King Leopold's Ghost has provided extremely thorough details on the events surrounding the colonization of the Congo by Leopold, includes the psychology of those who chose to participate in the atrocities of the Congo. However, this book has not drastically changed my view on the modern issues of exploration and exploitation. First of all, the book goes explains how the majority of the "villains" of the Congo ordeal had traumatic childhoods and dubious morals before traveling to Africa, Stanley and Leopold for example. The Congo just allowed these troubled people to act out without the external double checks present in Europe. Expecting immoral people to act moral under without authoritative corrections - it was illegal to murder or enslave people back in Europe - is unrealistic.
Also the premises of exploration does not exactly apply to the modern world. Besides the deepest trenches in at the bottom of the sea and the far reaches of space, people have essentially mapped the entire world. There are no "dark areas" like that of Africa in the early 1900's. Additionally, the modern day person has almost immediate knowledge of the events all over the world. From the video footage of the Arab Spring to the coverage of the Indian gang rape scandal, the average American (or citizen of a developed region) can follow major international events. In terms of exploitation, this book has not drastically altered my perspective. Exploitation by definition, is an immoral action, whether it is needlessly destroying resources or using slave labor. I already had a clear stance on this issue, so Hochschild's book recount of the horrific and wasteful exploitation of the native lands by particular regime, just added more support to my preordained perspective.
While King Leopold's Ghost does not significantly alter my perspective on the modern issues of exploitation and exploration, the book does chronicle some extremely corrosive elements of humanity. Similar to memoirs of the survivors of the Holocaust, it sheds light on the harshness of the world the value of modernization and civilization. Only through the intervention of the moral citizens United States, England and some of the other European countries was Leopold and his employees stopped. Although the literal details and and moral implications are not directly applicable to the modern day, it King Leopold's Ghost contributes to the understanding of humanity.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Response to Question 3
3. What drew the average Europeans to places like Central Africa? What made them think that they could leave their "bourgeois mortality back in Europe?"
For the longest time Africa was known as the "dark continent" due to the Europeans lack of knowledge about the vast interior. However after the Berlin Conference, which laid out the rules for colonial expansion into Africa, the imperialistic tendencies of the European countries were ignited, leading to the Great Push, a race between the armies of the imperialistic countries to claim as much interior land as possible. In 20 years, between 1880 and 1900, a little less than 90 percent of Africa was colonized by the Europeans, with only Ethiopia and Liberia remaining free. Caught up in the national frenzy for the glory of conquest, many average Europeans sought out the riches and opportunity of Central Africa. The region's abundance of natural minerals such as gold, coltan and diamonds as well as other highly lucrative goods like rubber, ivory and, to a certain extent, timber, lead to the mass extraction of these materials through the use of African slave labor. The horrific treatment of the African slaves and exploration of the resources of the region during this period of imperialism and European conquest has led to the questioning of the morality of the Europeans.
The premise of the question above states that the Europeans who participated in these atrocious actions actively or consciously left their morality behind in Europe. However, that premise ignores many crucial aspects of humanity and morality. For some Europeans, their actions in Africa did not violate their inherent morality. Throughout history slaves and other peoples have always been deemed as inferior beings. Slaves could be mistreated, abused and killed and their 'owners' would have not blink about the morality. Although European countries at that time were beginning to outlaw slavery, the concept that everyone was born equal had not been fully embraced by all members of European society. Additionally, the Europeans that had started out with a strong moral code, compatible with the current sense of morality, most likely did not just through away their "bourgeois mortality." Fear and pain are extremely strong motivators and can cause a shift in the moral code. Central Africa in the late 1800's was fraught with danger and peril, from the natural hazards of the region - e.g. large carnivorous wildlife and deadly, pervasive and contagious diseases - to the threat the native Africans presented. Actions under duress are not, and should not, be held to the same standard to those under normal circumstances. While it is clear that Europeans' actions in Central Africa are inconstant with what society now considers moral and just, we should not judge past actions by today's standards.
For the longest time Africa was known as the "dark continent" due to the Europeans lack of knowledge about the vast interior. However after the Berlin Conference, which laid out the rules for colonial expansion into Africa, the imperialistic tendencies of the European countries were ignited, leading to the Great Push, a race between the armies of the imperialistic countries to claim as much interior land as possible. In 20 years, between 1880 and 1900, a little less than 90 percent of Africa was colonized by the Europeans, with only Ethiopia and Liberia remaining free. Caught up in the national frenzy for the glory of conquest, many average Europeans sought out the riches and opportunity of Central Africa. The region's abundance of natural minerals such as gold, coltan and diamonds as well as other highly lucrative goods like rubber, ivory and, to a certain extent, timber, lead to the mass extraction of these materials through the use of African slave labor. The horrific treatment of the African slaves and exploration of the resources of the region during this period of imperialism and European conquest has led to the questioning of the morality of the Europeans.
The premise of the question above states that the Europeans who participated in these atrocious actions actively or consciously left their morality behind in Europe. However, that premise ignores many crucial aspects of humanity and morality. For some Europeans, their actions in Africa did not violate their inherent morality. Throughout history slaves and other peoples have always been deemed as inferior beings. Slaves could be mistreated, abused and killed and their 'owners' would have not blink about the morality. Although European countries at that time were beginning to outlaw slavery, the concept that everyone was born equal had not been fully embraced by all members of European society. Additionally, the Europeans that had started out with a strong moral code, compatible with the current sense of morality, most likely did not just through away their "bourgeois mortality." Fear and pain are extremely strong motivators and can cause a shift in the moral code. Central Africa in the late 1800's was fraught with danger and peril, from the natural hazards of the region - e.g. large carnivorous wildlife and deadly, pervasive and contagious diseases - to the threat the native Africans presented. Actions under duress are not, and should not, be held to the same standard to those under normal circumstances. While it is clear that Europeans' actions in Central Africa are inconstant with what society now considers moral and just, we should not judge past actions by today's standards.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Senior Project Research Paper
The research paper went fairly well for me. I did not procrastinate too much, so I was able to spend the necessary time ensuring that it was well written and complied with all the check boxes mandated by the MLA format. I did not get my paper back, so I assume that it satisfied the standards of the graders on their first past. Honestly, the senior project paper was not exceptionally memorable due to its relatively short length, lack of stress associated with the multiple due dates and the low standards general infamous of the senior project. The only thing I wish I had done differently was increase my optimization of time devoted to writing and researching the paper to the quality. I spent a couple of extra hours on the paper that should have been spent elsewhere. In terms of content, I could always include more sources. Other than that, the senior project research paper was relatively short and low stress project.
Research Paper Response
Welcome to February Response:
1. My research paper is on the regulations, fallacies and benefits of compounding pharmacies manufacturing of pharmaceutical drugs in light of the most recent meningitis epidemic.
2. My most valuable source is the actual FDA regulation guide to the production of pharmaceutical drugs in relation to compounding pharmacies. It contrast the standard procedures and safety requirements to that of the New England compounding pharmacies. It also shows the extent to which the FDA can regulate these small scale manufacturing sites.
3. My view is that the current setup of FDA regulations allow for an unnecessary and problematic grey zone. The FDA should not be able to regulate the compounding pharmacies because they are only intended to produce small batches of individualized medicine. However, many compounding pharmacies, like the New England compounding pharmacy that created the contaminated injectables, sell their products across state lines. The state regulatory standards are not up to par to ensure the safety and quality of manufactured drugs. There needs to be some sort of restructuring - i.e. allowing the FDA to regulate if documented interstate commerce of the compounding pharmacies - in order to prevent additional outbreaks.
4. The concept of manufacturing and even the technical jargon is relatively simple compared to the more detailed and specific science. My paper is less about the science behind manufacturing and more on the applications and regulations. A few concepts might need to be explained. For example, I do not think the general public understands what CAPA means. It stands for corrective action, preventative action, an indicator for the level of modifications needed to ensure the safe and consistent manufacturing of items - particularly pharmaceutical drugs.
5. One of the biggest "whoa!" moments, as you say, was my comprehension to the extent of the negligence of the compounding pharmacists, the board members of this company and the regulatory agencies (both state and federal). The batch of contaminated injectables contained visible fungal particulates, in other words, big chunks of fungus and mold in the supposedly sterile environment. The board members failed to do appropriate due diligence on the miscreant who ran the New England compounding pharmacies after leaving Chicago do to morally dubious actions involving another compounding pharmacy. Additionally, the FDA already knew that the New England compounding pharmacies was in blatant violation of the standard regulations years before the outbreak.
1. My research paper is on the regulations, fallacies and benefits of compounding pharmacies manufacturing of pharmaceutical drugs in light of the most recent meningitis epidemic.
2. My most valuable source is the actual FDA regulation guide to the production of pharmaceutical drugs in relation to compounding pharmacies. It contrast the standard procedures and safety requirements to that of the New England compounding pharmacies. It also shows the extent to which the FDA can regulate these small scale manufacturing sites.
3. My view is that the current setup of FDA regulations allow for an unnecessary and problematic grey zone. The FDA should not be able to regulate the compounding pharmacies because they are only intended to produce small batches of individualized medicine. However, many compounding pharmacies, like the New England compounding pharmacy that created the contaminated injectables, sell their products across state lines. The state regulatory standards are not up to par to ensure the safety and quality of manufactured drugs. There needs to be some sort of restructuring - i.e. allowing the FDA to regulate if documented interstate commerce of the compounding pharmacies - in order to prevent additional outbreaks.
4. The concept of manufacturing and even the technical jargon is relatively simple compared to the more detailed and specific science. My paper is less about the science behind manufacturing and more on the applications and regulations. A few concepts might need to be explained. For example, I do not think the general public understands what CAPA means. It stands for corrective action, preventative action, an indicator for the level of modifications needed to ensure the safe and consistent manufacturing of items - particularly pharmaceutical drugs.
5. One of the biggest "whoa!" moments, as you say, was my comprehension to the extent of the negligence of the compounding pharmacists, the board members of this company and the regulatory agencies (both state and federal). The batch of contaminated injectables contained visible fungal particulates, in other words, big chunks of fungus and mold in the supposedly sterile environment. The board members failed to do appropriate due diligence on the miscreant who ran the New England compounding pharmacies after leaving Chicago do to morally dubious actions involving another compounding pharmacy. Additionally, the FDA already knew that the New England compounding pharmacies was in blatant violation of the standard regulations years before the outbreak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)