. This was why I was very surprised to hear that China actually reached out to Vera for help on interrogation research. Will it ever be possible to work together in unison with all other countries (even communist countries) with the mission of social justice for all?

The Simple Truth

"So there is knowing and there is knowing and there is knowing." I found "Speaking Truth to Power with Books" by Howard Zinn to be such an insightful piece. As someone who appreciates the power of words and books, Zinn's words were very meaningful to me. I have read it about five or six times now and each time I find some new insight into his words. Zinn writes that sometimes people think they know something but truly what they believe to be the truth is really false and books have the power to make people question what they know. He gives an example, which I'm sure all of us have experienced to an extent, about how students, teachers, and parents were stunned to find that Columbus was not the great hero he was presented to us to be. I remember learning something new every year in middle school and high school that contradicted what I had learned the previous year. When we face something like this it makes us wonder what else has been hidden from us and what lies we have been told. We begin to stop taking everything for granted and ask questions about the things that are presented to us. I think this is such an important function of books and writing--to make people analyze what they hear and read. It wasn't until I came to John Jay that I realized the importance of questioning surveys and studies. I learned to ask where was that study conducted? Who conducted it? What methods and subjects were used? Was it reviewed?...Zinn goes on to say that when you tell someone something they didn't know or reveal a truth to them, it can move them to do something about what they've heard. I loved the example he gave about Rachel Carlson because I remember reading a book by her when I was in middle school, and it moved me to become an enviornmental brat of sorts who went around to everyone saying things like "How long has that AC been on? Do you know you're releasing CFC's into the atmosphere?"
I think realizing the power of words is especially important for us as future social scientists and social justice workers. We often forget how important our writing can be as students who do and write/help write research. The research we write can affect policies and laws, change the criminal justice system, and impact the lives of people. How we word something, how accurate our information is, and how well written is, can all have an affect on the impact of the writing on peoples lives.
In class we discussed how writing has become dry, ambigous, and at many times unreadable or incomprehandable. We all know the difference between reading Professor Waterston's description of Nora and the Woodhouse women and a research article. One captures our attention and is fascinating and the other can often times be a boring or even torturous read even though the subject matter is usually interesting. However, in a field where quantitative studies are often considered superior to or more "scientific" than qualitative studies, how do we get people to take us seriously if we don't write dryly and plainly. If we insert more narrative into our writing, take out unnecessary words, and make our writing simple, will we lose the respect or interest of professors and other scholars? How do we find a balance between dry facts and pure emotional narrative?

IS IT A DEMOCRACY?

I remember discussing the use of Euphemisms in my ISP Literature class two semesters ago, and it was interesting the facts one can uncover if we deeply analyze why the government uses Euphemisms. Well, according to an article tittled Euphemism and American Violence by David Bromwich, Euphemisms served several purposes in American Capitalism: first, powerful language dominates and controls; second, it is a means of substituting harsh and offensive words with mild or vague terms; third, euphemism distorts the truth. In other words, David Brumwich could not have described democracy in a better way. Democracy cannot exist without the use of euphemisms. Imagine if we lived in a society in which the government disclosed everything to the public, Obviously we would not live in such a peaceful society. Perhaps people would not follow all the rules, laws, and regulations set by the government if they did not use euphemisms to manipulate the people. The government needs, at some point, to have control over who they govern, even if it may seem that we have control over them. It is true that the public elects their representatives and senators; however, public does not know what really goes on in congress, or what issues are discussed. The government discloses what they think the public will like, or at least, what will satisfy their to be informed. With that being said, lets take a look at a couple of passages from the article Euphemism and American Violence:

"If one extreme of euphemism comes from naturalizing the cruelties of power, the opposite extreme arises from a nerve-deadening understatement. George Orwell had the latter method in view when he wrote a memorable passage of "Polictics and the English Language."

Defenceless villages are bombared from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are improsoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Artic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one to name things without calling up mental pictures of them" (Bromwich, D. Euphemism And American Violence, p. 1, The New York Review, March 15, 2008).

The very truth here is that most of us are naive of what really happens around the world. U.S intervention in other countries is not always what it seems to be. According to David Bromwich and Tony Proscio, the powerful must rename their actions if they want to keep the public satisfied yet naive. Most of us may agree that the US military will not rveal to the American public that they "bombared defenceless villages, killing all their inhabitants, and setting the remainings on fire, or locking people up for years without the right to due process." If the truth was so told to the public as it happens, then what would be the sense of calling ourselves a democratic society. The government, as does the supreme court in its long and sophiticated interpretations of the laws, needs to use powerful language such as pacification, transfer of unreliable elements, or rectification of frontiers to soften things and give a more positive meaning to the truth behind these terms.

If we looked and analyzed closely these words, like Geargoe Orwell and Tony Proscio emphasize in their articles, would we understand the meaning of these words by just hearing them or reading them from some well-written article or passage? Think deeply, would you? I know I wouldn't. The dictionary definition of Pacification includes (1) reduction, as of rebellious district, to peaceful submission and (2) a peace treaty. The meaning behind pacification as noted by David Bromwich is definately not a peace treaty or a peaceful submission. Think about it? do these words make it easy for us to be well-informed of the things happening in our society, much less in underdeveloped countries around the world?

Just to clear any confusions in regards to this article, it was written to illustrate what was taking/took place during the Vietnam War. The actions of the military in Vietnam and other countries where there was US military involvement.

P.S. Sorry for posting my blog so late but I had been very busy.

Making House Calls

“Conventional readings of human rights violations fail to draw on current understandings of the social determinants of a wide variety of ills, leading a random appearance to what is, in fact, a highly predictable set of outcomes.” - Paul Farmer

“Imagine it’s a shock to pay poor people for their labor.” Paul Farmer’s method of getting Rwanda healthier involves a holistic approach where the entire community is involved in keeping themselves and their neighbors taking medication and… in increasing their vegetable intake? Sounds like what my mother always told me. Well, this basic strategy is working. “Accompaneros” (villagers, modestly trained in health care) have increased medication compliance rate to percentages higher than in the United States. Citizens of Rwanda are managing to keep themselves healthier than one of the most advanced countries in the globe.
Holistic doctors frequently prescribe to the benefits of a healthy diet to restore to health to individuals suffering from planter’s warts to cancers. Plus, its possible to save money when vitamins and minerals supplant long hospital stays. In Rwanda, an agricultural expert is on hospital staff, providing a short course to parents with malnourished children on how to make their vegetable garden more productive. A family’s ability to grow healthy crops leaves more to sell at local farmers markets, improving another economical issue, namely, incidence of poverty. Farmer’s model takes “a man who was once a terrible drain on society and makes him a productive member of society.” I’ve noticed this repeating theme in Sturz’s logic. To “take people who are part of the problem, and make them part of the solution” seeks to improve the living situations of those who have kicked into survival-mode, while only quietly imposing on capitalist ideals.
Paul Farmer describes the Guatamala locals’ reception to a workshop given by “slender” girls in “jeans” who “looked a lot like those of us who had come from Boston” : “They were being asked to respond to an agenda imported from capital cities, from do-gooder organizations like ours, from US universities with the “right” answers to every question.” The paradox here is that successful programs have been implemented from programs started in the United States. We have the time and utilities to research, to travel, to make house calls. That is part of the reason we go into other countries proposing a solution and greatly insist they work on it. (Naturally, we’ve also had our share of miscalculated efforts. The media-driven society we are, these are the efforts most frequently cited.) The question I want to raise is, after we’ve done our research, made our house calls, and proposed a solution, how do you convince an abused, skeptical population that we’re here to give more aid, so eventually, they’ll need less aid? How do you convince them its not that we want to get in their business; “it’s not charity, its solidarity”?