Racial Profiling: A Problem in Today's Society

On August 9th, cries rang out against the injustice done to an African-American boy in the neighborhoods of Ferguson, MO. Every year, stories are told over and over about unarmed teens getting shot. It does not only follow the trend of white officers shooting black teens, but it is also vice versa. The moral issues of everyday racial profiling is still prevalent in today's society even though this nation is called the great mixing pot. A lot of countries look at America with respect for trying to accept all cultures, but once the people have experienced what it is to be an American we lose some of that respect. Racial profiling goes towards all colors in this nation. Especially since 9/11, "brown" people are treated with caution, and we are "randomly searched at airports and other events. My belief is that the only way to solve all these problems is to accept and forgive the past which we can't change and mold the future together.   

Pray for Ferguson

On August 9, 2014, my cell phone alerted my via social media and CNN about another teen killing. I didn't think anything of it at the time, until I read the story. An unarmed BLACK teen was shot by a WHITE police officer. This took me back to last year with the Trayvon Martin story, Oscar Grant, Sean Bell and various but similar stories. Why does this keep happening every year? Protesting went on for awhile. Fast forward 100 days, and the judicial system that is suppose to protect all of us as Americans, says that there's not enough evidence. The judicial system makes me question who it really protects. I feel that if the pages were turned, and Mike Brown was white and Darren Wilson was black, Darren Wilson would have been taken into custody as soon as the police came. Yes, I believe that Mike Brown's body would have not been left in the middle of the hot street in the summer. The decision for a court hearing would have been put into place if the officer was black. He would have served time as well. Why is that? Why is the race card still being played in 2014? Do African Americans not deserve justice just like the rest of the Americans in this country? It's time to step and make a change. We have got to stop hating each other and come together as a nation.

Gender Inequality

I believe there as always been a gender inequality when it comes to many different aspects in life. In my opinion men has always been the superior one. In many cases men can do certain things that women can not. For example if a woman was to wear something that is revealing and a man stares, she instantly gets called something derogatory when it's actually the man's fault for staring.Also men will typically make more money than women even if she is more qualified. For example a woman who made straight As in school will be paid less than a man who made Cs. Society often looks at men as the the person who brings everything to table as far as finances and being the "head" of the household. I feel as if woman can work as hard as a man sometimes harder.  In my opinion, women are faced with so much and are expected to do so much,but women are not appreciated for what they do. .Since the earliest times, women has always been looked at as the person who sits home and their goes through unpleasant changes in order to have children, care for the children, clean the house, as well meet the husband's needs while being submissive.

Thoughts about Ferguson

I believe that we live in a world where blacks are thought of as aggressive and violent . Some people believe what is going in Ferguson is a riot but I personally don't consider it to be, I feel like the people are protesting and the brutality of the police is causing them to react violently.I honestly feel like situations like this will continue to happen because no one is attempting to put a stop on it. Time after time, justice is not being served.  I don't understand how we could continue to live in this crazy world and situations like this go on . It took 100 days for them decide whether are not this will have a trial . in my opinion they were not worried about the injustices and wrong doings but to explain to the world that his death was justified and that Wilson did nothing wrong. A innocent unarmed teen is now dead and no one is being punished for his death but himself . But why is he being punished? Is it because the officer "felt" threatened or was his life actually in danger?  Even if he felt like he was in danger he could have shot him maybe in the leg or something. Wilson obviously shot to kill. Oh yeah Wilson had a mark on his face yet this boy got multiple bullets shot into him and then his body was left in the street for 4.5 hours. People are trying their best to justify the situation. I feel like if the races were reversed the black cop would have faced some type of punishment. I feel black people have been constantly hurt and killed by the ones that were put in place to "protect us"  now we are trained to have fear that we will be the next victim . That is absolutely sad. I also am bothered when people try to say that it happens to everyone, no it does not. More blacks are being killed than any other race and the sad part most come from as I stated earlier the ones who are there to "protect" us. I feel like a innocent life should have not be gone and I will never see a way that it could be justified to be right that it happened. What do you think?

Feminism

Last semester I took the class “Women and Theory” taught by Dr. Maloney, and because of that course Feminism is a topic I find very interesting.  While many people view Feminism as a movement to change the patriarchy into a matriarchy, this is a gross misunderstanding. Modern feminism can be divided into three different phases, or “waves”, to characterize the progression of feminism. Many people attribute the second wave of feminism to encompass feminism as a whole, and it is through this that feminism got its unpleasant reputation. The second wave of feminism began around the 1960s and continued into the 1990s. It is this wave that had the loudest voice and most visible protesting, such as bra-burnings and picketing male dominated businesses. While these women were important to the movement, Feminism for the last 20 years has progressed to the third wave. This wave focuses on gender equality within a currently patriarchal society. This ddoesn'tmean get rid of gender all together, but instead to not define someone by their gender. If a woman wants to wear a low-cut dress, she should be allowed to without being called a slut. If a woman has the same job as you and does the same work, they should get the same pay. All major social institutions have been characterized by male dominance including:

economy, politics, family, and religion. This needs to change, but I guess the real question is how?

 Also if you have a couple minutes, here are some videos that rock:

Warning: These videos have some NSFW language

The Office- Business Ethics

In class we discussed business ethics after watching an episode of The Office. We could identify the things that they saw as ethical problems to be just issues in the workplace called ethical dilemmas. These problems weren't necessarily ethical issues. As we watched we began seeing these normal issues being overshadowed by actual ethical issues in the workplace. When Dwight says he never steals time therefore he is implying he is an ethical man. He engages in sleeping with an engaged woman which is very unethical. When dealing with an "unethical" situation it is best to know exactly what you're dealing with.

Thought on Capitalism

While searching for a blog topic, I thought back to capitalism and how it was discussed during the symposium. Several pros and cons were brought forth by the various philosophers. While, pondering these, I thought about how we hear stories all the time where people start up businesses from nothing and are now insanely rich. Are they in the wrong for becoming part of the "rich" class? Or do they deserve it to be there? I know this was discussed briefly in class, but I cannot remember all the details. It is an interesting topic regardless.

Since, this is a by-week for the blog and I need to make one up for not doing one last week, I thought I would just talk a little bit about Frantz Fanon. Fanon is noted for being one of the most prolific black philosophers. However, what really interests me is at what time this philosopher lived.  To me, philosophy has always been something of the distant past. When I think of philosophy I think of the ones we learned at the beginning of the semester, such as Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates. Even Kant was born in the 18th century. Yet, Fanon was born in 1925 in France, and was only thirty-six when he died. He lived in a time where being black was viewed as being the "other race." At this time it was socially acceptable to harass a man without fear of many (or any) consequences. He definitely is a good representation of the social movement going on in that time.  Much of his philosophy, as we have learned about, deals with isolation. This makes since, because as a black man he was isolated from much of the world. Even more, being an educated black man made him isolated from much of his own class at that time. Just through doing some research on him, I've realized how segregated Fanon must have felt from the rest of his society. One of his books that really caught my eye is "Black Skin, White Masks." In essence, it is a review of what it is like to be a black man living in a white man's world. Fanon really is a revolutionary of his time. His philosophies transcend race, and relate to a variety of people.

Capitalism

 This entire week we have been discussing the systems of capitalism and communism, and how it relates to the people and philosophy. I've learned that in capitalism the workers don't have any control over the means of production and not even the necessities of surviving. While the rich people who contribute less work get rewarded with the control of means of production and the profit of work. Communism on the other hand seems to be a better idea as described by one of the philosophers, its sort of a robin hood system where the wealth is distributed evenly within the poor people. However no real form of communism have been display in other countries, so there is no telling weather it could be a better replacement for Capitalism. Anyone have any thoughts?

Equal Opportunity

Over the past few weeks, we have discussed numerous philosophers and their beliefs. Nietzsche has two stages regarding morality: the pre-moral and moral stages. The pre-moral stage, the Noble Mood of Evaluation, claims that good is always determined first and bad is the afterthought. The necessity of creating values comes from the inside. The Morality stage, Slavish Mood of Evaluation says that evil is determined first and good comes second. Marx's stand point on the class system relates to two types of classes. The bourgeoise and the proletariats. The bourgeoise own the means of production and the proletariats produce products and work for the bourgeoise. The capitalism fundamental contradiction is the proletariats contribute the most but receive the least, the bourgeoise contribute the least but receive the most. Jean-Paul Sarte believes that one should subjective and not objective. During our symposiums we discussed a lot about why Marx's theory/point of view still exists today? Why are there still people who are barely making it in America? Why aren't we all equal? Why do the bourgeoise get all the praise and credit for the means of production? What can we do as a society to make everyone comfortable? Doesn't everyone deserve a piece of the pie?

Reflection on the Symposium

On Wednesday, we had a Symposium and I was Jean Paul Sartre and/or Fanon. Sartre and Fanon are both existentialists. One of Sartre's beliefs is bad faith which is lying to yourself. They both present many examples of bad faith or how people look at themselves as on a object. I realized that Fanon and Marx had similar definitions of alienation.

  We also connected the symposium to what's going on in Ferguson Missouri. It is where a police officer murdered the UNARMED black teen. There has been many protest going on throughout the world since this first happened. The grand jury is supposed to read the results any day and many cities, including Memphis, are preparing for the protests. In my opinion, people should not be arrested or punished for peacefully  protesting but there have been many arrests anyway. It's like the government wants people to react violently. Do you believe the officer should be charged with  murder? If so/ not, why or why not? Was it morally  right or wrong for the officer to murder the teen?  Another question is should the protesters be arrested or punished if there are doing it peacefully?

Here are some links about what's going on.
http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-braces-finding-shooting-unarmed-black-teen-044312927.html
http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/27407428/missouri-governor-activates-national-guard-in-ferguson-as-grand-jury-decision-nears

Bad Faith

In class, we discussed the topic of having "bad faith". Originally when Dr. Johnson asked us, "What is bad faith?" most of the class was silent. It was my understanding that to act in bad faith is to trust someone despite their previous irresponsible behavior or undesirable traits. For an example, my idea of a person acting in bad faith is a roommate allowing his or her roommate to continue living in their home despite this person's inability to pay rent. You hope that the person will get a job and contribute even though all of their previous behavior shows that more than likely they will not pay rent. Perhaps a devoted wife continuing to believe her cheating husband will be faithful and committed to her despite his lack of action to prove otherwise. These were my previous understanding of acting in bad faith.


Sarte's definition closely aligns with my idea in the sense that it is a lie to oneself. I believed acting in "bad faith" was lying to yourself about the ability of another person. Sarte literally means that we are lying to our self about our actual self. We talked about the TGIF waiter who says that he or she is just a waiter in the way that a chair is just a chair. This is simply not true. We have the freedom to be and do whatever we want to do (within reason). While the chair is simply a chair and will always be just a chair. As humans we take for granted the freedoms that we have everyday. Even a slave or prisoner has the freedom to think, feel, and imagine.

Jean-Paul Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre is the most famous existentialist. His most famous belief is the idea of "bad faith" which can be defined lying to one's self. He believes that people are describes by facticity and transcendence.
Sartre's story about the waiter is an example of someone completely objectifying himself and describing himself by only facts. The other story about the woman walking in the park is an example of someone thinking of themselves in complete transcendence.
People should have a balance between the two stories. They should embrace what's happening around them and also recognize facts about themselves.

Frantz Fanon

Frantz Fanon was a black man born in Martinique, formerly a colony of France. He had a very interesting life. He was sent to Paris to study psychology, psychiatry and philosophy. During his education, World War 2 broke out, so he joined the French army to fight. Shortly after joining the arm, he moved to Algeria, another country formerly colonized by France. He taught the Algerians how to survive French torture tactics. He survived 2 car bombs and an ambush of gunfire in his hospital room. He studied Jean-Paul Sartre and took a lot of Sartre's beliefs on existentialism. One of the biggest similarities between the two philosophers is the belief of facticities.
Fanon mentions how he feels when a child calls him a "negre". He alienates himself and can picture exactly what a black person "is". He also feels objectified; as if being a black person is completely a facticity and has no transcendence.
I can relate to Fanon's experience being not only a black person, but a woman. Being in both minority groups gives me a lot of struggle to be up against.

CAPITALISM

 

During class we were given a better understanding of Capitalism. Capitalism is a system of production that produces the class struggle in the most violent form. We learned that under Capitalism the classes are reduced to only two; those are the bourgeoisie “owners of the means of production” and the proletariat “the workers”. We also learned that under Capitalism these two classes rest on a fundamental contradiction. Although both contribute to the means of production the bourgeoisie get the most while the proletariat get the least yet they are the ones that work the most. 

So my question is, how can we break this system so we can all be benefited equally or do you think that the rich deserve the most because they have “worked” hard to earn their money?

Frantz Fanon

Today in class we talked about Frantz Fanon and the chapter "The Fact of Blackness" in his book "Black Skin White Mask." The main point Fanon makes is that black and white people do not live the same lives. Back then when black people were considered objects as if being black was the only thing they could be. This objectification and alienation of black people was just how things were, but Fanon did not approve. Ignorance of this sort sadly still exists in our society today, but how we react to these situation are important as well. How should we react to the someone who tries to degrade us with their words? Should we react at all?

Existentialism

This week in class we discussed existentialism, which is based on the idea of human freedom, and two philosophers of existentialism, Jean Paul Sartre and Frantz Fanon. In Sartre's book, "Being and Nothingness", he tries to explain what kind of being a human being is; a being-in-itself or a being-for-itself. Beings-in-itself are objects that are entirely defined by facticity. For example, a table will always be a table. "It is what it is, in the mode of being". Beings-for-itself are the class humans fall into. They are subjects that are still somewhat defined by facticity, but are also defined by transcendence. "It is what it is in the mode of not being it".

Frantz Franon uses the idea of a being-in-itself and a being-for-itself in a chapter from his book "Black Skin, White Mask". In this book, Franon describes the existence of blacks being different than the existence of whites. He uses life examples to describe the different existences. In one example, he recalls a time when he was on a bus and a young white child turned to their mother and basically said look mom there's a dirty nigger. Franon describes the feeling he felt as being a being-in-itself. What the child did was objectified and alienated Franon as if him being black was like a table being a table, and that's all he was and would ever be.

Freedom/Purpose

I found the topic of freedom very interesting. This coupled with beings-in-themselves/beings-for-themselves created a  very thought-provoking topic that I regret that I did not weigh in on. Regardless, when discussing how we are never in an situation where every aspect of our freedom is revoked, I first thought this was not possible. Upon further discussion, however, I saw how this works. Basically, even if by some chance that you happen to be held against your will confined to a single room, you can still think for yourself. You have the freedom to be really annoying if you so choose. Now, I find the second part of this interesting in the fact that everything can be grouped into two categories. Basically, objects and things fall in the being-in-itself section while people fall into the being-for-itself. Now, I was wondering if a table (for example) is no longer being used as it is intended and is utilized in a different way that is no longer typical of tables, has it "transcended" from being just a table? Or is has it merely been re-purposed and taken on the mode of its current use?

Karl Marx

This week in class we've been learning about Karl Marx and his ethical theory. Marx believes that the existence of classes is bound up with particular historical epochs, the current one being Capitalism. And that the class struggle will inevitably lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat. But, that will only be a transitional phase to a classless society. Marx also believes that human labor is a free, conscious activity and the one thing that separates us from animals. And one of Marx’s issues with capitalism is that it’s dehumanizing us by making us feel least like ourselves while doing the most human activity and most like ourselves when we are free of work and doing the most animal things like sleeping and eating.

He also believes that capitalism has produced one of the most violent class struggles. The reason for this is because there are only two social classes: the Bourgeoisie (or owners of the means of production) and the Proletariat (or the workers). With only two classes, there is no spread of animosity; all of the anger is focused on one target. Another reason for the violent struggle is the fundamental contradiction produced by capitalism. The proletariat class puts the most labor into making a product but receives the least amount of profit in return. And inversely, the bourgeoisie class puts the least amount of work into the production but receives the largest amount profit. And as the system continues, the poor get poorer and more numerous while the rich get richer and fewer in number.

Capitalism is a system that depends on alienated labor. It alienates the worker from the product of his/her labor by setting wages so low that they could never afford the product that they produce. The worker is also alienated from the process of production by being forced to work solely for the purpose of producing a profit for the bourgeoisie class. Workers are alienated from what Marx calls their “species-being,” or what makes them human. And it also alienates the workers from each other by producing a system of competition.

Marx believes that all of this will eventually cause a class consciousness in which the proletariat class will revolt against the bourgeoisie class.

Marxism's fall in the Soviet Union

After the overthrow of the Russian monarchy in 1917, Communism and the theology made famous by Karl Marx took control of the Russian Empire.  Communism, established by Vladimir Lenin, thrived and grew in Russia as well as China, Cuba, and much of Eastern Europe until its collapse in the 1980's and 1990's.  As Marx states, Communism is better for society as a whole and far superior than Capitalism.  If the Marxist theory was true, why did Communism fall to Capitalism? What would Marx's response be if he were alive today?

Rich vs Poor

Recently in class, we have been discussing Karl Marx and his views on capitalism. This has been very interesting because, to be honest, I have heard of capitalism, but never put two and two together until last class. Basically what we have been discussing is the classes. There are only two classes under capitalism: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. These two classes are at two different extremes of the wealth scale. The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of the production and the wealthy while the proletariat are the workers and the least wealthy. Marx goes on to say that there is a fundamental difference in the classes with the bourgeoisie producing the least and getting the most while the proletariat produce the most and receive the least. 

We also talked about the way jobs are set up. The proletariat basically see each other as competition and in order to get the job, they either have to outperform the other person, or under wage them. This means that if two people are fighting over the same job and have the same qualifications then the person who offers to work for the least amount of money will most likely get the job. This is because the less the bourgeoisie have to pay the proletariat to work, the more money they can make in profits. In addition to this we also talked about how, although the proletariat may work making cars or fancy phones, they will probably never be able to afford to purchase the items that they produce. This is what Marx calls alienated or exploited labor. Marx believes that labor is free and conscious decision and that the work that the proletariat do is far from it. They feel more like themselves when they are at home indulging in basic animal instincts (sleeping, eating, etc.) than when they are doing the one important human function of working 

Karl Marx

Class this week has given me a much better understanding of Marx. Prior to this week, whenever I thought of communism, I thought of a society that received the same amount of goods, no matter what they contributed. For example, if everyone in our class got a C despite the work they put into the course, the people who previously had an A would quit working and the people who had Fs wouldn't stress anymore. I now know that this is a poor example of communism and community. Now that I am aware of Marx's critiques on capitalism, I can see why people favor communism. Not only does capitalism screw a lot of people over, if disadvantages the people who do the majority of work for the society and rewards the people who do nothing but are lucky enough to own means on labor. I think Marx made a very good point when he stated that the proleteriats would eventually revolt and that the revolution will be the downfall of capitalism and the transition into a classless society.

Karl Marx Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie

In class this week we discussed Karl Marx and what really stood out was the two classes, Proletariats and the Bourgeoisie.  The Proletariats are the workers; furthermore, the class that does most all of the work and receives the least in return.  so all in all, doing more for less.  The Bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production.  They are the "wealthy class" and do very little labor but receive the most.  This goes back to the scenario we talked about in class about apple.  We could work for apple and do all the labor of building the phone but at the end of the day we still would not be able to afford the iPhone. So if i was the worker, I would be the proletariat in that circumstance and Apple would be the Bourgeoisie.   Marx also believed in these three points: The existence of classes is bound up with historical epochs, the class struggle will inevitably lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the dictatorship is only a phase to a classless society.  How do you determine if you're in the Proletariat? can You be wealthy and still be a Proletariat? I think Marx is right that Proletariat can lead to a dictatorship because they are so much larger than the Bourgeoisie. But could they ever get as much power as them?

Karl Marx

After we discussed Karl Marx in calss, I went and did some extra research. Karl Marx was a philosopher from Germany who expressed the idea of communism. His belief was that capitalism would eventually fall due to the difference in classes. His belief was the bourgeoisie would be overthrown by the proletariat masses. He also believed that the more you earned the more taxes you should pay. He also believed that the land we live on is supposed to be shared by all and not owned by a person. As far as I read, he was a strong supporter of the weak and impoverished. 

A Change in the Game

In today's society, the way the world functions in my opinion is the opposite of what it should be. We live in a world where basketball players and rappers make more money than doctors who actually save lives and make difference in the world. While discussing Marx this past week, I have gained a better understanding of the two classes Marx has established. The first class he states are the bourgeoise and then the proletariats. The bourgeoise are the rich and powerful people of society. Marx defines them as the owners of means of production. The proletariats are what you call the blue-collar workers; the people who work for the owners of production. We learned that capitalism is the system of production that produces the class struggle in the most violent way. With the capitalist system, it itself produces a contradiction. The contradiction basically says proletariats contribute and or work the most but receives little to nothing. On the contrary, the bourgeoise receives the benefits of the workers, but do little to nothing. This way of living and producing goods has been around for years, maybe even centuries. When is enough, enough? In the present time, I feel like everyone should not have to struggle in society. Everyone does not necessarily, have to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, but people should have the basic necessities in order to survive. Everyone should reap the same amount of benefits, no matter if they contributed time/effort or money/resources. Everyone deserves fair chance. So my question is why do you think people in society allow this trend continue? Why hasn't someone tried to change the game?

Karl Marx - Bourgeoisie and Proletariat

After all we discussed in class, Karl marx was a philosopher born in 1818. He is from Germany and his most famous book calls The Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx started argued against the capitalism, his first idea was not to create socialism, it happened after all the point he showed against the capitalism. 

He reduced the classes to only two: Bourgeoisie (owners of the mean of production) and Proletariat (workers). From his argument, "Capitalism rests upon a fundamental contradiction" - it is contradict because the proletariat class works the most, and gets the least. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie class works the least and gets the most. It is an inverse proportion. But why? He says it is the capitalism. For instance, assuming that a company spends 2 dollars to product a shirt, and sell it for twenty-five dollars, that difference (twenty-three dollars) goes to the Bourgeoisie, the owners of the company. All the people that actually produced the shirt will get the least from what Marx called the SURPLUS VALUE, in other words profit. From this case we can assume that people who are poor, would get poorer, and people who are rich, would get richer. We have a system that is immoral. System based on exploration of the workers.    

What is your opinion about that? And what kind of solutions to our system you would provide?

Karl Marx

I agree with a lot of what Karl Marx says. Especially the Bourgeoisie doing the least and getting the most, ad the porletariat doing the most and getting the least. However, I have a hard time totally agreeing with him. I don't think the two classes are that black and white. My boss makes more money than I do, I make a higher salary than the employees I manage, and they make a higher salary than people working at Mcdonalds. I think there's different levels to both classes. If the Bourgeoisie were truly the 49 or so people in the US that make up 50% of the wealth, I would completely agree with him, but I don't believe that's who the Bourgeoisie is. My boss, for example is the owner of the means of production for our company, making him the Bourgeoisie, and making him the wealthiest in the company. However, he is far from being in the group of 49 people making up half of the US wealth. so does that make him a part of the proletariat group? I don't think so. He also has done every position in our company, he started from the bottom with the lowest pay and now he is the owner. This brings up another disagreement I have on Marx's criticism of capitalism. Most of the wealthy people; business owners, CEO's, etc. have worked incredibly hard and deserve the wealth they have gotten. I think people are in the position they deserve. I can't justify saying the wealth should be distributed evenly. I think that's honestly stupid and ignorant. I'm in college because I want to get a better job when I graduate, and eventually have my own business or run a business. I would be horrified if someone else who hasn't done anything or worked as hard as I have in their life made the same amount of money as me. I think people get and deserve what they work for, and if you don't have what you want, work harder.

Nietzsche

      In Nietzsche class discussion we learn that he states the weak created morals to protect themselves from the strong. To a certain point I agree with his philosophy, but I don't agree with is that the strong are actually bound by this. If they are truly the strong than wouldn't they just use that power to over rule what the weak consider right? The strong however have a weakness that the weak have as a strong attribute which is their numbers. I believe that the reason the strong don't show their strength is because in the end the weak are just as strong as they are.Does any one agree with that?
  something that got my attention is what he said about "god being dead", I think most people took that the wrong way. I believe what he meant to say was that we as humans where loosing faith in our different religions. Does anyone think alike or disagree with me?