Memorable Quotations

Memorable Quotes from
WWII-Pacific/Hiroshima


• Winston Churchill in regards to the atomic bomb:
"We seemed suddenly to have become possessed of a merciful abridgement of the slaughter in the Far East… To bring the war to an end, to avoid indefinite butchery, to give peace to the world, to lay a healing hand upon its people by a manifestation of overwhelming power at the cost of a few explosions, seemed, after all our toils and perils, a miracle of deliverance."

• President Truman in regards to the dropping of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima:
"…We have used it to shorten the agony of war, in order to save thousands and thousands of Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's capacity to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."

•Unknown petty Italian officer visiting Japan after alliance is sealed:
"For Americans, it is the dollar that is the moving spirit. They cannot win."

• Emperor Hirohito's announcement to the Japanese people of acceptance of Potsdam Conference:
"Despite the best that has been done by everyone, the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage… In order to avoid further bloodshed, perhaps even the total extermination of human civilization, we shall have to endure the unendurable, to suffer the insufferable."


• Dwight Eisenhower, interview in Newsweek, 11/11/63
"...The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

• Herbert Hoover, reportedly addressing President Truman:
"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a short-wave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Black Like Me by John Griffin

All men are created equal... or are they? John Griffin's "Black Like Me" shows how
racism is nothing more then the foolish misunderstanding of man. White's current superiority
hangs in the balance as Blacks become tired of being the minority, in the late 1950's. Even though
this struggle isn't as dreadful as it was then, it still exists. The certainty of racism can't be ignored
but it will soon disappear as generations mix. Racial discrepancies challenge the unity of human
civilization.

John Griffin had a biting curiosity which he could no longer stand. What was life truly
like, for a black man in the deep south? He sought the real answer to this by darkening his skin
with extreme amounts of medication. A new skin color determines everything and John is now
thrown into a new world that he was in no way prepared for. He was no longer John, an average
but respected white novelist, he was a black man and that is all that mattered. Simple pleasers like
a drink of water or the use of a restroom become near impossible. John, at first was puzzled by
this, but soon realized that it was not his personality, his age, but his blackness that made him a
disgrace in the eyes of an average white person. If he were white, a white store owner would
have not hesitated in the slightest to allow such privileges. How could these people be so blind as
to not see that a black person breathes the same air, eats the same food, and has the same internal
functions as themselves? This misunderstanding stares them in the face and they can't see it.
Their selfishness and fear is completely unnecessary but it remains because the whites have never
been exposed to any other way of life. This is why the whites can not allow such common
privileges to Mr. Griffin or any other black person. To treat a black as an equal was absolutely
unheard of.

Fatigued from rejection and many actions which would be declared unconstitutional, the
blacks must do something so their future generations do not suffer the same. This desire for
action only stirs a greater terror within the (racist) white community. People like, Martin Luther
King Jr. begin to surface. He and many others aspire to show the blacks that they are equal human
beings. Its strange to think that most blacks thought a white was better just because that is what
they were brought up to believe. This new realization completely jeopardizes the supremacy of
the white community. The book gives many examples of this fear/hatred such as, "The hate
stare", the tone of peoples voices, and the over all rejection. Who could have thought that a black
person could have the same job opportunities and the same living standards? For those racist
whites who have a pathetic pride in there incomparable skin color and fear of change is why
groups like the Ku Klux Klan exist. It is comforting to know that this despicable attitude is no
longer holding the majority.

Yes, certain racial beliefs were awful in the 50's and 60's but its not over yet, some still
exist today. People who still feel they are fighting the Civil War, also believe in the segregation of
the black community. Hate groups such as the KKK and Neo Nazis are around but don't expose
themselves publicly as they had in the past for obvious reasons. Today racism isn't about little
things that white people take for granted, such as drinking water or a nice place to stay for the
night, its more about fair trial and equal job or education opportunities. The hard fact of our
diverse country hinders most racial discrepancies. Most people anymore can no longer be called
just black or just white but a mix of the two. If a person were to make a racist comment whether
white or black, they will most likely be bashing their own ethnic origin. This will be even grater
as generations continue. Racism won't disappear all together but can be diminished by the
brotherhood of man.

John Griffin took a chance and discovered something outrageous which he never
expected. The real life for those in the deep south was concealed under a complete
misunderstanding of each others feelings. Due to the unfair treatment to the blacks things begin
to change. Now with changing generations and a greater diversity among people, things have
changed and will continue to do so. The misconception of one race being any better then another
perhaps, is the only thing that separates us from world peace.

Black Civil Rights

More than a hundred years ago the Europeans brought slaves to North America. The
blacks found themselves in the midst of prejudice whites with no way out. When the blacks came
over Jim Crow laws were incorporated. With these laws it was near impossible for blacks to rise
in the white world. Booker T. Washington was the first black to rise to any prominence in this
time. In the early 1900's blacks however began to fight back. In 1909 black advancement
organizations began to increase all over North America. Unfortunately with the rise of these
groups also came the rise of racist white groups like the Ku Klux Klan and others brutally killing
blacks. All blacks coming into N. America were being brought into a very hostile environment.
The first sign of blacks becoming more equal was the blacks to fight in the World War.
For the first time they were looked upon as war veterans instead of black slaves. Although
progress was beginning a black man named Garvey believed that the whites would never change,
because of this he started an association called "Back to Africa". At the coming of the Second
World War, blacks participating in the war were being more important positions than ever before.
Franklin Roosevelt was the first president to make a strong contribution to the Civil
Rights movement. He had signed a declaration that stated no one could be discriminated in the
work place and other areas based on race. Also the high court passed a law that enabled black
children to have the same education opportunities as white children.
It was in December 1955 that Rosa Parks made a big step for civil rights by doing a very
small but courageous thing. She was arrested for not giving up her seat to a white man on a bus,
which broke one of the many Jim Crow laws. With that one action black activist hired Martin
Luther King Jr. to boycott the bus laws. This boycott of the Jim Crow transportation laws was a
complete success, launching Martin Luther King Jr. into national stardom with the
accomplishment. King often acted on and admired the ways of M. Gandhi. Soon blacks all over
began to non-violently protest many segregated places. In turn many places were desegregated.
President John F. Kennedy was a strong force also in the fight for black civil rights and his
assassination in 1963 did cause setbacks. The blacks in the North felt that they had to do more
than the blacks in the South to make a difference but they didn't have a voice. That was until
Malcolm X joined the voice of Martin Luther King Jr. Malcolm X did make a difference but he
was not liked by many whites and even was strongly disliked by black Muslims. Soon later black
Muslims shot and killed Malcolm X, not much later Martin Luther King Jr. was also assassinated,
and another great voice was silenced.
Jesse Jackson arose the killing in 1965. He started many organizations to help support
blacks and civil rights. Also to show that the equality between blacks and whites was getting
stronger Jackson ran for President of the United States in both 1984 and 1988, not only becoming
a threat in the civil rights movement but as a political icon also. His message was and still is well
liked by both blacks and whites, as he sends the message of true equality and not just power to
blacks. Poverty, education, and racism are still part of today's society and in political battle with
each other, but the efforts of all the blacks are paying off for everyone. The world does seem to
be getting better.

Black and White

Black and White


Following the Civil War, just prior to the turn of the century, many American novelist were writing more freely of the previous slave culture. Two of these writers being Mark Twain and Charles Chesnutt. Mark Twain was a popular "white" author by this time. Charles Chesnutt, the son of free blacks, decided to pursue a dream of becoming an author in order to remove the spirit of racism. By studying these authors in particular, the views of a white raised in the slave holding south are juxtaposed with the views of free black. Both Twain and Chesnutt satirize whites in different ways through their literature. Twain also displays some unfavorable preconceptions of blacks. This can be attributed to his own upbringing in the slave holding south.
The main character of the Chesnutt stories is an old Negro man, previously a slave, who engages his new white employers in many tales about life on the plantation. Uncle Julius relays these stories with much detail. Though, at the conclusion of each, the reader is left wondering whether the tale was true or if Uncle Julius had conceived of it merely to satisfy his own desires. Chesnutt has added to the end of each story an ulterior motive of Uncle Julius that seems to be met by the telling of his tales. By doing this, Chesnutt discretely satirizes whites in general.
In the first story, The Goophered Grapevine, Uncle Julius tells of a conjure woman putting a "goopher" on the grapevines, causing all blacks that eat the grapes to die within one year. This story is relayed upon the first meeting of the northern white couple (John and Annie) and the native South Carolinian. After telling his tale of Henry and the others that suffered from this spell, Uncle Julius concludes that these northerners should not buy this vineyard, adding conveniently that he is not afraid to eat the grapes because he know the "ole vimes fum de noo ones."
John decides to buy the farm in spite of Uncle Julius's warnings, but he does offer him employment as a coachman. It seems as if Uncle Julius had been trying to guarantee his usefulness on the plantation even after its sale. Was white man tricked into believing Julius' knowledge would be useful in the renewing of the vineyards? Chesnutt lets the reader wonder, but regardless of his tale being the reason for his employment, Uncle Julius gets to stay on the land and receives a wage to compensate for any money he may have lost in the sale of the vineyard.
As the family settles into their new home the wife sees a need for a new kitchen. There is an abandoned schoolhouse on the corner of the property that could serve for some of the wood to build with. Uncle Julius hears of the idea and is immediately reminded of another story.
Chesnutt has titled this story Po' Sandy. In this story Uncle Julius tells of a strong, hardworking slave, Sandy, that was tired of being sent away to wok for the Master's grown children. His wife Tenie, conjure woman, places a spell on Sandy turning him into a tree. Sandy continued to have problems in this state. Tenie decides to turn him back and run off with him one night. Unfortunately, Tenie was sent to nurse her master's daughter-in-law and by the time she returned the tree had been sent to the mill. Sandy was used to build the kitchen, that later became the old schoolhouse at the corner of the plantation. Tenie died on the floor of that schoolhouse mourning her husband.
This story so disturbed Annie that she refused to use any old lumber from the schoolhouse. At the conclusion Annie also admits that she has given Uncle Julius permission to use the old schoolhouse for meetings of the new Colored Baptist Church. Yet again Uncle Julius has received some sort of benefit from the telling of his tales. This leads the reader to believe that he had this ulterior motive in mind the entire time. Chesnutt seems to be satirizing the unknowing white woman.
In the final selection chosen from the works of Chesnutt, Uncle Julius tells the story of Dave's Neckliss. Dave, a good Christian slave, is accused of stealing a ham from the smokehouse and forced to wear a ham chained around his neck for punishment. Wiley, the real thief, had set Dave up because he loved the girl that Dave had been going around with. When this was discovered, the master tried to make reconciliation by telling all the slaves. Dave had already lost his senses a little and thought he was a ham. Uncle Julius later found him hanging the smokehouse.
Uncle Julius explains how he cannot eat more than two or three pounds of ham without having to stop and think about Dave. John asks for ham at breakfast the next morning. Annie first claims that ham was too heavy for breakfast, but admits that she had given it all to Uncle Julius. Annie has been outsmarted once more by a black man.
These three example show Chesnutt is satirizing the whites. He shows, through Uncle Julius' stories, that blacks have the ability to beguile whites in order to have their own motives met. Thus Chesnutt portrays blacks possessing greater intelligence than many at the time accepted. He does this very discretely through the black folk stories of supernatural, but the surrounding satire is still apparent.
Twain also satirizes whites in his novel Pudd'nhead Wilson, more specifically the whites of the slave holding south. This is brought out originally in the scene where Wilson receives his name. The serious attitudes of property prevents the white towns people from understanding the joke Wilson makes about the dog. For the reader it is apparent that Twain is pointing out the stupidity of the towns people rather than that of Wilson.
Twain also shows Roxy as a black that is in a small way superior to the townsfolk. She is able to outsmart the entire town, including her own master, by switching her own child with her master's son. Ironically, the only white who figures out this scheme is Wilson, the person the townspeople labeled a "pudd'nhead." Here, Twain again satirizes the whites of the south by showing their ignorance. These people are so preoccupied with the idea of race, yet they cannot tell the difference between a person they would label "nigger" and a white.
Twain also raises some questions regarding the nature of race. Are their innate qualities of race or does it depend entirely on ones upbringing? Twain questions nature versus nurture. In the story Tom is a white boy that possesses black blood and Chambers is "white." Twain spends some time comparing these boys as they grow up. He says, Tom "was a bad baby from the very beginning." He was given anything he desired. Tom grew to be small and weak, while Chambers grew big and strong. Twain points to the difference in diet and activity. Tom ate sweets and was waited on, while Chambers was "coarsely fed" and worked around the house.
Although Twain states that Tom was bad from the start, the reader is left wondering what would have happened if he had received Chambers discipline, diet, and work load. At the conclusion of the book, the white townspeople of Dawson's Landing blame Tom's awful behavior on the drop of black blood that he possesses. Though, Twain seems to be saying that it was his white upbringing that made him into the man became. This also satirizes the whites of Dawson's Landing, showing them as simple minded.
Twain also questions the self-concept of blacks. Here we see some of Twain's racist attitudes displayed. He tries to show the irony of the blacks view of themselves in the case of Roxy. Though Roxy has no physical characteristics that distinguish her as black in her own mind that is what she is. From the very start of her life she has worn that label and her personality has been patterned after that. Her dialect is poor and uneducated just as she herself is. She has not been schooled as to the proper manners of a lady and thus she is crass and vulgar at times. All of these outward facets of Roxy's personality expose her as black, though her features do not.
Even being raised in this manner, Twain portrays Roxy as feeling superior to the other slaves because of her white heritage. At one time she says to Jasper, another slave, "I got somep'n' better to do den 'sociat'n' wid niggers as black as you is." This was all in jest, but throughout the book Twain shows Roxy as having a low view of blacks, especially her own black heritage. When scolding her son Tom for refusing to challenge the twins, Roxy blames his cowardice on "de nigger" in him. After noting all of the predominant white members of his pedigree, she concludes that "de nigger" is his soul.
Twain seems to have some assumptions of his own that blacks have no pride in their own heritage.
Twain and Chesnutt both satirize whites, but in different ways. Twain, being a white, satirizes the slave holding south, rather than whites in general. Chesnutt, on the other hand, uses a couple from the north in a story set in the free south. Chesnutt also is more descrete in his satire, while Twain pokes fun directly. Twain also displays some of his own prejudices, being a white trying to explain the black culture. On the contrary, Chesnutt honestly portrays blacks from an inside perspective. Roxy was ashamed of the black blood in her, while Uncle Julius seemed to be a proud old man, happy to tell of his black friends and past. From the analysis these literary selections we can gain a greater understanding of racial views but, one may say that everything is not as simple as black and white


















Black and White

Biography Precis Black Boy

Biography Precis -- Black Boy

Black Boy , an autobiography by Richard Wright, is an account of a young African-American boy's thoughts and outlooks on life in the South while growing up. The novel is 288 pages, and was published by Harper and Row Publishers in (c)1996. The main subject, Richard Wright, who was born in 1908, opens the book with a description of himself as a four-year-old in Natchez, Mississippi, and his family's later move to Memphis. In addition it describes his early rebellion against parental authority, and his unsupervised life on the streets while his mother is at work. His family lives in poverty and faces constant hunger. As a result his family lives with his strict grandmother, a fervently religious woman. In spite of his frequent punishment and beatings, Wright remembers the pleasures of rural life.
Richard then describes his family's move to Memphis in 1914. Though not always successful, Richard's rebellious nature pervades the novel. This is best illustrated by his rebellion against his father. He resents his father's the need for quiet during the day, when his father, a night porter, sleeps. When Mr. Wright tells Richard to kill a meowing kitten if that's the only way he can keep it quiet, Richard has found a way to rebel without being punished. He takes his father literally and hangs the kitten. But Richard's mother punishes him by making him bury the kitten and by filling him with guilt. Another theme is seen when his father deserts the family, and Richard faces severe hunger. For the first time, Richard sees himself as different from others, because he must assume some of the responsibilities of an adult. In contrast to his above characteristics, Richard soon shows his ability in learning, even before he starts school, which he begins at a later age than other boys because his mother couldn't afford his school clothes. Rebellion, hunger (for knowledge and food), and the sense of being different will continue with Richard throughout this book.
In the following chapters the Wrights move to the home of Richard's Aunt Maggie. But their pleasant life there ends when whites kill Maggie's husband. Later the threat of violence by whites forces Maggie to flee again. Additional unfortunate events include Richard's mother having a stroke. As a result, Richard is sent to his Uncle Clark's, but he is unhappy there and insists on returning to his mother's.
Later, Richard confronts his Aunt Addie, who teaches at the Seventh-Day Adventist church school. He also resists his grandmother's attempts to convert him to religious faith. He writes his first story and blossoms in a literary sense. Richard then gets a job selling newspapers but quits when he finds that the newspapers hold racist views. Soon after this incident, his grandfather dies. Richard publishes his first story. The reaction from his family is overwhelmingly negative, though they can do nothing to stop his interest in literature.
When he graduates, Richard becomes class valedictorian. But he refuses to give the speech written for him by the principal. Upon entering the harsh world of actual adulthood, Richard has several terrifying confrontations with whites. In the most important of these confrontations, he is forced out of a job because he dares to ask to learn the skills of the trade. These same harsh realities of life also force Richard to learn to steal. By stealing he acquires enough money to leave the Deep South.
Richard finds a place to stay in Memphis. The owner of his rooming house encourages him to marry her daughter, Bess. As a result of his inborn fear of intimacy, he refuses. Richard then takes another job with an optical company. The foreman tries to provoke a fight between him and a black employee of another company.
In the culmination of Richard's interest in literature, he borrows a library card and discovers the hard-hitting style of columnist H. L. Mencken and begins to read voraciously.
Finally, in the last chapter, Richard leaves for Chicago. When Richard tells his boss that he is leaving, he says that his departure is at his family's insistence. The white men at the factory are uneasy about a black man who wants to go north. They seem to consider that desire an implicit criticism of the South and thus of them. On the train north, Richard reflects on his life. He wonders why he believes that life could be lived more fully. His answer is that he acquired this belief from the books he read, which were critical of America and suggested that the country could be reshaped for the better. Wright seems to have wanted a different and better life long before he discovered Mencken and the other writers he read in Memphis. As Richard continues his reflections, he thinks the white South has allowed him only one honest path, that of rebellion. He argues to himself that the white South, and his own family, conforming to the dictates of whites, have not let him develop more than a portion of his personality. Yet he also thinks he is taking with him a part of the South. Here Wright focuses on the way his life in the South has been typical of other black lives, all stunted by racism.
Wright's portrayal of himself growing up seems to be accurate; his personal feelings at the time of the book's composition, and during his childhood adding to the reader's understanding of the life and times of the author. Although an arguably confused and purposeless individual, Wright did achieve much in his strife against racism and its limits on his people. In becoming a community leader, he shared his perception about America, a perception of a part of America that was unknown territory. His admirable character allowed him to channel all the anger and ambiguities in his life and focus them to a good cause.

Biography and History Harriet Jacobs The Life of a Slave

Biography and History -- Harriet Jacob's The Life of a Slave Girl

To be a good writer, you must posess a careful balance between detachment and
association, a delicate waltz where you are not so wrapped up in the events of a story that it
alienates the reader, and yet not so far separated from the subject matter that the readers cannot
get into it. This is espectially the case in an autobiographical narrative. In this case, it is very
difficult to detach yourself from the main subject matter, that is, yourself. Yet it must remain a
story, and the story at its heart is a reconstruction of facts from the memory of the author. In the
case of Harriet Jacobs, it was also important that she make sure the readers understood slavery
from a woman's perspective. The hardships she had to endure not only entailed the work and the
punishments, but also the sexual aspect of being a slave-girl. Her task is difficult, because in
order for the reader to really understand her position as a woman and a slave, she must make the
story extremely personal. If it is too personal, however, the reader looses sight of the bigger
picture, and does not relate all these hardships to the condition of the general female slave. She
accomplishes this in two ways, through her writing style, and the writing content.
The style that the novel is written varies from a dialogue to a narrative, depending on the
subject matter being written about. For example, the dialogue where Mrs. Flint confronts Linda
(Jocobs) and asks her what has been going on with her husband is handled very effectively,
because as a conversation between two people, we are able to pick up on the nuances of meaning.
Also, it makes the situation seem to the reader as very exhilarating, because we don't know
what's going to happen next. Two paragraphs later, though, the story has turned back into
narrative, because Jacobs is trying to examine the entire situation in her present day, as a free
woman. She has to be detached from the conversation in order for her to draw any conclusions.
The conclusion she draws is that even though they are in different circumstances, (Linda is a
slave and Mrs. Flint is her mistress), they both have a shared problem as women -- that is, the
problems of infedelity. This general topic cannot be dealt with effectively unless it is done at a
distance, looking back with the experience she has gained.
Jacobs does this a lot -- she takes her own present-day experiences and places them in the
framework of her past. When she gives us an account of the Slaves' New Year's Day, she
addresses the readers personally, whom are all free men and women. First she gives us the facts
of the matter: the auction block, the anxious waiting before families are separated. Then she
compares it to the present. In order to shock her readers and make this story hit closer to home,
she asks us to compare our New Year's Day with the slaves'. While we are partying and
enjoying ourselves, the slaves await the day when they will be sold. Mothers fear that their
children will be taken from them, rebellious slaves fear they will be beaten. We just don't
understand what slavery is unless we are given a direct contrast like this.
Another method to get the readers to truly understand her problems is to try to compare
feelings with situations. For example, at one point her style changes to rhetorical questions,
aimed to catch the reader off-guard and make them think, not just read and comprehend. After
she tells Mr. Flint about her intentions to marry a free black man, he tells her that she will never
marry him, nor will she ever be free. This is written in a dialogue-style. Then, it quickly turns
personal: she asks the readers, "Did you ever hate? I hope not. I never did but once..." She later
accuses the readers of an almost blissful ignorance to this point: "But, O, ye happy women,
whose purity has been sheltered from shildhood, who have been free to choose the objects of
your affection, whose homes are protected by law, do not judge the poor desolate slave girl too
severley!" In this manner, she asks the readers to forgive her for her sexual actions. Naturally,
this is not really necessary, but it is an affective writing tool to get us to look on our own lives as
easy in comparison to hers.
As a writer, Jacobs has to make herself look more human and real to the readers, because
they come into the book with pre-conceieved notions about slavery. She does this by writing
occasional sarcastic comments, the kind that we all make in our lives. When her grandmother
lends her mistress the money she has saved, she can only hope to get it back based on the word of
the woman. "The honor of a slaveholder to a slave!" she remarks sarcastically. What is
important to Jacobs is that the people reading the story really understand what's going on. It isn't
enough that they be sorry for her, they must be enraged at the injustices. She chooses these small
sections out of her life because she feels they will be the most influential over the reader. It is
supposed to be a persuasive story, not some self-pitying account of her poor' life. "I draw no
imaginary pictures of southern homes. I am telling you the plain truth," she explains. There is
no intentional deceit in the chapters that she writes, because that would work against her. Her
message is simple, she explains it in a dialogue with her brother:
"He grew vexed, and asked if poverty and hardships with freedom, were not
preferable to our treatment in slavery. Linda,' he continued, we are dogs here;
foot-balls, cattle, every thing that's mean. No, I will not stay. Let them bring
me back. We don't die but once.'"

Beloved

Beloved
In the Novel Beloved, by Toni Morrison unmasks the horrors of slavery, and depicts its aftermath on African Americans. The story is perfect for all who did not experience nor could imagine how it was to be an African American in America circa the 1860's. Beloved lends a gateway to understanding the trials and tribulations of the modern African American. The Novel has many things that occur that are very striking, most of which have to deal with the treatment of the African Americans. The book as a whole is very disturbing, and even shows to what lengths African Americans were willing to go to avoid enslavement of themselves or their children.
In the novel the most extreme case of someone avoiding enslavement comes from the main character when she attempts to kill her children. The main character , Sethe, is not willing to let her children end up re-enslaved and would rather see them dead and in Heaven then in an earthly hell of being slaves. I believe that from Sethe was justified in her actions. Slavery is a very harsh and horrible way to live, and living in chains and without freedom is not living as a human should. Slavery degraded African Americans from humans, to that of animals. They were not treated with any respect, or proper care. Even modern day criminals, those that have murdered large numbers of people are treated more humanly then the average slave ever was. The life that the children would of lived would of been one of complete servitude, they would of never of known what it was like to live on their own and make their own decisions. This all goes back to the fact that they would never be human or treated as humans, so based on this I believe that Sethe was justified in killing her children and preventing them from becoming enslaved.
The fact that the slaves where treated like animals, and where traded and sold like cattle is well depicted in the book. This did not actually shock me, the items in the book that shocked me had to do with the living conditions, and punishments that the men where put through. What I am referring to in particular are the living conditions at the work camp in Georgia. The fact that the men were in little cubbie holes in a trench in the ground is very disturbing. The fact that when it rained "They squatted in muddy water, slept above it, peed in it(110)" was very shocking and unpleasant to me. The other thing that was really disturbing at the same camp was the "breakfast". This was disgusting and at the same time seemed very weird. The white men considered the African Americans to be animals, yet they still made them perform oral sex on them. This was quite possibly the most bothersome and abhorrent item that occurred to the slaves in the book.
The treatment of the slaves has a lot to do with current African Americans and the many items they face. In the book, there is no such thing as a family, the slaves can not be married nor are they allowed to be "mothers" or "fathers" to their children. This carries over to modern America in that some African Americans still have problems with family structure and slavery can be held accountable for this. Another reason this book is helpful is that it explains why African Americans attempt to remove themselves from making close bonds with family, as Professor Jordan said they have to make fun of moms and learn that they can not protect the people they love from others. This goes back to the roots of slavery to the fact that families where split up and the slaves had not control, and thus could not protect the ones that they loved. To prevent themselves from being hurt by this they learned a way to form a protective barrier against it and that barrier is not to get close or expect to be able to protect the ones you love.
The book Beloved, has many key points about slavery and brings to light many things that are not well known. The book helps to show the roots of African Americans and how those roots still affect their lives today. This helps the reader to better understand African Americans and how they relate to their past. It also brings to light the many cruelties inherent in slavery and the affect this had on an entire race of people and their development in the U.S.

Ballad of Birmingham

In the poem Ballad of Birmingham, by Dudley Randall, written
in 1969, Mr. Randall uses of irony to describes the events of the mothers decision,
and also her concern for the welfare of her darling little child. It seems odd that this
child would even know what a freedom march is, but this would be considered
normal back in the early 1960's, when Mr. Martin Luther King Jr. had rallies and
freedom marches to free the African American people from discrimination and
segregation (Hunter 6). It also seems very ironic that the young child is acting like
an adult in this particular situation (Hunter 12). I think the mother would be the one
who would want to got to the march to free her people, not the child. In the poem
"Ballad of Birmingham", by Dudley Randall, written in 1969, Mr. Randall uses tone
and irony to describe the events of the mothers decisions, and as well as her concern
for her child's well being.
In the first stanza irony is used in order to make reading the
poem more interesting. The situation in this first stanza is also very important. The
little child is in a desperate situation and wants to help better the lives of the African
Americans. Randall also focuses on specific culture here. The speaker is allowing
the reader to make a mental picture of one specific march in Birmingham (Hunter
17). But, you know as well as I, that with peace marches and rallies comes violence
and hostility. This is exactly what the little girls mother is afraid of, this is why she
will not let her go to the march. It also seems weird that her mother is so sure that
going to church, instead of going to the march, will be the best thing for her. (Hunter
19-20). Typically, a church is to be a very safe and sacred place where no-one
would imagine a bombing or any other type of violence to happen. What is ironic
about this is that going to church turns out to be the worst place for her to be
(Hunter 21). Something else that strikes me funny is that her mother dresses her in
her daughter in her best clothes to go to church with her. What is ironic here


is that she ended up wearing them to her funeral instead (Hunter 26). There is also a
shift in dialogue here in the fifth stanza(Hunter 27). Here the narrator starts to take
over. The narrator's tone shows the reader the pride and joy that the mother takes in
her child's appearance (Hunter 29). It also gives the reader some sense of
reassurance and cleanliness as the mother is brushing her daughters night-dark hair.
She also dresses her in the same fashion (Hunter 36). She tries to dress her all in
white, which is the symbol for purity. But no matter how hard the mother tries to
have her daughter conform to the "whites", they are ultimately the ones who kill her
(Hunter 41).
Something else that is ironic comes about in the sixth stanza.
The mother smiled to know her child was in the sacred place, but that smile was the
last smile to come upon her face. This gives the reader a sense of what is about to
happen(Hunter 44). This stanza is ironic because if the mother thinks her daughter is
going to be in a safe place, why would this be the last time she would ever smile?
The figures of speech that Randall uses in this poem also give
the poem a touch of irony. He uses two types of figures of speech, and he uses them
very well. First, he uses the metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which
one thing is likened to another, different thing by being spoken of as if it were that
other; implied comparison. He uses this in stanza five to hint to the reader that the
child is an African American female(Hunter 47). He also uses it in stanza seven to
show how angry, afraid and worried her mother gets when she hears the explosion.
The other figure of speech that Randall uses is repetition. He uses the saying, "No,
baby, no, you may not go", in stanza two and then again in stanza four. This saying
expresses the worries and fear that the mother has for her little girl.


Another big factor in this poem is the use of tone. First, there is a
tone of innocence in the first stanza (Hunter 51). The young child tries to act nice
and innocent to her mother, in the case that her mother might let her go to the
march(Hunter 55). Secondly, there is the tone of concern for her child's safety. Her
mother tells her that there are dogs, clubs and hoses. These things were used on
protesters and marchers to control the crowds when they grew too large and had
gotten out of hand. Next, there is the tone of joy in the fifth stanza and in the first
half of the sixth stanza. Her mother takes pride and joy in getting her daughter ready
to go to church. She is also joyful that her daughter is going to church instead of
going to the march (Hunter 59-61).
But, if you notice, in the seventh stanza that tone of joy
immediately turns to grief and loneliness. The move from the sixth to the seventh
stanza is when the explosion occurs(Hunter 64). The mother doesn't know what to
do. The mothers tone in the last two lines of the poem gives the reader a feeling of
grief and guilt. The word baby the mother uses implies the mothers affection for her
lost daughter. I don't know how, but for some reason her mother feels that
something has happened to her child, so she runs through the streets of Birmingham,
Alabama calling for her child. She clawed through bits of glass and brick, then lifted
out her child's shoe. From this finding the mother knows that she has lost her
daughter forever. In conclusion, I personally think that this poem was well written
for the simple fact that Randall is not afraid to confront the problems that these two
races had between them. He describes things that had happened in this time period
to get his point across vividly to the reader. With that said, I leave you with one last
question: If her mother had let her go to the march like she asked, would she still be
alive?

Athletes and Domestic Abuse

Athletes and Domestic Violence
A lady calls 911 and cries that her husband is beating her. She wants to file a report, but then asks the dispatcher if it is going to be in the paper the next day. When the dispatcher doesn't reply, she changes her mind about the report and hangs up (Cart). The lady was Sun Bonds, wife of all-star San Francisco Giant, Barry Bonds. Like the wives of other famous players, she was a victim of spousal abuse. Athletes are praised as heroes for what they do on the playing field, but what they do off the field is never mentioned. As a disappointed sports fan, I want to draw attention to the domestic violence cases that involve athletes.

Athletes have been abusing their spouses since sports were created, but not until the OJ Simpson trial has domestic violence become "the issue du jour." When Simpson was arrested on New Years Day for beating his wife, none of the newspapers reported it. When he pleaded no contest five months later, there was a small brief in the second page of The Los Angeles Times' Metro Section (Cart). In the last three years alone the list of the accused included Dante Bichette, Barry Bonds, John Daly, Scottie Pippen, Jose Conseco, Bobby Cox, Mike Tyson, Warren Moon, Michael Cooper, Darryl Strawberry, Duane Causwell, Olden Polynice, Robert Parish, and OJ Simpson( Callahan, Sports Ilustrated). And these are only the pro athletes whose wives had the courage to report the violence.

Madeline Popa, president of Nebraska National Organization for Women stated, "Athletes are role models to small children. [Viewers] worry about the violence on television, but generally that is make-believe. When [there are] real-life heroes [engaging in violence], the message to young boys and girls is, 'If you are a star athlete you can get away with things (qtd in L.A. Times).'"

There is an act of domestic violence every eighteen seconds in the United States. One in every three women will experience it, according to a study done by The L.A. Times.
Abuse is the number one cause of injury for women. About six million women are abused each year; four thousand are killed (Cart). Although the sports world is not involved with all of these statistics, they are an important factor as to why the numbers are so high. The survey found that in 1995 there were 252 incidents involving 345 active sports players.

Another survey done by Sports Illustrated reveals that eight to twelve women a year are assaulted by their partners. More women die from abuse than from car accidents and muggings combined. A study done by the University of Massachusetts and Northeastern University revealed that out of 107 cases of sexual assault reported in various universities, most of them involved male student-athletes although they only make up 3.3% of the total male body (Callahan). This means that male student-athletes were six times more involved than males who were not student-athletes.

Despite these studies some people believe that sports does not have a problem with the issue of domestic violence. Richard Lapchick, director of the Center on the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University believes, "These exaggerations [in studies] do not discount that there is solid evidence of a problem in sport" and "Athletes are not necessarily more prone to domestic violence than others (quoted from The L.A. Times and Sports Illustrated)."

Marriah Burton Nelson, author of The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Like Football: Sexism and the American Culture of Sports, is one of the many people who disagree with Lapchick. She believes that sports create an aggression found in men who beat their wives. She says,
It is not the sport themselves, but the culture of the sports in which male athlete and coaches talk about women with contempt. The culture of sports is a breeding ground. It begins with the little league coach saying, 'you throw like a girl.' This teaches boys to feel superior. Masculinity is defined as aggression and dominance. In order to be a man you have to be on top, to control, to dominate (qtd in L.A. Times).

Dr. Myriam Miedzian author of Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking the Link Between Masculinity and Violence, agrees with Nelson. He thinks, "Athletes are taught to hurt people. Empathy has been knocked out of them" (qtd in American Health). Most coaches do not allow their players to have a real relationship because they are afraid that a female influence will "soften" a player. The athletes are taught not to "see the guy across the line as a human being, how can they see women as human beings? As long as you rear boys to be tough, dominant, in charge, they simply won't be prepared for contemporary women (Miedzian)."

Most researchers agree that one of the main reasons athletes abuse their spouses is because they have grown accustomed to the mistreatment of women which surrounds sports. "Sports culture creates a negative attitude towards women, attitudes of superiority that could lead to violence," says Michael Messner, associate professor of sociology at USC (qtd in L.A. Times). Vance Johnson, a Denver Bronco wide receiver, admits that he did beat his first two wives. He blames his misconduct on himself and on the sports
environment he lived in for teaching him that domestic violence is okay. He writes, "Everywhere I looked men abused women...All of the women were really battered and abused emotionally and physically. It was just the way of life no one ever did anything about it (qtd in Vance pg 83)."

Jackson Katz of the Center for the Study of Sports in Society states, "[Athletes] believe they are entitled to have women serve their needs. It's part of being a man. It's the cultural construction of masculinity." "Elite athletes learn entitlement (L.A. Times)."

It is this entitlement given by coaches and fans, who worship star sports figures, that allows an athlete to abuse his spouse without having to suffer the consequences. This sends a message to girls that "If [they] get hurt, nothing will happen to [the perpetrator]. Girls have to stand alone.(Popa)" This leaves women with a feeling of worthlessness. Athletes live with a different set of rules. Dr. Tom House, a Major League Baseball coach as well as a psychologist, believes,
Athletes aren't bad people; they just don't have life skills. Many of these players simply have no thermostats on their behavior mechanisms. When they act out, they are seeking to find some balancing their environment, to see how far they can go. And as long as they can put up good numbers on the field, no one will create boundaries for them (qtd in American Health).
5, Cohen

So what is being done to prevent domestic violence among athletes? Very little. The pro league still do not punish perpetrators for their actions. But they have created shelters and organized funds for victims of this problem. Men are now encouraged to see specialists to solve their problem. Newspapers are printing more articles of cases involving

athletes. Now there are daily reports of spousal abuse next to the box scores (I don't know weather to consider this good or bad). "Many men particularly famous athletes, are being held accountable for behavior that was previously brushed aside (Cart)."

Lawrence Phillips, a Heisman Trophy candidate last season, was suspended from his football team because he was charged with spousal abuse. This was done a day after Phillips rushed for 206 yards and scored four touchdowns to give his team the victory. His coach, Rick Osborne, was applauded for taking a stand.

Things are definitely moving forward, but not at a quick enough pace. Rita Smith, coordinator of National Coalition Against Domestic Violence thinks, "Professional sports needs to take a very definitive stand against violence like [it] has with drugs(qtd in L.A. Times)."

Alisa DelTufo, the founder of Sanctuaries for Families, a shelter for abused women, admits, "Domestic Violence is a very difficult cycle for a woman to break (qtd in Sports Illustrated)." And the cycle of abuse is even harder to break in court for a wife of an athlete. "The police often work harder collecting autographs than evidence. The media and the fans, including those on the jury, tend to side with the icon over the iconoclast (Callahan)."
When Sun Bonds finally decided to file a divorce, the judge, who was a baseball fan, awarded her a sum of $7,500 per month, which is half of what she was supposed to receive. The biased judge then asked Bonds' for an autograph.

We live in a world where men express their manliness by demeaning women. Where men are encouraged to act aggressive and dominant. Where men when asked, 'what are they going to do?' after they lost a game reply, 'I'm going home to beat my wife (all-star, Charles Barkley).' Unfortunately this is the reality we live in. Sport associations need to set rules and punishments for a player who abuses his spouse. They can punish an athlete for using drugs, why can't they do the same for perpetrators of domestic violence? I think coaches should discourage the bad-mouthing of women that takes place in the locker room, and encourage them to see counselors. The fact is as soon as an athlete puts on his uniform for the first time; he is viewed as a role model, whether he likes it or not. I agree that the recent attention means we are now taking domestic violence more seriously, but the victims of abuse want solutions, not publicity.















Works Cited
Callahan, Gerry. "Sports Dirty Secret." Sports Illustrated July 31, 1995: pgs 62-74.
Cart, Julie. "Sex & Violence." The L.A. Times December 27, 1995: pgs C1-C3.
Lipsyte, Robert. "O.J. Syndrome." American Health September, 1994: pgs 50-51.
Johnson, Vance. The Vance: The Begining and the End copyrighted 1994: pg 83.
All other quotes were t

anxiety and depression in africanamericans

ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION IN AFRO-AMERICANS

A major cause of mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety in individuals is stress. Defined stress is an internal response caused by the application of a stressor or anything that requires coping behaviour. For example the pressure of a job, supporting a family or getting an education are stressors that can result in depression and anxiety. Individuals and groups that have numerous resources or other coping mechanisms are better suited for coping with stress than are those who lack such resources. As a result, social and economic circumstances in North America suggest that the black and Latino communities have a higher risk for developing mental disorders than does the non-black make up of the United States. Hence this paper will attempt to demonstrate how due to socio-economic differences such as money, racism and increased exposure to violence, blacks have a greater chance to develop mental disorders such as depression and anxiety.
Some definitions: Stress, Depression & Anxiety
Stress is everywhere in our lives and it can be found in two forms. The life of Afro-Americans is filled with both eustress and distress, but it is the high rate of distress due to socio-economic circumstances that are responsible for higher rates of depression and anxiety amongst them.
Depression is an emotional state characterized by extreme sadness, gloomy ruminations, feelings of worthlessness, loss of hope, and often apprehension, while anxiety is a generalized feeling of fear and apprehension. The number of reported cases combining both depression and anxiety with Afro-Americans has dramatically increased since the civil rights movement, when scientists began recording such causal relationships. In addition, statistics show that the rate of violence demonstrates a positive relationship of mental health disorders within the black community. Studies by Bell, Dixie-Bell and Thompson show that Afro-Americans have a 36% higher chance of developing depression than do non-blacks (Bell, Dixie-Bell, & Thompson, p.53). It is felt that a portion of these results can be attributed to the high incidence of violence and exposure within the black community.
Economic Distress
Poverty and unemployment are rampant in Afro-American communities in the United States. Approximately 65% of the black community in the U.S. live in poverty or are unemployed (Bell et al., p.53). In comparison to other ethnic groups, this is the highest rate with the exception of the Latino community at 68.7%. The closest group above the blacks are the Chinese at 35%. Not only are most blacks poor and unemployed but, the future does not look promising in terms of job opportunities for Afro-Americans. This rampant spread of poverty within the black community causes great distress within the family unit. Parents are unable to provide for their children basic necessities for living, such as food or proper shelter. In effect this distress causes individuals to demonstrate extreme sadness, feelings of worthiness and loss of hope. Their great anxiety is because there is, "no apparent way out of the situation."(Friedman, p.77)
Socio-Cultural Distress
Despite the feeling that some substantial progress in terms of race relations has been made since the civil rights movement of the 1960's, "afro- americans still feel that they are at the bottom of the race poll." (Fenton, p.13) Much racism and prejudice still exists in America today and with occurrence of certain events, racial tensions are definitely increasing. For example both the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson trials, ignited intense debate amongst the population about racial issues. Despite the conviction of Rodney Kings attackers and the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, blacks feel as though justice was not served. "White America is still appalled at the destruction the King verdict caused."(Harton, p.89) The reaction to the results of these two cases was caused by distress within the black community. In addition, it is this distress that will cause blacks to suffer from high rates of anxiety.
Studies show that Afro-Americans demonstrate higher levels of fear and apprehension. When asked what their anxiety was caused by, Afro-American teens said that their fear comes from fear of dying before their 21 birthday and fear of losing a loved one to drugs or gang violence. When presented with the same question, white teens responded their greatest fears were not getting into grad school and not being considered popular at school. Thus it is evident, that the concerns of black teens are more about, "actual survival than they are about their image or position in life".(Friedman, p.63) However, it is important to realize that this does not mean that white teens can't develop high levels of anxiety, just that the fear for ones life may be considered more alarming than ones public image.
Violence Exposure
Studies by Bell and Jenkins (1991) found that, Afro-American teens living in the inner-city have high levels of exposure to violence and this exposure causes them to demonstrate high levels of stress and anxiety. The results found that by the age of 16, black teens had them selves been or knew somebody that had been shot, shot at, killed, beaten, robbed with a weapon, stabbed or raped.(Friedman, p.87) Of 13 girls who had been interviewed for this study, 11 had been raped. 83% of the teen had witnessed severe violence in the community. Conversely, the same study done in a suburban area found that only 21% of teen had actually witnessed extreme violence or known somebody to have been a victim. However, it is important to note that in the suburban case, of the students that had or new someone involved, "16% were afro- american".(Friedman, p.89) Evidently, blacks living in the States have a much higher exposure to violence than do non-blacks. This in turn leads to higher levels of anxiety blacks than in whites.
Additional Factors...
In addition to examining the relationship between socio-economic circumstances and violence exposure, researchers wanted to see if their were any other factors that contributed to higher rates of depression and anxiety in blacks. An examination found that higher levels of distress were correlated with alcohol and illicit drug use. Also, results showed a positive relationship for poor academic performance in school with exposure to violence and low socio- economic status (under poverty line). Again black youths demonstrated higher levels than in white youths for incarceration and pregnancy which were also listed as major stressors for black youths. Furthermore, black teens reported they did not feel safe at home, in their neighbourhood or at school. Therefore it is clear that blacks demonstrate a higher risk for developing a mental health disorder such as depression and or anxiety than do white youths.
What should we do?
There is a great deal of information and research on the topic of depression and anxiety in psychology. Much work has also been devoted to the causes and treatments of these two behaviours. Unfortunately, however not much work has been devoted to mental health from the Afro-American perspective. In order to reduce and control the rate of depression and anxiety within the Afro-American community much more research must be done in this field. Particularly this research must include Canadian samples because the effect that violence exposure and socio-economic stressors have on black Canadian is bound to differ than that of Afro-Americans slightly. In addition, research shows that blacks require different treatments than whites and that black patients react differently to the same drugs given to white patients.
Conclusion
The experience of the Afro-American patient is different than that of the white patient. Not only does the black patient have to deal with stereotypes as a patient but the causes of his disorders also differ than that of a white patient. Because of this, it is important that the health profession beware that Afro- American patients require a different kind of treatment than white patients. Furthermore, in depth research into this epidemic may provide blacks with new coping strategies thus reducing the amount of stressors in their live. Eventually this type of thinking and behaviour will lead to a healthier lifestyle that includes more eutress than distress.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, C.C., & Jenkins, E.J. (1991). Traumatic stress and children. Journal health care for poor and underserved, 1, 175-185.

Brown, D.R., Gary, L.E., Greene, A., & Milburn, N.G. (1992). Patterns of social affiliation as predictors of depressive symptoms amoung urban blacks.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 242-253

Carson, Robert and Butcher, James. Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life ninth Ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1992

Craig, Kenneth and Dobson Keith (ed.). Anxiety and Depression in Adults and Children. California: Sage Publications, 1995.

Kleinman, Arthur and Becker, Joseph (ed.). Psychosocial Aspects of Depression. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Inc. , 1991.

Lawson, W.B. (1986). Racial and ethnic factors in psychiatric research. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 37, 50-54.

Montgomery, Stuart. Anxiety and Depression. Hampshire: Wrightson Biomedical Publishing Ltd., 1990.

Neighbors, H. (1985). Seeking professional help for personal problems:
Black Americans' use of health and mental services. Community Mental Health Journal, 21, 156-166.



Sartorius, N. and Davidson, H. Depressive Disorders in Different Cultures. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1983.

Watson, Gillian and Byrne, Donn and Baron, Robert. Exploring Social Psychology. Scarbrough, Ontario: Allyn & Bacon, 1996.

Wong, Frank and Duffy, Karen. Community Psychology. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, 1996.

Andrea Dworkin A Detrement to the Feminist Movement

Andrea Dworkin has been an influential write, speaker, and activist for over two decades. She claims to be a feminist, and that her ideas are beneficial to women. This paper will show that many of her most popular beliefs are not only detrimental to society, but also not in the best interests of women.
In letters from a war zone, Andrea Dworkin presents a collection of speeches and short articles she has composed during her career as a writer and activist. Many of her articles deal with censorship and pornography. One claim is central to all of these, pornography is an act and not an idea, thus censorship is not relevant to it.
In response to a New York Time Review of her 1981 book, Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Dworkin writes, "Pornography says the women want to be hurt, forced, and abused; pornography says women want to be raped, battered, kidnapped, maimed; pornography says women want to be humiliated, shamed, defamed, pornography says that women say no but mean yes - Yes to violence, yes to pain."(Dworkin p 203)
In response to Dworkin's fiery rhetoric, Wendy Mcelroy writes that Dworkin has scientific backing and even cites evidence to the contrary. "In Japan, where pornography depicting violence is widely available, rape is much lower per capita than in the United States, where violence in porn is restricted." Mcelroy attacks the belief that pornography cause violence, stating that even if a correlation is present, is does not necessarily mean there is a causal relationship. (McElroy 102)
Lynne Segal sees in inherent harm in trying to link the two together. She believes that feminists who try to do so are wasting valuable time that could be spent on other important issues. "In the end, anti-pornography campaigns, feminist or not, can only enlist today, as they have invariously enlisted before, guilt and anxiety around sex, as well as lifetimes of confusion in our personal experiences of sexual arousal and activity." "In contrast, campaigns which get to the heart of men's violence and sadism towards women must enlist the widest possible resources to empower socially." (Gibson 19)
Another argument of Dworkin's is that pornography should not be protected as free speech under the first amendment. It is her contention that protecting what pornographers say, is protecting what pornography does. Pornography is more than words. They are acts against women. "Pornography happens to women." As a result, bans on such material are warranted, not only because it is harmfully and discriminatory to women, but also because there are no civil liberties that are violated in preventing an act. (Dworkin 185)
Since it is uncertain whether there is even a correlation between violence against women and pornography, any attempt to ban it must be viewed as censorship. What ever it is referred to, it still has the same effect.
In many of Dworkin's writings, she laments the silencing of women. She is partially responsible for this silencing. In 1992, The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a legal restriction on pornography based on the psychological damage it does women. "Ironically, this obscenity law has been used almost exclusively against gay, lesbian, and feminist material." (McElroy 87)
The effect of censorship is absolutely detrimental the weaker voice, as is the case with the Butler decision. Dworkin herself fell victim, when her book, Pornography, was seized by Canadian customs officials. Censorship in contradictory to feminist goals, because freedom of speech is the most powerful weapon in the feminist arsenal. Medical journals used by medical students, and the testimony of women victimized by sexual abuse are prime targets of censorship. (Strossen 77)
An episode involving Dworkin and her cohort in censorship, Catherine MacKinnon, demonstrates the dangers of censorship. At a symposium at A Michigan law school, at which Dworkin and MacKinnon were speaking, a group of feminists had prepared a series of documentaries of the topic of the conference, prostitution. Dworkin refused to speak at the symposium if adversarial speakers were there, so the documentaries were the only voice of opposition to them. When work got out that the documentaries could possibly pornographic, Dworkin and MacKinnon insisted on their removal. When the presenter refused, they coerced the students with threats of leaving, to force the removed of the documentary exhibit. What had started out as an academic symposium quickly turned into a forum for the exclusive advocacy of Dworkin ideals. Her action epitomized the danger of censorship to society and other feminists, she silenced the weaker voice. (Strossen 211-214)
Dworkin's opinions on pornography are summed up nicely by Wendy McElroy; Pornography is morally wrong; Pornography leads directly to violence against women; Pornography, in and of itself, is violence against women. Five individual allegation are made based of the third point; Women are physically coerced into pornography; Women in porn who have not been coerced have been so traumatized by patriarchy that the cannot give real consent; Capitalism is a system of 'economic coercion' that forces women into pornography in order to make a living; Pornography is violence against women who consume it, and thereby re-enforcing their own oppression; Pornography is violence against women, as a class, who must live in fear because of the atmosphere of terror it creates. (Mcelroy 91)
The first three allegations deal with coercion. The first claim is based on a few isolated cases and should not be used to characterize the entire industry. The second allegation is not only arrogant, but degrades women because it undermines a woman's ability to choose. "If women's choices are being trashed, why should radical feminists (i.e. Dworkin) fare better than other women?" This sends a dangerous message that woman lack full capacity to make choices. The third allegation fails in a similar manor as the second. Dworkin draws no line between consent and coercion, and thus she rejects a woman's right to contract. (McElroy 92-95)
The fourth and fifth claim of Dworkin's are also in contradiction with women's best interests. The fourth claim completely ignores the possibility that women might actually enjoy pornography without falling victim to it. Allowing women access to a means of sexual expression with actual sex grants them increased sexual freedom. The final allegation is based on the notion that, "Women are not individuals, but members of a class with collective interests." In making this claim, Dworkin must destroy the notion of individuality, and condition unsuitable for not only women, but all humanity. (McElroy 96)
Another criticism of Dworkin, is that many of her arguments contain logical inconsistencies or outright contradictions. For one thing, Dworkin wants to validate the experience of women who have be silenced by patriarchy yet refuses to accept the voices of women who participate in pornography. Dworkin also believes that pornography is the bastion of patriarchy, yet conservatives, tradition champion of patriarchy, also crusade against pornography. (McElroy 98)
In one of writings of cesarean sections, Dworkin make staunch, graphic, remarks about the topic. It is laced with information about conspiracies and loaded with vulgarity. Such extreme language may work against the interests of women, because even though a problem might exist, it might be written of by readers due to Dworkin's 'hyperbolic harangue.' (Strossen 196)
In general, Dworkin's writings while claiming to be feminist, are often in direct conflict with mainstream feminist agenda. Many of her views portray women as helpless victim incapable of rational thinking. In her support of censorship, she is also met be harsh resistance from prominent women's groups such as N.O.W.. Many of her view are seen as harmful to the cause of women's equality, and in this regard are more dangerous then anti-women's factions, because it is written under the banner of feminism. (Gibson 118)
Andrea Dworkin's influence has created an environment where free speech and equality are compromised. Though she claims it to be in the best interest of society, this just is not true. Most feminists reject her ideas as counterproductive to their goals. Her writing are not only detrimental to women, however, everyone is affected. By advocating censorship, she undermines every principle that this country was founded on and every ideal that keeps it unified and free from oppression. Ironically, Dworkin seeks freedom from oppression for women, but in doing so advocates universal oppression for all people, women and men.

Works Cited

1. Dworkin, Andrea Letters from a War Zone. Lawrence Hill 1993.
2. McElroy, Wendy A Woman's Right To Pornography St. Martin Press 1995
3. Gibson, Pamela Church and Gibson, Roma Dirty Looks British Film Institute 1993
4. Strossen, Nadine Defending Pornography Doubleday 1995

America and Affirmative Action

America and Affirmative Action

Affirmative action has been the subject of increasing debate and tension in
American society. However, the debate over affirmative action has become ensnared in
rhetoric that pits equality of opportunity against the equality of results. The debate has
been more emotional than intellectual, and has generated more tension than shed light on
the issue. Participants in the debate have over examined the ethical and moral issues that
affirmative action raises while forgetting to scrutinize the system that has created the
need for them. Too often, affirmative action is looked upon as the panacea for a nation
once ill with, but now cured of, the virulent disease of racial discrimination. Affirmative
action is, and should be seen as, a temporary, partial, and perhaps even flawed remedy
for past and continuing discrimination against historically marginalized and
disenfranchised groups in American society. Working as it should, it affords groups
greater equality of opportunity in a social context marked by substantial inequalities and
structural forces that impede a fair assessment of their capabilities.
Perhaps the biggest complaint that one hears about affirmative action policies
aimed at helping Black Americans is that they violate the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution and the Civil Rights laws., The claim is that these programs distort what is
now a level playing field and bestow preferential treatment on understanding minorities
because of the color of their skin. While this view seems very logical on the surface,
many contend that it lacks any historical support and is aimed more at preserving
existing White privilege than establishing equality of opportunity for all. Any cursory
look at the history of this country should provide a serious critique to the idea of a level
playing field. Since the birth of this nation, Blacks have been enslaved, oppressed, and
exploited people. Until 1954, when the Supreme Court handed down Brown v. Board,
Blacks were legally pushed to the margin of society where many were left to dwell in
poverty and powerlessness. The Brown decision removed the legal impediments that had
so long kept Blacks in the impoverished peripheral. Despite this long awaited victory for
Black Americans, the historic decision failed to provide adequate means for the
deconstruction of White dominance and privilege, It merely allowed Blacks to enter the
arena of competition. This recognized and established the status quo (White wealth and
Black indigence, White employment and Black unemployment, White opportunity and
Black disenfranchisement) as an acceptable and neutral baseline. Without the
deconstruction of White power and privilege, how can we legitimately claim that the
playing field is level? Does it not seem more logical and indeed fairer and more just, to
actively deconstruct White privilege, rather than let it exist through hegemony?
Another critique of affirmative action policies is that they stigmatize and call into
question the credentials of the qualified minorities. And furthermore, that this doubt
undermines their effectiveness. This has always been the most puzzling critique of
affirmative action in my mind. The credentials, qualifications, character, and even the
culture of minorities have always been in question and stigmatized in this country.
When racial categories were created, simply being in question and stigmatized in this
country. When racial categories were created, simply being labeled a minority carried
with it quite a slanderous stigma. Even to this day Black Americans combat lingering
racism an stereotypes about their intelligence, tendency toward violence, sexual prowess,
etc.... The idea that affirmative action policies introduce stigmas that did not already
exist into the life of minorities seems nonsensical. To those who claim that this stigma
undermines the effectiveness of Blacks because their coworkers will not be cooperative,
or because the minority will always doubt that he or she deserves to be there, I propose
that affirmative action will only accomplish the continued exclusion of Black Americans
from participation within American society and thus further ingrain stereotypes and
stigmas. Another reason that the stigma critique of affirmative action confuses me, is
because the discussion is always limited to race and gender based affirmative action
policies. Where is the discussion about athletes and legacy students who are accorded
preferential treatment in university admission decisions on a yearly basis? This focus on
gender and race based policies only reinforces my point that the stigma minorities face
has much more to do with persistent racism than the deleterious effects on affirmative
action.
Should affirmative action programs force people to hire unqualified minorities?
No. But affirmative action programs should cause us as a society to re-evaluate how we
access qualifications and how we measure merit. Let us become tenure Harvard Law
School professors for just a moment. Suppose we have two applicants for an open
associate professor position. The first candidate is White, a Harvard Law School
graduate, has impressive board scores, served as editor of the Law Review, etc..., but has
never practiced law before. The other candidate is Black, a Harvard Law School
graduate, average board scores, has excellent person skills, and practiced law as the
county defendant in an inner-city neighborhood. Under the traditional system of merit,
the White Harvard graduate gets the appointment hands down. But under affirmative
action policies, the Black Harvard graduate receives the job. Why is this the optimal
situation? The Black lawyer brings non-traditional, but certainly valid, qualifications to
the table that are not recognized under our current system of merit. In fact, common
sense suggests that he is as. or even more, qualified to train lawyers of the future than his
White counterpart. Allowing the Black Harvard graduate to have the job might very well
call into question how we assess the qualifications we require to be law school professor.
This challenge to traditional qualifications brought about by affirmative action
appointments benefits all of society by forcing us be critical of how we assess the
nebulous notion of merit. The critics that attack affirmative action are correct when they
say that affirmative action corrupts the purity of the process. Extreme care must be taken
in determining who receives affirmative action program benefits and how long and at
what rate they receive them. I must, also, agree with my critics that affirmative action
may destroy or motion of a "color-blind" society. But, the rights of Blacks and other
minorities to have equal opportunity forces us to take these risks.
In short, it has been recommended that broad-based affirmative action policies
range from the workplace to the classroom. While they are not perfect and do raise some
legitimate ethical concerns, they take us away from a system that is inherently unfair to
some groups. The active deconstruction of the White privilege that grew out of virulent
American racism affords Blacks a greater chance at equal opportunity and will have the
side effect of forcing us to re-evaluate that unethically and immorally disadvantages
minorities. These advantages outweigh the cost of the risks.

African and Native American Slavery

Scot Ferguson
11-12-96
period 2
Essay

African and Native American Slavery

The 1500's, a time of discovery, was when the
Europeans came to dominate most of the New World. The
Europeans traveled to Africa and captured Africans to help
develop their land and satisfy their need for power. I feel
that the treatment of the Indians and Africans by the
Europeans was completely unjustifiable. While the Indians
and Africans were less technologically advanced and the
Europeans were uneducated, in this particular field, nothing
can compensate for the actions of the Europeans.
As Europeans began to settle new lands they began
their exploration of the foreign worlds. What they found
was the opposite of what they expected. They found what
they thought was a new breed of humans. In reality they
were just Native Americans. These Indians were less
technologically advanced than the Europeans. They also
worshipped different and multiple gods and ate different
foods. Europeans saw this as barbaric, so they treated them
as barbarians.
In the beginning Native Americans hadn't the faintest
idea of what the Europeans had in mind when they said
trade. They figured that when the White Man came and
showed all that hospitality they meant it. Of course, they
didn't, the Europeans captured the Indians to be used as
slaves. They were also slaughtered and raped because of
resistance to leave their land. If any Indians refused to
leave their land they would be killed. The women were raped
for sick and disgusting reasons. Europeans didn't feel that
the women, or men for that matter, were worth anything as
humans so they were beat and raped without any thought
about what they might be doing.
As we watched the movie Roots, I noticed a part in the
movie where they were on a ship and a man brings in a black
woman, who was a slave. The man offered her to the ship's
captain and referred to her as a belly warmer. That got me
to thinking what could be going on in that man's head as he
said that. When I heard that I was shocked that a man
could treat someone like that. People have feelings and
cannot be treated as objects. Maybe the Europeans didn't
realize that these people were, in fact people, and that
drove them to this awful conclusion that they could treat
people this way.
As Europeans settled their land and began to build
houses, farms and plantations, they realized that they
needed servants to assist them in their farming. So people
would travel to Africa capture blacks and then sell them to
merchants and plantation owners. They would then beat
them and put them to long, grueling work. They would treat
them as they did the Indians, and for much the same reason.
They figured that since the blacks were black and appeared
to be less advanced then they must be less significant.
People of the next generation whose parents owned
slaves and grew up thinking slaves were okay is
understandable. I just don't feel that anything could justify
treating the slaves they way they did. they had absolutely no
respect for them. They would savagely beat them to get
them to work harder than humanly possible and they would
rape the women. I don't think that I will ever know how any
one could do such a thing.
I conclusion I strongly feel that the way Europeans
treated people that were less technologically advanced is
completely and utterly wrong. It is difficult to contemplate
what was going on in their heads as they were capturing
them, killing them and even raping them. I can not believe
how they could think that the color of someone's ones skin or
religious beliefs could make them less human. I am glad I
live in a country based on the belief that all men are created
equal.

African Americans VS Caucasian Americans

At first glance some people might consider this paper to be on the racial side, however it was all written by observations made. There are many differences between African Americans and Caucasians, some people don't see the differences because of ignorance . You must read the paper with an open mind and take none of this to heart.
African American and Caucasians function differently in public surroundings. When you see a young African American you usually see them in groups of four of more. However, when one of them gets into a disagreement five to ten more show up in their defense. They are a very close knit group of individuals. I have also noticed that when you see a young African American walking around they are usually singing, talking very loud or running around. Also when they are in groups they are very loud and take over the area that they occupy. On the other hand when you see Caucasians they are rarely in groups of three or more. To top it off when someone in one of their groups gets in trouble the rest of the group is nowhere to be found. Most times when you see young Caucasian people in a group they are for the most part within a normal speaking level. These two groups tend to act differently in the public due to their cultural differences.
There are a number of differences between the churches of African Americans and Caucasians. At most typical African American churches there are no true sermons. The African American churches tend to do more entertaining rather than teaching. They
also do a great deal of singing and dancing involved in there praising of God. They emphasize fellowship in their churches especially after church when they all
gather and close the celebration with a meal together. However at a typical Caucasian church there are a few differences. To start it off when you first walk in you get a program detailing what will be happening through the service. They tend to structure the whole service around a sermon or story. The service every week is very predictable as to what will happen. The Caucasian churches are more there to teach the ways of the lord as they have interpreted it. Although not all the African American and Caucasian churches are along this line a majority of the main stream ones are.

Affirmitive Action

Affirmative action policies do not benefit those who are supposed to be

helped in any way. Instead of Affirmative action decisions in their favor,

minorities and females are entrenched in their status because of the lowering of

standards and expectations imposed on them by businesses and educational

institutions due to the cries of racism and sexism in standards by advocates of

AA. Ernest Van Den Haag put it best, when he declares that. " Affirmative action

has done as much injury to black scholars as to black students." Isn't it time to

return to hiring people on individual merit, and return the millions spent on

Affirmative action. That money could be better spent on bringing minority and

female applicants up to standards. I believe the most qualified person should be

awarded the job, regardless of race, ethnicity, or disability.Affirmative action policies do not benefit those who are supposed to be

helped in any way. Instead of Affirmative action decisions in their favor,

minorities and females are entrenched in their status because of the lowering of

standards and expectations imposed on them by businesses and educational

institutions due to the cries of racism and sexism in standards by advocates of

AA. Ernest Van Den Haag put it best, when he declares that. " Affirmative action

has done as much injury to black scholars as to black students." Isn't it time to

return to hiring people on individual merit, and return the millions spent on

Affirmative action. That money could be better spent on bringing minority and

female applicants up to standards. I believe the most qualified person should be

awarded the job, regardless of race, ethnicity, or disability.

Affirmative Action

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order #11246 at Howard
University that required federal contractors to undertake affirmative action
to increase the number of minorities that they employ. He wanted to ensure
that minorities were recruited to have real opportunities to be hired and
then eventually get a promotion.

In 1969, the Department of Labor exposed widespread racial discrimination of
the Construction Department so President Richard M. Nixon decided to
encorporate a system of "goals and timetables" to evaluate federal
construction companies according to affirmative action. This idea of "goals
and timetables" provided guidelines for companies to follow and comply with
affirmative action regulations.

During the presidency of Gerald R. Ford, he extended affirmative action to
people with disabilities (3) and Vietnam veterns (4) but there were no goals
or timetables for these two groups. This type of affirmative action required
recruitment efforts, accessability, accommodation and reviews of physical and
mental job qualifications.

President Jimmy Carter consolidated all federal agencies that were required
by law to follow the affirmative action play into the Department of Labor.
Before Carter did this, each agency handled affirmative action in its own
individual way, some were not as consistant as other agencies were. He
created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) in 1978 to
ensure compliance with the affirmative action policies.

Affirmative action began to go downhill when Ronald Reagan and later George
Bush came into office. Affirmative action lost some gains it had made and was
mor or less ignored by the Republicans in the White House and in Congress.
Affirmative action was silently being "killed" by our federal administrators.
But among this destruction there was one positive aspect, the passage of
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (5).

Finally to the Presidency of Bill Clinton. The Republicans are attempting to
scare people into changing their party lines by misusing affirmative action.
They are saying that affirmative action is nothing more than a quota (6) or
reverse discrimination (7).

As you can see, there have been many additions to the policy of affirmative
action. People from the Vietnam War, people with disabilties, and minority
groups have made gains in the workforce but more research needs to be
conducted as to the qualifications of all of these people to make sure that
race is not a determining factor in the giving and receiving of jobs. The
best person for the job, no matter what race, should be given the job.

Abortion

Abortion

Abortion. What is it? Why do people do it? Is it killing a human life? What are the benefits for having an abortion? Should it be made illegal? These questions I will try and answer on the key issue right now on abortion. I will tell you my side and how I fell, and hope that after this you would agree with my opinion.

Abortion is the killing of a child before the birth. They usually take a needle and put it into the mothers womb, and kill it. Although that is not the only way to do it. There are other ways also of killing a child. There is a abortion called have abortion. It comes out of the womb half way, then they kill it. To me that is just sick. I think that it is in humane to kill a live child. Just think, it is alive. It needs oxygen to breath. It needs food to live. And if you don't take care of the baby, it wouldn't come out. Like if you do drugs or alcohol, it will ruin the child.

There is one exception that I would have is if the girl got raped. Even though I still wouldn't approve of it, I think there should be an exception. I think that if the woman had any brains, that she would want to have the loving child. Just think you come home from work one day, and all of the sudden your kid gives you a great big hug. That shows love. And after a long days work, wouldn't anybody want some love from a child. Yeah when they are little they scream, and kick, but they also give love, and affection, and can be the cutest thing. And if you abort, you wont get that will you?

Some people also just want to make amends for what they have done. Maybe they have screwed up in their life and don't want there parents to know. Or maybe they just aren't ready for a kid. Well let me tell you, you should have thought about that before you had sex. My mom once told me and this has stuck in my mind, that the best kind of safe sex is no sex. That has stuck in my mind, and because of that, I will not have sex until I am married. That way I can have the love and affection of kids, and not have to worry about it. That is my opinion, and I plan on sticking to it.
I think that in no circumstances it should be made legal. I am sure you have heard of Jack Covorkian and how he thinks it is all good and legal, but I don't see how he can't have feelings for the little kid. Don't you think that the kid would want to grow up in this world, and enjoy all the ups and downs of this world? I just think that he doesn't have a heart. But I could be wrong. From what I see, I don't think there are any benefits to having an abortion. You don't get love, or to see what your child could grow up to be, you would have to live with your self forever, wondering whether you made the right choice, and you will miss out on seeing a baby grow up. To me that would be the most wonderful experience there is.

In conclusion you obviously know by now how I feel about abortion. I know not everyone thinks the way I do. If I changed just one persons mind in this essay, I feel I would have done my job. I feel I am in the right about this topic, and will never change my mind about it. Never, not even if I was forced into that situation. As a closing thought just remember this, What happens if your parents aborted you? What if they didn't want you? You wouldn't be here right now arguing. Do you like your life that much? Well give the opportunity for someone else to like life!

Abortion

Abortion has been one of this country's most controversial topic on
hand. But if one sees the constitutional infringement to women by the
restriction of abortion, the torment to the unwanted child and the anguish
society has to sustain,then this topic would not be so debatable. Too many
people do not see the cause and effect of not being able to have abortions.

All human beings are given some inalienable right guaranteed by the
Constitution. One of those privilege is the right to pursue happiness. A
baby can sometimes disrupt a woman's pursuit of happiness. Even if she
decides to give it up for adoption, she still has the burden of carrying
the fetus for nine months. Having the option to perform an abortion can
solve that obstacle. Taking away this right would be invading on a woman's
constitutional liberty.

The unwanted child also suffers. Most of the time the mother of the
unwanted child is very young and inexperienced or too poor to take care of
the child. The child is usually malnourished, has no medical care, and
gets very little attention or love. The foster care system isn't any
better. Only a small percentage of the children are adopted by suitable
parents. But the rest remain in the foster care system, where there is
little or no personal care. In both cases, the child has a poor education
because of the lack of attention and discipline. He grows up to be
unproductive individual or a menace to society. Many get involved in drugs
and crimes. These individuals are also very violent, lacking morality due
small amount of care they received themselves. In the long run, not only
does the child suffer but also society, who has to tolerate his violent
behavior and crimes.

An abortion can be seen as putting the child out of misery while he
doesn't have the ability to reason or fear.

In short, abortion allows a woman to retain her constitutional rights,
it relieves a would be suffering child out of his distress and it
establishes a safer and more peaceful society. On these grounds, abortion
should be kept legal, and even encouraged to specific individuals, for
benefits to all of us.

Abortion ==

Abortion



In Roman times, abortion and the destruction of unwanted children was permissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seems that such acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948, Canada along with most other nations in the world signed a declaration of the United Nations promising every human being the right to life. The World Medical Association meeting in Geneve at the same time, stated that the utmost respect for human life was to be from the moment of conception. This declaration was re-affirmed when the World Medical Association met in Oslo in 1970. Should we go backwards in our concern for the life of an individual human being?
The unborn human is still a human life and not all the wishful thinking of those advocating repeal of abortion laws, can alter this. Those of us who would seek to protect the human who is still to small to cry aloud for it's own protection, have been accused of having a 19th Century approach to life in the last third of the 20th Century. But who in reality is using arguments of a bygone Century? It is an incontrovertible fact of biological science - Make no Mistake - that from the moment of conception, a new human life has been created.
Only those who allow their emotional passion to overide their knowledge, can deny it: only those who are irrational or ignorant of science, doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum a new human being is created. A new human being who carries genes in its cells that make that human being uniquely different from any and other human being and yet, undeniably a member, as we all are, of the great human family. All the fetus needs to grow into a babe, a child, an old man, is time, nutrition and a suitable environment. It is determined at that very moment of conception whether the baby will be a boy or a girl; which of his parents he will look like; what blood type he will have. His whole heritage is forever fixed. Look at a human being 8 weeks after conception and you, yes every person here who can tell the difference between a man and a women, will be able to look at the fetus and tell me whether it is a baby boy or a girl.
No, a fetus is not just another part of a women's body like an appendix or appendage. These appendages, these perfectly formed tiny feel belong to a 10 week developed baby, not to his or her mother.
The fetus is distinct and different and has it's own heart beat. Do you know that the fetus' heart started beating just 18 days after a new life was created, beating before the mother even knew she was pregnant? By 3 months of pregnancy the developing baby is just small enough to be help in the palm of a man's hand but look closely at this 3 month old fetus. All his organs are formed and all his systems working. He swims, he grasps a pointer, he moves freely, he excretes urine. If you inject a sweet solution into the water around him, he will swallaw because he likes the taste. Inject a bitter solution and he will quit swallowing because he does not like the taste. By 16 weeks it is obvious to all, except those who have eyes but deliberately do not see, that this is a young human being.
Who chooses life or death for this little one because abortion is the taking of a human life? This fact is undeniable; however much of the members of the Women's Liberation Movement, the new Feminists, Dr. Henry Morgentaler or the Canadian Medical Association President feel about it, does not alter the fact of the matter. An incontrovertible fact that cannot change as feelings change.
If abortion is undeniably the taking of human life and yet sincere misguided people feel that it should be just a personal matter between a women and the doctor, there seems to be 2 choices open to them. (1) That they would believe that other acts of destruction of human beings such as infanticide and homicide should be of no concern of society and therefore, eliminate them from the criminal code. This I cannot believe is the thinking of the majority, although the tendency for doctors to respect the selfish desire of parents and not treat the newborn defective with a necessary lifesaving measure, is becoming increasingly more common. (2) But for the most part the only conclusion available to us is that those pressing for repeal of the abortion laws believe that there are different sorts of human beings and that by some arbitrary standard, they can place different values on the lives of there human beings. Of course, different human beings have different values to each of us as individuals: my mother means more to me than she does to you. But the right to life of all human beings is undeniable. I do not think this is negotiable. It is easy to be concerned with the welfare of those we know and love, while regarding everybody else as less important and somehow, less real. Most people would rather have heard of the death of thousands in the Honduras flooding disaster than of a serious accident involving a close friends or favourite relatives. That is why some are less disturbed by the slaughter of thousands of unborn children than by the personal problems of a pregnant women across the street. To rationalize this double standard, they pretend to themselves that the unborn child is a less valuable human life because it has no active social relationships and can therefore, be disposed of by others who have an arbitrary standard of their own for the value of a human life.
I agree that the fetus has not developed it's full potential as a human being: but neither have any of us. Nor will any of us have reached that point: that point of perfect humaness, when we die. Because some of us may be less far along the path than others, does not give them the right to kill us. But those in favour of abortion, assume that they have that right, the standard being arbitrary. To say that a 10 week fetus has less value that a baby, means also that one must consider a baby of less value than a child, a young adult of less value than an old man. Surely one cannot believe this and still be civilized and human. A society that does not protect its individual members is on the lowest scale of civilized society. One of the measures of a more highly civilized society, is its attitude towards its weaker members. If the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the helpless are not protected, the society is not as advanced as in a society where they are protected. The more mature the society is, the more there is respect for the dignity and rights of all human beings. The function of the laws of the society, is to protect and provide for all members so that no individual or group of individuals can be victimized by another individual group. Every member of Canadian society has a vital stake in what value system is adopted towards its weak, aged, cripple, it's helpless intra-uterine members; a vital stake in who chooses life or death.
As some of you may know, in 1969, the abortion laws were changed in Canada, so that it became legal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a committee of 3 other doctors in an eccredited hospital deemed that continuation of the pregnancy constituted a severe threat to the life and health, mental or physical of the women. Threat to health was not defined and so it is variously interpreted to mean very real medical disease to anything that interferes with even social or economic well being, so that any unwanted or unplanned pregnancy thus qualifies. What really is the truth about the lasting effect of an unwanted pregnancy on the psyche of a womem? Of course there is a difference of opinion among psychiatrists, but if unbiased, prospective studies are examined certain facts become obvious. (1) The health of women who are mentally ill before they become pregnant, is not improved by an abortion. In fact in 1970 an official statement of the World Health Organization said, "Serious mental disorders arise more often in women previous mental problems. Thus the very women for whom legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds, are the ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders. (2) Most women who are mentally healthy before unwanted pregnancy, despite a temporary emotional upset during the early weeks for the pregnancy, are mentally healthy after the pregnancy whether they were aborted or carried through to term.
Do we accept killing a human being because of a temporary, emotional upset? All obstetricians and gynaecologists know of many cases where the mother, be her single or married, has spoken of abortion early in the pregnancy and later on, has confessed her gratitude to those who have not performed the abortion. On the other hand, we have all seen women what have been troubled, consumed with guilt and development significant psychiatric problems following and because of abortion. I quote Ft. John L. Grady, Medical Examiner for Florida State Attorney's Office, "I believe it can be stated with certainty that abortion causes more deep-seated guilt, depression and mental illness than it ever cures".
We used to hear a lot about the risk of suicide among those who threatened such action if their request for abortion was refused. How real is that risk - it is not - in fact, the suicide rate among pregnant women be they happy of unhappy about the pregnancy, is 1/4 of the rate among non-pregnant women in child-bearing years. An accurate 10 year study was done in England on unwed mothers who requested abortions and were refused. It was found that the suicide rate of this group was less than that average population. In Minnesota in a 15 year period, there were only 14 maternal suicides. 11 occurred after delivery. None were illegitimately pregnant. All were psychotic. In contrast, among the first 8 deaths of women aborted under the liberal law in the United Kingdon, 2 were from suicide directly following the abortion.
Are there any medical indications for abortion?? Is it valid for a doctor to co-operate in the choice for abortion? The late Dr. Guttmacher, one of the world leaders of the pro-abortion movement, has stated: "Almost any women can be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from cancer or leukemia, in which case abortion is unlikely to prolong her life much less save it."