On 1 January 1994, as Mexico was celebrating the entry into force of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), masked rebels seized control of parts of the southern state of Chiapas. The Mexican army quickly pushed these rebels, who were mostly indigenous Mexicans, back into the jungles whence they came, but not before the rebellion in Chiapas gained the attention of the world. As time progressed, these rebels did not go away. They identified themselves as the Zapatista Army for National Liberation and their spokesman, Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos, quickly became a minor world celebrity, renowned for his communiqués denouncing the Mexican government and advancing the Zapatista’s case. The rebellion in Chiapas and subsequent stalemate were portrayed the world over as a battle between those opposed to globalization, the Zapatistas, and those in favour of globalization, the Mexican government. Those who claim the Zapatistas are anti-globalization generally mean that they are protesting against the trade liberalization policies of the Mexican government and the loss of control of their indigenous culture. Those who support the Mexican government agree that the Mexican government is pursuing trade liberalization policies but claim that these policies are ultimately beneficial to the Mexican people. There is nothing particularly incorrect about these arguments, as both sides properly capture an aspect of globalization. However, it is too easy and simplistic to characterize this rebellion as a simple battle between pro- and anti-globalization forces. To do so would use an incomplete definition of globalization and fail to fully analyze the situation. An examination of the situation reveals that both the Zapatistas and the Mexican government are opposed to some parts of the globalization process while concurrently benefiting from other facets. Hence, the paradox of globalization is revealed: one can be opposed to globalization while simultaneously deriving extraordinary benefit from globalization. Clearly, much of the debate surrounding the rebellion in Chiapas revolves around the meaning of the term globalization. The problem is that globalization is a multi-faceted process and supporters and apologists only refer to one facet of globalization in their debates. Since these people often use different facets of the term, the sides end up talking past each other, rather than discoursing with one another. To resolve any confusion before this paper launches into a closer analysis of the Zapatista rebellion, a definition of the term “globalization” is needed. Globalization, properly conceived, refers to what Scholte calls “supraterritoriality.”[1] Scholte proposes that in a globalized world, territory and borders no longer matter or, at the very least, matter far less than they did in previous, non-globalized, eras.
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
...Morelos seemed at a permanent stalemate. Carranza knew that he could never fully take Mexico while Zapata was still alive and in charge of his army. To rid himself of his enemy, Carranza devised a trap. A letter had been intercepted in which Zapata invited a colonel of the Mexican army who had shown leanings toward his cause to meet and join forces. This colonel, Jesús Guajardo, under the threat of being executed as a traitor, pretended to agree to meet Zapata and defect to his side. On Thursday, April 10, 1919, Zapata walked into Carranza's trap as he met with Guajardo in the town of Chinameca. There, at 2:10 PM, Zapata was shot and killed by federal soldiers, and as the man Zapata hit the ground, dead instantly, the legend of Zapata reached its climax. Carranza did not achieve his goal by killing Zapata. On the contrary, in May of 1920, Álvaro Obregón, one of Zapata's right-hand men, entered the capital with a large fighting force of Zapatistas, and after Carranza had fled, formed the seventy-third government in Mexico's history of independence. In this government, the Zapatistas played an important role, especially in the Department of Agriculture. Mexico was finally at peace.
Globalization, the term used to describe the dominant framework of international relations following the cold war, is affecting many aspects of politics and social experience. This is seen in the Zapatista rebellion and movement in Chiapas, Mexico that has benefited from globalization and transnational support. This paper examines the relationship of transnationalism and social movements with the Zapatistas as a case study. In particular, this paper argues that the Zapatistas are part of the anti-globalization cycle of protest. As a result, they have used the master frame of this cycle of protest and aligned that frame in light of their particular situation. Because this frame was resonant with transnational activists a network of support was formed, which pressures the government from above, increasing the chances of success of a movement. The paper concludes by examining the implications of the Zapatistas for social movement research, with particular regard for Tarrow’s “strong thesis” about movements in a transnational era
In this book, globalization is defined as “an internationalization of contractual hiring, exploiting even cheaper migrant labor” (page 231). Globalization is a cultural phenomenon process in which a business or an organization begins to operate their production on an international scale. In his book, we see how globalization affected corn farmers in Mexico. Globalization open the door to the system a free market trade. In Illegal People, U.S corn farmers sold their corn to Mexico, causing Mexican corn farmers to severely lose profit since American farmers were selling their corn way cheaper. An example of how globalization is seen on Sleep Dealer is how an American company privatized water in Memo’s rancho. By privatizing the water, the company sold quantities of water at unreasonable prices, leading Memo’s dad to struggle to maintain his corm field. The American company who privatized the water could this through the usage of technology. Technology is one of the factors that led to the rise of
Arthur Miller, in his play The Crucible, reveals certain aspects of human nature, which drive the outcry against witches in Salem. One of the biggest contributors to the commotion is the human tendency to act in self preservation, even if it is at the expense of others. The situation in Salem escalated because many people were accused and dragged into the conflict. This occurred because the characters who were initially accused acted out to protect themselves. For instance, Abigail, who Reverend Parris suspected, at first attempts to lie about what happened in the woods. When she realizes that there are too many contradictions in her own story, she claims that she was being controlled and was not acting of her own volition. She blames Tituba,
When Abigail Williams and a group of young girls begin to accuse innocent people of witchery out of their own fear and evil, the devout Christian residents of Salem village in 1692 joined the mass hysteria. Ultimately, the prosecutions of innocent people resulted in twenty deaths, which included the execution of John Proctor. Although the faith in religion and fear of witchery blinded most of the citizens, John Proctor’s affair with Abigail allowed him to discover the lies the girls were telling. The coexistence and duality of good versus evil in the novel The Crucible by Arthur Miller is portrayed through the deception of Abigail. The multi genre presentation project illustrates the major theme of good versus evil in The Crucible and incorporates
When I was about to enter kindergarten, my parents initially wanted to enroll me into an all-girls preparatory school. However, my parents changed their mind and believed that co-ed schools had better opportunities and a better way to create more diversity in our society. Some may argue that single-sex schools have been proven to have students attend and graduate from four-year universities. This then allows both respective sexes to focus on their studies rather than their appearance and physical attraction. However, single-sex schools are only going to lead to segregation and separating genders in the classroom should not be a place for it to bloom from. communication with the other sex is important to where it preps students for the real world. Though single sex and co-ed schools have both pros and cons, co-ed schools provide a more realistic portrayal of what would happen in the professional working field. Co-ed schools provide and develop social communication skills between both genders instead of one.
Matt Kwong writes, “They’re learning how to interact with each other, work together, collaborate, problem-solve, how to be respectful to members of the opposite sex”. This is a very true statement concerning traditional classes because students will learn more in a classroom with both genders; it makes the learning environment more interesting. Schools should do more research before sending out letters to parents about single-gender classrooms. Single-gender classrooms are not healthy for students; no matter the age, they need to be able to work with the opposite gender. When you place girls and boys in separate classes, you’re basically telling the opposite gender one is better at that subject (Schultz). Ann Kim writes, “In a letter sent to the district today, the organization threatened to file a lawsuit if the single-gender program continues”. They are very harmful and they cause more disagreements rather than helping the students to do better in
gender stereotypes. An allied benefit includes girls being able to participate more without being outshined by boys by “equaling the playing field” (Gross-Loh 2015 n.p.). Gross-Loh (2015) states that “Stereotypes work both ways. Culture… can winnow children towards certain restrictions of behavior (think a young girl who absorbs early on the idea that she must always be interested in playing with dolls, or a boy who feels uncertain and worried about his budding interest in princesses), but the wider culture is endemic with gender stereotypes that single-sex schools aim to free children of… (n.p.) ” Attending a single sex school is completely voluntary, and parents can opt out at any time (Hollingsworth & Bonner 2012).
...ical development differences between genders, an increase in assessment scores, and it provides an opportunity to break down prevailing gender stereotypes in society. Therefore, schools should be separated by gender. When students are separated by gender according to their different development patterns, teachers are better able to accommodate the weaknesses and strengths of each gender thereby allowing students to strengthen their academic skills. The lack of distractions in single-gender schools provides students an opportunity to focus on academics and improve their proficiency. Allowing students to learn and develop in an environment free of the gender roles that prevail in coeducational schools, breaks down gender stereotypes that prevail in today’s society. Separating students by gender allows students to reach their full potential and lead lives of success.
In 1993, American University professors Myra Sadker and David Sadker published their research in Failing in Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls, which pointed out key differences of how teachers treated students in the classroom. These included the teachers praising the boys over the girls, giving more attention to the male gender than female. So by separating the genders, there is less discrimination, and more focus on teaching single sex students. Without boys in their classes, girls are more likely to be leaders and reach higher levels of achievement, which leads to greater self-confidence and higher professional aspirations. And without girls in the classroom, boys are less distracted from the academic works, and make higher grades in the single sex environment. On a Washington Parent post, an argument supporting single sex education states, “Single-sex education encourages children to take risks in expressing themselves as they learn without the fear of embarrassing themselves in front of the opposite sex.” Being exposed to the opposite sex can be quite uncomfortable and even humiliating for some students, especially if there is the chance that your child could turn out to be
Education is not limited to academic study, but is rather the holistic growth of a human being. As such, if single-sex schools undermine basic human principles, they undermine the quality of education. As a result of single gender classrooms, the inability to communicate with the opposite gender is created. When schools prohibit boys and girls from studying together in the same classroom, they may think that their gender is either better or inferior. According to “Forbes,” when students are segregated by sex, they miss opportunities to work together and develop vital social skills. According to the American Psychological Association, this type of bigotry can cause problems in forming adult relationships as children get older. The APA argues
Globalization has taken over the role of shaping the ethnic-Mexican culture. Globalization is the force that is establishing the divides of conflict and contradiction. Of course to pursue further this understanding of globalization’s effects we must first understand what exactly globalization is. According to Merriam-Webster, globalization is the act or process of globalizing, the state of being globalized, especially, the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping ...
After going to an all-girls school for fifteen years, I have noticed and become more appreciative of my education. It is often argued that single-sex schools prevent a lot less pressure and instill confidence. In single-sex classrooms, girls and boys are encouraged to explore subject areas not normally identified with their gender. Teachers will usually adjust their instruction to better fit how a boy or girl learns, which can be more advantageous in a single-sex environment. There are benefits to attending a single-sex school; boys and girls learn differently and should be taught in separate environments to have a better focus on his or her learning style.
Marc now has to make a decision between six preparatory schools that he has been admitted to. Once again it is apparent that single-sex education for the years of adolescence have truly paid off. He now has the knowledge and confidence he needs to succeed in a coed education. Without this confidence he would not have been able to excel in coed academia. Ron Geraci, who was a product of single- sex education himself, addresses this confidence, displayed by my brother. Geraci went back to his old school to observe the students in this environment. He states, "The real reason that boys' schools are looked down upon is because they are based on the notion that, yes, boys and girls are different. But men and women learn differently, grow at different rates and relate to people differently" (Geraci, 1). To be able to learn at our different paces we must get past the idea that men and women should be treated the same in all aspects. Adolescence is a time when we should be treated differently if there is a beneficial outcome. Geraci's concluding statement sums up his point concisely. "Single-sex schools have accounted for some of the best schools we have ever known. Shouldn't that be all that matters?" (Geraci, 2). In Marc's education it was al that mattered. The boy's school he attended is a renowned single sex middle school. Attending this school allowed him to focus more intensely on his work and move on from that point to become a successful high school student in a coed atmosphere.