Author Archives: Sasha Cayward

Vote for Me

Posted on by
Reply

In the film “Vote for Me”, the selection of a class representative is not democratic. The three candidates are preselected by the teacher, so the students are choosing from a predetermined group, rendering the process undemocratic already. he students were lulled into a false sense of belief that they were choosing a candidate that best suits their interests, but in reality they are voting for someone who will keep them in line and who will report their behavior back to the teacher. I thought it was interesting how family dynamics played a role in how each kid planned their campaign. One of the boys wanted to win because he wanted to be able to control and dictate his other classmates, and had the over-involved support of his parents. He sabotages the campaign of Xu Xiaofei by convincing his friends and classmates to harass her before she gave her presentation. From a young age, these kids are taught by their corrupt society to sabotage and attack their opponents while at the same time working to influence his supporters. I wonder how much of the desire to win is to prove to their families and to their government that they are useful and that they are good communists. Also, how much does environment play a role in the ways that the student conducted their campaigns? Cheng Cheng had very intense parents, who wanted him to win which fed his desire to win. When he gave his speech, he played to the emotions of his classmates by having his friends come up and hug him while he sang. He then asks for his support and engages with the class by calling them “brother” or “sister”, shaking their hand and giving them “good karma” in exchange for a vote. This was a very “dictator like” move, and he felt pride when he told his classmates to be quiet and they were. T On the other hand, Lou Lei did not want the support of his parents and decided that he wants to allow his classmates to pick the person they thought would be the best leader, and wanted to give them a choice. However, when he “wins” he exerts power and force over his classmates to make them summit and be fearful of him. This was a very Machiavelli thing to do as he made his subjects fear him, but not hate him. This fake democracy is exhibited through false elections and Machiavelli type force by 8 year olds.

 

 

 

 

The rich in democracy

Posted on by
6

Democracies can only be stable when the majority of the population believes that it is the only legitimate form of government. Although this seems intuitive, democracy has slowly been eroding. Roberto For and Yascha Mounk say that even though Americans still have emotional attachment to the Constitution, the norms that have kept the system stable are being disregarded. A main influence on this erosion is wealth and prosperity. Politics has become more of a business, with those who can pay their way to the top leading. As mentioned last class, candidates are not chosen freely, but rather are part of a larger system. Candidates who can afford to make campaigns and who have a large social backing can make their way into power, while those who may have better intentions and more “democratic” values are left in the dust. This article touches on how the rich are more likely to be critical of democracy than the poor, yet in majority of the situations, the rich are funding democracy. I don’t quite understand this statement, or maybe it was just a generalization. I think that since the wealthy are more skeptical, they are more willing to pay legislators and politicians in order to influence their decisions. One of the most important sentences in this article was, “Economic elites and narrow interest groups were very influential, while the views of the ordinary citizens and mass based interest groups had virtually no impact.” This reveals that the majority does not rule. Because of this, democracy cannot function properly, as it is led by self interested leaders with their eye on the bank accounts. In order to fix this situation, there needs to be reform between the government and Wall Street/economy, somehow blocking leaders from being influenced by outside sources.

The Grocer and the Chief

Posted on by
Reply

This article brought up several interesting points. The first is who truly wields the power?This is similar to Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” as it poses the question of who in the village of Balgat was more important- the chief or the grocer. Lerner writes “In Balgat, the Chief carried the sword, but did the Grocer steer the pen?” (51). I understood this as while the Chief has political “control” over his people, the Grocer plays an important role for the people. He knows the system and how to work it, therefore, people come to him with money questions, which can be seen as a form of power. Money is a driving influence in much of the world, and while money was a “taboo talk” in Balgat, it still permeated society.  I though the point of “some Balgati were talking loud about the Grocer to keep their own inner voices from being overheard by the Chief- or even by themselves” (50). This reminds me of the class discussion on conformity, and how people are willings to put the blame on others in order to not stand out. In many cases, especially in undeveloped societies, it becomes a game of who can stand out the least. In addition, when Tosun asked the people what they would do about the problems in Turkey if they were president, it was interesting how some were shocked by the question, claiming that they could never think of themselves in that light. Yet, the Grocer has no problem answering that question. Why is that? Is it because the Grocer is progressive in his thinking while the Shepard is stuck in his old fashioned ways?

True Power in Shooting an Elephant

Posted on by
2

George Orwell presents an idea that power can be lost in an imperialistic setting when the so called “controller” is amid the majority. From the story, Orwell, a sub divisional police officer in Burma, was constantly ridiculed and mistreated as the “anti- European feelings were pretty bitter”. The people of Lower Burma enforced their power over Orwell when “A nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way.” This demonstrates that power lay with the majority, rather than the minority (Orwell). It also reinstates that power cannot come from as title, or in Orwell’s case, being set into a colony as a European, but instead, needs to be derived from within. When Orwell was debating on shooting the elephant, he was morally conflicted, as he knew that the elephant would be more beneficial if it were alive, but he did not want to be laughed at by the entire village. His last sentence ” I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool” reveals this sentiment, and further reveals the power that the Burmese have over Orwell. Even so, it could be argued that the shared unity of the people of Lower Burma also represents their subjugation, as their “shared laugh” just like Wedeen suggests, reminds them of their own powerlessness. The fact that they could influence his actions reveals their own inferiority, as Orwell was afraid of violence, therefore acting out in violence. This, as Wedeen and others suggest, is an example of how the Burmese are both victims and perpetrators of their situation.

Doing School

Posted on by
1

Gatto’s article addresses his belief that schools are in essence laboratories, turning young, fresh minded individuals into conformists. In todays educational system, students are being controlled by curriculums that are of no interest, and in certain circumstances, of no use to them. Even still, their lack of enthusiasm and inherent boredom is deemed as their own fault. Not the fault of the teachers, the administrators, or the publishers, but the fault of the young individuals attempting to learn something about the world. Gatto delves deeper into his claim that the school system “divides children by subject, by age grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means…” (36). My junior year, I had the opportunity to tutor students and be a teacher’s assistant in underfunded and underprivileged schools in different parts of Seattle. My two years there were some of the most eye opening, yet heartbreaking moments of my high school experience. Boredom was rampant, and it was apparent that many of the students wanted to be anywhere but locked in a classroom for six hours. As I began reaching out to students and learning about their lives, I came to understand that many were serious about bettering their education, but they came from troubled pasts- criminal records, bad grades, failed classes ect… As Gatto mentions, they were held back due the “evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records” (36). Therefore, no matter how badly these students wanted to turn around their situation, opportunities were closed to them because of their failed classes or previous bad grades. In addition, the students were taught to conform, not to try to achieve something outside their comfort zone. As Gatto discusses in “the differentiating function”, they were discouraged from achieving, it was all about “doing just enough”. In today’s society, it is shocking to see the lack of critical analysis done in schools, as we are now, more than ever, susceptible to believing external forces. Propaganda and marketing companies are omnipresent, and by not teaching our kids to truly think for themselves, they are like “a herd of mindless consumers…. left like sitting ducks for…. marketing” (37). Like many aspects of society, education is a business. Publishers compete for book releases, and educational boards are always convincing schools to adopt their curriculums. This, combined with corruption/subjectivity within the educational system excludes and disempowers a large group of people. Is it possible to create an educational system that encompasses everyone, and all their diversity, or will a certain group always be disadvantaged and excluded?