Helsinki Watch Group Essay Example for Free

Helsinki Watch Group Essay Often times throughout world history, and particularly the history of freedom movements, the cliche that life imitates art, and that art imitates life shows its face strongly. Two of the leaders of the dissent movement in the Soviet Union and its bloc countries/satellites just as easily could be merely characters in a play as well as characters within the world. The ironic thing is that their power derives from the same source: literary hero. Icons are created and understood things whether their figure is symbolic, archetypal or actual. In the cases of Vaclav Havel and Natan Sharansky their work was accomplished through these literary means. Their books, their histories, and their experiences are shared ones, perhaps only overshadowed by their joint successes. Vaclav Havel began his personal movement through a certain default. His history found itself at a crossroads when his educational pursuits were thwarted at the end of compulsory levels. His family’s identification with intellectuals was more than enough for the Soviet machine to attempt to discourage, by force of rule, further attempts at intelligentsia pursuit. Havel thus was placed into the position of many young idealists: when denied something, the object becomes much more desirable. This method of subjugation tends to be the downfall of many systems. It is seen often in Western countries that many talented individuals left to their own devices fail to achieve their full potential. My understanding is that if they were forcibly detained from their talents, they would begin to fight by human nature, and unlock more than they were ever able to, or motivated to, accomplish. With Havel, as with others, his power was unleashed subconsciously from his earliest days. Military service to the country, again a rigid compulsory reality, and allowance into an Economics program did not manage to reign in the young Czech. He discarded these and pursued quickly his passion – one shared by his family. Humanitarian values and improvement seemed to run strongly in the Havel household, and Vaclav was no different and no stranger to this. Following work as a stagehand, he managed to land himself in studies of Drama at Faculty of Theatre of the Academy of Musical Arts, completing his academics there by correspondence. The failure of the Czech government to discover and end Havel’s studies would ultimately undermine their authority over the playwright, and over those who followed his later writing. By 1966, Havel had his first international successes, and brought himself his first attention on the world political stage . It was during this period that one of his most influential works was written and produced: 1963’s The Garden Party. Havel was not hiding his civic tendencies and participated in what he hoped was a revival of the cultures of his home country. He took parts and positions in various movements, chief among them the Club of Independent Writers and the Club of Engaged Non Partisans. This did not cause him overwhelming trouble yet, even when he took a job with the non Marxist monthly paper Tvar in 1965. But the rulers did begin to take notice. In 1968, he, and many others of similar mind would pay for their ‘treason’ in the cultural revolution and its subsequent Prague Spring. Only 7 years later Havel began his transition from cultural icon to political figure by sending a series of open letters to the political bureaus. One of his most important early ones was a missive to then President Husak, a demonstration of his growing awareness of the plight of Czechoslovakian society. This writing directly resulted in the 1977 Charter, which for the first time openly criticized the standards of life in the state. As spokesman, he began the voice of referendum, and it was his previous popularity as author that provided the groundwork for his ability to draw followers. Unfortunately for him, chief among his followers were the censors and police. But his political life was well underway. Anatoly ‘Natan’ Sharansky, born in Ukraine of the Soviet Union followed a different path to his political life. It is amazing and worthwhile, however, to explore the similarities of life in yet a separate Soviet bloc land. For all intents and purposes, the two could have grown up together. This common bond, as it would turn out, would provide a common ‘enemy’ of sorts for them – an enemy of freedom and expression. Also ironic is the apparent ‘lapse’ of judgment on the part of the government that allowed Sharansky’s influence to foment, and then to spread. When dissident Andrei Sakharov was held under state control, it was Sharansky that was allowed to be his English interpreter. Such close work with the alleged revolutionary inspired the already impressionable Anatoly to develop his own ideas regarding the freedom of man behind the iron curtain. This time period saw him help found, and then act as spokesman for the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group. As with Havel in Czechoslovakia, 1977 would be the time of divergence from active young man to active international freedom fighter, in a cultural way. At the same time that the Charter was criticizing life under communism, Sharansky was first arrested for treason to the state of the Soviet Union. This initial interrogation and incarceration was based upon his supposed spying activities for the United States, charges that were later proven false, as was the case for many others. Upon conviction, Sharansky was sent to the gulags of Eastern Russia, where he would remain until 1986. When he was finally released, one of the first political prisoners to be, he finally realized one of his personal dreams: emigration to Israel where he could recover his Jewish heritage. When he arrived and was greeted with a hero’s welcome, he exchanged his Soviet name ‘Anatoly’ for the Hebrew ‘Natan’, by which he has since been known . Havel, too, would have to escape from behind bars, figuratively speaking. After the 1977 charter, he would find himself unable to publish any of his works which were gaining attention and influence. He was now a de facto politician and had to be stopped. The Czech government attempted to do so by imprisoning him three separate times, placing him behind bars for over 5 years. At the time of his incarceration, he had become the co-founder of the Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Prosecuted, a committee that he could not have foreseen he would need the personal care of. By the second half of the 1980s, as with Sharansky, Havel would finally begin to realize freedoms. Dialogue with the communist governments and the Soviet Union was finally beginning to open up, and Havel took the opportunity to coauthor a petition of â€Å"A Few Sentences†. This would eventually be signed by 10,000 Czechoslovaks. Despite a setback in 1989 in which a freedom movement was crushed, Havel came to his political pinnacle by gaining the presidency of the new Czechoslovakia. Havel and Sharansky have both been immortalized through their writings. We have their collected works and also now their important histories and memoirs and can study their dissent to compare their achievements and experiences. Theirs is the story of many others, and shows the power of literature, composition and political texts to connect oppressed peoples. Havel’s plays, and especially The Garden Party, and Sharansky’s memoir Fear No Evil are powerful representations of this ideal. The Garden Party could not have been better for uniting and informing the masses. As such, it is quite surprising that the play did not simply ‘go away’, so to speak; that it got into the hands of the public was a serious misstep on the part of the communist government. The play is absolutely a stunning satirical work. It uses humor to attack its target in a sideways fashion, which ultimately is a more successful frontal attack than pure rhetoric, anyway. Its characters are simple and believable, if not highly stereotypical, and work their wonders in different ways. If no other character is remembered after reading The Garden Party for the first time, it is Hugo that sticks in the mind. All at once he is quaint, separated from outer consciousness, and independent. Where he begins as an inner focused chess player in the home – so inner focused that he plays both sides – he grows into his own brutal oppressor. This is great work. We wonder at his childlike manner in playing against himself at the game, only to be shocked when he plays against himself through bureaucratic oppression later on. Most amazing of all is the ease with which he takes both sides in both undertakings. It is a comment at once on deception, and also of childlike qualities of leadership as opposed to mature development. Unfortunately, government cannot be run in this manner with its failure to police itself. Beyond its characters, The Garden Party relies upon dramatic tools to get its message across. These tools help connect the play to its audience, which must be remembered were the oppressed citizens of the Eastern Empire. In particular the writing in of a theme – paranoia – underscores the feelings of the time. It becomes obvious that even supporters of the system are discomfited by their work. Even as they work for the bureaucracy, they are always aware that they are being watched for their loyalty. They do not know who their enemies may be at any time. By way of example, Huge becomes his own enemy – a position that he never becomes truly aware of. Life becomes for him the prevention of danger to his position, the ultimate revelation of paranoia. His ongoing chess metaphor becomes the way of expressing this feeling. Rather than allowing himself to be open to abuse, he ‘checkmates’ his way out of trouble, squashing perceived opponents – squashing freedoms and liberties and ideals – before they can get to him. Sharansky in his life developed similar tactics. He, like many other civil liberties prisoners, had to create methods of dealing with harsh realities. Unlike Havel’s characters in many of his plays, of which The Garden Party’s Hugo remains the archetype and easiest to digest, Sharansky understood and faced his danger openly. His methods of using humor to disengage a situation, though, were the same. Both Havel and Sharansky understood and expressed within their lives, their lifeworks, and the awareness that even in their oppressive modes, humans are humans. Even interrogators can be reached through their own humanity. For all of the things we in the West think we know about the KGB, who were in charge of depriving Sharansky his freedom, we see through Fear No Evil that the secret police still were made up of humans. They were humans that could still be swayed, tempered or delayed through a humorous play. We can almost hear ‘checkmate’ come from Sharansky’s mouth at times, bringing Hugo right into his cell with him. The connections become obvious. We see the power of dissidence through language, whether spoken, read, written or performed. In this way, we see now the connections between Sharansky and Havel. BIBLIOGRAPHY Havel, Vaclav. The Garden Party and Other Plays. New York: Grove Press, 1993. Sharansky, Natan. Fear No Evil: The Classic Memoir of One Man’s Triumph Over a Police State. New York: Random House, 1998. .

Jarok as a Traitor :: Star Trek Defector Essays Papers

Jarok as a Traitor A creator of a web page has good intentions to display to the viewer the correct information, but there is no way to tell if the creator gives an accurate representation of the information. In the episode "The Defector", Jarok does not appear to be a traitor through his actions, but the way he represents himself clearly makes him a traitor. A traitor, as defined by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, is one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty. A defector is defined as one who leaves a situation often to go over to a rival one. During the course of the episode, Jarok is a traitor to the Romulans, the Federation, and his daughter, although he is labeled in the title of the episode as a defector. During the episode, Jarok physically joins with the Federation, which can lead one to believe he is a defector. He may have crossed over for the good of everyone, but he betrayed his country at an ideological level. He gave information to the Federation, including details of the Romulan fleet, technology, and offensive. "Jarok said that he had seen reports, fee receipts, and work orders for the construction of a military base." (Smith 30 Jan. 1996) He, also, stole a ship and claimed he had no other option, but there were, most likely, other options he could have resorted to. Tomalak, the head of the Romulans remarked at the end of the episode, " You see, Picard, after we dissect your enterprise for every precious bit of information, I intend to display its broken hull in the center of the Romulan capitol as a symbol of our victory. It will inspire our armies for generations to come. And serve as a warning to any other traitor who would create ripples of disloyalty." ("The Defector" 1 4 Jan. 1990) The Romulans planted misinformation knowing Jarok might betray their trust. Jarok believed he had valid information, which placed even greater value on these top secrets he shouldn't have revealed to the Federation. When one obtains information from a web page, the information may not be the truth. After betraying his own country, he could have come over to the rival to act as a defector; instead he represented himself as a traitor to the Federation. By using a false name, it seemed he wanted to conceal his true identity to the Federation.

What Is Risk? (Report)

1Introduction 2What is risk? 2. 1Material world and risk 2. 2Case study 1: allotment 2. 3Case study 2: sun exposure 2. 4Risk society and Ulrich Beck (1992) 3Understanding and knowledge 3. 1Geoffrey Rose (1850) 3. 2Epidemiology 3. 3Uncle Norman and last person 5Conclusion 6References Title: Risk and understanding through expert knowledge and lay dispute Introduction This report will look at how modern society is a risk society, how expert knowledge is used to understand risk and how lay people respond. Case studies will be used to show how expert knowledge on understanding and managing risk is communicated.These will show how the lay person disputes risks and make decisions without following the expert knowledge. The work of sociologists of Geoffrey Rose (1850) and Charlie Davison and colleagues (1991) is used to show how the lay person disputes expert knowledge by using their own everyday knowledge and experience. What is risk? 2. 1 Material world and risk In modern society we live i n a material world that now provides us with material goods which previous societies didn’t have. However these new material goods can bring us benefits but also can bring us risks.Putting yourself, or something, at risk is putting yourself in a possible situation which would have a negative outcome. Thompson et al. did a study in 1989 on cyclists who wanted to try to manage the risk of a head injury by wearing a helmet while cycling. The results showed an 85% decrease in the risk of a head injury if a helmet was worn. However, research by Walker (2006) concluded that if a car was to overtake a cyclist wearing a helmet, they would drive closer. Using this expert knowledge some people may chose to not wear a helmet to keep divers at bay even though with a crash the risk of a head injury would be higher. . 2 Case study: allotment In 2003 Tim Jordan and his family had an allotment in Hackney in which they thought the soil was safe. Eighteen months after getting the allotment the ir local authority, sent them a letter telling them the soil was poisoned with arsenic and lead. The test used by the council measured the total amount of poison in the soil using soil plugs. These samples were sent to a laboratory where the level of poison was compared to ‘soil guidance values’ (Exploring Social Lives, 2009 p. 54). This was a well established tests scientists used to develop their expert knowledge about soil and poisons.The soil was then tested in a different way with a PBET (physiologically based extraction test). The basis of this test was to measure the level of poison in the soil that would enter the human body. The test tries to create a situation of the soil passing through the human digestive system of a two year old. This test showed that the level of poison in the soil was less then the earlier test. Both tests gave the public information about the level of poison and therefore the level of risk in gardening on that soil. But each test gave th e lay person different information making it difficult for them to be certain about the risk.This case study shows that expert knowledge if not always consistent. 2. 3 Case study 2: sun exposure The sun exposure case study concentrates on Glaswegians attitude towards sun exposure whilst knowing the risks. Simon Carter conducts research on the attitude towards sun exposure drawn from interviews and focus groups of tourists between ages 20 – 35 who regularly travel abroad. This research found that those involved were aware of health advice on how to protect themselves from the dangers of sun exposure and why. Glaswegians find going on holiday without a pre-holiday tan as embarrassing.The Glaswegian term ‘peely-wally’ is used to describe people who are pale ‘When you’re away and the sunglasses and white legs come out I’m ashamed to be Scottish †¦ it’s like if you see a group of peely-wally people then they are Scottish. ’ (Expl oring Social Lives, 2009 p. 75) Even though these people knew about the risks of sun exposure they decided not to follow the advise to decrease the risk of damaging themselves due to the idea of looking healthy with a tan. This is an example of expert knowledge being disputed by the lay public because getting brown and having a tan was more important than the risk of illness in the future. . 4 Risk Society and Ulrich Beck In 1986 reactor number four of the Chernobyl nuclear power complex exploded and released radiation causing 28 deaths and left 200 people sick with radiation (Spivak 1992). As radioactive material is invisible to the human eye, it was a challenge for humans to know exactly where had been affected. This meant the public who lived in the ‘fallout’ zone to the radiation became reliant on the expert knowledge of the risk they were faced, ‘open to a social process of definition’ (Beck, 1989, p. 88). Beck defined ‘risk society’ (Expl oring Social Lives, 2009, p. 0) to describe the social impact of risk and showed how the complex risks in society needed expert knowledge to explain them. Understanding and knowledge of risk 3. 1 Epidemiology Epidemiology is a way of understanding how illness and disease is transferred across populations by tracing how the infections move across countries. Epidemiology has also been used in understanding risk when experts have used data to work out the probability (chance) of a risk happening. Doll and Hill (1950) showed that a high percentage of people who smoked had lung cancer and so they argued that smoking was a risk.This expert knowledge is based on understanding a pattern rather than the cause of lung cancer. 3. 2 Geoffrey Rose (1850) Epidemiological research is always carried out on a whole group of people but when the risks are communicated they are aimed at the individual. Prevention paradox was defined by Geoffrey Rose (1850). It describes the situation where the solution to prevent a risk will offer the community benefit that may not apply to each individual. Rose describes it best by saying that the ‘measure that brings large benefits to the community offers little to each participating individual’ (Rose, 1891, p. 850). Rose uses vaccinations to describe prevention paradox. Not every child will suffer from the illnesses prevented by vaccinations however every child will have a vaccination in order to prevent the one child that would need it. ‘599 â€Å"wasted† immunisations for the one that was effective’ (Rose, 1981, p. 1850). 3. 3 Lay dispute of risk Davison et al. found that people in every day life talked about health and illness. They knew people who had followed all the health advice and still became sick and died and other people who had not followed any of the advice and had no negative effects.This results in a type of lay epidemiology through which people dispute the expert knowledge and reinforce the exp erience of individuals in their everyday life. 4. Conclusion As society has become more complex and the public have more choices of consumer goods and services that there are risk as well as benefits in these. Many of these risks are complicated to understand and so need experts to study and explain them. This has led to the risk society where expert knowledge is used to help the lay public understand the risks facing them everyday.There is evidence that the lay public disputes the expert knowledge and makes decisions not to follow advice, such as using sun protection. This is partly because expert knowledge can be contradictory with different studies showing different risks but also because the expert knowledge does not always match the individuals experience. 1295 Words Beck, U. (1989) ‘On the way to the industrial risk-society? Outline of an argument’, Thesis Eleven, vol. 23, pp. 86-103 Bromley, S. Clarke, J. Hinchliffe, S. Taylor, S (2009) ‘Exploring Social Li ves’ Carter, S. and Jordan, T. Chapter 2 Living with risk and risky living’, Open University, Milton Keynes. Carter, S. (1997) ‘Who wants to be a â€Å"peelie wally’’? Glaswegian tourists’ attitudes to sun tans and sun exposure’ in Clift, S. and Grabowski, P. (eds) Tourism and Health: Risks, Responses and Research, London, Pinter. Rose, G. (1981) ‘Strategy of prevention: lessons from cardiovascular disease’, British Medical Journal, vol. 282, pp. 1847-53 Walker, I. (2006) ‘Drivers overtaking bicyclists’ [online], http://drainwalker. com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief. pdf (Accessed 14 April 2009)

My Family Is Very Unique And Dissimilar - 1685 Words

The makeup of my family is very unique and dissimilar in my impression. In my family there are three people that lives there they include my mother, my Stepfather and me. My extended family includes my aunt Janice, My Uncle Bobbie and my Aunt Tonya. These are very important people in my extended family network is very important because if my mediate family could not be involved than they will step up to the plate and help out any way that they can. The adult’s play a major and very important role in our family. They roles go from being the cook, into being a teacher, and then to bring anything that anybody needed at that time. The adults in my family are very looked up to as not only role models, but they have been set to very high†¦show more content†¦Caregiving for the elders is very different with my kinfolk. After my great-grandmother had a stroke and she needed some help we not only provided a live in nurse for her that what take care of her doing the day, but d uring the night my grandmother would take care of her in the proper way. This helps because it shows that she was never alone and was always well taking care of until she had her final breathe. Children are viewed with a very light that brings pleasure to our whole family. The role of the children is that to be children, but with that it shows that the adults also want the best for us to make a better yet different life than they have made. The children are carded for with good care and they have made sure that we are taking care of by everyone in my family. When or if a parent is taking out of the equation and is unable to care for a child in our family, they are giving to their god parents or any available relative that are able to take care of them. We hold many different tradition, beliefs, and rituals that my family practices and they are not only considered on holiday or special occasions but always in general. During Christmas we have many different traditions that we do on this special occasion. With our Christmas traditions we start by having breakfast and opening gifts at my grandmother s house than we go to my house and have dinner while listening to