Indigenous Resistance Response

            In English and History classes the culture of Native Americans is always told through a semi-true story.  Their land is usually invaded and leaves few or no original survivors.  The remaining Native Americans are forced into a lifestyle to which they are unaccustomed and influenced to forget their customs.  When they chose to remember, they are looked down upon as uneducated or less fortunate.  The act of flushing out a certain culture is assimilation.

            In the article, assimilation of the Salish people of the coast of British Columbia and Washington State is targeted in regards to education.  The previous generations of the Salish people dealt with even harder attempts of assimilation in public schools in hopes to make it easy for the following generations to keep the culture alive.  Assimilation in Public schools was a supposed mean to civilize the Salish children from a savage past.  Legislatures were established to separate the assimilated form the “true” indigenous Salish people. 

            The assimilation theory in my opinion is an excuse for the majority to retain power and influence above all.  Time and time again diversity, race, gender, sexual preference, and culture have proven to be great contributors to cognitive development and other skills and attributes that one is supposed to have to be successful.  With the treatment of these indigenous people came their want for their own communities, schools and sole ownership to their culture.  The majority rule in America understands the impact of diversity to personal growth so it is given to those who are chosen to be successful.  The indigenous people have their own communities and schools such as UNC Pembroke and are satisfied with living in their culture.  That being said they are satisfied with routine and unaccepting to new experiences.  New people are looked at as intruders because of the past invasions.  Even though we live in the same country the indigenous are still secluded to a world of their own where they are still regulated by the majority.

Meatrix Response

            “The Meatrix” is a laugh worthy spoof of the “The Matrix” that exploits the food industry, and gives a revolting truth about meat production.  “The Meatrix” sheds light on the disappointing transition of family owned farms to massive industrial farms.  When family farms were relevant, animals were bred and fed naturally, as well as treated humanely.  The transition of farms has and will continue to negatively affect farm owners financial status, consumer’s health, and of course animal treatment.

            In order to maximize profit industrial farms will do anything.  Industries create uncomfortable living conditions for animals in order to minimize space and maximize profit.  Also in efforts to maximize profit they abuse their workers by having them do strenuous tasks constantly at top speed.  In order to maximize supply the industrial farms inject growth hormones into the animals to make them bigger and expend more of their usable byproducts. 

The original video made a valid point of how looking at just the outside and not being educated about what’s within can mislead consumers.  The consumers have the power since they are the source of income for the industry.  If the consumer is educated about what products are healthy and who supplies a humane environment for the livestock, then the right decision about food consumption can be made.  The place of focus for my next assignment is somewhere in NY.  Since New York is up north, they don’t really have farms because of weather and land quality.  This gives reason to suspect the location as a major source for industrialized food products.  

Response to Biotechnology Article

The biotechnology article makes one think about food from the ethical, scientific, and economic standpoint of food production and consumption; not only from the aspect of everyday needs.  Food is consumed in large quantities daily causing the mistreatment and the deaths of animals.  Manufacturers produce food that makes for more profit and consumer satisfactory.  The food industry incorporates chemicals into the animal’s diet causing it to either grow larger for more supply, clone or reproduce more offspring, or even to reach certain tastes.  These chemicals create a miserable end to the animals life and disrupt natural order.  It is also an ethical and scientific concern in regards to what the chemicals do to the uneducated consumer and the rest of humanity.

Growing plants and food naturally requires time, commitment, and effort.  Producers that choose to use such chemicals for the sake of increasing profit lack those characteristics.  The producers also fear the competition or indirectly admit its lack of ability to compete fairly.  The producers do not deserve all the blame for this problem, though they do deserve most.  The consumers (humanity) encourage the producers and condone the method of satisfaction by continuing to buy and add to the ever growing profit. 

Greed of the consumer for more food than necessary as well as greed of the producer for more profit has led to an unethical, economically misshapen scientific method of food production.  To be sure there is a positive thing to do with such technology that benefits every aspect of sustainability.  Organizations and parties from both sides of the argument can come to a consensus on better means of production to satisfy majority of needs.

Response to Fracking Article

            In the article Abraham Lustgarten and Nicholas Kusnetz argue that underground contamination can be traced to Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, as a result of drilling for oil supplies.  Hydraulic fracturing is defined as the forcing open of fissures in subterranean rocks by introducing liquid at high pressure, especially to extract oil or gas.  EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, would like to blame the oil and gas companies for the underground contamination in efforts to enforce stricter regulations.  The oil and gas companies of course do not accept the blame and insist to support that fracking is a totally safe and sufficient process.  That being said, who or what then is responsible for the contamination near Pavillion, WY.  EPA reports that the contamination came from gas wells and contained numerous compounds associated with fracking fluids.

            Many of the “that won’t happens” or risks of hydraulic fracturing have occurred.  The biggest concern was the contamination of water supplies.  An incident happened where fracking caused well water in an area to turn brown.  As a result of that gas companies provided drinking water to residents for a period of time.  If not at fault why be the 1^st to make such an uncommon friendly gesture?  Fracking is indeed a problem and can become even greater.  More incidents have occurred and if not stopped more will occur.  The gas companies should take blame for the incidents that have occurred and should continue to take blame if stricter regulations aren’t enforced.  Large companies like the oil and gas tycoons need to be reassured they aren’t above the law.  Accidents happen so why not prevent those that one has the power to before it all goes bad?