It's probably common knowledge that the lifestyle of children in developed countries is radically different from childhood in developing nations. We've all heard about the high rates of infant mortality, low rates of primary and secondary school attendance, and the daily duties of children that we were never exposed to growing up in North America. These are the popular topics that we hear about often enough to make them familiar, but what about the aspects of childhood we don't hear about? In my Peace and Conflict Studies class this week, we're focusing on the Vietnam War, and my professor has been tying in many of her personal experiences from when she visited the country in 2007. What struck me in this discussion was the curriculum being taught in Vietnamese schools. Students in grades 1 through 5, or ages 5 to 11, are being taught about landmines and munitions. Considering all the dangerous weaponry that still lies dormant within the land in Vietnam, I suppose it would be logical to teach Vietnamese children about the risk and how to play safely, but it was one of those subjects that had never occurred to me and bothered me when it did. Really, it's just a safety precaution, no different from teaching North American children not to talk to strangers, or not to do drugs through the DARE program. I had assumed that those were universal warnings from parents to their children, and maybe they are, but clearly there are more that we were not exposed to growing up. This makes me wonder what other warnings are given to children around the world that weren't even vague concerns during my childhood. I think this information had such a strong impact on me because I had never even heard of a landmine before I got to high school. These children are learning how to spot them, avoid them, and cope with their effects when they are still in single digits. My professor brought in a children's book from her trip to Vietnam that primary school teachers use to teach children about landmines. I couldn't read any of it, but the animations involved cartoon children setting off landmines, depicted with a bubble-letter BOOM inside a red and yellow speech cloud. It reminded me somewhat of a comic book, but unlike our kids books, the characters died or, in the best scenarios, lost a limb or two.
7 Comments
Most of my life has been very religious, with Catholic values being instilled in me at home, at school, and at church on Sundays. When I moved away to university, the bubble of Christianity that I lived in, burst, and I crashed head-first into a secular world. It was difficult at first, but two and a half years later I can confidently say that I adapted pretty well and landed somewhere in the middle. People might make fun of cafeteria Catholics, but I think it's better to be able to decide for yourself what to believe than to mindlessly follow what someone else tells you. But, I digress.
People say you should never discuss politics or religion, but if we listened to that rule people in my program would sit around not saying a whole lot. The discussions I have had about religion in particular have challenged my beliefs and way of thinking, but overall I tend to come out without any radical shifts in opinion, until a few weeks ago. As part of my Peace and Conflict Studies minor I am taking a course this term called A Quest for Peace Through Film and Literature. The week I am referring to was one where we focused on the Holocaust. Obviously, World War II happened much before I was born, so my knowledge of the Holocaust comes entirely from what I've read and from Hollywood's portrayal of it, which I should have assumed, was wildly misconstrued. During Holocaust week the class was assigned some readings of the actual accounts of survivors, many of which I had read before. We also watched a video that came out a few years after the war ended with actual footage from the concentration camps. Regardless of what I had read or seen before, nothing could have prepared me for that video, and the image of a bulldozer pushing bodies that are hardly even there into a mass grave will always be burned into my mind. The part of this that challenged me was the class discussion. We seemed to constantly return to the question: Where was God? For the first time I was faced with a religious question that I couldn't answer or justify to satisfy my own religious beliefs. The irony of the Holocaust for me (and the same can be said for any persecution based on religious grounds) is that people were being killed for being Jewish. I know the Nazis had other reasons for putting people in concentration camps, but the majority of victims had the common denominator of being Jewish. They were being put through such horrendous atrocities for believing in a God who was nowhere to be found in their time of need. I'd like to say I resolved my internal religious conflict with some kind of revelation, but I haven't. I've yet to find an answer that seems reasonable enough for an all-powerful God who can create the entire universe to sit idly by, while millions of Jewish people are slaughtered for having faith. I guess now I'm left wondering if anyone else has a similar unresolved issue, or even an answer. How can we see hope from such an atrocity, and how do people come out of something like this with their faith intact (as many of the Jewish survivors did)? Please leave your thoughts in the comments. I know religious discussion can get ugly, but let's try to play nice! We all know that major corporations tailor their advertising and products to the perceived interests of their consumers. It makes logical sense to give the people what they want. But what happens when the things people want don't fit into the business plan? Over the past decade, the general public has become increasingly aware of the problems that exist in the world, and people have started to care. There was a time when the cheapest or tastiest coffee was the obvious choice. Now, people look at whether the cup is recyclable and if the beans are fair trade. People have started reading the labels to see where their clothes are made, and are making conscious choices to support local businesses. The people have spoken, and big businesses are answering. Most companies have entire corporate social responsibility departments to improve their practices and make them better social citizens, putting the consumer's mind at ease about making a responsible purchase. Usually after the purchase is made, people don't think any more about it, but how many corporations are actually doing what they say they're doing to help reduce poverty or increase sustainability, and how many are just plain lying?
Clearly this bothered me enough to warrant a post on my blog, but I can't say I was entirely shocked. When I worked for the government this past summer, the office provided me with garbage and recycling bins at my desk. I did a lot of printing, and generated a lot of recyclable waste, but every week when the custodial staff would take out the trash, both bins would inevitably be emptied into the same bag. This is surprisingly common. In fact, there's a name for it. We call it greenwashing, where companies appear to be socially responsible, but it is only a facade in an organization that is actually not changing their practices at all. The blame in this case is squarely on the university administration, who no doubt put recycling bins into the restaurant to appease vast numbers of green groups and students on campus, but there has been speculation that Tim Hortons as a company is guilty of doing the same thing. This, however, is not only the case with environmental initiatives. Many companies claim to be more socially responsible than they actually are.
What the public didn't know, was that the company committed in 2011 to help support Canadian mental health initiatives, and according to the corporate social responsibility report, they allocated $50 million to this multi-year campaign. The money that Bell promised to donate in its Let's Talk campaign is part of the money that the company has already dedicated to the cause. While Bell is still doing a great thing in donating the money, the day was unnecessary, and acted only as a reminder from Bell to the public that they are donating money to give back to the community. In this case, Bell did also remind the public about the seriousness of mental health issues. I can't condemn the day entirely because, outside of using it as a marketing ploy, Bell raised awareness about a serious topic that is too often ignored. Perhaps Tim Hortons and the university were doing the same thing in adding recycling bins, by trying to show students the importance of recycling, but for some reason that's not quite as believable.
What other companies are guilty of exploiting a cause to improve their public appearance? Is it acceptable to do this if it brings awareness to the public? Are these superficial campaigns just a corporation's way of shutting up everyone who pressures them into being more responsible? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
What are your thoughts? Was Armstrong's humble and humanitarian appearance all a facade? Were his efforts to spread his mission and ideals hypocritical? Does an unethical action make a person and all of their other actions ethically questionable as well?
|