Zuleyn:

Can you imagine your family being slaughtered by your neighbor, co-worker, or friend? Even though this may sound out of the ordinary this was the issue in Rwanda, in which the Hutus were murdering the Tutsis. Furthermore, lets examine what led to these cold blooded murders. Most Rwandan population belongs to the Hutu, who were traditionally crop growers. For many centuries Rwandan attracted Tutsis, traditionally herdsmen. For 600 years the two groups shared the business of farming. Tutsis tended to be landowners and Hutus the people who worked the land. However, a wedge was driven between them when the European colonist moved in. It was the practice of colonial administrators to select a group to be privileged and educated. The Belgians chose the Tutsis because they were landowners, tall, and to European eyes they appeared aristocratic. Some Tutsis began to behave like peasants, creating an alien political division. Missionaries also came from Europe, bringing a new political twist: the church taught the Hutu to see themselves as oppressed, which inspired revolution. By 1956, their rebellion began. In 1959, the Hutu seized power and were stripping Tutsi communities of their lands. Many Tutsis retreated to exile in neighboring countries, where they formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), and trained their soldiers awaiting attack. After the Hutu gained power and began to govern, tension grew between the countries. In addition, Tutsi resistance was continually growing by repressive measures, such as not being able to attend secondary schools or universities. In 1990 rebels attacked; a civil war began. On April 6, 1994 the plane carrying the first Hutu president was shot down. This was the icing on the cake and the Hutus accused the Tutsis of killing their president. Hutu civilians were told to attack and their duty was to wipe out the Tutsis. Thus genocide in Rwanda began.

Tyler:

Over eight hundred thousand people died in less than one hundred days in the genocide of Rwanda. The international community knew about the atrocities that were happening daily but stood by and did nothing. Why was there no political will to stay in Rwanda and stop the genocide? Perhaps the best answer to this question is a quote from a congressman who was a member of the council on national security. He said “The United States doesn’t have friends, we have interests, and we are not interested in Rwanda” (Ghosts of Rwanda part 4). It is easy to place the blame for the western world’s indifference towards Rwanda on the people who appear most responsible; Kofi Annan, President Clinton, Madeline Albright, or the Belgian, French, or US governments. But if we blame them we are ignoring the fact that they are just players in a flawed game. We cannot expect these players to act differently because they are acting in accordance with the system our society has created. A system so flawed that the murder of 8 Belgian soldiers was enough to convince the whole western world to stand down and let Hutu militias kill 800,000 unarmed civilians. A system where the lives of a few countrymen are worth more than hundreds of thousands of human beings, where a live is only worth saving if it doesn’t cost you anything. In retrospect the solution seems obvious, commit 10,000 troops or so to protecting the Rwandan civilians and saving hundreds of thousands of lives, however the system in place didn’t allow for that possibility. The breakdown in Somalia had just concluded in 1993 when the United States pulled out of Somalia after 19 American soldiers died. The international community was not ready for another failed intervention and our elected leaders were pushed to comply by the system in place. This sentiment is expressed by President Clinton’s national security advisor in his statement “We don’t want to send American marines over there and have to bring them back in coffins, there’s just no incentive” (Ghosts of Rwanda part 4). From a political standpoint there was just no reason to commit a peacekeeping force to Rwanda. In order for it to be politically desirable under the system in place it must either be economically lucrative or an action the public would stand behind. Since losing American lives is not something that the public wanted to face and there was no monetary incentive in Rwanda the system influenced the officials to act immorally by not acting at all.

Rene:

Melchior Ndadaye, the first president ever elected in Burundi was murdered by the Burundian Tutsi-dominate army in 1993.  This only made the situation worsen.  Following this event a brutal civil war broke between Tutsi and Hutu which then managed to reach the other side of the border into Rwanda.  The United Nations provided a small “peacekeeping” army named the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, this small force did not last long in Rwanda due to the fact that this situation and group was over looked, underfunded.  The UNAMIR was not prepared and could not do much in the middle of a horrifying civil war.  Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaires of UNAMIR at one point asked for additional troops and changes to the rules of engagement to prevent the coming genocide, but all of his request were ignored.  The second Burundian president was also assassinated along with the Hutu president of Rwanda when the jet they were traveling in was shot down by the Uganda army.  People believe that the U.S. had something to do with the assassination to create access to Congolese natural resources.  Whatever the reason might have been for this situation to develop it became a part of the cycle that keeps on getting repeated over and over all over the world.  It is a system which humans take part of repeat evilly.

Thaican [Intro]:

Team - Allergic to Eggs: Rene Bermudez, Zuleyn Morales, Leci Kringen, Austin Murphy, 

Tyler McGeorge, Steffen Andrews, Thaican Nguyen

Instructor: Skye Gentile

Communication 2

05-31-09

Collaborative Reaction Paper: “Crimes against Humanity, Genocide, Rape and Terror”

Evil can be defined as intentionally behaving or causing others to act in ways that demean, dehumanize, harm, destroy, or kill innocent people.  Evil is knowing better and doing worse.(Gentile)  The Rwanda genocide has been named a “triumph of evil” by some.  This event has brought attention to the conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis, which has actually extended over centuries.  Early in their history, the Tutsis conquered the Hutus homeland and established dominance over them.  Even during their colonization, the Tutsis retained dominance over the Hutu.  When they were freed from colonization there was a huge power missing, which the Tutsi and Hutu fought to fill.  This struggle resulted in the formation of two new nations, Rwanda, which was ruled by the Hutus, and Burundi,  which was ruled by the Tutsis.  In the following decades, their conflict would escalate to the Rwanda Genocide.  

In 1994, both the Rwandan and Burundi presidents were killed in a airplane crash.  Almost immediately after, the Hutu began to call for the elimination of the Tutsi.   Despite this knowledge, the world turned their back on the death of nearly one million Tutsi civilians.  There are a couple different variables that are attributed to the evil acts that occurred in Rwanda.  The powers of evil are the powers of the person, the situation, and the system.  In this case, due to the history of conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis, the Hutus have an ingrained disposition to treat the Tutsis as enemies and invaders.  The circumstances of the situation, the death of the presidents and withdrawal of UN troops also worked to facilitate the evil actions.  Finally, the culture and history of the Hutu and Tutsi has put them in a system that makes it difficult for them to approach this conflict in any other way.

GROUP REACTION PAPER PROMT

Reaction Post “Crimes against Humanity, Genocide, Rape and Terror”

Read the excerpt from Lucifer Effect pages 12-16

Consider the evil acts thro the lens of disposition, situation, and system influences.  Explain which variable you can see working in the scenario (disposition, situation, and system). Cite sources and define terms respectively.

OR

Identify several (minimal 7) of the “evil traps” that you see operating in the scenario.  Justify your answer with supporting text from the scenario. Define any terms and cite sources respectively.

Person: is the actor on stage of life whose behavioral freedom is informed by his or her makeup--genetic, biological, physical and psychological

Situation: is the behavioral context that has power, through its reward and normative functions.  To give meaning or identity to the actors role and status.

System: consists of the agents and agencies whose ideology, values, and power, create situations and dictate the roles and expectation for approved behavior of actors within its spheres of influence

http://www.playlist.com/playlist/16449854475

[05-07-09] All Members Present

      vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

[:< >>>>>>!!!!Read!!!!<<<<<<  >:]

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Organize Leadership Presentation: Due May 21st

-Activity Idea...?

-Visual Aids...?

-Handout...?

After all is said and done...

We realize we're just getting started. We showed our film tonight at Spring Fling...aside from a few minor details, we were really happy with our results. I'm really glad that we didn't get a look at how many people were in the auditorium before we were finished because if we had seen all those people before we started speaking...I would have had an accident. We hope to resume shooting tomorrow after class...so get ready for more awesome stuff.

Steffen.......
and Austin.

"get your big mac ready."

punk*d parody videos. Steffen check these out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxCEPbqbei8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMc0oJl0oLw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRXEHgUcczs

[04-30-09] All members present

Diffusion of Responsibility:
Diffusion of responsibility is the idea that people are less likely to intervene to help someone who seems to need it if there are others present, because they perceive responsibility as being shared between all present, and therefore see themselves as being less responsible personally.

Bystanders effect:
The bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely proportional to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help.[1]

[04-18-09] Saturday Meetup: Austin, Steffen, Tyler, Leci, and Zuleyn

2nd Day: Stealing my bike
Location: Downtown Santa Cruz

We did more experiments with Tyler stealing "Steffen's" bike. This time, no one attempted to stop him, although numerous people told Steffen that they saw his bike getting stolen. Some people even used excuses like, "I was using my iphone, so i couldn't do anything."


Next Class:
Bring footage to class
Consolidate all of our footage
Get footage to imovie
Synergize

[04-07-09] Tuesday group meet: Austen, Steffen, Tyler, Paul

Bring footage to class.

upload videos

[04-04-09] Saturday meet up

Experiment:Stealing my bike
Location: Boardwalk Wharf

We took several different takes of "Stealing my bike". After getting comfortable with filming and our positioning, we started to get some real results. One man actually jumped up from his seat ready to chase Tyler down after he "stole" my bike. We were swift to assure the man this was a social experiment because he was ready to beat some ass. An A+ citizen for sure. Satisfied with our progress and slightly scared of being apprehended by more outstanding citizens, we decided to call it a day.

Next time:
**Bring DvDs
**Upload footage
**Certificates
**Variations

[04-02-09] All members present

------------------------------------------------------------------

!!!!!!SATURDAY MEET UP: 12:00pm, Boardwalk!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Leadership Book Checklist:

[x]Paul 

[x]Steffen 

[x]Austin 

[  ]Tyler

[  ]Zulyen

[  ]Rene

[  ]Leci 

Final Experiment Selections:

1. Anyone will take free stuff

-

2. Stealing my bike

-Diffusion of responsibility is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. This mindset can be seen in the phrase "No one raindrop thinks it caused the flood"

-The bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely proportional to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help.^[1]

3. The real Metal Gear Solid

-Deindividualisation

-Diffusion of responsibility

***Man vs Man/Woman vs Man

[03-31-09] (Tues team meet)

Social Experiment Selections:

1. Everyone will take free stuff

2. Stealing a bike

3. 

**Following Box & Bush

[03-26-09] All Members Present

Bystanders effect:

Kidnapping

Dropping stuff (homeless dropping stuff)

Picture Swap Experiment

People will take anything if it is free 

Asking for change

You can get in anywhere if you say you're a dj

Narrow down experiments.  Find out what each shows.

[03-19-09] (All member present)

Social Experiment discussion:

- Places

- Materials

[03-12-09] (All member present)

Agenda:

-Team Poster

a. Team Name

b. Team Members

c. Team Qualities

 [04-05-09] Agenda: (all members present)

>>>GET YOUR BOOK<<<

Group Project Ideas:

-Social Experiment Brainstorm:

Person Swap Experiment 

-Stages of development:

1. Forming - 

2. Storming -

3. Norming - 

4. Performing - 

Team Members: 

Tyler, Leci, Austin, Steffen, Paul, Zuleyn, Rene

Leadership Book: 

Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl

Group Goal: 

Team Rules:

• Set up basic rules and guidelines: Black= rules from class, Blue = rules i altered, or added Green = rules i was unsure about
  
• Show up to each thursday meeting & each out of class meeting prepared
• Attend all group meetings unless you have a legitimate excuse
• If unable to attend group meeting a group meeting or will be showing up late, please notify group members as soon as possible.
• A group member is allowed to miss one group meeting without penalty, if a group member misses a second group meeting they are required to bring a treat to the following group meeting for all other group members, if a group member misses a third group meeting they are eligible for expulsion from the group. 
• Group members are allowed 3 strikes before they are eligible for expulsion from the group. A strike is an action by one or more group members that hurts the group significantly. Ex: Not showing up to meetings, Showing up to meetings unprepared, Not finishing assigned work, Not contributing to the group, are all examples of potential strikes.
• The legitimacy of a strike can be appealed and taken to a vote if desired. A majority of group members must decide against the strike if the strike is to be repealed.
• After 3 strikes a group member may be voted out of the group, vote should be anonymous. 5 or more members must vote the group member out in order for the member to be expelled from the group.
• Rules may be added at a later date, as long as a unanimous vote in favor of the rule is attained.

Team Roles: 

Discussed potential roles for group meetings:

• Leader/Moderator
• Record keeper
  
• Agenda maker/Timekeeper
• Host??