South Suu Kyi 's Freedom From Fear Speech

Even with her previous experiences at Beijing University and at Big Joy Farm, Wong still held some belief that the Chinese system wasn’t as bad as it was sometimes made out to be. This event proved to her that it was. “The enormity of the massacre hit home…Although it had been years since I was a Maoist, I still had harbored some small hope for China. Now even that was gone” (259). As a reporter Wong was able to view the progression of the protests in leading up to the massacre, and in viewing it understood that the Chinese people were much more independent than they had previously demonstrated over the past 50 years. She had continuously seen the Chinese people following what they were told between learning in school or with physical labor, yet this protest was one of the first large scale displays of the unacceptance of the regime by the people, and the government did not know what to do with it. But because of this, Wong was able to recognize that the people were not reliant on this way of life that they had previously been bound to, but truly could lead for themselves and take control. The massacre awakened Wong both to the reality that the government was not acting to benefit the people, and that the people were more than capable of acting for

Over 120,000 Rohingya people are fleeing Myanmar to Bangladesh due to ongoing violence and mass killings. Turkish president states that, “Those who close their eyes to this genocide perpetrated under the cover of democracy are its collaborators” (“Is Genocide Happening”). The world had no reaction, they just watched all they killings happen. Wiesel states “It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions…”(par. 8). He states the person who is “indifferent”, their “neighbor are of no consequence” and as a result their lives lives are “meaningless”(par. 8). He asks us “ Do we feel their pain, their agony?” We don’t take a stand or speak out until we experience suffering ourselves. For these reasons, Wiesel’s speech is more relevant now than ever, but that is only half of Wiesel’s message. He also discusses the importance of resistance and taking action to prevent human suffering during the

When Orwell was describing the burmese, he wrote “ the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves”. In term of pathos, he uses language in a disgusting way and makes it known that he hates and cannot stand it where he’s at. In the documentary, there’s the positive side of spreading values, prosperity and peace and in a way, imperialism. However, even though this rhetorical piece doesn’t directly relate to the documentary, this is the negative side of Imperialism and how it can impact even the oppressor. Also, in the documentary, it just talks about spreading democracy but what we are blinded to is what happens behind. When America goes into another country to spread democracy, we rarely pay attention to what happens there or what they are actually doing there. There is less care and attention to what goes on behind than compared to attention towards the surface of spreading democracy. Not only that but, also in the text, George Orwell faced continuous mockery and embarrassment in Burma and that resulted in bad suffering for him. In Burma, even as the oppressor, he faced a constant struggle to maintain his power and his authority in front of the Burmese. As a oppressor, one would expect them to have the power and be able to maintain authority in another country but in this text, there is the opposite that is very unexpected. Overall, George Orwell’s experience in Burma represented the other side of Imperialism, which was even the one governing is affected as much as the one who is getting

2. I believe that the quote "the person whose throat you do not cutwill be the one who cuts yours." originated from a Hutu extremist that wanted to exite hate in the minds of Hutus; also, to help loose the humanity in Hutus so killing will become easier. To counter act this there should be frequant reminders that Tutsis are not all horrible people.

Aung San Suu Kyi is a visionary that fights for Burma, her country, believing that people should fight for democracy and freedom through non-violent movements. She had a clear knowledge of her government and the government that she wanted for her people. As Aung Dan Suu said, it is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it (page 682). In order to bring this matter to the reader’s attention, Aung San Suu employs several rhetorical strategies. She uses the three main rhetorical devices: ethos, pathos, and logos to provide expert opinions on the subject. Through the text “Freedom from fear”, she made her ideas clear and define for

The situation depicted by Suu Kyi in Burma is of political injustices; the rights of the Burmese to free and fair elections in a democratic nation are negated by despotic leaders who do not practice the Buddhist traditions. According to Austin (82) Suu Kyi became the voice of the people and through her the masses have seen the authoritarian rule which is not acting in their best interests. King presents the social injustices that the blacks and the minorities in American society face. The

Fear is a powerful emotion even compared to love and other simple emotion like anger. Fear is not only strong but controlling. “You are afraid,” of what is happening and in that fear people find comfort after living like that for years or it is all they know(Orwell page,245). In 1984, The Party uses this fear of death and the thought police to control the people. The Chinese government does something similar to 1984, they used the fear tactic to control their people. For example, Chine deleted Tiananmen Square, as

However, any power given to him through the imperialistic setting is lost, because Orwell exists as a part of a minority in Burma. With this dilemma, Orwell notices the difficulties that come with an authoritative figure in a foreign country as, “[Orwell] was hated by a large number of people- the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.” (144) Due to this hatred, Orwell finds his job to impose order futile because the Burmese people seem to have a tighter grasp on Orwell than Orwell himself. The Burmans appear to be enforcing their power over Orwell through their majority and he experiences this when, “A nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way.” (144) These acts that the Burmans commit show that power appears to exist in the hands of the Burmese majority rather than Orwell. By placing a colonist within a colony, the writer establishes the feeling that power should lie in the hand of the colonist. However, this concept is shattered because Orwell possesses no power though the colonial setting because of the fact that the Burmese appear to be in control. The lack of power present in the surroundings further enforces the fact that true power cannot come from one’s conquest or authority but only from within.

Naturally, we as humans have the drive to be different, to stand out in a crowd, to express our individuality, but sometimes even in the blink of an eye you can be stripped of your self-expression, even the most basic thoughts you have can be taken away without your knowledge. The truth is, we don’t always receive the freedom that we believe we have, no matter what country you’re in, no matter how old you are, it doesn’t matter if your thoughts are pure or even crude the simple fact at hand is that they are all controlled. If you really sit back and think about it, time and time again our freedom of expression, opinion and expansion of knowledge are all taken away in one form or another. These series of events occurs in all corners

Theoretically - and secretly, of course - I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British" (p.3). Seeing the "dirty work" of the British Imperialists "oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt" (3).

The leaders include the president of Burma, Thein Sein, and a famous politician of the country, Aung San Suu Kyi. The two groups comprise of the Sangha, which is a community of Buddhist monks, and the Rakhine Nationalities Development Group (RNDG), which is a political party in Myanmar. In 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize for forming the National League for Democracy and coincidently disapproved of violence and hoped that all ethnic groups could “cooperate in harmony.” Since then, she has denied any evidence of an ethnic cleansing, when asked about it in an interview and she has talked about the Rohingya Muslims, stating that “They are not our citizens.” The president, Thein Sein, has done many things to contribute to the ethnic cleansing. He has come up with ideas to end the ethnic cleansing, such as “expelling” the muslims from the country or getting the United Nations to “resettle” them somewhere else.

We live in a society were they may be times were anything can happen, with terrorist organizations, and social justice issues causing uproar. While we have still problems to work on as citizens, the government we live upon continues to create new restrictions which restore fear into some citizens. Liberalism has been rare in the practice and theory in the last two hundred years. But as a state that lives off of liberal values, the struggle for equality still continues. In the essay “The Liberalism of Fear”, philosopher Judith Shklar focuses on developing the definition of political liberalism, by means of discovering the role that cruelty plays in political and social life. There are many primary issues in the Liberalism of Fear that I must addressed. Also I shalll expound on her arguments surrounding the fear of tyranny, fear of abuse and how it makes a distinct connection to our reality now.

Imperial rule in Burma. The essay starts off with the narrator getting ready to witness and execution by

In July 1988, decline in economic conditions led to large-scale and bloody rioting in cities in Burma. In Sept 1988, the army under General U.Saw Maung replaced the Government with the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), a group of military officers. In 1990, SLORC proposed a new government and allowed free elections with the confidence that it would win, but 80% of the seats were won by the civilian opposition party led by Suu Kyi. But it refused to turn over the power to the civilian government. It outlawed