Hey everyone, here are some links to videos about Fidel Castro and Cuba and the freedom of the press there.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14186240#14186240 ( highlighting the life of Fidel Castro)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/14186240#23238977 ( highlighting how journalists in U.S. have to hurry and get a quick report from a tourist area in Cuba to be able to report anything)
If you have any questions just comment! :) Thanks
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
"A Forgotten People" Link
Hello all...here is the link to the CNN.com site where Colleen and I got information for our presentation. The clip is broken up into three different parts so just know that when you're done the first one that you still have two more parts to get through.
Have a good day!
http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/untoldstories/blog/
Have a good day!
http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/untoldstories/blog/
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What's The Name Of Your Freedom?
Our discussion of freedom of speech was great. I take the first amendment very seriously since it’s the reason why I go to school. I am a broadcast journalism major here at Quinnipiac. As a communication student I learned the ins and outs of the first amendment. I can analyze the different forms of expression, and what scrutiny is assigned to each. What is interesting is the fact speech is a freedom awarded to us its not entirely free. Our government puts a lit of restriction on speech although the general presumption that prior restraint on speech is unconstitutional.
Our government makes certain speech illegal. Including matters of national security, false advertising, and special protection to children. There are administrative legal agencies, and commercial agencies that over see matters of communication as well. Specifically having free speech and press will benefit the country. Free press feeds into democracy. Having a free press will facilitate the free world, and contribute to the marketplace of ideas. Freedom of speech and press will hold our countries leaders accountable for their actions, and allow normal people to be involved in government decision-making.
It’s nice to live in a world that allows people to fight for what they believe in. If an American disagrees with a political action he or she can band together. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about Cuba. In communist Cuba citizens can certainly have feelings, however when they voice their opinion their government will stop them.
The New York Times has written an article depicting the high hopes of Obama’s relations with the communist island. A lot of Cubans are happy. They cannot express their happiness because although a democratic nation is coming within Cuban reach it still is not a sure bet. “Mr. Obama also said he would make it possible for American companies to vastly increase cell phone service in Cuba, enabling Cubans whom Raúl Castro allowed to buy cell phones to actually get to use them.” Communism seems to never complete the action. Here is a perfect example of how tricky it can be when here is prior restraint on speech in a country like Cuba.
This directly relates to my thesis. It is simple. America sets the example for the rest of the country, and we utilize freedom of speech as far as we can. Here is an interesting case where America’s freedoms can directly help a country who does not award such freedoms to it’s own citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/weekinreview/19depalma.html?_r=1&ref=americas
Our government makes certain speech illegal. Including matters of national security, false advertising, and special protection to children. There are administrative legal agencies, and commercial agencies that over see matters of communication as well. Specifically having free speech and press will benefit the country. Free press feeds into democracy. Having a free press will facilitate the free world, and contribute to the marketplace of ideas. Freedom of speech and press will hold our countries leaders accountable for their actions, and allow normal people to be involved in government decision-making.
It’s nice to live in a world that allows people to fight for what they believe in. If an American disagrees with a political action he or she can band together. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about Cuba. In communist Cuba citizens can certainly have feelings, however when they voice their opinion their government will stop them.
The New York Times has written an article depicting the high hopes of Obama’s relations with the communist island. A lot of Cubans are happy. They cannot express their happiness because although a democratic nation is coming within Cuban reach it still is not a sure bet. “Mr. Obama also said he would make it possible for American companies to vastly increase cell phone service in Cuba, enabling Cubans whom Raúl Castro allowed to buy cell phones to actually get to use them.” Communism seems to never complete the action. Here is a perfect example of how tricky it can be when here is prior restraint on speech in a country like Cuba.
This directly relates to my thesis. It is simple. America sets the example for the rest of the country, and we utilize freedom of speech as far as we can. Here is an interesting case where America’s freedoms can directly help a country who does not award such freedoms to it’s own citizens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/weekinreview/19depalma.html?_r=1&ref=americas
Family Background
My family history is rather complex. I lack a relationship with my biological father, so pretty much half of my heritage is a mystery. Although he may be gone, I still have a good handle on where he came from also. He was of Italian decent, but had Israeli citizenship. My mother is all Italian. We stem from Ionnica, and Palermo, and also al little bit from Naples. My great grandparents, and my grandparents came to America for a better life. They came right into to ellis island much like the movie we watched in class.
When they came to New York they had nothing physical. Their assets was their hope for a better life. Back in Italy life was very hard. My family worked endlessly and still was not able to be where they wanted to be in life. Their dreams were in America. It was America where many other people took refuge, and were able to take advantage of the widespread land and opportunity. Mussolini, and the fascist regime took a lot of freedom away from my family. Although it was anti communism, Italian fascism still used propaganda and censorship of its citizens.
When my relatives arrived here they split up. Like 90% of Italians half went to Brooklyn, and the other half when all the way to Massachusetts. They lived in the ghetto and learned English. I spoke a little bit of Italian but not enough to say I am fluent. When my relatives came here they wanted the future generations to be American, and not Italian. Therefore non of us were formally taught Italian.
Watching the Ellis Island video I was proud to be where I am. It took 3 generations in my family to go to college, and watching the video made me proud to be an Italian American. They struggled on a boat, and decided to move their entire lives all for me. Like masons, my family laid the brickwork for my generation, and I am very thankful.
When they came to New York they had nothing physical. Their assets was their hope for a better life. Back in Italy life was very hard. My family worked endlessly and still was not able to be where they wanted to be in life. Their dreams were in America. It was America where many other people took refuge, and were able to take advantage of the widespread land and opportunity. Mussolini, and the fascist regime took a lot of freedom away from my family. Although it was anti communism, Italian fascism still used propaganda and censorship of its citizens.
When my relatives arrived here they split up. Like 90% of Italians half went to Brooklyn, and the other half when all the way to Massachusetts. They lived in the ghetto and learned English. I spoke a little bit of Italian but not enough to say I am fluent. When my relatives came here they wanted the future generations to be American, and not Italian. Therefore non of us were formally taught Italian.
Watching the Ellis Island video I was proud to be where I am. It took 3 generations in my family to go to college, and watching the video made me proud to be an Italian American. They struggled on a boat, and decided to move their entire lives all for me. Like masons, my family laid the brickwork for my generation, and I am very thankful.
Real Freedom of Speech
In out last class discussion on freedom of speech, we defined the freedom. While I had a brief knowledge of the freedom as we as U.S. citizens are entitled to, there were a couple points I was not so familiar with. For instance, the different categories of speech that there are restrictions on. The focus of the discussion was of the types of “speech” which are not protected by the First Amendment. These include obscenity, fighting words, defamation, perjury, child pornography, etc. I believe that when individuals find out that our freedom of speech isn’t entirely “free”, the attitude that accompanies this revelation is negative. The individual most likely feels betrayed by the government. I have come across a number of people like this. They believe that we are living in the illusion of freedom, and the freedom does not actually exist.
My thoughts on the topic kind of go along with some of the things mentioned in our class discussion. Whatever restrictions that are placed on our freedoms are for our own safety and well-being, as well as for our nation. I personally would not want to be the victim of hate speech or defamation. Such assaults could potentially alter my life path, and therefore my mental health.
Unfortunately, my opinions about other countries are not the same. For instance, in Singapore, even though the jurisdiction has granted freedom of speech to the people, but is not completely implemented. The people cannot talk about political issues, along with the media. This is clearly just a government tool in keeping the people from influencing governmental issues. If controversial policies are brought to the attention of the people, the government would have a large oppression on their power. This somewhat coincides with the chapter we read for the discussion. There are many countries which have restrictions on a number of freedoms, and it is pretty clear that it will be a long, if ever, the people of the world will be as fortunate as we are today.
http://www.helium.com/items/1129763-freedom-of-speech-in-singapore
My thoughts on the topic kind of go along with some of the things mentioned in our class discussion. Whatever restrictions that are placed on our freedoms are for our own safety and well-being, as well as for our nation. I personally would not want to be the victim of hate speech or defamation. Such assaults could potentially alter my life path, and therefore my mental health.
Unfortunately, my opinions about other countries are not the same. For instance, in Singapore, even though the jurisdiction has granted freedom of speech to the people, but is not completely implemented. The people cannot talk about political issues, along with the media. This is clearly just a government tool in keeping the people from influencing governmental issues. If controversial policies are brought to the attention of the people, the government would have a large oppression on their power. This somewhat coincides with the chapter we read for the discussion. There are many countries which have restrictions on a number of freedoms, and it is pretty clear that it will be a long, if ever, the people of the world will be as fortunate as we are today.
http://www.helium.com/items/1129763-freedom-of-speech-in-singapore
The US government is stepping on our freedom of speech
The first amendment guarantees states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This is one of the founding principals of America and the reason is stands as a symbol of freedom. The first amendment allows US citizens to express themselves through speech, clothing, art, or demonstrations without risk of being prosecuted. There are several exceptions to this amendment, which were created to protect the human rights of all Americans. A couple of these exceptions are hate speech, threats, and incitement to crime. One exception that does not exist but is highly debated concerns the American flag. Many people believe that individuals should not be allowed to burn or deface the American flag. Currently, any person is legally allowed to engage in these acts with the flag without the risk of criminal charges. I believe that it would be un-American and unconstitutional for the American government to ban acts that deface the flag. I do not agree with individual’s publicly soiling the flag and believe it is unpatriotic and un-American, but because we live in the freest country in the world we are allowed to engage in these acts. It would be hypocritical of the US to rob individuals the right to freely express themselves even if they are expressing their hatred for America.
Over the past decades freedom of speech in the media has become a controversial topic. Individuals from Eminem, Marilyn Manson, and Howard Stern have been ostracized and murdered in the press because they use explicit language and speak about adult themes. These individuals are protected under the first amendment and should not be condemned or have their careers hurt because they portray offensive material. Howard Stern concurred the largest markets in terrestrial radio with his off the wall humor that appealed to millions. He abided by FCC rules and utilized a delay button to block out offensive language but was still murdered by the press. The pressure from sponsors and fines from the FCC forced Clear Channel to drop Howard from all of his syndicated radio stations. Theirer explains; “the threat of regulation led some broadcasters to dump popular radio personalities, including Stern when Clear Channel dropped him from their stations” (Theirer). The FCC is still not satisfied with current media restrictions and “have been pushing for increased regulation of media business practices and ownership patterns (Theirer). Its movements and policy makers like that that keep creeping in and slowly remove the rights of US citizens. Some believe that these groups and the government are passing tougher restrictions for the media because it is getting too big and powerful due to technological advances.
Anyone who cares about the First Amendment and press freedom should find this chilling. Apparently, “Congress shall make no law” abridging press freedom now has several caveats. Congress shall make no law unless they think media is “too big,” or unless they don’t like some of the content they see or hear, or unless they want to investigate newsgathering practices by a major news anchor many congressmen have long despised.
This seems like a slippery slope that the US government is sliding down that could destroy the freedoms that America Prides itself on. Howard Stern is just one example of the thousands that show that the US government is not standing by the first amendment. It is not up to the government to tell me what is indecent and what are appropriate forms of entertainment for myself. It is imperative that the US government and public remain cognizant of the regulations made by groups like the FCC that impede on our freedoms.
http://techliberation.com/2004/10/11/howard-stern-and-the-future-of-media-censorship/
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Freedom of Speech blog
Freedom of Speech is one of the fundamental virtues of the American Constitution as well as the American way of life. In this country we are all free to say what we want (as long as it does not threaten or offend anyone) and express our true beliefs. This ability and freedom to speak our minds and share our ideals and opinions has been both a good and bad thing among American history. It has opened the door and opened people’s eyes to the ideas of equality and sharing new thoughts and opinions. It has also been used as a mask by some people to spread hate and share unjust and biased views. This has made the idea of freedom of speech one of the one of the most controversial parts of American society and it often raises the issue of what can and cannot be said, and on a deeper level, what is censorship?
The idea of what can and cannot be said in American society appears to trace its roots back to another issue regarding the Constitution and that is what does it mean to be free and have freedoms? There is a certain sense of responsibility that comes along with freedom and how we use it and define it. While the idea of freedom of speech may seem simple and too many people means just what it says, we have to be mindful that not everyone will agree with what we say and that some of what people say can be pretty threatening and offensive. While it is true that not all people will agree with what each other says, we still have to be careful that what we say is not truly intended to be hurtful or offensive. Many times in American society we see and hear people who believe that they can say offensive, racist words and hide behind the idea of freedom of speech. This is just an example of people who do not understand the idea of the responsibility that goes along with certain freedoms. This freedom of speech is also another controversial part of the Constitution that the forefathers seem to have left open to much debate. Maybe it was because the place and time they lived in was so different? Were there as many outspoken people or did people in that time seem to keep to themselves? It is hard to tell and this amendment further falls in with another controversial amendment, the right to bear arms. Both are somewhat vague and are constantly pushed as to what they truly mean and how far they can be enforced or allowed to be free.
While the idea of freedom of speech may be controversial in America, it can be even more controversial and difficult to understand in other countries around the world. In a recent article in the New York Times I read about a South Korean blogger who was recently freed from prison after he was acquitted by a court in South Korea from the charges of “maliciously spreading false information on the internet”. This struck me as an interesting article because South Korea is often considered an American ally and is a democratic country that is not known for its violations of human rights. I also thought this article interesting because it involved the internet which gives people the ability to share their thoughts and ideas, whether they are good or bad, with millions of people. Eventually though, the blogger was found not guilty because he did not intend to disturb the public and this appeared to be an attempt by the South Korean government to censor some of the people whose ideas and words they felt offended their government and caused confusion amongst their people. This was a blatant violation of that blogger’s right to share his thoughts on the government and the economy. This type of censorship probably would not happen in America because people many times share their opinions regarding the government and economy and regularly, even on television, critique the government and financial state of America. It is what makes our government run and helps to make sure we are as efficient as possible. It is clear that while America tries to be responsible with its freedom of speech, not all countries can clearly do the same.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/southkorea/index.html?inline=nyt-geo
The idea of what can and cannot be said in American society appears to trace its roots back to another issue regarding the Constitution and that is what does it mean to be free and have freedoms? There is a certain sense of responsibility that comes along with freedom and how we use it and define it. While the idea of freedom of speech may seem simple and too many people means just what it says, we have to be mindful that not everyone will agree with what we say and that some of what people say can be pretty threatening and offensive. While it is true that not all people will agree with what each other says, we still have to be careful that what we say is not truly intended to be hurtful or offensive. Many times in American society we see and hear people who believe that they can say offensive, racist words and hide behind the idea of freedom of speech. This is just an example of people who do not understand the idea of the responsibility that goes along with certain freedoms. This freedom of speech is also another controversial part of the Constitution that the forefathers seem to have left open to much debate. Maybe it was because the place and time they lived in was so different? Were there as many outspoken people or did people in that time seem to keep to themselves? It is hard to tell and this amendment further falls in with another controversial amendment, the right to bear arms. Both are somewhat vague and are constantly pushed as to what they truly mean and how far they can be enforced or allowed to be free.
While the idea of freedom of speech may be controversial in America, it can be even more controversial and difficult to understand in other countries around the world. In a recent article in the New York Times I read about a South Korean blogger who was recently freed from prison after he was acquitted by a court in South Korea from the charges of “maliciously spreading false information on the internet”. This struck me as an interesting article because South Korea is often considered an American ally and is a democratic country that is not known for its violations of human rights. I also thought this article interesting because it involved the internet which gives people the ability to share their thoughts and ideas, whether they are good or bad, with millions of people. Eventually though, the blogger was found not guilty because he did not intend to disturb the public and this appeared to be an attempt by the South Korean government to censor some of the people whose ideas and words they felt offended their government and caused confusion amongst their people. This was a blatant violation of that blogger’s right to share his thoughts on the government and the economy. This type of censorship probably would not happen in America because people many times share their opinions regarding the government and economy and regularly, even on television, critique the government and financial state of America. It is what makes our government run and helps to make sure we are as efficient as possible. It is clear that while America tries to be responsible with its freedom of speech, not all countries can clearly do the same.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/southkorea/index.html?inline=nyt-geo
Freedom of Speech in America and China
Freedom of Speech in America represents one of the fundamental rights that Americans are granted. This freedom ensures that every American can voice their opinion with out fear of reprisals from the government. In other countries such as China, their citizens can be arrested for voicing their opposition to the government or its policies. However in America, Freedom of Speech is not boundless but has restrictions. For example in America during the 20th Century the Ku Klux Klan, once powerful and popular, was being fought by the government who charged many of its members for violating the civil rights of their victims. Today individuals and organizations can voice their opinions but are restricted from threatening or hate speech. However while America grants these rights to their citizens it is not so else where in the world. In China the Communist government has implemented censorship only allowing news stations to advertise what news the government allows. In the news article Chinese Authorities Block Online Articles About June 4th Massacre the Chinese government recently blocked online sources that discussed the June 4th Massacre. After the death of Hu Yaobang, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, in April 15, 1989 mass protests erupted, the most famous occurring at Tiananmen Square. These protests were a student led democracy movement. The Chinese Communist Party then viciously squashed the protesters, killing according to the Chinese government 200 to 300 people. However the Chinese Red Cross estimates that 2,000 to 3,000 were killed. As in 1989, Chinese citizens are still subjected to censorship and their activities and views monitored. In this news article, Chinese citizens are prohibited to search these and other articles. The Communist government has censored such sites to ensure public knowledge is only what the government wants so that appraisals are kept to a minimum. However such censorship continues to spark anger among Chinese citizens who call for democracy. Those of us who are fortunate to live in America should value these rights that have been granted to us. Sometimes we forget how good we have it here in America and we forget that many are suffering from things that we take for granted. Freedom of Speech is very important and impacts our lives everyday. With out Freedom of Speech our lives and America would have turned out very differently.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/15651/
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/15651/
Freedom of Speech in Nazi Germany
People around the world have a common theory about Americans: how lazy, arrogant and ungrateful we are. They have one thing right; we take our freedom of speech for granted. We never have to think about what were going to say or how something is going to sound. We can support whoever we want in political elections. We can protest, assemble and appeal.
It is a tough subject to think about, but freedom of speech is what built the fabric of America. In my opinion, freedom of speech is much more than just the right to say what you want (as long as it does not threaten anyone etc….); it is the right to have intellect. Americans can go to school, and apply the knowledge they learn there to their everyday lives, therefore giving them more controversial ideas that they can voice. We have this luxury and don’t even think about what it would be like without it. Well there is one place I can think of that is the antithesis of my thoughts. Nazi Germany. When people think of this regime, they mostly think of world domination, Adolf Hitler, and the holocaust; however, the Nazis are just as famous for being oppressors of the educated. An article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum explains that there was a good amount of opposition towards the Nazi party from within Germany. Democratic liberal parties as well as communist parties all opposed Hitler, some went as far as to plotting his assassination, unfortunately, they were unsuccessful. Apparently, these intellectuals who opposed the Nazis were very against this “new Germany”, so against it in fact that German secret police and Gestapo actually had special missions geared towards taking these organizations out by force.
Similarly, the Nazis did not just target Jews as the only religious group they persecuted. The third Reich was very much against the Catholic Church, there were even advertisements out there to defame Catholics and the church. Opposition from youth came from universities around Germany; one interesting story comes from Munich University in 1942. A professor and two students formed the white rose resistance group, as they did not want to join the Hitler Youth. They passed around anti-Nazi leaflets and as a result were executed.
Nazi Germany was a period of time that created a tremendous amount of political and social unrest. We never think about these people who stood against Hitler, maybe because we do not know about them, but it is interesting to find out how much more there was to the Third Reich’s agenda. Any intellectuals opposing the party were either deported or murdered alongside the Jews, Homosexuals and disabled. We really are lucky to live in a country that not only tolerates free speech and thought, but encourages it. The American government goes as far as to let the KKK march in the streets of New York City. We should all take some time to appreciate the rights we have here in America.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005208
It is a tough subject to think about, but freedom of speech is what built the fabric of America. In my opinion, freedom of speech is much more than just the right to say what you want (as long as it does not threaten anyone etc….); it is the right to have intellect. Americans can go to school, and apply the knowledge they learn there to their everyday lives, therefore giving them more controversial ideas that they can voice. We have this luxury and don’t even think about what it would be like without it. Well there is one place I can think of that is the antithesis of my thoughts. Nazi Germany. When people think of this regime, they mostly think of world domination, Adolf Hitler, and the holocaust; however, the Nazis are just as famous for being oppressors of the educated. An article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum explains that there was a good amount of opposition towards the Nazi party from within Germany. Democratic liberal parties as well as communist parties all opposed Hitler, some went as far as to plotting his assassination, unfortunately, they were unsuccessful. Apparently, these intellectuals who opposed the Nazis were very against this “new Germany”, so against it in fact that German secret police and Gestapo actually had special missions geared towards taking these organizations out by force.
Similarly, the Nazis did not just target Jews as the only religious group they persecuted. The third Reich was very much against the Catholic Church, there were even advertisements out there to defame Catholics and the church. Opposition from youth came from universities around Germany; one interesting story comes from Munich University in 1942. A professor and two students formed the white rose resistance group, as they did not want to join the Hitler Youth. They passed around anti-Nazi leaflets and as a result were executed.
Nazi Germany was a period of time that created a tremendous amount of political and social unrest. We never think about these people who stood against Hitler, maybe because we do not know about them, but it is interesting to find out how much more there was to the Third Reich’s agenda. Any intellectuals opposing the party were either deported or murdered alongside the Jews, Homosexuals and disabled. We really are lucky to live in a country that not only tolerates free speech and thought, but encourages it. The American government goes as far as to let the KKK march in the streets of New York City. We should all take some time to appreciate the rights we have here in America.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005208
Super City and Restrictions on Freedoms
In Dubai, the United Arab Emirates was recently frowned apon for proposing its new media law. This law restricts free speech and strengthens self censorship among journalists. The rights group called “Human Rights Watch” are very afraid that the government will have too much control over media sources.
The government can charge fines of about $136,000, “for carrying misleading news that harms the national economy.” This draft media law can also charge media sources up to $1,350,000 for insulting a member of the government or someone else of power.
Despite criticisms this law passed in January of 2009 and is waiting approval from the president.
United States citizens are lucky to have the right to express their opinion in a publically printed newspaper. I am shocked at the fines the government is proposing to stop the journalists from expressing their true feelings. It must be incredibly frustrating to write in a paper where you can’t say what you really think. The only reason I could guess they are doing this is because Dubai is being built up so much and they only want positive attention on the new super city. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/13/ap/middleeast/main4940622.shtml
I did alittle more research into Dubai and found out that 15 million annual tourists are estimated to travel here by the year 2015. "Dubai will become the tourism and vacation ownership capital of the world in the years to come, as the numerous incredible projects, such as Dubailand, Bawadi and those by Emaar and Nakheel, continue to unfold before our eyes," This article also mentions how Dubai could lead in timeshare sales over Florida. I guess since Dubai is putting so much hope into the super city and expect the economy to sky rocket they want no bad media attention!
Monday, April 20, 2009
Melting Pot Causes Controversy for Freedom of Speech
Globalization has had and continues to have a huge impact on a wide variety of aspects of life. The corporate world has grown exponentially, trade continues to flourish, leisurely travel is a way of peoples lives, technology is world wide, and the list continues. While there are endless benefits to this there are also areas of life that are problematic because of globalization. One example is the controversial rights of freedom of speech. It would be easy to make a set of rights for a population that was entirely the same. Unfortunately that isn't realistic today. Some might say that freedom of speech is an easy concept and people should be free to say what they want. Because America is a melting pot of differently races, ethnicity, religions, and sexes it is understandable that the rights of freedom of speech need to carefully thought out and presented.
My understanding of the freedom of speech is that we do have freedom to express our opinions but there are restrictions. According to the definition of freedom of speech, some of the more obvious restrictions are the freedom to say just what one likes where ones likes are laws regulating incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy. I agree with these situations. The problem here is that not all citizens keep these restrictions in their minds when they begin to talk to act out. There are obviously situations when one knows to keep their opinions to themselves but then there also situations when people may not realize they are speaking against these restrictions. In the article, "The International War on Free Speech," Brett Joshpe talks about the problems with what is considered free and what may result in a violation of free speech.
Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and a documentary film producer. He produced a controversal cartoon and short film when trying to portray terrosism. He quoted radical Imams and Koranic Suras which were used to justify terrorism. There was an angry responce from the Muslims to the film. An investitgation came about to see whether Wilders violated any hate speech laws. While the Muslims declined to prosecute him, 12 European countries are prosecuting him for blasphemy against Islam. This is one of those situations where one might not realize the extent of their restrictions to freedome of speech. If Wilders produced the film knowing he was going to be prosecuted by 12 countries I don't believe he would have said and presented what he did. There are some blury lines when figuring out whether somebody abuses their freedom of speech and violates rights or if they just didnt know. Clearly the rights of freedom of speech vary and using the word "freedom" may not be the proper term. They aren't freedoms, they are guidelines to speech. It is clearly a controversal set of rights around the world and in the melting pot of America.
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/the-international-war-on-free
http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
My understanding of the freedom of speech is that we do have freedom to express our opinions but there are restrictions. According to the definition of freedom of speech, some of the more obvious restrictions are the freedom to say just what one likes where ones likes are laws regulating incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy. I agree with these situations. The problem here is that not all citizens keep these restrictions in their minds when they begin to talk to act out. There are obviously situations when one knows to keep their opinions to themselves but then there also situations when people may not realize they are speaking against these restrictions. In the article, "The International War on Free Speech," Brett Joshpe talks about the problems with what is considered free and what may result in a violation of free speech.
Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and a documentary film producer. He produced a controversal cartoon and short film when trying to portray terrosism. He quoted radical Imams and Koranic Suras which were used to justify terrorism. There was an angry responce from the Muslims to the film. An investitgation came about to see whether Wilders violated any hate speech laws. While the Muslims declined to prosecute him, 12 European countries are prosecuting him for blasphemy against Islam. This is one of those situations where one might not realize the extent of their restrictions to freedome of speech. If Wilders produced the film knowing he was going to be prosecuted by 12 countries I don't believe he would have said and presented what he did. There are some blury lines when figuring out whether somebody abuses their freedom of speech and violates rights or if they just didnt know. Clearly the rights of freedom of speech vary and using the word "freedom" may not be the proper term. They aren't freedoms, they are guidelines to speech. It is clearly a controversal set of rights around the world and in the melting pot of America.
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/the-international-war-on-free
http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Has freedom of speech made our history?
Most people are aware that the freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean you are 100% free to say anything you want to any person or group without consequences. We know that our freedom of speech in the United States is limited; we cannot say things that will hurt, threaten, or discriminate against others in any way.
I found a really interesting article about the effects that freedom of speech had on Hilter and the times during the Holocaust, which I also found extremely relevant since we will be traveling to Poland in less than a month. The article states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but the government can restrict free speech in the interests of national security, preserving public safety, and for the prevention of disorder of crime. I can relate that to our situation in the United States today where if any single person mentioned bombs or killing someone, even if it was as a joke, serious action would be taken thinking that the person was linked to terrorism.
But the part I really couldn't believe was how the article asked the question "Do fascists have a right to free speech?" Obviously everyone has a right, it doesn't matter who you are. Yet the controversial issue here is, what if Hilter and the Nazi Party didn't have free speech? Would the Holocaust still have happened? Did the Holocaust occur because these people in political power had unlimited freedom of speech? And would Hilter and the Nazi Party have grown in strength and influence if they were restricted to the things they said? I just find this amazing, because I never actually thought of things that way. I always thought that Hilter and the Nazis just had power, never that they gained this power because they had the right to say whatever they wanted without fear of consequences. Then once getting power, the Nazis restricted the freedom of speech of all other who were not part of the Nazi party.
A quote from the article read "Tens of millions of lives may have been saved if the free speech of Nazis had been suppressed early on." Some people today in our society criticize or complain that we don't have the freedom to say anything we want at any time, but just look at the Holocaust and think how lucky we are. Our country was smart enough to restrict the things people could say for our own safety, so people couldn't come into power who would destroy the nation and create one of the biggest genocides in history. We are lucky that our freedom of speech isn't unlimited.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7113186.stm
I found a really interesting article about the effects that freedom of speech had on Hilter and the times during the Holocaust, which I also found extremely relevant since we will be traveling to Poland in less than a month. The article states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but the government can restrict free speech in the interests of national security, preserving public safety, and for the prevention of disorder of crime. I can relate that to our situation in the United States today where if any single person mentioned bombs or killing someone, even if it was as a joke, serious action would be taken thinking that the person was linked to terrorism.
But the part I really couldn't believe was how the article asked the question "Do fascists have a right to free speech?" Obviously everyone has a right, it doesn't matter who you are. Yet the controversial issue here is, what if Hilter and the Nazi Party didn't have free speech? Would the Holocaust still have happened? Did the Holocaust occur because these people in political power had unlimited freedom of speech? And would Hilter and the Nazi Party have grown in strength and influence if they were restricted to the things they said? I just find this amazing, because I never actually thought of things that way. I always thought that Hilter and the Nazis just had power, never that they gained this power because they had the right to say whatever they wanted without fear of consequences. Then once getting power, the Nazis restricted the freedom of speech of all other who were not part of the Nazi party.
A quote from the article read "Tens of millions of lives may have been saved if the free speech of Nazis had been suppressed early on." Some people today in our society criticize or complain that we don't have the freedom to say anything we want at any time, but just look at the Holocaust and think how lucky we are. Our country was smart enough to restrict the things people could say for our own safety, so people couldn't come into power who would destroy the nation and create one of the biggest genocides in history. We are lucky that our freedom of speech isn't unlimited.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7113186.stm
First Amendment, how much are we protected?
The United States of America, known as the “land of the free, and the home of the brave,” while the latter part may be true in some instances, is the first part? Is the US really the land of the free? When I think of the word “free” in terms of people’s rights, I automatically think freedom of speech, freedom of religion, basically the freedom for one to safely live their life the way that they want to. Freedom of speech is often considered to be one of the most basic tenets of democracy. In America, we do live ‘freely’ but only to an extent. Under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Freedom of speech under the First Amendment is not necessarily giving us the right to have full ‘freedom’ there are certain restrictions and regulations. For example- you can’t yell “fire” in crowded places, you can’t say false things about specific people whether on TV or newspapers because it is deemed slander, all of these regulations seem to make sense because, when you think about it, the government is instilling all of these to protect us, to help keep us safe. However, upon researching this I found an article in which I learned something else about the US First Amendment.
In the article it says that under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence. This just does not seem right to me, this seems exactly like slander and libel to me, however instead of targeting a specific person, they are targeting a specific group. “The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by racial hatred. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities. But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.” This seems absolutely absurd to me. How is making it ok to give magazines and newspapers the ability to say false things that are harmful protected by the First Amendment? That does not make me feel safe in fact it kind of confuses me. While the First Amendment gives us the Freedom of Speech and with it comes regulations and rules to protect us, with an article like this that sheds light on a different side of the First Amendment, I feel somewhat not protected. I plan on researching more on this to find out other instances where this topic is raised and confronted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=2&sq=freedom%20of%20speech%20&st=cse&scp=5
In the article it says that under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence. This just does not seem right to me, this seems exactly like slander and libel to me, however instead of targeting a specific person, they are targeting a specific group. “The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by racial hatred. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities. But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.” This seems absolutely absurd to me. How is making it ok to give magazines and newspapers the ability to say false things that are harmful protected by the First Amendment? That does not make me feel safe in fact it kind of confuses me. While the First Amendment gives us the Freedom of Speech and with it comes regulations and rules to protect us, with an article like this that sheds light on a different side of the First Amendment, I feel somewhat not protected. I plan on researching more on this to find out other instances where this topic is raised and confronted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=2&sq=freedom%20of%20speech%20&st=cse&scp=5
The real price of free speech
In the United States Free Speech is defined as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Freedom of speech is a highly discussed issue as many Americans feel as if there really is no freedom of speech and you can’t just “ say whatever you want.” In reality, yes, you can say whatever you want in the United States- yet depending on what it may be, there are consequences. For the most part, the rules in the United States are, what I perceive to be, for the purposes of protecting its citizens and to ensure safety and comfort for all. In comparison, China claims to have “free speech”, yet the government has shown numerous examples of controlling and restricting speech past what they have stated is acceptable. The Chinese law regarding free speech states, “Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution states that Chinese citizens enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press.” China's Publishing Regulations, specify that groups and individuals may not interfere in the lawful exercise of these rights.
According to http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/exp/, Chinese government has gone as far as to put journalist who bring news to foreigners in jail and even blocks broadcasts of certain foreign television shows, websites and radio stations. Chinese government even controls and regulates religious materials in the country and will only allow government-licensed printing enterprises to produce religious materials Perhaps this is for additional revenue to the government? Or the Chinese government is simply that restrictive and truly has a strong, communist-like hold on their citizens. I feel it is a little bit of both. The arrests of both Wang Zaiqing and Cai Zhuohua, pastors of the Christian faith, were arrested because they printed and gave away Bibles and other Christian literature. This clearly is a violation of the International Human Rights regarding the freedom of speech. How can a government imprison a man of “faith” because he GAVE away some literature regarding a religion? It’s not like the men even made profits off of these prints. That is what seems ridiculous to me. Just from this simple article about how there are crazy restrictions in China on speech makes me appreciate even more what I have in the United States. China has always notably been restrictive and "protective" of its citizens- ex: great wall of China- huge wall to seclude themselves and ignore and abolish the idea of foreign interaction or influence. Although I do not have an extensive learning about China, I do feel that a great deal of their history was changed and the culture of the country was developed because of the time in history when China was cold and shut off from the world.
I am anxious to go to Poland and Prague next month because I am beginning to think about how differently people live, have grown up and think of restrictions as " normal" and " average." I feel this may evoke some passion in me to encourage change in these countries, yet I must realize even those that are restricted may even like the idea of being restricted, yet I believe the freedom of speech is something that in some way or another every person in the world yearns for in some way or another. Everyone has an opinion and at some point, wants to share.
According to http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/exp/, Chinese government has gone as far as to put journalist who bring news to foreigners in jail and even blocks broadcasts of certain foreign television shows, websites and radio stations. Chinese government even controls and regulates religious materials in the country and will only allow government-licensed printing enterprises to produce religious materials Perhaps this is for additional revenue to the government? Or the Chinese government is simply that restrictive and truly has a strong, communist-like hold on their citizens. I feel it is a little bit of both. The arrests of both Wang Zaiqing and Cai Zhuohua, pastors of the Christian faith, were arrested because they printed and gave away Bibles and other Christian literature. This clearly is a violation of the International Human Rights regarding the freedom of speech. How can a government imprison a man of “faith” because he GAVE away some literature regarding a religion? It’s not like the men even made profits off of these prints. That is what seems ridiculous to me. Just from this simple article about how there are crazy restrictions in China on speech makes me appreciate even more what I have in the United States. China has always notably been restrictive and "protective" of its citizens- ex: great wall of China- huge wall to seclude themselves and ignore and abolish the idea of foreign interaction or influence. Although I do not have an extensive learning about China, I do feel that a great deal of their history was changed and the culture of the country was developed because of the time in history when China was cold and shut off from the world.
I am anxious to go to Poland and Prague next month because I am beginning to think about how differently people live, have grown up and think of restrictions as " normal" and " average." I feel this may evoke some passion in me to encourage change in these countries, yet I must realize even those that are restricted may even like the idea of being restricted, yet I believe the freedom of speech is something that in some way or another every person in the world yearns for in some way or another. Everyone has an opinion and at some point, wants to share.
MAUS
Maus evoked many feelings. The holocaust themes are striking and it is great to see the perspectives of a survivor, and the perspective of the many who did not. The one segment that sparked particular interest was when Vladek had the dream involving his grandfather. In the dream the grandfather came to him telling him that he would soon leave the camp. That is so powerful. It is powerful to imagine something that actually occurs. Vladek indeed leave the camp to return to his wife and kid. In his mind he fabricated his departure. This is reminiscent of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
I believe greatly in the self-fulfilling prophecy. It is the belief that the energy you exert can be positive, or negative and that positive/negative energy will dictate the world around you. This is very powerful stuff I am talking about. In terms of religion I can be a skeptic. If the self-fulfilling prophecy winds up to be true then it allows people to control their own lives and achieve any goal they desire.
Vladek employed this method. At least I feel that he did it subconsciously. The point at which he had a dream he emitted that energy to the universe. He dreamed is grandfather told him that he would escape from the German work camp. This is an element of the story that is very cool because it can really connect with the audience. If you believe in something, you can achieve whatever you want. That’s a very powerful message.
Restrictions on Speech
Freedom of speech is a prominent characteristic of the American way of life. Even though as Americans our speech is not completely free of all restrictions it is significantly unrestricted compared to citizens of other countries. While complete freedom may seem like an ideal, the restrictions this country has placed on freedom of speech are in place for good reasons. For example, to restrict child pornography protects children from exposure they likely did not agree to. One cannot threaten to kill or cause any bodily harm to another. Also one is not allowed to slander or defame another to protect the reputations of individuals within society. While researching the first amendment and more specifically the freedom of speech, I realized the complexity of the laws we have surrounding speech. Freedom of speech in America is not black and white as some may believe, yet the extent to which our speech is free is a liberty that I feel fortunate to have.
An article published in February of 2008 on Russia by BBC titled “Free speech shrinking in Russia,” provides a glimpse at life under a government that restricts speech. The article discusses incidents of unsolved murders of outspoken journalists, police attacking oppositional protestors, and independent media outlets being shut down. Under President Vladimir Putin, this was the atmosphere in Russia. Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK at the time this article was published explained, “The space for freedom of speech is shrinking alarmingly in Russia and it's now imperative that the Russian authorities reverse this trend. She said dissent could be a matter of life or death in the case of outspoken journalists like Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot dead in Moscow two years ago.” Russia now has a new president, Dmitry Medvedev; however, Putin though he abdicated his position as chief of state to Medvedev, his current title is head of the government according to the CIA World Fact Book. Putin’s influence in still strong in Russia.
An article such as the one described above depicting incidents where speech is severely and even violently restricted makes me appreciate the opportunities available in America even more. In my everyday life as I listen to the news, watch television, read books, and even participate in class discussions I am not concerned about getting in trouble for my views or beliefs. I grew up with this privilege and may take it for granted since I have known nothing else. This is a topic I am interested in exploring further to be able truly appreciate it.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&edition=i&q=russia+freedom+of+speech
An article published in February of 2008 on Russia by BBC titled “Free speech shrinking in Russia,” provides a glimpse at life under a government that restricts speech. The article discusses incidents of unsolved murders of outspoken journalists, police attacking oppositional protestors, and independent media outlets being shut down. Under President Vladimir Putin, this was the atmosphere in Russia. Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK at the time this article was published explained, “The space for freedom of speech is shrinking alarmingly in Russia and it's now imperative that the Russian authorities reverse this trend. She said dissent could be a matter of life or death in the case of outspoken journalists like Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot dead in Moscow two years ago.” Russia now has a new president, Dmitry Medvedev; however, Putin though he abdicated his position as chief of state to Medvedev, his current title is head of the government according to the CIA World Fact Book. Putin’s influence in still strong in Russia.
An article such as the one described above depicting incidents where speech is severely and even violently restricted makes me appreciate the opportunities available in America even more. In my everyday life as I listen to the news, watch television, read books, and even participate in class discussions I am not concerned about getting in trouble for my views or beliefs. I grew up with this privilege and may take it for granted since I have known nothing else. This is a topic I am interested in exploring further to be able truly appreciate it.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&edition=i&q=russia+freedom+of+speech
Our First Amendment Rights
Our right to Freedom of Speech is something that I think we as Americans take for granted. Because we have been brought up with the understanding that we are allowed to speak our minds and if there is something that we want to protest that we can do so I think this right is usually overlooked. If you think about it, it’s quite an amazing thing to be able to criticize our government and not be afraid of being persecuted for doing so. Of course everything has exceptions. One cannot speak in a threatening manner towards another person, threatening to kill them or do anyone bodily harm. It also restricts obscenity and pornography from the general public. Something very interesting that I learned while looking up the first Amendment and what it justifies was that when distributing a pamphlet to the general public it’s a federal case to have the pamphlet be anonymous and to distribute it. The spreading of slander or lies about a person, place, or establishment is also prohibited in the First Amendment. I guess our freedom of speech isn’t completely free, but it’s still a lot better than what some countries have to live under.
Looking at an article on BBC.com dealing with the Olympics in Bejing this past summer was very interesting and dealt with the issue of freedom of speech. Hong Kong officials were supposed to ensure China had a seamless and very smooth opening-ceremony, while also allowing their people to speak their minds about things. However, when it came to protesting particular areas of the Chinese way of life, the Hong Kong officials were caught in a Catch-22, “they were required to allow for protests, yet were also under a heavy obligation to Beijing to ensure a smooth event” (“Asia”). This freedom of assembly and freedom to speak what is on their minds seems like a fundamental ‘no-brainer’ for us in the states. We have to remember though that we are very fortunate to be allowed this right to speak our minds. The Chinese government pretty much doesn’t allow Chinese citizens to get away with anything that goes against the government. If there were to be some demonstrations against the government, you could bet that they would be stopped quickly after they began. And the same was true for this particular situation. The protest was stopped and event went relatively smoothly after the officials detained a few people during the opening ceremonies and other public events. Is this right? To infringe on people’s rights just to uphold a better public image? I guess the argument could go both ways.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7378193.stm
Looking at an article on BBC.com dealing with the Olympics in Bejing this past summer was very interesting and dealt with the issue of freedom of speech. Hong Kong officials were supposed to ensure China had a seamless and very smooth opening-ceremony, while also allowing their people to speak their minds about things. However, when it came to protesting particular areas of the Chinese way of life, the Hong Kong officials were caught in a Catch-22, “they were required to allow for protests, yet were also under a heavy obligation to Beijing to ensure a smooth event” (“Asia”). This freedom of assembly and freedom to speak what is on their minds seems like a fundamental ‘no-brainer’ for us in the states. We have to remember though that we are very fortunate to be allowed this right to speak our minds. The Chinese government pretty much doesn’t allow Chinese citizens to get away with anything that goes against the government. If there were to be some demonstrations against the government, you could bet that they would be stopped quickly after they began. And the same was true for this particular situation. The protest was stopped and event went relatively smoothly after the officials detained a few people during the opening ceremonies and other public events. Is this right? To infringe on people’s rights just to uphold a better public image? I guess the argument could go both ways.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7378193.stm
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
My Family Histoy
My ancestry is made up of me being mainly Irish almost fully, and a small amount of English, Austrian, and French Canadian. On my mothers side I have Irish, Austrian and English. On my fathers side I have Irish, French Canadian and German. Like I stated before I am mainly Irish with a small percentage of the other four.
My mother’s family immigration story is one like many others. My great grandmothers father was a full-blooded Irish man lived in Ireland with his wife who was English and also Irish with their first child. He knows that to have a better life he had to come to America. He left his wife and child and went to catch the boat to New York. He was not able to get on the boat because it was full and they said that he was not allowed. But because he like many other immigrants knew that if he came to America he and his family would have a better life he “illegally” boarded that boat and he was on his way.
When he arrived in New York, he knew that it was going to be hard to get a job because of all the other immigrants. He came ahead to start a life so that he could eventually save enough money and send for his wife and child. So he decided that he would make his way out of the city to New Jersey. For many months he struggled, not many businesses were hiring Irish men and women. After a 6 month of working a small factory job, he picked up other small jobs like farming, and working in a factory putting together car parts etc. He was a hard worker and his employers recognized that. This opened many more doors for his; he now has manager positions open to him.
Before my great great great grandmother and he son came over my great great great grandfather made sure that he had a stable living area, and enough money for them to survive on. He worked for 3 years to have a place to live and to send for his wife and child. After his wife and child were with him, my great great great grandmother also started working small jobs to help. They later had eight more children, they stayed in New Jersey and to this day my mothers family still lives in New Jersey in the same areas.
Unfortunately I do not know that full historical version of my father’s side immigration but I know that on my father’s side they came from Canada, Ireland. I wish that I did know more about my father’s side. The only part of me that is French Canadian is truthfully my last name as my grandmother would say, the rest is all Irish. But I do know very well the story of my mother’s side.
My mother’s family immigration story is one like many others. My great grandmothers father was a full-blooded Irish man lived in Ireland with his wife who was English and also Irish with their first child. He knows that to have a better life he had to come to America. He left his wife and child and went to catch the boat to New York. He was not able to get on the boat because it was full and they said that he was not allowed. But because he like many other immigrants knew that if he came to America he and his family would have a better life he “illegally” boarded that boat and he was on his way.
When he arrived in New York, he knew that it was going to be hard to get a job because of all the other immigrants. He came ahead to start a life so that he could eventually save enough money and send for his wife and child. So he decided that he would make his way out of the city to New Jersey. For many months he struggled, not many businesses were hiring Irish men and women. After a 6 month of working a small factory job, he picked up other small jobs like farming, and working in a factory putting together car parts etc. He was a hard worker and his employers recognized that. This opened many more doors for his; he now has manager positions open to him.
Before my great great great grandmother and he son came over my great great great grandfather made sure that he had a stable living area, and enough money for them to survive on. He worked for 3 years to have a place to live and to send for his wife and child. After his wife and child were with him, my great great great grandmother also started working small jobs to help. They later had eight more children, they stayed in New Jersey and to this day my mothers family still lives in New Jersey in the same areas.
Unfortunately I do not know that full historical version of my father’s side immigration but I know that on my father’s side they came from Canada, Ireland. I wish that I did know more about my father’s side. The only part of me that is French Canadian is truthfully my last name as my grandmother would say, the rest is all Irish. But I do know very well the story of my mother’s side.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Ireland/Germany/Hungary
Hey everyone, hope you had a good holiday. I apologize for posting this so late, I had planned on posting it when I got home Thursday night but the internet in my house was not working properly all weekend so I had to wait until I got back to school now to post it, my apologies.
My ancestry is made up of me being 50% Irish (my mother is 100%) and 25% German/25% Hungarian (my father being half and half.) To be quite honest, I don’t know much about my family history, both of my grandparents died when I was very young so I never really had an opportunity to sit down with them and learn in depth about their family history, etc, however my parents did tell me a little bit about them and their families stories.
My grandparents on my Mother’s side are both one hundred percent Irish. My grandmothers parents migrated from Ireland to the United States mainly because of the poor conditions that were hitting Ireland at that time. The potato famine was widespread and causing starvation across the country, jobs were becoming scarce and sickness and disease were taking over the country, forcing my family to come to America. In fifth grade we took a school trip to Ellis Island and my mother pointed out that my family on her side actually did come through Ellis Island, however when I looked online I was unable to find any records of this. Upon arriving in the states they settled up in Boston, Massachusetts where my grandmother was born and that is where she lived her entire life until she met my grandfather. My grandfather’s story is pretty similar to my grandmothers, his family left Ireland for the same reasons (widespread famine and diseases sweeping the country) however his family settled in Trenton, New Jersey where he was born and lived his entire life. My grandfather was a pilot in the air force during the First World War and got injured and was sent home, and while he was home he went on a vacation to Florida where my grandmother was also vacationing at the time and that is how they met, they fell in love and the rest is history. They got married and settled in Trenton, New Jersey where they had my uncle and then my mother and where they lived the remainder of their lives together.
My grandparents on my Father’s side are a little different. My grandmother is from Hungary, she emigrated here when she was a little girl with her family, the reason I’m not really sure. I remember her having a slight accent, and my father told me that she did not know a word of English when she got here. I did some research online about Hungarian immigrants and on one website I found that “Many went to America to escape the policy of Magyarization imposed by the Hungarian government. Other came to improve their economic circumstances while some young men emigrated in order to avoid military service.” Perhaps that is the reason why my grandmothers family came here, I’m not sure if they also came through Ellis Island but they settled in Philadelphia where my grandmother grew up and lived her life until she met my grandfather. My grandfather was born in America in the early 1990s, however his family came from Germany. They came over here in hopes of economic prosperity and a better life over all. They got into the Horse racing business and at a race is where my grandmother and grandfather met. They married and moved to Freehold, New Jersey where my grandfather raised racing horses and had a family of six kids, one of which being my father. I found an article on the New York Times website regarding Irish immigrants in the US. According to the article, “from 1990 to 2000, the number of Irish in New York fell from about 390,000 to just over 300,000, according to census data. And while the booming Irish economy of the 1990s has started to skid, the reversal has yet to staunch the number of Irish returning home.” Learning about immigration and Ellis Island really is something that interests me. I plan on talking to my parents again soon to see what else they can tell me about my family history.
My ancestry is made up of me being 50% Irish (my mother is 100%) and 25% German/25% Hungarian (my father being half and half.) To be quite honest, I don’t know much about my family history, both of my grandparents died when I was very young so I never really had an opportunity to sit down with them and learn in depth about their family history, etc, however my parents did tell me a little bit about them and their families stories.
My grandparents on my Mother’s side are both one hundred percent Irish. My grandmothers parents migrated from Ireland to the United States mainly because of the poor conditions that were hitting Ireland at that time. The potato famine was widespread and causing starvation across the country, jobs were becoming scarce and sickness and disease were taking over the country, forcing my family to come to America. In fifth grade we took a school trip to Ellis Island and my mother pointed out that my family on her side actually did come through Ellis Island, however when I looked online I was unable to find any records of this. Upon arriving in the states they settled up in Boston, Massachusetts where my grandmother was born and that is where she lived her entire life until she met my grandfather. My grandfather’s story is pretty similar to my grandmothers, his family left Ireland for the same reasons (widespread famine and diseases sweeping the country) however his family settled in Trenton, New Jersey where he was born and lived his entire life. My grandfather was a pilot in the air force during the First World War and got injured and was sent home, and while he was home he went on a vacation to Florida where my grandmother was also vacationing at the time and that is how they met, they fell in love and the rest is history. They got married and settled in Trenton, New Jersey where they had my uncle and then my mother and where they lived the remainder of their lives together.
My grandparents on my Father’s side are a little different. My grandmother is from Hungary, she emigrated here when she was a little girl with her family, the reason I’m not really sure. I remember her having a slight accent, and my father told me that she did not know a word of English when she got here. I did some research online about Hungarian immigrants and on one website I found that “Many went to America to escape the policy of Magyarization imposed by the Hungarian government. Other came to improve their economic circumstances while some young men emigrated in order to avoid military service.” Perhaps that is the reason why my grandmothers family came here, I’m not sure if they also came through Ellis Island but they settled in Philadelphia where my grandmother grew up and lived her life until she met my grandfather. My grandfather was born in America in the early 1990s, however his family came from Germany. They came over here in hopes of economic prosperity and a better life over all. They got into the Horse racing business and at a race is where my grandmother and grandfather met. They married and moved to Freehold, New Jersey where my grandfather raised racing horses and had a family of six kids, one of which being my father. I found an article on the New York Times website regarding Irish immigrants in the US. According to the article, “from 1990 to 2000, the number of Irish in New York fell from about 390,000 to just over 300,000, according to census data. And while the booming Irish economy of the 1990s has started to skid, the reversal has yet to staunch the number of Irish returning home.” Learning about immigration and Ellis Island really is something that interests me. I plan on talking to my parents again soon to see what else they can tell me about my family history.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
No Place to Call Home
One of the most important practices in the Jewish faith is making "aliyah", or pilgrimage to the holy land of Israel. The trouble with this however, is that Israel only became an official Jewish state again in 1948 after roughly 2,000 years of foreign occupation. Jews were forced to move away to Europe, or like my ancestors, to the deserts of the middle east. It is widespread theory in my family that my ancestors were probably nomadic for hundreds of years to escape persecution in Roman and Muslim controlled lands. However, sometime in the mid 1800's my family settled in Baghdad, Iraq. They lived there until 1948 when Israel was reinstated as a Jewish country, they left what little they had behind and moved a day after they heard the news.
Growing up in a young Israel, my parent's generation was faced with a bittersweet childhood, on one hand they had a land to call home, but constantly dealt with foreign powers attempting to destroy Israel, forcing them to want a different life. For many Israeli's born from 1948-1975, America was seen as the only place that they could live in freedom and in peace. This triggered one of the most massive migrations of the era, and for a while, America alloted Israel one of the highest quotas for immigrants out of any country.
As my parents and their fellow Israelis started to move to the United States, Israel became a more developed country economically, militarily and culturally. This improvement in living conditions and identity prompted many Israeli Americans to move back to Israel. In fact, in 2008, for the first time ever, more Jews moved from America to Israel than the opposite. Amid all the violence that goes on in Israel, Jews finally stood up and made their "Aliyah's". This shows how badly some Jews yearn to live in the 'promised land' and how much they will risk to go there. Apparently all they needed to be able to move there is a sense of identity and culture.
Sorry this came late, I forgot about the assignment during the holidays.
http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=78046
Growing up in a young Israel, my parent's generation was faced with a bittersweet childhood, on one hand they had a land to call home, but constantly dealt with foreign powers attempting to destroy Israel, forcing them to want a different life. For many Israeli's born from 1948-1975, America was seen as the only place that they could live in freedom and in peace. This triggered one of the most massive migrations of the era, and for a while, America alloted Israel one of the highest quotas for immigrants out of any country.
As my parents and their fellow Israelis started to move to the United States, Israel became a more developed country economically, militarily and culturally. This improvement in living conditions and identity prompted many Israeli Americans to move back to Israel. In fact, in 2008, for the first time ever, more Jews moved from America to Israel than the opposite. Amid all the violence that goes on in Israel, Jews finally stood up and made their "Aliyah's". This shows how badly some Jews yearn to live in the 'promised land' and how much they will risk to go there. Apparently all they needed to be able to move there is a sense of identity and culture.
Sorry this came late, I forgot about the assignment during the holidays.
http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=78046
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
