How should the Roma be integrated in Romania using the principles of WEB DuBois and/or Booker T. Washington?

29 09 2012

Roma people: every Romanian person seems to have his very own passionate or passive-aggressive opinion about them. Every Romanian citizen will bring forth examples of their own experiences with them, and the endless ways these Roma People have wronged them and how they, as a whole race, are inferior to the whole gloriousness that Romanian nation presents in its current state. Roma people are the black hole we throw every complaint into: the blame for the situation in the country, our position in the world, the credibility, the economy, the condition of the city, etc. The question is: does this reputation come as a discriminatory legacy or is there a ring of truth to it? And if there is, and if their reputation if it’s true, how can we fix this situation?

  On one hand, Roma people have just the same rights that every other Romania citizen has, so there’s no civil rights to be demanded on their behalf. However, what makes them disrespected by Romanian people is their lack of willingness to do anything. Their contempt and lack of motivation to improve their living condition and to fight for this country, to leave something good for the future generations is one of the characteristics most of Romania people will mention when describing their dislike towards them. They simply live in this country; they do not belong to it, and not because of some social barriers created on no grounds, but rather on the self imposed state of social exile that was part of their national heritage since the beginning of time. Roma people have a history of freedom and social disadvantage for a long time: society did not accept them for they had no desire to be chained to anything or anyone, including homes, jobs or money: They did not have to fight for their freedom, because their view on ‘freedom’ was different that the view of others, meaning that they did not need the society to be content with it, for freedom was their life. This lifestyle has latter been a reason of irrational torture, especially during the Holocaust, which made their development even slower and harder, even impossible in some cases.

This leads to the other side of the argument: does the right to do a thing include within itself the circumstances to do so? Will the right to get free education and right to vote provide people with the push from behind to do so? We can see that it doesn’t necessarily. In Roma communities, girls raised in miserable conditions and treatment get impregnated at an early age, and any sort of escape seems too brave and naïve to consider. The right to create a future is just a bitter joke that Roma people have chased laughing at, and Romanians have never found funny to begin with. Born with the idea that no bright future awaits them, Roma people find no motivation in trying to communicate properly with the white folk. Why earn the respect of someone living a parallel life, unbothered by the daily struggles a Roma has to deal with? Romanians look at them and see bugs crawling in mud, but they do not realize that they DO crawl towards something far, far away, and that the reason they are slipping down and making to progress is because the ground that supports them is unstable and hostile and unlikely to help their cause in anyway.

So, under the circumstances, what shall one do? Is it a question for each individual to consider, or for a whole ethnicity to decide? Honestly, the approach to this issue need to be a slow but persistent one: slowly and patiently both races need to approach a stage, a compromise equally good for both sides, so that in the end they will support each other and make the country a better place, for nothing makes a country more unstable than a struggle within itself. Romanians need to acknowledge the skills Roma people have and can master under the right conditions, and Roma people need to work harder to grow themselves into their potential, their very own best. That’s why Booker T. Washington was right: the road is hard and the weather is difficult, but creating a new path to the destination might not be the right decision, for more loss the walkers will bear when walking on unknown, forestry roads, unprepared for the physical involvement of it all than those who gain power by walking and not stopping on the road which leads precisely to where they want to arrive and are supposed to be, to belong.




UN: Success or Failure?

29 09 2012

Buddhas of Bamiyan

Cred ca voi continua sa postez eseuri ce le-am scris pentru scoala. Poate ajuta pe cineva.

The question of UN’s efficiency has been controversial issue to the world for a long time and it still is currently. The main arguments that people have against it are the stalemate that the veto vote sometimes provokes when taking crucial decisions and planning actions; UN also is considered a vacuum of money: money which do not go into its original purpose: preserving peace everywhere. It’s of course true that the U.N. humanitarian help can be effective, and U.N. peacekeepers have helped stabilize many post-conflict situations, however, the ‘post-’ part of the ‘conflict’ might be a bitter enough argument against it as well: the inability of the UN to prevent a conflict/genocide/war from happening . One of the issues which UN has been unable to solve was the affair of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

The two Buddhas, 175 and 120 feet tall, were believed to date to the seventh century. The statues were discovered by archeologists, standing 19-metre (62-foot) high along with scores of other historical relics in central Afghanistan near the ruins of giant statues destroyed by the Islamist Taliban seven years ago.[1]

Some 1,500 years ago, the valley was a busy node on the trade route between China and India, in a part of Asia where languages and religions – Buddhism, Hinduism and, later, Islam – coexisted. It was also home to a great Buddhist monastic center, one that nurtured epoch-changing religious concepts and produced a fantastic new art, including the world’s largest rock-carved figures of the standing Buddha.[2]

 It was in March 2001, when the Taliban and their sponsors in Al Qaeda were at the zenith of their power in Afghanistan, that militiamen, acting on an edict to take down the “gods of the infidels,” laid explosives at the base and the shoulders of the two Buddhas and blew them to pieces. To the outraged outside world, the act encapsulated the horrors of the Islamic fundamentalist government. Even Genghis Khan, who laid waste to this valley’s towns and population in the 13th century, had left the Buddhas standing.[3]

The UNESCO envoy, Pierre Lafrance, a former French ambassador to Pakistan, headed to Islamabad in hopes of negotiating with the Taliban. This however was already a lost cause, because of the UN’s lack of control over things such as a county’s sovereignty. The minister of the country was very stubborn about his religious beliefs, and has been quoted for saying „We do preserve our ancient heritage, but we cannot keep statues that are incompatible with our beliefs,”[4]

       UN’s UNESCO was in a very unfavorable position, just like Mr. Matsuura, the UNESCO’s director general has put it: „Words fail me to describe adequately my feelings of consternation and powerlessness as I see the reports of the irreversible damage that is being done to Afghanistan’s exceptional cultural heritage,”. After the collapse of the statues, in 2008, the UN has made a plan to start rebuilding the statues back to their former glorious shape. However, they will never replace the 2000 year old Buddhas and what they represented to humankind and its histoy.

Now, the reason for the creation of UNESCO, among others, was to prevent national and global cultural heritages from being destroyed or ruined. This time, it failed. The ruling Taliban authorities in Afghanistan have rejected a plea from the United Nations for them to stop destroying the country’s Buddhist statues. A plea was all that the UNESCO was able to give, and that’s why the UN is a failure in many cases: they can only watch the world burn, the cities crumble, and not be able to intervene with the situation, because the authorizes or the political structure of the country stands against it, and they have no right to go against a country’s sovereignty unless the country has agreed to give them the right to do so. So UN is too dependent on the political regime and religion to make changes when they really matter. UN tries, and maybe it would’ve done something if it had the chance, but in this case it did not. All the lost chances and the ruined artifacts and national heritages left behind to symbolize just a new ineffectiveness of the UN are and will forever be the reasons why UN is a failure.

[1] „Afghans Unearth 19-metre Buddha Statue.” Permanent Mission of Afghanistan to the United Nations in NY. N.p., 8 Sept. 2008. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <;.


[2] Cotter, Holland. „Buddhas of Bamiyan: Keys to Asian History.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Mar. 2001. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <;.

[3] Gall, Carlotta. „THE REACH OF WAR; From Ruins of Afghan Buddhas, a History Grows.”The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Dec. 2006. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <;.

[4] „UN ‘fails’ to save Afghan Statues.” BBC News. BBC, 03 Apr. 2001. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. <;.