Hate and Violence

Stephen Sylvester

13 December 2010

Final Draft#5/Final Exam

Hate and Violence

Hate and violence are two words that you hear quite too often.  It can be heard on the news when they are talking about the current trends of cyber bullying on facebook and myspace.  Even just picking up my 3-year-old daughter from school and listening to her talk about how her friends hate someone.  Everywhere you turn it is bound to come up.  [THESIS]The way to put an end to hate and violence is to educate the parents/guardians to instill values into their children and for the children to accept others for who they are.[THESIS]

According to Dayton, a journalist from the Honolulu Advertiser, he says that there have been racial issues within the Hilo High School football program.  His article states, “The complaint alleged that on Oct. 5, 2003, a junior varsity assistant coach referred to one of the football players as a "black Puerto Rican with a Portagee tongue," and complained that "I hate talking to this (expletive) black Puerto Rican.")”  (Dayton)  As an assistant coach, he should be a role model to the teenagers.  He should not be promoting racist behavior and hatred.  The assistant football coach is someone that these young boys probably looked up to and saw as a model figure.  By him acting in this manner, it in return allows these young boys to believe that it is okay to be racist and perform hate crimes themselves.  They are put under the wrong impression and grow up thinking that that is the way that life is supposed to be.  The cycle never ends and life will continue to be lived thinking that showing hatred and performing acts of violence is normal.

Growing up myself, I live in a family that is nothing but normal.  When riding in the backseat on my way to school every morning, my dad would always shout out the window to people that was not driving the way in which my dad wanted them to.  Most of the time it was a Caucasian person and of course he would yell out the window, “you stupid haole.”  I would be so embarrassed that I would slouch down in the backseat and duck for cover.  I did not want any of my friends thinking that my dad was crazy.  I grew up with the same mentality as my dad.  I sometimes find myself doing the exact same thing, but minus the whole sticking my head out the window.  I sort of say it to myself just to make me feel a little better about the entire situation.  I know that it is of course wrong to refer to that race of people in that manner, but it is the way that I grew up and the cycle just seems to go on.  To stop children from becoming hateful people, parents/guardians need to stop the chaos now.  They need to first watch what they say and how they act in front of their children.  All parents know that children will mimic you and say everything that you say.  I am definitely proof of that.  Secondly, parents need to talk to their children and keep in touch with their lives.  Being able to sit down with your children and talk about their day is a benefit.  This allows you to stay in the loop and know if the children that your child is hanging out with are good for them.  Just always remember that your children are little mirror images of yourself.

Another big issue that you need to face as parents today is teaching your children to accept others for who they are.  This seems to be the biggest problem of all.  Popular kids, nerds, cheerleaders, and jocks, who really cares?  You should not judge other people or target them for hate crimes because they are different than you.  Who cares if they wear glasses or if they are on the debate team?  Does that make them a target for hate crimes?  They are just like you and me.  Also, knowing if your child is in another state of mind is also helpful in knowing if they are capable of performing such acts of violence.  According to Foderado in the article titled “Cornell Student is Accused of Hate Crimes in Stabbing” it states that Nathan H. Poffenbarger stabbed Charles Holiday with a knife when Charles confronted him as he was yelling out racial comments on campus” (Folderado).  Mr Poffenbarger was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the stabbing.  However, this event shows you exactly what is possible when someone is in another state of mind.  We do not know the reason why he was drinking, but there has been other incidents in which acts of violence resorted from different mental disorders.  For example, the Virgina Tech massacre’s shooter was a man with an anxiety disorder.  This shows you the depth in which some people will go when not in their right state of mind.

The fact of the matter is every parent has to fulfill their role as a parent and teach their children common values of love, kindness, and to accept people for who they are, which in turn will lead to less incident’s of hate crimes and acts of violence.  From this will lead to a more peaceful world for future generations to come.

Work Cited

Dayton, Kevin. "Hilo High officials ordered to deal with discrimination." Honolulu Star Bulletin 23/Novemenber2004: 1. Web. 13 Dec 2010. <http://www.webcitation.org/5lw3zdPg0>.

Foderaro, Lisa W. “Cornell Student Is Accused of Hate Crimes in Stabbing.” New York Times online. 5 May 2006. 5 May 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/nyregion/05cor

"God Given Right"

Stephen K.D Sylvester

7 December 2010

FD#4

“God Given Right”

Every American has the freedom of speech the right known as the first amendment.  Whether you are protesting about pay wages, complaining about the new security protocols at the airports, or even preaching on the side of the street, it is our God given right as a U.S citizen.  The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees these rights of freedom, expression, and to say what we think without fear of prosecution or intervention from our government.  [THESIS] In reference to the article written by Professor Ward Churchill, the manner in which he expressed himself may have seemed wrong to most people and it may have seemed as if he intended to offend or even hurt the families of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, however it was within his right as an American to speak freely. [THESIS]

On September 11, 2001 it was a dark and horrendous day for millions of people of America.  Not only did families lose their loved ones, but it forever changed the United States as a whole.  Right after this tragedy on 9/11, a professor from the University of Colorado, whose name left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths, after he posted a commentary entitled “Some People Push back- On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”.  The fact of the matter is Professor Ward Churchill was just speaking his mind and voicing his own opinion on the matter.  He basically gave us some sort of reasoning behind these acts of terrorism and why the war occurred in the first place.  He stated, “They [terrorists] did not, for starters, ‘initiate’ a war with the US, much less commit ‘the first acts of war of the new millennium.’"  He explains his point of view in his article “Some People Push back”.  In this article he states, “As things stand, including the 1993 detonation at the WTC, "Arab terrorists" have responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq with a total of four assaults by explosives inside the US.”  He makes sense when he pointed out that this was one of the main reasons for these acts against the United States, which is perfectly within in his right as an American to voice his own opinion.

 

He also stated, “That about 1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the Gulf War (add in Oklahoma City and you'll get something nearer an actual 1%).” These numbers are crazy when you look at them, and if I had never seen and read this article I would have still thought of him as cold and heartless as, an American citizen.  He also stated that, “They've managed in the process to kill about 5,000 Americans, or roughly 1% of the dead Iraqi children (the percentage is far smaller if you factor in the killing of adult Iraqi civilians, not to mention troops butchered as/after they'd surrendered and/or after the "war-ending" ceasefire had been announced).”  As you can see he has a point, and brings us to question our own government and the actions they have shown.  I am not saying I totally agree with this 100% but, it does make me question our government.  All of which he had said was well within in his right, and he has not broken any laws from the statements he has made.

Professor Ward Churchill was just pointing out that these acts of terrorism against America are clearly a form of revenge.  He states, “With that, they've given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.  From numbers listed above, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the ‘terrorists’ to ‘break even’ for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone.”  By these statistics you can see his point of view.  Professor Ward Churchill words in essence were just that words, no one can control what another human being is saying, nor can we distinguish what an appropriate comment and what isn’t. 

In his article he commented on the people that died in the World Trade Center were not “innocent victims but were technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the mighty engine of profit to which the military dimensions of U.S. policy has always been enslaved.”  His feelings toward the situation were simple, that all the people there were not innocent.  This is in the sense that the very military which we stand by had bombed the Iraqi’s and their plan was to hit us where it hurt.  Their plan had worked and we definitely felt it. Morally he might have hit a soft spot with me with that statement, myself being in the Military but has not broken any laws in any of his statements, so clearly was well within his right to speak freely.

Professor Ward Churchill had lost his position at his job over his comment on the "little Eichmann’s”, a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who actually did not kill any Jews but made it possible for the trains to run on time and for the Holocaust to take place.”  Which was unfortunate for him, and the University should have considered all options and gave a fair decision on the matter.  They fired him over his opinion, which was in his right to speak freely. 

In Kristine Asato’s essay she stated that “Although controversial, I think it's insightful that Ward Chruchill expresses his opinions.  Churchill's statement might have offended and aggravated some people but it puts a new perspective on our lives and those who lost theirs in the 9-11 attack.”  These statement’s I completely agree with, the article has given me a new perspective and opened my eyes to what really happened on 9/11.  Churchill states that we cannot "feign innocence" like the whole attack was just a random crime.” Which makes sense, why would anyone just attack the U.S for nothing?  To me the US had provoked a great deal of hatred in the Middle East, it was only a matter of time they would retaliate and get some form of revenge.  They saw the opportunity and capitalized on it.

 

In this discussion Sheri Kazama makes a great point, simple and straight forward that “Living in America, we are very fortunate to have the freedom that we have.  The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the freedom to express our beliefs and opinions.” In which Ward Churchill does in his article, he may have been blunt and let’s face it most of cant take “Words” likely.  There are those who push toward the limits of those freedoms and their “expressions” may be difficult to be exposed to.  However, it is a part of living in “the land of opportunity”. 

In my personal experience, I have found the First Amendment to be great.  I have seen both good and bad come from having the freedom of speech.  First of all, I have experienced many wonderful things that came from this Amendment for example, I am currently serving in the Army National Guard and if I do not speak up and voice my opinion about a certain situation, if need be that I do not agree with, in respectable manner, I would have been promoted or be respected as a leader from my soldiers beneath me.  In my civilian life without this Amendment life would be so boring and I would not have the freedom to voice my opinion. On the flip side the Amendment gives everyone the right to voice his/her opinion and in my experience I have noticed that when you have a lot of people arguing about a certain subject, it is really hard to come to a agreement and understanding of which point of view is true and correct, we all have different opinions, in which all parties can be right in some way or another and many different solutions to a certain situation there is no absolute.

Professor Ward Churchill had recognized the importance of freedom of speech and in his debate gave meaning to word democracy in America.  Actions like these are essential to the American way of life and how we live today. The First Amendment provides the freedom of speech to every citizen including Professor Churchill.  A lot of things come with having the First Amendment   the fact that we stand by our freedom and our country does not mean we will all agree with one another.  

Works Cited

Churchill, Ward. “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." N.d. _Dark Night Press_. From _Pockets of Resistance_, 11 Sep. 2001. 3 Dec. 2010 [http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&c=recent&view=9&long=1]

"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003 3 Dec. 2010 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html]

Kristine Asato “Defend Ward Churchill” Online posting. 29 November 2010. Laulima Discussion. 29 November 2010 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/tool/39e08f03-d6c0-4297-b5fd-3876b949f0f5/posts/list/293224.page]

Solis, Brain. "The First Amendment of Social Media: Freedom of Tweet ." Fast Company. 17NOV2010. Web. 4 Dec 2010. [<http://www.fastcompany.com/1703423/the-first-amendment-of-social-media-freedom-of-tweet?partner=rss>.]

Sheri Kazama “Defend Churchill” Online posting. 23 November 2010. Laulima Discussion. 3 Dec. 2010 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c]

"God Given Right"

Stephen K.D Sylvester

4 December 2010

RD#4

“God Given Right”

Every American has the freedom of speech, the right known as the first amendment whether you are protesting about pay wages, complaining about the new ex-ray at the airports, and even preaching on the side of the street, it is one our basic right as a U.S citizen.  Every citizen of the United States has a right to their own opinion, and able to speak openly about any subject and debate any issue we may have without being prosecuted by the government.    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of expression without government interference.  While it is within our right, to say what we think without fear of prosecution or intervention from our Government.  [THESIS] In reference to the article written by Professor Ward Churchill, the manner in which he expressed himself may have been wrong and to most, seemed as if he intended to offend and even hurt the families of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, it was within his right as a American to speak freely. [THESIS]

On the date of September 11, 2001 was a dark and horrendous day for millions of people of America. Not to mention all the families that had been affected from this terrorist attack.  Right after this event on 9/11, a Professor from the University of Colorado who name will leave a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouth, after posting a commentary entitled “Some People Push back- On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”.  But Professer Ward Churchill was just speaking his mind and voiced his opinion on the matter and gave reasoning behind these acts of terrorism and why the war occurred in the first place.  He stated, “They [terrorists] did not, for starters, ‘initiate’ a war with the US, much less commit ‘the first acts of war of the new millennium.’"  He explains his point of view in his article his “Some People Push back”,  he stated “As things stand, including the 1993 detonation at the WTC, "Arab terrorists" have responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq with a total of four assaults by explosives inside the US.” Which in a way makes sense and pointed out that this was one of the main reasons for these acts against the United States.

 

He also stated, “That about 1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the Gulf War (add in Oklahoma City and you'll get something nearer an actual 1%).” These numbers are crazy when you look at them, and if I had never seen and read this article I would have still thought of him as cold and heartless as a American citizen.  He also stated that “They've managed in the process to kill about 5,000 Americans, or roughly 1% of the dead Iraqi children (the percentage is far smaller if you factor in the killing of adult Iraqi civilians, not to mention troops butchered as/after they'd surrendered and/or after the "war-ending" ceasefire had been announced).”  As you can see he has a

point, and brings to question our own government and the actions and crimes they  have committed.  I am not saying I totally agree with this 100% but, it does make me question our government.

Professor Ward Churchill was just pointing out that this acts of terrorism, against America are clearly a form of revenge, he states “With that, they've given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.” From numbers listed above, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the ‘terrorists’ to ‘break even’ for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone.”

In his article he commented on the people that died in the World Trade Center where not “innocent victims but were technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the mighty engine of profit to which the military dimensions of U.S. policy has always been enslaved.”  His feelings toward the situation was simple, that all the people there was not innocent, in the sense that the very military we stand by, had bombed the Iraq’s and their plan was to hit us where it hurt which had worked and we felt it.

In Kristine Asato’s essay she stated that “Although controversial, I think it's insightful that Ward Chruchill expresses his opinions.  Churchill's statement might have offended and aggravated some people but it puts a new perspective on our lives and those who lost theirs in the 9-11 attack.”  Which I completely agree with and feel that gis article opened my eyes to what really happened.  She also stated that “Churchill states that we cannot "feign innocence" like the whole attack was just a random crime.” Which makes sense, why would anyone just attack the U.S for nothing?  She further explains “The US has evoked a great deal of hatred in the Middle Eastern countries, it was only a matter of time that they would strike back.

 

In this discussion Sheri Kazama makes a great point, simple and straight forward that “Living in America, we are very fortunate to have the freedom that we have.  The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the freedom to express our beliefs and opinions.” In which Ward Churchill does in his article, he may have been blunt and let’s face it most of cant take “Words” likely.  She also says “ There are those who push toward the limits of those freedoms and their “expressions” may be difficult to be exposed to.  However, it is a part of living in “the land of opportunity”.  Which I found to be a great example of what Ward Churchill has done.

In conclusion Professor Ward Churchill had lost his position at his job over his comment on the "little Eichmanns, a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who actually did not kill any Jews but made it possible for the trains to run on time and for the Holocaust to take place.”  Which was unfortunate for him, and the University should have considered all options and gave a fair decision on the matter.  He had a right to speak freely as he so fit.

Works Cited

Churchill, Ward. “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." N.d. _Dark Night Press_. From _Pockets of Resistance_, 11 Sep. 2001. 3 Dec. 2010 [http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&c=recent&view=9&long=1]

"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003 3 Dec. 2010 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html]

Kristine Asato “Defend Ward Churchill” Online posting. 29 November 2010. Laulima Discussion. 29 November 2010 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/tool/39e08f03-d6c0-4297-b5fd-3876b949f0f5/posts/list/293224.page]

Solis, Brain. "The First Amendment of Social Media: Freedom of Tweet ." Fast Company. 17NOV2010. Web. 4 Dec 2010. [<http://www.fastcompany.com/1703423/the-first-amendment-of-social-media-freedom-of-tweet?partner=rss>.]

Sheri Kazama “Defend Churchill” Online posting. 23 November 2010. Laulima Discussion. 3 Dec. 2010 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c]