Oppression in Sub-Saharan Africa's Slums by Liv Przydzial

Oppression in Sub-Saharan Africa's Slums

by Liv Przydzial

Imagine, that in this world,
Millions upon millions live in 
constant, 
unrelenting,
gripping 

fear.

Fear of losing their homes,
if one could venture to give such primal dwellings a name.
Five to a room is considered lucky,
even luckier if that room had a scavenged, makeshift roof to protect from the elements.
Such rooms were arranged nearly on top of one another,
in an overcrowded, Ghetto-like arrangement.

Fear of disease,
from each other and from neighbors.
Entire families, even blocks, wiped out by diseases,
in the span of only a few days.
A flavorful palette of pathogens,
run rampant through the cities.
Those infected,
dead within a week.

Fear of not finding water,
in which many thousands die each day from dehydration.
No water was to be found here,
not a single drop.
And if happened to be water,
it was far, oh so far,
from being up to drinking standards.
One either died from thirst or from water-borne illnesses,
there was no in-between.

And such fears, only a few from the endless list,
continue to ravage the continent.
Millions of people struggle to survive,
fighting to live while seemingly,
the whole world was against them.

And to say that the world was against them,
may be a stretch,
but maybe not to such a dramatic degree:
the rest of the world turned its back on these millions upon millions,
leaving them helpless and unheard.

In blissful ignorance,
the rest of the world watches.
as more and more of Africa's urbanized poor
fall into the inescapable trap, that many refer to as 'slums.'

Context:

“While its [sub-Saharan Africa’s] total population has multiplied by 2.5 over the past 30 years, its urban population has multiplied by five,” from the report, Urban Planning and Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa, from the Africa Technical Department Environmentally Sustainable Development Division, confirms the mass migration of people to sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)’s cities from more rural areas. In such cities, a massive 72%, nearly three-quarters, of the urban population resides in slums, as revealed by the State of World Population 2007 UN Population Fund report, which further commented, “In sub-Saharan Africa, urbanization has become virtually synonymous with slum growth.” Home to two of the world’s largest slums, South Africa’s Khayelitsha (400,000 residents) and Kenya’s Kibera (700,000 residents), SSA’s rapid urbanization and slum growth have become a significant, urgent issue. The United Nations defines a slum household as one that lacks one or more of the following: protection against extreme weather, no more than three people per room, access to safe water, sanitation (private/public toilet shared by a sensible number of people), and security of tenure (legal rights to property). The UN-HABITAT State of the World’s Cities 2006/7 report also remarked that “...Sub-Saharan Africa’s slums are the most deprived; over 80 percent of the region’s slum households have one or two shelter deprivations, but almost half suffer from at least two shelter deprivations,” illustrating just how deprived sub-Saharan Africa’s slum living conditions are. The article “Towards Africa Cities Without Slums” from the magazine, African Renewal, published by the United Nations, further discusses how the critical living conditions of slums promote the spread of diseases. “The lack of adequate sanitation, potable water, and electricity, in addition to substandard housing and overcrowding, aggravates the spread of diseases and avoidable deaths, according to a recent report of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.” The crucially oppressive slums of sub-Saharan Africa bear hefty implications, such as encouraging the spread of diseases and implicating low life expectancy rates and low fertility rates. If action is not taken to gain control over the growth of the slum population (via urbanization), sub-Saharan cities will remain largely impoverished in severe living conditions, ultimately stunting the region’s growth as a whole in long-run.

When Ethics Conflict With Science By Chloe Clancy

Peter Zhu

        At the beginning of this month, a West Point Military Cadet, Peter Zhu, was tragically killed in a skiing accident in New York. Peter, an only child, had always dreamed of living on a ranch with horses and five kids, and unfortunately, after he died, this dream could no longer be fulfilled. To make up for this, his parents had one wish, which was to preserve his sperm. Who knew this decision would spark such controversy? His parents quickly hired a lawyer, in attempt to save their family name. There are a lot of ethical questions that arise from this issue, making it hard to decide what the right choice is.

        Medical experts at Stanford University and University of California San Francisco explain that since the sperm is not like other organs, they wouldn't normally grant this request, unless requested by a spouse, or with written consent from Peter. Dr. James Smith also believes that without consent, they would technically be doing the procedure against his wishes, unethically. Along with this, the United States does not have explicit laws about post-mortem sperm retrieval, and the lack of regulation conflicts with the ability to make the medical decisions. Ultimately more questions are asked, such as, who would he have wanted the child to be with?

        However, there is a deep cultural aspect to consider too. Since Peter was an only child, and had no male cousins, his death would eventually be the end to a cherished family bloodline. His parents express how important it is to their Chinese culture to save the linage, and they feel this is their only opportunity to do so. They also want to save a piece of him that can bring back the memories and joy that he brought his family. 

        Personally, I don't think this is an ethical decision. If the family was to save his sperm, the child wouldn't technically be his. The child also wouldn't have the emotional connection to his parents that most other children have. Plus, in these circumstances, it is unable to tell who Peter would have wanted the mother to be, and whether or not he would have trusted his parents to choose an egg donor. According to David Magnus, the director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, post-mortem sperm retrievals are becoming more popular, due to the scientific advancements surrounding it. Despite this, I would still only grant this request to a spouse, not a parent. To me this seems like it could set a wild precedent for the future, which could eventually become problematic. I can only imagine the loss felt by his parents, and I understand the cultural aspect in this debate, however the ethics surrounding the science of the retrieval are far too complicated in our world, and the best decision is to not have the procedure done. 

Reference: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/03/05/parents-want-to-preserve-dead-sons-sperm-but-what-next/ 

Yes, You REALLY Are Beautiful By: Alyssa Lasko

Freckles are speckled patches of skin that are darker than the surrounding skin tone of one's face. They occur when one's melanocytes produce more melantin in a particular area. They are most common on fairer skin tones (because they're easiest to see), but can appear on any complexion.

Personally, I like freckles. I think they're cute and add character. I've heard other people compare them to stars and I like that analogy.

But I guess not everyone likes freckles on anyone.

After Zara, a Spanish fashion retail company, used a freckled Chinese model to promote their new line of cosmetics, social media blew up. One of the main criticisms coming from many Chinese citizens was that Zara had intentionally chosen an "ugly" model to represent China. The model's "ugliness" being her freckles.



As frustrating as this is to me, I am not (at least last time I checked) Chinese. As much as I want to argue and shame China for hating on someone's features that only add to their distinctness and prettiness, I honestly don't understand Chinese customs or culture and can't pretend to claim to understand them either. Also, freckles being cute are simply my opinion and just because it's mine doesn't mean it's correct or that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

One thing I can vouch for, however, is that rare facial features (or rare features in general) aren't always though of as being beautiful. In society, being different usually equates to being "weird" or not meeting beauty standards which in turn means being "ugly". 

But does it really?

Oxford's definition of beautiful is "A combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight". I don't know about you, but that seems pretty open-ended to me. But I think that's how it should be.

Just think, there are over 7.5 billion people in the world. No matter what you're sporting and how uncommon it is at least someone in the world has to appreciate the features you were born with. And even if that group of people who appreciate you is a minority, a minority of 7.5 billion people is still a group of hundreds and thousands of people.

While this may sound trivial, one thing I definitively learned this year is that everyone is beautiful. Seriously, we're surrounded by beautiful people. I know we usual associate "beautiful" with women but I think it applies to men too. Why? Because we all have something the offer that, as Oxford puts it, "pleases the aesthetic senses".

Southeast Asia Underwater by: Mikayla Flanz

      Global warming. A gradual increase in the overall temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. It's a term kids from the past few generations have grown up with, but has now evolved into "climate change". The same meaning as global warming, only including the monumental consequences that come with it.

Up until the past few years, as a global community we have yet to reap the effects of climate change, but now that we have; hurricanes, temperatures, sea levels, and many other events have sent us spiraling. But up until now, there has never been a real threat to our ways of life.

     According to science correspondent, Josh Gabbatiss's article from British newspaper, The Independent, as opposed to the inhabitants of Southeast Asian and Pacific Islands getting the next century to keep their native lands, new research published in the journal, Science Advances proclaims that the once promised one hundred years are now diminished to a few more decades. 

Since the Industrial Revolution, more and more of the green house gases such as, carbon dioxide and methane have been released, overall warming our planet. Although this "warming" has only come to about a two degree global increase, that change melted enough of the ice caps for there to already be devastating floods throughout these islands. The constant rising sea levels exert more water onto the low lying land, here the sea water is able to leach into the soil, spill into freshwater supplies, and decimate infrastructure and farm land. 

    Narrowing in on the Marshall Islands of the South Pacific, Science Advances illustrates the 70,000 natives of these chains of islands, where due to climate change and rising sea levels they will lose access to freshwater supplies, causing their farming industry to collapse, leaving a good portion of these inhabitants with little to no income or food. Along with the fact that, the rushing flood waters will sit in the dry walls of these houses for days at a time before clearing out and drying, therefore leaving mold in it's place. However, the authors also find that these issues will soon extend to neighboring islands such as the Maldives, Hawaii, and Seychelles, driving hundreds of thousands of people from their ancestral homes.

This is definitely the most selfish and least important reason to want the islands to stay right where they are, BUT... I have always wanted to travel to these places. These destinations are stunning, the landscape, the sites, the culture, to experience it all would be extraordinary. Stepping away from my traveling fantasies, there are more important matters...

Anyway, as someone who has always dreamed of traveling the globe all their life, to now see the world being picked apart and slowly demolished is devastating, but to the people living this out and losing the only home they have ever known must be like walking through their own never ending nightmare. 70,000 people. And that is just one chain of islands, what about the more densely populated Maldives or state of Hawaii. Where are all these people going to go? What are they going to do? Some of these people know nothing outside of their island chains, are they supposed to simply adapt from thousands of years of tradition overnight? 

Not to point fingers, but those who think climate change "doesn't exist" or is a "natural occurrence" are going to be very sorry some day, and that day may be coming soon. Even though this is happening thousands of miles away, across oceans, on a different continent, who is to say this can never happen to our coasts. Already, climate change is mauling our southern coasts, nothing permanent yet, but nothing is impossible, these people native to these Pacific islands probably thought that they would die in their home, as would their children, as had their parents, and relatives before them, all before their world was torn apart.

As a global superpower, we can not stand idly by while this is happening, sure it has not directly effected us yet, but eventually it will. So what if we have to give up certain things like oil and coal, and invest for a future in eco-friendly power systems, hundred of thousands of people will have to give up their land by the middle of the century. Maybe it might be too late to save some of the islands, but do we really want to see this underwater and abandoned? Gone?



Who really wants to see this gone?








Citations:Josh Gabbatiss Science Correspondent “Rising Sea Levels Will Leave Islands From the Maldives to Hawaii Uninhabitable.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 25 Apr. 2018

Images:
1. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/world/asia/floods-south-asia-india-bangladesh-nepal-houston.html
3. https://xdaysiny.com/top-10-tropical-islands-south-pacific/

Khashoggi by Robert Scott

    On Tuesday, October 2, at about 1:15 P.M., Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.  He was visiting the Consulate in order to retrieve a document from Saudi officials that could legally declare that he was divorced, as he was to marry a Turkish woman the next day.  Why was he getting divorced?  Well, as I'm sure many formerly married couples can say, Khashoggi's marriage was under strain.  Unlike those couples,  however, Khashoggi's marriage had fallen through because he was then in a state of voluntary exile from his home country, Saudi Arabia.  Khashoggi had made a life for himself as a journalist, even becoming an unofficial spokesperson for the Saudi Arabian royal family.  However, after the current crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Prince Mohammed bin Salaman, came to power, Khashoggi decided that the crown prince's unrivaled control inside the kingdom would clash too hard with his ideals of independence.  Due to this, Khashoggi ended up moving to Virginia and becoming a reporter for The Washington Post.
   While working in Virginia, Khashoggi built himself up as one the the biggest critics of Prince Salaman in the west.  Given that the crown prince had not taken kindly to critics in the past, it is likely that Prince Salaman did not appreciate Khashoggi's work.  It has also come to light that Jamal Khashoggi held a close tie to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement that was recently declared as a terrorist organization by Saudi Arabia.  Both of these details could be reasons as to why Prince Salaman possibly ordered for Khashoggi to be either abducted or killed inside the Consulate, explaining his disappearance (this is the main theory being discussed).  As time goes on, it is becoming more and more likely that said theory is true, with recent reports even describing that Khashoggi's body parts have been found in the Saudi consul general's property in Istanbul.  These reports have yet to be confirmed, and it is still unknown whether or not Khashoggi's possible death is positively linked to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, though his father, the king of Saudi Arabia, has stated that they will hold whoever killed Khashoggi responsible.  With that statement, it is almost certain that Jamal Khashoggi has been killed, though by who and why is still up to questioning.
    This whole mystery involving Khashoggi is most likely going to have lasting affects on the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Turkey.  The two countries had been starting to gain some traction towards less tense political stances, but after this the future seems to be a turbulent one.

Jamal Khashoggi

Threats to Politicians By: Jenna Blandina

Normally when I am looking for a current event article online, I like to steer away from politics because it personally does not interest me. But, this topic I felt I had to address because I am amazed by the actions of some people in America. 

On Tuesday, October 24, famous US politicians including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and John Brennan received suspicious packages in the mail. These packages turned out to be pipe bombs, which started a nationwide investigation to figure out who is targeting these former office holders. An article from NBC news channel, written by various reporters, gives us  insight to this recent incident. The bombs themselves were built to set off a successful explosion as they had timers, and all the right components, according to bomb experts. 

The real question, is why would someone do this? Was it in despite of their political beliefs, or anger at what these politicians believe? This we might not know, until the person gets arrested and provides a motive for their actions. 

The fact that someone in the world would do this to another person just to prove a point, get revenge, or be noticed, amazes me. Hurting others, will accomplish nothing in the long run. Just because someone has different beliefs than these politicians, does not mean society gets to threaten them because of their right to freedom of speech. Will this start a trend? Is this a new way of expressing that someone does not agree with a politician's opinions? I sure hope it is not, because despite what someone believes, they should not be threatened or hurt because of it.  




  Here is an image of one of the bombs that was x-rayed 

Click here  for the article I read