I have been witness to many movements and many campaigns that involve rights of those concerned. Human rights, animal rights, women’s rights, child rights, minority rights, prisoner’s rights, right to freedom, right to education, right to potable water, right to fight, right to eat, right to sleep, rights of the aged, rights of the marginalised, rights of refugees and war victims, rights of these and rights of those, rights of the left and rights of the right, etc,etc. The list is endless. It is not my intention to mock those who are suffering and those whose rights have beendeprived but I at times wonderwhy the activists and concerned souls who are serving the deprived don’t want to delve into their own duties and the duties & responsibilities of those whoserights they seem to support, uphold and protect. For after all, rights and duties are the two sides of the same coin, just as remembering and forgetting are The problem has assumed such epic proportions in the West that parents are even scared to punish their own children for fear of invoking the wrath of the child rights activists who seem to forget that in the long run a certain amount of discipline is good forthe children whose rights they appear to support and vouch for. I therefore presume they have never heard of the saying “spare the rod and spoil the child”. The lack of discipline, respect and values may all be attributed to this forgetfulness of duties. I am completely in favour of animal rights and protecting the natural environment of animals but let me tell you about a champion of the environment and animal rights whom I had the misfortune of meeting during my sojourn in Chennai. The person in question is an illustrious personality with undisputable credentials but if you were ever to walk into the office of the aforementioned you will find that the way the staff there are treated is worse than the way animal haters would treat an animal. This person has completely forgotten that it is not only...
18 September 2013
Fighting for Legal Rights
The question of whether to let Illegal Immigrants become legal citizens has been a heated debate for decades. Illegal immigrants should have free will and independence just like the rest of the legal citizens. Immigrants leaving their country, looking for a job, and trying to find a better life just to create a more. Illegal immigrants should be allowed to be legal citizens due to having more freedom and rights in what they want to achieve in doing. It doesn't matter where you come from, what color you are, or how you look everybody is equal and deserve to have equal rights and chances in life.
Without immigration, The United States would not be nearly so diverse as it is today. For every immigrant that comes to America fleeing political or religious persecution, thousands more came in hope of a better quality for themselves, for their families, and for their descendants (“Destination America”). Illegal immigrants would not leave their country for no reason, they just want to get away from all that has been happening whether that was good or bad. Millions of people who immigrated to America came to live in a democratic society or to worship freely (“Destination America”). There's a huge population of different ethnicity that transfer to America to have independency and to believe in their own faith. In the Mid 1800’s,...
...African Americans: Fighting For Their Rights
During the mid 1950s to late 1960s African Americans started responding to the oppressive treatment shown to them by the majority of white people in the country. They responded to the segregation of blacks and whites during that time and the double standards the African Americans were held to. African Americans responded to their suppression by participating in boycotts, marches, sit-ins, and trying to get legislation passed so that they could overcome their degrading situation. They were successful in many of these actions and through them brought around more rights for African Americans.
Boycotts were a major way that the African Americans got their voices and wants heard. The most famous boycott was probably the Montgomery Bus Boycott. After the arrest of Rosa Parks for refusing to give up her seat to a white man, Martin Luther King Jr., urged the people of Montgomery to boycott the bus system. African Americans didn’t want to be considered substandard to white people, and they didn’t want to be forced to be subservient to them on buses. They didn’t think it was fair that they had to sit in the back of buses and give up their seats to white people. As King put it, “[…] there comes a time when people get tired of being trampled over by the iron feet of oppression” (King 347). Because African Americans were ready to do something to support their rights they followed...
5 April 2011
Fighting For the Right
Propaganda is all around us. “For good or evil, propaganda pervades our daily lives, helping to shape our attitudes on a thousand subjects” (Cross 123). Propaganda unknowingly reinforces our own opinions, from everyday subjects like the movies we see to world-wide issues such as our next presidential leader. There are millions of issues surrounding our world, most that have organizations fighting for their cause. These organizations use propaganda to attack either your brain or heart in order to gain support. PETA, which is an acronym that stand for people for the ethical treatment of animals, is a famous non-profit organization working towards ending animal cruelty. This organization specializes in campaigns that attack different associations they claim are ridding animals of their rights. But for most, PETA is recognizable through various campaign posters featuring respectable celebrity figures. One poster in particular was guaranteed to catch the eyes of many, this being Pamela Anderson’s vegetarian ad for PETA. In this sexy ad for PETA, the blonde bombshell shows some serious skin in a string bikini and looks as if she's been tagged by a butcher, making it clear that humans and animals are composed of identical parts. Pamela Anderson’s vegetarian campaign poster for...
...self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” states the great Declaration of Independence. It also says, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” We are all created equal, but a higher power such like the government is there to make sure that ourrights are secured. Mankind is created equal, but we are all different. The need of the government is for them to secure our wonderful rights from individuals that would misuse them, to control and keep us safe.
Now, just imagine a world without the government. And all the free will God has given us. I imagine chaos everywhere because if there is good, there is bad. The individuals that are good will be adults and be mature. The individuals that are bad and still have to be told right from wrong and what not to do. They will be reckless. Then, there will be that one individual that will not be happy until he/she has all the power. One person having so much power with bad intentions can lead to so many problems. On the contrary, we have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness; liberty is the freedom from control and the pursuit of happiness is doing what it takes to be happy. Now, does that not mean that the bad individual is just practicing...
...been thinking about that problem, and a thinker who has helped me think about it is a guy named Joseph Soloveitchik, who was a rabbi who wrote a book called "The Lonely Man Of Faith" in 1965. Soloveitchik said there are two sides of our natures, which he called Adam I and Adam II. Adam I is the worldly, ambitious, external side of our nature. He wants to build, create, create companies,create innovation. Adam II is the humble side of our nature. Adam II wants not only to do good but to be good, to live in a way internally that honors God, creation and our possibilities. Adam I wants to conquer the world. Adam II wants to hear a calling and obey the world. Adam I savors accomplishment. Adam II savors inner consistency and strength. Adam I asks how things work. Adam II asks why we're here.Adam I's motto is "success." Adam II's motto is "love, redemption and return."
1:38And Soloveitchik argued that these two sides of our nature are at war with each other. We live in perpetual self-confrontation between the external success and the internal value. And the tricky thing, I'd say, about these two sides of our nature is they work by different logics. The external logic is an economic logic: input leads to output, risk leads to reward. The internal side of our nature is a moral logic and often an inverse logic. You have to give to receive. You have to surrender to something outside...
Travis R. Drakeford
ITT Technical Institute
The Ugly Canadian
An article from Amir Attaran called “The Ugly Canadian” is an article have Mr. Attaran fighting for Canadian rights. Attaran studied law and decided to become a Canadian despite learning its disappointing flaws throughout his educational career. Amir Attaran really was aim to convince Canadians that the government is disgracing their image and that they are not living up to the standards that have been set for their selves. He has presented a convincing argument that the Canadian government believes in the “exceptionalism” (Attaran 217) of our country and this has tarnished our country’s progression in becoming a respected nation. The ways that Attaran done that was by describing Canada’s trading health and human rights laws and instilling a vision in his audience of a corrupt and cruel nation. His target audience was all the Canadian, political leader or student studying Canadian history. His lack of source have him have little evidence to support his argument or amplify his ethos. Attaran believe and had faith in a man name Lester Pearson’s ideology drives his passion and dislike for the new agenda Canada’s government has adopted, that will highly persuades his audience.
Amir Attaran enforces his ethos by allowing his readers to see he is experienced and well...
...COMMON PEOPLE FIGHTING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Looking backwards in human history, one can find many people who, wanting to fight for their own rights, ended battling for what is morally good and correct for a whole country. Born in different nations, of different cultures and struggling for different reasons, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Estela Barnes de Carlotto have demonstrated, through direct and non-violent action, that common people can obtain welfare for themselves, for their contemporaries and for future generations.
The childhood and adolescence of these two people show parallels but also great differences. Mandela was born in 1918 in a village in South Africa, and groomed to adopt high office as Chief after his father’s death. He heard his elders’ stories about his ancestors’ braveness when fighting for their fatherland and wanted to bestow freedom to his people. His primary education took place at a local mission school and his secondary studies at a Wesleyan school of some repute in Healdtown. After that he went to University and obtained a Bachelor of Arts Degree, which he finished by correspondence after being suspended for joining in a protest boycott. Estela Barnes, born in 1930, was the only child in a lower-middle class home. She was a very good student; she liked theatre, reciting poems, singing, and being the conciliator between their class mates every time they had differences. She went to...
...Fighting For What Is Right
Hannah Johnson, the mother of an African-American soldier and the daughter of a run away slave, writes to President Abraham Lincoln in hopes of emotionally appealing to him on the subject of equality amongst African-American soldiers. Johnson’s main argument, visited throughout her letter, is her deep concern for her son along with thousands of other African-American men fighting for their country and the unjust treatment they are receiving despite their service.
Hannah Johnson is a very courageous woman. She portrays this characteristic by claiming the right and duty of personal petition to the highest official in the land, despite that, as an African-American woman, her status as a citizen was still contested. Not only is she writing this letter discussing equality to the President of the United States but she also suggests to President Lincoln different ways to ensure equality for African-American soldiers. Johnson uses words such as, “you ought to,” and “you must,” and “don’t do this,” and “stop this,” as if she has the authority to be able to command President Lincoln of what he should and should not do. These statements may imply that Johnson is out of place but I do not think that her intention was to undermine President Lincoln and his ideals on how the country should be led. Instead, I think that Johnson is so passionate about the topic of equality for African-American soldiers...