Skinheads and Bob Moser

I've always been taught to look at both sides of an argument, but I don't really think that's possible with this topic. 

The people in this documentary give white people a bad name. I was disgusted when I saw it. The people in this documentary are ill-informed and ignorant. They've developed their beliefs past an ideology into a cult. It's sickening. There is nothing scientific to back up their beliefs. One man said "The Chinese and the Japanese don't interbreed." I'm not an expert on Asian culture, but I would be willing to bet that they're wrong. 

The obsession that this cult has with death is unhealthy. It's disgusting. 

Their interpretation of American history is interesting, to say the least. I wonder how they can tell what "their forefathers" thought about Jews, blacks and homosexuals. 

I guess that the only way I can see the opposite side is in the Moser article. He implies that it is okay for Caucasian clubs to be banned in high schools while other cultured groups are permitted. I went to a high school that was about a forth Native American and they were allowed to have Native American culture clubs, classes, support groups, a private tutor and presentations. However, the white students were not allowed to form a Caucasian club. I was upset by this and I can see how the denial of white culture can lead to the extreme behavior shown in the documentary. I think another issue that causes behavior like this is affirmative action. And while I'm annoyed that I am automatically denied a large amount of big scholarships because I am not a racial minority, I am not ignorant enough to lump everyone who is different than me into one group and then practice hate against them. That's the crucial difference. 

Adolf Hitler

In high school, we didn't study the Holocaust nearly as much as I think is necessary. Most of my knowledge on the subject has come from taking my own initiatives to learn the subject. The only perspective that I've ever gotten is from the side of the Jews who were most obviously the victims in the case. I always have wondered what the psychological issues and the reasoning that Hitler used to justify the atrocities that he committed. These readings from Mein Kampf gave me a little bit of insight but there are still things that I don't understand. I don't anyone ever truly will. 

In Chapter IV he writes, "People who can sneak their way into the rest of mankind like drones, to make other men work for them under all sorts of pretexts, can form states even without any definitely delimited living space of their own. The applies first and foremost to a people under whose parasitism the whole of honest humanity is suffering, today more than ever: the Jews." 

I don't see why the Jews were considered "parasites" and no other group of people were. During the time that Hitler rose to power, the German economy was destroyed and nearly everyone was poor. What differentiated the Jews from the poverty? What made them more parasitic than any other group of people? 

The only conclusion that I can come up with is that Hitler was threatened by the Jews ability to have a nation without a state. He must have seen that as some sort of legitimate threat to his power. 

Benito Mussolini

I had preconceived notions before I read this piece. Ever since I can remember, relatives on my dad's side of the family always complained about how Mussolini ruined our family. My family is very, very Italian and my ancestors lived on a large estate in Sicily before Mussolini took control of Italy in 1925. Our family apparently tried to fight against his party, but part ended up joining the Mafia and the others fled to the US and shorted our last name from Perrello to Pearl. Well, at least that's the story, anyway. I've heard it my whole life from uncles, aunts, great uncles, etc. It always gets brought up at family reunions. To speak well of fascism or Mussolini will get you punched around my family. 

I looked up a definition of fascism online before reading this piece. It's defined as: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. 

In this piece, however, Mussolini describes fascism as a spiritual conception. He mentions that it is an ethical and spiritual practice. I don't get how anyone could consider what fascist regimes have done to be ethical and spiritual. 

This is What Democracy Looks Like

This documentary definitely gave me a great deal of things to think about. I found it to be very interesting and telling of the motivations of those who were involved in the Seattle WTO protests in 1999. I remember when it was going on being confused about why these people were so mad in the first place. 

A few things really stuck out for me in this documentary. First of all, I found it really unfortunate that those few people decided to break the store front windows and property in downtown Seattle. This is what probably motivated the police to use the measures of force that they did. I also heard it used as justification after the protests were over. It's also sad because not only do the effects of this damage affect the CEO's of copies like Starbucks, but forcing these companies to close down during the protests also hurts the minimum wage workers. These are the same people that the protesters are fighting to protect. 

The other concept that I found interesting is the whole idea of civil disobedience. I don't know if I have enough guts (for lack of a better word) to get arrested and beat by the police for the things that I believe in. Although politics is one of my passions, I also value my clean criminal record and have high aspirations that would nearly impossible to achieve with a police record. I've campaigned for Hillary Clinton and other political candidates that I support.  I actively research candidates who value the same things I do. However, I couldn't picture myself sitting still on the group while police spray pepper spray at me. While I have respect for the people who are willing to do that, I think some people featured in the documentary are protesting for the sake of protesting. 

Anarchy in Seattle

I found this reading interesting because I read about the Seattle World Trade Organization protest in President Bill Clinton's autobiography, My Life. I was 10 years old in 1999 when it happened, so I vaguely remember footage on the news of the violence and protests in Seattle. However, at that age, I didn't understand what President Clinton did to upset so many people so much. 

Later in life, when I discovered my interest in politics, I read President Clinton's autobiography and I remember reading about the WTO protests. So, for me to read Cindy Milstein's prospective on it was interesting. 

To me, a significant quote was by Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta, who defined anarchism as, "a form of social life in which men live a brothers, where nobody is in a position to oppress or exploit anyone else, and in which all the means to achieve maximum moral and material development are available to everyone." 

I've tried to keep an open mind during this unit but I just don't see how a social system like this is possible. I think that there will always be people who try to oppress or exploit others so I don't see how this could ever be implemented in real life. 

"No grades, no masters" by Rebecca Lerner

I find the whole idea of the Ithaca Freeskool very compelling. As a college student, I agree with the founders of the Freeskool that the idea of grading someone on the knowledge that they've gained. So many different factors can affect one's academic performance, and that can make a grade suffer. A poor teacher can lead to poor performance. If that's the case, the student, not the teacher, suffers.

With that being said, I like the idea that Freeskool is against grades and compulsory schooling. I find it extremely interesting that there is a branch of Freeskool in Ithaca, a town with two universities. I like the fact that students at the Freeskool can attend classes that they enjoy to learn more about a subject that they love or are interested in.

However, a bad teacher can ruin a subject for a student if not forever, for a very long time. I had an awful teacher for Economics my senior year of high school and now I not only don't remember anything I learned, but have learned to hate the subject. As a politics and journalism major, that's definitely not a good thing. I think that Freeskool should implement some sort of teaching standard for its teachers, that way they can ensure that they are effective.

The other issue I have with Freeskool is the whole concept of a lack of syllabi. While it's nice to not be tied down to a schedule, people can end up arguing in circles for hours about meaningless things, like the members of the Anarchy and Spirituality did. I know that personally, that would drive me crazy.

However, I love that people in the community are willing to implement a program like this and I'm interested to see how it progresses.

"Fighting for Reforms Without Becoming a Reformist" by Robin Hahnel

I really liked this reading. I think that it's because it was written fairly recently (2005) so I found that I was able to relate to the way it was written better than I was to some of the older texts that we've read for class. 

I think that there are two very telling quotes from this text. The first is, "It turns out that capitalism is far more resilient than revolutionary socialists expected it to be." I think that this is one of the core ideas of studying socialism. True capitalists will always fear and reject socialism as an economic system. American governments have always wanted to spread "democracy" to undemocratic countries, and capitalism usually follows democracy. 

The other important quote from this passage is: "There is nothing wrong with the notion of winning reforms. If reforms are successful they will make capitalism less harmful to some extent. If winning a reform further empowers people, and whets their appetite for more democracy, more economic justice, and more environmental protection than capitalism can provide, it can hasten the democratic creation of an alternative to capitalism. As a matter of fact, that is a concise description of precisely what democratic socialists must be about." 

I think that nearly every political belief or ideology has a similar sort of notion. It's the whole idea of easing people into an idea so as not to scare them. When the people realize that the political belief isn't as bad as they originally thought, they want more.