You knew that? ... The Aboriginal tribes around the world represent and provide 80% of cultural and biological diversity in the world.
But... they occupy only 20% of the land surface. They live in most countries and almost every continent in the world. The tribesmen around the world are very different in some countries comprise almost the entire population but others are only reduced to a small group of people, however it depends on them, the promote of different cultures.Some of these tribes seek to preserve traditional ways of life, while others try more involved in the current state structures.
As all cultures and civilizations, the tribesmen are always adjusting and adapting to changes in the world. Despite such wide diversity in Aboriginal communities around the world all have one thing in common - they all share a history of injustice and discrimination in our society.
Aboriginal tribes have been tortured, discriminated against, enslaved and isolated. They have been denied the right to participate in government processes the existing schemes. Today's society tries to steal their dignity and identity as indigenous peoples and the fundamental right to self-determination.
SO... THE QUESTION IS, CAN YOU LET THIS HAPPENING?
I LEAVE HERE A LINK ON ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA...
Bayard Rustin was one of the most
influential leader insocial
movementsfor civil rigths, socialism, nonviolence, and gay rigths of the 1950s and '60s, yet he maintained a low
profile, reserving the spotlight for other prominent figures, including Martin
Luther King, Jr. and A. Phillip Randolph. He was a firm believer in and
practitioner of nonviolent forms of protest.
Rustin was a gay man who had been arrested for homosexual activity in
1953 (which was criminalized in parts of the United States until 2003).
Rustin's sexuality, or at least his embarrassingly public criminal charge, was
criticized by some fellow pacifists and civil-rights leaders. Rustin was
attacked as a "pervert" or "immoral influence" by political
opponents from segregationists to black power militants,
from the 1950s through the 1970s. In addition, his pre-1941 Communist Party
affiliation when he was a young man was controversial. To avoid such attacks,
Rustin served only rarely as a public spokesperson. He usually acted as an
influential adviser to civil-rights leaders. In the 1980s, he became a public
advocate on behalf of gay and lesbian causes.
He also testified on behalf of
New York State's Gay Rights Bill. In 1986, he gave a speech "The New
Niggers Are Gays," in which he asserted:
"Today, blacks
are no longer the litmus paper or the barometer of social change. Blacks are in
every segment of society and there are laws that help to protect them from
racial discrimination. The new "niggers" are gays.... It is in this
sense that gay people are the new barometer for social change.... The question
of social change should be framed with the most vulnerable group in mind: gay
people."
During the 1970s and 1980s, Rustin
served on many humanitarian missions, such as aiding refugees from Communist
Vietnam and Cambodia. He was on a humanitarian mission in Haiti when he died in
1987.
We all know the
history of Queen Elizabeth I. She did not marry, nor conceived any heir but
kept a very religious and overall profitable reign in many aspects despite the
uncommon decision of not marrying.
Many advised her to
marry someone; it could’ve been someone from inside the realm to boost national
pride, or the advantageous option to marry with a foreign sovereign to solidify
an alliance with a friendly neighbour kingdom.
Well, she chose not
to anyways. She ruled successfully for 45 years and she is well known for doing
it alone.
Now we can play a
little bit and ask ourselves a very interesting question; what if she had
married? I mean, it’s an important part of Elizabeth as a character and
picturing her with a husband could mean destroying completely the image and
meaning of a Virgin Queen. This goes beyond the mere title, the idea of a seemingly
strong, independent woman of the XVI century could have been totally shadowed
by the presence of a king and thus this early representation of female strength
such as Gloriana herself could have never happened.
A king for our queen?
We can keep going
with the controversial questions and wonder if Elizabeth’s connotation in
history is solely because of her self-imposed loneliness? Does being an
unmarried woman made you stronger back then? And is it the same in the present?
Let’s talk about this
possibility of a king for Elizabeth. Many may think that this figure could have
been just a consort and nothing more than that, but what if this king becomes
more influent than our strong queen? Maybe Elizabeth with a man by her side
would have softened a little and totally changed her performance at her
determined ruling, if she was still the one making decisions and pulling the
strings and not withdrawing to a more passive role as a queen, just living in
luxury and enjoying life while your country is ruled by your husband.
Some queens prefer it that way
To finish off, you
can always get information on Elizabeth in her Wikipedia page, but if you’d
like to read a little related to this topic you can check:
As you may or may not know, between
1910 and 1970 many Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their
families as a result of various government policies. The generations of children
who suffered from this treatment are known as the Stolen Generations, and their
wounds are something that is still in the process of healing.
So, you’re probably wondering, what
is the National Sorry Day? It is an Australia-wide observance held on May 26th
every year. In this day, people come together and share the steps towards
healing for the Stolen Generations, their families and communities. Many
activities take place in this day, such as concerts and barbecues,
reconciliation walks or street marches, Sorry Day flag raising events, speeches
and so on, and in this day people can also write their feelings in “sorry books”.
However, even though this observance
started being held since 1998, it took more than ten years after that for the
government to make an official apology to Australia’s Indigenous people, and Kevin
Rudd was the first Prime Minister to apologise to the Stolen Generations on
February 13th, 2008.
While watching and listening to his
speech and seeing the faces of the Aboriginal people who were there, I could
feel a strong emotion. Talking to a friend from Australia, she explained to me
that this day was very important because Aboriginal people had been waiting and
working hard for this apology for 11 years and more, and after this, the
Aboriginal elders who were there forgave white people for what they did to
them.
What if we take this to our current
context in Chile? Perhaps in here we don’t have anything like the Stolen
Generations, but we know that Aboriginal people were mistreated in many ways
and what’s worse – they’re still being mistreated. Do you think that if our
government decided to finally stop neglecting Indigenous people’s requests,
listened to them and maybe, apologised, too, we could make our situation change for the better? Why or why not? What should we do? Should we keep
pretending to be deaf and blind?
Judging
from the results of a survey in 2002, Elizabeth I is the best known and most
admired English monarch. Her life was so full of incidents and drama. I think
that Elizabeth’s ability as a woman to exercise power successfully in a man’s
world that earned her the votes and the respect of today’s people. Actually her
highest score, it was on her bravery and leadership qualities.
I'd like to
raise a matter of debate: Was or Is Queen Elizabeth I a feminist icon?
Elizabeth
I, was the most powerful woman of her era, at a time when the women were
nothing more than "possessions". Strong, intelligent, dogged in her
refusal to be constrained by a political marriage, Elizabeth I is viewed by
many as a modern feminist icon. Not that she would’ve seen herself that way.
She was the monarch and felt she’d been appointed by God despite being a woman
and that set her apart from the rest of humanity. In a way she was a complete
contradiction. Some people said that she didn’t think women should be in a
powerful position politically. She was quite keen to rid certain places in
society of women. Everything she achieved was unarguably brilliant. She was
unarguably brilliant but in a modern context was extremely sexist: anti-woman
in many ways.
“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have
the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too”- Elizabeth I
She was
bound to serve her people, and, though she knew not much of the affairs of
politics and war, she was determined to convince her subjects that she did
indeed know of such things that lie within the man's world. In her Speech to the troops before the attack
on the Spanish Armada, Elizabeth declares that she, too, will die on the
battlefield beside her subjects, and will die for her country.
Finally in my opinion, Elizabeth’s image was not so very different from that of her male
predecessors; like them, she emphasizes her regality, religion and role as career
of her people.
The part
that Elizabeth’s reliance on tradition played in making female rule acceptable
to male subjects. In that sense Elizabeth
was no a feminist icon. Her reign however showed that a woman could be an
exceptionally successful ruler even in dangerous times. In this sense, she was!
First
of all, I want you to read thisarticle. Scroll down a bit until you find the “King was a serial adulterer” subtitle.
And this article. (Yes,
People Magazine, that gossip magazine) (Yes, it existed in 1989.)
Remember
when we talked in class about how nobody talked about MLK’s private life? Nothing about extramarital relationships? Well, someone did, and he did not get a good response from the audience.
Ralph
D. Abernathy and Martin Luther King Jr. were both leaders of the Civil Rights
Movement, they even went to jail together. So, why would he talk about King’s
unfaithfulness on his memoirs book?
Rumor
has it Abernathy was mad and jealous because he did not get the recognition,
respect or publicity King did. So in his memoirs, a couple of pages caught
everyone’s eyes. He wrote about King’s last night alive, and how he spent it
with two women in a hotel room (If you know what I mean) and a third woman whom
he "knocked across the bed... and
for a moment they were in a full-blown fight, with Martin clearly
winning."Funny how the first article does not mention this last
part? Or funny how a gossip magazine does?
My point here is not that King was an
adulterer, that he cheated on his wife in multiple times, or that his
right-hand was jealous and wanted some kind of “revenge”. My point is how the
story is told in this two sources. We know magazines like People are looking
for that little bad thing someone did to expose them and create a big scandal
and have the exclusive. But it seems to me that International Business Times is
not that type of magazine or website. They don’t mention the violent event that
may or may not have happened. I even came across the thought that they may be
protecting King’s public image, or his legacy.
What do you think about this event?
Or about how both websites cover it? Why would he bring this up after King's death? Let me know!
Have you ever wondered why Maori people have tattoos on their face? This type of art is called TaMoko, it was brought from Polynesia and it is a highly sacred tradition. Maori consider the head the most important part of the body, that's why during adolescence they tattoed their face as a part of an initiation ritual.
"Ta Moko was worn by both men and women. It was
applied to the face and buttocks of men, and
to the chin, lips and shoulders of women. Depending
on their ranking, they may also
have Ta Moko on their face. Occasionally women would put small markings over
their faces or shoulders as a sign that someone close to them had died". Australian Museum, 2012.
Maori have another explanation: "The legend of Mataora" It says thatthere was a young warrior called Mataora, who fell in love with the princess of the underworld, called Niwareka. Niwareka came above ground to marry Mataora, but Mataora mistreated Niwareka, which made her return to the underworld. Mataora, sick with guilt about the way he treated his wife pursued her to the underworld, only to be greeted by her relatives who laughed at his ragged appearance and smudged face paint. Mataora apologized before Niwareka’s family, and this act won Niwareka back. Before returning above ground, it was said that Niwareka’s father, the king of the underworld taught Mataora the art ofta moko. Mataora brought back these skills to his people and that was how the Maori came to have their distinct type of tattoo (Zealand Tattoo).
These tattoos are uniqueandvery painful. Each person chooses the design of its tattoo, that's why no two tattoos are alike. They don't use needles, they use knives and chisels made of shark teeth and the ink is made of burnt wood. Even though this is not an usual practice anymore, there are people who still do it.
Most people might consider this an old-fashioned tradition, but I think this is an intertesting methd to keep their traditions alive and to be true to their culture. What do you think?
martes, 19 de mayo de 2015
Segregation at School: The case of Linda Brown and The Little Rock Nine
The Declaration of Independence stated that "All men are created equal” but
history itself says something different. Due to discrimination and segregation
African American people started to fight against these injustices and for what they
thought was right. Education was not the exception and that is why I chose a
very significant case in the history of laws in the USA. Brown v/s Education
which decision was the first step to inclusion in terms of education
In the 1950s, In Topeka (Kansas), schools were divided
by race. Each day, Linda Brown and her sister had to walk through a dangerous
railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop for the ride to their all-black
elementary school ,Although there was a school closer to the their house, it
was only for white students. Linda Brown and her family believed that the
segregated school system was against the Fourteenth Amendment and took their
case to court. The result: the Supreme Court stated: We conclude that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place.
Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." —Chief
Justice Earl Warren.
After the decision of this case, another significant
event took place in Little Rock Central High School in the fall of 1957, by the
inclusion of nine teenagers (known as “The Little Rock Nine”) whose first day
of class was even covered by the media.They
received verbal abuse and threats from the crowd outside and when they
realized they had successfully entered the school, violence erupted, and seven
journalists were attacked. Segregation doesn't has to do just with the color of skin. Actually there are many cases of discrimination due to cultural diversity. Mendez v/s Westiminster preceded Brown v/s Education.In this case, nine year old Olivia Mendez was segregated from an "only white" school because of her mexican origin.Her case went to courtin 1947 and she won.
In spite of Supreme Court’s decision, segregation in
public schools can still be seen and after more than 50 years Martin Luther King’s
dream hasn’t fully became true, not yet.
I encourage you, as
future teachers of English to think about the topic discussed here. and share
your opinions and points of view ¿Do you agree that segregation is still a
problem nowadays?