Assignment 16- sam chavez- Speech

Ever since the 2017 inauguration of President Donald Trump, combating immigration, legal and illegal, has been on the forefront of his agenda, and has been the root of countless legislation, and even executive orders. Only 5 days into his presidency, Trump signed Executive Order #1376 entitled, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” this executive order contains several sections which undermine human rights, including the expanded use of detention, limits on access to asylum, enhanced enforcement along the US-Mexico border, and the construction of a 2,000-mile border wall. Despite concerns by experts that the wall would be expensive, difficult to construct, ineffective in deterring illegal migration, harmful to the environment on the border, offensive to personal property rights, and a threat to the economic and social well-being of border communities, the construction of a “great wall” continues to be one of Trump’s most popular methods by which he thinks all illegal immigration will come an instantaneous halt. But the question that is most clear to me is- where did this negative stigma on undocumented and documented immigrants come from? And I didn’t have to look far for the answer, it was simply, our President. In a 2017 CNN interview, Trump said, “The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in most cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.” The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has increased millions in the last 10 years, so if what Trump had to say about them was true, we could easily conclude that the number of violent crimes would have risen as well, right? However, the exact opposite happened. Nationwide, there were an estimated 1.4 million violent crimes in 2008, while there were only an estimated 1.2 million in 2017. This stigma is not only leading to inappropriate legislation, but also to the almost brainwashing of some citizens. This is evident in the shooting of Hispanics in El Paso on August 3, 2019, when a white gunman at a Walmart attempted to shoot as many Latinos as possible before later surrendering to police. He murdered 22 people and injured many more. He told police he targeted Mexican immigrants and had produced a manifesto that declared “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” Repeats of this event will only continue to occur until this stigma is attacked at its roots. Take Jorge Vargas for example. Now living in Santa Lucia Puebla in central Mexico Vargas was on the verge of being accepted by DACA-the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation. Weeks before he was accepted, Vargas was arrested by ICE on his way to his full-time job, and deported under a month later, immediately following the birth of his son, whom he has not seen in 2 years. Now, Vargas rarely leaves his room, as all of his friends have been roped into drugs and gang violence. However, the question that most have is- why can’t people seeking asylum and citizenship simply enter the United States legally by acquiring a green card? Well, the answer is simple; immigrants such as Vargas are seeking asylum and work in order to escape gang violence, government corruption, and poverty. People say, why can’t they just “get in line” to enter the country. The simple answer is that there is no line. Legal documentation comes with a slew of fees, paperwork, etc that make it near impossible for most to gain legal citizenship. At present, the wait for a green card is upwards of 5 years and over $7,000 in fees. These wait times and staggering fees deter people from taking the legal route to citizenship, and as wait time and fees increase, entering the country illegally will only become more desirable to those seeking asylum. And unfortunately, Trump’s continued legislation will only make illegal entry more popular. Just this past Wednesday, the Trump administration expanded the list of crimes that would bar migrants from asylum to many small misdemeanor charges. With the route to legal citizenship only becoming more burdensome, the percentage of those seeking asylum illegally will only continue to rise. The problem most have with allowing undocumented and even some documented immigrants into the country is the fear that they will “take our jobs,” or “lower our wages.” However, in a 550-page report authored by Cornell economics professor Francine Blau, it is stated that they “found little to no negative effects on overall wages and employment of native-born workers in the longer term.” 

So i'm not saying we should open our country’s doors completely and let anyone at any time enter the United States, but I am saying that legislation is making legal citizenship more difficult and is the complete opposite of what is believed to be the most effective method to combat undocumented entrances. If the acquisition of legal papers such as green cards were made easier and more affordable, those seeking asylum would be immensely more inclined to do so legally. Making America great again is not only achieved on the backs of native-born citizens, but also, immigrants.

Works Cited

Anderson, Stuart. “Year In Review: The Most Significant Immigration Stories Of 2019.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 9 Dec. 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/12/09/the-most-disturbing-immigration-stories-of-2019/#1c333b5e1302.

Andrews, Rafe H., et al. “'When Deported, You Become Nothing'.” POLITICO Magazine, 19 Apr. 2019, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/19/displaced-puebla-deportation-immigration-new-york-photos-226657.

“Executive Orders.” Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders.

Ink, Social. “President Trump's Executive Orders on Immigration and Refugees.” The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), 14 Feb. 2017, https://cmsny.org/trumps-executive-orders-immigration-refugees/.

Kanno-youngs, Zolan. “Trump Administration Proposes Adding Minor Crimes to List of Offenses That Bar Asylum.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Dec. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-asylum-misdemeanors.html.

Miller, Ty. “DOES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME?*.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), 25 Mar. 2018, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9125.12175?referrer_access_token=U44-odc4wEdSbg-CwL7D64ta6bR2k8jH0KrdpFOxC675wkWzF3Z1N4Dlc_IydRBgHbmudDKiy_RtS-D3H4ef5mDCITa4vXbQnRRxokrTWbm-7036kupHrFRroo5fpie6hpBDpzPSedglo-tcLeQhCR3ssx070MJ31-N2krmJQ_M=.

Assignment 16- Max Carlson- Speech

  In the recent House of Representatives votes over the Impeachment articles, the voting was almost split perfectly down party lines. For article 1, 229 out of 233 Democrats voted yes, and 195 out of 197 Republicans voted no. This split parallelled in the vote for article 2, with 228 out of 233 Democrats in favor and 195 out of 197 Republicans opposed. Party-Line votes are votes in which 90% or more of Republicans oppose 90% or more of Democrats. According to Jared Heyman, From 1955-2015, the percent of votes that end up as Party-line votes rose almost 30%. In this speech, I’ll discuss why this is an issue, then detail what we can do to avoid this in the future.

People vote alongside people that they agree with, what’s the issue? These groups that people identify with often lead to uninformed voters voting for whichever representative aligns with their party, regardless of who they are or their platforms. There are only 2 main political parties in the United States, so people join either one for a variety of reasons. This large variety shows that just because you’re of the same party as a candidate, doesn’t mean you necessarily share views. 

Think of a Utah story for a moment. A republican Governor runs unopposed, and wins (obviously). The strange thing about the victory, however, is that less than half of his votes were for him directly. 30% of the votes were write-in, after something was exposed about his past after nomination. Another 25% of the votes he got solely for belonging to a party. “Straight-ticket votes” counted for a quarter of the votes for the governor of an entire state. This scenario shows people’s inherent trust of the system. They vote for their party, oblivious to the fact that most of his party now oppose him after the scandal was released.

The polarization of parties isn’t only bad for the voting citizenry of America, but causes severe polarization in Congress as well. As mentioned before, the two parties voted almost entirely on party lines regarding impeachment. This same instance happened regarding the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in late 2018. One Democrat voted to approve him, and other than that the parties were completely split. Political parties rely so heavily on Party-line voting that Political Whip exists as a job. For those who don’t know, a Whip is a party official whose job it is to ensure that party representatives attend voting sessions and vote, not how the representative feels, but along with the party’s point of view.

Another example of how reliant on party line voting political parties are is Gerrymandering. In the US, redistricting occurs every 10 years, and parties are constantly looking for ways to secure just one or two extra votes in congress.

So what can we do? Political parties lead to radicalization and polarization but we can’t just turn our entire political system around. What’s the point of giving this speech if we do nothing concrete to make change? Well I ask all of us, as we turn 18 and register to vote in the next year or two, to be more aware. To not just vote with your party,  but to use your vote to create change in the world. Vote for someone who you believe can make the change you want to see in America happen, regardless of their party. Our votes have power. We have the authority to elect who we want to the US Government, so don’t waste that right just voting for someone because they picked the same group as you did back when they were 18. Analyze your candidate’s views, and make sure that’s what you want in your government for the next 2 years.

I understand that a lot of the time, we will vote straight ticket and only for our registered party, but as long as we do that because of who they are or what views they hold, and not just what party they are, that’s positive change in America.

Berman, Dan. “How Senators Voted on Brett Kavanaugh.” CNN, Cable News Network, 6 Oct. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/how-senators-voted-on-brett-kavanaugh/index.html.

Cai, Weiyi, and K. K. Rebecca. “How Democrats and Republicans Voted on Trump's Impeachment.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Dec. 2019, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment-vote.html.

Heyman, Jared. “On the Hidden Link between Partisanship and Oligarchy.” Medium, Medium, 9 Oct. 2018, medium.com/@jaredheyman/on-the-hidden-link-between-partisanship-and-oligarchy-cac6405f4192.

Kuo, Didi. “The Paradox of Party Polarization.” The American Interest, 27 Mar. 2018, www.the-american-interest.com/2018/03/27/paradox-party-polarization/.

assignment #16 - lily gardner: the fallacy of white feminism

When the white supremacists came for me in the YouTube comments of a Young Turks video in which I barely occupied more than a minute, I was honored that I had said something provocative enough to ignite their fury. I had the luxury of not being scared; it was an isolated activity, my ten minutes of hate comment fame.

When the white supremacists came for a friend, they sent thousands of messages into her DMs, filled with derogatory slurs about her Judaism, queerness, and dark skin. They were not what I had received, empty threats from thirty year old men in the basements in Georgia, but instead diatribes - “the Jews will not replace us”; “you should not exist”; “we will exterminate you.” She still receives them to this day, not a sign of clout, but of the need to be fearful. 

Recently, I saw a tweet that said “racism is as American as pie,” (Cargle). Admittedly, I can’t eat pie crust and don’t really know where I stand on this whole “America” thing, but my first reaction was self congratulatory, as I was already woke enough to accept this fact and didn’t need to be informed of it by way of a tweet. I’m guessing it was the same for many of you, acceptance, with some rejection of responsibility. We’re not the problem: the white supremacists are. 

That’s simply not the truth. 

So, for the next six minutes, we’re going to explore what white privilege is, how it developed, how it’s manifesting in our everyday lives, and ultimately, what we can do to mitigate its detrimental effects. But this time, we’re not going to focus on the white cisgendered straight Christian men in the room; y’all get told pretty often that you’re the bane of our society, Instead, it’s time to confront the truth that white women can also be vehicles of oppression, even behind our feminist facades. 

What is privilege? In an academic sense, privilege is “an advantage or a set of advantages that you have that others do not,” (Oluo 20). However, privilege encompasses more than that: it’s a set of advantages that, for most, are not due to their own efforts, and are instead the result of arbitrary factors like race, physical ability, gender, class, sexuality, body type, and neurological capabilities (McIntosh 7). 

Privilege becomes clear, not in the inherent advantages it provides individuals - many of us don’t feel an omnipresent sense of everyday safety - it becomes clear because of the juxtaposed disadvantages of others. If you have never gone into a store and been followed the whole time by the store’s managers because you appear to be suspicious, why would you think that would be the case for anyone? But, when you’re the person who is being profiled, it becomes explicitly clear who in our society does not experience the same discrimination (McIntosh 8). 

But let’s be clear: while this may be the first time any of you are talking about privilege, these systems did not develop by chance, but rather emerge from intentional societal stratification by the same individuals lauded in our history books. In this room, the vast majority of our privilege comes from our collective “whiteness,” but being “white” is a classification that evolved for social control following Bacon’s Rebellion (Allen 19). It’s creation justified the fact that poor white revolutionaries went down in history and were promoted to the “working class,” while the black participants were demoted to slaves. From that moment on, “whiteness” became social safety, enhanced over time by white women.

On one side of my family, it takes me only a few generations before I get to the “slave mistresses,” the commander of the farm house whose job was to “civilize” black women and children, making this “peculiar institution” palatable and consequently, M in normalized. What should have been considered mistreatment was glossed over by the manicured hands and lilting voice of the mistress. Thus, even when the institution of slavery was repealed by the 13th Amendment, the thoughts and norms that accompanied it, and justified it, remained the same, perpetuated by the white matriarchy (Crenshaw 20). 

When the women’s suffrage movement culminated in the 19th Amendment, white women across the country rejoiced; they had finally proven their inherent equality to their brothers and husbands. But for women of color, the radical black feminists we don’t learn about in schools, suffrage was a means of resistance to the surge of nationalist organizations (Staples). The black women’s quest was about community empowerment for systemic change. However, not only did the white suffragettes relegate their black sisters to the back of the protest, they intentionally halted progress for African Americans begun during Reconstruction. 

In this room, we, like many others, take collective pride in the fact that now, overt racism is not as socially acceptable as it once was and that we’ve had successful reforms following the Civil Rights Movement. But that doesn’t mean the problem of white privilege or systems of white supremacy have just magically disappeared. When someone on Twitter tells you to “check your privilege,” they’re asking you to stop for a moment and consider how what you just said or did perpetuates these systems (Cargle). But many of us don’t always know what we said or did to even warrant that charge. And for those of us who are white women in the room, we must reckon with the reality that although being female may cause us disadvantage, our whiteness also contributes to the continuation of racism. 

When we women actively ignore our role in racism in our society, choosing not to intervene at the Thanksgiving dinner table, staying silent when the white boy drops the N word in the group chat, we are perpetuating racism. When we women say we’re “powerless” or that we ”can’t personally be held responsible for white supremacy,” we are perpetuating racism. When we argue for incremental change, we fail to recognize the severity of the needs of black and brown citizens in the name of bipartisanship. Waiting for justice is a privilege afforded to whites (MacMillan). 

So, if you’re feeling uncomfortable or even guilty right now, that is powerful. But we cannot allow our guilt to consume us or bring us to tears, because this is not about us. The worst thing that can happen to us is not, contrary to popular belief, being called racists - it’s not doing anything radical about it (McRae). 

I did not pick this problem simply to yell at you or assuage my own guilt. And, as white women and feminists and students, we bear the responsibility to do something about it. Here are a few things, in no particular order.

1. Provide monetary support for women of color. This means supporting BIPOC owned businesses, and the work of black writers, Latinx performers, and Indigenous artisans. 
2. It also means supporting reparations on a national scale, because when two times as many Black families, Indigenous families, and Hispanic families are below the poverty line, it can’t simply be because of a “difference in work ethic.” 
3. Exercise your voice for the better, butt into those uncomfortable conversations, call out the racist joke. Have these conversations. 
4. But, make space for the voices of BIPOC women. If you’re dominating the conversation while women of color sit to the side, unable to interject because of your diatribes, stop talking and start listening. Understand when your words are warranted, and when, frankly, they’re nothing new. 
5. Support educational equity in academic outcomes and disciplinary actions. 
6. Vote local, demand an increase in the minimum wage, support police reform. Our systems have deeply racist laws ingrained within them, so show up to the ballot box.

So, to all my fellow white women out there: we may not be in the streets, rioting with our torches, but until we learn to step it up, we’re complicit in systems of oppression, complicit in systemic racism. In the wise words of Desmond Tutu, “If you are neutral in the face of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Speech - M'Kiyah Baird

The Banning of Books in American Schools

Do you remember reading a book that captivated your imagination so quickly, it felt impossible to let go of it?  Do you remember reading a book that sparked your interest in something you thought you never would have liked? A book that takes hold of your creativity and never seems to let go. Books have this incredible ability to bring people together and make them understand each other. These emotional characters can make us humble. That newly discovered forest filled with dragons and knights makes us adventurous. The invention that everyone seemed to doubt until it changed the world makes us curious. We are constantly learning about ourselves and our world and whether child or adult, a book has the ability to change anyone’s perception. You know, I used to want to be an author so I could write real people’s stories, both the good and the bad, because we learn from other’s experiences. So tell me this: why are we banning these powerful stories in our schools? Why are we teaching ourselves that ‘if you don’t talk about it - don’t read about it, - it didn’t happen’?  

Let me explain. You see, naturally, humans look for the betterment of society - whatever that may look like in your mind. While parents look for what they believe is best for their children, a government official may look for what’s better for their respective domain. And, apparently, there are some books that don’t meet the criteria for schools. And no I'm not talking about the obvious ones with fade to black scenes, I mean the ones that express something controversial one time in the entirety of the book. There's this thing called book censorship. It is the removal, restriction, or suppression of a literary, artistic, or educational piece to keep up a uniform idea in society. Each year there are hundreds of books that are challenged for various reasons that often times get banned in some US schools. Generally, it’s parents coming to challenge books containing something of violence, profanity, or religion that they disagree with. 

The main counter-argument for the banning of these books is the “first amendment” argument: The argument that every American citizen has a right to freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, ‘I have a right to read this book just as much as the author has the right to publish it.’ This should be true under the law as not allowing others to read certain books forces one belief on to society and keeps individuals from branching out on their interests. This is a primary concern for many as it seems to lessen that first-amendment right. But then there is the parental perspective of the argument. There are two sides, the advocates for censorship, and the critics of it.

Let’s look at the advocates. We’re teenagers, easily influenced human beings still learning our way. Parents tend to see their children as exactly that- little children. You don't grow out of that, you are still exactly as you were in that embarrassing baby picture they like to show off. So, no wonder a parental figure would want to protect you from the harsh reality of the world. According to the American Library Association Office of Intellectual Freedom, children’s books, young adult books, classics, and books with diverse content are the top genres of frequently challenged books.  Parents are determined to keep trouble away from their kids, especially for younger children that don’t understand certain concepts and contexts of a historical topic. According to Kalli Anderson, a mother and journalist at a local news source, being a parent turned her into a book censor. She was suddenly left with questions about her daughter’s ability to understand the historical context of a slang word used in a book. She stated that her mindset as a college student was that she would never subject herself to censoring her children’s books. She set out to ask other parents how they felt about the issue and found that many parents share the concern that a book their child was reading didn’t reflect their personal beliefs and values. This idea suddenly translates to school and before you know it, no one’s kids can read a book. Librarians deal with this problem, too. According to Allison G. Kaplan and Bradley Debrick, two university librarians, on a frighteningly frequent basis, their library collections are challenged by parents and community members who object to a simple picture or a word. (Debrick, Kaplan 56) 

Then there’s the critics. Colin Campbell, an author for the New York Times, noticed frequent supreme court decisions and constant conflict that justified the censoring of books. He criticised the idea that the justification for banning books is to keep a uniform society. He says they commonly  “condemn the depiction of unorthodox family arrangements, sexual explicitness even in a biological context, speculation about Christ, unflattering portraits of American authority, criticisms of business and corporate practices, and radical political ideas.” (Campbell) He says that these uniform concepts are no where in the law and should not be forced upon anyone.

So what’s the point? Well, when you have several concerned parents, all looking for the betterment of their children’s lives, one’s personal values suddenly affect everyone else.  When you protect and censor what a child learns, you don’t give them the chance to experience things on their own. Melissa Scholes Young, an author and journalist at the Washington Post speaking about her two children, says “I’ve never censored their reading. I’d rather watch them stumble in their own reading discoveries than limit their exposure, and I trust that the safest place for them to stretch their experiences is on the page.” (Young) Young expresses her belief that children and teenagers should be allowed to learn and from that you begin to teach the context. From this, we can see that allowing room for kids and teens to make their own experiences allows time to teach context. Learning is the goal here and restricting access to these tools prevents the learning process.

So what’s the solution? There are already non-profit organizations such as the ALA, the Freedom to Read Foundation, and the National Coalition Against Censorship that have begun peaceful protests and attempts to spread awareness. This is exactly what we can do: express to others the importance of books and why banning them for simple reasons is harmful to students. Through social media or contact with government officials, we spread awareness and we begin to increase their level of importance in not just schools but society.

At the end of the day, though, why do I care this much about books? Because they allow for opportunities and when you see an opportunity, you seize it. The opportunity to connect with family and friends over your love - or dislike - for a book. It’s the opportunity for inspiration and new aspirations. Books are the opportunity for education and discovery. For those experiences that kids and teens are missing, I bet I could find some references in a book. However, how would I accomplish anything if the book that could have started my adventure was banned from my school for a single word? 

Works Cited 

Admin. “Frequently Challenged Books.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, ALA American Library Association, 16 Sept. 2019, www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks.

Anderson, Kalli. “Being a Parent Turned Me Into a Book Censor.” The Walrus, The Walrus, 14 Nov. 2019, thewalrus.ca/being-a-parent-turned-me-into-a-book-censor/.

Campbell, Colin. “BOOK BANNING IN AMERICA.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Dec. 1981.

Kaplan, Allison G, and Bradley Debrick. “Banned Books, Blocked Bytes.” Children & Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Library Service to Children., 2009, pp. 56–58.

Young, Melissa S. “Perspective | I Don't Censor the Books My Children Read. I Think They'll Be Stronger for It.” Washington Post, Washing Post, 18 May 2018, 6:00 a.m., www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2018/05/18/i-dont-censor-the-books-my-children-read-i-think-theyll-be-stronger-for-it/%3foutputType=amp.

blog 16-two walls, innumerable opinions- emanuelle sippy

By any measure, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets more coverage in the western media than almost any other. According to research conducted by Shalevbrims and published in both The Economist and Haaretz, a simple Google News search indicates that, on average, the media publishes one story, 

for every 50,000 Chinese or Indians, 20,000 Bangladeshis, 8,000 Pakistanis, 5,000 Russians, 3,400 Egyptians (in the midst of horrific soccer riots) or 1200 Syrians.... But it takes only 300 Israelis for each Google News item on Israel (Shalevbrims).

People who know about little else with respect to international news, know something, however little it may be, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the most part, though, when people talk or write about the conflict, it is presented as a struggle between two parties: Jews and Palestinians. The reality, however, is much, much messier than that. There isn’t a single Jewish, or even Israeli, side, nor is there a single Palestinian one. Our failure to recognize the complexities of sentiments, allegiances, histories, and experiences is—in my mind—part of what makes this conflict seem so intractable. But it isn’t only the world at large that fails to see the nuance of perspective, it is within Jewish and Palestinian communities that the blindspots are often the most profound. I know this, not only because of what scholars have argued but also because of my own experiences in navigating complex relationships to Israel and Israel politics within the Jewish community.

In his piece, “Young Anti-Zionists: Be Uncomfortable, Like I Am With My Zionism,” Peter Beinart, a leading scholar on the region, urges Gen-Z to be less black and white with our understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not only in our outward rhetoric but also in our conceptual understanding of the terrain, something which the preponderance of extreme and knee-jerk opinions often hinders. He begins by claiming that young Jews, who tend to be more left-wing than older genderations, rightfully want to engage in dialogue with and support Palestinian rights but he argues that we must also entertain and engage with other Jews’ perspectives if we are going to move the needle and make real political change (Beinart).  

  Beinhart asks my generation of Jews to imagine what Israel meant in the aftermath of genocide. He asks us to ponder what it would mean to us if we had lived in countries without rights to religious freedom, or were in need of refuge. Beinart also argues that Zionism, like other forms of Nationalism, was initiated with a plethora of intents and he reminds us that many of those who identify with “Cultural Zionism” see the rift between ethno-religious superiority and democratic ideals.  Just as America’s founding was the liberation of some, the genocide, colonization, and enslavement of others, Israel’s founding encompassed more than one reality, and its present does as well. 

Israeli independence in 1948 is a profound example of how one people’s triumph can come at the expense of another’s trauma. (What Israelis call, Yom Ha’atzmaut, Independence day, Palestinians call, Al Nakba, the catastrophe.) But even that distinction—between triumph and trauma—isn’t so simple; both Jewish and Palestinian stories are inextricably linked to trauma. A key tenant of Israel’s truth-claim is that the Jewish people have been subjected to centuries oppression culminating in the Holocaust, the destruction of 50% of European Jewry, over Six Million Jewish people. To live in the modern state of Israel is to inherit a litany of traumas before and after independence. Israel’s wars, experiences of terrorist attacks, and realities of compulsory military service have created a state obsessed with its own security. So too, do Palestinians have legitimate historical claims not only to land but to generational poverty, refugee status, and inherited trauma. And today, many live without clean water, basic health care, and education. In order to understand the conflict, we have to hold and reconcile the paradoxes between Palestinians and Israelis. 

And for me, and my generation of young, progressive Jews, this matter becomes more complicated because we have to wrestle with divisions within our own communities, as well as with our own, often competing, concerns and desires. The increased rise in antisemitism throughout the world is, according to the Anti-Defamation League, not unconnected to the way in which people perceive of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. An extensive study conducted in 2019 in 18 countries, the ADL found a marked rise in anti-Semitic attitudes, with “about one in four Europeans polled harbor[ing] pernicious and pervasive attitudes toward Jews” and between 40-70 percent of respondents “believ[ing that] Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country” (ADL).

For centuries, the phenomenon of disloyalty has been used to justify antisemitism and fuel persecution. Concerns about antisemitism are real, a shooting last week in a kosher market and the desecration of a synagogue in Beverly Hills and cemeteries in Europe are just two small reminders. In recent years, however, antisemitic hatred and false critiques of disloyalty have become intertwined with valid critiques of the Israeli government and the occupation, making the debate and sentiments all the more muddy in myriad ways. 

In an era when antisemitism is on the rise, I share a desire to ensure that 46.2% of the world’s Jews, who live in Israel, have a home; however, I also believe that that home cannot be sustained while Palestinians remain under-occupation, stateless and oppressed.  Along with that tension, however, I came to feel another with respect to my relationship to Israel. 

In August, I traveled with my family to Israel for the first time. On our first morning in Jerusalem, my mother and I went to the Western Wall for a progressive women’s prayer service. Above us, on the other side of the wall, is the Al-Aksa Mosque but that was not the source of conflict. When state-sponsored antisemitism and sexism were leveled at me by teenage Jewish women who recite most of the same prayers that I do, who enact many of the same rituals as me, but who embody the antithesis of what I think it means to be Jewish, I was stunned. They shushed and screamed over the words of our ancestors, while I wondered if the Anti-Defamation League denounces the treatment of progressive Jews at the Western Wall, the way they denounced it in the 18 other countries surveyed. That morning it felt like the cognitive dissonance of those who claimed to be pious outnumbered the prayers shoved in the crevasses of Jerusalem stone.

In Israel, I thought would feel like a part of the religious majority, even though I knew I would be in the political minority. Yet, as I walked away from the Western Wall, rather than experiencing a sense of unity, I found myself wrestling with the extent of our polarization. At the same time, I found it illuminating. If Orthodox Israelis have no regard for the rights of Progressive Jews, it’s no surprise that they are also indoctrinated with utter intolerance for Palestinians. While some Jews restrict my freedom to be at the “holy” wall as a Jew, there is another wall–the separation or barrier wall—that restricts the freedom of Palestinians to move beyond the boundaries of the occupied territories.

I visited that wall on my trip as well. It is a wall, constructed by Israelis, to ensure their safety from attacks by terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is now covered with Banksy’s artwork, juxtaposing play and plight. Through murals, it depicts the fact that Palestinian children aren’t unscathed by barbed wire, conflict, and strife. In graffiti, it speaks hopes and prayers for peace, Salam and Shalom. Yet the wall is also riddled with swastikas and antisemitic tropes. Opinions are spray painted over and under each other. Calls for justice, for Palestinian reparations are wrapped up in Anti-Jewish, not merely anti-Israeli sentiments. The realities of Palestinian oppression, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism co-exist, as they do in the muddled layers of paint.

Assignment #16- Ezra Mulalic

Macaroni and Cheese! Single handedly the greatest dish in the world, it has the ability to turn your bad day into an amazing day with a simple bite. I always remember going “hmmm” after I took that first bite when I was younger, and how great I felt after eating it. I thought my love for mac and cheese would never be broken, I thought we were some perfect couple with no chance of splitting. I kept this mentality until I read this article about food additives that are allowed in America but banned in other places. It should how some additives found in macaroni and cheese were linked to cause cancer, and it astonished me. This brings me to the idea that there should be more regulations placed in order to prevent these additives from entering our food. As you can see here, food dyes are found in a lot of popular foods, but they have been linked to many problems. The most problematic dyes are Yellow number 5 and 6, red number 5, and blue number 2. All have been proven to cause fatigue, migraines, blurred vision, and anxiety. These artificial food colors contain petroleum and other petrochemicals. According to an article on AvainWeb, the human body is not used to consuming these chemicals and can cause other health risks. As the food companies just want to attract consumers and gain more money, manufacturers use these petrochemicals in their food products, without it even acknowledging the consequences it can have on people. However, only a few artificial colors have been removed from stores that have been proven to cause cancer. This still leaves the main ones in the manufacturing process though. The Kraft macaroni and cheese also contains phthalates. Phthalates are a family of chemical compounds primarily used to create toys, vinyl, perfume, nail polish, and other cosmetics. These chemicals get into foods during the manufacturing process, and a small study done by the Coalition for Safer Food Processing and Packaging found that 29 of 30 cheese products tested contained phthalates, with the powdered cheese containing the highest amounts, four times more than regular cheese. Phthalates were tested to be pretty toxic, shown to damage your reproductive system, kidneys, and it increases your chance of getting a chronic disease. Nearly all Americans contain phthalates in their urine according to Ami Zota, assistant professor and occupational health at the George Washington University. 

In 1958, America passed an amendment for the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act prohibiting the FDA from allowing food additives linked to cancer to be able to enter the industry. This amendment left out previous additives already established in the industry, so these additives were grandfathered in and are still used today. This leaves many bad food additives still in circulation in our industry, while the E.U. have banned most of them. The E.U. bans and strictly restricts many food additives that have been linked with cancer, such as potassium bromate and azodicarbonamide (ADA). Both these additives are whitening agents and flour additives that help baked goods rise higher, and sometimes these additives are altered during baking and has been shown to cause cancer in animals. Another example is the additive brominated vegetable oil (BVO), used in some citrus-flavored drinks. This additives contains BVO, found in flame retardants, and has been shown to accumulate in the body, and can potentially cause memory loss and nerve issues. The most famous drink that BVO is found in, is Mountain Dew. This drink was banned in more than 100 countries outside of the United States, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the European Union. In 2013, ABC news reported that the BVO located in Mountain Dew was used in order to keep the flavor from separating, and PepsiCo spokesperson assured American consumers that BVO found in drinks is safe to be consumed. This idea that BVO is safe to consumed has been challenged by many scientists, like an Environmental Working Group and researchers at Duke University found a cancer - causing flame retardant in the bodies of all 22 mothers and 26 children tested. Syngenta’s weed killer Atrazine is a potent endocrine disruptor that was banned in Europe in 2003. According to UC Berkeley Professor Tyrone Hayes,”The Atrazine chemically castrates and feminizes wildlife and reduces immune function in both wildlife and laboratory rodents.” Professor Hayes found that the chemical has also been found to cause breast and prostate cancer, and induce abortion in lab animals, with studies in humans suggesting similiar results. In America, Atrazine is most commonly used in water containment, affecting the drinking quality of many. Many have looked at how this food additive might connect to America’s life expectancy rates and infant mortality rates , as compared to other countries both of these fall short. For example, in 2018 America’s life expectancy is 79.65 years and United Kingdom’s is 82 years. The infant mortality also showed a connect to the food additives, comparing to America out of every 1000 infants 5.8 would die, while comparing to United Kingdom’s 3.9.

In order to lessen the effects of these additives on the health of many American citizens, there should be more stricter regulations and bans on these additives. As seen they have shown to be linked to cause cancer, affect major organs, and the overall health of everyone. There needs to be newer acts and amendments and more stricter enforcement on these industries exploiting cheap and unsafe additives. Americans need to better avoid the toxins and chemical additives mentioned above which would be an ultimate first step to lessening diseases, and improving the health of everyone. 

Works Cited:

Commissioner, Office of the. “The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/histories-product-regulation/1938-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act.

Essays, UK. (November 2018). Food Additives and Unhealthiness. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/health-risk-of-food-additives-english-language-essay.php?vref=1

“The Dangers Yellow 5 Dye!” The Organic Diabetic™, 1 Dec. 1970, https://theorganicdiabetic.org/2014/12/the-dangers-of-yellow-5-dye/.

Wade, Marcia. “Phthalates: Are They Safe?” WebMD, WebMD, 15 Aug. 2016, https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/what-are-phthalates#1.

Weil, Andrew. “Are Flame Retardants Toxic? - Ask Dr. Weil.” DrWeil.com, 4 Dec. 2016, https://www.drweil.com/health-wellness/balanced-living/healthy-home/are-flame-retardants-toxic/.

“Why Was Mountain Dew Banned?” Reference, IAC Publishing, https://www.reference.com/world-view/mountain-dew-banned-a8eb5433e7f09bde.