Please Post Your Responses to the Readings for Monday, August 27 as Comments Below!
Response to Oct 3rd
The amount of protest during the Vietnam war was something that will go down in history forever. The already infamous war sparked much controversy of why the United States was actually involving themselves with countries on the other side of the world. There was also another debate of what was actually happening inside the war itself. There were no rules in this bloody conflict. One of the many forms of protest was the Movie, 'Winter Soldier', and it was veterans who served in Vietnam and were speaking out against the wrongdoings the government is making them do. They were forced to throw people out of helicopters, mutilate women and children, and blow up hundreds of innocent villages. They depicted very haunting stories of how violent and ruthless the war in Vietnam was. There was an unnecessary amount of bloodshed when soldiers were taking villages and murdering people as what it seemed to be like a game. The debate that went on throughout the war was the true intentions of t...
While reading “Tracking the Militarized Global Sneaker”, it seemed pretty clear to me that a main theme of the chapter was the use of “cheap labor” outside of the United States by American sneaker businesses. Some examples of these businesses included in the passage are: Nike, Puma, Converse, and New Balance. I find it interesting that this is such a common occurrence. We’ve all seen tags on our clothing that say “Made in China” or “Made in Vietnam”. I’m willing to bet most people don’t even own a piece of clothing made here in the States. Is there anyway to stop this phenomenon? It’s easy to see why Americans don’t seem to care all that much about it because, for us, it means we are not spending an arm and a leg for a t-shirt. Should we start caring? Isn’t our American pride ashamed of having to rely on other countries to clothe us? Another concern I have is about the morality of making people work in factories for pennies an hour. How do we keep allowing this to go on? It’s unfortunate that the world revolves around money because that is the only reason why it still goes on to this day. I think “cheap labor” should be abolished and workers in Asia should create unions to protect their rights.
ReplyDeleteDanny Santia
Delete
ReplyDelete“President Park was not only willing but eager to share the burden. On July 31, 1964, the ROK National Assembly unanimously ratified a bill to dispatch the first contingent of noncombat troops, including 124 medical officers, 6 nurses, and rn Tae Kwon Do instructors. Park presented the offer publicly as repayment of the debt for the American intervention in the Korean War; but his contemporaneous negotiations with Japan revealed deeper motives. In March 1964, revelations surrounding Park's negotiations on a treaty to "normalize" relations with Japan sparked public outcry in South Korea about the perceived resurgence of Japanese imperialism. Since restoring Japan's sovereignty in 1952, the United States had pressured Japan and South Korea to forge diplomatic ties as a step toward creating a self-functioning, U.S.-oriented "Asia for Asians." Toward this end, in 1964, the United States scaled back economic aid to South Korea and pushed Japan "to assume a greater share of the burden in subsidizing South Korea" through reparations and granting access to Japanese export markets.” pg 111
This passage shows the answer to a debate we had in class, of whether or not the United States is an imperial power. This is yet another piece of evidence showing we are indeed. The United States war in Vietnam was highly debated, and President Johnson knew it would be a hot topic for quite some time. In order to further justify the war Johnson recruited help from South Korea (the Republic of Korea), which supplied more than 340,000 soldiers to the war effort (Working the Submarine 104). In return the US provided strong economic aid to South Korea, making it a regional power. While there are different beliefs on exactly why the US entered Vietnam, the Cold War certainly played a large role, as the US simply did not want the Soviets to gain yet another area of influence. This reasoning is the very proof the US is in fact an imperial nation. The United States had no direct conflict with the Vietcong prior to the war, and remained unprovoked by them directly. However, the US simply could not allow Communism to spread and the Soviets to be more powerful. The belief that American ideals are superior and should be pushed on others has been around since 1781(if not earlier) and has persisted into the present. An example of this pushing of ideas is also seen in the above passage, as the United States all but forced the normalization of relations between South Korea and Japan. At the time of the Vietnam War there was still strong anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea (In fact, I was just watching the Little League World Series and ESPN announcers spoke on the rivalry that existed between the two nations even still today) because of the atrocities committed in World War II. The United States simply did not care, all but forcing an alliance between the two nations simply because it ensured a strong US presence in Asia, as both countries were loyal to the Americans. This also allowed the US to stand behind its “Asia for Asians” policy, while remaining strong in the region. As seen by the passage, throughout history American methods may have changed, but the mission has remained unchanged for nearly all of our nation’s existence. Extend American power and influence whenever possible.
Robby^
Delete“Staying uncurious while employing the easy phrase ‘cheap labor’ depends on assuming that the labor of women inevitably, unavoidably is cheap. That lack of curiosity depends on making the deeper assumption that women’s labor is “naturally” cheap, that women’s labor is automatically cheap, that women’s labor is cheap in a way that requires no policy decisions, no pressure, no manipulation.”
ReplyDeleteThis passage from Cynthia Enloe’s “Tracking Globalized Military Sneaker” was eye-opening in its anaphora. Through repetition of the phrase “that women’s labor is,” followed by some cutting qualification to the word “cheap,” Enloe hammers in her point regarding the assumptions about women’s roles in the workforce that have been carefully spoon fed to us by people in positions of power. Why don’t we question cheap labor? Particularly when women - especially women of color - are involved? There is nothing natural or intrinsic about the status of women in these workplaces; their roles are the product of calculative and mindful attempts to cheapen their contributions. Is it coincidental that the labor of women specifically is cheap, or does it remain that way through active patriarchal opposition? Living in the United States makes it easy to ignore the vast differences in conditions that exist between the male and female work population, as the inequality is more subtle. In places like China and Vietnam, however, where there are even less policies in place to protect the rights of women workers, these workers are even further taken advantage of - and by relying on these countries for our everyday manufactured goods, such as shoes, clothing, electronics, and more, we as Americans are largely responsible. So is that why we choose to stay “uncurious”? Are we protecting ourselves from acknowledging our role in the perpetuation of these workers’ miserable conditions? Staying silent allows us to consume in peace, unbothered by the unpleasant truth that we could very well make a collective effort to change this notion of cheap labor, but aren't.
The discussion we had in class on Friday on whether the United States of America was an “empire” or not, came with a lot of interesting points. In my eyes I believe that the United States was and, in some ways still is an “empire”. In the period of westward expansion, we were taking land that was already owned by the Natives, and that is comparable to many of the “empires” throughout history. There are also many other reasons why in the past we were an “empire”, but we covered a lot of that in class, so I’m going to talk about the present. Today I believe we are subtle in the way we approach taking control. We control land without claiming because we use fear. Many countries listen to us because they are most likely scared to what we could do to them. For example, during World War II after we used nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we brought fear throughout the rest of the world. Today, we can mass produce nuclear weapons and many countries cannot. That fear that we can wipe out an entire country lives within many countries and I believe that we use that fear to get what we want. Also, anytime there is a war in a country, we always want to back democracy. We support that side because those people want to be free just like we are. It easier for us to back those people because we know that they will always listen to what we have to say. Fear and support of democracy are reasons why I believe we are an “empire” still to this day.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading “Tracking the Militarized Global Sneaker”, “Cheap Labor” just keep getting brought up. I began to realize that many people were getting paid way to little for the special skill they had. Industries were booming which required a lot of jobs to keep it going. Many people would believe its men working in the factories and etc, but really its the women who were getting hired, and the men high up running the businesses. A serious part in the reading that caught my eye was how Vietnamese officials have not permitted any independent labor union organizing. Do they “Cheap Labor” workers in Vietnamese even get a say or word in their every day work? Will the workers ever get a raise since they technically have no unit? I immediately thought how are these women living off of basically nothing for providing some of the biggest brands of clothing and etc. A big concern is when the women protested their low pay they were shut down. They weren’t shut down just by some normal force. The Vietnamese brought in the military troops to stop them from protesting. Many American people who wear and live for the name brand clothing don’t even know the background of the certain product getting maid. All they think is, why doesn’t the U.S just make its own products? Its a huge problem. Us as American people need to realize how it is a globalized patriarchal race. A good question to ask is, what exactly is a globalized patriarchal race? If we are the “Empire” we say we are why don’t we go and help these people out? We always say we are there for countries if they are in need. These counties like Vietnam and China need help in their industry. We as American people need to do the right thing and try to help stop the saying “Cheap Labor” in the countries that are providing are best selling products.
ReplyDelete“Although, prior to the buy-out by Nike, Converse’s Boston-based executives decided to produce these low-tops in the United States, where wages are generally higher and safety regulations are generally more demanding, they chose a state, North Carolina, whose local lawmakers have given local factory workers only limited rights to organize labor unions.”
ReplyDeleteThis passage of Enloe’s “Tracking the Militarized Global Sneaker” brings to light an interesting concept in terms of shoe brands like Converse who claim and market their shoes as statement pieces in the counterculture fashion scene. Alongside these claims and the assumptions that they provoke, the decision by Converse executives to produce solely in the United States, “where wages are generally higher and safety regulations are generally more demanding” allows for a similar assumption of a pro-worker viewpoint from the brand and executives themselves. However, Enloe brings up the fact that North Carolina lawmakers allow for only limited rights for their workers to organize labor unions and later states that the company seems to prefer African American women for factory workers because they have limited job opportunities and lower wages in the state. Similarly, their later move of sneaker production from North Carolina to Indonesia, where the labor of Indonesian women is more financially appealing, proves that this assumption of a corporation that is politically liberal and promotes a community that is anti-establishment is fundamentally false. This provokes some questions regarding companies who have similar claims and, more specifically, brings up issues regarding the political presentation of a company and the ethics that the company promotes as opposed to the ethics the company actually employs. Can a company that consciously chooses to produce its product in a state with limited rights for its workers and eventually outsources that production to a country with similar circumstances surrounding labor ethically market itself as progressive?
- Elizabeth Mack
DeleteIn "Tracking the Militarized Global Sneaker", the terms "cheap labor" and "militarized" were front and center to me. The two seem to go hand in hand throughout the passage. The "cheap labor" of young, Vietnamese women is taken for granted and even given a lower pay. When the women stand up for themselves and protest, the strongest militant force in Vietnam is brought in to shut it down. Doesn't that show how much the Vietnamese economy is benefiting from the abuse of the "dutiful" work done by these women? The overwhelming majority of consumers from brands like Nike, Puma, Timberland and Adidas don't even realize where their cute, running shoes are coming from. Many brands boast a "Made in America" label however these women are being underpaid, taken from their families and overworked for their detailed stitching that a machine could very well do. So why not pay for the machine? The big brand names could very well afford such a device but they would rather pay low dollar for detailed work by skilled laborers. So my question is if the U.S. is a world power and "Empire" like we discussed, why wouldn't we do something about it? The women aren't even allowed to form a union. Couldn't we at least protect their rights? Or are these major companies secretly protected by the U.S. for the precious income that keeps the economy running? Conspiracy theory. Confirmed.
ReplyDelete"
-Riley O'Korn
DeleteAfter reading Philips' "War! What Is It Good For?" a few points really stuck out to me. The biggest point to me was that the United States made the effort to not acknowledge the contributions of African American soldiers throughout every major American war. Philips talks about the heroic actions of Dorie Miller during the attack on Pearl Harbor and how most major US publications failed to mention his actions, and the ones that did were not able to get a photo of him from the US Navy, his mother was the one who provided them with pictures. Philips also discusses the segregation of black and white soldiers during WWII, and how many whites shared the viewpoint that, "black men could not master the weapons of modern war", and that, "they lacked the moral and mental qualifications" for combat. The United States were willing to send African Americans into combat and risk their lives to win the war, but were unwilling to give them the credit for their heroics, and treat them like human beings. Many African Americans must have felt conflicted about whether to fight for a country that was unwilling to grant them the basic human rights that they deserved.
ReplyDeleteJames Gunn
ReplyDelete“In defiance of their own public excision from the unfolding visual narrative about the war, African Americans used the double V campaign to create their own, one that included photographs, illustrations, comics, cartoons, and sketches.”
In this chapter, the author describes the struggles of African Americans as they dealt with a war on “two fronts”. They were fighting for the United States, a country that discriminated against African Americans. As part of the “negro policy”, black soldiers were limited, and bound to labor units. So, they go to fight a war for to “defend democracy and liberty”, but in the United States, African Americans are the exception to the rule. What I find really cool about this, however, is that the African Americans used this to fight back. The white press wasn’t depicting black soldiers in a good way. For example, they wouldn’t put Dorie Miller, the unnamed hero ion the pearl harbor attacks, in the newspaper. This upset African Americans, and is just another example racial discrimination in the U.S. If the press did use photographs of black soldiers, they were only used to make racial stereotypes. In turn, African Americans made their own press to fight back. In addition, African Americans fought the draft. Some of them just ignored their draft notices. Malcom X made them think he was a drug-induced hipster, to avoid the draft. Also, blacks in the military resisted with strikes and even a few riots. African Americans fought against joining the military, because they didn’t believe in fighting for an unjust country. African Americans stood up for themselves, and fought for what they believed in. The U.S. claimed to fight wars for democracy and liberty. However, it was African Americans who fought for liberty, while the government diminished it.
After reading “Eisenhower’s Contentious Second Term” a few point really stood out. One point that really stood out to me was when the president’s frustration about nuclear weapons made him and many people around him believe that the military had become an interest group. It really stood out to me because I have never thought of the military as an interest group. The people around the president believed the military was taking approaches to national security outside the traditional military. Another point that really stood out to me was how the president didn’t let one person change his outlooks on nuclear weapons. He stood up to his one point and rode with it. He didn’t let Norman Cousins change him into a nuclear pacifist. He still let the administrations build and test nuclear weapons with still believing that the nuclear fallout can be solved technological. Why does Norman Cousins attack Eisenhower and say that the military relied on its nuclear arsenal. We only have used a nuclear bomb to stop a war that was killing way to many people. The nuclear bomb in Japan changed how militaries went about their business. The whole thought of the “Cold War” really started after we bombed Japan. Many other countries were writing about how bad nuclear weapons were and many other countries began testing their own nuclear weapons and bombs. Many scientist and reporters began to attack the government about how nuclear weapons kill and are bad for the air. The government became very defensive about the nuclear fallout and started a campaign to criticize those who are pushing for the fallout. All in all the media had a big impact on the viewpoint of nuclear weapons and bombs during this time.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading “Life before Nam” a few points really stood out. The opening sentence really caught my attention. A draftee: “It was either go to Canada, go to prison, or go in the army. Why choice did I have?”A American Citizen or anyone in America should never have the choices the draftee had to make. Going to the Army was the only safe route for them. No one wants to go to prison. “Life before Nam” really shows how time has changed. Now people don’t have to make the choice of going to the army, prison or Canada. We have so many people willing to go support their country and join the armed forces now. Many employer in the time before Vietnam didn’t want to invest in young workers who might get drafted. The young class who was willing to go out and work was not getting the chance. They were at an unfair advantage. The only jobs available were the jobs only paying 50-75 dollars a week. Barely enough to support a family. The jobs provided for them also were a no hope for advancement. They never would be able to make more money or become more engaged and high up in their company they work for. It really shows how times have changed since the 1960’s. John Piccano’s example shows how the young working class had no opportunities. Most of the people who went to war went to get away from the problems occurring back in America. They had nothing else to do and needed a secure job that they could live off of. Times really have changed. Life back then was a lot more strict and unfair then today.
ReplyDelete