1. When Romero asked his peers if they agreed with his appeal (the night before he gave the homily), and one man responded, “I’m not a theological expert, but ethically yes”
2. When one interviewee said they were not afraid of death. Instead, “they shared a Christian conviction of the need to give your life to others.”
Responses:
1. Overall, this documentary was a very emotional experience. The interviews of the older women discussing their memories of the brutal killings combined with the graphic imagery made me extremely upset. While these images were difficult to see, I’m glad they were included in the documentary. They were necessary in explaining just how disgusting these mass murders were.
When Romero asked his associates if they supported and agreed with his appeal, I was surprised that the one man felt obligated to give his legal opinion. What about the law is relevant in a state of corruption? Everyone knew that the government and laws were corrupt so why did he feel the need to honor them? I can understand that he was hesitant to support Romero’s homily because he knew what would ultimately happen to the archbishop and quite possibly himself, but seriously? This reminded me of the distinction between god’s law and man’s law. The bible commands people to follow the law of man, but only if it is in union with the law of God. Colossians 2:8 (King James Version) reads, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
2. My favorite interview was the woman who explained the strength of the oppressed people. Even though the revolution and war caused the deaths of over 80,000 people, this woman explained that her people were not afraid of death. She said that they “shared a Christian conviction of the need to give their lives to others.” Through this conviction, they were able to work together and ultimately stay sane. I found this statement so powerful and a testament to her inner strength. I was completely inspired by her willingness to be hopeful and fearless in a time of death and disaster.
1. Waldfogel has conducted surveys to measure how much value the inefficient practice destroys. He asks gift recipients to estimate the monetary value of the gifts they’ve received, and the amount they would have been willing to pay for them. His conclusion: “We value items we receive as gifts 20 percent less, per dollar spent, than items we buy for ourselves.”
2. “This is because friendship is about more than being useful to one another. It is also about growing in character and self-knowledge in the company of others. As Aristotle taught, friendship at its best has a formative educative purpose. To monetize all forms of giving among friends can corrupt friendship by suffusing it with utilitarian norms.”
Response:
1.“What Money Can’t Buy” shed light on both the subconscious and conscious notions of gift giving. Personally, as an artist, I have always taken extra consideration in giving gifts. I was never found of monetary gifts, toys, clothes, or most material objects. Even as a child, my favorite gifts were stuffed animals – an object that has more sentimental value than material. I get the most joy from giving handmade gifts – jewelry, cards, paintings, decorated tin boxes – anything that demonstrates my love for the person. The time someone puts into making something unique for a particular person cannot have a certain price tag. While I find this to be true, I also agree with Waldfogel’s unique perspective of gift giving is his economic study. When I receive material gifts, I generally do not value them as much as the material gifts I buy for myself with the money I earn.
2.Using Aristotle’s philosophy on friendship, “What Money Can’t Buy” explains that friendship is more than being useful to one another. I find this statement extremely accurate and valuable. While no one wants to admit that they are “using” a friend, it is usually hard to truly understand this idea. Friends that you trust and love are also useful to you in some way, but you are not friends with them solely because of that use. It really can be hard to understand why and in what context you are friends with some people. I absolutely loved the line, “to monetize all forms of giving among friends can corrupt friendship by suffusing it with utilitarian norms.” This statement is so accurate.
After reading Purchasing Power and browsing through the Disposable People website, I, like the majority of my classmates, was astounded by the current number of slaves used in today’s production. The fact that the world’s commerce uses a total of 27 million slaves is absolutely disgusting. While this number leaves me in shock, it sadly can be understood (not to be confused with rationalized or justified) with a social, political, and economic understanding of capitalism. I admit, I do not have this thorough understanding, but it is nonetheless helpful to outline some of the larger transition points in history that have brought our economy to where it is now. After all, it is impossible to understand modern day slavery apart from capitalism. It simply does not exist. Capitalism is inherent in the transformation of slavery. Similarly, you cannot understand Capitalism apart from Industrialism and Industrialism apart from Feudalism. The history of these economic systems is crucial to our understanding of the systems that enable modern day slavery.
When capitalism emerged, fueled by the Enclosure act, colonization, and the industrial revolution, commerce in human beings escalated like never before. People realized the enormous amounts of profit that could be gained by exploiting labor and this abundance of profit made the incentive for producing unprecedented. Capitalism made people dependent on the market. It was no longer something you chose, but rather a compulsion. This system worked great for the wealthy, but has and still is causing serious suffering to millions. The most unfortunate part of it all (and this is where fair trade comes in) is that, in a capitalistic market, people don’t know the social relationship and circumstances of what they consume. As Disposable People points out, this is very present in the shrimping industry.
Disclaimer: This post was not meant to bash capitalism. I simply think it is important to give new world slavery a historical context in our reflections and analyses. Quite honestly, I constantly find myself frustrated with the overwhelming amount of historical information I don't know. There seems to be endless prerequisites to understanding anything these days. Especially when you are thrown a statistic that there are 27 million slaves today. How do we understand it all? How did it all come to be? How can we (actually) organize and change it? How do we filter out out the truth when everyone has had an agenda since the beginning of time? So much I don't know haha I guess I'm just rambling.
Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:49 am
Visitors
Board Statistics
