Silence and Voice

First off, I want to thank all of you for creating a safe-space that allowed such intimate, and enriching dialogue. I thought it was great how we were able to tie in the previous weeks into today's session. Based on today's session I noted similar themes for being silent, voiceless or even silencing: family and culture. Although there were many deeper reasons for choosing to be silent (fear, shame, heroism, survival, traumatized). There were some moments of the discussion that I feel I should reiterate:

• Sydney & Marina stating a different form of being silent is by moving away from "home". Although this may also be interpreted as leaving a message to family members and communities. 
• Danyeli and Prof. Waterston questioning, "at what point does it become us silencing them? What is the line from conformity to silencing?"
• Prof. Rose addressing how to provide the most effective form of communication towards individuals with opposing views "Me speaking my truth has been more effective". 

The topic of silence and voice also correlates with our job placements and the attitudes that we see once we are there of those individuals within the system. Therefore, I ask you all the following, at your placement, do you know the "stories" of the individuals in the program? If so are there common themes that cut across the stories? If you don't know their "stories", why don't you. I know that there is a mix between what kinds of client interaction there is within each agency. For those who do research I ask, how is the population discussed in the research being silenced? How has the research silenced that population?

*Also, if you are interested in viewing short clips of individuals who were silenced during their preteens, there are various videos on YouTube under Mortified. These videos show adult individuals reading their middle school/ high school diaries in-front of a live audience. Here is a trailer of the short film that was produced of all the performances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3DmdV9XByY

Stigmatization: thinking like a terrorist.

Dear All, 

I hope that today’s class was really educational for you. I am very thankful for M. German for letting us see the problem of terrorism from totally different perspective. The recent hate crime against three Muslim college students in North Carolina is an ugly example of Islamophobia in the United States. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated case. Leading up to and following the 9/11 attacks, the human rights of Arabs and Muslims in the US have been increasingly threatened by anti-Muslim rhetoric, airport screenings, traffic stops, detentions, deportations, and hate crimes. In my view, that is the shame that there is no real discipline that studied terrorism as Michael German pointed out. Maybe, he is right. However, that is the shame that academic institution and other NGO’s often fail to think about the issues of stigmatization of Muslim community. In general, such problems are not that widely discussed as the challenges that  African-American or Latino communities face. Anyhow, the purpose of this class was not to inspire you to advocate for the rights of Muslim people in the US or in the world. Instead, I was aiming to make you think about other groups of people who are stigmatized in today’s society. What are the other groups of people whose needs social justice activists often fail to address?  

Fourteen years after 9/11, the struggle against international terrorism is at a crossroads. Policy debates on whether to how to proceed with any counter-terrorism strategy is beyond difficult. The line between these programs and human rights violation that may lead to radicalization has become increasingly blurred. In my view, such programs as CVE have the right to exist in order to govern our society from potential violence. It is obvious that there is no ideal program that might be effective and perfect for each side. However, I believe that there is a way to turn stigmatization of particular individuals and groups into reintegrative “mindfulness” that will assist members of both groups in understanding each other. As future social justice activists we are not able to design governmental policies. However, we are able to propose solutions. We have the right to be heard. If you were going to develop a community outreach program in the New York City that should serve to prevent the emergence of “violent extremism (CVE)”, what would that include?

Propaganda, War, and Patriotism: The Deleted Scenes

 
Uncle Sam has been calling to young Americans for decades. He calls to Americans much like ourselves, boldly declaring that he WANTS YOU. He wants US. Many Americans answer his call. They believe it is right to protect those you love and the country you live in. Dulce et Decorum est. But is it right to die for one's country? Should this call to war be answered? Uncle Sam is asking US to fight for his war....well...why can't he fight his own war? Furthermore, who is Uncle Sam?

Today, we focused mostly on the meaning behind propaganda and if it is ethical to use it. Now, I would like to ask you if it is right for someone to die for their country. I believe the level of patriotism found in the phrase "Dulce et Decorum est" can be compared to the heroism of the Thanes in Grendel. The Thanes lived to be heroic. For example, when Unferth attempted to kill Grendel, he knew he was dying a hero, even if no one else knew it. Grendel refused to end Unferth's life and he was forced to live on knowing that he had failed, and his idea of heroism was ruined. In Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum est," Owen attempts to fight this idea that it is right and just to die for one's country with gruesome imagery and the brutal reality of war. Is the death we witness in war justifiable if we are fighting for the "right" purposes? Do the ends justify the means? Or does the reality of war break this illusion of Dulce et Decorum est? I would love to know what everyone thinks about this.

Also, I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on Jessica. Jessica is constantly being pushed to the background in Dirty Hands, and yet she is a pivotal character when it comes to Hoederer's death. Would Hugo have been able to accomplish his mission without the "incentive" from Jessica? I also believe it is important to look at the insidious sexism within the play. We see Hugo trying very hard to prove himself as a "man," which leads him to take on the task of being Hoederer's assassin. However, later on in the play we see Hugo professing his love for Hoederer to Olga. How is this insidious sexism seen throughout the play and do you think it plays an important role in the outcome?

I hope everyone enjoyed my class today and I look forward to your responses!