Activism

Diamonds are the hardest natural substance on earth. The word diamond derived from the Greek word adamas. This means ‘unconquerable’. Any diamond is capable of scratching glass or steel. The largest one ever found was one and a quarter pounds—3 106 carats. The diamond is the most popular stone—its appearance, feel and status attract buyers from all over the world. Lake Argyle, located in Australia, is the world’s richest diamond deposit. It produces over a third of the world’s diamonds every year. The discovery of diamonds at the Orange River in South Africa sparked the world’s hunger for diamonds. In India, this industry employs over one million people alone. It is the birthstone for the month of April and the anniversary gem for 10th and 60th years of marriage. Couples traditionally receive some form of diamond ring to symbolize their engagement; this practice started in 1477 when Mary of Burgundy received one from Archduke Maximilian of Austria (Davies).

Despite their representation of love, devotion and exquisite beauty, diamonds have been mesmerizing humans throughout centuries. Diamonds are crystals formed in the earth billions of years ago, very few survive and they are very rare. They are formed when carbon is compressed together at a very high temperature (1000 to 1200°C) (“Conflict Diamonds”). The production of diamonds has tripled since 1980, though it is still a scarce resource (“Diamond Facts”). Satellite surveys, reconnaissance sampling and ground drilling are ways Geologists utilize methods in diamond exploration (“Conflict Diamonds”). Although diamonds can be a good source for growth and poverty reduction, they are being exploited to fund several African conflicts. These diamonds are known as ‘conflict diamonds’. According to the UN, conflict diamonds originate from three of the poorest countries in the world—Democratic Republic of the DRC, Angola and Sierra Leone (“Combating Conflict Diamonds”).

Conflict diamonds play a role in financing civil wars and need to be stopped with the help of international organizations. The economic and social stability and human security are at risk. Violent conflict between or within countries, results in the loss of life and destruction of resources, social and economic disintegration reverses the gain of development and does not decrease poverty. Countries working together to address this issue can reduce the amount of conflict diamonds in the world. Governments have let the diamond industry run wild because diamonds are still fueling conflict.

Sixty-five percent of the world’s supply of diamonds comes from African countries, which is approximately $8.5 billion of diamonds a year (“Diamond Facts”). In many parts of Africa the diamond business made the economy flourish; however other areas were not as lucky: problems arose in the DRC, Angola and Sierra Leone. Those areas that flourished had governments that wanted to benefit their jurisdiction through this new industry; however those in the DRC, Angola and Sierra Leone found their industries controlled by rebel groups. These groups would use civilians to mine for the diamonds and then sell them for their own selfish purposes. In the meantime the labourers were poorly treated and were more often than not paid little for the large amounts of labour they put forth. The rebel groups never hesitated to take out those people who were against their methods and thus many innocent lives were taken once the rebels received the diamonds.

Organizations such as the Kimberley Process, formed in November of 2002, are a group of governments, formed because of activism, find the flow of conflict diamonds. A document called the Kimberely Process Certification Scheme includes a set of requirements to control diamond production, trade and to ensure they are conflict free. The Kimberely Process has 48 members that represent 74 countries. The World Diamond Council, Partnership-Africa Canada and Global Witness are other organizations that participate in the Kimberley Process. Reviews, statistics, annual reports, and progress reports are provided to justify their findings(Kimberley Process).

Works Cited


"Combating Conflict Diamonds." Global Witness. Global Witness. 14 Nov 2008
.

"Conflict Diamonds." Amnesty International USA. Amnesty International. 15 Nov
2008 diamonds/page.do?id=1051176>.

Davies, Rondi. "VII History." MSN Encarta. 1998. Microsoft Corporation. 15 Nov 2008
.

"Diamond Facts." Diamondfacts.org. World Diamond Council. 15 Nov 2008
.

"What is Kimberly Process?." Kimberly Process. Kimberly Process. 14 Nov 2008
.

My Network

Being in this university and in this class makes me involved in participatory culture. There is a vast amount of social networking involved—meeting new people everyday. It is an enormous knowledge community because everyone is sharing what they know. The first assignment we did in Ian Riley’s class was the media autobiography. Presenting our autobiographies to the class is a form of social networking, teaching others about who we are and how media affects our lives.

Furthermore, I am unbelievable hooked to the social networking site, Facebook. What is it about the site that makes me so hooked? It constantly distracts me from my train of thought. Is it because I’m nosy? I hope not. To tell you the truth, I never use the site to its full extent; all I do is look at people’s picture albums. I’m not a stalker.

I participate much more in the ‘culture’ than being in class and on the Internet. I am the President of the South Asian Alliance at Guelph-Humber. South Asian Alliance is a seven-university alliance (UTSG, UTSC, UTM, Ryerson, McMaster, York & Guelph-Humber) that has been together since 1999. It has grown from three chapters to seven chapters in the last few years, Guelph-Humber being the seventh addition. The South Asian Alliance has over 10,000 members!

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world,” by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

This quote holds great impact and meaning to our alliance.

Our alliance’s goal is to “be the change”. We want to connect all members together (they do not have to be South Asian) through social networking events. This is my first year ever being with South Asian Alliance, being a first year member and President. Through sponsorship and a hardworking executive team, we participate in a South Asian Alliance Culture Show every year at the Hershey centre against 16 Canadian Universities. This year we will be having Dalhousie University from Halifax participate in the show. The social networking involved in this alliance goes across the country.

In the upcoming week, with the help of 13 presidents from the other universities, we will be holding a Formal at Payal Banquet Hall. We will have 1300 university/college students at the event; where they will meet each other, watch a bhangra competition, have dinner, enjoy music and dance. We also hold three club events a year with 1000 university/college students. We sell tickets, make flyers, hire police and security, DJs, book venues and give to charity (4% of our profit goes to a charity that changes every year).

Visit www.southasianalliance.ca

Social Networking is a huge part of my life and I wish to continue this in my future. Everyone is a part of social networking whether they believe it or not—from meeting people at school to being a part of an alliance. It is a participatory culture that meets no ends.

UPDATED ON NOVEMBER 14th 2009:

The video I have attached to this blog post is the dance my team made for the Formal we had, our school came in third place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGZWZAJsKo

I do it too.

Over consuming the world’s resources will lead to enormous instability to social and political sectors of the world. Globalization is creating inequalities throughout the world—money distribution, aid distribution, food distribution and equality between nations.

Over-consumption leads to many problems: less fresh water resources, riots caused by financial crisis, drought, famine (due to overpopulation) etc.

The Factory Farming Campaign in the US found that “[i]n 1950, Americans consumed 144 pounds of meat and poultry per person on average. In 2007, that shot up to 222 pounds.”

UNBELIEVABLE. HOW CAN YOU LIVE OFF THAT MUCH MEAT!

Buy Nothing Day started 11 years ago on the US Thanksgiving holiday (the busiest shopping day in the country). It is now a worldwide celebration for the awareness of over-consumption. Over 65 countries around the world participate on Buy Nothing Day by not consuming for 24 hours. Participants are encouraged to buy nothing and to turn off all electricity in their house.

I can relate to over-consumption (and I am embarrassed to admit to it). I always buy what I don’t need, but always what I want. I should be saving my money! However I always spend on useless things. I am aware of what I am doing, but I can’t stop myself! Having said this, Buy Nothing Day is in two weeks and I hope I can be one of the participants on this day—to be a step closer to protecting my future. I have been trying to spend money only on things I really need and to “buy green”.

Buy Nothing Day supports those who are anti-corporation (the culture jammers), the environmentalists, the scientists, the activists etc. If the entire world participates, this is one way we can all connect and help each other. It is not anything as major as world peace, but it will help one person in one way or another.

The following video has a quote I liked from Marshall McLuhan and it shows over-consumption:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2GKajcU3ns

Culture Jamming - The flag=corporate America

Naomi Klein, a Canadian journalist and activist known for her criticism of corporate globalization. She says in her book No Logo: taking aim at the brand bullies, “The practice of parodying advertisements and hijacking billboards in order to drastically alter their message” (Klein, 280)

Culture Jamming is the practice of rebutting against corporate advertisers to show express their opinions publicly and freely. The jammers change advertisements and billboards to alter the main message the original advertisement portrayed. Common messages expressed by jammers include: anti-corporation, anti-consumer, anti-materialism and anti-advertising (obviously).

There are several other topics expressed such as, the unhealthy skinny models used in ads, sexism, underpaid labour to get goods fast and cheap etc. Culture Jammers want to make the culture a more healthier and safe environment for future generations. There are still many people who do not know there are underpaid child workers in china (see ad above).

This is a typical Walmart store. Walmart is not the ideal place to shop if you consider all parts of the corporation—where they get their goods, how they get their goods etc. In my opinion, Walmart is the largest transnational corporation in the world. I find it scary that Walmart can afford to add a grocery store in all of their superstores and sell the food for much cheaper than the local grocery store (because they can afford to lose that money).

Scott McCloud says in Understanding comics, "Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it makes visible,” (page 123). In this ad, the art is the advertisement. The culture jammers are making reality visible.

Over 80% of Walmart’s suppliers are based in China—hence the name of the building in the advertisement. In 2008, Walmart was considered its own country. It ranked the eight largest importer of Chinese goods (before Russia and India). (“Wal-Mart and China”)

NOW THIS IS WHY I REALLY ENJOYED MY WORLD ISSUES CLASS IS HIGHSCHOOL.

My teacher was really against shopping at Walmart or supporting the corporation in any way. As much as I know about Walmart, I continue to shop there (maybe it’s because I don’t care). However there are people who think they can change this—the Culture Jammers.

Some facts I found interesting about Walmart:
• A 2008 report by the National Labor Committee found that workers making holiday ornaments for Wal-Mart in Guangzhou, China were paid only 2/3 of the legal minimum wage, often worked 95 hour weeks, and were forced to work for months without a single day off. The report also found that children as young as 12 worked in the factory and that workers handled dangerous chemicals without even the most rudimentary form of protection, leading to serious skin rashes and sores.
• One week of time records for 25,000 employees in July 2000 found 1,371 instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. There were 15,705 lost meal times and 60,767 missed breaks. [Greenhouse, Steven, "In-House Audit Says Wal-Mart Violated Labor Laws," January 13th, 2004, NY Times
• Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 for breaking child labor violations charges in January 2005 in 24 separate incidents.
(“Wal-Mart and China”)

Works Cited

"The Real Facts About Wal-Mart ." Wal-Mart and China (2008): n. pag. Web. 14 Nov 2009. .

Unethical or Ethical?

Critics believe, “technological prioritization and degradation are the same thing—that given limited room on the network, whoever isn't prioritized is by implication degraded.”

“[A] market where centralized actors pick favorites isn't a market at all, but a planned economy.”

Now this is a topic that interests me. I have never heard about ‘net neutrality’, but now that I’ve read this article: “Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality” by Tim Wu, the topic is clear.

In a few sentences, Network Neutrality is to “prevent centralized control” of the Internet. This is what is happening: carriers choose what information their consumers reach in a certain amount of time, due to discrimination of Internet websites. Tim Wu uses great examples about the I-95 and KFC to explain the unethical use of the Internet by carriers and why it is unfair. I have two views on this subject: I think it is a genius marketing scheme but I also think it becomes less attractive (if the consumer is knowledgeable).

I was unaware of this type of discrimination within carriers companies. I believe people choose their ‘favourite’ Internet sites based on what the site provides the consumer with. I also believe that if companies want to market to different segments of the market, then they should be able to. If companies weren’t biased to certain sites (even if it is just to make profit), than how would the Internet be today? The Internet has grown the way it has because of these certain biases.

I haven’t completely made a choice on whether I agree or disagree with companies choosing the information their consumers can access. However, there are other alternatives to finding information if a carrier chooses to limit the consumer’s access. Which is why some of my teachers have said in the past, “do not rely completely on the internet”.

Lawrence Lessig writes in Free Culture: “The effect is to produce an overregulated culture, just as the effect of too much control in the market is to produce an overregulated-regulated market”.

The debate between ISPs (Internet Service Providers) and neutrality supporters still continues. The ISPs are limiting freedom to Internet access and consumers are unaware of this practice (like myself an hour ago). Supporting net neutrality will rid of this, though I am not sure as yet which side I support completely. Companies need to make money and the economy needs to survive!

Works Cited

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. United States of America: Penguin Books, 2004.

Wu, Tim. "Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality:The future of the Internet depends on it!." 01 May 2006: n. pag. Web. 13 Nov 2009. .

WHO KNEW? I didn’t.

I reread this quote at least four times:

“Lacking any necessarily conspiratorial intent and acting in their own economic self-interest, media conglomerates exist simply to make money by selling light escapist entertainment. In the words of the late Emilio Azcarraga, the billionaire head of Mexico's Televisa: "Mexico is a country of a modest, very fucked class, which will never stop being fucked. Television has the obligation to bring diversion to these people and remove them from their sad reality and difficult future."

I found it very funny and startling at the same time and this is why:

Disney is one of the World's largest transnational corporations that publishes books, magazines, movies, theme parks, music and financial and medical services information.

• Disney owns the ABC network (who owns 10 TV stations and 66 radio stations in the USA).
• Furthermore, Disney is partnered with Hearst Corporation and General Electric (GE), it invests in 12 cable stations, 13 broadcasting channels,
• Disney is also the part owner of several international (German, French, Spanish, Scandinavian and Japanese) television stations,
• It owns several film companies: Buena Vista, Touchstone, Walt Disney, Hollywood Pictures, Caravan Pictures and Miramax Films,
• Disney is partnered with Sid R. Bass in the production of petroleum and natural gas,
• Disney owns ABC.com, Oscar.com, Mr.Showbiz, all Disney related sites, Family.com, ESPN.com, NBA.com, NASCAR.com, and toysmart.com, Anaheim Sports Inc. and the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, 15 resorts and is a partial investor with TiVo.

Media Hegemonies can be the catalyst to problems concerning objectivity and diversity within the economy. When I started to do research on Disney, I had no clue that it owned so many other companies. All of these companies are working for the same ‘head company’ and most likely carry the same objectives. Seeing that many people are unaware or are misinformed about these companies, I believe media hegemonies should be highly publicized to show people (not necessarily the biases a company may have or if they have, but where the information is truly coming from). ‘Media Giants’ such as Disney, try to accumulate smaller companies in the same industry to increase revenue.

This can be related to someone making a decision about what phone carrier to choose at Best Buy Mobile, or his or her local mall. If you go to a carrier store, the employees will advise you to choose their product over the rest (biased opinions). However, if you go to Best Buy Mobile (where I currently work), they have all the carriers and will give you the best alternative that meets your needs (you choose—who’s opinion should you trust and value?), however what I am saying right now is also my biased opinion.

Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtXNNAs9u0M

Disney is an awesome company. Many of my childhood memories include Disney characteristics: such as being a princess, kissing a frog and he becomes my prince and flying on a magic carpet. Overall, knowing this information has not made me dislike Disney, but it makes me think about the media in a broader sense (where am I receiving information from and how I am receiving the information).
Companies will continue to fight for power in the years to come. “As Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone has put it, ‘Companies are focusing on those markets promising the best return, which means overseas’."


Works Cited

McChesney, Robert W. "The New Global Media ." It's a Small World of Big Conglomerates (1999): n. pag. Web. 10 Nov 2009. .

Media Giants: Who owns what? July 2004. Think & Ask. 10 Oct. 2009 .

A quote I like:

"Though I obviously have no proof of this, the one aspect of life that seems clear to me is that good people do whatever they believe is the right thing to do. Being virtuous is hard, not easy. The idea of doing good things simply because you're good seems like a zero-sum game; I'm not even sure those actions would still qualify as 'good,' since they'd merely be a function of normal behavior. Regardless of what kind of god you believe in--a loving god, a vengeful god, a capricious god, a snooty beret-wearing French god, or whatever--one has to assume that you can't be penalized for doing the things you believe to be truly righteous and just. Certainly, this creates some pretty glaring problems: Hitler may have thought he was serving God. Stalin may have thought he was serving God (or something vaguely similar). I'm certain Osama bin Laden was positive he was serving God. It's not hard to fathom that all of those maniacs were certain that what they were doing was right. Meanwhile, I constantly do things that I know are wrong; they're not on the same scale as incinerating Jews or blowing up skyscrapers, but my motivations might be worse. I have looked directly into the eyes of a woman I loved and told her lies for no reason, except that those lies would allow me to continue having sex with another woman I cared about less. This act did not kill 20 million Russian peasants, but it might be more 'diabolical' in a literal sense. If I died and found out I was going to hell and Stalin was in heaven, I would note the irony, but I couldn't complain. I don't make the fucking rules."

- Sex drugs and cocoa puffs by Chuck Klosterman