Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Race and Ethnicity in Art, Film, and TV
Summary of the blind side
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As a child growing up in America, we have all been taught by our parents, teachers, and adults in general to lend a helping hand to others when we can as if it is a part of our social responsibilities. Often politically driven agendas lead the Unites States to help other countries in various capacities, this however isn’t always requested by these countries. The perception is that we are fulfilling some moral, universal responsibility. This isn’t how this behavior is often viewed from the other perspective. There are certainly times when this aid is both needed and appreciated. This can also be a very destructive process for a number of reasons if there are cultural boundaries crossed. When one country imposes itself within the borders of another regardless of the reasons, there is an impact felt from the those in power all the way down to lowest parts of their society. Expectations of repayment for help that was not requested to begin with, can …show more content…
Her narrating the movie herself, shows that she is the main lead of the movie instead of Quinton Aaron, who plays the character, Michael Oher, whom the movie is about. Her narration increases her authority over Oher, and lessens his importance in the movie. All by displaying his requirement for her to save his life at his school and with his living situation. The film ended up being a Major Academy Award nominee, proving the point of how much Hollywood enjoys a White Savior tale within their industry. But if we view it from another stand point, this movie is also offensive to Michael Oher of Carolina Panther’s because this movie was meant to be able his story not Leigh Tuohy’s story. The whole point of the film was to show the world how he made it into the NFL with the support that he received from his loved
The United States tried to help out Afghanistan because they felt that it was their duty to help them out. A man from the United States mentioned “First, Afghanistan’s collapse was partly the result of the devastating war Americans sponsored there during the 1980’s, and it might well be argued that this was gave the United states a moral obligations to help rebuild what it helped destroy” (Kinzer,309). The United States felt that it was their duty to help out Afghanistan after they helped to cause a war prior to the overthrow, however; while the United States thought that they were helping to create a better society in afghanistan, they were actually doing the opposite. The United States was helping to create chaos and terror and it destroyed the political structures that were in the country before. This suggested that while the United States thought that they were helping to repay Afghanistan for the terrible items they had done to them before, they were actually just making everything worse and they were not helping the country out at all. Also, quite the opposite also occurs in a small Caribbean country called Grenada. The United States once again intervened into their government hoping to create something positive there but instead of creating turmoil which is what usually happens, the United States succeeded in helping out the citizens of
The U.S. has been sending troops to over-sea countries to aid the needy, and take certain measures to try to keep our country safe. We want to help the innocent lives, care for the civilians, and want them to be free. We help other countries so that maybe one day they can stand on their own! Power is everything. Power is what controls the world, and without it, you become weak. When we help other countries, that shows how powerful we are, and how strong we are to stand on our on and help! The U.S is considered to be the superpower in the world. Therefore, it should use its power to help other countries in need. Yes, we have a lot of problems with our government,
The 2009 film “Precious”, based on the novel “Push” by Sapphire, tells the tragic story of sixteen-year-old Claireece Precious Jones; an overweight, illiterate who is now pregnant with her second child. Her life at home is a complete nightmare; her mother, Mary, verbally, emotionally and physically abuses her daily. Her father, Carl, molested her on multiple occasions and impregnated her twice then disappeared. Precious was kicked out of public school and took an offer to attend an alternative school where she meets her inspirational teacher Miss Blu Rain. Precious begins to believe in herself and prepares herself for her future. She becomes engaged in class and learns how to read and write; she was called stupid and dummy all her life and
This movie is a wonderful production starting from 1960 and ending in 1969 covering all the different things that occurred during this unbelievable decade. The movie takes place in many different areas starring two main families; a very suburban, white family who were excepting of blacks, and a very positive black family trying to push black rights in Mississippi. The movie portrayed many historical events while also including the families and how the two were intertwined. These families were very different, yet so much alike, they both portrayed what to me the whole ‘message’ of the movie was. Although everyone was so different they all faced such drastic decisions and issues that affected everyone in so many different ways. It wasn’t like one person’s pain was easier to handle than another is that’s like saying Vietnam was harder on those men than on the men that stood for black rights or vice versa, everyone faced these equally hard issues. So it seemed everyone was very emotionally involved. In fact our whole country was very involved in president elections and campaigns against the war, it seemed everyone really cared.
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
...ave either worsened the situations of certain conflicts or instigated more unnecessary conflicts. These unnecessary interventions have lead to unnecessary loss of lives, both Americans and foreigners and made the United States be focussed more on events abroad than the issues at home. Imagine if the United States was a Third World country and another fictional superpower similar to the United States meddled with all the businesses and issues inside the nation. The American people would be furious just like the people of other nations that have been affected and are currently being affected by the United State’s imperialistic actions. If this scenario ever becomes a reality, perhaps it will teach the United States to not unnecessarily meddle with events abroad. Let the other countries be. The United States is not the world’s police and never should be.
America has proven they can help restore a country’s government when times are tough. After their bombs destroy a country, American planes drop off food for the starving civilians. Indeed, America has shown great leadership, yet they haven’t put as much focus on the problems that is in their own homeland. We are living in a country where the cost of living and minimum wage does not help feed a family, a government that spends billions of dollars to help rebuild other countries, also a man and women having the same college degree but struggles with a gender pay gap.
John Lee Hancock’s film, The Blind Side, is an absolutely must see. The Blind Side, is a semi biographical movie that is based on the life of a football player named Michael Oher. The film was produced in 2009 by the Warner Bros. Production Company. The movie exemplifies the works of talented actors and actresses, some of whom are familiar and others that are new to the acting world. The names of the Main characters are as follows: Sandra Bullock, who plays the role of Mrs.Tuohy, Tim McGraw, who portrays Mr.Tuohy, and new comer Quinton Aaron, who plays the lead as Michael Oher. Even though, the film seems to be over exaggerated cliché, it excels tremendously in acting, setting, and encouraging and inspirational relationships. For these reasons, I personally think that the movie is worth watching due to the fact that it teaches individuals not to judge people by their race but by their character and actions.
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
two words are, "foreign aid." Taking a firm stand on either side of this topic
International Aid operates in almost every corner of the globe, is part of the transfer of billions of dollars of assistance through countless organizations, charities, and funds; and involves the efforts of hundreds of thousands of dedicated workers and affects billions of people. . This paper will provide a historical summary of how aid has grown and developed in stages, from a humanitarian concept first applied in the 19th century to established international policy and law following the Second World War and later the Cold War. We will review the impact of the wave of newly independent nations in the 1940’s and 1950’s and the rise of multinational aid organizations in the 1970’s and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) in the 1980’s. We will conclude by detailing recent emerging trends in aid through the 1990’s into the present day.
There are people who think the billions we spend in foreign aid should be used in the United States, helping out with the educational system, the homeless and the elderly. However, we are helping families in need overseas and countries that are developing. Foreign Aid helps build alliances with other countries because we lend economic and military assistance. Afghanistan receives the most foreign aid and it started receiving a lot after 9/11. The United States actually tripled the amount it was sending to help with the rising terrorism problem in Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s economy was also very poor. Another example is how we are helping Israel with their war against Palestine. Foreign aid is being used to help in developing countries. Providing foreign aid to these countries helps builds our allegiance with them. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, so it’s in our nature to help others in need, especially those who are affected by a natural disaster. The foreign aid helps out with humanitarian reasons. The United States wants other countries to lean towards democracy rather than communism so they “grease the wheels” by providing foreign aid to other countries. It helps the United States because we buy and sell with all these countries we provide foreign aid too. It also helps the global economy because we are injecting money into it. I think that the benefits we receive from providing foreign aid is worth it and we should keep providing foreign aid to other countries.
Social class, as defined by the film, is something that affects who you are as a person. In the film, the people saw class as the defining factor of a person. They saw class as a barrier between people. If one person is in a different class than another person, then obviously, they are not supposed to associate. They allowed their social class to dictate their action each day. It was amazing to me just how much the people in the film allowed their class to truly define them and really serve as a boundary in their life. The people in the film lived their daily life with their social class as the most influential factor. Their worth and value as individuals was not determined by anything else except the amount of money they had. It was really interesting to see how the amount of money a person had somehow equated with their worth in society. The same is true within our society today, but in the film, this aspect was especially evident. The film really shed a light on just how impactful social class is and just how much we allow it to
Poverty has conquered nations around the world, striking the populations down through disease and starvation. Small children with sunken eyes are displayed on national television to remind those sitting in warm, luxiourious houses that living conditions are less than tolerable around the world. Though it is easy to empathize for the poor, it is sometimes harder to reach into our pocketbooks and support them. No one desires people to suffer, but do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid poor nations who are unable to help themselves? Garrett Hardin in, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping The Poor," uses a lifeboat analogy to expose the global negative consequences that could accompany the support of poor nations. Hardin stresses problems including population increase and environmental overuse as downfalls that are necessary to consider for the survival of wealthy nations. In contrast, Peter Singer's piece, "Rich and Poor," remarks on the large differences between living conditions of those in absolute poverty with the wealthy, concluding that the rich nations possess a moral obligation to the poor that surpasses the risks involved. Theodore Sumberg's book, "Foreign Aid As Moral Obligation," documents religious and political views that encourage foreign aid. Kevin M. Morrison and David Weiner, a research analyst and senior fellow respectively at the Overseas Development Council, note the positive impact of foreign aid to America, a wealthy nation. Following the examination of these texts, it seems that not only do we have a moral obligation to the poor, but aiding poor nations is in the best interest of wealthy nations.
Often times wealthier nations see poorer nations as a sort of buffet. They take what they need or want, when they need/want it, leaving all the rest, with no plans of replenishing the supply. The poorer nations are left without the resources to replenish what was taken and have barely if anything left for themselves. This is seen as an “exploitive” relationship that often results in war.