Well to answer question one, I think that it really depends on the situations and countries that it is the US is addressing. Like we have discussed in class, what is a violation of human rights to us (USA) could be a social norm to them (which ever country).
 |
| www.cafepress.com/ |
However, I believe that to a certain extent. For example, when I did my blog post about FGM, female genital mutilation, I was so disturbed and moved that would have hoped that a health representative from the US would have gone and talked to these countries and explain to them that what they are doing is an extreme violation of human rights to these woman. Although it is a social norm to them, it is extremely unsanitary, painful, and not necessary. In cases like these I believe that the US should address these problems, not only is this a form of torture, in MY eyes, but it helps the spread of diseases and HIV/AIDS!! We as Americans see all these campaigns against the spread of HIV/AIDS yet the US does not bring up situations like these which help spread the cause of such a disease. Therefore when it comes to extreme violations of human rights then yes I feel as though the US government should address this problem.
However, I think that the U.S. should face the problems within its own country before it tries to fix someone else’s problems. Ever since we saw that video and read that article in class about the Indigenous people, I couldn’t help but to think “what the hell is the government thinking?” We spend so much of our budget on military forces, who invade other countries. We are in debt because we give out “loans” to other less developed countries, so I wonder who is going to fix our problems? The U.S. loves to meddle in other countries because of the fact that they feel superior, in my opinion anyway.
Therefore, I think that BEFORE the U.S. government invades anymore countries, they should address the problems that we have in our own country. Yes, we have all heard about the poverty in other countries, but how many Americans actually know about the poverty in the Black Hills of South Dakota for example? We learn more about other countries problems before our own.
 |
| www.urbanhabitat.org/ |
Well I think that the world has grown accustomed to HDCs helping and supporting LDCs. Therefore, that is when neocolonialism comes into play. The LDCs continue their dependence on foreign more powerful countries. The HDCs feel much more powerful so they feel like they may be able to take advantage of the LDCs. For example, when the U.S. government decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. was so powerful that no one dared to tell them no, you cannot invade these countries. They did whatever that wanted and “claimed” that it was for everyone’s own well being. Now Saddam Hussein is dead, and yet we are still there. I believe that there is ethnocentrism and that it will continue to exist. Ethnocentrism exists not only from one country against another, but amongst races. I think of it as a form of racism, one thinks that they are better than the other. Therefore, while the LDCs continue their dependence from the HDCs then I would assume they would feel ethnocentric. They get in the state of mind that they NEED the help from the HDCs and the HDCs feel that they HAVE to support the LDCs.
People say "money makes the world go 'round", and that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This contributes a ton to inqeuality, and the fact that it is extremely difficult for people to come out of poverty once they are in it. Therefore ethnocentrism and neocolonialism play a major factor.
