Quality of Living

The ideas being discussed today are the differences between the terms "Quality of Life" and "Standard of Living."

I'd say that the main difference is that the term "Quality of Life" deals with a person's entire life, and not just the material possessions. "Standard of Living" deals strictly with material things, such as how much money the person makes, the country they live in, their government system, whether they have access to clean water, and what food they have access to. Standard of Living seems much less sincere, and it almost seems as if each person is being measured as an object, not a person. Quality of Life is far more sincere and seems to be a real representation of how the people are doing.

Recently, places have started to measure people's over happiness as an indicator of how the general public is doing. I think that this is an absolutely fantastic idea. They say that money can't buy happiness, which is why this is a far better representation of the economy's status.

But then again, I find that whenever I have a substantial amount of money, I'm quite content with my life. The whole measuring people's happiness business, as revolutionary an idea as it is, must be extremely difficult to monitor. Money, as heartless as it seems, really does make people happy. You see someone receive a large paycheck, and they instantly become happier - that's just the way it is. As much as I hate to say it, (I know, I'm being contradictory) money is what makes the world go 'round, and it's a mostly accurate depiction of a place's quality of life.

As cool as it is, measuring happiness, it just seems a little unpractical, if you know what I mean. Quality of life should probably be more about you rights and things, and not so much about happiness - it could be a real time-waster for our government.

Knowledge Economy

According to the textbook, the term "Knowledge economy" refers to the use of knowledge itself to provide benefit to the economy. This mostly includes things that have required an advance in technology and knowledge to achieve. Hence the term "Knowledge Economy." The conflict that arises here is that with knowledge and technology accelerating at such an alarming pace, millions of jobs are at stake, threatened to be replaced by machines or computers.

The knowledge economy term originated way back in the 1990's in New Zealand. This was right when high technology businesses that used new computer software, telecommunications, and virtual services were on the rise. The history of it really is quite elementary. We required more technology, and with technology comes knowledge. It seems only logical to name it a knowledge economy, as that really is what we thrive on.

The pros to this are quite obvious. Things get done more efficiently and with far less effort. Everything is constantly being improved, and at an exponentially faster rate. We're living in the future, and it's quite obvious to see. We have machines that make things far easier for people, and they're slowly getting cheaper and cheaper, and more and more advanced.

The cons are also very apparent, as well. The most obvious of which is that with all the new technology doing all new things, people are losing their jobs at an alarming rate. Everyone is being replaced by things that are far more efficient than them. If you look on TV, watch the show "How It's Made." You'll notice that many of the jobs are done by workers, but even more are done by machines. When I see certain jobs done by workers, I think to myself that machines could do it a lot better - and I bet they could, it's just that people want their jobs.

But, overall, I think it's a good thing. I think that our overall quality of life has been improved by the amount of knowledge that has become necessary in today's society. Also, we, the children, your future, are slowly getting more and more difficult schoolwork, mostly because they need us to maintain and improve our technology. Knowledge is power, and knowing is half the battle.

World Bank

The purpose of the World Bank and the International Monetary fund is to provide money and financial assistance to less fortunate or less developed countries of the world. The point of this is to reduce homelessness, improve living standards, and lower the unemployment rate. The World Bank offers low-to-no-interest loans and grants to these people. Normally, these funds are for improving an underdeveloped country's education system or health system, but sometimes goes into things like infrastructure and simply the well-being of the country's inhabitants.

Now, the question that likely needs an answer, and not just straight facts is this: Have they helped to improve living conditions of regular people or are they just a more expensive government?

I believe that they have most definitely helped with poor countries around the world. From all the facts I've gathered from the internet and my textbook, I would for sure have to put the World Bank in my good books. Sure, they may cause more taxes for some people, but really, with the billions of people in the world, what's a few dollars to just one of us, right? Not to mention the only countries who get over-taxed are the ones who can actually afford it most of the time, so it's not like they're really harming a lot of people to help just a few.

Also, another argument for them, according to their facts that are written in the book, they dropped the homelessness count by nearly twenty percent in less developed countries, life expectancy in these countries were increased by about twenty years per person. Think about that - twenty years; that's longer than any of your current students have lived. That is most definitely a very good thing.

To put it simply, I don't see how anyone could see the World Bank as a bad thing. I'm all for having more money in my pocket, but if just a few of my dollars are going to be spread around the rest of the world, I'm totally fine.

Zapatistas

The Zapatistas in the Chiapas of Mexico are a very poor people. So poor, in fact, that they have to survive on grilled cheese sandwiches. But they have no cheese, so they substitute the cheese with dirt. They have no bread either, so they use the leaves off of the trees as the "bread" of their "grilled cheese sandwiches."

Anyways, joking aside, they are really poor. Like, really poor. However, with globalization and availability to new technology and information, they did something not many have ever done before.

Most poor, weak communities would shut themselves away from the rest of the world - in fear of being taken over, or harmed, or something like that. The Zapatistas, (the revolutionary people they are) did the exact opposite. They opened their gates to the world and got messages sent around the internet, letting the general public know of their dire situation. Surprisinly, this is going along quite swimmingly. I'm really quite surprised that not many others (or NO others) have done this before. People really aren't as heartless as many others make them to be. Society sees a person in trouble, and often times, people do what they can to prove to the world that they care. Obviously, some exceptions to this exist, as there are always mean people around. That's just the way it is. But seriously, this is a perfect example of humanity's selflessness. You can look over there, at Africa - one of the poorest places in the world, and every day see thousands of VOLUNTEERS helping the people, with no personal benefit from it. Often times, people look around and see only violence, hostility, and unhappiness. All one needs to do is open his eyes and see all the happy people - I mean, we contribute to society's well-being too, right? There are people laughing, sharing, caring, living, and the Zapatistas are the ONLY people to really take advantage of that.

Oka Crisis

The Oka crisis was a very memorably hard time for the members of the first nations people of the Mohawk tribe. They were marginalized, ignored, killed, and many other things. However, it's not as if they acted in the most... desirable way. They made irresponsible decisions and I think they overreacted to most everything the government did. I think that, as always, everyone took everything too far and that's what ruined everything.

To start, in March 1990, a pretty big group of people from the Mohawk tribe came and barricaded a road near the town of Oka, Quebec. This was the first mistake. No, not the protest or the barricade, the weapons. That immediately poses a threat to everyone else. They were protesting them building a golf course there, on what they considered to be "sacred land". I can understand wanting to protect trees planted by your distant ancestors, but seriously, using guns?

Way, way earlier, in 1717, the Mohawk had claimed that land. They lived peacefully there for over two hundred years before the federal office of Native Claims turned down their land claim. Yeah, somehow, they managed to do that. Legally. I mean, sure, they waited two hundred years, but they still managed to deny a peaceful people's land claim. Seriously, people. Who does that, thinking that their doing the right thing?

Finally, July 11th, 1990, the mayor of Oka called in the cops and ended up with the freaking SWAT team getting involved. They launched tear gas, fired concussion grenades and shot their bullets of rage to break up the barricades. In the commotion (which, by the way, I believe was caused by the gov't), a corporal of the Surete du Quebec police was killed by stray bullets. Yet, of course, everyone blamed the Mohawk people. They were just (forcibly) protecting what was theirs.

You know, I look back, and all I can think is "seriously?"

The question I will be answering today is this: To what extent did imperialist policies and practices in Canada and Australia have similar effects on the Aboriginal peoples of each country? To start, I say that in both Australia and Canada, the aboriginal people were ostracized and were treated as bad, savage, uncivilized people. Imperialism took over, and the native people were left in the dust, as the imperialistic people thrived in land that wasn't their own.

If that's all that was asked, then the question has been answered. Both country's aboriginal people were treated in relatively the same manner. They were undermined, degraded, frowned upon, ostracized, and even killed by imperialists. Their culture was lost, their way of life literally destroyed. The only good thing the imperialists did was bring technology to these normally uncivilized places. I mean, some kindness could have been used on these people...

But, all in all, I'd probably say that both these peoples were treated fairly similarly. Neither were managed the way they should have been, and they both seemed fairly helpless in the ways of the world. Eh, everything could have gone better, but there's no use crying over spilled milk.

Canada and India

Whether you see it as a good thing or a bad thing, the British had a large influence on both Canada and India. They brought technology and culture to these places, but they also practically destroyed other people's ways of life, and they tore apart multiple cultures.

In India, the British pretty much invaded and started the "British East India Company" in the 1600s. This began in the same sort of way that the Hudson's Bay company started: A collection of traders. The company continued to grow, and became more and more powerful over time, and were eventually, became a political powerhouse. They began to take control over India; people who they knew nearly nothing about. Many, many years later, Mahatma Gandhi stepped in and said that the British imposing on their culture was unfair.

However, aside from all that, the British DID bring about new things to India. They had an extremely low quality of life, and, although the British imposed on their way of life, I believe it improved it overall. They also brought new technology about, and new ideas, and it's not as if they were killing off they aboriginal people or anything. Yes, the British were out of line in bringing their culture to the unwilling Indians, but was it really that bad?

The British... it really is quite difficult to choose sides. You could be on the side that says that the British did good in bringing sophistication and technology to otherwise under-developed places. On the other hand, they also took away culture and made unfair deals, and, as one can plainly see, Canada's original culture is practically gone at this point. It's really up to us to decide if what the British did was bad or not.

Eurocentrism

Twenty facts about Eurocentrism:
1. It refers to viewing the world through a European perspective.
2. It criticizes the values of non-Europeans.
3. The term "Eurocentrism" was coined during the decolonization period after WWII.
4. It was originally called "Europe-centric" behavior.
5. It means something along the lines of "Europeans are the pinnacle of human progress."
6. It can be traced back to the European renaissance, when learning was based on Greek and Roman civilizations.
7. The assumptions that Europe was "the best" kept increasing due to influential writers.
8. The peak of the Eurocentrism point of view was in the 19th century
9. Other cultures had not reached the point Europe had - they were classified as things Europe had already been classified as before.
10. Europeans believed they provided as a model for the rest of the world
11. Eurocentrism began when Europe entered "The Age of Discovery" and shot ahead of its competitors.
12. The Age of Discovery went on from 16th to 18th century - the same time that Eurocentrism climbed.
13. European encyclopedias mentioned that Europe was predominant over others.
14. The Brockhouse Enzyklopädie states "Due to its geographical and cultural significance, Europe is clearly the most important of the five continents."
15. Many debate that Eurocentrism is "just another type of ethnocentrism," but Europe does have justification.
16. In the 19th century, anti-colonial movements argued claims of unfair trade with the British due to their high social status.
17. Early 10th century, people were trying to construct more models of world civilizations.
18. Since the end of world war 2, European culture has decolonized rapidly, therefore lowering those with the Eurocentrism worldview.
19. The most drastic lowering of the Eurocentrism worldview was in the USA due to the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s.
20. Eurocentrism STILL remains a topic in American and European culture, even after hundreds of years.

Capitalism

Capitalism is most definitely, in my opinion, a good system. It seems to work for most places; the States are doing pretty well, even with the recent crash. Also, it seems that communist places are very much failures as an economy. Monarchy's aren't fair to the people, either, and it just seems that capitalism is for the best.

Capitalism is relatively sturdy, as long as the government doesn't make any rash decisions too quickly... or constantly. The market crash that sent us into a depression was all because of the stupid decisions of the banks, lending out money without asking for credit scores or whatever. But normally, the capitalism holds the economy pretty well. I mean, Canada is doing pretty well, even though we heavily rely on the United States, who made a large mistake with the banking things a little while back. However, before all that, we were doing very well.

You know, another way to tell that capitalism is supreme is to look at many other failed economies. Communism, for instance, just doesn't work. It seems like it would on paper, but people are all just too selfish. Also, equality cannot happen when everyone works different jobs and are different people altogether. If someone works harder than another, not only to they WANT more money, but they deserve it, too. And that's why capitalism is superior. People get what they deserve - it all depends on how hard they work and on what decisions they make.

The problems with capitalism are not really that severe - the pros far outweigh the cons. The only ones I can think of are the facts that the government has little involvement, therefore it could be very close to becoming an anarchy. Another problem is that, as fair as it is to hard workers, they DO get taxed more, leaving them with some sort of equality, which isn't a fair thing. It's like Robin Hood, who was, no matter how you put it, a criminal.

Aside from all that, though, capitalism is a very good thing. It's a lot more fair than most other economies, and that's definitely a plus side. I may be biased just because we live in a mostly capitalistic society, but I truly believe that it's the best. I mean, look at our quality of life. It's pretty high, if I do say so myself - that's something you can't say for the majority of the population of un-capitalistic societies.

The Silk Road

The Silk Road was probably the most influential thing that's ever come to Europe. It brought knowledge, ideas, products, crime, and most importantly, disease. The Silk Road brought about good things and bad things, both of which have permanently changed our society. The knowledge that was traded and brought throughout the Silk Road brought us into the information age that we are currently living in. The Black Plague was devastating and killed an immeasurable amount of people, but it also brought about a knowledge of how to prevent and cure diseases.

Things that were unobtainable by normal means were made obtainable with the use of the Silk Road. Valuable things that were sought after by nobility were made buyable because of the Silk Road. Things like silk, ivory, jade, and glass were commonly traded goods - and all of them were needed for the advancements that we have made at this point in time. Also, it developed friendly connections between different countries, and probably created a few solid alliances.

Another extremely important aspect of the Silk Road was the information that was traded, and just brought along with the products. A fun fact here, the indoor toilet idea was brought into Europe on the Silk Road. Many people became free-thinkers and differed from the church's ways due to the ideas that the Silk Road invoked. People changed; society changed, and without that change, we would be nowhere close to where we are today. It's impossible to even imagine a life without computers, or video games, for that matter.

Disease was another factor in the Silk Road. The main one, though I'm sure there were others, was the Black Plague. It killed approximately 30% of Europe because no one knew how to fight it, or how to avoid getting it. Why? The information wasn't there. Without the Silk Road, I believe it wouldn't have stopped.

Sudan

What roles did Egypt and Great Britain play in accordance to colonialism in Sudan?

The British ruled Sudan and were running it as a colony along with their Egyptian partners. They handed power of Sudan over to the Arabs who lived in the north when they left. The sudden unification of North and South caught the southern Africans by surprise. They were left with many unanswered questions about what had become of their Closed-Door-District policy that was set in on the south by the British when they had controlled Sudan. They also wanted to know how the southerners were going to catch up technologically and socially with the Northerners - they were far less educated, as well. What if they were forced to become slaves, and could do nothing of it because the North was in so much better shape than them? South Africa was baffled.

The Egyptians persuaded the British to avoid the creation of another country on the Nile. This was really pretty selfish, and left people like "The Lost Boys of Sudan" with nowhere to be. The lack of education and developed society is what really tore down Sudan. Nobody knew what to do, and Sudan wasn't stable enough to stand on its own. On January 1st, 1956, Sudan was officially declared "independent" because the British colonial masters had left.

The question I will be answering is this: Is there any similarity between potlatch and our modern society?

To start off, the word "potlatch" comes from the Chinook Jargon, and means "give away" or "a gift". Now, along with those gifts and giving comes a very special and lighthearted ceremony, full of happiness and awesome things. People gave away everything they owned with confidence they would become well-liked and that they would soon retrieve back what they gave away. Many would dance, sing, play instruments, and have a gay ol' time at a potlatch.
This, however, does not seem like it exists in modern-day-society. Taking all those facts into account, it seems that nothing of this sort takes place at all. Nobodyd really gives their way into poverty, yet expects popularity and to end up with lots of things as well. It's just not realistic at this point in society. The closest thing to a potlatch today is Christmas time gift-giving. However, most people don't expect to get all that back, they're just buying friends and family gifts out of the kindness of their heart.

In conclusion, the potlatch has pretty much (at this point) been fully abandoned by society. As sad as it is that a native tradition is basically lost, we as the people need to move on at some point.

Potlatch Art

Lubicon you need

There's some sort of oil crisis going around, which is why our government is being totally greedy towards the Lubicons and their land. Apparently, they have some sort of high concentration of oil on their land, and our government's all like "We want your oil!" and the Lubicons are saying "It's our land, man. You can't drill it up!" I think the government should put their time and money not into badgering minority first-nations, but into developing an alternate source of fuel.

This oil crisis has being going on for far too long. We've been scavenging and panicking and overall just freaking out about how we won't have enough very soon. What if we stopped panicking and running frantic and we made deals, looked around carefully, or consulted some people? If the government could just cool their jets for a while, we'd see the state that we were really in. Instead, we steal from people who should literally own this land. That's kind of... not cool.

The Lubicons are a perfect example. They have a high concentration of oil around their land, and because of that, the Canadian government lost their minds and decided that the oil was theirs. They drilled ravenously around the perimeter of their lands, and now they're trying to find a way in by claiming the Lubicon's land as their own. I say that we just wait it out for a year or so, just to see where we stand before we go insane again. The government just seems to be getting ahead of itself.

In the time that I say we wait, with the money we'll be saving from not drilling up Canada's rightful owner's lands, we should use the money for discovering an alternate, cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, or more common source of fuel. Oil has high emissions, it's expensive, it's heavy, and it's uncommon. If someone could one day just find out that oil was a good fuel, why can't we just find another source? I'm sure the Lubicons would be happy about that.

The oil crisis could end! We just need to stop. Just stop for one minute. Just to get a hold of ourselves and take a look around. Maybe we won't be in too bad of shape if we'll just slow down and check things out. And like I said, if we put our money into finding new fuels, we'd maybe be in better shape.

(The government's all like "give us ur oils lolz" and the Lubicons are like "its are land m8!")

Secularism in France

I think the religious secularism in French schools is a good thing. It protects minority religious groups from being so easily bullied or bigoted against. It also, however small a problem it may be, prevents awkward religious clashes or disagreements between students. Even teachers could be prejudiced in their own way towards opposing religious groups. The French government's secularism prevents all this.

This secularism prevents smaller or less popular religious groups from being discriminated against or bullied. I think that preventing religion from being displayed will do far less mental harm than if a child is bullied for his religion 5 days of the week. Being bullied, even just a minuscule amount can be extremely mentally and emotionally painful. Hiding one's religion, on the other hand, is not nearly as bad.

I don't know about most people, but I find religious talks EXTREMELY awkward. There is always some disagreement or non-belief or something that creates an obvious mental conflict between two or more people. If religious talks can be avoided, by any means necessary, I say, "Go for it." I just think it's ridiculous how big a deal this "afterlife" thing is to people. If being a part of something bigger than yourself makes you happy, be a part of it.

Teachers themselves are not (no offense) perfect. They're just normal people of Earth, just like everyone else. This being said, there is no doubt that some teachers are racist or prejudiced towards certain religions. If religious display is banned, then all students will (hopefully) be treated equally by everyone and certain students will not be favored by teachers. I am positive something unfair has happened due to a student's religion, but no more with public school's secularism.

I truly believe that the French government is most definitely doing the right thing by enforcing religious secularism in schools. Children will likely be treated more fairly; better, even. Students will not be favored nor disliked by anyone else due to religion, and if conflicts can be avoided, they should. Honestly, I think that it would even be better to have the same sort of thing in our school as well. I mean, nobody really goes around blatantly declaring their religion, but still, everything seems more at rest when religion is put aside.

Olympic Games, BOY

The highlight of the Olympic Winter Games this year would have to be the gold medal won by Alexandre Bilodeau. I watched him win Canada's first gold medal in his home country at my aunt's the day before my brother and I left for Mexico. I think this will stick with me because such a monumental Canadian event happened right before a fantastic trip for me. I also like how I witnessed this live, and didn't just hear about it and watch it on the internet. I saw it with my close family all there, and it was a special experience.

I honestly don't think Canada should put so much emphasis on the "Own the Podium" program. Yes, I'm sure it really helped us win such a monumental amount of medals, but the amount of money spent was gargantuan. To spend so much money on a physical competition just seems sort of like a waste. I think we need to find a happy balance of how much money to throw at these athletes. I understand that they helped us make a name for ourselves, but the name has been made, and I think that we should quit while we're ahead. Imagine if we poured the same amount of money into our athletes in four years in Sochi, and we only come out with 6 or 7 golds. It would be humiliating, and it would be a waste of government funding. Also, if Olympic success is not measured in terms of medals won, what is it measured in? The fun they had? No. That stopped at age eleven, and with national competition, I'm pretty sure no one cares how much fun was had.

Skull-Antler-Toque

The new Canadian product that I will be talking about today is a general Winter headgear that is both quirky and practical simultaneously. It starts out as a thick, insulating fabric that stretches to fit the contours of any person's face, leaving nothing cold. The antlers on top are representative of some of Canada's favorite antlered animals. The antlers are detachable from the base of the toque for the children to exchange - if you'll notice, no two antlers are alike. To make this even more patriotic, a red maple leaf will be placed on the forehead to show the person's ultimate alliance to Canada. This antlered facemask will soon be the staple product of Canada, leaving maple syrup behind in the dust.

How I feel about being Canadian

I feel super fantastic about being Canadian. Strangely enough, one of these reasons is because of the stereotypes. I don't find them to be true, but I find them to be hilarious. Another fantastic reason is the health care. We have some of the most advanced health care available, and anyone can have it. I feel as if I never have to worry about me or my family getting ill or anything along those lines. The third reason is for the freedom and quality of life. I mean, I think we all sort of take those two for granted, but really, it's quite fantastic.

The Canadian stereotypes are hilarious and are always entertaining. You leave the country once and you get thirty people asking you why you don't say "eh" all the time or if your igloo gets cold at night. Sometimes you're asked if it's hard to find places to hook up the electricity. Every single time, I laugh - mostly because some people actually think these are true things. However, I'm mostly nice and politely correct them with a "Yes, we get cold winters, but we actually have houses with indoor plumbing, electricity, phone lines, etc." But sometimes, I can't help but egg them on, and reinforce their statements. It's cruel, but fun. Oh, Canada, you silly, strange country.

Now, the health care. It's free, it's high quality, and it's not often understaffed. We have some of the most hi-tech medical equipment the world has to offer, and anyone has the right to use it. In the terms of Canadian health care, a homeless man is equal to the CEO of a huge corporation - I really like how everyone can be equal - it just seems to work out for everyone that way. I never have to worry about anyone in my family or circle of friends being deathly ill, because our fantastic Canadian health care will take care of it.

The third and most important reason why I adore being a Canadian citizen is because of the freedom I have and how great my quality of life is. I am allowed to say whatever I want to whoever I want (as long as it's not disrespectful) and I won't be assassinated in my sleep by some insane government organization. Speaking of sleep - I can sleep in a nice bed in a warm home every day, while people in other, third-world countries struggle to sleep. I'm not saying I don't care, I just know that I'm lucky to be part of this fantastic country.

Canada, to me, is the picture at the top. It's super hilarious, everyone has a sense of humor and I love it. Its health care is fantastic and for everyone to use. Canada is ultra in the sense that we are all free, and so many of us are in good care and can have a warm place to go home to. We're also colorful and awesome, and I'm extremely proud to be a super fantastic ultra Canadian.

New Post

I picked a boring layout to differ from the general public, who would want an interesting, colorful or dark blog. Also, my name is Andrew Gast - I know you didn't want the last name, but I felt like an over-achiever. (Don't get used to this). Social 10-1