Title of the conference: ‘The Intersection of Health Care, History and Justice”

             On March 28 2012, I traveled to Harlem to attend a conference. It was my first time to go to Harlem, and I was nervous because I have heard that Harlem is a dangerous place. I am Asian but not racist. Before coming to the United States, I was warned by friends in Korea that I should not say “black” to African-Americans and Harlem is dangerous, so I should not go there. It is a Korean stereotype. In Korea, most of the information about the United States comes from the media, such as drama and movies. I remember a scene in Die Hard 3 where Bruce Willis goes to Harlem to look for a suspect and the suspect wanted Willis to wear a panel in Harlem on his neck which said, “I hate Negroes.” Everybody in Harlem considered Willis to be crazy and one guy shoots him. Those kinds of movies give foreigners a stereotype.

         When I got to Harlem, the atmosphere was not the same as the movies. Kids walk on the streets freely. After getting to the Schomburg Library, I was prepared to listen carefully to the speakers at the conference. I thought the topic of the speech would be about health care, history, and justice. However, the topic was about discrimination and difficulties for  minorities in getting health care services and the fight for those services. The speech was surprising to me because I thought discrimination in the welfare system was a past problem. However, Alondra Nelson shocked me by saying “public awareness of the way in which medicine was not only healing but particularly harmful in communities of color.” The problem still exists within the Black community.

For me, that is a little strange as I think whites and blacks are just simply Americans to me.  There are so many black people in the media, entertainment, and sports. The President of the United State is black. For me, America looks like a complete mixture of people and races, however, I am wrong. The melting pot has not been mixed well.  Discrimination still takes place and attempts to eliminate those problems are still the work of social activists.

In Korea, there is a concept of discrimination, called “Sa-Dea-Ju-I” which means worship of the powerful country. Korea discriminates in favor of foreigners. I remember watching a documentary once broadcasted on EBS on August 13, 2008.  The documentary showed that when a white person asked for directions, everyone wanted to help, and even walked the person to their destination. In contrast, when an Asian asked for the same help more than 70% of the people ignored him. Korea is a small country and was conquered several times, so Koreans admire the power of developed countries. In addition, South Korea is not a melting pot like America. It is mostly a Mongolian heritage.

 In Korea, there is not much chance to meet people of white heritage. One of the stereotypes Koreans believe is that white people are from rich countries and it is acceptable not to respect other Asians.  Koreans now realize this problem and they should throw away those old ideas.  South Korea is not a country of immigration but it is learning.

The United State is a country of immigrants. The American Indians lived in continental North America first, and Europeans have settled since Juan Ponce de Leon came to America on April 2, 1513.  Black Africans were forced to live in America in slavery, however, Abraham Lincoln repealed the law of slavery in 1861. Martin Luther King began the civil rights movement in the 1960’s and Malcolm represented black people. Eventually, one black person was elected  President of  the United States, Barack Obama.

However, I am curious about America. Even though black people have fought with social discrimination and achieved, why is there still discrimination of color? Why does this continue in one of the most wealthy countries in the world? Why can this country not solve its inner-problems? No matter what color, Americans are American, why is there is a difference in distributing welfare to citizens because of color? Why can the sick not get health care because one is black? I strongly believe that every citizen has the right to have health care and the government and people must not let allow the unfair distribution of welfare based upon color.

First, all citizens must be afforded equal access to health care and welfare programs.  Do whites pay more taxes than blacks? Or is there a “white tax” for whites only? Or is there some civic duty which only white people are required to perform in America? If so, I would not complain about the unfairness. However, there are no different taxes, civic duties, or responsibilities, among blacks, whites, or Asians. Civic obligations are equal among all citizens, and all citizens should have equal rights in American society. Societies must treat all citizens fairly.

Second, governments have a duty to allocate welfare fairly and to ensure that individuals within the welfare system do not prevent citizens to have equal access. In American society, there are differences among individuals. By recognizing the differences among individuals, and making fair but equal accommodations, American society can be healthy and promote variety. Any society which allows discrimination cannot be healthy and developing. The ideal society demands justice and fairness for all its citizens. Discriminating and taking away the rights of others is a kind of crime. Injured persons can lose the will to live and discrimination can cause social disintegration.

Third, welfare systems should be open to all. The government and society are sustained by the efforts of individuals. People cannot live alone, so we establish a society to cooperate with each other. People can make power, power can be big, and big power can affect people negatively. If the government has the power to support people, the government should support  the development of the whole society. If welfare is closed to some people and other people monopolize those rights, the government loses its legitimacy..

It is possible that discrimination and inequality of treatment existed in the past because immigrants from Europe established the United States. However, the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution of the United States, cast away those old rules and thoughts. Americans became the masters of North America but they were also invaders who killed many Indians. Whites were immigrants and even the founding fathers came from different backgrounds and heritage. America needs to eliminate a past way of thinking, discrimination by color.

Why the unfair distribution of welfare can take place in a country like the United States and why people allow the unfairness is puzzling. The government is made by the people and people give the government power. So, the government must use its power to fairly serve its people and remove racism. There can be individual differences in ability but there should be no differences among groups. If people take away privileges and rights because of racial differences, then that society is not just. People should eliminate those thoughts and strive for a society based on fairness and justice.

Respond to ‘When Poverty Was white’

The Eugenics; The Modern Caste System

             Social improvement, the eugenics, cannot be rationalized in any ways. According to Nell Irvin Painter in his article ‘When Poverty Was White’ (published: march 24, 2012), Sterilization had been executed to eliminate the occurrence of disability, such as feebleminded, under the governmental policy, the eugenics. Painter explains how the sterilization had been started and had been developed by showing people who insisted connection between genes and an occurrence of disability and asserted the validity of the sterilization. Ms. Buck was force to take first sterilization involuntarily by the Supreme Court at 1927. Mr. Dugdale reported a connection between poverty, disease and heredity. Another researcher was Mr. McCulloch. He developed the concept by dividing races not only white and black but also along white. And then Charles Benedict Davenport suggested eugenic thinking. In addition, Henry H. Goddard went along with Davenport. Goddard found out one particular group named ‘The Kallikak Family.’ The Kallikak family was shown one of the examples to prove the legitimacy of eugenic thinking. In the Kallikak family, one root of family achieved well in society and another root of family showed variety of hereditary social ills, such as vulgar jobs and disease even though they were from same ancestry. Moreover, Eugenic program was come into action so that the government could control the occurrence of disability and poverty.

             For a long times, Animal have been being evolved, also human. Animal try to adapt a surrounded environment. After Charles Darwin published ‘On The Origin of Species’, people got to know the biological change of appearance and ability can be possible. People can get a high quality of livestock by animal improvement, so livestock has been improved to be grown faster and have tender meat. However, the concept of evolution was differentiated as the eugenic. Before Darwin, people thought human are dignity and different with animal under The Bible. After Darwin, however, people got to know human is a kind of animal that can be evolved, so some people with high social status started thinking to evolve human by eliminating specific some people in order to be better society. This concept had been developed as sterilization in America and Holocaust, and this concept is called for the eugenics.

             The eugenics is so dangerous concept which can ruin liberal democracy. Actually, it can be possible to improve the quality of human. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_engineering), ‘Gene therapy trials on humans began in 2004 on patients with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID). In 2000, the first gene therapy "success" resulted in SCID patients with a functional immune system.’ It means genetic research can be effect on human. However, for the mass of human, should minor human be eliminated or sterilized? I strongly disagree and say no.

             First, society is composed of individual and some occurrence of faulty in the mass of people is a natural matter of course. Society cannot make people. Individuals gather and make society. The basis of the society of liberal democracy is to support citizens no matter they are. Liberal democracy must collect each opinion of individual and make conclusion which all people agree. In all people, minor people must be because they are also citizens. The government secure individual’s right and must not ignore it.

Second, eugenics is drastic supremacy from vested power. According to ‘Buzzle.com’(http://www.buzzle.com/articles/purpose-of-society-why-is-society-important.html), society is ‘One of the primary purposes of society is the formation of an organized group of individuals, who can support each other in various ways.’ Main purpose is to support each other, not to kill another people. If people with high social status execute sterilization to be better society, it’s narrow-minded act and against the principal of democracy. The basis of democracy is to support human opinion. However, involuntary sterilization is a kind of ignoring human opinion.

Who has the right to kill other people? Who has the right to remove the biological right of individuals? There is no right to intervention other’s life in society and democracy. Even though America is the top of democracy country, Franklin Roosevelt said "I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them... The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed..." (Roosevelt, “Twisted Eugenics,” in The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, op. cit., National Edition, XII, p. 201.) At that time, eugenics was the general concept. It’s the idea developed of racism to Black, beyond white, vested class or not. The government must support each individual to have a chance to be vested class, not to make one side society which doesn’t have a lack of social diversity.  

Response to the “Code of Ethics”

The Neutral Viewpoint by Journalist

             In the chapter 18 ‘Strangest Hybrid’, the chapter dictates how culturists researched on cell and hybrid cell fusion and how culturists were restricted by the media. Culturists found out cell fusion when cells are cultured together, and they tried to combine different species. They succeeded, they got cross hybrid cell. Some of them were HeLa and animals. One day, mass media disclosure this happening with a shocking title, ‘Man-Animal Cells are bred in Lab… The Next Step could be Tree Men… Scientists Create Monsters’. Then, culturists were restricted to do those researches.

             Code of Ethics, by Society of Professional Journalists’, shows us what journalists must keep and what journalists must follow. In my opinion, those mass media kept their duty to publish the truth to public, but the title and the way of delivering the message was slanted. Actually, the only way public can know a procedure of science is by mass media. Except people related to science, public don’t participate in science conference. Public usually read article or magazine to know science, so mass media should be balanced. Mass media have duties, such as sending message correctly, a purpose of an object, and a neutral viewpoint. Mass media never distort the truth. At that time, those mass media did good job to publish the truth how scientific research was going on, but those were imbalanced. Of course, a result of the research could be bad ending, like tree men. However, their purpose was to map genetic traits to specific chromosomes, and make genome map so that scientist could find out a function of DNA and chromosome. To be sure, some scientists could make those hybrid cell born, but mass media cannot blur an essential purpose of scientist who started research with pure curiosity. ‘Tree Men’ is just one of possibility, like a remedy of cancer. For some public, the news could be scaring, but the news could be redemption for patients and their family. Mass media must not be in silence. Mass media should be a prattler and a messenger with a neutral viewpoint. One side opinion by mass media is against a rule of journalism. The judgment is for public.

Title of the conference: ‘Miss Representation’

Leaking out opinion of the Director in the media due to Director’s gender

             I watched the video in Little Theater about an effect of mass media to female teenagers who are being pushed. The video says mass media expresses only women’s sexuality in the media and teenagers get to believe it’s all which woman can have. Currently, mass media has big power of influence to public, people act and consume according to mass media saying. The notion and expression of media are considered as true by people. However, this video says it’s not true and we should change this uncomfortable situation that female teenagers should care their weight and body. I was impressed by this video. For me, actually, some information is not new, most of women in the media have good shape and body and public women follow it. However, most impressed fact is that one of reason why mass media express women’s sexuality is most of director, editor and CEO are men. 26% of director in the media are women and 8~13% of CEO of broadcast are women, sometime there is no women CEO in the mass media company. In fact, when someone makes something, something must have someone’s idea and thought. Mass media is also same. It has director’s idea and editor’s idea. CEO can affect mass media’s concept because they have a power to broadcast or not. Mass media must follow CEO’s opinion. The point is here minor opinion cannot be reflected because mass media must follow conform to the major of opinion of CEO. If most of people having the power of decision are men, a result must have a lot of men’s opinion. Traditionally, culture and history were men’s. Men created something and enjoy it. Mass media is also manmade, such as newspaper, TV and broadcast. Since women’s right is emphasized and feminism appears, women can create and enjoy. However, history of feminism is short. Until now, discrimination of gender exists and men have more chances and power in society.  Besides, there is no enough time that women can get a core job, such as CEO. In order to express women’s right, people having the power of decision in the media should keep a balance of gender in the company, and mass media can also keep a balance of gender and opinion. Mass media’s strong power must be treated carefully. It can easily make stereotype and misconception to public. Children who are immature to make own decision can be affected and be swept away by the media. Mass media must keep a balance and fair for public.  

Revise midterm

The reason Historians and journalists need to be neutral

             From ancient times, humans have recorded history in a variety of ways, such as drawing, sculpturing and writing. The relics of the past teach us the details of what happened in the past. Historians record to deliver information to others in their culture or others who do not know that culture. Recorded history often has limitations when trying to understand past events because historians and journalists are not always objective. Historians should be honest and fair in gathering and reporting information, as they owe a duty to the public.

             Historian can mislead societies by recording false information as truth. For example, consider japan in The Middle Age. In Japanese mythology and recorded history, the Japanese believed that they were the sons of God. The Japanese also believed that non-Japanese people were inferior and should be conquered. In the 16^th century began invading other Asian countries. This became an inspiration for the Japanese during World War 2. The Nazis used the same type of false reasoning as well. These examples show how societies can be misled y biased accounts of history and events and historians who are not objective.

             Historians have a duty to present all relevant facts as they record events. Historical facts are simply not composed of “good” or “evil”, “winners” or “losers.” There are many components to historical objective events. Often, ancient history is recorded from the “winner’s” point of view which is biased and not objective. The loser’s story most also be told to provide a blance toward truth.

             According to Rebecca Skloot in her book ‘The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks’,Skloot states “it’s not only the story of HeLa cells and Henrietta Lacks but of Henrietta’s family.” Skloot writes about who Henrietta Lacks was, who her relatives were, and what happened to the Lacks family. Sklook’s ability to convey facts without bias shows what proper journalists need to do when they report. Historians have the same obligation. When full disclosure occurs, people can then judge facts themselves and be more informed.

             As we have seen, recorders of history need to be objective like journalists. In ancient times, during the Middle Ages, and recently, it was difficult to record all information and facts because it was hard to exchange information between people and cultures. Today the exchange of information is current and fast. The current world recorders can gather all facts and information with little effort. The historians and journalists should be neutral individual judgment because conclusions should be the right of the individual. Interpreting the value of history is for the reader, and the next generation not for the wirter.

Sandwich paragraph about ‘Susana’

Almost teenagers and 20’s like to be dressed and go shopping for clothes. Specifically New York, New York is top of fashionable city in the world, all people like shopping and dressing up. We are same. I know we want to be pretty and look nice. I think we have some fashionable people. Arifa, every day her hijap is changed. Na Lin, I saw she has a vivid color bag which usually people don’t buy, but it looks suitable for her, and either others like shopping. However, we are students. Except some people, students cannot afford a lot of money buying all clothes we want, so we like discount and sale. In addition, I know if we have a chance to buy something with cheap price we buy it even though we exploit our friends. According to Susana Leyva, our classmate and working for Urban Outfiters, “if you want to buy some clothes in Urban Outfitters, I can give you 40% discount for those clothes because I’m working there.” Such a good girl!!!!!! I don’t know she doesn’t want to share this information with other people but I was so impressive as if I kiss her foot. Susana added, “But you should call me and give me cash, so I can use my card to buy it with discount.” Such a kind girl!! Even she let me know how to do it, so I suggested to be friend to exploit her to buy cheap clothes. In this semester, we should try to be her friend to get cheap clothes.

Response to the movie about ‘Sarah Baartman’

Prejudice and Racism by White Supremacy

             Sarah Baartman is one of a symbol of racism in 19^th century. She was black and slavery and had prominent appearance. She was born in South Africa. After white occupied South Africa, she became slavery in Dutch farm. One day, slave owner suggested her to go to England so that Sarah could make a lot of money, but she couldn’t. Sarah was exhibited because she had a prominent appearance, such as big boobs and big buttocks, because her appearance was not friendly with European as if people go to a zoo. However, she was not guaranteed her profit of exhibition. After abolitionist’s activities, she was guaranteed her profit, but one Frenchman bought her as slavery. A Frenchman was an animal trainer. Sarah was treated as one of an animal. At that time, European didn’t consider African American, specifically ‘Khoikhoi’ people which is Sarah’s tribe, as people, European thought those people were a kind of animal. After several years, she became alcoholic and prostitute and died in 1815. After her death, European had considered her as an animal and become one of subject of scientific research. Her body couldn’t go back her country. After 200 years when she arrived in England, her body eventually got back to South Africa.

             As we learn Henrietta Lacks in the book ‘The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks’, some black people had been treated as an animal not human. Because of their color and appearance, Henrietta couldn’t go to general hospital and was tested for medical research, and also Sarah Baartman was exhibited as an animal. These examples were happened in White country. Why did white people trade black people as slavery? Why were black people treated discriminately?

Is there any right or permission for white to do? From my prospective, all people has right to be equally, but White people had and have ‘White Supremacy’. For a longtime, White people had flourished their culture in their region ‘Europe’ and there was no cross-culture with black. Maybe, white people didn’t know how to treat when white met black, and white people noticed that white culture was more developed than black. They might think black are uncivilized. For them, uncivilizing existence means animal because animal also cannot be civilized, so they got to know how to treat black as if they handle with dog. White are civilized and black are uncivilized enough, so they might think they are superior to others. Because of this notion, white people didn’t hesitate to handle them as slavery and to do anything to them without feeling guilty. As time goes by, society has been developed and given chances to all people equally. Like white people achieve in society, black people have proved their ability to achieve. After a lot of sacrifices of victims of racism, we finally get to know human are equal. Supremacy is a relic of the past. World require globalization. In globalism, specific tribe’s supremacy can be a fact to ruin their society and country.

             Sarah Baartman is just an ordinary woman, also Henrietta Lacks. They are just black. There’s no right to handle them like they are animal. Now, the world wants people to be gathered and to do something together. Racism and discrimination is a garbage bag which we must throw out in our field for the purpose of globalizing world. ‘White supremacy’ is an obstacle we must eliminate in our neighborhood. About racism, actually, the society gets better than before. At least, society is trying to give an equal chance to all people and people prove it. Black and Yellow people advance into a lot of field such as high class society and sports. I maybe thank those people who had sacrificed themselves for equal society, specifically black, because racism is getting to be degraded by black’s sacrifices. Asian easily gets into white society beyond comparison. In the world, people have right to move in everywhere to live and to do economic activities in everywhere. Instead of supremacy and racism, we must take tolerance and endearment for our neighborhood.