Social Inequality

The increasing level of social inequality in the contemporary world is a source of concern within society. This is as a result of the widening gap between the rich and the poor in society to such an extent that the latter have ended up in situations where they cannot hope to improve their lives for the better. Also, the rich, in the process of seeking to attain even more wealth, have ended up forcing making use of those resources that could have been utilized for the purpose of alleviating poverty among individuals in society. Despite the presence of a welfare system, it is not robust enough to cater for the needs of the poor while at the same time helping them rise above poverty. This paper seeks to analyze the nature and causes of poverty as well as the theoretical frameworks that deal with the issue of inequality.

One of the biggest causes of social inequality is that the economy is controlled by the rich, who make use of the available natural resources to become richer. The rich few people in the world have taken over the most crucial means of production; essentially forcing the rest of society to work for them or buy products from them. The result has been that a significant number of those individuals who do not have any means of making a decent living have ended up in a situation where they have been reduced to poverty. The latter tend to have very few opportunities to advance themselves in society, meaning that they have to ensure that they do the best that they can to make ends meet with minimal support (Parish, 1988). The rich, on the other hand, often seek to increase their wealth, but this process often comes at a price because it encourages unequal development in society. There is little that the poor can do to protect their own interests because the rich have both the means and the power to ensure that they are able to attain considerable control over most of the wealth and resources within their own societies. As a result of the power that they derive from their wealth, the rich have the ability to ensure that they not only achieve dominance over the rest of society, but also advance their own interests in a way that is often against the interests of the poor.

The rich often seek to protect their interests through influencing government towards establishing favorable policies to them. The result is that a significant number of rich people in society end up being given access to numerous resources while at the same time not paying their fair share of taxes. This is a situation of concern because government ends up not having enough money that can be used in the establishment of a welfare program that is not only efficient, but also caters for the needs of the poor in diverse circumstances. Furthermore, as a result of the actions of the rich, it becomes extremely difficult for the poor to have the much needed opportunities to bring about their advancement in society. These individuals do not often have the educational qualifications to attain sustainable jobs in the current highly competitive economy; meaning that they have few opportunities to improve their lives. The unequal relationship between the rich and the poor in society can be explained through the Marxist theory, which proposes that society is divided into two distinct groups; the bourgeoisie, who control the means of production, and the proletariat, who provide the labor that the former need to ensure that they exploit the resources under their control. Thus, due to their need to not only maintain their power, but also increase their wealth, the bourgeoisie end up seeking to control even more resources; essentially ensuring that the proletariat remains subservient to them while still providing the labor that they need.

The Marxist perspective, therefore, proposes that social inequality comes about as a result of class struggle, or social conflict. The continuous struggle within the bourgeoisie, as well as the bourgeoisie against the proletariat and vice versa is essential in understanding social conflict because it promotes the idea that the different classes in society are often in conflict with each other. A consequence of this conflict is that a considerable number of individuals in society have ended up sinking into poverty while a very few have not only become rich, but have increased their wealth many times over. The resulting social inequality has created a potential for significant class conflict in the years to come, especially considering an increasing number of individuals have become poorer because of the social policies that have been established to protect the interests of the rich. The potential for conflict has become so great that it is possible that there will be an attempt, as Marx predicted, by the underprivileged classes in society to overthrow the rich in order to establish a just society. In most communities within the United States, specifically in large cities such as New York, the differences between the lifestyles of the rich and the poor can be seen through the manner that communities are separated. The rich live in exclusive neighborhoods that are not only secure, but also have all the amenities that they need. The poor, on the other hand, live in an insecure environment that is dominated by crime, low level of essential services, and high incidences of lack of basic needs; a sure sign of the inequality that has become dominant in society.

Additionally, the rise in inequality has led to a reduction in instances of social and economic justice. Social and economic justice is a situation where all individuals in society, no matter their class or status, are able to achieve a relatively high standard of living. Also, it involves individuals being able to ensure that they promote their own interests through having equal opportunities both within a social and economic context. Therefore, in the interest of advancing social and economic justice, the application of the Marxist theory is essential in creating equal opportunities. This perspective is one that promotes social equality where resources are owned by the entire community rather than by individuals. However, only essential property should remain in private hands, which individuals in society to have an equal share in the resources available while at the same time ensuring that individuals have equal opportunities for self development. The availability of equal opportunities would, however, involve taking away the significant power that capitalists hold over society. The nationalization of natural resources is an essential step in making sure that the state remains in the service of all people, without discrimination, rather than supporting the interests of a few people who form the elite. Moreover, in a society where all the people enjoy the available natural resources, social and economic justice can be achieved in a way that prevents the rise of class conflict.

In conclusion, the increase in the level of inequality in the contemporary world can be attributed to the way that a small number of individuals have come to gain control over a majority of the resources in society. Through this control, it has become possible to ensure that they continue further enriching themselves at the expense of both consumers and their workers. Therefore, in order to ensure that there is an end to inequality and the implementation of social and economic justice, it is essential for a Marxist-leaning type of society to be established.

Reference

Parish, R. (1988). Messages from a Welfare Mom. Newsweek.

Syrians horrified by 'crime of no honour' killing By Lina Shaikhouni and Chris Bell

A video documenting the brutal murder of a young woman in Syria has been met with outrage and horror online - and shone a renewed spotlight on so-called "honour killings" in the country.

The young woman, identified by Syrian news outlets and social media users as "Rasha Bseis", was shot repeatedly with an automatic rifle in the rebel-held town of Jarablus, near the Turkish border, by a man reported to be her brother. Some said the young woman was under 18 years of age.

The BBC has not been able to independently verify these reports.

In the video, a young woman cowers against a wall as a man stands over her with a gun. He opens fire, kicking dust up from the floor and wall. A voice in the background yells "wash away your shame".

The video has been widely viewed and shared online. A report on the Lebanese Al-Modon news website said police were investigating and an arrest warrant had been issued for the man.

'Crime of no honour'

Activists responded with a campaign to denounce so-called "honour" violence.

A graphic of the murdered woman looking fearfully into the camera, featuring the caption "crime of no honour", has been circulating online since Monday, BBC Monitoring reported.

Kish Malek (Check Mate), a civil society organisation based in southern Turkey, was among activist groups to publish the image on Facebook.

"A young man from the city of Jarablus has killed his sister after direct instigation by his friend allegedly to 'wash her of shame'," the organisation posted.

"The instigator filmed the crime and published it on social media networks," it added.

Sharing the image, Syrian NGO Women Now for Development issued a statement demanding justice for Rasha Bseis.

"Rasha is not only the victim of the spread of weapons and lapses in security, she is the victim of a dangerous social concept, under the pretext of 'shame washing' as an accepted - and sometimes encouraged - punishment," they wrote.

A copy of their statement would be sent to the local council governing Jarablus and all other concerned legal bodies, the organisation noted.

Syrian writer and women's rights activist Rima Flihan told the BBC there are no accurate statistics for honour killings in Syria but that "Syria and the Middle East had ranked highly in previous global statistics".

"I have worked in successive campaigns since 2005 in Syria to counter what is described as honour crimes," she said.

"The crime is encouraged by a law that is lenient on the murderer and a society which partly reduces a family's honour to a woman's body."

In 2009, Syria scrapped a law limiting or waiving punishment for men convicted of killing female relatives they regarded as having illicit sex.

At the time, Human Rights Watch said the measure did not go far enough. The law introduced a minimum two-year sentence for perpetrators of so-called "honour killings".

Since 2011, the conflict in Syria has claimed more than 350,000 lives. Ms Flihan says the chaos in Syria as a result of the war has made the problem of so-called "honour killings" worse.

"The presence of extremist groups in some areas encourages such crimes, and so does the law in others," she said.

"In both cases, the woman is the victim."

However, she told the BBC that the reaction to such crimes shows some positive change.

"I have noticed through monitoring people's comments on these crimes that there is a wider section of society that are rejecting and condemning them," she said.

Anna Dovgalyuk: Why do people think her 'manspreading' video is a Kremlin hoax?

Millions of people around the world have watched a viral video that appears to show a woman taking direct action against "manspreading". So why do some think it is actually Kremlin-backed disinformation?

A woman creeps up to unsuspecting men on the St Petersburg Metro. The men are taking up lots of space, with their legs wide open. Before they can react, the woman dumps a bottle of diluted bleach onto their trousers. It's enough to make a stain, although not strong enough to cause serious injury.

The video was made by Anna Dovgalyuk, a Russian activist, student and social media star. And it racked up millions of views before being removed from YouTube.

The story was picked up by numerous news websites and caused a huge online uproar. Comments heaped praise, scorn, and more extreme threats of violence on Anna and others involved with the video.

But along with the video's viral spread came questions. Was it staged? And also was it - as some believe - a crafted piece of propaganda, sponsored and spread by the Russian government? And if it was, what was the aim?

Anna Dovgalyuk is relatively new to YouTube activism. The video was only her second post on the platform. Her first also had a feminist theme, and was also shot on the St Petersburg Metro. It was a protest against upskirting - taking photos up women's skirts - and showed a model (not Anna) lifting her dress to show passengers her underwear.

That video also got a lot of coverage, and prompted Anna to turn her attention to a project attacking "manspreading" - the phenomenon of men on public transport who sit with their legs wide open or otherwise inconvenience fellow passengers by taking up too much space.

"I thought that it was one of those problems which should be highlighted, that people should be made aware of," she told BBC Trending.

The video went up in late September, and was clocking up views at a rate of a million a day. But almost immediately, questions were raised about its authenticity.

An online news outlet in St Petersburg called Bumaga quoted a man who supposedly appeared in her video, admitting that he was paid to sit on the train and get squirted. Bumaga reproduced a post by the man on the Russian social network Vkontakte. (His account was deleted and the BBC could not immediately reach the man for comment).

Additionally, in the video, Anna states that it was created "in assistance with friends who share my position."

Speaking to the BBC, she denied that it was staged or that anyone was paid to get diluted bleach thrown on them.

"This is some completely random guy," she says, "I don't know what kind of actor he considers himself to be... but there is no evidence, it's just somebody's claim."

'Staged Kremlin propaganda'

The story took another turn when a European Union project to combat Russian misinformation, EUvsDisinfo, called the video "staged Russian propaganda".

According to this theory, the stunt was part of the Kremlin's surreptitious online interventions into various culture wars around the world, and designed to provide evidence that Western-style feminism has gone too far.

The EUvsDisinfo report gave the video another burst of publicity - and several of the same outlets which credulously reported on the video when it went viral ran reports with the European Union's take.

EUvsDisinfo cited two main pieces of evidence: the Bumaga report, and also the fact that the video was picked up and repackaged by a Kremlin-funded social media venture called In The NOW, which has more than three million likes on Facebook. In The NOW also has accounts on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube.

But In The NOW began as a TV programme on Russia Today - now known as RT.

RT and the news agency Sputnik, are directly funded by the Kremlin. Western governments as well as media critics have called them propaganda outlets.

And EUvsDisinfo sees the dark arts of the Kremlin at work in Anna's video and its treatment by In the NOW. "The video stages extreme feminist activism and manages to provoke extreme anti-feminist reactions," its post on the video concluded. EUvsDisinfo turned down a request for an interview about this story.

But is this a case of seeing Russian bogeymen where there are none? Wouldn't any social media company pick up on such clickable content?

In The NOW - which is based in Berlin - says that although it is financed by Russian government money, it has editorial independence.

"There's no top-down editorial memo that goes out, nothing like that," says J Ray Sparks, an American who is chief operating officer of Maffick, the German company that produces In The NOW. "It has never been some kind of propaganda outlet."

Although In The NOW doesn't deny that it receives money from the Russian government, this information isn't readily apparent on its Facebook page. When asked whether its mix of light-hearted stories and more serious news had ever included a video critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Sparks replied: "We haven't done anything recently."

In the NOW's video about Anna's manspreading stunt has racked up more than six million views.

The New World: How it is perceived

Colin Calloway’s approach to the concept of the new world is one which differs from traditional views. This is mainly because, instead of focusing mainly on the European context, he creates a balanced focus on the manner through which Native Americans and European settlers were able to interact and create a vibrant new culture. For the most part, traditional conceptions of the new world tend to attribute the establishment of history as well as organized society to European settlers and often disregards the Native Americans as being individuals who lacked history because none of their histories was written, but instead transmitted orally. As a result, the history of the new world has come to be recorded from the time of European settlement and the contribution of the Native Americans to the development of the new society have been totally forgotten because of the Eurocentric view of them as being savages. However, Calloway is able to bring together the histories of both European settlers and Native Americans in such a way that promotes the idea of their having interacted and each having affected the lives of the other. The American culture, according to Calloway, did not just come up as a result of European settlement, and instead, it came about because both Europeans and Native Americans made their contributions to it; bringing about a unique culture that has become dominant in the whole country. Thus, Calloway considers Native Americans to have been advanced enough both socially and culturally to have an influence on the Europeans who ended up settling amongst them; in contrast to the traditional meaning of the new world.

One of the most significant aspects of the interactions between European settlers and Native Americans, covered by Calloway, is that it led to the spread of diseases that were prevalent in Europe into Native American populations. The spread of these diseases was not done intentionally, but instead, it came about as a result of the interaction between a small number of Native Americans and settlers, mainly through trade (Calloway, 2013, p.50). These diseases were most prevalent in trade routes and this is the main reason why the first people to get infected were often the Native Americans who lived close to these routes or in whose settlements Europeans travelled through. These individuals would in turn, as a result of other Native Americans further into the interior, end up infecting the latter; thus resulting in massive deaths from diseases which traditional Native medicine could not cure. The large number of Native Americans throughout the Americas who ended up dying did not do so because of direct interactions with European settlers, because a majority of them had not set eyes on a European before (Calloway, 2013, p.50). Instead, the diseases spread because of interactions between those Native Americans who had interacted with Europeans, and those who had not. The depopulation of some areas which came about as a result can be considered to be based, not on malice on the part of European settlers, but on the ignorance between the latter and the Native Americans concerning the dangers of European diseases. In this way, Calloway seems to blame disease, rather than the violent interactions between Europeans and Native Americans in the form of wars that would come up in later years, as the case of the loss of large populations of Native Americans.

According to Calloway, the peaceful interactions that took place between the Native Americans and European settlers tended to be based on the self-interest of the latter. This is because in their settlement of a new land, of which they were unfamiliar, they needed the Native Americans more than the Native Americans needed them (Calloway, 2013, p.53). Europeans considered Native Americans to be potential trade partners, and they actively sought to establish trade links aimed at bringing the latter into the economic system that had been established by the Europeans. Furthermore, European missionaries were eager to convert Native Americans to Christianity and these often sought to ensure that this objective was accomplished by going directly to their villages and ministering to them (Calloway, 2013, p.53). The result was that there was a significant growth of contact between these populations to such an extent that they were able to achieve a high level of cultural exchange. Thus, while some Europeans went to settle among the Native Americans, and even adopted some of their customs, some of the latter also chose to discard their own lifestyles and settle among Europeans. In this way, such scenarios as Europeans having tattooed their faces like Native Americans and Native Americans drinking tea became quite common. The creation of a hybrid society which involved the adoption of elements of both European and Native American cultures took place. Through the analysis that he makes concerning the interactions between Native Americans and Europeans, Calloway ensures that he disputes the prevalent narrative about the often hostile interactions between the settlers and the natives, and instead brings out a more positive outlook of these interactions.

Jill Lapore explores the concept of literacy and the means of transmitting history in the context of the new world. She states that the history of Native Americans has been for the most part disregarded because they did not maintain written records (Lapore, 1994). This disregard began to take place during the early European settlement of the Americas and has continued to the twenty first century where written records are considered to be the means through which history can be recorded. However, the disregard of Native American history does not take into account the fact that unlike European history, which was written down, Native American history, was kept through oral tradition. These oral traditions have instead come to be regarded as myths because there are no contemporary written records to verify their authenticity. Lapore points out that in the seventeenth century, there were a significant number of literate Native Americans who lived in European settlements and who could have written the oral histories of their people (Lapore, 1994). However, not record is made of any attempt having been made to put down these histories. Lapore suggests that the main reason behind this lack of written history of the Native Americans is that in order to achieve literacy, Native Americans were required to completely discard the traditions of their own people and instead adopt the Europeans lifestyle. This meant having to adopt Christianity, speak English, and live in European settlements. The result was that many of these individuals ended up losing touch with their own people; instead living at the periphery of Native Americans and Europeans since they were no longer fully accepted by either (Lapore, 1994). These individuals could therefore not write down the oral histories of their people for fear of being rejected by the Europeans whose culture they had adopted.

Another aspect of Native American and European interaction is discussed by William Cronon who considers this interaction from the European standpoint. For most Europeans who settled in the new world, the vastness of the land and its wilderness was incomprehensible because in Europe most of the land had been utilized and the wilderness that remained was in private hands (Cronon, 2003, p.33). When they considered the Native Americans and the simple life that they led surrounded by such abundance, they came to believe that the Native Americans were lazy. Furthermore, this concept of laziness was further enhanced because it was the women, rather than the men in Native American communities who farmed while the men hunted. In Europe, it was the men’s task to farm the land; enforcing the belief that Native American men were lazy. Cronon points out that these perceptions by Europeans were wrong because Native American societies were organized differently. Native Americans often sought to use the land according to their own needs rather than using it abundantly in order to create a surplus, the way the Europeans did (Cronon, 2003, p.122). Additionally, they often sought to make sure that they utilized what they had effectively, especially in winter months when, in situations where there was impending scarcity, these people tended to choose to go hungry in order to utilize the remaining food for as long as possible. These were customs that Europeans failed to understand and would make them enforce their dominance in society in a bid to promote their own way of life, which they thought was superior.

The common perceptions concerning American history, especially its origins, should be changed. This is because despite eventual European dominance over America, American history was not made up only by the European settlers. Instead, Native Americans also made significant contributions while they too were influenced by European culture. American history can be considered as an amalgamation of these two distinct cultures, which brought about a new culture that was adapted to a new environment as a result of interactions between Native Americans and Europeans. A full understanding of American history cannot be achieved without the inclusion of the peaceful interactions that took place between Native Americans and Europeans, because the contributions of the former is one of the main factors that brought about the success of settlements, which in turn brought about American history.

References

Calloway, C.G. (2013). New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America. Boston: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cronon, W. (2003). Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 2003.

Lapore, J. (1994). Dead Men Tell No Tales: John Sassamon and the Fatal Consequences of Literacy. American Quarterly, 46(4): 497 – 512.

Zimbabwe: its history and fight for independence

The land of Zimbabwe was settled by the British in 1890 and named Rhodesia after its founder, Cecil John Rhodes, who believed that the British had the right of imperial rule in Africa because they were the “first race in the world and therefore the more of the world they inhabited, the better it would be for the human race”. It is this ideology which served as the basis of the discriminatory colonial policies that were set up to serve the interests of the white minority which had settled most of the best land in the country, and excluded the African majority who had virtually no rights in their own land. These policies led to the demand for change by the Africans within the limitations of the colonial constitution and when this did not work, the African nationalists became more radical when they realised that violence and bloodshed were inevitable if there was to be any change in the country. It was the stress of this oppression that forced the people of Zimbabwe to take up arms as the only solution to their problems. The armed struggle was led by two political parties namely the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) which had splintered from ZAPU. These two nationalist organisations got a lot of support from external forces which contributed to the success of the liberation movement in Zimbabwe.

These external forces consisted mainly of neighbouring independent African states – known as the frontline states, other armed liberation movements in neighbouring countries, and the Communist bloc led by China and the Soviet Union. The Communist bloc through the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.) gave aid to the Zimbabwean liberation movements in the form of arms and money. Some also provided training for the liberation combatants within their territories such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Algeria, and Tanzania. These countries further provided instructors who trained the recruits in the camps who had come from Zimbabwe to join the struggle for majority rule. Furthermore, organisations such as the United Nations, the World Council of Churches and certain left-wing organisations in the west and in Scandinavia gave moral and financial support.

The Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) was the armed wing of ZAPU which was formed in the 1960s and had camps in Angola and in Lusaka, Zambia which were provided by the Zambian government to help in the liberation of their fellow Africans in Zimbabwe. ZIPRA’s crossing points to and from Zimbabwe were at Feira in Zambia opposite Mashonaland East. It was more influenced by the Soviet Union than by China as it adhered to Marxist-Leninist principles of mobilising the urban workers rather than the Maoist principles of mobilising the rural peasantry pursued by the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of ZANU. ZIPRA was also in a formal alliance with Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military wing of the African National Congress in South Africa. In the mid-1960s, these two allied organisations mounted a celebrated mission into Southern Rhodesia, although this mission was not militarily successful. This mission, known as the Wankie fiasco, saw several hundred ZIPRA and MK freedom fighters enter Rhodesia through the uninhabited areas of Wankie and these were either killed or captured by a joint Rhodesian-South African force. Other countries, such as North Korea, had its military officials train the Zimbabwean freedom fighters how to use explosives and arms at a camp near Pyongyang.

ZANLA, on the other hand, was formed in 1965 in Tanzania and was heavily influenced by the Maoist guerrilla tactics that had been used very successfully by FRELIMO in Mozambique, that is, by infiltrating combatants into Zimbabwe, politicising the peasantry, and participating in ‘hit-and-run’ ambush operations. Even before Mozambique’s independence from Portugal, FRELIMO had supported ZANLA by allowing it to use the territory it controlled in Tete district along the Rhodesian border as a base of operations against the Rhodesian government. Because of its close ties with Mozambique’s FRELIMO, ZANLA gained a lot of support after Mozambique’s independence when its government permitted ZANLA to open training and supply camps along the Mozambican-Zimbabwean border which greatly assisted in the recruitment and training of troops.

The OAU member states’ meetings and resolutions concerning the white minority regime in Rhodesia induced Britain to push the United Nations to invoke mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia in 1968. However, these sanctions had many failings which included: the long period of time which had elapsed since Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1961 which had enabled the white regime to make adjustments and arrangements for the evasion of sanctions; the refusal of South Africa and Portugal to apply sanctions by continuing normal trade with Rhodesia and acting as go-betweens to market its goods and import on its behalf; and the general lack of political will on the part of most members of the United Nations to make sanctions work effectively. These sanctions against Rhodesia, although they did not work, helped to give a moral boost to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe, because despite the internal divisions within it, the OAU supported their fellow Africans in their struggle for freedom. Through its Liberation Committee, the OAU co-ordinated the material and financial support sent to the liberation movements in Zimbabwe from independent African states and from abroad. It also sought to reconcile the differences between ZANU and ZAPU, the main revolutionary groups in Zimbabwe so as to unify their forces against the common enemy. Both ZANU and ZAPU had gotten embroiled in the struggle within the Communist bloc between China and the Soviet Union about the latter’s leadership of the bloc. Each of these nationalist movements had adopted the communist doctrines of its main sponsor, such that ZAPU had adopted those of the Soviet Union while ZANU had adopted those of China. This resulted in the difficulty that kept these movements apart as well as various battles between their military wings.

The coup against the Salazar regime in Portugal in 1974 and its subsequent decolonisation policy helped the liberation movement in Zimbabwe a great deal because the white minority government lost one of its most important outlets for its exports namely, the ports of Mozambique. This coup also shocked the white regime and its main ally, South Africa, into the realisation that the African liberation movements could, through long and sustained armed struggle, force a colonial power to decolonise. This led the government of South Africa to adopt a more conciliatory approach to its relations with the newly independent black African states as well as its commitment to a political solution to the crisis in Rhodesia. South Africa was in a key position to influence Rhodesia because its roads and railways were the lifeline of the Rhodesian economy and as such was the only government in the region that was capable of putting pressure on it. The moderation of the policies of its chief ally towards its enemies led the embattled Rhodesian government to start negotiations with the African nationalists in Zimbabwe and finally to the beginning of majority rule in the country.

Gasland (2010)

One of the most espoused ideals of this century has been environmentalism, which can be defined is a philosophy that is based on the concept of conserving the natural environment through addressing issues that concern various human activities. It is a fact that most of the activities which are addressed by environmentalism involve the pollution of the environment through industrial activities such as the extraction of natural gas by oil and gas companies. The documentary Gasland is an attempt to create awareness, within the American public, of the effects of that attempts made by gas companies to extract natural gas in rural America have on the environment. This film has created a new awareness in the public concerning the devastating environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing, which is one of the means through which natural gas is extracted in the mainland United States. This means of gas extraction, also known as fracking, is done through the injection of chemicals and massive quantities of water at high pressures with the intention of cracking open the rocks deep beneath the surface and as a result releasing the natural gas. This method has helped in the emergence of the natural gas boom across the United States, but as the film shows, there has developed proof that this method of gas extraction is leading to the contamination of water as well as leaking into homes. The film works towards the establishment of means through which these issues concerning the conservation of the American environment can be discussed and viable solutions for the environmental problems caused by these activities by oil and gas companies can be found. It can further be said that this film deals with the preservation, the development, and the return of the American natural environment to the state in which it was previously.

The film’s director, states that his father received a proposal from a gas company for the latter to be allowed to drill for natural gas in his property using the fracking method. At this time, this was a new method which can be considered to be extreme for the purpose of extracting natural gas through the pumping of water and toxic chemicals into the ground at extremely high pressures to fracture the rock formations that contain the natural gas. In the film, it is stated that previously, the main method that was used for the extraction of natural gas was through the drilling into the ground until a pocket of gas was hit and this gas was captured as it rose. The director states that one of the reasons why he started making the film is because he started to wonder how it was that all of a sudden his family and their neighbours were in a gas drilling area when prior to this, their area had never had any kind of industrial development. In the film, the fact that the fracking method is causing environmental damage is worrisome and disturbing and it is because of the use of these methods by the various gas companies that the beautiful, scenic and amazing landscape of the United States is being destroyed. The director of the film, who also serves as the narrator, states that at least fifty percent the state of New York as well as sixty percent the state of Pennsylvania is being leased to gas companies for the purpose of drilling for gas using the fracking method. Throughout the film, it is seen that the land in the United States is being handed over to gas prospecting companies at an alarming rate with many of the individuals doing so, mostly farmers, not realising that doing so is resulting in the destruction of their natural environment.

One would say that the film is mostly made up of a series of interviews and it can be considered to be one which shows profound respect for the people from different places across the United States that are interviewed. It can further be said that because of the respect that is displayed by the film’s director that the individuals who are interviewed are so forthcoming with the information that they have to give concerning the effects of fracking on their environment as well as its direct effects on their lives. The film is able to show how the use of the fracking method has come to put those areas in which it is used in an environmental crisis and the people who are affected the most by this environmental degradation seem to be more than willing to talk to the film’s director about their problems. The means through which the director seems to conduct his interviews seem to be down to earth and this not only engages the individuals being interviewed but also the audience of the film as they become more interested and engaged in the arguments being made. One of the factors which make the film more interesting to the viewer and is able to pass its message across is that the director is able to incorporate what the individuals who are being interviewed are saying and doing into the main story of the film and this enables the director to pass his message across from the direct perspective of those individuals affected. It seems that the main aim of the film’s director is to ensure that he attempts to find the most profound factors about fracking that have come to affect the interviewees and because of this, his attempts are rewarded by a straightforward response to his enquiries.

Music plays an important role in the film because it comes to affect the way in which the message of the film is being relayed. Music is what makes the message of the film gain some sort of character because it enables the viewer to recognise the gravity of the message as it is being passed across. It is what gives the interviews in the film the desired effect when the director attempts to make a point concerning the fracking method of gas extraction. Music is also used by the film’s director to display the irony behind the various statements made by some of the leaders in the gas industry as well as some of the politicians who are in full support of the use of the faracking method in the mainland United States. The power of music in this film is so profound that its audience cannot help it but be engrossed in the subject matter of the film without any more prompting. It can be said that music is the soul of this film and it is meant to get in touch with the emotions of its audience as it is used to display the various areas where the director is heading. For example, one hears music from Preston Reed as the director heads into Colorado and this provides the setting for the material which he would like for his audience to hear and absorb.

When one watches this film, he will come to the conclusion that while many environmentalist groups profess to fight for the conservation of the American environment since many of them tend to defeat their own purpose for doing so. One of the reasons why the environmentalist groups have been defeated in their purpose is because they do not have enough awareness concerning how the use of the fracking method of natural gas extraction is slowly but surely destroying the environment of the United States. This is the reason why Gasland is extremely important since it helps to raise awareness concerning the destruction of the environment by gas companies starting from his home state of Pennsylvania to the rest of the United States where gas companies are either involved or propose to get involved in the extraction of natural gas using the fracking method. While it is a fact that most of the gas companies have come out to vehemently oppose the film, making use of all the public relations strategies available to them to discredit its validity, it is the duty of all the environmentalist groups in the country as well as all the people concerned to oppose the use of fracking method by the gas companies as well as ensure that the government is pressured into passing laws which regulate these companies.

In conclusion, it can be said that the idea that gas companies retain control of their own matters concerning drilling especially when these methods endanger the environment has come to be challenged in the film since at present, actors other than governments have come to be key players in the environmental issue. There has been a shift from having regional meetings to implementation of initiatives that are localized and formation of partnerships in order to be able to combat the causes of environmental problems that affect various countries. The time has come when the government should shift their strategies to involve those tactics which are able to enhance the prospects that will implement effective management of the environment starting from the local level of the society.

Mfecane: The wars that shaped Southern and Eastern Africa

Mfecane refers to the numerous wars that were started by the Ndwandwe king Zwide and spread to the rest of the African societies in Southern Africa at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Therefore, the statement that the mfecane was largely a Zulu affair is not true considering that their activities were mainly concentrated in the Natal area while the Mfecane itself occurred in a far wider range than that. Furthermore, most evidence points to the fact that the Zulu only got involved in the mfecane when it was at its climax. The mfecane began in the later part of the eighteenth century when the process of nation building among the Nguni of the northern Natal region began. The larger political units that came from this development were partly due to the competition for the control over the lucrative trade in ivory with the Portuguese based in the Delagoa Bay. 

Moreover, the population pressure among the Northern Nguni people led to the increased competition for resources because the effect of white pressure on the frontier of the Cape colony had, by the end of the eighteenth century, made expansion in a westerly direction impossible. In the years around 1803, there was a long and severe drought which sparked the unprecedented competition between the emerging states for control over good pastureland and other essential resources. The conflict between three main groups of the northern Nguni namely the Ndwandwe, the Ngwane, and the Mthethwa brought about the mfecane, the first of which was between the Ndwandwe of Zwide and the Ngwane of Sobhuza , the latter who after being defeated, moved further north where the Swazi nation was to be eventually established. Contrary to the popular opinion among the proponents of the old paradigm concerning the mfecane, it was the Ndwandwe rather than the Zulu who initiated the climax of the mfecane by attacking the Ngwane of Matiwane. When the Matiwane and his Ngwane were driven from their home by the Ndwandwe, they began a career of conquest and terror against the communities they encountered. They surprised and defeated the Hlubi, killing their chief Mpangazitha, defeated the Tlokwa, and forced Moshoeshoe of the Sotho to pay tribute to them.

It should be noted that the first known recorded history of the mfecane was written, not by the Africans themselves, but by Afrikaans and English speaking writers. Most of these histories were written with the idea of European superiority in mind hence the portrayal of Africans as savages. The Zulu serve as an example of this mindset with their portrayal as the originators of the mfecane despite overwhelming evidence on the contrary. One would agree with Julian Cobbing’s argument that the role played by the Zulu in the events known as the mfecane were minimal at best and that the emergence of the Zulu kingdom was a result rather than a cause of this period of upheavals. The Zulu kingdom was one of the defensive states such as the Sotho, the Swazi, and the Pedi kingdoms that emerged due to the mfecane. The so called acts of aggression by the Zulu against other groups were merely measures of defence; attacks to defend themselves against future aggression. If the states surrounding the Zulu had been allowed to become too powerful, then the nation would have been destroyed.

Although the Zulu were not responsible for the mfecane, their military innovations like the use of the short broad bladed stabbing spear which allowed them to close in on their enemies instead of standing off from them, as well as their discarding of their ox hide sandals in battle, gave them superior speed making the mfecane wars even more devastating. The rise of the Zulu came at a time when large states were necessary to protect people from enemy attack. An example of these is the Mthethwa who, after their defeat by the Ndwandwe, turned to the only person in the region who had the ability to defend them against their enemies, and this was Shaka. It was this choice which brought about the ascendancy of the once insignificant Zulu. The Zulu, therefore, did not contribute to the chaos surrounding them but instead brought order in the Natal region with the creation of their state, the forceful absorption of weaker groups, as well as the destruction of the more aggressive ones like the Ndwandwe state.

Leadership Styles of Baby boomers and Millennials

The economic recession that has in the last few years come to affect the United States has had a huge impact in the lives of many Americans today. This impact has not only been on the economy, but it has also come to affect the working environment of people all over the nation. The economic recession hit the United States at a time when the Baby Boomer generation was on its way to retirement. Many of the members of this generation were not prepared for such an occurrence and this left them without any savings or a means to support themselves after retirement. This created a situation where many baby boomers had no choice other than to continue on with their current employment, and for those who had retired, to look for jobs in order to make a living. The workplace therefore came to be filled with people who would, under normal circumstances, have retired, creating a potential for conflict with the younger generation of employees. The fact that many baby boomers are currently still in the job market has created plenty of competition between them and the current young generation, the millennials. The millennials are those who are currently between the ages of eighteen and their early thirties, and as the most youthful generation, they are finding it much harder than their predecessors to either find jobs and to keep them. In addition, even after they get these jobs, their style of doing their work is much different from the way the baby boomers did things. This has come to raise questions concerning the attitudes towards work that is displayed by the baby boomer and the millennial generations.

It is a fact that the leadership styles of the baby boomers and the millennials in the workplace are quite different from each other. Each of these generations tends to have different ways of dealing with situations which enable them to achieve the goals set by the organization for which they work. The baby boomer generation tends to be completely obsessed with the achievement of results no matter the cost incurred. Since most organizations are headed by baby boomers, the main drive of these institutions tends to be the making of a profit and this has led to conflict with the millennial generation, which is more conscious of the social responsibilities of the organizations for which they work. In matters of leadership, the baby boomers and the millennials tend to have a conflict when it comes to matters concerning integrity and ethics at the workplace. Many millennials believe that when the leadership of an organization ceases to implement the original goals of an organization and instead concentrates only at making a profit at any cost, then this leadership has ceased to be ethical and steps should be take to have such leadership removed. In order to be effective, the leadership of an organization has to have integrity and this means that they have to stick by what they regard to be ethically necessary or worthwhile. It is therefore necessary for an organization’s leadership to have certain coherence in matters of ethics, either between ethical values over time or between values and behavior. Millennials believe that leaders should ensure that their goals or objectives are harmonious with those of the organizations that they lead so that matters concerning ethics do not arise in the day to day running of the organization. Without leadership integrity in an organization, there can be no ethical leadership and this is because integrity and ethics are things which are inseparable especially when one is considering the running of an organization whose reputation depends on how its leadership is running it. While this is a fact, many millennials often find that their workplace is frustrating because many of the baby boomer managers tend not to show any sort of integrity at the workplace, often keeping the millennials in the background where they cannot be able to make their ideas heard or implemented.

Most organizations tend to have a corporate culture whose purpose is to govern the ways through which the people who work within the organization work, interact with one another, and work together towards the achievement of its goals. Furthermore, this culture is heavily influenced by the signs and symbols which an organization is recognized by and this determines the way the people who work within this organization behave, thus they are the embodiment of the organization’s culture. While this is the case, there has been a swift shift in the corporate culture of many organizations as the millennial generation has started going up the ranks of leadership in different organizations. While in the baby boomer generation, corporate culture was based on the formal interaction between employees, the millennial generation has influenced the introduction of a more informal atmosphere at the workplace. While there is still a shared language in many organizations, which is very important in the development of a corporate culture because language is the adhesive that holds a society together and without a common means of communication within the organization, then it would collapse, the way this language is communicated seem to have changed. It is a fact that each generation has its way of expressing itself and this is true of the baby boomer and millennial generations at the workplace, where the latter tend to express themselves in a way that many of the latter do not understand, and the reverse is also true. Furthermore, while the corporate culture in many organizations run by bloomers tends to separate work from their personal lives, in those run by millennials, the opposite is often the case. Millennials prefer working in an informal environment and this has enabled them to bring their work and personal lives together. It is therefore not a strange thing to find that most millennials prefer working from home than at the office. In most instances one will find that it is the baby boomers that prefer working at the office, since this favor keeping their work away from home. Although it is a very difficult thing to happen, the culture of a particular organization is subject to change and this has often come about because of the generational conflict between the millennial and the baby boomer generation. While this change does not come easily, it comes about when more of the latter generation retires and more of the millennial generation takes its place. This has caused the development of a culture where individuals are more attached to their work than previous generations. Millennials, despite their high attachment to their work are also quite strict concerning having time to themselves. Unlike the baby boomers, who would work long hours without going for breaks, millennials prefer working for a certain time and then afterwards do something else which is not work related.

All workplaces have many subcultures which interact with one another for the sake of the running of the achievement of the goals that have been set for the employees. Despite the fact that baby boomers and the millennials sometimes work within the same environment, these two generations do not always see eye to eye on many issues concerning work. Although this is the case in most instances, the two generations have been, out of necessity, forced to work together. Each of these generations have created its own characteristics and sense of identity and an example of this is within the workplace where employees can easily classify themselves socially according to their areas of specialization, membership in a particular union, and age. Although these generations may be diverse, each of them is developed for the purpose of furthering the goals of the organization through different means. In the baby boomer generation, people tended to have mentors in the workplace that would inspire and guide them through their careers. The millennial generation, on the other hand, tends to be extremely independent, preferring to navigate their own way through their career paths. They often see any advice from their bosses, who are more often than not, baby boomers, as being too paternalistic and unwanted. The workplace culture is slowly changing as the baby boomer generation is giving way, grudgingly, to the millennial generation and this is ensuring that the formal workplace environment is becoming informal. While many millennials, just like the baby boomers take their work extremely seriously, this seriousness tends to be accompanied by an informality which many baby boomers would find uncomfortable to work in. Baby boomers tend to take their work so seriously that everything that they do has to be done formally. In such instances where meetings are needed to clarify different things at the workplace, while baby boomers would prefer meeting in a boardroom for a fact to fact consultation, millennials prefer the use of technology to achieve the same goal. The latter have adopted new means of communication, such as social networking, and adapted to them so well that they have become a permanent part of their lives.

The baby boomers are a generation who were taught to function more as individuals than as teams at the workplace. They prefer working in a strictly structured environment with as little feedback as possible coming to them. This is in direct contrast to the millennial generations, who not only prefers working in teams, for greater efficiency, but also has a need for constant consultation with their managers. In order to better manage their workplaces, many of the baby boomer generation, to their credit, have come to adopt teamwork in order to be able to interact more with the millennial generation. This ensures that the employees are able to function as a team to achieve the aims of the organization. Working in teams is a means through which closer ties can be developed between the top management of an organization, who are often bay boomers, with its employees of the millennial generation. The close ties that are developed between these teams help in the reinforcement of the skills of the workforce in such areas as attitude, and knowledge. While previously, many baby boomers and millennials were wary of each other in the workplace, with the former feeling threatened by the possibility of being replaced, while the latter felt resentful because they felt that the baby boomers were not allowing them to advance at a pace which was suitable. It has come to be found that for the two generations to be able to work together there are certain factors, such as corporate culture and policy, the working environment and professional activities, which should not be seen as justifiable in the determination of the effectiveness of the task and responsibility. This has created the need for team building to ensure that the gap between the two generations has been bridged, so that each of them can be able to teach the other about what they know, to the benefit of both of them in doing their work. Team building between members of the baby boomer and the millennial generations at the workplace should be enforced entirely so that it can be incorporated as one of the compulsory norms and values of the institution's corporate culture. Furthermore, there has been the revelation that the skills such as communication skills, the ability to handle crisis and problems in the workplace, the traits of information sharing and motivation amongst workers between the two generations can be extremely helpful in making the workplace more efficient.

Leadership in the workplace is one of the areas where the baby boomers and the millennials have both major differences and similarities about. Both of these generations believe in strong leadership in the workplace to ensure that all the employees are able to effectively implement what their leader wants. This enables the employees within an organization to know exactly what their leader wants and exactly how that leader wants it done and these employees are able to completely focus on the achievement of their leader’s vision. It is a common belief among workers of both generations that the leader that shows integrity in his work and in his vision will definitely inspire his subordinates to follow his example in their own work and this will ensure that a high level of ethics are practiced within an organization because of the ethical leadership inspired by the integrity of the organization’s leader. However, the difference comes not on the area of strength but on how the leader is to present himself to the workers. Baby boomers believe that for a leader to be more effective, he or she has to not only show strength of character towards the workers, but should also remain aloof so that the latter can have the opportunity to do their own work properly. Furthermore, baby boomers in the workplace today believe that they are being overworked and are shown very little appreciation by their leaders. This has created a situation where many have become disgruntled and only continue to work not because they love the job, but because they need an income to maintain themselves. Millennials on the other hand believe in more interaction between the leader and the other workers in the workplace. Millennials have been raised in a culture where there is need to have employment which has meaning to an individual and this has encouraged them to seek more interaction with their supervisors at work. The need to have meaning in work has ensured that many millennials do not stay on one job for too long because of their endeavor to seek meaning and fulfillment, something that is often elusive if one is not determined to find it. It has therefore become a culture among millennials to be constantly learning from their superiors in the workplace in a bid to not only create a path for their own advancement, but also for the purpose of creating space for themselves in the management positions which are currently dominated by the baby boomer generation.

In conclusion, it can be said that while the baby boomers and the millennials may have different attitudes concerning work and the workplace, both of these generations’ attitudes have been formed from the environment within which they were raised. In fact, while the baby boomers may feel differently from the millennials, when it comes to work, it is a fact that a large majority of the millennials was raised by the baby boomers, and it is this environment which has formed their attitudes. Moreover, one would say that these two generations are not as different as many think because of the fact that one generation raised the other. This means that the attitude towards work that is displayed by the millennials, is in fact, the very same attitude that is held by many of the baby boomer generation, only the former are more open about these ideas than the latter. One would further go on to say that the only major difference between these generations is age, and the other differences would not be there had there not been an economic recession which forced both generations to compete for work.

Eddie Mabo

Eddie Mabo was an Australian man who played a crucial role in the recognition of the right of the indigenous people to own the land in the country. He was born in the Torres Strait Islands in 1936 and it was one of his fundamental beliefs that the land upon which he was born belonged to him and his people. An indigenous Australian, he displayed an astute knowledge of the fact that the land upon which he was born was rightfully indigenous, and that the laws that had been instituted by the colonial settlers and their government did the indigenous people a great injustice. For almost a decade, this man fought for the rights of his people by taking a case to court with the intention of having it overturn the terra nullius land system in Australia which alienated the indigenous people from their land. The sheer determination of this man, against all odds, ensured that he had one of the greatest wins in Australian history for an indigenous person, because the ruling made, overturning the terra nullius system, ensured that over three hundred years of injustice had almost come to an end. The overturning of this system further granted the indigenous people the confidence of identifying themselves with the land of their ancestors and ensured that their right to it was recognized beyond doubt. Eddie Mabo was a man who rose from humble origins as a gardener to becoming one of the national icons of Australia because of the fact that he was deeply involved in fighting for the rights of his people.

While he was born in the Torres Strait Islands, Mabo spent most of his life in Queensland, and was in fact not a well known figure in his home island until after he took his case on indigenous land rights to court. It was only after his death from cancer as well as the court victory over the land issue five months later that his fellow indigenous people on the island welcomed his as one of their own. His victory did not only affect the people of his home island but also all the indigenous people of Australia and this is the reason why Mabo has become one of the most respected men among them. The idea that an indigenous person could almost singlehandedly challenge the Australian status quo and gain a great victory from it was one of those instances which were unheard of in the history of this country. The indigenous people had long been suppressed by the colonial government, and later by the white settlers who dominated and continue to dominate almost every aspect of life in Australia. Mabo’s posthumous court victory ensured that the indigenous people were recognized as a legitimate part of the Australian population with the same rights as those who dominated the society. Furthermore, it may have played a role in the recognition of indigenous people as reasoning human beings who had, throughout the history of the colonization of Australia had been treated unfairly; the court case was therefore the first step in correcting the injustice done to them.

The overturning of the terra nullius policy can be said to be, in reality, a policy of inclusion whose purpose is to ensure that all the Australian people have an equal chance to compete in making their dreams and aspirations come true. Previously, indigenous groups were completely excluded from the majority of economic activities in Australia except for those which were considered to be labor intensive. Moreover these groups were rarely ever accepted in the mainstream Australian life, therefore, Mabo’s court victory can be said to have been a step towards the inclusion of the indigenous people into the center of Australian society. From the very beginning of the Mabo’s case in court, there has been opposition towards it with those against it stating that it is giving an unfair advantage to minority groups over other people in Australia. Those who are opposed to the overturning of the terra nullius system further state that this action went against the proper way of Australian life because of the belief that did not treat all people equally, and instead it gives unfair privileges to those people who would otherwise not have deserved them. These arguments are not very logical considering the injustices which were committed against the indigenous Australian groups in the past. The white population in Australia has been, for a long time, dominant, and Mabo’s court victory was a direct challenge to this status. This may help to explain why Mabo’s grave was vandalized and racist terms painted all over it. This vandalism forced the exhumation of his body and its reburial in his ancestral home in the Torres Strait; a place for whose people he had fought for and won the right to own the land upon which they had lived from time immemorial.

Mabo’s court victory has over the last two decades come to have a significant impact on the people of the islands where he was born. Among the most significant aspects of this has been the recognition that the indigenous people were greatly marginalized in matters concerning health when compared to the mainstream Australian population. This has led to the improvement of the healthcare facilities which are available for them, ensuring a higher life expectancy than in previous years. The declining child death rates has led to a decline in the birth rates, because parents are now more secure because they know that there are enough resources available today to ensure that their children survive. Another reason for this is the fact that the economic conditions prevalent in the indigenous Australian society today do not allow parents to have more than a few children at a time because they cannot afford to have more even if they wanted to. This results in not only fewer children, but it also means that there are fewer ties to the extended family and this in turn means that in subsequent generations, there will be fewer uncles, aunts and cousins, on whom to rely, than in previous generations.

The life expectation of native Australians between the years 1991 and 1996 was projected to be fifty six and sixty one years for men and women in that order. This was found to be considerably lower than that of the mainstream population which was estimated to be between 75 and 91 years for men and women respectively. Furthermore, it was found that the death rate among many indigenous people was at a much higher rate than those of the mainstream Australian population. In fact, the death rate was so high that that they exceeded the general Australian population in every age group that was analyzed. Most of the people from indigenous populations died before reaching the age of fifty, and this was attributed to the lack of the proper healthcare facilities that other Australians have access to. The indigenous population has been completely marginalized in all matters concerning health and this has contributed a great deal in the high mortality rates among them, just when they are at their prime. It has been found that one of the leading causes of death among this population are cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, and these made up 75% of all the deaths that were reported within this population. The rates of hospitalization was much higher among the indigenous people than that of the general Australian public, with these being much higher in all the age groups that were assessed.

While Mabo’s court victory may have been the first step towards the improvement of the lives of the indigenous people, there is still a lot to be done to achieve this objective. Racism is still as prevalent as it was before the ruling, as seen when Mabo’s grave was vandalized just one day after his funeral with racist terms being painted all over his headstone. In addition, the health status of indigenous people, for whom Mabo fought, while it has improved somewhat, still has a long way to go before it can reach the status that the other Australians enjoy. Life expectancy is still low, with many indigenous people not living to be more than fifty years old, an occurrence which is a great tragedy in a country which prides itself in being one of the most developed in the world. The fact that an indigenous person had to go to court in order to get basic land rights for its people shows just how ironic Australian democracy is because it favors those people of Caucasian descent more than the natives of the land. This has created a situation where the latter are dominated completely and they have little say in their own destiny. It is to either bow to the status quo or risk the continued marginalization of their society. This is something which should not be accepted, not only by the indigenous people themselves, but also by the government because the latter should be at the forefront of protecting the rights of the indigenous people. The indigenous people should also fight for their own rights because not to do so would mean that their situation will not be recognized, hence a solution will not be attained. It such a thing was to happen, then the legacy of such indigenous men as Eddie Mabo would be forever tarnished.