The NY Times tells us that:
"Fewer than half of American teenagers who were asked basic history and literature questions in a phone survey knew when the Civil War was fought, and one in four said Columbus sailed to the New World some time after 1750, not in 1492."
Somehow this is not surprising. I went to a good public high school and while I was lucky enough to have good history teachers (partly because I really liked history and "social studies"-type sybjects), we had a crappy English curriculum (which I liked much, much less-- I don't do boring 19th century sappy English novels), with boring, irrelevent books and insipid worksheets asking you to "discuss the symbolism of the lampposts and doorhandles"-- when your flesh and blood teacher never explained how to 'get' things like symbolism and those other bullshitty things lit people go one about. I'd also like to point out that we had a less-than-ideal writing program-- and I never had to learn to write an actual research paper, partly because my nasty, useless Advanced Composition teacher just gave us stupid worksheets, then criticised us harshly for how we filled them out.
So how to generalise my mixed experience? History is hard to teach, and English lit and writing even more so. And it's even harder to teach kids who aren't interested. I can't imagine being in high school today-- when I was there, the internet was still kind of novel. There was no (get ready for it) Wikipedia (gasp)--- there was no Wiki- anything, come to think of it. There was no facebook or myspace-- and even IMing was a newish thing. We had to gossip on the house landline (oh the horror!!)-- no one had mobiles then. Etc etc etc.
That said, I don't know enough about No Child Left Behind to be able to comment on its role in the shocking ill-knowledge about history and literature. I do know that bumpersticker wags like to say things like 'No School Left Standing'. Maybe I should Wikipedia it....
28 February 2008
25 February 2008
We're in the wrong business, friends...
Maybe we should have all gone to become MPHs?
(but Prof. Mookerjee was also wrong-- an MBA would be even more useless than usual):
"Global terrorism was a real threat but posed far less risk than obesity, diabetes and smoking-related illnesses, prominent US professor of health law Lawrence Gostin said at the Oxford Health Alliance Summit here.
"Ever since September 11, we've been lurching from one crisis to the next, which has really frightened the public," Gostin told AFP later.
"While we've been focusing so much attention on that, we've had this silent epidemic of obesity that's killing millions of people around the world, and we're devoting very little attention to it and a negligible amount of money.""
...sayeth Yahoo! News
It's something to think about. One's chances in the US of dying of a heart attack are greater than your chances of dying in a terror attack. (As I well know.) But we all focus on terrorism. Maybe because it's big, dramatic and scary? Because we have no control over it, unlike those demises organized one french fry or cookie of death at a time?
Maybe my next degree will indeed be an MPH, rather than a JD.... (since hemorrhagic diseases are much more entertaining than contracts, or so I'm told by a soon-to-be-MPH...)
(but Prof. Mookerjee was also wrong-- an MBA would be even more useless than usual):
"Global terrorism was a real threat but posed far less risk than obesity, diabetes and smoking-related illnesses, prominent US professor of health law Lawrence Gostin said at the Oxford Health Alliance Summit here.
"Ever since September 11, we've been lurching from one crisis to the next, which has really frightened the public," Gostin told AFP later.
"While we've been focusing so much attention on that, we've had this silent epidemic of obesity that's killing millions of people around the world, and we're devoting very little attention to it and a negligible amount of money.""
...sayeth Yahoo! News
It's something to think about. One's chances in the US of dying of a heart attack are greater than your chances of dying in a terror attack. (As I well know.) But we all focus on terrorism. Maybe because it's big, dramatic and scary? Because we have no control over it, unlike those demises organized one french fry or cookie of death at a time?
Maybe my next degree will indeed be an MPH, rather than a JD.... (since hemorrhagic diseases are much more entertaining than contracts, or so I'm told by a soon-to-be-MPH...)
24 February 2008
Remember kids...
...if you're ever President, don't let the press-corps take lots of photos of you on holiday, because someone will put them on their blog and make smart-allecky remarks about you. kthxbai!"
I have to love the comments even more than the snarcky captions.
kthxbai!
I have to love the comments even more than the snarcky captions.
kthxbai!
23 February 2008
Never again?
I got curious about the issues presented in our reading for this coming Monday from the PBS Frontline program, did a bit of Wikipedia-ing and stumbled across this Human Rights Watch report on the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Wow.
I'm utterly stunned. How could any one person (or small group of people for that matter) plan such a barbaric orgy of unrelenting violence? It's just unimaginable. Even on already violent continent. Wow.
I'm utterly stunned. How could any one person (or small group of people for that matter) plan such a barbaric orgy of unrelenting violence? It's just unimaginable. Even on already violent continent. Wow.
19 February 2008
I can has bobaraba?
Enough with the serious posts. I found this article on BBC World about Ivory Coast's "big bottom craze." There's a pop song craze that celebrates ladies' plump bums, so now everyone wants one! Many ladies who feel that their bums are lacking in size are turning to "treatments" to plump up. These are likely just quackery-- if anyone knows of a cream that really will make your bum bigger, there's money to be made! I'd suggest to those who find their bottoms to be lacking in size should save their pennies/centimes and come to Pgh for the Primanti's...
I find this amusing. I wonder if this song would be a hit in Pgh since, well... everyone is plumper here... (see aforementioned Primanti's, warshed down with an Ahr'n City beer 'n'at)
(And I'm not posting this to be vulgar-- I'm genuinely amused.)
I find this amusing. I wonder if this song would be a hit in Pgh since, well... everyone is plumper here... (see aforementioned Primanti's, warshed down with an Ahr'n City beer 'n'at)
(And I'm not posting this to be vulgar-- I'm genuinely amused.)
18 February 2008
protection of "cultural property" in war
A question was raised by Lt. Col. Marttala's presentation as to why cultural sights and landmarks are forbidden as targets in armed conflict for US forces. Mention was made of a 1950s treaty dealing with this subject. I'd like to discuss the treaty and to link to a news article on artistic works looted in World War II by Nazi forces.
First, the Treaty.
The 1954 Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict defines the following categories of items and places as being protected in armed conflict:
"...(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
-(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
-(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments". " (Art. 1)
In terms of the actions forbidden against such objects and places, cultural property (CP) may not be subject to military danger (Art. 4(1)), theft, vandalism or requisitioning (4(3)), reprisals (4(4)). CP is to be granted immunity from military action (Art. 9) . CP may be transported by a contracting party; such transports are to be protected (Art 12). CP may not be captured (Art. 14(1)), and CP has a distinctive emblem that is to be respected. (Art. 16) And these rules apply in both international and non-international conflicts-- a big step for 1954. (Arts. 18, 19)
These rules sound very much like the rules against targeting hospitals and other medical facilities, especially the provisions on how immunity against attack can be waved if the cultural centres are used for military purposes. Further, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) may be called upon to provide neutral technical assistance in protecting the CP. (Art. 23)
One interesting fact. While 118 states have ratified/aceeded to the Convention, 6 have only signed it: Andorra, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, UK and the US. At least we're not in the company of dictators as we sometimes are in these sorts of Conventions and Treaties. I'm glad to see that the US takes the protection of cultural patrimony seriously in its operations, even if not technically 100% bound to do so under international law.
(This issue of protection for CP has been an issue in the 2003 Iraq War, where the Iraqi National Museum was looted during the lawlessness of the initial period of the military action. There are many reasons this occured-- I do not point fingers-- but it is certainly unfortunant and a loss for all of humanity. I hope the US government, allied governments, UNESCO and/or other international organizations can assist the Iraqi government in rounding up the looted items and those involved.)
Second, the news article.
"Israel's national museum opened two new exhibits Monday of paintings with a tragic history: They were stolen from museums and salons by the Nazis and never reclaimed because many of the rightful owners perished during World War II. "
The subject of returning stolen/looted works to their rightful owners or heirs from the Nazi occupation of Europe has been a long contentious issue. As the article points out, after 60 years, it's increasingly unlikely that these works will be claimed by the survivors or their families. Many in the international community have pointed out the difficulties presented in helping reunite stolen works and goods with rightful owners/heirs because of the facts from the war years: people were driven from their homes with no documents and/or necessary documents were taken from them by the Nazis, making it extremely difficult to prove ownership. This is as much the case with artwork as it is with land, bank accounts, life insurance policies, stocks/bonds and other non-cash commodities. And let us not forget that entire families were murdered, so there are no heirs left to claim the stolen property.
There's also a tremendous difficulty in deciding what is the appropriate course of action when faced with the desire to return cultural or religious objects stolen from communities (synagogues, churches, museums even) when those communities or institutions no longer exist; vast numbers of Jewish communities were wiped off the face of the map by the Nazis and their sacred objects stolen. In such cases, perhaps the best solution is a museum (more or less) dedicated to their preservation and care, and to the story of the museum's acquisition of these objects.
"...Being convinced that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world;..." (Convention, Preamble)
First, the Treaty.
The 1954 Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict defines the following categories of items and places as being protected in armed conflict:
"...(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
-(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
-(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments". " (Art. 1)
In terms of the actions forbidden against such objects and places, cultural property (CP) may not be subject to military danger (Art. 4(1)), theft, vandalism or requisitioning (4(3)), reprisals (4(4)). CP is to be granted immunity from military action (Art. 9) . CP may be transported by a contracting party; such transports are to be protected (Art 12). CP may not be captured (Art. 14(1)), and CP has a distinctive emblem that is to be respected. (Art. 16) And these rules apply in both international and non-international conflicts-- a big step for 1954. (Arts. 18, 19)
These rules sound very much like the rules against targeting hospitals and other medical facilities, especially the provisions on how immunity against attack can be waved if the cultural centres are used for military purposes. Further, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) may be called upon to provide neutral technical assistance in protecting the CP. (Art. 23)
One interesting fact. While 118 states have ratified/aceeded to the Convention, 6 have only signed it: Andorra, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, UK and the US. At least we're not in the company of dictators as we sometimes are in these sorts of Conventions and Treaties. I'm glad to see that the US takes the protection of cultural patrimony seriously in its operations, even if not technically 100% bound to do so under international law.
(This issue of protection for CP has been an issue in the 2003 Iraq War, where the Iraqi National Museum was looted during the lawlessness of the initial period of the military action. There are many reasons this occured-- I do not point fingers-- but it is certainly unfortunant and a loss for all of humanity. I hope the US government, allied governments, UNESCO and/or other international organizations can assist the Iraqi government in rounding up the looted items and those involved.)
Second, the news article.
"Israel's national museum opened two new exhibits Monday of paintings with a tragic history: They were stolen from museums and salons by the Nazis and never reclaimed because many of the rightful owners perished during World War II. "
The subject of returning stolen/looted works to their rightful owners or heirs from the Nazi occupation of Europe has been a long contentious issue. As the article points out, after 60 years, it's increasingly unlikely that these works will be claimed by the survivors or their families. Many in the international community have pointed out the difficulties presented in helping reunite stolen works and goods with rightful owners/heirs because of the facts from the war years: people were driven from their homes with no documents and/or necessary documents were taken from them by the Nazis, making it extremely difficult to prove ownership. This is as much the case with artwork as it is with land, bank accounts, life insurance policies, stocks/bonds and other non-cash commodities. And let us not forget that entire families were murdered, so there are no heirs left to claim the stolen property.
There's also a tremendous difficulty in deciding what is the appropriate course of action when faced with the desire to return cultural or religious objects stolen from communities (synagogues, churches, museums even) when those communities or institutions no longer exist; vast numbers of Jewish communities were wiped off the face of the map by the Nazis and their sacred objects stolen. In such cases, perhaps the best solution is a museum (more or less) dedicated to their preservation and care, and to the story of the museum's acquisition of these objects.
"...Being convinced that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world;..." (Convention, Preamble)
Protection of Diplomats and Diplomatic facilities: a receiving state's responsibility
Lt. Col. Marttala's presentation on the rules of tactical engagement to our class today brought up the issue of a US military installation receiving potentially harassing small-arms fire from some apartment blocks just outside of the compound. I asked if host countries for military forces have the same obligation under international law to protect the 'guest' forces, as is the case for diplomatic facilities and personnel. Lt. Col. Marttala responded that this depends on the type of agreement between the US and host governments. I'd like to comment more fully on the obligations of receiving states with regard to foreign diplomats and diplomatic facilities (embassies, consulates, etc), since it's really interesting and seldom discussed.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 provides that receiving states have the responsibility to protect diplomats and missions from all forms of "intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission orimpairment of its dignity." (Art. 22(2)) In the United States, Missions are protected by the US Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, as are International Organizations. (like the World Bank, IMF, UN, OAS, IADB, etc)
The history of diplomatic immunity is fairly interesting, but the gist of it is to allow states to conduct relations in an unimpeded fashion. (Vienna Convention, Preamble, 'Believing')
These rules are rarely violated by states, even in the case of war and other inter-state unpleasantness: diplomats are asked to shutter their gates and leave. However, the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution was a notable exception. More than 60 US diplomats and staff were held for 444 days by the new Iranian regime. (A few people were released for political and medical reasons.) In late 1979, during what we now call the Hostage Crisis, the US filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice against Iran for having violated the Vienna Convention and other international instruments and customs. The ICJ ruled in favour of the US and ordered Iran to pay reparations. (The decision is available here.) Needless to say, all States were shocked by this action on the part of the Iranian government, and it cost the Iranians serious credibility-- no one will do business with you if you don't play by the rules that you also benefit from. (I'd venture to guess that Iranian diplomats to the US were withdrawn by Iran at the time of the Revolution, or were simply asked to leave by the US government- this is allowed under the Convention and is the proper course of action.)
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 provides that receiving states have the responsibility to protect diplomats and missions from all forms of "intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission orimpairment of its dignity." (Art. 22(2)) In the United States, Missions are protected by the US Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, as are International Organizations. (like the World Bank, IMF, UN, OAS, IADB, etc)
The history of diplomatic immunity is fairly interesting, but the gist of it is to allow states to conduct relations in an unimpeded fashion. (Vienna Convention, Preamble, 'Believing')
These rules are rarely violated by states, even in the case of war and other inter-state unpleasantness: diplomats are asked to shutter their gates and leave. However, the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution was a notable exception. More than 60 US diplomats and staff were held for 444 days by the new Iranian regime. (A few people were released for political and medical reasons.) In late 1979, during what we now call the Hostage Crisis, the US filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice against Iran for having violated the Vienna Convention and other international instruments and customs. The ICJ ruled in favour of the US and ordered Iran to pay reparations. (The decision is available here.) Needless to say, all States were shocked by this action on the part of the Iranian government, and it cost the Iranians serious credibility-- no one will do business with you if you don't play by the rules that you also benefit from. (I'd venture to guess that Iranian diplomats to the US were withdrawn by Iran at the time of the Revolution, or were simply asked to leave by the US government- this is allowed under the Convention and is the proper course of action.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
