Justine Josephson-Laidlaw
7659697
Critical Reflection #2
From the weeks of Jan.22
nd to Feb.5
th we focused on Globalization in our class discussion, labs, films, briefs and readings.
In relation to globalization we read an article, “Poor man’s hero: controversial writer Johan
Norberg champions globalizations as the best hope for the developing world” by Gillespie who interviews a left wing author, Norberg. Norberg believes there are many positive aspects of globalization that could change the world as we know it by bringing freedom to people in developing countries and allowing opportunities such as alternatives, the encouragement of women’s rights and an increased quality of life.
“Globalization Is Good”, also written by Norberg explores such ideas further in countries such as Taiwan and Kenya. Taiwan has embraced globalization in certain areas. Comparisons of different factories that have taken on international leadership versus not are made to showcase different workers’ rights and conditions. Kenya has not embraced globalization and Norberg details the harsh living conditions that are faced because of this including lack of development and gangster control.
“Should the WTO be abolished?” by Bello and Legrain is a correspondence between the two, a sociology professor and specialized advisor, respectively, who have opposing opinions on the future of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Bello is of the opinion that the WTO should be abolished. Bello believes that the WTO was formed on the basis of the United States controlling global trade and not for the benefit of all countries. Legrain writes that Bello’s argument is flawed in that his argument fails to bring forward more beneficial alternatives to the WTO. Legrain believes that the WTO provides important trade rules that support international consistency and without it could mean more poverty, lessened living standards and economic growth.
The importance of media coverage in regards to crucial information sharing and the way stories are portrayed to the public was discussed. “Harper’s attack on science: No science, no evidence, no truth, no democracy” by Linnit tells of the actions that the Harper government have taken to control media exposure related to environmental issues. In 2007 a protocol was enforced that required government approval in order for scientists to talk to the media. This was followed by job cuts, loss of research funds and the closure of key scientific facilities. The loss of this communication, expertise and scientific foundation reduces transparency and democracy.
“Ebola in America: Reign of fear ending, will science prevail?” By Evans discusses how unprepared the United States is in regards to battling infectious diseases, of the most recent scare, Ebola.
Lack of proper information sharing by media outlets creates and instills fear and can cause rumours which is similar to the AIDS epidemic in the 1980’s.

Another topic we discussed was human rights and what is right and wrong when people are fighting for what they believe in, reclamation of land or environmental degradation. “Pacifism as
Pathology” by Webb is an article that looks at “Pacifism as Pathology Reflections on the Role of Armed
Struggle in North America” by Churchill. Churchill’s views on pacifism are that they are counterproductive, have no historical revolutionary success and may even be offensive and racist at times.
Churchill believes that often people who practice pacifist protest movements are not threatened by their state and commonly do not truly understand what they are protesting. We had a class activity where we moved to different corners of the room based on situations that were read to us, we then determined each to be “violent”, “non-violent”, “justified” and “not justified”.
“Statement on the take-over of the Jenpeg Dam”, “Pimicikamak, Hydro, Government Sign
Process Agreement” and “Manitoba Hydro evited from northern dam station” discuss the process, effects and reconciliation of the Jenpeg dam. The dam has caused the flooding of 65 square km of land belonging to the Pimicikamak people resulting in protests from the Pimicikamak people. Protests led the eviction of
Manitoba Hydro employees who were residing in the Jenpeg generating station. Discussion has occurred regarding partnership between groups but there has been no action towards such. To date, a written apology from Greg Selinger has been offered and an outlined commitment made by Manitoba Hydro to engage in positive processes to fulfill promises and encourage more beneficial behaviours.
“The Take” by Lewis and Klein is a film that shows the struggles faced by Argentinian workers.
The downfall of the economy caused factories to become “under worker control”. Employees continued to produce, teach or provide healthcare without bosses and provided equal pay to everyone. The film allows us to see the process and hardship faced by these communities.
After watching “Globalization Is Good” I am probably more confused than I was before because
Norberg brings forward positive aspects that I would not have thought of. At one point in the film he says that people say globalization is bad because it’s “Americanism” his response back is, what’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t people from all over the world be able to enjoy a Big Mac? I need to remind myself that just because I don’t agree with that doesn’t mean that other people don’t deserve to choose. The reason I see Americanization as a negative is because it takes away business from local shops and I see the symbolic golden arch as demonstrating that our way is right and what you practice wrong, you should be more like us. The interview with Norberg by Gillespie brought up positive examples such as, the relationships developed between countries. Rather than dropping bombs in times of distress sustainable solutions may assist countries in need. Such solutions may be brought on by invested interested and long standing relationships. I am of the belief that as long a company is taking steps or actions in the right

direction I don’t care why they’re doing it. Norberg also mentioned the environmental benefits.
Globalization may bring forward newer technologies and standards and slowly weed out older methods.
I see the attack on science as a completely destructive path for Canada’s future. Where is our future going if we are unable to interpret the trends of the environment because the information is not available? There are so many disbelievers of climate change out there that I believe it is detrimental to encourage such thought patterns. The only way to make change it to continue to learn and educate people, this cannot happen without the funding and support of scientists. Thinking critically, the only benefit I can find in this approach is more control over the release of articles and research. There are many contradicting theories presented through the media today that I find that to be a grey area for people to disregard scientific research. Over sensationalized disagreements over various findings allows people to think scientists have no idea what they are talking about so society should just carry on doing exactly what they were doing.
When I originally started reading “Pacifism as Pathology” I was sure I would be against everything Churchill and Webb talked about. I like to think of myself as a non-violent person but the article made me question whether or not it is possible for pacifist movements to make change? I also surprised myself during the class activity. One scenario that was presented to us involved a black man whose family was sleeping inside their house. 3 men run into his house with white masks over their face.
The man grabs a gun and fires a shot into the air. I believed this to be non-violent and justified. I still do not feel firmly on that decision but more so that the other options. One girl in the class who was on the
“violent” and “non-justified” brought up the point that the entire situation is violent, the men coming into his house imposes violence which automatically makes it violent. I agree with that but I think he did the right thing to protect his family because he was never intending to harm them but they were most likely intending to harm him and his family.
The Jenpeg dam brings up the issue of sacrificing for a “greater good”. A community, their land, their traditions and cultures have been lost for the cause of creating energy for a larger population. What are we to do as a growing society, who is to benefit, change or have a loss? Compensation will never be perfect and money will not solve a lot of these problems but I think Manitoba Hydro needs create a revenue sharing process when they impose on First Nations environments. Especially because the dam already exists, it is not going to be torn down so why can’t all parties benefit from it?
Our group discussion focused around the positives of revenue sharing and whether or not we agreed that it was right for the Pimicikamack Cree Nation to evict the Hydro employees. Most members of my group felt that it was justified, I felt slightly conflicted because employees are not the base of the problem. The action sends an important message but I feel that it’s not fair to the employees because they are just doing their job, they may be struggling to make ends meet to feed their families. Before the class

discussion I did not know that soil erosion could be so dangerous, especially for people who live off the land. Stephane explained that people can have serious boat injuries due to dead heads in the water and the difficulties faced even to get to the water when there is so much debris build-up. I am a supporter of that lifestyle but I don’t know how much longer it is feasible based on environmental change and land encroachment.
The Ebola discussion brought up some very interest points. Some of which are vaccinations. As a child, I was not vaccinated for everything, I grew up in a very Eastern medicine home and I had a few really bad reactions to antibiotics and vaccinations. I know it is important for the greater society to protect against historically fatal and destructive diseases but vaccinations such as the flu shot and chicken pox seem unnecessary. Maybe if you are quite young or old and susceptible to more severe illnesses as a result of getting the flu but it’s important for people to get sick and build their immune system. You can’t prevent everything and you won’t be able protect your body without the building a tolerance to illness.
This has become such a hot topic that I don’t feel comfortable sharing my families’ believes on it because it seems to make people outwardly angry. I think there is a happy medium in there somewhere because I see the Western medicine system to be corporate, controlling and a one-answer-for-all symptoms method but I know it does do a lot of good.
Jenpeg brings up personal feelings regarding my cabin which is located in St. Laurent, near Twin
Lake Beaches and was affected by the 2011 flood. Having a cabin is a luxury. We are lucky we have another home to be in, it doesn’t affect us greatly although it was hard and sad. The people of St. Laurent are a large Metis community. They lost businesses, houses, schools and many have been relocated from an area that is all they have ever known. There was no compensation made for many people out there because the flood did not directly impact them. Loss of income was extreme and people were unable to support themselves. Similar to Jenpeg, Lake Manitoba was flooded to ‘support the greater good’. I don’t think Winnipeg should have been flooded but I do believe Lake Manitoba was targeted because lower income people reside there and it is easier to take advantage of them. So many people of that area have not even been able to go home yet, it’s not news anymore and that’s heart breaking.
Harper’s control on science will have grave impacts, it already has. Canada is so far behind in regards to the environment right now. I have found myself reconsidering science because there have been so many job cuts, people I have spoken with in the environmental industry are wary of their future. I want stability when I finally find a job. In regards to the environmental disbelievers I have people in my own family who think that sorting waste properly and doing research on cattle is a waste of time. They are old famers and if I can’t convince them of the benefits what luck do we have and what tools will I hold to explain the importance if there is no longer any relevant sources?