External Things Defining the Internal (Part 1 of 12 ¾)

“Zulus”, “Clays Ark”, “Zone One,” and “Medical Apartheid” all share a similar theme of the conflict that comes with being externally rather than internally defined. That is, being told what you are rather than willing your self to be itself. In “Zulus,” we can see this clearly from people’s attitudes towards Alice Acitophel; she’s fat and judged very negatively as a result; she’s fat in a context where being fat is far from the norm and implies wrongdoing—eating too much food in a food-starved world. She is further defined later as a cow, as an animal to be milked for the benefits that others will partake in at Alice’s expense. In “Clay’s Ark”, Eli and the other infected individuals meet with the negative knee-jerk reactions of Rane and her father Blake, who look with disgust and self-interested worry at the infected. Even more powerfully, Eli has to wrestle internal with defining himself as an external force enters Eli’s body and begins affecting his inward definition of himself. In Eli’s case, it is not merely himself against an external thing—like another person’s judgment—rather, it is Eli against an external thing (the organism) that has entered him and has begun changing him from within. In “Zone One”, as with “Clay’s Ark”, the infected, as far as can be seen in the story, are exclusively defined from without by the uninfected survivors of the plague. So it is with the history in “Medical Apartheid”, where blacks are frequently defined from without, typically by whites and typically by whites that possess a great degree of power, e.g. doctors, and value is placed upon these external judgments of the victim’s worth. In other words, external forces define an other’s worth.

The pain that comes along with this—with the self being defined from without—can be clearly seen in the aforementioned works, as well as in other literature such as Du Bois’ “The Souls of Black Folk” and Langston Hughes’ “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain.” One is, according to Du Bois, and borne out by some studies, placed behind a great veil in which they are separated from another world through no action of their own. Rather, an external force has deemed, consciously or implicitly, that separate spheres must, and therefore do, exist. From behind this veil one becomes ever aware of one’s twoness; that one is both who they will to be internal, and who they are determined to be by external things. One is conscious of himself as he defines himself, but is also conscious of how other define him, and he must always navigate these two worlds. There comes to be a lack of concord in one’s heart: I am that I am, but the world sees and treats me differently from how I am internally. With Alice Acitophel, we can see that she possesses a naturally kind heart (albeit she is very naïve), yet she is treated poorly by others on account of her physical appearance, which they have deemed to be a serious crime. Shen she becomes thin, however, she becomes more like the perfect Lucinda Knotes and is generally treated better by the people she subsequently meets. Eli in “Clay’s Ark” has to cope with the natural internal problem of defining oneself, a natural external defining him (i.e. other people’s perceptions of him), and an external that enters him and changes him from within. The individuals in Medical Apartheid, likewise, are defined from without in contradiction with their presumed internal definitions of themselves. (No one wills to be victim of non-consensual medical exploitation that leads to so much suffering.) The common theme of being defined externally found in these works is clearly displayed as a source of significant trauma and suffering in the victims’ lives.

Harmful Tropes: A Look Into The Walking Dead

The Walking Dead, a long running TV show, plays on many tropes of zombie culture. Slow, tattered, partly eaten zombies roam the world posing a threat to those not yet infected. It’s a common theme of this particular genre. Most wouldn’t think of it as anything, I know I didn’t when I’d sit and watch episode after episode with my family.  

Within The Walking Dead is another trope-the taking of “trophies”. One character, a member of the good guy group, named Daryl creates a necklace of severed zombie ears, cutting them off after killing them. These ears are “trophies”, a show of his kills, his toughness, an element to the badass persona he presents. Daryl is not the only character to do this. The Governor, an antagonist, keeps the severed heads of the living dead in jars filled with water. Because only destroying the brain will put the living dead back to dead, these heads are still very much alive.  Those heads, like Daryl’s necklace of ears, were the Governor’s trophies, a show of his skill and sociopathic nature. Now, I saw a difference in them. Daryl was just taking ears, the ears of random dead people. It was icky, but not concerning. The Governor, was much more concerning, as he was making the undead suffer, instead of putting them out of their misery. A class discussion made me realize, that no, at a fundamental level, both are very wrong. No matter if it is Daryl or the Governor, both are ignoring the bodily autonomy of those who they use for their trophies. Those who they take from are people, they were living, breathing people, just like Daryl, just like me. With that I began to understand that the trope of mutilating dead bodies in order to take trophies has been a reality, not a trope, for many years. 

In my Native American Literature class with Dr. Woidat, I learned about the Sand Creek Massacre. This was an event in history even my AP teachers had neglected to teach me about. Simon J. Ortiz notes in his book from Sand Creek (buy it here), that the Native tribes living on the shores of Sand Creek believed they would be protected by the American Flag they had been given, saying “The People had been assured they would be protected by the flag.”(pg. 8), however they were not. Lead by John Chivington, the village was attacked by 700 armed men. 700 armed men who killed 105 women and children, and 28 men (pg.8). The men after massacring the village then took their own trophies. They took the body parts of the women, the children, and the men, mutilating and humiliating the bodies of these peaceful people. The men took these body parts, from ears to fingers to genitals, and pinned them to their hats, a show of their kills. A show of how inhuman these men saw Native Americans. (For further reading: Witness Accounts from The Sand Creek Massacre and The Sand Creek Massacre-The Smithsonian. I will warn you both articles talk of the cutting of bodies, however the Witness Accounts are very graphic, so please be aware of that if you choose to read it.)  This is not the only time in history this has occurred. 

Harriet Washington in her book Medical Apartheid addresses the issue of the nonconsensual mutilation of one’s corpse. In 1846, Dr. Pray started medical school, feeling bad for a “poor, despised, and disregarded” African American girl, who he then began to dissect. A year later, the same man would take enjoyment in scaring women with a piece of a dead African American person, a piece of someone he had saved from the dissection table (pg. 112-113). Dr. Pray used this poor person’s body, this unnamed person, as a trophy. A person who seemed so capable of understanding, a good guy, taking a trophy and having such disrespect for another’s body. Yet this not far off from the actions of Daryl. This didn’t stop here. Grave robbing was a common practice, and medical schools prided themselves in being able to get these bodies, as if taking these bodies gave them some form of trophy, a sick sign that they were better than colleges with less stolen bodies (pg.132). These bodies were subjected to postmortem racism, by being taken from their final resting place and being illegally smuggled into a college basement. From there they would be dissected, their bodies subjected to being taken apart in front of a group of students. A trophy for their learning, a mutation of the body to those taken.  

The Walking Dead is not the only work of fiction to touch on the taking of trophies. Colson Whitehead’s novel Zone One is another zombie story, however it gives us a new look at the taking of trophies. Mark Spitz has a disliking for the living who mutilate the bodies of those suffering from the plague. On page 142 Whitehead gives a glimpse into Mark Spitz’s thinking, saying: “He had a particular dislike for No Mas, who bragged around Wonton about his scrapbook of straggler humiliation.” then again when the Lieutenant says: “No, you’re right. Mustn’t humanize them.” (pg.195). Both of these quotes show that because of the lack of humanization people have found it acceptable to take trophies from people. Sure, these are zombies, but they are still people, people whose bodily rights should still be respected. Mark Spitz has humanized the skels and stragglers, the living dead who he sees as deserving of this respect. Contrasted with the systematic dehumanization of the skels, Whitehead is able to show the disrespect that comes with mutilating dead bodies.  Mark Spitz serves as a reminder that even after death, one should see the person, not just the body. There should be no taking of trophies, no using the body for experiments, instead the body should be treated with respect and laid to rest properly. Unfortunately The Walking Dead only shows this when a main character loses their life. Not a bad guy and most certainly not a random zombie.

The taking of trophies comes from a lack of acknowledging that even the dead are people, be it through systematic dehumanization or through an individual’s own sadistic behavior. To understand how this trope is so harmful one should remember that these tropes have a history, a brutal violent history, behind them. They are not a badass zombie survivor trope, they are severed ears of Indian chiefs at Sand Creek, they are stolen bodies from African American graveyards. Tropes can hurt, and I hope that I can be more aware of this and the history behind it. I’ve said this a lot but I keep feeling the need to remind myself, if we don’t learn from history we will be doomed to repeat it, and that goes for the history behind our favorite shows.

Epidemics in Reality and Fictionally

By definition, an epidemic as a noun is “an outbreak of disease that spreads quickly and affects many individuals at the same time : an outbreak of epidemic disease” (Merriam-Webster). As an adjective, the word renders a different meaning, focusing on the aspect widespread growth. In this case, when referring to an epidemic, I am using it in its noun form; an event of disease outbreak that has occurred or is to take place. Building off of my last post, I aim to connect a real-life epidemic that has occurred to the hypothetical questions I had posed. In 2014, an Ebola epidemic broke out rapidly in Africa, labelled as the West African Epidemic (CDC, 2019). Within this epidemic, there were instances where infected individuals who were not kept in isolation had traveled elsewhere, risking further spread of the epidemic. In this way, this specific epidemic corresponds to my questioning of the parts to a whole in an epidemic, as seen in Clay’s Ark by Octavia Butler.

When the West African Epidemic occurred in 2014, an infected person from Guinea traveled to Mali, spreading the illness (CDC, 2019). Luckily, the virus was mostly contained, with only 8 reported cases and 6 deaths (CDC, 2019). The only way this potential further spreading of the epidemic was maintained was through the isolation and close monitoring of infected persons in Mali. Had the individuals been released and had traveled as did the original infector, the epidemic would have taken over more countries. In this instance, the removal of those persons’ freedoms in order to contain the illness may be seen as beneficiary to the whole. For the persons themselves, remaining in isolation waiting upon their possible death, may have been torturous. Similarly to those in Clay’s Ark, those who were originally infected and demanded isolation upon themselves with contained spreading of the disease, could be possibly seen as partially analogous to the CDC. In the text, Meda, who is one of those who started the enclave explains to Blake, a newly infected individual, “If you escaped now and managed to reach other people, you’d eventually give them the disease. You’d spread it to everyone you could reach…” (Butler, 489). In this sense, those who originally formed the enclave want to overall contain the disease to a certain area to prevent an epidemic.

Then, on the other hand, those newly infected by the enclave who demanded freedom, such as Blake, could be seen as those who traveled while infected. Although , I must point out, those who traveled may have not had malicious intent as they most likely were unaware that they even carried the infection. However, they still practiced freedom while infected with the illness, and that is where my connection between the two lays. The characters newly infected in Clay’s Ark were also compelled to experience freedom as they were in denial that they were truly infected before their symptoms started. Blake’s daughter, Rane, tells an enclave member, “…Isn’t it time to break the chain? You and I could get away together. We could get help,” and he answered, “…We’re infectious for as much as two weeks before we start to show symptoms…” (Butler, 535). In this sense, a parallel can be drawn between those who traveled without knowing they were infected with Ebola and characters of Clay’s Ark who wished to escape as they did not think they were infected either.

As this post bounces off a previous post of mine, I further the investigation between today’s epidemics and that of which was presented in our course reading of Clay’s Ark. The sacrifice of freedom done so by those infected with Ebola during the time of outbreak is what enabled the illness to be contained and for the epidemic to cease its spread. In this real-life case, it can be seen that the isolation of few was deemed necessary to benefit the greater good, by stopping the risk of infection. Stemming off of my previous post, I deepen the questions I posed by asking readers to now consider this present-day scenario with that to the fictional proposition of an epidemic in Clay’s Ark.

Personally, my perception of the comparison between sacrifice of individuals’ freedoms for the protection of the greater good has became clearer with the analysis of an epidemic in reality that affected our world. Upon my reading of our class’ text Clay’s Ark, I went back and forth between where to place my sympathy. It oscillated between sympathizing for those trying to escape and obtain their previous freedom and my understanding of those who started the enclave wanting to contain the organism. A portion of me felt for the escapees as they struggled with their forced isolation. However, at the same time, in the back of my mind I felt for those trying to save the greater whole, regardless of the freedoms being sacrificed by the individuals. By analyzing this epidemic case of Ebola in 2014, I find that I myself sympathizes more with those trying to isolate individuals to protect the rest of the population. I wonder if this does the same for those who read this in the sense of a change in perspective or solidification of a view already conceived.

What is Uninformed Consent?

Continuing the conversation of consent, I have realized consent has more layers than the simple, informed discussion that leads to a yes or no reply or signature. I am aware that as a society, we struggle with the idea of what consent truly means and how to use it in every circumstance. With that being, when someone asks the question, “What do you want in a relationship?” most reply with the simple “I do not know” then, a follow-up question occurs with “Well if you know what you want.. What don’t you want?” Most likely, after that question, the majority of people have a laundry list of characteristics and negatives of what they do not want in a partner. That laundry list leads to one finding what they do want, its a start, so why can’t we do that for consent? 

One example of uninformed consent is Madrigal v Quilligan, a class-action lawsuit against L.A. County doctors, the state, and the federal government, which included ten working-class Mexican-origin women who had been coerced into sterilization after undergoing cesarean deliveries. In the article No Más Bebés,” revives 1975 forced-sterilization lawsuit in L.A” Consuelo Hermosillo, one of the ten expresses her story of being forced into sterilization. 

“At 23, Hermosillo was having her third child with her husband. But before she could be seen by the doctor, she was asked to sign papers consenting to sterilization.

“You better sign those papers or your baby is going to die,” a woman told her in Spanish, recalled Hermosillo, a native of Veracruz, Mexico. “As soon as you sign, they’ll take you in.”

Hermosillo didn’t want to sign. She was too young and wanted to speak with her husband first. Leaving the hospital, however, she carried the last child she would ever be able to conceive.

“I don’t remember signing the consent form,” said Hermosillo, now 66. “They decided for me.” 

Without a doubt, this is nonconsensual due to the language barrier, powerful words, and the sensitive situation of the women being pregnant. How is someone who speaks another language going to understand what is going to happen? Using pressure and the job at hand to decide on the spot is unlawful. It is noted that the demand for sterilization was to keep the immigration population under control during the 1970s. All together, we can see the intent of these doctors was malicious, and these women lost control of there bodies, and lifestyle all due to lack of communication. 

In the novel, Clay’s Ark by Octava Buttler is another example of how the idea of consent is thrown out the window. Blake and his twin daughters Kiera and Rane, are kidnapped by a group of people who withhold a disease that can be transmitted by touch. This disease has life-threating consequences. Eli and Meda, the ring leaders of the group, explain to Blake and his daughters will be given an organism that co-hosts with them. “We got together and decided that for your sake and ours, people in your position should be protected from too much truth too soon. I was the minority of one, voting for honesty… The others thought people like you wouldn’t believe the truth, that it would scare you more than necessary and you’d try harder to escape.” (Buttler, 471). Eli gives the notion that is was a group decision to kidnap people, infected them, and then later tell them the truth behind the organism. Not only is the way they are infected people is nonconsensual, but how one is infected another way consent is not a factor.

“Have I been infected?”

She turned her head to look at him, smiled sadly. “Oh yes.”

 “The Food?” 

“No. The food was just food. Me.”

“Contact?” 

“No inoculation…”

“You would have done that even if I hadn’t had the knife?” He asked 

“Yes” (Buttler, 485-86)

Buttler clearly shows that Blake and his daughter Rane have no say in wanting to receive the disease. Kidnapping is the unlawful action of taking someone with force and keeping that person in detention under their will. Now when analyzing Clay’s Ark, there is a distinct notion that consent is not even a factor due to kidnapping and giving them a disease they did not ask for. 

With the court case Madrigal v Quilligan and the novel Clay’s Ark, there is a pattern of unconfirmed consent when it comes to the people involved. That one person or group has already made the preconceived notion of making the decision to infected or alter someone else’s life. The characteristics of unconfirmed consent are also shown in the book Medical Apartheid by Harriet A. Washington. Ebb Cade, an African American truck driver, was in an accident that left the majority of his bones broken, but he was able to survive this accident, but with his survival came a price. Doctor Robert S. Stone expresses this story with his colleague Doctor Karl Z. Morgan, “he was rushed to the military hospital .. and he had multiple fractures. Almost all his bones were broken, and we were surprised he was alive when he got to the hospital; we did not expect him to be alive the next morning. So this was an opportunity we’ve been waiting for. We gave him large doses by injection of plutonium-239” (Washington, 216). Plutonium-239 is an isotope of plutonium. Plutonium-239 is the primary fissile isotope used for the production of nuclear weapons. These doctors injected a black male with a dangerous chemical at a large dose without his consent. “On April 10, without his consent and five days before setting his broken bones, military physical Jospeh Howland injected Cade with 4.7 micrograms of plutonium– forty-one times the normal lifetime exposure.” (Washington, 217) In this case, it is a clear understanding that these Doctors took advantage of this man’s life to experiment with the process of decay or reaction when plutonium en into the body. These doctors, for a matter of six months, held Cadd and tested him until Cadd one day finally escaped. Another example of how, when looking for the characteristics of what uninformed consent is, making sure the person in the vulnerable state is oblivious and unaware of the situation. 

Overall, when looking at the case of Ebb Cadd and Madrigal v Quilligan and the novel Clay’s Ark, there are three examples of uninformed consent. Each situation lack of communication about the procedure, injection, or the infection. Not only there is a lack of communication, but there is also a common thread of the people being manipulated are the minority. With Ebb Cadd and Madrigal v Quilligan both people of color, Cadd being African American and the women apart of other cases coming from Mexican descent. With Clay’s Ark, Blake being a white male in the slums, he is taken out of his standard atmosphere and made the minority, with his daughters being half white and black, they are automatically put into the minority category due there skin color.

Additionally, there is a pattern of gain out of the people who are in control of the situations. As well these people had no repercussions for there actions during these cases. When looking at the examples and the apparent notion of what uninformed consent is.  

What is informed consent?

“So, have you been tested?”

One day in class, I made a link between this course and my Intro to Sociology lecture. On this day in particular we were discussing chapter 7 of Medical Apartheid. Chapter 7 discusses the Tuskegee Syphilis Study that ran from 1932 to 1972. This study is notorious for their racist and unethical practices. While it’s not directly correlated to the conversation in my sociology class, it initiated a rush of thoughts and ideas that were important to discuss.

In my sociology course, we are discussing the effect of social class, race, and gender and the role they play within regards to HIV/AIDS. More specifically, we are discussing those effects on lower income African American communities, homosexual relationships, and women. In a piece of writing by Celeste Watkins-Hayes, she discusses the effect of living in a low-income neighborhood. Watkins-Hayes specifically shows how these low-income communities are often less likely to have access to treatment for HIV, which results in a higher transmission rate. Infection rates skyrocket in these communities and offer an explanation for why, “groups that have been socially or economically marginalized are particularly vulnerable to HIV infection.” 

Along with my connection between classes, my memory sparked with ideas connected to an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. Law and Order: SVU has been my favorite show for years, and I have seen almost every episode. An episode titled, “Quickie”, follows the story of a man, Peter Butler, who engages in sexual relations with women from a social media app, but never discloses that he is HIV positive. The entirety of the episode follows the victims murder and discussing if the squad could potentially put Butler away for not disclosing his HIV status. Unfortunately, there are no direct laws that hand out consequences for this circumstance, besides a charge of assault. This episode references the case of the State of Texas vs. Philippe Padieu. The plot almost follows the same rhythm with Philippe Padieu, a man who knowingly has contracted HIV and begins engaging in sexual contact with countless women, without their consent. A jury convicted Padieu of assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced for more than 70 years. Something else to consider is Padieu had a prior conviction that effected this trial, if he hadn’t would his sentence have been shorter? Would justice have been served for the six women he exposed HIV to?

“In 2010, women represented one in four people living with HIV,” since then the rate has remained continuous and women are at the forefront of having HIV. Women can be considered an oppressed group in society, and the effects this labeling has are shown. Often, women reach towards prostitution as an easy gateway to gain protection, money, and employment. Bodies are exploited just to attain necessities to fulfill basic needs. Sex workers, in particular, experience exponentially higher HIV transmission rates due to the inconsistent use of condoms and the high number of partners they engage with. Women, usually younger women, are looked at to be more vulnerable and could potentially be less likely to be vocal about condom use by their partners. If sexual education was more prominent during their schooling or overall more accessible, a percentage of women would be more verbal about consenting.

            Throughout middle and high school, sex education was rarely spoken about unless you were in a health class. For myself in particular, I can’t remember a single time, besides health class, that sex education was mentioned. I believe this topic is important and I wish I had been exposed more regularly to something that affected the population. All I remember hearing is, “Abstinence is key,” yet I believe the opposite. Instead of teaching young adults to not engage in any sexual activity, you should be teaching them how to avoid and be aware of STDs/STIs and ways to prevent pregnancy. Being aware of the simple, yet powerful question, “Have you been tested?” could offer countless outcomes. Referring to the article by Watkins-Hayes, she speaks about how low-income, specifically African American communities, are not exposed to sexual education classes as much as a middle-class community would be. I grew up in a middle to lower class area, if that was all I was taught, I can’t begin to imagine the education other communities were offered. All in all, “HIV transmission can be prevented, why do an estimated 50,000 new infections occur annually in the United States?”

The Unknown

Have you ever thought about all the hidden things in the world? All the things that happen behind closed doors? Whether it is with the government, families, parents, or even doctors. There is so much stuff that happens in our world that you and I do not even know about. It raises so many questions for me and makes me really dive deep into my thoughts. Are there things that people hide from me? Are there things hidden from all of the public? I hope these things are making you feel the same way I am feeling. Thinking about this makes me question everything. Why are there things that are hidden from me? Can I not handle the truth?

In all the books we have been reading and especially in Medical Apartheid there are so many cases of people being treated and tested on without them knowing of what is actually going on. There are so many secrets in the medical world which is very morally wrong in my opinion and I think most people would also have this same opinion. Imagine being pregnant and going into the doctors to deliver your baby. You are going in trusting these doctors with your life and the life of your baby as well. You are expecting them to deliver your baby and do whatever they can do to keep both you and the baby safe. That is what you are expecting, you are not expecting them to do things to your body without your consent or knowledge. However, you go and deliver your baby and the doctors secretly tie your tubes. Can you imagine being sterilized without even knowing? I’m sure you are now thinking something along the lines of “oh that doesn’t happen now that kind of stuff only happened years ago.” But you are wrong. There have been cases of this kind of stuff still happening in recent years. In 2013, there were dozens of female inmates in California that had been illegally sterilized. Forced sterilization is still a problem in the world today. Today women are told that their immigration, housing, and other benefits for their status in our country will be taken away unless they get this procedure done. However, they are told that this procedure can be reversed. Sterilization abuse in our world today is horrifying. While reading these articles I feel absolutely horrible for these women and cannot imagine how these doctors do this to women without feeling anything? Do they not feel terrible for these choices?

Just so you completely understand this with me, in 2007 the United States gave the government the right to sterilize “unwilling and unwitting people” which they classified as poor, unwed, and mentally disabled women, children and men. North Carolina sterilized over 7,600 people in a 40-year period. Our own government decided and made rules on who should and should not be able to have babies. They decided poor people should not be allowed to have babies and they forced that on people. Where I grew up the people were not exactly upper class, and I can’t imagine the government and the doctors sterilizing people I know just because they were classified as “poor”. What gives our government the right to decide such things? And even worse what gives doctors the right to do whatever they want without people knowing?

Thinking about this sort of makes me feel like I am having an existential crisis. If you do not know what an existential crisis is, Wikipedia defines it as “a moment at which an individual questions if their life has meaning, purpose, or value.” Are we as individuals more than just a number? Or more than just a test subject? Reading more about how doctors have treated people makes me feel like we are exactly that, just a number. What is the meaning of each of our lives if we do not even make our own decisions for our bodies? Throughout years of history, doctors secretly made decisions for people and treat these people like they are not even human. How can humans treat other humans like this? If secret things like this are still going on even today, then we have not fixed anything. People are still just test subjects. If there are secret things happening in our government that we do not know about then yet again we are just a number, and someone else is making the decisions for us. Just like our own government deciding who would be sterilized. We, as the people did not have a choice. The higher up people decided for everyone as if we were just their test subjects.

Before something was mentioned in class about having a fear of doctors, I had never really thought about it. I knew people were scared to go to the doctor because of things like shots and sickness. I never thought about someone being so scared of doctors that they cannot even bring themselves to go to the doctor. Fear of doctors is called iatrophobia. Sure, some people are scared of blood and needles but maybe some people have this fear because they have read about all the corruption in the medical world. Maybe they are scared to go to the hospital to have a baby because they don’t trust the doctor to do what they are supposed to.

For me, reading and learning about all these secretive things that have happened in the medical world make me not trust doctors. How am I supposed to trust doctors when they have such a bad reputation? How can anyone trust these people? How can I trust anyone? It is really hard to figure out how to live your life in peace and trusting people when there is such a horrible reputation of people not respecting our bodies. No one should have to walk through life being scared of people. I shouldn’t have to go to the doctor and worry or think about someone taking advantage of my body. I shouldn’t have to worry about my doctor not asking for my consent. But we do, we have to worry about these things because of the doctors who apparently had no moral standards and did not care even a little about their patients. I find it so unbelievably scary that I cannot go to a doctor and just be able to fully trust them. The world is extremely corrupt and like I said it scares me and I do not know how to deal with it. If in the back of my mind I always have these thoughts of not trusting people, is this really a healthy way to live? How do I balance these things so that I don’t live my whole life in fear? I do not know how to answer my own question which is also horrifying. I want to live my life without fearing everything. So, how do I do this?

Inequality and Social Hierarchies

Inequality is something in our world that does not seem to ever go away. It has always been there, and I really do not see it going away anytime soon. Even in a fiction book or movie there is always this problem of inequality. There is always a hierarchy in the world even in these made up stories. Where did this mindset come from? Why do people think they have to be better than someone else or higher up than someone else?

In Zone One the world is a wreck. Sweepers, a civilian task force, are going through and trying to rid the world of skels. Skels, are zombie like people who spread this disease through biting or scratching others. The sweepers are getting rid of the rest of the stragglers that the marines failed to get rid of. The books setting is in New York City in a place they call zone one. The main military headquarters are in Buffalo, NY. This is where the main military sends out orders. The main goal for the teams is to get rid of all the stragglers in zone one so that they can start rebuilding this part of the city. 

During our small group discussion someone asked the question so do you think in the book they would be able to rebuild without there being inequality and hierarchies. Is it possible for there to be some type of perfect world where everyone is equal? I believe the answer is no. Even if they could somehow rebuild the world there already is a hierarchy. There are people calling all the shots and making the decisions already. You can tell that the sweepers are at the bottom of the military hierarchy because they are just going through cleaning up whatever the marines had left behind.

 I think the buffalo headquarters represents returning to the civilian life they knew before. In this world disaster they already established a hierarchical system. I am assuming this was one of the first things they did. They created a system to try and fix the world. It’s human nature to create a hierarchy. I don’t think that will ever go away. I think it is somewhere in all of us to place ourselves somewhere among the people and some people become leaders and make their way to the top while others end up at the bottom not being able to do much at all.

An example in our world today is when there are natural disasters, the first people to get out are the rich or more wealthy people. If you have money to leave, then you leave before whatever disaster it is hits. People with less money usually don’t have the means to leave. If they don’t have the money to go somewhere else, then they have no other choice but to stay. I feel like on the news you always see all these people staying and everyone sort of thinks “What are they crazy? Why would they want to stay there?”. However, I don’t think a lot of people think about how these people don’t have the money to leave. They are stuck because of their place in the social hierarchy of the world. In an article I was reading called What the Camp Fire Revealed by Annie Lowrey, she said “Leaving itself sometimes imposes a significant cost—gas, missed work, hotel rooms—that the wealthier can bear but that the poor might not be able to. Hurricane Katrina hit in late August, when many lower-income families were waiting on first-of-the-month checks to pay their bills. Many could not afford to get out. In later surveys, respondents explained that “the hurricane came at the wrong time, we were waiting for our payday” and that “money was hard to come by.” So, if you think the poor didn’t have enough money to leave during a natural do you think they have enough money to rebuild? The answer is no. Of course, there are always people who donate things and try to help but in these low-income places it takes so long for them to rebuild and by the time they get it rebuilt, they get hit again by another disaster. Poverty rates climb while all this is happening, and it really just seems to be getting worse and worse. Another part to this whole thing is that the lower-income countries are more likely to climate change and therefore leading to more natural disasters. 

What I read was that most of the government funding after natural disasters ends up helping the wealthier people instead of the low-income people. How is it fair that the people who have more money to begin with get the help while the poor people who had no choice but to stay there risking their own lives do not get enough help rebuilding. People end up homeless while the rich get their home rebuilt. Why would we not give as much help to the people who are more helpless? This question really leads me back to all the inequality in our world. Why do the rich get more help than the people who really need it?

There is always a hierarchy and there is always inequality because for some reason people think they are somehow more important than someone else. We are all humans. What makes you better than me? Just because you have more money than someone else does that mean you are more important than them? I really think that inequality and hierarchies are very screwed up, but I do not think there will ever be a world without it. There is just no possible way to not have it. Like I said before, I think it is somewhere in all of us. It’s just human nature and I don’t believe that it could drastically change.

Here is a link to the article I was reading, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/why-natural-disasters-are-worse-poor/580846/

The History of Zombies

In class this Monday, Dr. Beth talked about how there are two paths that one could go down when talking about zombies: either the pop culture path (which has many branches of its own and it continues to grow) or the historical path, which is rooted in Haitian culture going back to the 17th Century.

In the past, I have heard about how there was a deeper history to zombies than just appearing in American movies and TV shows, but I had never known much about it. Considering how zombies (or skeles) are a large part of the plot of Zone One by Colson Whitehead, I thought it would be a good idea for me to learn about where the concept and myth of zombies came from. Though I personally have never had much of a fascination (or even vague interest) with zombies and the culture surrounding zombies in entertainment, I still think learning more of the history of this now incredibly popular subgenre of horror would be beneficial to me and my understanding of the literature.

As explained by Mike Mariani in “The Tragic, Forgotten History of Zombies”, an article for The Atlantic, there is so much more to the history of zombies than what movies, television, and other forms of entertainment would suggest. Mariani claims that the origins of zombies are rooted in folklore from those who were enslaved in Haiti from 1625 to about 1800. The enslaved individuals were originally from Africa, and when they arrived in Haiti, they were treated with a complete lack of humanity as a result of the slavery of the time. It was at this time that the ideas of the undead became a subject that had immense importance to the enslaved people in Haiti. Many of these people believed that the only way they could ever be free was if they died. However, if they were to kill themselves, they would “be condemned to skulk the Hispaniola plantations for eternity, an undead slave at once denied their own bodies and yet trapped inside them—a soulless zombie.” Essentially, they believed that if they were to kill themselves, they would lose all hopes of freedom, and be permanently trapped in their body as a slave, turning into what we all know as a “zombie” today. The initial concept of the zombie was a clear demonstration of how much these individuals suffered both physically and mentally, as they were fearful of the afterlife in the hypothetical event where the pain and suffering endured during slavery didn’t end for individuals with their death.

Continue reading “The History of Zombies”

The Literal and Figurative Meanings of Teeth in Colson Whitehead’s Zone One and Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan’s Washington Post Article

In Colson Whitehead’s Zone One, teeth are frequently discussed. In a literal sense, teeth serve as the weapon of the undead, known as skels, and thus act as the greatest source of fear among survivors. The living also possess teeth, yet the bony structures in their jaws have a more symbolic value that those of the skels. While Whitehead describes undead teeth in a literal manner to convey the physical danger that they pose to survivors, the teeth of living humans represent their socioeconomic status both in memories of pre-apocalyptic American society and even to an extent during the catastrophe. The socially constructed American hierarchy that ranks people according to the quality of their teeth is not limited to Zone One. Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan’s Washington Post article “The Painful Truth about Teeth” indicates that it is a pervasive phenomenon in the present-day United States. Teeth themselves are not incredibly significant, but they are commonly used as visible measures of socioeconomic status. This is due to the expensiveness of dental care that working-class people can rarely afford. Nevertheless, similar to Zone One’s division of the meaning of teeth into literal and figurative levels, the Washington Post article does not suggest that teeth only have symbolic importance. Rather, there are also severe health consequences associated with lacking access to dental care. Therefore, there is an analogous divide between the literal and figurative depictions of teeth in the Washington Post article and Zone One. Although teeth are denoted differently in the two works, their role as a symbol of socioeconomic status is similar in both texts.

Continue reading “The Literal and Figurative Meanings of Teeth in Colson Whitehead’s Zone One and Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan’s Washington Post Article”

Excavating Burials and the Racial Oppression of the Dead

Burial rituals are cultural practices that are used by the living to honor the dead. When someone is buried or given a funeral, a person’s life becomes recognized as having come to an end, and that the life had meaning. Everyone deserves to receive proper burial rites and burial. Funerals and the burials of the deceased are performed out of respect of the lives the deceased person impacted and to preserve the dignity of the deceased. Everyone inevitably makes an impact on another’s life because people are social beings and the interconnectedness of the world prevents this from being otherwise. Proper burials are a right, but this can be ignored by those who perceive others to be inferior to themselves, to such an extent that this simple act of humanity is disregarded. In Toni Morrison’s book Home, the two main characters of the novel excavate the site where a black man’s body had been thrown into a shallow hole, so that he can be properly buried and remembered. This action of excavation was an important gesture in the effort to reclaim the African American past, while efforts to excavate African burials grounds in lower Manhattan, as explored in Alondra Nelson’s book The Social Life of DNA, was initially disparaging

Continue reading “Excavating Burials and the Racial Oppression of the Dead”