Reading the article about Exposure to fumonisins and the occurrence of neural tube defects(NTDS) at the border, what are the theoretical arguments the authors make that relate to their findings? WHat are the limitations of their research? In maquilapolis, the women in the film also talked about the NTDs, and they attributed the cause to be the contaminants from the plant that had been abandoned and never cleaned up. Activists in Cameron County (where we are going) insist that they are caused by
toxins from the maquis in Matamoros. Are these 3 arguments (including the fumonisins) mutually exclusive? Why or why not?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Struggles, Connections and Outcomes
Today, Dr. Marquez discussed the strategies employed by small environmental justice groups in the Southwest. In his lecture, he gave us a schematic view of their fights, the actors involved and outcomes. Tomorrow's lectures and videos continue in this theme, and will deal heavily with the question of organizing and campaigns. So, for tonight let's think on a macro-level about these issues--particularly how they are reflected in the Williamson article assigned for tomorrow.
In the article, Williamson articulates the multiple levels, actors and positions involved in an international campaign for justice in a maquiladora. Who were those actors, and what were their tactics? Did some actors behave in unexpected ways? What type of relationship existed between institutions in the United States and the worker's struggles in Mexico? Considering the complexity of William's story, and the article's negative tone, were their successes? What were they?
Great work everyone!
In the article, Williamson articulates the multiple levels, actors and positions involved in an international campaign for justice in a maquiladora. Who were those actors, and what were their tactics? Did some actors behave in unexpected ways? What type of relationship existed between institutions in the United States and the worker's struggles in Mexico? Considering the complexity of William's story, and the article's negative tone, were their successes? What were they?
Great work everyone!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Selection Criteria and the Construction of Meaning
Tomorrow's response question repeats a similar question from last year, asking you to think critically about methodology and how criteria shape implications of research.
In his conclusion, Evan Rinquist writes that while race is a statistically significant factor in the selection of environmentally hazardous sites, it is nonetheless a small one. He goes on further to say that the small size of its impact means that race should remain only one of many criteria for policy creation. While this is an interesting conclusion that should and probably will be discussed further, let's think about how Rinquist arrived at his conclusion.
Looking at page 230 of the article, the section entitled "The Data Gathering Process," we would like you to think about how the research decisions affect meaning and outcomes.
How did he sort through those studies and how many were discarded? What did he keep? What does that say about his conclusions? How far, and to what can we apply his conclusions? (Hint: is he reporting the results of his analysis of readings, or that of original research on environmental justice?) How do Rinquist's criteria reflect the general "entry requirements" for evidence in the quantitative or scientific fields, what does it mean for the study of environmental justice if the bar for admission is set high? What does it mean if the bar is set too low?
P.S. If you have a strong statistical background, great! The article will be a much richer experience for you. If not, however, don't worry too much--and *try* not to get too bogged down in the statistical minutiae.
In his conclusion, Evan Rinquist writes that while race is a statistically significant factor in the selection of environmentally hazardous sites, it is nonetheless a small one. He goes on further to say that the small size of its impact means that race should remain only one of many criteria for policy creation. While this is an interesting conclusion that should and probably will be discussed further, let's think about how Rinquist arrived at his conclusion.
Looking at page 230 of the article, the section entitled "The Data Gathering Process," we would like you to think about how the research decisions affect meaning and outcomes.
How did he sort through those studies and how many were discarded? What did he keep? What does that say about his conclusions? How far, and to what can we apply his conclusions? (Hint: is he reporting the results of his analysis of readings, or that of original research on environmental justice?) How do Rinquist's criteria reflect the general "entry requirements" for evidence in the quantitative or scientific fields, what does it mean for the study of environmental justice if the bar for admission is set high? What does it mean if the bar is set too low?
P.S. If you have a strong statistical background, great! The article will be a much richer experience for you. If not, however, don't worry too much--and *try* not to get too bogged down in the statistical minutiae.
Monday, June 2, 2008
June 3rd, Agency and Choice in Identity
In one of tomorrow’s readings, Pablo Vila provides an in-depth discussion of the vicissitudes of identity at the border. The question for tonight revolves around one issue we would like to stress this summer: that of agency and the power each individual has to answer the challenges of life under difficult circumstances.
What is your perspective on the types of identity constructions Vila documents in his article? Did you find some of the positions taken by his interviewees shocking? Is there a way we can consider some of the positions people take on identity—even those we might find unsavory—as choices that people make to respond to conditions they face? If so, explore this avenue and take this question to a deeper level. How do these responses involve the construction, employment and meeting of narratives? If not, please defend why you believe the question of choice is not pertinent, and provide a critique of Vila’s argument.
What is your perspective on the types of identity constructions Vila documents in his article? Did you find some of the positions taken by his interviewees shocking? Is there a way we can consider some of the positions people take on identity—even those we might find unsavory—as choices that people make to respond to conditions they face? If so, explore this avenue and take this question to a deeper level. How do these responses involve the construction, employment and meeting of narratives? If not, please defend why you believe the question of choice is not pertinent, and provide a critique of Vila’s argument.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
June 2nd Blog Question
Chapter 1 from "From the Ground Up" describes several different tributaries of the environmental justice movement. Briefly, what were they and what did they each contribute? What did they have in common?
Friday, June 8, 2007
Frontera Readings
Hello Everyone,
The readings for the indigena discussion on the 26th are now up (you're welcome Gaby :0).
There are two readings for the discussion, the first by Gunter Dietz is a very similar history to that of Hector Diaz-Polanco's, in the sense that it moves us chronologically through Mexican Native-State Relations. There are, however, some very major differences. Some things to think about as we do the reading:
1. Were is the narrative focused? How does this differ with Diaz?
2. What is the role of "acculturation" of certain indigenous actors here? Does it facilitate, hinder, destroy or reinforce?
3. Does this reading go further in providing some of the material you asked for in your second posts?
4. How can we make this reading reflect back onto the strategies used in the EJ struggle on the Mexican side of the border? Are there similar patterns, or perhaps lessons?
Of course, no need to blog--these will be just questions to hopefully spur discussion.
The second article narrows our focus even further, providing a fly on the wall's perspective on a community meeting in the Huichol heartland. After our readings and lecture regarding the macro-level patterns, this reading (and the short additional readings assigned for my lecture) provides a nice, compressed case to deconstruct. In reading this article, let's think about the various actors and who/what they represent.
Additionally, however, let's also think about the claims being made here on the part of the Huichol elders. What is the role of human rights in this reading? What is the role of cultural rights? Is one being priviliged over the other, and if so, what does that mean for the Mexican State? What is its role here, and what does it have to gain or lose? Finally, how are these issues related to those of the indigenous peoples at the border?
See you on Weds. morning, and remember that you can call me with any questions over the weekend.
The readings for the indigena discussion on the 26th are now up (you're welcome Gaby :0).
There are two readings for the discussion, the first by Gunter Dietz is a very similar history to that of Hector Diaz-Polanco's, in the sense that it moves us chronologically through Mexican Native-State Relations. There are, however, some very major differences. Some things to think about as we do the reading:
1. Were is the narrative focused? How does this differ with Diaz?
2. What is the role of "acculturation" of certain indigenous actors here? Does it facilitate, hinder, destroy or reinforce?
3. Does this reading go further in providing some of the material you asked for in your second posts?
4. How can we make this reading reflect back onto the strategies used in the EJ struggle on the Mexican side of the border? Are there similar patterns, or perhaps lessons?
Of course, no need to blog--these will be just questions to hopefully spur discussion.
The second article narrows our focus even further, providing a fly on the wall's perspective on a community meeting in the Huichol heartland. After our readings and lecture regarding the macro-level patterns, this reading (and the short additional readings assigned for my lecture) provides a nice, compressed case to deconstruct. In reading this article, let's think about the various actors and who/what they represent.
Additionally, however, let's also think about the claims being made here on the part of the Huichol elders. What is the role of human rights in this reading? What is the role of cultural rights? Is one being priviliged over the other, and if so, what does that mean for the Mexican State? What is its role here, and what does it have to gain or lose? Finally, how are these issues related to those of the indigenous peoples at the border?
See you on Weds. morning, and remember that you can call me with any questions over the weekend.
Travel Details
This post is to coordinate travel details. So far, the Jamie and Gaby have mentioned that they might possibly be able to pick people up for getting to the parking lot on Weds. morning.
Matt and the other Jamie have iPod stereo converters, so hopefully they will remember to bring those.
For anyone who does not have a ride, please let Mary know in anticipation by Tuesday night.
Any other details, feel free to discuss them here.
Matt and the other Jamie have iPod stereo converters, so hopefully they will remember to bring those.
For anyone who does not have a ride, please let Mary know in anticipation by Tuesday night.
Any other details, feel free to discuss them here.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Crossing Borders, Passing Judgement
Today, Dr. Marquez discussed the numerous aspects of sweatshops and border industry: work conditions, industry structure, the personal behavior of management and the reactions of Mexican government. For tonight's blog, let's think on a macro-level about these issues--particularly how they are reflected in the Williamson article assigned for tomorrow.
In the article, Williamson articulates the multiple levels, actors and positions involved in an international campaign for justice in a maquiladora. Who were those actors, and were the traditional "bad guys" always bad? Do you feel that the article presents an accurate or believable portrayal of the multiplicity of positions? What does that mean for us when we approach the maquis we will be seeing? Finally, given the complexity of the system presented in the article and today's lecture (international treaties, the American public, owners/managers who believe that they are doing "good," our own consumption patterns, local activists and government) is there "guilt" to be assigned? Or, do you believe the structural argument (it's not me, but the system)?
In the article, Williamson articulates the multiple levels, actors and positions involved in an international campaign for justice in a maquiladora. Who were those actors, and were the traditional "bad guys" always bad? Do you feel that the article presents an accurate or believable portrayal of the multiplicity of positions? What does that mean for us when we approach the maquis we will be seeing? Finally, given the complexity of the system presented in the article and today's lecture (international treaties, the American public, owners/managers who believe that they are doing "good," our own consumption patterns, local activists and government) is there "guilt" to be assigned? Or, do you believe the structural argument (it's not me, but the system)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)