During december 2008 I participated in the Harvard Model United Nations conference. However, the project did not only consist on attending to the conference itself but to the preparation meetings on wednesdays afterschool. At Boston I had the opportunity not only to get to know my school mates better but I was sorrounded with 2,000 delagest from all over the world. Everyone had a different story to tell, and I remember exclusively three friend I met who were from Azerbajan. It was very interesting to see how people with different background and different cultures were assigned to represent a country that in many cases they did not even know much about. I remember talking to the those who lied in the country I was representing and it was definitely very useful since they could help me a lot in my participation with their own personal knowledge.

I felt very pressured all throughout the conference becuase I was assigned avery selective committee which was the Security Council. Me alond with my co-delegate Mracelo Mainieri knew that our teachers had high expectatives for us and even if that made us work harded it became too much of a pressure at times. We were constantly engaged in intense deabte on the topic of the Situation of Somalia something that was a very relevant problem to the world at the time and currently as well. I was also excited becuase the experince was very close to the real world life since we were taken out of our rooms during dawn due to an emergency situation that had to be resolved by the SC.

The activity also taught hwo difficult it is for me to work in partenrs or groups, I have a difficulty in accpeting and listening ot what other have to say, and this experience definitely made me develop more tolerance anbd team work skills. I was also amazed of how knowledgable and prepared all the student were, it gave me hopes for the future of our world. This activity was very significant for me becuase it becuase it gave me an idea of what the real worls is like,, the world that I want to work in when I graduate. It was also valuable becuase Lincoln School also has its Model UN program and HMUN definelty gave us interesting ideas to develop in our own program and at the same time we became aware of flaws we should avoid at Lincoln.

During september of 2008 I attended an AASCA Leadership Conference in Antigua Guatemala. During four days we interacted with students from American schools all over Central America. I got know people of different countries yet at the same time we all shared a sense of Latin identity which bonded us. I also got the opportunity to know the city of Antigua Guatemala were there was a large indigenous population which I do not see in my countru, at the same time I saw much cultural richness yet at the same time, much poverty.

During our stay in Guatemala, we all had lots of fun especially when playing games such as scavenger hunt which at the same time helped us know the city more. I fell in love with the city, its richness, and its history. I also ejoyed when painting a school mianly becuase I got to create a warm relationship with those in the school. Everyone around me felt similar however we were somewhat dissapointed with the conference’s focus on leadership. I felt like we did not really engage in activities that reuiqred many leadership skills. However, there was one speech that was delivered to us that I felt made all thr trip worthwhile. Teodoro  Palacios Flores delivered the speech, he is an olympic athelet and all he did was tell us about his truly amazing life story. He was the most inspiring part of the trip since he inspired me to never give up as he constantly said, and to try harder even when things seem impossible to achieve.  

Even if the activity was supose to encourage and create leadership qualities in those who attended I do not think it was what happened to me. However, it was an important experience in the sense that it was a very valuable cultural exchange. I value this experience for the future mainly becuase the next AASCA conference will be held here in Costa Rica and this was an excellent opportunity to identify strenghts and weaknesses for our activity.

Question 1: To what extent is truth different in mathematics, the arts and ethics?

In mathematics there can be a true answer, something that everyone agrees upon as being right.

Ethics has a higher degree of truith than the arts since for example most people in my society would agree that killing someone for no justifiable reason is wrong. Ho9wver there are still come places in which truth in ethics is not as clear.

Most people accept that  Monalisa is art, and that is the truth for most people.however not everyone belives that many other “works of art” are truly art.

To what extent meaning when are they similar and when are they different

What is truth? Personal truth, collective truth? Universal truth?

Is there truth in arts? Depends on whether truth is universal collective or individual?

Is there truth in ethics? Depend on whether truth Is universal collective or individual.

Art<Consensus> ethics

Universal does not equal ojective

Ethics more towards the subjective

Math towards universal

Question 7: “We see and understand things not as they are but as we are”. Discuss this claim in relation to at least two ways of knowing.

1)      Sense perception

2)      Language

They are:  raw, pure information before processed by us. An abstract idea, cannot reach that

We are: living transducers, subjective beings;  we are influence by experiences culture, context of particular situations, physical/ biological limitations… individual or group?

Some we can change or control (to some degree of entirely) some we cannot alter at all in this moment in time… beliefs can be changes, emotions can be controlled…

“As we are” is not fixed and it is relative to time.. it is changed bu multipl factor influencing who we are

Understand:

See:  perceive through senses

 On the first sunday of february of the year 2010, national elections will be held in Costa Rica. Candidates from all parties are starting intense political campaigning, some in order to win the primary elections in their party, and others already in order to win the national elections. This year’s candidates range from women to men, ex-vice presidents to ex-congresmen, ex-governors to newcomers in politics…

Propaganda plays a major role in this step of political campaigning, and each candidate uses different methods and strategies to gain their support. As I have been part of political campiagning in school, I have come to understand the importance of the ways of knowing and their relation to propaganda. When planning a strategy for propaganda one must use language in a clever manner, one must appeal to emotions in a moderate manner and one must use reason in a decieving way (just kiddin, but that’s sort of how it works).

During the political debates at school, one of the questions asked to my party was if we were trying to decieve and brainwash people through our propaganda. This, of course, was not our main purpose; but I wonder to what extent is this the purpose of real life politicans?  ”Usually, that is what propaganda is for”, I thought.

The propaganda of several candidates has called my attention, and I will be analyzing some aspects of it.

Laura Chinchilla:

Laura is not only one of the candidates for the primary elections of the National Liberation Party but she is also one of the two first women ever to be a candidate for presidency in Costa Rica. She used to be vice president of Costa Rica in Oscar Arias’ current government but she had to resign in order to run for president. Her competition in the party is the ex-governor of San José Johnny Araya. I have to admit that even if I do not have a strict political tendency, I was, before of hand, for Laura Chinchilla mainly becuase she was a women, she appears to be intelligent though, it’s not only becuase of her sex. Nonetheless, as soon as she started campigning there was something in her propaganda I did not like. The first thing I saw was one of her slogans which was the following: LaUra Une (LaUra Unites). I did not think this slogan said much about who she was and how she was going to lead the country. I spoke to my parents and even if they agreed with me they told me that many people say that the country is facing political polarization and that maybe that was the cause for her slogan. I continued to think it was not very effective since most people are not aware of this political polarization. Her slogan later on evolved to Firme y Honesta (Firm and Honest) and this slogan is usually presented next to a photograph of Chinchilla. This slogan in comparison to the previous one does a better job in saying something about the candidate. Why were those two words chosen? Firm is not an adjective that is usually attributed to women, those creating propaganda for Laura probably understand that men usually inspire more confidence and security than women, therefore they used the word frim along with Laura’s face of seriousness to give the people a sense of security and confidence. The word honest, in comparison to the word firm is more commonly attributed to women, women usually are more reflective of transparency and in this case this female attribute was juxtaposed to firmness which is not very common amongst women. Language is not the only factor in play, Laura’s photograph also play an important role. In most of her photographs, including her oficial one which is included above, she appears very serious only with a subtle smile in her face, her eyebrows are evidently tensed and she is wearing a green shirt probably for party identification. These are some of the methods Laura has used as a means to obtain power and support. I have also seen three videos of her on T.V., one which is called “Porque ya estuve ahí” (Becuase I was already there) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy20Kf3UFGI, the other one called ”Firmeza” (Firmness) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97tS_bScj5w, and the third one called “Honesta” (Honest) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRVFFomoRgk.

The first video is basically about Laura’s capacity to rule becuase she has already been in a government as vice- president of Oscar Arias. About half of the video is about what OSCAR ARIAS has done, and then finally she concludes by saying that she was part of that government and that she can continue with the progress made by Arias becuase she has already been there. The whole idea of this video is a slippery slope fallacy since it says that because she has already been there she will continue with the progress, an argument that is not logically valid. She uses a deep and strong voice once again to show security and confidence because as we discussed in class, high voices usually annoy people more than anything. I also found it interesting how even is she calls herself firm, she does not always stand on her own, as many have commented she is frequently standing under someone’s shadow. 

The second video is about firmness and instead of Laura talking, those who do the talking are regular citizens located at rural areas or marginalized areas. This tecnique is commonly used to give a sense of representation and to show support of the people. Interestingly, out of 6 speakers in the video, 5 of them are men and 1 is a female and still next to her husband. This I thought to be very interesting and I could identify myself with it. During our campaign in school, at a given time we lost support from the younger male public. Boys were saying that the YOU party (my party) was feminist and that becuase both the president and the vice president were females they were not going to do activities for males. I went home and asked my mom, who has been constantly involved in politics, about what to do. She laughed. ”That is exactly how life is in real-life politics” she said. “Sadly, if you need support from males, only males can help you get it”. This is obviously a generalization, however it was something we experienced in our campaign, we had to have guys help us in convincing guys. I see Laura Chinchilla and her team being aware of this reality since in the case of this video the vast majority of the speakers are males.     

The third video is about Laura’s honesty, and an interesting conection is drawn. It says: Laura, daughter of Rafael Angel Chinchilla the best chancellor this country has ever had. “De tal palo, tal astilla” Meaning out of someone good will only come someone equally as good. I found this to be not only ridiculous but also a genetic fallacy, becuase there is no logical argument that makes Laura a good president becuase of having a father who was a good chancellor. In this video once again, Laura does not stand on her own but on her father’s shadow.   

Johnny Araya:

Johnny Araya as mentioned before, is the other strong candidate for the primary elections of the party Liberación Nacional. He used to be the governor of San José, and in some people’s opinion he did a really good job. His propaganda differs largely from Chinchilla’s, in my opinion it is a more effective propaganda for a national elections since it gives a large sense of representation of the people. I later on concluded, that Chinchilla’s propaganda was more directed to the memebrs of the PLN, it was more reflective of party identification becuase she first needed to win the primary elections. Contrastingly, Johnny’s propaganda was more directed to the common public and more concerned with the national election that is to come. This method might appear not very wise since he first has to win the primary elections, nevertheless through this method Araya has won lots of support from the general public and consequently exerted pressure on his party and has also won lots of support in the PLN. Araya’s propaganda marks a clear distinction between him and Laura. Laura proposes continuity, he proposes change. It is difficult to determine what is better? The country is not at its best, therefore continuity could not exactly be better. At the same time, “change” is such a popular word that using it is fairly common and meaningless, therefore it could also be no better. 

Araya uses this video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR-8tbbY8hc&feature=related to mark a clear distinction between him and the current and past politicians. He does this by breaking with the common form of propaganda. He evidently appeals to the public that is not satisfied with the current government and that is looking for change more than continuity. I saw some other videos of propaganda for Johnny, they were all similar, it was one person with a white background who says something concise and straightforward. I belive he does this becuase throughout his campaign he has empahsized that the country needs people who talk less and do more. Therefore his propaganda is not the usual talking but just strong and short remarks.

It has come to my attention that a specfic sector of Costa Rica’s elite class is against Johnny and for Laura. I realized a reason for this could be the fact that Araya is more of a populists (something that is reflected in his slogan “El poder de la gente” (the power of the people) and in his logo which is figures of people), and the elite are not usually inclined towards populists. This I believe is because populist have more socialist tendencies in comparison to oligrachist type of rulers, and therefore the elite do not lean towards them becuase they are usually not very benefitted by them.

Otto Guevara:

Otto Guevara is not only a Lincoln School parent but he is the candidate for presidency of the party Movimiento Libertario. Even if his party is a relatively new one, he has gain some support in the past years and in the past election.

His support is mainly composed of young women. And his propaganda could explain why. Billboards usually include a full picture of him in a very ”cool” outfit. In fact in the past elections, according to statistics, the majority of those who supported Guevara were young women. I remmember seeing him arrive to Lincoln School and then having all the bus supervisors behind him and very impressed by his good looks.

Interestingly, most of the I have seen from him says “Mano Fuerte contra los Delincuentes” which basically means iron fist against criminals”.  This word choice I find particularly strong and even counterproductive mainly due to the words “against”, even if propably most canidadtes aim to erradicate or decrease crime, Guevara chooses to make that idea an important part of his propaganda. This message was appealing to a friend of mine who has been robbed two times and that is probably the case with many people that have recently been affected by criminals. However I think that it definitely causes a loss of support from most criminals, and most importantly it attacks a problem at its surface and not its roots. Why did he chose to say iron fist against criminals instead of pronouncing himself in favor of public security or in favor of reducing poverty and unemployment (two causes of crime)? Personally, I like politicians (which I have not yet seen in Costa Rica) that tackle a problem form its roots, having an iron fist against criminals is of course important but it makes me believe that Otto Guevara is the type of person that paints a wall over all the layers of paint instead of cleaning it all before or even changing it. I continue however to sustain my question why would he present this in his propaganda? Even is his message is more superficial than for example a message about erradicating poverty, it is very styrong and specific. I believe that Guevara is aware of the fact that he does not have a significant amount of support, and by significant I mean significant to having probablities of winning an election, therefore he decide to target a specific public instead of the general national public.  The idea that he is being more specific in his traget is also sustained by the photographs of him that are presented in his propaganda. They show him as a handsome, good looking, and fit man which has been a feature that largely appeals to young women I know.

I watched a video which once again, definitely appeals to young people. This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYAqqib4xyo&feature=related uses a common type of joke or riddle but molds it into a form of propaganda, this is of course is more appealing to young people than to anyone else. Also, everyone who speaks in the video are young adults.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As the campaigns develop, and the candidates come closer to the elections, propaganda gets more dirty and candidates start attacking each other. In the school elections I saw this same thing happen, it at all started well and one week before the elections, candidates have become so emotionally bonded to their goal that they become desperate and ultimately end up attacking the oponent as their las resort to gain support.

In the case of these three candidates, I have seen propaganda from all of them intended to attack another candidate.

In the case of Otto Guevara, I watched a video which was a very controversial about why Otto Guevara is different from the rest of politicians. According to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeCZstawIcE&feature=related, Otto Guevara is different becuase he was the only congress person to reject the Finland Loan. The video definitely oversimplifies the situation and does not give all the information about the so called Finland Loan and about why the congress men and women voted for it. The most controversial part is in the end when the narrator says the all the other politicians are the some old thing and photographs of politicians are showed, amongst them one of Pepe Figueres. An important part of the public was very offended by Otto’s critic against Pepe Figueres. Many consider Pepe as a Patriotic figure who is largely responsible for the current layout of the state. This method of criticizing even well-known Costa Rican political figures obviously created discontent amongst an important part of the population but I believe it targets a more radical and young population who is not identified to old politicains and more than anything wants innovation. This is evident in the video also because it uses funky and colorful fonts, the way in which the video is formed with popping and twirling images also appeals more to a younger population.

Laura has also used propaganda that attacks her oponent Johnny Araya. First of all there was a letter on La Nación which was not directly from Laura but by a lawyer. Many argue however, that it was a conspiracy from Laura’s campaign. The letter was linking Johnny Araya to the ex-president Miguel Angel Calderón which was recently in jail and then trialed. As a first impression I thought of this letter as a failed attempt to create a connection that probably was not there. However, when I heard an interview to the lawyer who wrote the letter I thought that it was not as bad since he said everthing he had said he had evidence for, otherwise he would have published it. Another example was a commerciL I saw on T.V. which said: Johnny Araya has paid ”I don’t remmember how many” hours in T.V. talking when he said he was not going to talk. Then he has also used his time to critize Oscar Arias. Is that becuase he has nothing to say?    LAURA CHINCHILLA…. I found this commercial to be ironic in a way becuase even is she is questionin Johnny for having nothing to say, at the same time, she is saying nothing about herself.  

Johnny Araya, does not stay behind. However, he has been more indirect in his attacks to other opponents. I saw a video in a T.V. commercial that I could not find in youtube but the idea was the following: first it showed Oscar Arias (which is for Laura, but not publicly) saying that he was going to become president only through his hard work. Right after Johnny comes in and says “One does not inherit power”….. This I thought to be an indirect attack to Laura Chinchilla since many argue that she is not struggling for the candidacy herself but using other’s work like Oscar Arias’ and her father’s as a means to acquire power.

In our campaign in school I got to experience these same situations. For instance, in the debate, the speech of one of the candidates for president, had the word YOU  as many times as possible. YOU should vote for ink becuase INK is about YOU and us. And so it went… The other party came up with a slogan that said YOU should vote for PUC becuase the other parties are INKomplete. I have to admit we also got sort off personal. When one is sitting there during the debate emotions are so intense that it is or at least for me, more difficult to control myself. When the debate got too personal, one question was asked to all parties: Why are you focusing so much on the other parties’ weaknesses instead of focusing on your own strengths? Not to be flaunting or anything, but hopefully my party did not start playing those games, we did include some indirect allusions to the other parties but we focused on ourselves the most we could. Me as well as Daniela had been in political debates previosuly and we understood that even if students like to hear ”BOOOOs”, in general they ike to see parties who are more authentic and conectrate on themselves. As we predicted many people were disgusted with PUC’s and INK’s constant fight against YOU. Reactions of the people to these attacks may vary, some might be disgusted by the play of dirty politics but others might be appealed by “hachazos” or good combacks.  

 Even if methods and strategies for propaganda vary from candidate to candidate there are some aspects that are common to all, even to secondary school candidates as was my president Daniela Viteri. Language and the way it’s used always plays a very important role in propaganda, there is always some degree of appeal to emotions,  women candidates are in an unfavorable position, representation of the people is common to most propaganda, and using reason in a decieving manner is fairly common too. When creating propaganda for our political party in school Daniela and I had to consider all these aspects. In coming up with our name we had to be very careful to chose the right words, finally we decided to call it YOU since in our opinion it was the best way to represent the people, it was also easy to play with words and it was ambivalent, for example when we told people” Vote for YOU” we not only meant vote for the political party, we also meant vote for yourself, for your own good. During the debate, of course, some candidates said that they were not speaking about you, that they were a representation of we, you, AND us. That was somehting which I found sort of foolish since calling our party US could have been intepreted as only us the members of the party. Anyway, what this taught us was that especially in small scale political campignign factors such as the name are important and that language can be interpreted in very different ways. In chosing our posters we decided to use old war propaganda combined with bright colors. This combination of old and new components in the propaganda meant to represent both out experience and our innovation. Nevertheless there always are misinterpretations. Some people said we were promoting war, others said we were communists (which in any case should have been capitalists since it was US propaganda, also note that particularly in this school being percieved as communist is not good), and others said we were feminists. This last complain about us being feminists particularly called my attention. Our propaganda was composed of six different designs, two were just the list of the members of the party, other two were desgins with women, and the last two were designs with men. There was an equal amount of women and men in our propaganda, still people percieved us as feminists. I found it interesting to see people’s reaction to some women in propaganda for political campiagning. Becuase usually men as uncle sam are those who appear in war propaganda, as soon as women appeared we were immediately reagrded as feminists (note that in our context being called a feminists is usualy not good). My final conclusion was that becuase women’s traditional role is not in politics, if there are women in politics such as Daniela and Laura Chinchilla they have to be sure to sorround themselves with men and to create propaganda that is not in any way feminists or women focused.

Thus, I wonder… Is it ethical to, in a way and to a certain extent, decieve people through propaganda by our use of language and reason? People who have not been involved in politics usually answer that it is unethical, however those of us who have been in politics (even if it is school politics) have come to understand several ideas, or at least I have. Politics even if we want it or not, is a dirty field, most politicians play dirty, so if you want to get somewhere, and those around you are playing dirty  what should you do? During political campigning in school Daniela and I had promised ourselves that we were not going to play dirty politics. However, politics is such an intense field, where emotions get on the way constantly that things quickly started to heat up, and other candidates started playing dirty politics. We realized that if we just sat there and allowed them (other candidates) to play their own game, they were going to beat us and we had to stand up for ourselves. I sustain that we did not play dirty politics but when we were affected by someone else’s dirty game we definitely did not sit back. More importantly, I learned that if you want to do something for, in our case the students, we had to get to a certain position of power (in this case student government), and sometimes unfourtunately the means to the end are not the most ethical ones but I believe they are justified as longs as the end is worthwhile for the common good of the people. Now, where do you draw the line between a justifiable and an unjustifiable means? There definitely are means that violate human rights, that in my opnion, are unacceptable even if they look for the common good of the people. However, when viewing propaganda as a means, I believe it is justifiable to play with it maybe in not the most ethical manner however for the long term benefit of the people. Most people play dirty politics becuase they all find it as justifiable means since they believe that their party and their proposal is what is best for the well being of the people. Also, since ethics can vary from person to person or social class to social class, what some people might consider a justifiable means might not be justified for someone else. Since the whole deal of politics seems like a cycle of actions and reactions that likely will not end soon, it is more important to educate the public. It is important to allow people to analyze and understand strategies behind propaganda, to help people understand reason and to identify logical and valid arguments. While changing the ways politicians work seems far from possible (saddly), it seems more viable to educate the public in making wise decisions according to what really matters, be it ideas or the candidates themselves. Even if propaganda is important and it gives some insight to what the leadership of the candidate could be like, it definitely should not be determinant in the decision making process of each citizen becuase as was seen before, propaganda is full of deceit.    

How aware we are of what we say when we are speaking? As I sat down with some friends, I decided to analyze the way we all used language mainly related to gender. This is a little bit of what I heard:

Mae y que su guila? (Boy 1)

Di no se está medio loca la perra esa. (Boy 2)

Mae sabe que, “Una cosa es pegar (puñetazo) y otra cosa es educar(cachetada) (Boy 1)

Jajajaja, que hombre! (Girl 1)

……………………..

Mae viera que hombre mi cabra el otro dia, al chile estaba riquisima! (Boy 3)

Uy si! Yo la vi, que hombre, es que se viste tan chiva, esa zorra. (Girl 1)

Translation:

Dude and what’s up with your girl? (Boy 1)

Man I don’t know, that bitch is crazy. (Boy 2)

Well you know dude, one thing is to hit (punch) antoher things is to educate (slap). (Boy 1)

jajaja what a man! (Girl 1)

………………….

Hey dude you should’ve seen how man my goat is, she was so delicious! (Boy 3)

Yeah, she’s such a man, she dresses so cool, that fox. (Girl 1)

…………………

This conversation seemed pretty much as a normal conversation amongst Costa Rican teenagers. I did notice however, some interesting references to women. When I translated fragments of the conversation to English, these references were even more evident. How do men refer to women and how do women refer to themselves? Even if inequality in gender has become less of a problem in the last century, there are still some pretty clear indications of women’s position in relation to men.

Some terms that called my attention…

Crazy Bitch: we use the term bitch constantly, and by “we” I mean both men and women, but are we really aware of the fact that we are refering to someone in animal terms? (Not that animals are something to be ashamed of, but in my society being compared to an animal is not admirable). Moreover, are boys called dogs? Um not that I now of at least… In fact, when insulted they are called: son of a bitch, making reference to the woman as the bitch.  To make things worse, a woman is being called a crazy bitch by his boyfriend, that person who’s supposed to respect her integrity, degardates her. Yet, was there a negative reaction to this comment? No. People have become so use to these type of references that they are not even criticized by those who presence them.   

Punch and slap: Guys constanty tease with educating their girls by slaping them. This is, in most cases just a joke, but still was there a negative reaction to this? No. This joke about the educating tecnique  is reflective of roles in gender. Women submit to what men have to teach them, men exert force on women whether its physical or psycological. This is of course, a generalization, but there is some truth in it. I constantly presence conversations, espcecially between married couples, in which everytime that woman says something the man contradicts her or corrects her statement. Also, my mother has told me about her studies of domestic violence against women for years, and in these cases the joke applies literally.     

What a man: This is the new compliment most teenagers make use of. What is more direct and evident than complementing someone by telling them “what a man”. What’s more, a girl used this compliment after the joke about punching and slaping, she herself thinks it’s cool, and “manly” to say this.   

she’s such a man: This same compliment becomes even more significant becuase ti compliments a women by telling her a that she’s such a man. Isn’t this compliment too much ot too evident? Has men’s supremacy reached a level where we use the word man to compliment an action of a woman? 

fox and goat: These are some exact translations from my conversation. Do we even realize we are calling a person a fox and a goat?

Why do we conform to it? Don’t we care? Even if I was able to detect this peculiar use of language, I constantly make use of it as well. Language becomes a tool that infiltrates ideas in our minds and even if we are not conscious about it, by using words such as the ones mentiones above, we solidify the differences between men and women.  I wonder why at least we, women, make use of language in such a way? Does it mean we are conforming to it? Yes, in my opinion, we are conforming to this, and even if we might care we do not care enough to change this. 

I question then… why don’t we care? Is it important anyway? During a class discussion on this same topic, many of my classmates said this was irrelevant and that it was merely a use of language that meant nothing for them. “That’s the way it is , why should we change it? many asked. I believe that becuase it’s the way things have been is not a justification for not changing them. In fact many great revolutions, I am thinking of women’s suffrage in Costa Rica (my history internal assessment topic), women ad men had to changes the the way things had been for a long time to bring about a ver positive change, in my opinion. When is it important to change something? Where do we draw the line? At least personally, I believe in equal treatment and equal opportunities for women. In order to achieve this i believe that changing “small” things as the use of this type of language is an importnat step, given that the way in which we use language largely reflects how and what we think.

I have noticed however, that not all women are as concerned about their position in society. This leads me to draw the following conclusion: for gender inequality, two parties are needed. Men alone cannot impose their power on us and completely succedd, they need women who conform to their imposition. They need women who compliment each other by saying “what a man”. 

“Punished for Speaking Spanish? Somebody Has to Stand Up and Say: This is Wrong.” This is what Lorenzo Rubio said after being informed that his son was suspended from school becuase of speaking Spanish.

The 16-year-old Zach Rubio had a brief conversation in Spanish with a friend in a hallway of his highschool, he says, “It, was, like, totally not in the classroom”. Rubio got caught and finally got suspended for eleven days. Fourtunately, his father did not allow this to happen. Because there was no written regulation that specified that students could not speak any other language in any area of the school, his suspension was not allowed.

The use of a specific language and the implications this might have can be reflective of many aspects of the US’s culture.

Around the world, we’re all learning English; my school’s primary language is English. IB’s standard language is English. However, all of those who learn English around the world, are most likely bilingual or even trilingual. What happens to people who live in the U.S, and because their language is predominant world-wide, they find it unnecessary to know any better? What type of world are these people being prepared for? At least in Costa Rica, a second language is mandatory to obtain a high school degree. What about the US? English is the only mandatory language. It seems like the education system in USA is being oblivious to the fact that, in a future, most likely knowing only English is not going to be enough.

What else does this case reflect? Perhaps, just perhaps, discrimination against Hispanics (Zach was half Mexican half American). According to the article in which the case was presented, more specifically according to, The National Council of La Raza, 20% of the U.S. school population is Latino. Yet people are still suspended for speaking Spanish, is this percentage insignificant? The author in his article also questions whether the kid would’ve been suspended if he would have been speaking in French? Is the french language looked upon as the Spanish language is? The author also refers to Janet Murguia’s assertions, “A fully bilingual young man like Zach Rubio should be considered an asset to the community”. Even if being bilingual can be beneficial, for Zach’s principal at least, there were more important things than being bilingual. Sometimes, when a people is so discriminating towards another ethnicity they fail to acknowledge the postive imput these people from a different ethnicity might have on their own community. I see this not only with Mexicans in the US but with Nicaraguans in CR. Becuase many of us have become so intolerable towards Nicaraguans we fail to recognize their imput to our society and only point out at their flaws. How many of us account Nicaraguans for their working force? For the taxes that they pay? For the jobs that they occupy? Our perception on a given group of people is frequently altered as a result of our generalizations and stereotypes.

Zach’s farther clearly says that what happened to his son “Is wrong”. Now, on what grounds does he claim this is wrong? Some could base their argument on the importance of mastering English and comprehensively as possible, as was argued by the Governor of California. Others have argued that it is too expensive to incorporate a second mandatory language on the entire educational system of United States. However, Zach’s farther claimed this was wrong based on human rights, this is what he used to define the principal’s action as wrong.Human rights can be very useufl in defining what is right and what is wrong since they have been consented by a majority of people around the world. Nonetheless, sometimes people act more according to their particular beliefs than to consented human rights.

Could someone view this case differently? Of course, I am not amazed that I chose to wirte about this topic, after all, I am a Latina, I feel strongly about discrimination towards my ethnicity. Usually, our emotions define our interests, I showed this article to a friend from the U.S. and even if she did not consider it was right to suspend someone for speaking spanish, she definitey did not feel storngly about this, in fact she did not pay much attention to my passionate arguments against the principal. I also concldued that while we criticize other’s actions of discriminbation towards our ethnicy, many times we do the exact same thing to others (Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans). So, is someone who discriminates in the position to criticize discrimination?

 Reid, T.R. “Spanish at School Translates to Suspension.” Anthropology (2008).

An earthquake occurs, shakes a region, and devastates it. People need to rebuild their houses, and regain their belongings. Building a small wooden house or buying some house items does not appear to be exactly the most difficult thing to do. Yet this becomes somewhat more difficult when you have also lost your job.

An earthquake occurs, shakes a region, and devastates it. Companies in the area need to regain their profit, but because they have not lost all they had, they can afford to go about doing things in two different ways. Either they chose to help themselves, or they chose to help the people.

I got the opportunity to visit the region of Poasito where a hurricane’s epicenter destroyed much of what there was. People’s fear was not only of having lost their material belonging, but their job. Losing a job implies not being able to regain what you have lost; losing a job meant for them a whole deal of uncertainty and despair.

The amount of workers who had lost their job was significant, but some were lucky. The company “El Angel”, a producer of jelly and some other products, that had its facilities in the area made an important decision, they were not closing the company and they continued paying salaries. In a market-principle based economic system, companies aim to maximize their profit. Certainly, not producing and still paying does not result in an increase in profit. This action could therefore by regarded as unreasonable, if your system is based on the market principle and your goal is to maximize your profit, then why would you pay salaries while not producing?

 Nowadays, social responsibility has become a question of ethics. It is not written in any constitution or in any declaration, but it is an expectation. So, should companies compromise their profit to meet with an expectation? Is it as simple as: the worker benefits and the company suffers? I don’t believe so, and in fact, how I knew about this case would be the best way to answer this question.

My refrigerator was suddenly full of “El Angel” products. There was a third actor in all this, the internet. The company’s action did not end in their decision making; through the internet what they did was rapidly spread. With the current expansion of the internet and its availability to even more people, what companies do is more public than ever before. This implies that through the internet people like my parents can become aware of this socially responsible decision and through their consumerism favor the company.

What’s more, many supermarkets rapidly lacked products of “El Angel”. What does this mean? On the short run, yes the company was affected financially, however on the medium and long run the company is benefitted by all of those who bought their products.

If it was ethical for “El Angel” to do what they did, then does that imply that everyone else who made a different decision is unethical? No or at least not in my opinion. Social responsibility is a relatively new idea and companies are still adapting to it, its dynamic and implication. Nevertheless, it makes me happy to see that some companies have understood the science of social responsibility; they have understood that consumers play a very important role in their company and that being responsible will have positive consequences in the future.

 We, as consumers, have the power to SHAKE companies and the way the act in relation to the public and to society as a whole.

I was conducting a survey for a project about trends in my English class and I found astonishing results.  The last question of the survey was requiring people to name current conflicts they could think of. Repeatedly, I saw one answer that surprised me. Amongst genocide in Darfur, war in Iraq, Israel-Palestine some people included the following: a communist president elected in El Salvador.

I was amazed; someone viewed “the election of a communist president in El Salvador” as a conflict. When thinking of conflict I pictured violeve, blood, and wars. Then I realized conflict could be defined in very broad terms and could include ideological issues as well. The assertion on communism reminded me of my current topic of study in history class, the Cold War. This topic particularly has called by attention since it is very closely related to the current world order and to many people’s perspectives on communism and capitalism.  

Why would someone view the election of a communist president as a conflict? Isn’t communism just another economic doctrine? Either way, is the president really a communist? On what grounds do people claim this?

I constantly notice how people (classmates and other westerners) oppose communism so strongly; I have even been “insulted” by being called a communist, only because of my socialist views. I wonder why do so many westerners carry this sentiment towards communism? My current topic of study in history class, the Cold War, definitely yields many answers to these questions. History, in its unique terms, explains why we are the way we are. By studying the last half of the 20th century, I have understood the extent to which the world was once divided into communism and capitalism. Even if this division was diplomatically ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ideological division is still felt. I do not aim to enter in a discussion that analyses the successes and failures of both communism and capitalism. I do, however, aim to question people’s reasons behind a given preference. Thus I wonder… do we really reject communism because we have studied its foundations, because we have analyzed its impact and implications or because we have seen everyone around us reject it or because we constantly associate communism to dictatorships or because we have grown in a relatively prosperous society that is based on capitalism? It is easy to favor capitalism when our parents have prospered economically, when they have received enough opportunities to succeed. But is it the same for someone who has not been granted with opportunities, someone whose family has been sunk into the cycle of poverty? Is capitalism fair in this case or is it viewed as a conflict? 

Moreover, when those who claim that a communist president was elected in El Salvador, are they really conscious of what they are saying? of the validity and implications of this claims?

Because I felt intrigued to know more about this election I spoke to several social studies teachers of the school. What I learned was that this president was neither a communist nor a former guerilla fighter. He was a reporter who was asked by the FMLN party to run as president. In fact, he has already publicly stated that he does not follow leftist tendencies. Then, if he is not communist, why do people claim such things? It has been evident in many cases of Latin American countries that people view those leaders who come from popular movements as communist. Further, those who oppose for example the FMLN party use Communism as a way to threaten and scare people. Therefore, communism becomes more of an ideological threat than a reality.

People, according to what history has taught them, according to the context and culture in which they have grown up, will establish what they consider to be a conflict. Those members of the FMLN party view the election of their candidate as a victory for their views, of their very long struggle for power. Yet contrastingly, some of us who have been notably favored by capitalism view this as a conflict. 

What are the justifications for, and implications of, claiming that there are universal standards for morality, or that there are societal standards of morality, or that there are only individual standards of morality? Are the three positions mutually exclusive?

Group: AnaVic, Glory O, Glori S.

Standards for morality are seen in different levels, universal, societal and individual. The existence of these different degrees of moral standards has several implications.

In the case of universal standards for morality, the main implication is that no matter whom you are, where you live, what is your background, or which culture you belong to, you must abide by certain standards.  This concept is reflected by universal human rights, thus being moral basically would mean to respect them in all circumstances. It is possible to have a general consensus on morality becuase cultures share generalities. While it is important to have a general, universal consensus on what is moral and what is not, universal morality might be an exclusive position in regards to societal morality. For instance, in the case of the Bambara culture in Mali, some of their moral standards do not match with the so called universal standards for morality. For the Bambara people, it is not amoral to practice female genital cutting since it benefits Bamabra women in many ways. This societal standard of morality is opposed by for instance, the “universal right” for a healthy body. Universal Human Rights are not necessarily completely universal since they do not always take into account cultural particularities, cultural rights, or cultural relativity.

The implication of societal standards for morality is that people in a given culture can act morally according to principles established by that same society. This degree of moral standards does exist because some societies give more importance to certain aspects and have their own cultural particularities such as honor in the Japanese society and how it corelates with a high suicide rate. In the more traditional and antique japanese culture when one damages one’s personal or one’s country’s honor, it is better to commit suicide. While other cultures around the world, as the Ticos (mostly catholics) still value honor, but belive suicide to be amoral. While it is fair that different societies have somewhat different moral standards because of their unique history and context, that si to say becuase of cultural relativity, these standards cannot be completely different and exclusive amongst each another and in relation to “universal human rights” as well.

The main implication of an individual standard for morality would be that people act only abiding be their own viewes of what is wrong and what is right. This standard is definitely not the only moral standard, it does exist however, but not in an exclusive way in relation to societal and universal standards. If everyone’s individual standars for morality were completely different then this world would be worse than it is today, but actually many people within a cultural, and a multicultural context share principles and standars for what is right and wrong. 

The beauty of human interaction in a multicultural world is to learn to peacefully coexist with others when their moral standarss are not exactly the same as ours. But now one question arises, to what extent can we peacefully coexist with people whose moral standards are different than ours? There definitely needs to be a general consensus amongst citizens of the world in order to achieve a certain degree of peaceful coexistence, however scoeities will never completely agree and share the exact same standards, as well as individuals never will. Nevertheless, different opinions on morality, should, to the extent possible, be respected and understood. When I say “to the extent possible” I mean that if there is a general agreement on a practice or an act as being amoral, then the international community should/could comprehensively work against it.   

 About a year ago, I was lucky enough to meet some friends from the states who came to Costa Rica to work with teenagers in various communities. I joined with them in their weekly visits to a precario in Tibás, San José called Triángulo Solidario.

Along with another classmate and my other collegues, we decided to create a tutoring center at the precario. I got together with my classmate and we bought some supplies to be able to start the tutoring. Thus, we visited most houses in the precario for about two or three saturday’s telling all the families about the new service we were offering. After a month or so we were already recieveing about 20 kids, ranging from 4 to 18 years old, and all with different needs.

The project started evolving week by week and now we recieve as many as 35 kids each Saturday. The tutoring center is not as easy and simple as many could think it is, in fact not only it is a true commitment but a challenge as well. One learns, foremost, about the importance of education, even more so the importance of a motivation that will guide children through their educational process. When we work with children at the precario, we do not intend to give them everything they need, or to do everything for them, we intend to teach them how to learn, to teach them that if they work hard they can get what they want, but that is if they work hard. More than a tutor I consider myself a mentor, my goal is not only to teach these kids how to read or wirte or speak in english, my goal, most importantly is to create a friendship with them, to let them know that there is someone that will be there for them. More important that money, or a pencil, or a notebook, is a motivation, and this perhaps is the most important thing this experience has taught me.

As I have become more friends of the people of the community I have been able to value their grattitude towards those who help them. At the same time I have been glad to know that many of the kids trust us everytime more. Some memories that pop into my mind immediately as I think about my friendly reliationship with kids at el Triángulo Solidario are the following…

A girl who told me, with a knot in her throat, that she was been beaten at school and that her teachers did not believe her. She told me also, that her brother had been threaten to death.

Another girl told me this January that she already used deodrant.

A boy cried during the entire tutoring center on November becuase his aunt was going to hit him…

A girl who did a drawing for me that said: ”I love you Glori”

I look back on what my team and me have done since June 2008…

We deifnitely have taught boys and girls a whole deal of things, whether it is to count in English or to add two digit numbers, or to calculate velocity of an object, or about the Costa Rican constitution.

I am not sure however, if we have had a true academic impact in their school lives. When we see them only once per week, not under the best conditions for studying, the amount of work that can be done is limited.

What I am certain about though, is that for them, the boys and girls of el Triángulo Solidario, we are two hours of fun, recreative learning. We are their friends who come visit on Saturdays, those who can lend them color pencils when they need them, those who will help them in their challenging homework. The fact that we have created a true friendship with them, is to me, our most important accomplishment.

          Left: Cata, Right:Me Bottom: Kimberly (student of ours)

 Some of my friends at El Triángulo Solidario.

 Speaking to boys about the tutoring center.

 Helping Haydee with her math homework.

 Anibal and me.

 The team.