Synthesis and Response to "Indigenous resistance and racist schooling on the borders of empires: Coast Salish cultural survival"

The article “Indigenous resistance and racist schooling on the borders of empires: Coast Salish cultural survival” is about the attempts of the United States and Canada to assimilate an Indian culture. The Coast Salish are an indigenous Indian culture that was unfortunately separated by the 49^th parallel. For some reason, the governments of both Canada and the United States decided that they wanted to stomp out the Indian tradition. To accomplish this both sides used the creation of schools as a method to change the way Coastal Salish children viewed the world in respect to their culture. The Canadian government chose to use residential schools to try to remap Coastal Salish traditions. In these schools the children were treated harshly by white classmates and teachers. They would be punished severely for any activity that was related to Coastal Salish tradition. The problem became more severe when a judge decided that the natives had laid claim to half of the fish in the area. This court decision led to the reallocation of fisheries, and an increased intolerance for the Coastal Salish people. Some of the native children decided to cross the border to attend the boarding schools the United states had created, other avoided school all together. The United States’ aforementioned boarding schools were created for the same reason as the Canadian schools. The biggest difference was that the boarding schools were exclusively for the Coastal Salish people. The level of racism was therefore reduced. However, the students still faced punishment for activities related to their culture.

Personally, I think the method that the United States used was much more effective, because of the reduced racism. While I agree with the method the U.S. chose, I do not agree with what they were doing. I think the whole situation can be summarized as another government overstep. The government was not within their rights to infringe on the culture and beliefs of the Coastal Salish. This nation was formed to remove the pressures of social culture, by allowing the people to choose for themselves what they wanted to believe or practice. The government has been continuing to grow in power, and has become increasingly more corrupted. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government has the right to assimilate a culture, and thus destroy it. Corruption is the unfortunate side effect of power. The government fears any sort of retaliation and wants to prevent retaliation from occurring, so it will give itself more power to crush anything it thinks will do it harm. It is a fearful master, and will do anything to control its subjects.

The Meatrix

The meatrix is a very goofy video that explains the evils of factory farming. From an environmental standpoint, I think the site does a good job explaining what they are, and why they have potential health issues. That being said, I don't always think joking about a serious issue is a good idea. If you start making jokes about factory farming there is a chance that it will always be one. Nobody will take it seriously at all.
I have and always will believe that people should come first. If we were to stop factory farming, we would increase the cost of food and as a result, the standard of living would increase. Thousands of Americans go hungry everyday, and making food more expensive will only make the problem worse. An increased standard of living also negatively impacts the unemployment rate. While I do acknowledge that there are definite health issues that are involved with factory farming, I think they are a result of another problem(corporate lobbying). For the time being, I think the health risks are a necessary evil. They might make some one ill in the future, but the food created by factory farming will keep someone alive today.

Real Text Reading on Biotechnology

The debate for GM foods is not new to me and has often been brought up in my previous classes. I strongly belive that people should come first, not the environment. If we have the technology to create crops that have higher protein content or a higher yeild, we should use it. Almost every country in the world imports over 90% of their food, and the amount of farmland supplying that food is shrinking. If we do not use GM foods the world will starve. There is no way to justify letting people starve when we have the ability to feed them. Even if the modified food turns out to have negative effects later on in life, without that GM food they wouldnt make it to that point anyway. I also found it odd that the author of Real Texts suggests softening your arguements. Most people are stuck in their ways, and are not going to change their mind as a result of your persuasive essay. Using words that are less reassuring only weakens the chance that you will sway the few people who are unsure of their stance on the issue.

Synthesis of “EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Linked to Water Contamination”

           The article EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Linked to Water Contamination is about new evidence that might link fracking to water contamination. Fracking is the process of shooting hydraulic fluids into the ground to reach pockets of natural gas and oil. Fracking is the only way to reach these pockets, and is a fairly new process.

           The environmental consequences have been under investigation since the practice first began in 1940. Researchers from the EPA are now claiming that the practice is contaminating ground water with the hydraulic fluids it uses. The ground water of a small town in Pavillion, Wyoming has been found to contain 10 different contaminants, all of which are commonly used in fracking. The companies who use fracking to obtain oil and natural gas refuse to accept liability for the contamination. Instead they say that the hydraulic process would cause the fluids to seep down, not towards the surface. They also claim that the layers of the earth create a barrier to prevent the fluids from rising back to the earth.

            Before we stop the practice fracking, we first need to consider the consequences. If we illegalize fracking, we decrease the availability of natural gas and oil. That is a direct increase on the cost of a standard living. It would be more expensive to heat and power your home. Gas prices will also increase, which hurts transportation.  You also have to fire all of the people who work in that field. All of these factors would pile up on Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet. Without a doubt there would be an increase in unemployment and the homeless. The economy it’s currently in a very poor state, raising the unemployment rate only hurts the situation. Sure the environment might be healthier if we stopped fracking, but is a healthier environment worth damaging the economy and limiting our resources?

EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Linked to Water Contamination