The Wellesley Globalist Spring 2015 "Exempt"

the Wellesley Globalist Volume III, Issue 2

Exempt

1

Letter from the Editor “Exempt” represents the challenge of pinpointing standards and deciding how they should be applied. Merging idealistic hopes and disappointing realities, our writers wrestled with “exempt” as they broached the topics nearest to their hearts: from the global response to the Ebola virus to the treatment of the homeless in Boston. The Wellesley Globalist strives to support students engaging with global issues beyond their coursework alone. We are deeply grateful for our writers and readers alike as they continue the discourse on using interdisciplinary thinking to spark positive change.

Sincerely, Tessa Kellner Editor-in-Chief, The Wellesley Globalist

Editorial Staff Editor-in-Chief Tessa Kellner ‘17 Vice-President Michelle Namkoong ‘17 Managing Editor Shannon Lu ‘16 Production Editor Wendy Ma ’17 Layout Editor Danni Ondraskova ‘18

Associate Editors Andrea Aguilar ‘16 Karen Moorthi ‘18 Zarina Patwa ‘18 Website Marketing Manager Shan Lee ‘16 Website Content Editor Eryn Halvey ‘18 Business Director René Chan ‘17

Publicity Chair Anne Conron ‘18 Treasurer Caylene Parrish ‘17 Events Coordinator Grace Hu ‘17 Copy Editor Audrey Choi ‘18 Photo Contributor Shannon Lu ‘16

Table of Contents Internal Affairs 3 7 13

Brutality that Stifles Minorities Homeless: Exempt from Social Empathy Exempt from Regulations and Substantial Spending Restrictions

Science 16 19 23

Lacks Lives On and On Ebola Virus Outbreak: The Negative Impact of Travel Restrictions and Bans Canada’s Oil Superpower Dreams Delayed for Now

Politics and History 27 31 37 41

Centerfold: The Syrian Crisis Five Years in Exile The Blood That Binds: Investigating Kinship and Ethnic Tensions Don’t Shoot the Messenger: Everyone Has a Right to Self Expression The Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Wellesley Globalist

2

23 Arts and Culture

Brutality that Stifles Minorities

By Ilina Mitra ‘18

Photo by Lawrence OP

Photo by Lawrence OP

The Wellesley Globalist

12

5 Internal Affairs Photo courtesy of Justin Scholar Ferguson Protests in Union Square on November 25th, 2014.

Recent incidents of

police brutality against black men in Ferguson and New York have intensified racial tensions in the United States and forced the American public to have a serious discussion about the prevalence of racism in the country. The murders of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Tamir Rice as well as the assault of Sureshbhai Patel illustrate a disturbing trend in which the lives of minorities are valued less than the lives of white individuals. The murders and assault of people of color at the hands of white perpetrators suggests that people of color are often deemed “threatening” or “hostile” by white individuals as a result of deep-seated racism that still lingers within the fabric of American society.

The death of Trayvon Martin is an example of the racist underpinnings still found in American society.

Trayvon Martin was a seventeen-year-old African American teenager from Miami, Florida who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman. Although Zimmerman was eventually charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter, initially Sanford police refused to press charges as a result of Florida’s so-called “Stand Your Ground” law. The law states that a person is allowed to use deadly force against another individual if he or she reasonably believes he or she is in immediate danger. Laws such as these, however, raise concerns over the broad and vague definition of whom or what is considered a threat.

Given this killing and the assaults mentioned earlier, it seems that the rights of minorities are being infringed upon with more frequency. Though it is hard to know exactly what occurred during the exchange between Zimmerman and Martin, the fact that Zimmerman left the argument without significant injury suggests that his life was not in immediate danger. However, the “Stand Your Ground” law is written in such a way that makes it difficult to question those who feel threatened and even more difficult to define “threatening”, because it is a subjective feeling that may be motivated by personal prejudices.

Another incident involving the death of an unarmed person of color occurred this past summer in Ferguson,

Missouri when police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. A number of witnesses reported that Brown’s arms were raised during the confrontation, yet he was shot twelve times. Although the death of Trayvon Martin did not occur as a result of police actions, both incidents have raised similar concerns over the violence people of color face at the hands of white individuals simply for being perceived as “threatening”. Furthermore, the acquittal of Zimmerman and the decision not to indict officer Wilson perpetuate the notion that such violence is tolerated in American society.

This is a concern that extends beyond the black community as shown by the brutal assault of Sureshbhai Patel.

Patel, an elderly Indian man visiting his family in the states, was accosted by police officers during his morning stroll. Po-

lice officers forced Patel to the ground after a man complained that Patel was exhibiting “suspicious” behavior. The police’s actions resulted in a neck injury that left Patel paralyzed. Again, this is an example of violence against a person of color whose actions did not warrant such a forceful response.

Assaults such as these demonstrate that white individuals may feel exempt from punishment if violent acts are committed against people of color. If such acts of violence are dismissed, especially in the case of police brutality, relationships between people of color and the authorities will only worsen. A study conducted by The Sentencing Project, a group based in Washington D.C. that advocates for prison reform, found that although 50 percent of Americans believe that “police officers generally aren’t held accountable for their

misconduct”, this percentage is even higher among the African American community.

This statistic demonstrates that opinions on police brutality are divided along racial lines in the country.

Since the shootings in Ferguson, there have been nationwide marches and social media movements that have expressed outrage over the actions of the police and the inaction of the justice system. It is imperative that these conversations lead to a dialogue about the daily injustices people of color face in the country. Fortunately, people of color are finding their voices, especially through the use of social media. Almost 250,000 tweets were posted using #IfTheyGunnedMeDown since Michael Brown’s death. Though it will certainly take time to combat the racism entrenched in the American society, we as a whole must work to ensure the safety of all citizens.

Photo courtesy of Neil Cooper People laying dowm in protest in Washington D.C. on November 25th, 2014

The Wellesley Globalist

6

23 Arts and Culture

Homeless: Exempt from Social Empathy

By Kanupriya Gupta ‘18

Photo by David Salafia

9 Internal Affairs

H

omeless people face constant scrutiny and condemnation, although they go virtually unnoticed everyday.

They fill hundreds of corridors and sidewalks along our daily Boston commute, yet slowly we become desensitized to their plight. They are largely ignored, as we tend to emotionally distance ourselves from the conditions of the homeless we encounter every day. We can combat social stigma simply by reflecting on our everyday interactions with the homeless.

Most of the homeless pick one area to live, that is usually covered to protect from harsh weather. Here, they keep all of their belongings and essentially their entire life. The homeless, however, are forced

to migrate throughout the day in search of leftover food and shelter, or venture to populated areas to seek aid from passersby. Generally, homeless people use handmade signs asking for money or other donations.

These signs attempt to take the homeless image out of the ordinary landscape to which we are desensitized, and make us view them in a unique context that will increase the likelihood of us helping them. Currently, the use of signs has changed from the ordinary “Please Donate” to more thoughtful, desperate pleas. On the “Portraits of America” (formerly “Portraits of Boston”) Facebook page, the enormity of the homelessness problem dawned on me when I saw a picture of a homeless

man in Harvard Square holding a sign “Seeking Human Kindness,” which gained large momentary fame with hundreds of thousands of likes within minutes. When I first visited Cambridge a few months later, I immediately remembered seeing the photo and sought him out. As I kept returning to Cambridge, I would always look for him in the same spot in front of the subway. If he was not there, I felt that the area was incomplete, and that his absence cast a negative shadow over my view of Harvard Square. If he was there the next time I visited, I felt a sense of familiarity in Harvard Square again and felt a connection with him. Many people commented on the “Portraits of

Photo by Mustafa Hussain

Photo by Chris Devers America” photograph, remembered seeing the man before, while others noted sharing long, meaningful conversations with the man as a result of the post. Some even suggested that platforms similar to “Portraits of America” can be used to combat the negative stigma surrounding homelessness.

Over the next few trips to Harvard Square, I noticed that more homeless people adopted the sign “Seeking Human Kindness,” probably due the effectiveness of that first use.

In general, however, without anyone to bring recognition to the problem of the high incidence of homelessness in our cities, the majority of the population tends to overlook the homeless, particularly as

both the age of the observer and that of the homeless person increases. The younger homeless population in Cambridge seemed to get much more attention from pedestrians and higher occurrences of donations, probably because they are, on average, healthier and much less likely to be abusing drugs, or at least less likely to present signs of addiction. The older generation also seemed more likely to be suffering from mental illness.

Surprisingly, although we may be more accepting of the youth, there are still between 1.5 and 2.8 million homeless youths in the United States. I noticed, that older homeless individuals were more often ignored, likely because we tend to view them

as having caused their status of homelessness, rather than having been victims of unfortunate happenstance.

Our stigma extends not only to our outward behavior, but also to our internal attitudes towards homeless adults. Popular media sites often provide a representative sampling of the views we have towards the homeless. Some youth-centered forums, such as Tumblr, provide a platform for hate-filled opinions. For example, this excerpt from Tumblr user deathtosjw’s blog: “Why are homeless people such [expletive] stains on society? They make a nuisance of themselves and I feel as if they know it.

Always walking up to you at the train station babbling in a way

The Wellesley Globalist

10

11 Internal Affairs

where you can’t understand or asking for money. They’re [expletive] leeches and just take up space. Most of them brought themselves into their situation through drugs and just being useless members of society.”

While this is an isolated case, it goes to show that there still exists animosity toward homeless individuals. Many such people end up on the streets due to traumatic life experiences or mental illness, but we are quick to profile them as lazy and reproachable.

Based on observations, it seems that our reactions to seeing homeless people change based on our age and social atmosphere. When younger pedestrians pass by homeless individuals, they tend to turn away or pull out their phones as a means of distracting themselves. In this sense, technology provides an avenue which allows us to disconnect and desensitize ourselves from the guilt and sadness we feel over displaced individuals and the reality of their living conditions. In the enclosed, public space of a subway station, the sad state of living conditions among the homeless became more apparent. I observed that it seemed easier for people to ignore the homeless. People didn’t need to “compensate” emotionally by distracting themselves with their phones or peers, because the homeless seemed even more dehumanized in this small, undignified space. In this sense, we feel that the homeless are a separate part of society. The are, instead, almost like props that blur into

the background of our lives rather than fellow human beings who are part of our interactive, social community.

In a new effort to bring attention to the alienation that the homeless face, “Peace for the Streets by Kids from the Streets”, an organization dedicated to the support and empowerment of homeless youth, has put posters on corner streets all over Seattle that say: “If this poster was a homeless youth, most people wouldn’t even bother to look down.”

This message resonates with the current social stigma against homeless individuals. The first step toward reintegrating homeless people into society is to recognize that they are actually part of our society, and we should treat them as such.

We, as a society, also need to realize that we cannot blame the homeless for their living circumstances. In an economy based on a capitalistic “take-what-you-can” ideology, it can only be expected that some of our population will fall through the cracks. It is our responsibility to recognize and remediate this problem by an extensive effort to build more homeless shelters and help homeless people find stable jobs to get them back on their feet. Hopefully, the reduction of stigma against homeless people in Cambridge will also lessen our desensitization to them, and make us aware that homelessness should not be a common sight in our daily lives.

Homelessness should instead be a circumstance worth fighting against.

Photo by Ed Yourdon

3 Arts and Culture Photo by Kevin McShane

Exempt from Regulations and Substantial Spending Restrictions

Exempt

By Megfrom Babikian Regulations and Substantial Spending Restrictions

By Daniela Morin ‘17

President Obama is

a strong advocate in utilizing constitutional processes to regulate campaign spending, which he believes directly contributes to the contemporary political cynicism amongst the American public. According to a survey conducted by CBS news, 64 percent of Americans said the federal government should place a limit on how much an individual can contribute to campaigns, whereas only 31 percent said they are in favor of allowing individuals to make unlimited campaign contributions.

Ultimately the goal of

this political agenda would be to overturn “Citizens United.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling in “Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission in 2010” held that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and the prohibition on spending their own money for elections was effectively “muzzling” them. This ruling led to the creation of super PACs (Political Action Committees), which can now accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals for the purpose of making independentexpenditures.

However, President Obama is

not the only one in Washington who holds similar convictions on the issue. Former and current Supreme Court Justices, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have made it clear that they support an amendment to substantially limit campaign contributions.

This highly contested issue could have a significant impact on the upcoming presidential elections. Yet another strong supporter of overturning Citizens United is also a likely 2016 presidential candidate: current Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s conservative decision

“

What do these celebrities learn about themselves, or about the world, that leads to their self-destructive behavior?

�

Photo by Ron Cogswell

not only meant big money in presidential and congressional campaigns, but also in the more perennial state governments and the perimeters as well as their influence in crafting and implementing legislation. How detrimental is corporate money in politics? Lets consider the 2012 elections in which the largest target of outside was presidential candidate Barack Obama. Collectively, liberal outside groups were vastly outspent by their conservative counterparts, yet Obama won and Democrats gained seats in both chambers of Congress. This raises the question of the efficacy of praxis when

translating the power of money into effective strategy. Millions were spent attacking candidates who won anyway or supporting ones who did not. With the liberation of big time donors no longer having to hide from the law, super PACs create a greater dependency and culture of indifferent and unprincipled lobbying.

Lastly, it is important to evaluate the role of Citizens United within a system of democratic governance while keeping in mind that it is only of several court decisions that have and will continue to reshape the sociolly and historically uneven politi-

cal playing field. Yet another critical Supreme Court ruling is McCutcheon v. FEC,in which a megadonor challenged the limit on direct campaign contributions from individuals. The Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two year period to all federal candidates, parties, and political action committees combined. By a vote of five to four, the Court ruled that aggregate limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. This ruling further validates monetary contributions as credible forms of freedom of speech,

The Wellesley Globalist

14

15 Internal Affairs

Photo courtesy of Talk Radio News Service Senate Democrats hold a news conference to provide an update on the DISCLOSE Act, legislation to “shine light on anonymous campaign spending.�

as well as highlighting the ongoing trend of election cycles which increasingly feature new tactics for raising and spending campaign cash. Now political operatives continue to push the bureaucratic boundaries of law constraints in an attempt to gain a partisan edge over their opponents. The future of campaign finance is in dire need of continual scrutiny if the sociopolitical fate of the US is to remain progressive in forging a more just and equitable society.

As sociofinancial inequality gains due to its prominence in presidential campaigns, it seems like we are reversing earlier progress in combating the effect of big money in politics. Retracting the laws and regulations that attempted to reduce corruption has led to a backslide within presidential campaigns. We cannot let this policy be an impediment for the electorate or allow citizens to feel even less empowered and be overcome with apathy in our democracy.

As our nation’s moneyed con-

servative politicians continue to strategically restructure our political system by fiat, they increasingly strengthen the grip of corporations and the wealthy at the cost of the most vulnerable, but integral members of our society.

The institutional access to the ballot by lower income voters, which disproportionately affects minority groups, is inhibited by voter identification

laws, shortened voting periods, and restrictions on voter registration campaigns among other factors. As millennials we have the social responsibilities to take active initiatives to ensure we are an informed electorate as well as to object and repeal legislation when necessary to ensure just representation and democracy in our society.

America cannot afford to sell and buy its next leader.

Infographic by EN2008

Photo by Sarah R.

Lacks Lives On and On

By Meg Babikian ‘18

A few months ago on

my annual visit to my general doctor, I noticed some posters on the wall with a few short biographical sketches of each doctor at the practice. Some had gone to state schools, while others had received Ivy league educations. One woman was born in Portugal and found her way to the US, where she eventually became a doctor.

Another woman had decided to pursue doctorhood in her 30’s. Each doctor had pursued a unique path to his or her medical degree, but eventually ended up in the same practice.

Just as each doctor from the practice followed a different career path, there are unique

ways to reach the same result.

The scientific discoveries made using Henrietta Lacks’ cells fall in accordance with this principle.

When Henrietta Lacks experienced complications after the birth of her fifth child, she was sent to Johns Hopkins Hospital where her doctor, without her consent, removed part of her cancerous cervix. Lacks’ cancerous cervical cells were sent to research laboratories, where her genome was later sequenced to create the HeLa genome and was distributed and used widely in research.

These cells were particularly expedient because they survived longer than the cells which had been previously

used for research. This is likely because they were infected with the human papillomavirus, which, it was discovered, was also the cause of Lacks’ cervical cancer. It was, in fact, research on Henrietta Lacks’ cells, commonly referred to as the HeLa cells, which led to discoveries regarding the causes of cervical cancer, along with the causes of herpes, leukemia, influenza, and Parkinson’s disease. HeLa cells have also been used to research lactose digestion and mosquito mating.

The racism of the 1950’s and 1970’s, when black people were often manipulated in the name of medical research, is largely why Henrietta Lacks’ doctor felt he could take ad-

The Wellesley Globalist

16

17 Science

vantage of her. Lacks was poor, black, and uneducated. and as a result of these circumstances, she did not understand what was happening to her body.

This racism reappeared in the 1970’s, when members of Ms. Lacks’ family was asked for blood samples to supplement the HeLa cells in continuing research. They were uninformed, and their cooperation was expected because of their race.

It was only at this time then that Lacks’ family members found out that the HeLa cells were being used. Since they did not have an understanding of what a cell was, they thought that part of Lacks was “still alive”. Given the fact that Lacks’ family is African-American, they were not given the courtesies that white research subjects would have been given at the time. The past 40 years of research using the HeLa cells would have been drastically different if the Lacks family

Photo by Euan Slorach

had not been treated as second class.

60 years of irreversibly progressive research on Henrietta Lacks’ cancerous cervical cells has left much of the Lacks family’s genetic information at the hands of researchers around the world. Because this information was obtained without the consent of Lacks herself, it violates not only her own privacy, but also the privacy of Lacks’ descendants. So although it might seem like the HeLa cells have been essential to research over the past 60 years, it is also important to consider the possibility that the accomplishments made as a result of this research could have been made through other means and without violating the privacy of Henrietta Lacks and her family.

The most recent debate has been in regards to the publication of the HeLa genome by German scientists at the Euro-

pean Molecular Biology Laboratory and by researchers at the University of Washington. The publication further broadcasts the private genetic information of the Lacks family. In an effort to compensate for these violations while continuing to use the HeLa genome for ongoing research, the National Institute of Health (NIH) has intervened in cooperation with Lacks’ surviving family in order to develop some regulation. An agreement between the Lacks family and the NIH allows the European Molecular Biology Laboratory and the University of Washington to store the results of their research in their databases. Researchers may apply for access to the information but must submit annual reports to the HeLa Genome Data Access Group at the NIH. This agreement allowed for the University of Washington to publish their research. While the Lacks family has reached an agreement with the National Institute of Health, there is still no protocol regarding the manner in which reparations can be paid to families like the Lacks family.

In the process of thinking about possible reforms to the research process to determine how to compensate for the lack of care given to the Lacks family, one might consider the common forms of compensation in medical research today. The most common method of compensation is the market model, in which the subjects are paid according to supply of and demand for

Photo by EMW

subjects. This can be problematic when the supply of potential subjects is low, and the researcher is required to offer high compensation to entice the few subjects available more strongly, incurring a high cost to the researcher. As a result, the researcher cannot give as high a completion bonus and causes the research subject to not consider the potential risks as thoroughly. Researchers may also compensate subjects according to the wage model, which accounts for the skills and time required. The wage in this model is similar to an unskilled but essential job. Since most research studies do not require highly skilled tasks to be performed, the wage is lower. A low wage tends to attract a lower income demographic, limiting the scope of the study.

To avoid this, a researcher may choose to compensate according to the reimbursement model. In this case, researchers

pay subjects according to the opportunity cost for them to be there. That means that if a high-income group of subjects is selected, then the cost of the study will be high, while if a low-income group of subjects is selected, then the cost of the study will be low. This would lead to a biased preference for low-income participants. Finally, a researcher may choose to compensate subjects according to the appreciation model, which suggests compensation at the completion of the study.

This ensures that subjects will continue until the completion of the study.

The factors that determine the rate of compensation in the methods above and that should be considered in cases like that of the Lacks family are time, skill level or education required, and commitment. The main commonality between all of these methods for compensation is that by accepting

a compensatory position as a research subject, the subject enters a contract, which relinquishes, to a degree, their right to privacy. Henrietta Lacks did not enter such a contract.

Now that her family’s privacy is in jeopardy, the question of compensation is essential, especially because the progress made through the use of the HeLa cells in 74,000 studies is irreversible.

Had there been an understanding in research 60 years ago that everyone is entitled to privacy, then, presumably, none of the Lacks family would have to worry about their privacy, and most of the medical discoveries made through the use of the HeLa genome would have been made through other means. Policies must be written and ethics must be addressed before such large-scale research projects move forward, and the Lacks family must be compensated for this colossal inconvenience.

The Wellesley Globalist

18

23 Arts and Culture

Ebola Virus Outbreak: The Negative Impact of Travel Restrictions and Bans

By Caroline Bandurska ’16

Photo by UN Photo/Martine Perret

O

n September 19, 2014 a Liberian man named Thomas Eric Duncan arrived from the capital of Liberia in Dallas to visit family. Within the next few of days he developed symptoms commonly associated with Ebola: fever, nausea, and diarrhea. Duncan was the first person in the United States to receive a diagnosis of Ebola virus disease (EVD) and the first to die of it. His death raised important questions about travel restrictions and bans in the Unites States and throughout the world, along with how effective they really are in decreasing the spread of disease and reducing its harm.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Ebola virus disease is characterized by a variety of symptoms including fever, severe headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and unexplained bruising.

Symptoms of Ebola may appear anywhere from 2-21 days after a person is exposed to the virus through contact with an infected person’s blood or body fluids, though the average length of time before disease onset is 8-10 days. The current outbreak is believed to have occurred as a result of consuming contaminated game animals.

Based on statistics acquired by the CDC, Ebola is most widespread in the West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

Currently there is no FDA-approved vaccine or antiviral drug available to treat Ebola.

However disease prognosis is greatly improved through maintaining healthy vital signs,

such as fluids, oxygenation, and blood pressure, and by treating additional symptoms as they occur. Ebola survivors develop antibodies for the virus that can last for at least 10 years.

With nearly 25,000 confirmed, probable, and suspected cases reported by the CDC and a current death toll greater than 10,000, the Ebola epidemic has shaken West Africa to its core. The disease has spread to other regions throughout Africa, Europe, and North America, but its impact remains the worst in West Africa. The disease has left affected areas scrambling to enact policies that reduce the transmission of the disease and help those who are currently suffering.

One such policy has been the institution of travel restrictions and bans. A travel restriction calls for screening processes for those traveling to and from certain places, while a travel ban completely shuts down travel to and from those places. According to International SOS, a firm that provides medical, clinical, and security services to international workers, flight restrictions on travel from France, Nigeria, Kenya, Britain, and the United Arab Emirates to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone continue. In addition, many African countries have banned entry by travelers and visitors of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

Although one could argue that travel restrictions and bans have hindered the transmission of Ebola to countries outside of West Africa because its impact outside of

The Wellesley Globalist

20

21 Science Photo courtesy of the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection depaartment (ECHO) West Africa has been relatively small, travel restrictions and bans are not entirely effective.

They impede those wishing to accurately track the spread of disease in order to properly prepare and equip healthcare workers. They also complicate the arrival of medical treatment to those at the epicenter of the outbreak.

Julia Belluz, a health reporter for Vox magazine, and Steven Hoffman, an international lawyer specializing in global health law, argue in their joint article for Vox magazine that a travel ban for Ebola first and foremost results in difficulties in tracking the disease.

“Determined people will find ways to cross borders anyway, and if they don’t

go through airports, health officials can’t track their movements,” Belluz and Hoffman said.

Prior to flying from Liberia, Duncan was asked to fill out a screening form indicating whether or not he had been exposed to the Ebola virus within the last 21 days. Though Duncan indicated that he had not, it was evident that he had, in fact, been exposed. Had he checked off “yes”, Mr. Duncan would not have been able to fly and his movement would have been severely restricted.

Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, commented in a New York Times article chronicling Mr. Duncan’s plight

that “individuals often don’t know what their exposures might have been, and not all people disclose what those exposures may have been.”

Whether intentional or not, Mr. Duncan’s incorrect answer on the screening put many other lives at risk. Many healthcare workers were exposed, and two were infected by the Ebola virus after treating Mr. Duncan at the Texas Presbyterian Hospital because they were not prepared to handle a patient with Ebola.

For those who have a pressing reason to travel or are unsure of whether or not they have been exposed to the Ebola virus, such travel restrictions only encourage travelers to provide false or inaccurate information. This is not helpful for those wishing to track the spread of disease in order to properly prepare healthcare workers. An alternative may be to set up special provisions for those traveling with an increased risk of exposure to Ebola, or to provide incentives for travelers to be more transparent about exposure during the screening process.

Secondly, providing resources and medical attention to those with Ebola at the epicenter of the outbreak in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone becomes far more complicated and delayed in the presence of travel restrictions and bans.

Dan Epstein, a spokesperson for the World Health Organization (WHO) commented in October 2014 to International Business Times that

both regional and international travel restrictions are “actually making the problem worse,” by restricting the travel of health workers and officials who are trained in handling Ebola cases into the areas most affected.

Currently in the United States, the CDC recommends a travel restriction on all non-essential travel to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, but no official travel bans or restrictions are in place. In October 2014 the U.S. voted against instituting a travel ban that would block all travel between the U.S. and countries affected by Ebola.

President Barack Obama, in a video message statement, agreed with Epstein’s argument that “trying to seal off an entire region of the world… would make it harder to move health workers and supplies back and forth.”

In addition to international travel restrictions, regional travel restrictions also hamper the entry of African medical workers to the areas

Photo by Medici con l’Africa Cuamm affected most by Ebola. According to International SOS, several African countries, including Botswana, Cape Verde, Mauritania, and South Africa, continue to have travel bans or restrictions on those traveling from Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Such restrictions impede the flow of healthcare workers and resources from neighboring countries.

Heidi Vogt, in her Wall Street Journal article “Travel

Photo courtesy of Simon Davis/DFID (UK’s Department for International Development)

Restrictions Hamper African Medical Staff in Ebola Fight”, argues that regional restrictions severely delay the transport of healthcare workers and medications. For a disease where the time for diagnosis and treatment is of utmost importance, such delays may mean the difference between life and death.

Even though U.S. media reports of the Ebola outbreak have quieted down since the start of the outbreak, the disease certainly has not, with a total of 150 new cases confirmed in the week of March 9-15, 2015 alone, according to the World Health Organization (W.H.O). Many countries have addressed the outbreak with travel restrictions and bans, but such measures aren’t entirely effective in addressing the spread and treatment of the disease.

Travel restrictions and bans lead to improper tracking and handling of the disease, as well as delays in providing medical care and medicine to those in need of it.

The Wellesley Globalist

22

17 Arts and Culture Photo by Steven Tuttle

Canada’s Oil Superpower Dreams Delayed for Now

By Evana Nabi ’17

25 Science

Have Canada’s oil

superpower dreams been crushed? President Obama’s veto of the bill to start Keystone XL’s construction makes it doubtful that a pipeline will come into fruition in the near future. Without the Keystone XL pipeline to transport it, Canadian crude is hindered from reaching refineries in the Gulf coast and being sold to new markets.

It has been said that approval of Keystone could mean the end of U.S. imports from countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) because the Canadian crude supplies, along with oil from the Midwest, would displace imports from other countries.

As Canada threatens to take market share in North America, a number of forces have galvanized against the development of tar sands.

Environmental activists have long since chosen Keystone XL as their “hill to die on.” The chief concerns are not about oil spills, or the Ocala Aquifer, and are related to the route. What most environmentalists want is for the oil to stay in the ground. Recent technological advancements in oil extraction from shale and Canada’s oil sands have raised the question: will we ever reach Peak Oil? The fight against Keystone has inspired the participation in other protests against the use of oil.

The rapid expansion of the pipeline network in the United States provides evidence

“

that the fight against Keystone is mainly over the type of oil it transports. President Obama, echoing environmentalists, has called tar sands extraction “an extraordinarily dirty” process.

Keystone XL was once needed to transport oil not just from Canada, but also from the American Midwest.

The American oil industry has been able to dramatically expand its network of pipelines largely without notice because these pipelines do not cross the international border and this oil is light and sweet. Canada’s pipeline, however, requires the Environmental activists have long since chosen Keystone XL as their “hill to die on.”

”

review of the U.S. State department.

The result is that the amount of oil being transported to the Gulf coast has increased. In reality, Keystone would not be the end for climate change as climate scientist James Hanson has said.

Thus far, the symbolism of delaying Keystone has appeared to be effective but using Keystone as a proxy battle against oil is pointless for two reasons: Canadian crude will likely displace heavier and sourer crudes on the market and in net benefit the environment. Canadian oil companies are also highly incentivized to find an alternative course of action so the flow of Canadian oil will not be obstructed by regulations forever.

Christopher Knittel, a Professor of Energy Economics at MIT, has indicated that it is unlikely that the symbolism of defeating Keystone will ensure “the momentum to defeat all three Canadian alternatives” because of the large incentives Canadian oil producers have to get a pipeline built. According to Christopher Knittel, the pipeline “would bring producers $32 million dollars a day.”

The symbolic act of delaying Keystone may be uplifting and inspiring but the focus should turn to more meaningful acts that can have a real impact on reducing oil consumption; delaying Keystone will not permanently stop the development of tar sands.

TransCanada’s plans for Keystone alternatives are already being pursued in the wake of President Obama’s veto. The Keystone debate is also expanding to include Line 61, a recently approved pipeline that doesn’t cross international borders and face the same regulatory challenges.

Perhaps the greatest weapon against Canada’s superpower ambitions is not environmentalists or President Obama’s veto, but depressed oil prices. The risk of continued low oil prices, partly brought on by the American Shale Revolution, means investments in Canadian oil sands are being scaled back. Without the pipeline in place, Canadian crude producers have turned to transport by rail to get the oil to ocean ports.

However, Canadian oil exports by rail are decreasing as Photo by Kevin Buehler

crude producers find it uneconomical under the current prices. A pipeline would lower the costs of transport, but at a low enough price, the development of Keystone will become uneconomical. If the environmental activists against Keystone fail, then market forces might still keep Canadian oil reserves untapped in the coming years.

Competition between Canada and OPEC has further depressed oil prices. Although much of the discussion surrounding Canadian crude has centered on its direct competition with Venezuelan crude, Canada’s real battle is with Saudi Arabia. Canada’s oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia’s.

Saudi Arabia has been ramping up production in a fight to regain its market share and stave off investment in Canadian oil sands. The country, which extracts its oil at a lower marginal cost and an untold amount of oil reserves, is committed to their strategy. The

price war is expected to continue for the remainder of the year but Saudi Arabia already appears to be prevailing.

Saudi Arabia, however, is not coming out of this price war unscathed. Even if the Saudis can endure low prices longer than the U.S. or Canada, it is questionable whether it is wise to use their reserves towards this goal, risking revenue and potential unrest at home.

Saudi Arabia uses oil prices for redistribution, which is a costly policy to maintain without the same revenues it reaped when oil was 100 dollars per barrel. A recent Forbes article states that Saudi Arabia is betting “$750 billion in foreign currency reserves” on this strategy.

Canadian energy companies, such as Royal Dutch Shell LLC, have recently scaled back capital expenditures and made plans to lay off employees. Low oil prices hurt the U.S. and Canada the most because they have been where most of growth and investment in oil

production have been.

Canada faces many opponents in its development of oil sands with the most formidable being Saudi Arabia.

While it is unlikely that Canada will become an oil superpower in the coming years, low prices can only postpone the development of oil sands. Some Canadian oil companies have been hit hard but others are already preparing for when prices rebound.

After Saudi Arabia has resumed normal production and prices stabilize, the political challenges Canadian oil faces may remain. Some have started to question whether it is truly inevitable that tar sands will be developed. Low prices and environmental concerns are keeping some of the tar sands in the ground for now, but the oil will certainly not disappear. With billions of dollars at stake, Canadian oil companies still have ample incentive to find a way to get their oil to ocean ports.

The Wellesley Globalist

26

The Syrian Crisis: The Syrian Crisis, or

the Syrian Civil War, continues to occupy the world media’s spotlight as news affiliates attempts to provide follow-up coverage on the aftermath of the 2011 Arab Spring. The effect of the conflict of neighboring countries, however, falls to the wayside due to an underlying problem in global media: on-going reporting must discourage viewers since the situations are too difficult to understand via five-second sound bites alone.

Thankfully, online news coverage allows for an assortment of reporting—from humanitarian relief organizations to local publications—to reach a global readership. This network extends the focus on the Syrian Crisis within the country’s borders to the lives of Syrian refugees forced into neighboring countries. The rapid changes in the Middle East paired with the stark difference in the treatment of Syrian refugees in each country makes the story of every refugee complicated.

Giving a voice to the wide variety in the experiences of the Syrian refugees reminds the world of their ongoing, daily struggles.

JORDAN- Financial Burden of Housing Refugees As of January 2015, Jordan was hosting about 620,000 documented Syrian refugees,

Five Years of Exile By the Wellesley Globalist Staff

which is about one tenth of the population of Jordan. The number could be above one million including the undocumented refugees. By the end of 2014, the Jordanian government had spent 21.5 million dollars to provide services for the refugees, thus putting a strain on financial resources.

Countries providing shelter to refugees must rely on donations and help from other countries. The World Food Program, which was providing food vouchers for refugees, experienced less funding in recent years and has had to cut back, placing more of the burden on national governments to provide for the refugees.

The Jordanian government is struggling to bear the financial responsibility of

having this large number of refugees. In November 2014, the government stopped providing health care. Syrians who are unable to legally work in Jordan, and therefore could not afford basic necessities, often chose to move back into refugee camps.

Zaatari refugee camp (U.N.) has upwards of 80,000 refugees as of March 2015.

The camp offers electricity and amenities to the refugees who could not afford their needs otherwise. Although Zaatari was built as an impermanent shelter, it is becoming more permanent. There are streets, electricity and markets. Compared to the Azraq refugee camp, built to relieve Zaatari of the overflow of people, these are luxurious conditions.

The evolving city-like structure of the camp provides

another problem for the Jordanian government: it operates on the black market. In order to keep the market running, people have to smuggle vouchers into the camp. The electricity comes from access to Jordanian public utilities, which is also a cost that the UN has to help pay back.

The Jordanian government has been forced to cut back on spending for providing basic resources to the refugees.

They have been accused of involuntarily deporting refugees back to Syria as well. Without enough outside funding, Jordan may not be able to bear the rising amount of refugees seeking safety with their government.

TURKEY- Ethnicity Shaping the Treatment of Refugees Turkey’s role in sheltering incoming refugees becomes

Photo by Roger Blackwell

increasingly complex as the Syrian Crisis moves into its fifth year. When the peaceful demonstrations in the 2011 Arab Spring first turned into a larger war between violent, divided forces, the risk to the lives of civilians across Syria pushed many into Turkey. This en masse entrance of refugees placed regional and global media on Turkey once again as a force of stability in the Middle East— a role greatly shaped by its relationship with the U.S. Before 2011, Turkey balanced stabilizing its relations with its neighbors with focusing on its personal growth.

Its responsibility as one of the countries closest to and therefore majorly affected by the Syrian Crisis sets Turkey apart as a safe-haven for Syrian refugees fleeing the violence at home.

But many have no choice in which country to seek

refuge, making proximity the decisive force. Four years later, the internal politics of Turkey poignantly affects the ongoing treatment of these refugees.

Syria’s diverse population entered Turkey’s borders, bringing with them the longwrought tensions between Turkey’s government and the Kurds. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, approximately 200,000 Kurds from Rojava (Western Kurdistan) have crossed into Turkey.

Rojava operates as a semi-autonomous region of Syria. National governments often view such regional Kurdish populations in the context of the larger, diasporic Kurdish community. The flow of Kurdish Syrians into Turkey not only increases Turkey’s anxiety over the growing Kurdish population within their bor-

relationship with Turkish government involves years of work prior to the Arab Spring since many Middle Eastern countries have prioritized Palestinian relations since the creation of Israel. Regardless of such candor on the national stage, the pressures on local infrastructures and national governments leads to tensions between the native and refugee populations.

In September 2014, the Islamic State began brutal attacks on the Kurdish communities near the Turkish border.

The imminent threat to Syrians, based on their location, nationality, ethnicity and more, pushes them to neighboring countries. Leaving their homes

is a necessity, but their safety upon arriving to another country is not a given.

The cost of housing refugees and integrating them into the host country weakens the ability of each side to approach the Syrian Crisis with hope. The daily increase of Syrian refugees entering Jordan and Turkey raises tensions, even leading to anti-immigrant sentiments as xenophobia seems like the best possibility for survival.

Please consult daily news sources and trusted humanitarian organizations to remain educated on the Syrian Crisis and to donate to the support efforts for the Syrian refugees.

ders, but subjects the Kurdish Syrian refugees to poorer living standards as they join existing Kurdish camps for fear of harsher treatment elsewhere.

The difference in the treatment of the Kurdish people is clearly outlined when compared with the state of Palestinians who fled Syria. The Palestinian Syrians arrived in Turkey with government representation and an offer of official residency permits.

The Palestinian ambassador in Turkey, Nabil Maroof, secured this deal. Because he speaks on behalf of all Palestinians regardless of their country of residency, the Palestinians ejected from Syria procured treatment superior to their Kurdish counterparts.

While Maroof assures Palestinian Syrians of their acceptance in Turkey, treatment cannot be entirely assured. His Photo by Mohamed Azakir / World Bank

21 Arts and Culture

The Blood That Binds: Investigating Kinship and Ethnic Tensions

By Katie Warshauer ‘15

Photo by Lee Morlet

The Wellesley Globalist

22

33 Politics and History

I

n October of 2013, the Greek police asked Interpol to help them locate the real parents of a blonde, blue eyed child found in a Roma camp.

News and media sites started to plaster their webpages with images of this young girl, nicknamed “The Blonde Angel” in an international plea to help Interpol’s search. What makes this case unique is not that this child had been rescued, but why she was rescued. This “Blonde Angel,” now known as Maria, was found in a Roma camp during a police raid. Her removal was predicated on her physical appearance, for Maria did not resemble the two Roma adults with whom she was

living with.

While DNA testing proved that Maria was, indeed, not biologically related to the adults she was found with, the reason for her removal, as well as the reason for the police raid in this Roma camp, can be traced to deeply entrenched tensions in Greece. In a country with very specific ideas regarding kinship and ethnicity, the story of Maria provokes further scrutiny.

Academic analysis of the event reveals an issue that, I assert, while not uniquely Greek, is emblematic of the tensions between people with very rigid definitions of self and ethnicity. Maria’s removal, while

indicative of strife between the Greek and Roma communities, also begs the question: How do we determine what a family should look like? Maria’s situation can be looked at as a starting point for further inquiry into ethnic tensions as well as the different ways people can view kinship. This incident can be extrapolated, anthropologically, to reveal more of the complexities surrounding the Roma community, as well as the ways one can approach relatedness.

Even though Maria’s situation is, by now, resolved, and her parents have finally been found, it now becomes necessary and informative to analyze

Photo courtesy of Getty Images The “Blonde Angel” also known as Maria with the people taking care of her in the Roma community.

Photo by Getty Images

the language and manner in which her case was covered.

The name she was christened with by the media, the “Blonde Angel”, is, itself, very emblematic of the focus on her “whiteness” compared to her darker, Roma guardians. She is angelic specifically because she is stereotypically, phenotypically white. Establishing Maria as blonde and white automatically characterizes the Roma adults she was found with as marred by their darkness. The media was implicitly promoting an ideal of good whiteness juxtaposed against the dark villainy of her pretending parents.

Regional police chief, Panayiotis Tziovaras, in a quote to the Huffington Post remarked that “her features suggest that she might be from an eastern or northern [European] country.” There was an assumption that someone like Maria could not have been Roma, when in fact, her biological parents were very much of the Roma community.

Yet as the media continued to highlight her blondeness and her light eyes, words attributed to Eleftheria Dimopoulou and Christos Salis-- the Roma adults caring for her-- were decidedly less complementary.

Media sites like the Daily Mail use words like “snatched” to describe how Dimopoulou and Salis had acquired Maria. Just as how a blood libel against the Jews legitimized feelings of anti-Semitism, there has also been a perpetuated myth of the Roma’s proclivity for stealing children. While just as fallacious as the Jewish blood libel, the use of the word, “snatched” reaffirms that this prejudice against the Roma has yet to fade.

To understand why the world had such a visceral reaction to the “snatchers” of Maria, we must understand how the world has viewed Roma both in the past and in the present.

Noam Chomsky famously notes, “the Gypsies were treated just like the Jews in the Ho-

locaust, and nobody’s batting an eyelash about that because nobody gives a damn about the Gypsies.” Despite of the continued record of mistreatment, the world seems to have paid little attention to the Roma. On the occasion when attention is turned to them, it is often negative. Eleftheria Dimopoulou and Christos Salis are just two examples of the way that the media chooses to portray the Roma as inherently different and dirty. The charity that took Maria in made extensive comments regarding her being “very dirty” while in the care of the Roma. This very notion that Roma are unclean has been quite vehemently pursued over the ages; in Harangos, officials were very proud of “disinfection” of Gypsy sites twice per year.

The fear of subverting order explains the police raid on the Roma encampment; the Roma are seen as tarnishing Greece because they represent a sort of otherness that is inherently disruptive to the fundamentality of Hellenistic order. The Roma are ancestrally and racially distinct from the Greeks, and the Greeks sense this otherness as a subversion of their Hellenistic culture.

Even before Maria, before the police raid, and before the international attention, Greeks treated the Roma community as a threat.

In understanding that the Roma are an outsider community, one that is not fully enmeshed within the fabric of the Greek nation state, it helps

The Wellesley Globalist

34

35 Politics and History to explain, in part, why the Maria situation escalated the way it did. But in evaluating this situation, another anthropologically inclined problem arises.

It is easy to see how the police raid and removal of a child is emblematic of a deeper issue pertaining to race and marginalization, but the removal of Maria from her caregivers also requires us to pause and consider the ways in which people assume and define relatedness.

Maria’s rescue was enacted due to a perceived lack of a shared genealogy; the blond and very white child could not possibly have been related to the Roma couple of swarthy complexion.

But this hasty rush to judgment is, itself, indicative of several cultural presumptions predicated upon what I believe is a very Western attitude towards kinship.

Ethnographic research in Greece has given anthropologists a glimpse into how Greeks perceive kinship. Marina Iossifides, a notable anthologist, explains that Greeks believe blood alone comprises kinship. Within Greece, this lives on in the term syngenia, which is similar to the idea of relatedness based on shared blood. For Greeks, kinship is irrevocably bound in a shared bloodline; the consanguinity that is inherently tied to kinship would suggest that there is a belief that one must resemble the rest of one’s family in order to be considered related.

There lies, perhaps, a less overt caution surrounding adoption and non-consanguineous kinship. Regardless of whether Maria’s birth mother gave her away for financial reasons, there is a precedent in Roma culture of viewing kinship

as “cultural” rather than “natural.” Immediately, we can see a contrast between the traditional Greek sense of “natural”, bloodbound kinship, which is an inflexible institution, and an idea of “cultural” kinship that relies more on situation than biology.

The Roma identity is indeed steeped in this idea of situation; each Roma participates in the shared identity by treating one another as equals, as family members even. The notion of kinship as dependent on nurture versus nature is also highlighted in the way the Roma community handles children, preferring to raise them in common. In Maria’s case, she wasn’t being shared amongst a community of adults, but even her exchange to a couple more able to provide for her challenges more traditional understandings of relatedness and family.

While Maria’s case brings to light these questions regarding ethnic tension and kinship bonds, her situation is far from unique. In a Dublin suburb, a concerned resident reported a blonde-haired, blueeyed girl living with a Roma family. The girl was removed, despite the family insisting that she was biologically theirs.

She was, in fact, the biological child and returned. And then, occurring simultaneously with the first incident, Irish police removed another blonde and blue-eyed child from his Roma family. And once again, he was returned after DNA tests proved that he was, in fact, Roma.

While Maria does not belong to Dimopoulou and Salis, she remains a reminder of the anxiety people have related to ethnic aesthetics. And while Maria’s situation is legally confusing, placing her in a liminal orphanhood, it further suggests that people have issues understand-

ing relatedness when there are aesthetic incongruities.

Ethnic and racial tensions are easily incorporated into the fabric of kinship-focused anthropology; it is easy to mark someone as different if they look different. Race defines a power structure that allows for the legitimization of actions such as the removal of Maria from her adoptive parents.

There is the belief that race is diagnosable and biologically passed on, and nature will forever trump nurture. As a social construct, racial identity is inextricably dependent on context.

In a rapidly globalizing world, the ability to inspect relatedness as derivative of one’s racial aesthetic is being driven further and further away.

Celebrities like Madonna and Sandra Bullock have adopted black children, and multiracial families are beginning to increase in number. This new regard to kinship as separate from

aesthetic is not completely equal yet; there remains the notion that adults of a marginalized or minority group seen caring for a white child cannot possibly be the child’s real or adoptive parents.

This bias is quite pervasive, and is easily observed in Maria’s situation. The question must be asked: if Maria had been stereotypically Roma in the care of a Greek or otherwise western European family, would she have been removed? The answer is no. Racial and ethnic biases are becoming embedded in how we choose to view kinship. The blood that binds, or the Greek notion of syngenia, is becoming an increasingly restrictive lens through which relatedness can be viewed.

Maria’s predicament, while unfortunate, is also a product of globalization, and the limited, if not delimited, understanding of kinship.

The Wellesley Globalist

36

23

Arts and Culture

Don’t Shoot the Messenger: Everyone Has a Right to Self Expression

By Tashay Campbell ‘18

Photo by Valentina Cala

39 so. Nonetheless, this sentiment should be the limit. Parties to express yourself through moved to enlist violence upon speech should not be considthose responsible for the pubered a privilege but a basic lication are misguided in their human right independent goals. Rather than allowing of geographical location. In these images to provoke them, certain areas of the world, to serve as fuel to carry out an including many Middle Eastern attack, they should reevaluate states, freedom of speech is not the importance of the source of deemed a fundamental right offense to their own lives and and is therefore withheld from faith. By carrycitizens It is understand- ing out an aswho are sault or instilling able and expected that often repfear upon those a large portion of the rimanded for who offend their voicing their public will be offended beliefs, these opinions, espe- by the material featured individuals do cially if they do nothing to elimin each issue. not align with inate public prothe views of the nouncements majority. or silence others who share the Charlie Hebdo, a sasame opinion. Globally, inditirical French publication, viduals will continue to express recently experienced signiftheir views without constraint. icant backlash due to their Violence is a temporary and lack of restraint in what they flawed solution. It silences the publish. With a reputation for voices of those harmed but testing limits, Charlie Hebdo does not mute the imminent is notorious for printing conaccordance of those to come. troversial articles and images In early January of this that make light of religious figures and their counterparts.

Many religious groups have felt offended and outraged by the material frequently published by the newspaper, calling it blasphemous and even dangerous. Though many of the pieces issued by the newspaper are indeed blasphemous, they should not be classified as dangerous.

In today’s day and age, sacrilege should not engender violence. With Charlie Hebdo’s frequent portrayal of the religious figure Mohammed, it is undeniable that some Muslims feel insulted and reasonably

Having the freedom

Politics and History

“

”

year, a threat escalated and developed into an attack, resulting in the deaths of twelve individuals. Critics of the newspaper claim that Charlie Hebdo was defiant and negligent in issuing such controversial material, partially excusing the terrorists for their retaliation. Meanwhile others feel that Charlie Hebdo’s straightforward method of journalism is admissible and should be received without the use of terror. As irreverent and provocative as the newspaper can be, there is never justification for bringing violence to anyone or any group for stating their opinion. When you find yourself offended by a newspaper article, should you pick up a gun or simply put the newspaper down? While I do not believe that it is necessary to intentionally offend or disrespect groups, religions, or any other entities, I stand firm in my position that every human should have the right to express their opinions without fear of being harmed.

Photo by Valentina Cala

Photo by Aurelien Guichard

A satirical outlet, Charlie Hebdo profits from deriding religion, politics, and social norms. It is understandable and expected that a large portion of the public will be offended by the material featured in each issue. However, offense isn’t a valid reason to stop or censor the messages being printed weekly. Being a newspaper, neither substantiated nor endorsed by the French government or authoritative figures, Charlie Hebdo simply serves as a medium to share its views in an entertaining forum and as a substitute to the contrasting newspapers concerned with being politically correct. Ultimately, Charlie Hebdo’s frank and often insolent reports present no genuine threat to any of the many groups it offends.

Similar to the open forum of Charlie Hebdo, Wellesley prides itself on promoting self-expression among students on campus.Wellesley College

provides necessary tools for personal emancipation, such as sexual liberation, eradication of gender constraints, and reduction of stigma surrounding mental health, to name a few.

Despite our granted social freedoms, a small fraction of the community remains susceptible to sensitivity due to opposing viewpoints and opinions. For-

“

Wellesley prides itself on promoting self-expression among students on campus.

”

tunately, here at Wellesley, we often hold discussions hoping to find common ground and a solution between individuals and groups on campus when conflicts arise.

Students who find themselves offended by various arguments should participate in these public dialogues, as they will benefit from educat-

ing themselves on opposing stances. These discussions and debates are easily modified to suit their purposes. Depending on the severity of the issue being addressed, different measures are taken. Mediating smaller conflicts such as ones regarding Senate bus etiquette or dining hall theft might be facilitated by the use of humor but ones of greater importance, specifically race relations in light of the recent national injustices to the black community or the necessity of a multicultural space for students of Asian and Latin@ descent warrant a more serious, formal tone. Nonetheless, it is evident that this campus has a strategy for pacifying potentially inflammable conflicts on campus.

Our willingness to hold open discussions is admirable, a characteristic that should be highly valued both on and off campus.

The Wellesley Globalist

40

41 Politics and History Photo by Michael Loadenthal

The Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

By Victoria Angelova ‘18

The conflict between

Israel and Palestine remains one of the most discussed topics in foreign policy. But how did it come to be? Why do these states continue to fail to find a way for a harmonious coexistence? The best way to understand the origins of the conflict is to examine the history of the region.

The Fertile Crescent, where Palestine is located, was the cradle of prosperous ancient civilizations. Due to its strategic location, Palestine has always been a pivotal territory, desired and conquered by Romans, Persians, and Arabs, among others. In 15th century, it became part of the Ottoman

Empire. It was the Ottoman reign, which came to an end in the 20th century, which proved crucial for the birth of the conflict.

The Ottoman Empire rose to power in the 14th century, and quickly conquered parts of Europe and the Middle East. Under Suleiman the Great, one of its most prominent leaders, the empire reached as far as Hungary and Austria. In the nineteenth century, however, the Empire was not as powerful as it used to be; the Ottomans, though Muslim, spoke a Turkic language and sought to impose their Turkic ancestry on all. This attempt resulted in the rekindling of national sentiments in all the

conquered groups.

Hence, the empire lost part of the Balkans, a small chunk of land valuable due to its fertile lands and strategic location, and another important territory, what is now Egypt, became a British protectorate in the eve of the new century.

Thus, in the early 1900s, the great Ottoman Empire lost several vital territories and was about to lose even more, as its culturally diverse subjects started to embrace nationalistic ideologies. The Arabs, in particular, felt that they could not remain in the Ottoman Empire any longer, and demanded the creation of a separate state.

In the meantime, World War I broke out, and

the Ottoman Empire joined Germany and Austro-Hungary.

Even though at first the British expected the war to be over in a couple of months, by the end of 1914 they and the French realized that they needed a winning strategy to further debilitate the weakest link in the Axis alliance: the Ottoman Empire. In supporting the Arab cause, they saw an opportunity to distract the Turks from the warfare in Europe, and, thus, win the war.

Here is where a proper introduction of Hussein bin Ali should ensue. Hussein bin Ali

was the leader of the Hashemite tribe, the family that descends directly from the Prophet Muhammad. The Hashemites produced the emirs and sharifs of Mecca and Medina, those responsible for securing the safety of the Muslim pilgrims performing the Hajj, an annual pilgrimage to Mecca that every religious Muslim should perform at least once in his or her life. Even though the Sharifate of Mecca and Medina, a small state whose territory included Mecca and Medina, had enjoyed some autonomy from the

Ottoman Empire, Hussein bin Ali envisioned an independent Arab state that included the entire peninsula and all Arabs.

The 1915 correspondence between Hussein bin Ali and Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, reveals that the Arabs agreed to revolt against the Ottoman Empire in exchange for recognition of independence by the British. Although the two disagreed on whether some areas would remain under British control, there was a general understanding of what

Photo courtesy of Michael Loadenthal Outside of the Palestinian village of Bil’in, Palestinians held a mourning march while passing through a military checkpoint.

The Wellesley Globalist

42

43 Politics and History

each side was supposed to do to honor the agreement.

While luring the Arabs into the ambiguous agreement, the British also stayed in touch with the French. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is notoriously known in history as proof of the double-dealing and hypocrisy involved in foreign policy decision-making. On May 19, 1916, Sir Mark Sykes and Francois-George Picot signed the agreement, which stated that after winning the war, the Ottoman Empire’s territory in the Middle East would be partitioned mainly between France and Britain in the following way: 1. Lebanon and the Syrian littoral would be under direct French control

2. Central and Southern Mesopotamia, including Baghdad and Haifa, would be under direct British rule 3. Modern-day Syria, Mosul (Northern Iraq), and Jordan - would be Arab states under French influence in the north and British in the south.

4. Palestine would be under an international regime because of its holy places Thus, while supporting the Arabs in their fight for the creation of a great independent Arab state, the French and the English had already prepared a plan on how to increase their influence in the region.

The British did not stop

here with their double-dealing.

In the 1917 Balfour declaration, they proclaimed their support for the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East. It was signed by Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary at the time, and Lord Rothschild, one of the most affluent Jewish leaders. The declaration also clearly stated that this “home for the Jewish people” was not to infringe on the rights of the non-Jewish population of the region.

Thus, the British government made three different promises to three different groups in order to win the World War I. Once it emerged victorious in 1918, however, each side demanded what they were promised.

The British won the mandate for Palestine, at the Versailles Peace Treaty, and it governed Jews and Muslims in Palestine for thirty years until the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948. Hussein was betrayed by his former allies, and his dreams of a united Arab state were crushed. In order to appease him, the British gave the area of Palestine, east of the Jordan River, to one of his sons, Emir Abdullah, whose royal family still rules over the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to this day. His other son, Faisal, became the ruler of Syria in 1920, but during the Franco-Syrian war of 1920 between the Hashemite kingdom of Syria and the French powers, the latter emerged victorious. As a

result, Faisal immigrated to the United Kingdom. Two years later, the British helped him become the ruler of the British Mandate of Iraq. Faisal’s dynasty ruled until 1953 when his grandson Faisal II and the royal family were murdered, and Iraq became a republic.

In the territory to the west of the Jordan River, many Arabs felt that the new Jewish immigrants were taking over their homeland. The Jews, on the other hand, were returning to their Promised Land, an asylum from the horrors of anti-Semitism in Europe. The confrontation between these two nations was inevitable, and many terrorist attacks on both sides claimed the lives of innocent people and only exacerbat-

ed the situation. In 1948 after much fighting, the mandate for Palestine ended and David Ben-Gurion, head of the Zionist organization, proclaimed the birth of Israel. In the meantime, 700,000 Palestinians left the territory of Israel.

Ever since 1948, many wars have been fought in the region, and both sides have presented just claims. But in order to figure out a solution for this quagmire, one has to look back to where it all began. The British did what they thought was necessary to win the war, but the promises they made backfired. A peaceful solution is possible only if the two fighting sides can find the power in themselves to compromise.

Photo by walidhassanein

Photography

Photos courtesy of Shannon Lu taken in Santiago Atitlรกn, Guatemala

The Wellesley Globalist Lecture Series 2015: Exempt

By Tessa Kellner ‘17

Dr. Ben-Josef Hirsch (left) and Dr. Lamia Balafrej (right)

T

he Wellesley Globalist extends a special thanks to Dr. Lamia Balafrej, Assistant Professor of Art at Wellesley, and Dr. Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch, Visiting Lecturer in Wellesley’s Political Science Department.

Students nominated Balafrej and Ben-Josef Hirsch in the interest of hearing these professors apply the term “exempt” to their own fields. Just as the theme “exempt” was posed to the Wellesley student body, Balafrej and Ben-Josef Hirsch had to draw implications and create an argument around a word truly defined by absence.

Balafrej’s presentation, entitled “Is Looking Exempt from Political Utility?,” arose from her view of cartography.

Rather than existing for beauty alone, art offers the viewer a far more subversive option: to treat looking at art as a political action. In this light, even the world map fills the viewer with assumptions of perspective which leave distinct political resonances.

The size of the continents, their shape, and the distance between them cannot possible all be accurate. Thus, the creation of a map requires

focusing on proportionality and deciding which places to undercut for the sake of the desired final product. The clear bias in mapmaking changes which countries draw the eye, but the bias runs deeper. The lack of exposure to a variety of world maps can easily change how the viewer conceptualizes the world.

Ben-Josef Hirsch spoke on forms of moral, social and political exemption present in peace talks through her lecture, “(Non)exempt- Norms of Transition Justice and Conflict Negotiation.” She began with a discussion of the international norms shaping expectations of each country’s responsibility in upholding global standards. By adding these norms to negotiations, countries face positive peer pressure to rise to meet global standards.

Even relatively recent norms, such as recognizing past grievances, gives new regimes the opportunity to redefine their country’s persona on the world stage. Global norms include upholding truth, apologizing for previous aggressions, and promising rights in future situations. These tenets showcase an underlying progression of social facts becoming a commodity, leaving no country exempt from reentering the realm of global relations with more just footing.

The Wellesley Globalist

46

For information about The Wellesley Globalist Please visit our website, http://wellesleyglobalist.org, or contact us through our email, globalist@wellesly.edu