Malliteksti:
Suspicions that the WTC 7 was taken down
Original World Trade Center building 7 was part of the seven building complex as we know World Trade Center.
The official theory is that building 7 collapsed during 11.9.2001. terrorist attack because it was damaged by parts flying of twin towers when they came down.
There are alternative theories of what happened to the building 7 during 911. It was located away from the twin towers witch were hit by planes. No plane hit building 7, it was across the wide yard and building 6 was between twin towers and building 7.
World Trade Centers lease owner Larry Silverstein commented to media right after the collapse that they took the building down but afterwards he denied his comments.
Motive in theory that Silverstein approved the demolition of the damaged building is that he personally gained seven billion us dollars from the insurance companies of all collapsed buildings.
Evidence material, photos and video, has been published and some demolition experts have said after seeing the evidence that they are certain building 7 was taken down with dynamite.
The official report still says that collapse was the result of parts of twin tower building parts hitting building 7, starting fires around the building and finally reach the basement diesel fuel supplies what caused the explosion.
Juho Matilainen
Esimerkki miten ei kannata kirjoittaa:
Nestle boycott
Most of the criticism against Nestle is due to the company’s aggressive marketing of a breast milk substitute-formula. The wide boycott towards Nestle begun on year 1977 in the United States. The boycott gained much publicity and spread rapidly to other countries, especially in Europe.
The main reason of the criticism against Nestles breast milk-substitute reads as follows: Using the substitute instead of naturally breast-feeding the babies has lead to malnutrition and death of infants, especially in developing countries. This is because of many reasons. First of all, the substitute should never be mixed with water. In developing countries tap water is often contaminated. Babies who are fed with the water are altered to various diseases, because they lack the immune system that adults have. Mothers also mix the substitute powder with water to make it last longer. In this case the babies might get inadequate nutrition. The breast milk formula also lacks many of the nutrients that normal breast milk has.
The Nestle boycotters claim that despite of these facts, Nestle continued to aggressively market its breast milk formula and is therefore partly responsible for the death of possibly millions of infants. In third world countries the illiteracy rates are high and there’s a lack of information about proper sanitation. Despite of this, Nestle continued to promote the product especially to these countries.
The boycott caused serious damage to Nestlé’s image. The company has used a lot of resources to repair its image, but is still accused of unethical marketing.
Nestle is a multinational company founded in Switzerland. In year 2007 it made a profit of 11.990 billion (US$). Nestle has 276,050 employees.
Eero Mantymaa
Ja sitten esimerkki tyypillisesta yliopisto-opiskelijan tavasta ilmaista asiat hieman perusteellisemmin :)
We, the civilized are always the ones to know best
I’ve been in Tanzania for three weeks and back home folks will surely inquire: If I was to travel there myself, how to prepare? Definitely the most reasonable instruction I’ve found to give to them would be Binyavanga Wainaina’s article “How to write about Africa” published in Granta 92 in winter 2005.
In his article, Kenyan author, journalist and Cayne prize winner Binyavanga Wainaina born in 1971 in Nakuru criticizes western literacy about Africa with sharp irony. He speaks as if he would be instructing the ways in which to write about Afirca, but in fact the instructions enlight western stereotypes about the “black continent” in general in a marvellous way. E.g. he asks the writers not to be too specific, because “Africa is big: fifty-four countries, 900 million people who are too busy starving and dying and warring and emigrating to read your book” So even if you’d make a couple of mistakes it makes no difference, western readers don’t care to know the truth anyway.
Wainaina describes also the way to write about African people who are not seen as personalities but defined by their role in “African society” – which is naturally one and the same in the whole continent, too. Africans can be described as tribesmen, corrupt politicians or motherly or passionate lovers. They’re all very emotional and romantic but they’re not given a personal voice, characteristics, past or plans for future as whites. Africans are passionate, savage and temptatious wilds in comparison to civilized, educated and rational white people. “African characters should be colourful, exotic, larger than life—but empty inside, with no dialogue, no conflicts or resolutions in their stories, no depth or quirks to confuse the cause”, says Wainaina.
Taboos are also turned upside down, but let Wainaina speak for himself: “Describe, in detail, naked breasts (young, old, conservative, recently raped, big, small) or mutilated genitals, or enhanced genitals. Or any kind of genitals. And dead bodies. Or, better, naked dead bodies. And especially rotting naked dead bodies. The biggest taboo in writing about Africa is to describe or show dead or suffering white people.”
Indeed, the only bad westerns in African literature are somewhere far away, bad politicians or businessmen. But the expats, missionaries and all the other white people in Africa want only good, and that for sure is truth. But coming here and seeing locals as passive, uneducated and unable to understand what’s best to themselves leads to such wrong stereotypes described above. And thus repeating the same mistakes which western colonialists have been doing when writing about Africa on and on, no matter how good the will behind the deeds would be. There’s always something so different in “us” and “them” that you just cannot describe all the people with same rules and that’s why we’ll also never going to start to understand why our good tries and help continue to go wrong.
The same problem with misunderstanding migration occurs everywhere. Here we live in our own western realm without realizing that that those colonialist structures haven’t changed because we’re rebuilding them with ignorance. Back home we blame migrants for stucking in their own ghettos, yet it’s as difficult for westerns to try to fit in the majority here. But the big problem with us is that we assume our view is the norm of the world.
Sunna Kovanen
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti