Category: Law and Justice

Part 185- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 1

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Politics
Part 185- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 1

It’s that time again; U.S. presidential elections. This is the second edition to my election series which I previously started for the last election in 2020. The overall framework of this series is to use Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 truths. Vivek Ramaswamy has very openly and strongly expressed his beliefs in 10 simple bullet points, and I’ll be using these to analyze each candidate’s values. (This goes for both parties)

10 Truths as per Vivek Ramaswamy:

  1. God is real
  2. There are two genders
  3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels
  4. Reverse racism is racism
  5. An open border is no border
  6. Parents determine the education of their children
  7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind
  8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty
  9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four
  10. The U.S. constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history

These points will be used to categorize as well as compare each candidate and each of their views on each of these points, allowing for me- as well as you- to decide which candidate you’d most likely want to support based on similar aligning views. Following the analysis of each point, I’m going to discuss the effect these beliefs play in politics as well as in every day life. This part will be discussed from my point of view, as a teenager.

The candidates will be formatted into a table at the end with their position on each of these 10 truths, as shown below. Although the table below consists of only Republican potential candidates, I’ll be discussing both Democratic and Republican candidates the best I can.

CandidatesAbortionEconomyForeign PolicyImmigrationOther
Donald TrumpPro-lifeAmerica first; China as a business partner, not political peerAmerica first; long term benefits for American citizensAgainst illegal immigration, US-Mexico wallPro-guns (2nd Amendment)
Ron DeSantisSupported bills restricting access to abortion, stopped short of saying he would support a federal banCut individual taxes, slash government spending, “American energy independence” and rollback of electric vehiclesOpposes additional US involvement in Ukraine, reduce economic ties with “communist China”, the US would no longer “kowtow to Wall Street”Eliminate the visa lottery and limit “unskilled immigration”Frequently “touted his opposition to gender-affirming care for trans people and other public health measures such as mask mandates”
Vivek RamaswamyPro-life, would not back a national abortion banUS should abandon its climate goals to drive down energy costs and boost its GDP, in favor of some corporate and individual tax cutsCriticized US aid to Ukraine, saying it is strengthening Russia’s alliance with Chinadeport “universally” and end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants (who would then be required to apply to become a citizen)
Tim ScottPro-life, would support a national 15-week banTax cuts and stronger economic competition with China. Championed legislation establishing “opportunity zones” which are meant to increase economic development in low-income areas by incentivizing private investmentSupports continued US aid to Ukraine, says Biden has not done enough. “Soft on China”In favor of a wall along US southern border to curb illegal migration and drug trafficking
Nikki HaleyPro-life, federal abortion ban “unrealistic”Opposes raising national debt limit, “veto spending bills that don’t put America on track to reach pre-pandemic spending”Labeled Chinese Communist party an “enemy”, criticized Trump for trying to befriend Chinese presidentVowed to tighten security at US-Mexico border, add 25,000 patrol agents, require companies to verify employees’ status online.
Chris ChristieNot support federal abortion banTargeted “excessive government spending” as the reason for inflation and floated cuts to social security, including MedicareTough on China-and-Russia, support for continued US aid to Ukraine
Mike PencePro-life, in favor of six-week abortion banBoosting US economy, employment high and inflation low (focus solely on reducing inflation), advocated for cutting social security benefitsAdvocated for continued US aid to UkraineVowed to finish the border wall
Doug BurgumPro-life, not support a national banPrioritize growing the country’s tech and energy sectorsWinning “Cold War with China” is importantSupports stricter restrictions of migration. Says Biden “hasn’t done enough to secure the US-southern border”
Asa HutchinsonPro-life, support a national banFloated extreme measures to balance the federal budget and reduce debt including cutting federal non-military workforce by 10%Would not cut economic ties with China, advocated for more action to counter China’s threat against Taiwan,Supports harsh restrictions on immigration
Organized from The Guardian

So let’s get into our ACTUAL first post of this series with the first truth; God is Real.

Part 184- Teen Attorney

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment General Topics, Law and Justice, Social Responsibilities
Part 184- Teen Attorney

Tuesday, August 15th, 2023.

After almost a year, I finally accomplished., for the first time, what I have been working towards; becoming a teen attorney. From observing trials, to volunteering for being a juror in three different courts, to training to become an attorney in two of them, becoming a bailiff, and now…officially acting as a teen attorney. It’s something I never would have imagined doing last summer, when I only first discovered that Teen Court exists. Through these proceedings, I’ve learned so much despite it only being the tip of the iceberg! Let me take you on a trip through the past to share some of these experience I’ve gained over these past few months.

Discovering Teen Court

The first time I heard of teen court, I felt burdened. One of my biggest flaws is my reluctance to work. I’d rather stick to doing the amount I’m currently doing, than doing more and expanding my schedule and adjusting until it’s normal again. That’s why Teen Court was so upsetting to me. I immediately dreaded it.

I first started at the Metroport Teen Court. I was genuinely terrified. Before I became a volunteer, I was able to observe a court proceeding to understand how it worked. It was my first time young to a court. I was scared, nervous even. What do I Wear? Is this not fancy enough? Is it too fancy? What if I start sweating? What if my phone goes off? So many questions but so few answers and time to process them. The good news was that my phone didn’t go off and I wasn’t too overdressed. The jurors really didn’t care that much of dress code- which I see pretty often- and end up wearing sweatshirts, jeans, t-shirts, shorts, etc. Often I’d be one of the few in dress code when arriving to other volunteering sessions. For the bad news, I did sweat and panic when talking to the Court supervisor. (She scares me, and I’m pretty sure she does not like me based on the number of questions and emails I’ve sent her up to today)

Observing Cases

The first observation was pretty fun. I got to see a close representation of a court proceeding, except done by teenagers my age. This was one of the first turning points in my journey. The acceptance and realization of what a great opportunity this could be. I clearly remember seeing two attorneys who absolutely amazed me. Their cod finder e, persuasion, preparedness, and quick thinking skills when on the floor were everything. Not to mention, I’m pretty sure they both won the amount of hours they were setting as the prosecutors. They were actual professionals despite their age. It was remarkable seeing them. Afterwards, after a little convincing by my inner self, I decided to give it a try.

I went to the second observing case, where I got to participate as a juror.

In Teen Court there are two different trials. A court case and a Master Jury case. Cases that are taken to court with a judge and in a courtroom are generally for a Class between 1 and 4. Class 5 and 6 cases are for the Master Jury. In the Master Jury, about 5-6 jurors including a bailiff sit at a table with the defendant and their parent on one side, and a supervisor on the other. In this, everyone gets to listen to the case and the defendant’s recollection, and then get to do a round of questioning or more if needed. This is similar to the questioning attorneys do in a court night, but a little different. Following this, the defendant can make any last remarks before stepping out and allowing the jury to make a decision on the hours to be given. Once done, the hours are read to the defendant by the bailiff, and the case finishes.

About 2-3 cases take place per night, and afterwards jurors can leave. My second observing period was as a part of the Master Jury. The biggest thing I remember from there was the guy sitting next to me asking if I assaulted a person, to which I looked at him horrified and said, “I’m just volunteering here.” It then clicked that I was sitting with kids who were former defendants and were now helping current defendants out. The other thing that stood out to me was seeing this one guy who stood out to me for his fashion style, who I later discovered was a senior in my school, was in Orchestra, and happened to be on at least three different routes to my other classes during Freshman year. (That’s a story for another time)

Volunteering as a Juror

After that I became an official juror for the Metroport court. In my opinion, I think the Metroport Court is one of my least favorites because of the listing and some of the procedures. For the Metroport Court, I was put on a roster and called to a case night when my name came up. This is different to my other court volunteering periods, but I’ll get to that later.

It would be 3 or 4 months before I got called to a new case for the Metroport Court. Most of the time I would be on the Master Jury. Despite this, I only really became a juror for a few nights before signing up for the Attorney roster. A lot of emailing and Court supervisor bothering went into this. It’s partially due to my father’s persistence for information, as well as my want to become an Attorney, but we’ll say it was mainly me.

Some of the volunteer nights were slow, others fast. Some happened when unexpected situations came into play hours before and I was left thinking about it the whole case night, and others were of utmost boredom and desperation to leave. Regardless, I enjoyed the experience all the more. However, this whole roster part bothered me. At this rate, I would end up having very little experience in 2-3 years. I started looking for other Teen Courts to volunteer at. My first was North Richland Hills.

North Richland Hills was better than Southlake (Metroport) Court. It was a little more professional, nicer, and had more availabilities to participate in case nights than I did at Southlake. I then started looking at attorney opportunities for NRH. They had a policy of attending two nights before signing up for an attorney. That I could do, but it was difficult. I started NRH near the end of my school year, when AP exams and finals took place. There was more focus on school than court, so finding nights to volunteer at were harder.

I started looking for more courts. Then, I finally found it. The court I most love out of the three I’ve volunteered at so far: Irving. Irving,as I’ve heard, is the oldest Teen Court in the area, making it more defined and professional. When signing up, they provided different areas you could apply for. Lead Attorney, Assistant, etc. If I remember right, I’m sure I did assistant attorney to start for my training. After submitting my form it provided me a date. The date I would receive my Attorney training.

Attorney Training

Irving is amazing. I think my expectations for court and attorney training are slightly higher than they were at first solely because of the wya Irving did it. In my training there were a good 10-12 people. We all came and sat at tables in a room early morning and did introductions. We spent a good 5-6 hours in training that day. From the morning to afternoon we learned. Our court supervisor gave us handouts with notes on how to do things. From objections to questioning and more, it was there. We walked through the building and rooms. (Far more complex by the way) We were shown where we could hang out and where we would be working. We took a trip to the court room and Master Jury room, and returned back to where we were previously.

In our training we did a lot of application scenarios. For an hour or so we focused on one aspect, like openings per se. When focusing on openings, we would get into groups and then decide to be defense or prosecution. Based on this and the practice cases given we formed an opening based on what we wanted to prove and further explain using the trial. We did this with closing, questioning, and objections as well. We ate pizza and had snacks while asking questions for real life scenarios. It was REALLY fun. We then proceeded with a mock trial where we applied everything we learned, and then wrapped up for the day. This was the second turning point. I got really excited to become an Attorney at this point, as I am now qualified to become one in Irving. Being a part of the training was like a reality check. It kind of opened me up to the fact that me becoming an Attorney was very much real, and a big possibility. I unfortunately couldn’t attend the two sessions but I finally got to and it was AWESOME. More on that later.

Shortly after my Irving court volunteering, I finally had Southlake attorney training. Southlake, like I said isn’t as great as the others but it’s still a Teen Court. The training was pretty short and it felt rushed. They tried to squeeze everything into the 3 hours, but I felt like they could have kept it running longer and earlier in the day. Not only that, I feel like we didn’t get to process a lot of information that well. Things such as openings and questioning could have been practiced or given in demonstrations rather than just having.a reference to our given binders with the information. One thing I really liked was having experienced attorneys come join us during the training. We later split into 4 groups (2 cases with defense and prosecution each) and had the current attorneys give us advice and act as our defendant. One of the attorneys who is now a former attorney (off to college) was actually really helpful and incredibly knowledgeable and experienced. I really appreciate his help. He gave us a lot of key factors to consider, like establishing a timeline when questioning the defendant before trial (for the defense) and finding the information that could really help us when everything else wasn’t looking in their favor. He really walked us through.a lot of vague points that were covered during the training, such as how to relate the questioning into the opening and closing, as well as how to act and what details we should keep in mind of. The mock trial was okay since I messed up for my closing and rushed through it, but otherwise it was a fun learning experience. Now comes the fun part.

Being an Attorney

Irving first! So the procedure for Irving is a little different than the other two courts. In this the supervisor sends an email to which we reply if we can participate that day, and she later emails us back with the positions given. For new attorneys that were recently trained she likes to give us juror positions so we can observe before working. I was meant to be a juror but the assigned bailiff couldn’t make it and I opted in for it instead. I had the option to be an attorney as well, but I felt that being a bailiff would be better for my nerves as well as for learning. It was right.

This is my final turning point, the moment I decided that I did want to be an attorney no matter what. I was a little nervous as the bailiff, but it was an easy enough position to be able to relax while working. I think I found the variety of defendants in all three courts to be most interesting. When one city is more heavily populated with brown kids you see more of those in the court room and vice versa. That was interesting to see, as well as how that played into who the attorneys were. More Asian kids in Irving compared to Southlake and NRH. Disregarding that, I really admired the Irving attorneys.

I’m assuming they all were pretty experienced since they had lead attorneys and they were familiar with the cases and judges than I was that day. Not only that, they were really comfortable and confident with the courtroom. You could feel it in the way they talked to the defendant or the way they spoke to the jury. It’s the small things like hand movements, eye contact, tone, pace. It was bewitching, in a way, to see how they worked. (Especially this one girl who was absolutely amazing during the cases) Being a bailiff allowed me to see the court proceedings without having to make a decision on the process. I could sit through both cases and hear them out, make my own opinions or what I think should be the next question and compare to what the attorneys did. It helped let me see things from a better experience than I could as a juror. ( On a side note, I’m pretty sure one of the jurors tried to act cool when I was around so that was awkward, but that’s something else)

Finally, Southlake. Tuesday was a big day. Not only was it the last day of summer for me- the first and last few hours of ‘summer’ I had gotten all break- but I would also be an Attorney for the first time. It would be the first time ever, I got to act as an attorney. It was TERRIFYING. I had a panic attack-like event a few hours prior to that so I was not in the best condition but I had to go. (I’m glad I did) It gave me my first taste of reality. This is my defendant. They did an actual crime. I am helping them. I am an ATTORNEY. This court was all rookies to give us a court experience – and because the experienced attorneys would grab at the sign up the second it was posted- so we all struggled in our own ways. For me, I froze up and I spoke too quietly. I couldn’t decide if I had to introduce myself or not, and furthermore I didn’t know HOW to do that so I hesitated at the beginning. Questioning went fine since I had a list of the information I needed to give the right questions. The only problem was that the defendant, although incredibly compliant and doing their best, kept giving extra information and too little information at times. They even changed their information once or twice during the questioning. I’d assume that was a mistake on our part. As the defendant’s attorneys we should have walked them through the process and what to expect before bringing them inside. At least we’ll remember for next time.

Other than that we actually managed to give the defendant the minimum hours! It was unexpected but still exciting. (Both cases got the minimum hours so major win) At least I’ve had my first real taste of court and now know what it’s like as an attorney. It’s scary, but fun. I think what’s holding me back is my fear. I actually really like the experience. It’s new, it’s different than what I usually do, and I only get to do this every month or so. The more I get involved in this the easier it’l become, I’m sure. It’s a good thing that I’ in two courts at the moment so I can keep going between the two without a gap in between. It also gives me different experiences with different supervisors. I can get twice the amount of feedback and learning opportunities. (It’s also twice the more time to work on my speaking) Otherwise, I’m excited. I finally debuted as a teen attorney, after a little more than a year later.

From an observer, to a volunteer juror, to a bailiff and now an official attorney, it’s crazy. I never thought to do something like this in my entire life, so it’s new to me. It’s a change of mindset and setting. Instead of just school and my house, it’s something else. A real world experience designed for my age where I can do something impactful and helpful for my community as well as other teens my age. Am I exhausted after these trials though? Very much so. That’s all right though! I’m more willing to put in the hours for Teen Court than I was at the beginning of all this. Soon I’ll be practically fighting the others to be at every case night. (Maybe not but you’d never know) Time will only tell!

Anyways, that’s all for this post. See you next time!

Part 179- Contract

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice , , , ,

 Hey so I wrote my very first ‘legal’ contract. So here’s how I got to this very difficult position. My grades were not up to par with my very much Indian parents’ expectations. (Mind you I’ve got excellent grades. Not impressive enough apparently.) Due to this very tiresome reason, I got my Instagram app deleted. (And Weverse but we don’t talk about that ) In order to get my beloved very useless social app back, I made a deal with my very much so Indian father on a list of activities I would need to complete for a certain period of time. These were then condensed into a contract, which I have written down below. Please enjoy reading about my suffering. Thank you. 🙂  

PS: My contract writing business is now open and I am willing/very desperate to take new clients. Please support this business run by a teenager. 

Agreement for the reinstallment of Instagram 

This is an agreement dated 02/22/2023  between _____ referred to as Daughter of _______ residence and _______ referred to as Dad of _______ Residence.

What is to be exchanged

  1. This is an agreement made between the parties for the reinstallment and usage of the Instagram app on Daughter’s iPhone in exchange for Daughter completing the following requirements up to exactly a week from the starting date (02/22/2023):

    1. Complete 5 pages of Kumon either digitally or physically (on paper). A page is considered front and back of a worksheet. Necessary corrections to prior work must be completed before beginning a new set of a 5-page worksheet. 

    2. Write a review of the school day’s activities and learning. This includes new concepts, getting ahead topics/assignments, upcoming tests and quizzes, and a daily summary of what was learned

    3. Tweeting everyday with proper format, including hashtags, on something related to United States politics. This includes but is not limited to:

      1. Congress: Senate and House of Representatives members, Vice President, Speaker of the House

      2. President, Cabinet

      3. Supreme Court

    4. Having evident proof of having “got ahead” in my studies. This includes getting ahead for assignments due later or learning new concepts for a subject ahead of time

    5. Sitting with at least 3 different people for lunch for three different days. This excludes the following people:

      1. _______ referred to as F1 (Friend 1)

      2. _______ referred to as F2 (Friend 2)

      3. Someone I have already sat with for this agreement

  2. The promises above will be completed on or before midnight 11：59 pm of Thursday March 2nd 2023.

  3. Payment will be performed by Dad, by reinstalling the Instagram app on Daughter’s phone, and allowing usage of it without any prohibitions, restrictions, or limitations on the amount, activity, or usage of the app. 

Termination

  1. This agreement will come to an end when the following requirements as listed above have been completed without fail and need to ask for completion. If failed to do so, a punishment will be invoked of which there will be added requirements and an extended time period of which the app will be installed and able to be used. 

Dispute resolution

  1. If a dispute arises out of or relates to this agreement, and the dispute cannot be resolved by negotiations between the parties, the parties agree first to try in good faith to resolve the dispute by mediation before resorting to arbitration, litigation or some other dispute resolution procedure. 

Severability

  1. If any part of this agreement is found to be unenforceable, the rest of this agreement will remain enforceable without the unenforceable part. 

  2. If in any case there are excessive limitations, delays, or extra restrictions added to this agreement even after the requirements have been fulfilled correctly, on time, without fail, this agreement will be enforced immediately and the ending benefits shall be given without hesitation 

Governing law and jurisdiction

  1. The governing law and jurisdiction for this agreement are as follows:

  • The laws of the ____ Residence and the laws of _____ referred to as Mother, applicable in that residence govern this agreement.

  • The parties agree that the courts of ____ Residence will have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide any litigation relating to this agreement.

Each of the parties has read this agreement and agrees to be bound by it.

————————————

Party’s signature

————————————

Party’s signature

————————————

Name

————————————

Name

————————————

Date signed

————————————

Date signed



Part 178- Geneva Conventions

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Politics and Geopolitics

Hello! Today’s post will be a geopolitical one and in this we will be discussing the Geneva Conventions. In today’s post we will delve into the significance of the Geneva Conventions and their impact on international humanitarian law. In times of armed conflict, these treaties play a crucial role in protecting civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded soldiers. We’ll explore the history, purpose, and key provisions of the Geneva Conventions, which have become the cornerstone of contemporary humanitarian efforts worldwide.

Our post will have these main factors:

  • The Genesis of the Geneva Conventions
  • A Code of Protection
  • A Growing Body of International Law
  • Ensuring Accountability for Atrocities
  • Global Adoption and Application

Followed by a conclusion to summarize everything we discussed. Let’s get started!

The Genesis of the Geneva Conventions

The idea for the Geneva Conventions was first brought up by a Genevan business man, Henry Dunant. After witnessing the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino, a gory battle in the Second War of Italian Independence, Dunant wrote a first-hand account of what he had seen; called A Memory of Solferino. Along with his observations, he had proposed a solution: ‘All nations come together to create trained, volunteer relief groups to treat battlefield wounded and offer humanitarian assistance to those affected by war.’ (As noted by HISTORY.com) 

The Geneva Conventions only apply in times of armed conflict, and are primarily designed to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part on hostilities. However, these apply to government who have ratified its terms. Every country has ratified all four Geneva conventions, but the protocols ratified varies. Countries who have ratified all four Geneva Conventions and three protocols include the majority of European and South American countries, the majority of Oceania, a few African Countries, as well as the Philippines and Kazakhstan. The United States has only ratified Protocol III in addition to Geneva Conventions I-IV. 

A Code of Protection

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols is a body of Public International Law, designed for the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and soldiers incapable of fighting. There are four Geneva Conventions and three Additional Protocols; and these are a major part of international humanitarian law adopted by all nations in the world.

The First Geneva Convention was in 1864, and was adopted to protect wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel who are not in active hostility against a Party. The first attempt to expand this treaty being unsuccessful led to a clarification of these ru;es, and extended them to maritime warfare. 

The Second Geneva Convention improved and supplemented the 1864 convention by extending its protections to victims of maritime warfare, including shipwrecked soldiers and other naval forces, as well as special protections to hospital ships. 

The 1929 conference yielded two conventions. One, for the protection of wounded and sick armies in the field, was the third version to replace the original 1864 convention, and the other was adopted after the experiences of WWI showed the deficiencies in the protection of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention required that ‘belligerents treat prisoners of war humanely, furnish information about them, and permit official visits to prison camps by representatives of neutral states.’ It replaced the 1929 Geneva Convention that dealt with prisoners of war. 

In addition to these three conventions, a Fourth Geneva Convention was added with protection of civilians. It gave civilians the same protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded to sick and wounded soldiers in the first Convention. This was added after WWII due to the horrific acts on and off the battlefield performed by the Germans. 

With two Geneva Conventions revised and adopted, and the second and fourth added in 1949, the whole set is referred to as ‘Geneva Conventions of 1949’ or just the ‘Geneva Conventions. The 1949 conventions have been further modified with three amendment protocols. 

A Growing Body of International Law

Over the years, the Geneva Conventions have evolved to address the changing nature of warfare and protect individuals from new threats. The three Additional Protocols, adopted in 1977, further enhanced the conventions’ protections, covering civilians, military workers, and journalists during international armed conflicts.

Protocol I increased protections for civilians, military workers, and journalists during international armed conflicts and blended the use of “weapons that cause superfluous injury  or unnecessary suffering,” or cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to teh natural environment.”

Protocol II stated that all people not taking up arms be treated humanely and there should never be an order by anyone in command for “no survivors.” It was also added that children should be well cared and educated for, prohibiting taking hostages, terrorism, pillage, slavery, group punishment, and  humiliating or degrading treatment. 

Protocol III was created to recognize the symbol of the red crystal, an additional emblem of humanitarian protection, in addition to the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red shield of David as universal; emblems of identification and protection in armed conflicts. 

Ensuring Accountability for Atrocities

Grave breaches are the most serious crimes. Ensuring accountability for these breaches is essential to deter future atrocities and promote a more just world. Grave breaches of Geneva Conventions III and IV include:

  • Willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
  • Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
  • Compelling a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power
  • Willfully depriving a protected person of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime

Grave breaches of  Geneva Convention IV also include:

  • Taking hostages
  • Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly 
  • Unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement

Global Adoption and Application

The Geneva Conventions only apply in times of armed conflict, and are primarily designed to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part on hostilities. However, these apply to government who have ratified its terms. Every country has ratified all four Geneva conventions, but the protocols ratified varies. Countries who have ratified all four Geneva Conventions and three protocols include the majority of European and South American countries, the majority of Oceania, a few African Countries, as well as the Philippines and Kazakhstan. The United States has only ratified Protocol III in addition to Geneva Conventions I-IV. 

Conclusion

Despite warfare changing dramatically over the years, the Geneva Conventions are still considered the “cornerstone of contemporary international humanitarian law.” These treaties have come into play in recent international; armed conflicts including the War in Afghanistan, 2003 invasion of Iraq, invasion of Chechnya, and even the non-international armed conflict of the Syrian civil war. The world would have been a much different, possibly less humane place, if these Conventions had not been adopted. 

Works Cited

(n.d.). American Red Cross | Help Those Affected by Disasters. https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/International_Services/International_Humanitarian_Law/IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf

Geneva conventions and their additional protocols. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols

Geneva conventions. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Geneva-Conventions

History.com Editors. (2017, November 17). Geneva Convention. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/geneva-convention

International committee of the Red Cross. (2018, July 16). International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/geneva-conventions-1949-additional-protocols

Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol 1). (n.d.). OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and

Part 177- Police Brutality and Social Injustice

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Social Responsibilities , , ,

There’s a line between ‘enforcing the law’, and ‘police brutality’. Enforcing the law is making sure the law is obeyed and punishing people who do not do so, while police brutality is the excessive and unwarranted use of force by law enforcement against an individual or group. We’ve seen these cases with the BLM movement in 2020 and now the recent one with Tyre Nichols. Back in 2020 we tried to come up with ways to end the police violence that caused these problems, yet we’re here once again, fighting. 

The reality is, we can’t just stop something like this by taking away power or certain methods. People will always find a different way to take a course of action. The way we can do something about this is something psychologically. We, as a society, need to change our mindset. We need to stop stereotyping and having a set prejudice about people. 
Stereotypes/prejudice is something set and rooted in our minds and our thoughts that is difficult to change. We may not see or realize it at first, but there are certain actions we do that shows it. Sometimes it’s a minor thing that isn’t a problem, while other times it’s a major issue. Let’s take a stereotype we are familiar with in the past year. Asian discrimination. Now, the stereotype towards Asians could be at a minor or a major scale. 
For me, I’m a fan of Korean groups like Seventeen and TXT, so whenever I see someone Korean or Asian, my mind goes back to that. I unknowingly associate the two together, leading to a stereotype. On a major scale, there’s Asian hate. Due to the fact that COVID came from China, people have started to discriminate against Asians and Asian-Americans. This has lead to Asian violence, hate crimes, and many other terrible incidences. The fact whether that person was actually the “cause” of a problem or whether they were actually Chinese or not didn’t matter. Violence/ hate was the immediate though towards an Asian because of the pandemic origins. 
Now, with the police, stereotyping can be seen with police brutality. People say police brutality is the human rights violations by the police, when reality, it’s more of a racism/stereotyping issue. It’s a social injustice issue. The police could be given less power, given fewer weapons, or something of the kind. But that won’t change the mindset. The given mindset is that people of color like black people are dangerous. They cause trouble. They commit crimes. This reasoning causes a stereotype to think that all people of the same color or ethnicity are the same- just as dangerous and troublesome. This, deeply engraved in the mind, causes one to act wary or take extra precaution around them. This ‘extra precaution’ could mean using more force than necessary in certain situations. This leads to police brutality. Here’s another example. After 9/11 Muslim-Americans or even people with brown skin- like Indians- were discriminated against. There are reports of increased police attacks against Muslim-Americans after the attacks, despite them being innocent. Today, in airports, people of brown skin are watched with extra caution, simply because of the stereotype they could be a terrorist. The brown skin color is what causes this stereotype. That’s racism.
In America, black people are more strongly discriminated against because of our history. Relating to what I said earlier, the discrimination comes from the perception they- black people- cause trouble. The bleak history of slavery and segregation in the United States is still faintly present in today’s laws, mindsets, and thoughts. Policies and laws are made ever so cautiously in a way to be against black people because of how we thought in the past. Although it’s not directly pointed out, it still exists. 
History and experiences cause these stereotypes, and they as a result get rooted in our inns over time until they become an unconscious perception or even mindset. It alters how we act, how we think, and how we react, leading to problems. Like I said before, this is not a simple issue that can be fixed by taking away power or access to things. It’s a psychological matter. It’s a matter of removing that stereotype from policies, laws, and even minds in order to prevent violence, racism, and discrimination against different races, genders, or ethnicities. Without this, we’ll never be able to change and actually make an impact. 

Part 168- Teen Court

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice , ,
Part 168- Teen Court

Recently I’ve been participating in something called Teen Court. No it’s not because I’m in trouble. (I have a funny story about that that I’ll mention later.) It’s because I wanted to see the court process as well as practice making decisions on serious things. Although Teen Court doesn’t deal with cases such as murder or kidnappings, they do deal with things that are serious for teens. Ex: Drug paraphernalia, speeding, assault, etc.

I’ve seen the process twice now, which I am extremely lucky to have. When I first applied I accidentally misunderstood the purpose and though that I had to have some class C misdemeanor to participate. I got extremely anxious and the court supervisor calmed me down and offered me the opportunity to observe the trials. I went for the first time and witnessed two of their more serious cases. Those include an official court and attorneys who argue for your case. I have mad respect for those attorneys. I remember seeing 2 girls who absolutely amazed me. One of them completely wiped the case clean. She presented her case so calmly and was so cool in her rebuttals. I was really impressed with how she performed. The other wasn’t as powerful as the other, but she still had a really interesting way of asking questions. I also liked how she presented her argument and how she concluded.

The second time I went was last week. I had asked after the first two cases were over if I could come back in to watch once again. However, instead of just observing, the court supervisor allowed me to also participate in the process as this was a more minor case. This is something I’m extremely grateful for. When I signed up there were 90 other kids in front of me. I had been expecting to get an actual opportunity maybe in December or so, but I was lucky and got to go before my time. It was really exciting but also scary. I had never participated in something like this before and didn’t know what to do.

Let me explain how Teen Court works. ( I don’t remember the exact process of the first cases I saw, so I’ll do my best to explain.) I participate in the Southlake Town Hall Teen Court System, so it may be different or similar to other courts.

“Welcome to Volunteer Southlake.” Welcome to Volunteer Southlake | Southlake, TX – Official Website, https://www.cityofsouthlake.com/97/Volunteer-Southlake. 

 So there are two different kinds of ways a case is handled. For the more serious offenses such as underage alcohol possession or consumption or drug paraphernalia, there are trials with attorneys. After the jury and defendant take an oath, the offense first states their case. Then the defense. After that there’s a closing statement given to the jury and a final statement the defendant can give to explain themselves if wanted. The jury then goes into another room where they all make a decision. In Teen Court there aren’t really punishments. There is a minimum and maximum amount of volunteer hours given based on the severity of the offense as well as a certain number of jury terms. This is usually set by judges and cannot be changed. The jury makes a decision to assign the defendant a number of hours between that range according to what they have seen and then announce the decision once agreed upon.

For the other type of cases, the defendant and their guardian sit with a group of jurors and a supervisor. The jurors ask the questions instead and the defendant answers. The supervisor asks if there’s anything the defendant wants to say, and then the bailiff escorts them out of the room as the jurors make a decision. I was one of the jurors who got to ask a few questions and make a decision. In this I think something I learned was paying attention to every detail. We have to take in everything we’ve learned from the defendant, their case, and the given circumstances to make a decision. A decision made for one of the cases was based on a small detail I forgot to take into account for. Although a different decision seemed the better one in my opinion, it was that small detail that made the final more reasonable with a better mindset kept for the defendant. 

“Welcome to Volunteer Southlake.” Welcome to Volunteer Southlake | Southlake, TX – Official Website, https://www.cityofsouthlake.com/97/Volunteer-Southlake. 

I think Teen Court is a good system. I like how it’s giving an opportunity for kids to correct their options in a way that can help them learn and give them a second chance. Instead of sending them to juvenile detention or something similar for their actions, it’s letting them get a decision made by kids of their age to decide for themselves. It allows kids who have been in their shoes to do the same. (Here’s the funny story)

So during my last interaction there was a short break in between the next case and everyone was talking about speeding tickets. I realized then that all these kids were completing their volunteer service hours by participating in this trial. They all were discussing what they were there for. Except me. The kid in front of me asked what speed I was going at and I told him I didn’t drive. He asked whether I assaulted someone. I said I was there to observe. The kid just nodded his head. Anyways, I just felt good/awkward that I was the only one without an offense. I didn’t really realize the majority of the jurors would be kids trying to complete their offenses.

Moving on. It just allows kids who have been in the same situation as them to make a decision based on experience and a similar mindset to help. On an unrelated note, the craziest takeaway from that last experience was that I actually found out one of them is an upperclassman at my school. Here’s how it goes. I see him on Tuesday for the court, and then two days later as I walk to math I see him walking the other direction with his friends. I almost double-take to make sure it was him. IT WAS. I saw him the day after that in the fine arts hall. And now I see him almost every day in some way. I mean, a Pokémon backpack and tall figure is noticeable in the crowd, right? Every time I see him, I can’t help but think, “Oh, there’s the kid from court who got pulled over for speeding. Huh. Wonder if his friends know.”

In terms of whether Teen Court is a good or bad influence, I would say good. It does several things, including giving kids a second chance, time to volunteer, learn about the law, and a learning opportunity to make better decisions. Although I’m not participating because of some offense. It’s a great learning opportunity for me- or other potential lawyers/attorneys- to learn more about law and court. For me I can learn how court works and the sort of decisions made based on presented evidence and arguments. It can help to learn how to take everything into consideration when making a decision, and making the best choice. I think I can definitely learn a lot about the court from these opportunities in order to become a better attorney.

Part 167- Washington D.C. Trip

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Vacations , , , , ,
Part 167- Washington D.C. Trip

Summer break ended a few days ago and so school has once again begun. However, today’s post is not about what high school is like or anything. Instead, I’m talking about my very last summer trip of the year.

A little more than a week ago, for the last trip of the summer, my family and I went up east to New Jersey as well as other states nearby such as Pennsylvania and New York. But, that still isn’t the main focus of today’s post. The main focus was in fact the highlight of the trip. A visit to Washington D.C.

Our trip included staying in D.C. and taking a tour of the White House as well as the Capitol building. Unfortunately, due to – I’m assuming- the weather accident with lightning in front of the White House, our White House tour was rescheduled to a later date we already had plans for. To sum it up, we could not visit the White House. We could see it from a barricade and see its white exterior illuminate the dark night sky, but we couldn’t go inside and tour the actual building.

Apart from that, we did get to tour the Capitol – which I am extremely grateful for- as well as visit many other places such as the Lincoln Memorial, National Archives, and the National Museum of American History. This post is about what D.C. was like, and what I thought of it.

I’ve wanted to go to D.C. for a long time. Okay maybe for a few years now, but I’ve still been really set on visiting it sometime soon. The main reason was because the last time I went was when I was still a toddler, and I have no recollection of doing so. But I also wanted to visit D.C. because of the show The West Wing.
If you don’t know what it’s about I’ll summarize really quickly. The West Wing is a political drama series on how fictional Democratic President Josiah Bartlet and his presidential advisers and staffers try to run the country. It shows different political scenarios such as working through two presidential terms, political threats, scandals, other possible scenarios, and even the election race to succeed President Bartlet. I’ve always loved The West Wing and it’s one of the things that have inspired me to become a lawyer or just someone who works in the political field one day. I dreamed of one day working in the West Wing or even in D.C. and that still remains as one of my goals for the future.

Another reason for wanting to visit D.C. was because I had taken U.S. History this year and was really interested in the subject. After learning about the struggles our founding fathers went through to create this government simply for the people, I wanted to see the buildings where the same principles are applied today, 300 years later. I think because of taking that course, I had become more appreciative of not only my country but also for what it was established on. That made me more perceptive towards what we saw, and also allowed me to make better connections to what I learned. Side note: I now cry when I hear the national anthem. I- Yeah. Oh the things one history class has done to me. I mean it’s not bad. I think it’s a good thing that I actually know more about my country and I really appreciate the principles for what it was built on as well as am proud as to how we got this far. If I cry by remembering all that then so be it.

Enough about how I cry during the national anthem. Let’s actually get into the overview now.

Honestly I’m not sure what I was expecting from D.C. Whenever I hear about it I always imagine the Capitol and White House only some distance from each other and then there are a bunch of other government buildings and monuments there as well. It is like that but also different. For example, I did not expect to be able to calmly take a walk under the shade of huge trees while drinking a slushy right next to the Department of Justice. I could just walk by and wave up at the windows and be like, “Oh hello Attorney General Garland, how are you today?” I doubt that’s even possible and I would look like an absolute fool, but the idea does amuse me. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not trying to seem disrespectful towards a government official or the employees. I’m just saying it was really unexpected to be able to walk right next to such an important building as if it was normal. 

Me standing in front of the
Department of Justice
If you remember, I had visited India near the end of 2021 and early 2022 after 7 years. During that trip my parents and I visited New Delhi and saw the Parliament of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, and many other government official buildings/houses from afar. That time I was surprised about how open and nearby it was. I think that was how I thought D.C. would be. Boy was I wrong. I only got to see the Parliament from a distance and yet I was walking right next to the White House. (Not that close but still a much closer distance than I could in India.)

Apart from D.C. being full of government buildings and monuments and museums, it does have a bit of life to it. We always think of these officials as powerful and they are always making decisions that we either do or don’t agree with when they are also human like us. People in D.C. may be officials or employees but they also have normal lives. They also like minimal spice Indian food and Starbucks as well. *Ahem*

First let’s talk about the Capitol tour. Huge thank you to Senator Cornyn for getting us the opportunity for this tour as well as having one of his staffers guide us around. I would say it was different from my expectations. From a Capitol tour, I was expecting maybe how the Senate or House works and what their daily basis is. That was what a Capitol tour first meant to me. Instead, we got a building tour. We learned about the architecture of the Capitol, the statues that decorate the interior, background to the many murals and paintings, as well as how different events in history have shaped it to how it is today. I’d say I was more relieved. I was expected to ask questions during the tour and I was extremely nervous on what to ask or share an insight if it was on how Congress worked. I do know how it works, but I was worried that the amount I knew wouldn’t be enough or I may ask something stupid or say something incorrect. I found the tour guide extremely impressive and I didn’t want to embarrass myself in front of her. I also felt this sort of pressure to impress her and ask really high level questions. I think that’s why I felt so nervous to ask a question at the beginning. But throughout the tour that pressure slowly reduced and it was easier to do so. I found myself wanting to know more and tried to let that fear go. I still do think I could have asked better questions and I am disappointed at myself for not doing so. But I am happy that I was able to gather the courage to do so.

The Capitol is absolutely beautiful. I love how everything ties back to history. It’s like the Capitol is a sort of temple to thank our founding fathers and historical figures for the impact in our country. Like, there’s George Washington almost everywhere. Statues, murals, paintings, etc. The more I think about it it does feel like a temple. Every small detail is built based on how our country started to grow, bad or good. There’s not much from current events except for some women’s rights statues and such. Everything else is designed with the idea of kind of thanking the things that made our country how it is today. For example, there are American tobacco plants carved all over the building. Tobacco was a major cash crop that was a driving factor in the economy as well as what increased the need for slavery. In the Rotunda, there’s a mural that shows everything from Columbus up to the Gold Rush. In the dome of the Capitol there is a fresco called The Apotheosis of Washington that shows George Washington becoming a god or apotheosis as he was the first U.S. president and commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. I honestly think that’s kind of motivating. Everyday Senators and members of the House will come for work and they see these statues or paintings of President Washington and decide to work hard for the country. Maybe not everyone would think that way, but I think it would be a huge honor to do so. I mean, President Washington was the precedent president. He was the example of what a president should do for future presidents to come. To be able to work everyday for this country that he first led and helped fight for, now that would be motivating. 

The Apotheosis of Washington
Credit: eyeofthestrom.blogs.com
Considering that, I want to talk about the riots that happened in 2021. The Capitol breach and vandalization. I wrote a post on this about a year ago when it happened, and I have a different perspective on the situation. A proper explanation of the Capitol breach can be found from my post Part 126- Breach in the Capitol. In that post my general opinion of the situation was mainly anger and displeasure. I was extremely upset at Mr. Trump’s words and was disappointed with how people reacted in agreement to his words. This time, I’m more disappointed and ashamed.

I’ve said this many times, but I will state it one last time. In my opinion, I think the Capitol is designed like a place of gratitude and honor towards not only President Washington, but also many important figures who have shaped our country. President Lincoln, General Ulysses Grant, Sam Houston, etc. By this breach of the Capitol, not only are we disrespecting the building and work space, but also the grounds on which our country first started developing. President Washington gave a farewell address at the end of his presidency. In that address was one request for many others to not form political parties as he was afraid it would divide our nation further. Despite that request, we immediately split into two parties after he stepped down, and look how that has gotten to today.

It’s almost embarrassing to see the results of something our first president warned us about, in front of something that respects and thanks him. It’s embarrassing to think our own people would do such a thing over something small.

Other than that, the Capitol felt much smaller to me than I thought it would be. It looks huge from outside, but it’s pretty close together inside. But then again, I haven’t really seen the ENTIRE building so I may never know. 
Actual picture of me at the back of the Capitol. 
One of the interesting things about the Capitol were the statues inside. Each state is allowed to give 2 statues to the Capitol to which they can swap out whenever they want. Many other people can do so as well. However it’s not necessarily guaranteed that it would be put outside on display. I like how every state chose something unique based on what was important for them. They’re contributing their own pieces of history or even culture/traditions through these statues and the Capitol displays them proudly for everyone to see and learn about. Below are some examples. 
Helen Keller from Alabama
Credits: aoc.gov
King Kamehameha from Hawaii
Credits: aoc.gov
We also visited the Lincoln Memorial and National Archives. Being in the Lincoln Memorial felt…powerful. I can’t really explain it, but when you look at President Lincoln, there’s kind of a powerful aura that can be felt. It’s probably because the statue is huge and the expression is very confident, but you never know. A fun part of visiting was that I actually know the “history” in this. I don’t know the details of the building, but I do know about the Gettysburg Address and his second Inaugural Speech. They were written on opposite walls of each other. It felt really cool to immediately know where they came from, the background of which he said those words, and what the purpose of it was. Other than that there’s not really much I can say. It was extremely busy there and I don’t think I got to properly admire nor pay my respects in a way towards President Lincoln properly. 
Me sitting in front of
Lincoln’s second Inaugural Speech
The National Archives were pretty interesting as well. I have to say, I was mildly dissatisfied when seeing the Declaration of Independence. I think it was obvious it wouldn’t be super clear given it is 300 years old, but I was let down due to my over hopeful brain. I really liked the set up of explaining the details when writing or what happened around the documents. There were things about spelling mistakes, drafts, reasons the ink is faded, and letters that were put up beside the documents in order to have a better understanding. We didn’t spend much time in the National Archives to explore so I really only got to see the Bill or Rights, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, as well as Public Vaults. The Public Vaults were pretty much just small collections of history such as info about the 3 documents, colonization, invention patents, and more. I think there is more to the National Archives, but based on what I got to see so far, it wasn’t as exciting as I hoped it to be. Hopefully next trip we can stay longer. 
We also got to go to the National Museum of American History. I think that was one of the more interesting parts of our stay. It was quite literally a living documentation of everything in history. There was everything from transportation to cooking to democracy and everything in between. There was even a section on currency that showed how different forms of currency were used and made over time. One of my favorite exhibits was on American democracy that basically showed everything from the start of our government to now. There was stuff on the evolution of voting, protests, elections, news segments, and many more. 
A little something I found amusing
I’d say the best part of the museum was the Star Spangled Banner exhibit. Inside they first show you a timeline of everything that led to the national anthem being written. That meant a timeline of the War of 1812. There was info about the events, what weapons were used, and what it sounded like. There were real life ruins of old missiles and such on display. Further into the exhibit is the highlight. They have carefully maintained and displayed the original American flag with 15 stars and 15 stripes, that was made at that time. After being held onto by the original maker’s family for generations, it was given to the museum to which it has and presents today. This was no ordinary flag. It was HUGE. The usual size of an American flag is 3’x5’. This flag was 30×42 feet which is also much larger than the modern garrison flags used today by the US Army which are a standard 20 by 38 feet. The flag displayed was not the entirety as several parts including a star were cut away and given as keepsakes. However, it was still remarkably large and quite beautiful to look at. 
The original Star Spangled Banner
Credit: battlefields.org
My parents and I outside the
Star Spangled Banner exhibit.
To sum it up, D.C. was an interesting experience. I certainly went through a lot of emotions, including a bit of nationalism, confusion, nervousness, excitement, disappointment, gratitude, and relief to name a few. But mainly I was more motivated to work there. I couldn’t believe that people were working in such a beautiful building everyday. It seemed like an honor to work inside one of the country’s most important buildings and to do something for our country and people. Also seeing how the staffers and employees worked and were able to have such amazing opportunities of assisting and working there as well made me determined to become one of them. It would be great to one day work alongside great people and to carry on what the founding fathers established. So yeah. Washington D.C. was a great experience for me, and I really enjoyed touring the Capitol and being able to make connections to what I learned in U.S. history last year. I will certainly try to work hard to go to D.C. again – hopefully for work- and yeah, I hope you have a great weekend. See you!

Part 166- Abortion rights

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Social Responsibilities , , , ,
Part 166- Abortion rights

Hello! Were you expecting me? I know it’s been a while- ok a really long while- since I’ve last posted, and I’m truly sorry about that. I’ve had a handful of things to do this summer and have been so busy I haven’t been able to do many other things. Although some would argue it’s not that busy compared to what others do, it has been extremely busy for me and so because of that I have not been able to work on posting. But enough about my busy summer, I have a new post over something recent- not really recent- but a major event within political history. The overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The main reason I chose this topic is because a) it’s a landmark Supreme Court Case – now overturned- that is used in so many other cases throughout the years, b) because it is something that can alter so many things in the upcoming future for so many people, and c) because me being a girl means I am one of those people whose lives are now changed.

Roe v. Wade:

Roe v. Wade is a legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (7-2) on January 22, 1973, that “unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional.” (Britannica: Roe v. Wade) It struck down many federal and state abortion laws, as well as fueled an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about, “whether, or to what extent, abortion shoudl be legal, who could decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be.” (Wikipedia: Roe v. Wade)

The case was brought by Norma McCorvey- legal pseudonym “Jane Roe”- who in 1969 became pregnant with her 3rd child. She wanted to get an abortion, yet she was living in Texas where abortion is illegal except when necessary to save the mother’s life. After a ruling in her favor from a special three-judge court of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas, it was taken to the Supreme Court. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision holding that the Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy”, which protects a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion.

Before I start with what I think, I wanted to share a small opinion about the case itself. Not the decisions but rather the people involved. I feel like the basis on why Roe wanted to get an abortion is wrong. She had originally wanted an abortion, but since Texas says it is illegal to have one, many of her friends said that she should assert falsely that she had been raped by a group of black men in order to gain a legal abortion. Although it was never successful, I feel like making up a lie using something realistic and widely happening in our society isn’t right. Rape isn’t something to joke about, and in my opinion shouldn’t be used lightly. I don’t know the full context on the decisions and on what really happened so I can’t say much, but I do want to point out that using a false statement wasn’t right, and by doing so it felt as if rape was taken lightly to use for her own personal reasons. Probably not, but to me it feels that way.

Opinions:

For me, I would say I’m more pro-choice. I believe that it should be a woman’s right to decide what to do, especially since this is her body. Giving birth is a huge thing. Even just being pregnant is something huge within itself. It’s not easy, and requires full dedication towards the full time. Giving birth itself is very dangerous. It’s strenuous , painful, and can be a life-threatening thing.

However, it is proven that abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives. Compared to child birth, the death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions, and 9 deaths per 100,000 deliveries. Medication abortion has a mortality rate of 6.5 deaths per one million patients.

Having an abortion in itself isn’t easy either. It’s not as if the mother/woman is so willingly going to give up her child. It’s not an easy decision for her as well. However, based on the circumstances of her situation or anything else, she has a reason why she needs to. It’s not a “convenience” and an “easy way out”. Abortions are often because of family obligations and concerns about future children. They base their decision mainly on the ability to stay financially stable and care for their current children. It’s not an easy way out, but instead a painful and difficult decision. They do this while considering what’s right for the baby. They look ahead at the kind of life the baby would have based on finances and the ability to care for other children and dependents.

According to verywellhealth.com, there are many, similar, reasons why a decision for an abortion is made.

  • Not financially prepared: 40%
  • Bad timing, not ready, or unplanned: 36%
  • Partner related reasons- New or bad relationship, would be a single parent, partner isn’t supportive, partner doesn’t want the baby, partner is abusive, partner is the “wrong guy”
  • Need to focus on other children: 29%
  • Interferes with educational or job plans” 20%
  • Not emotionally or mentally prepared: 19%
  • Health-related reasons: 12% – concern for their own health; concern for fetus’ health; use of medications, other drugs, alcohol, or tobacco
  • Want a better life for a baby than they could provide: 12%
  • Not independent or mature enough: 7%
  • Doesn’t want a baby or to place the baby up for adoption: 4%

Another reason is also disease and genetics. (Inherited diseases) According to theconversation.com, “…each of us is more likely than not to be carriers for a disorder that would be legal before adulthood. As carriers, we are not affected by the disease, but are at risk of transmitting the disease to children if a partner is also a carrier.” For families that have experienced a serious inherited disorder, subsequent pregnancies are traumatic. Abortions are a critical option and are a security feature that allows them to consider having children again. While there are other options such as adopting, sperm or egg donations, or pre-implantation diagnosis of embryos, these all can become financial, social, or even moral burdens that some women can find impossible. Abortion should be seen as an available option if necessary. It doesn’t necessarily ALWAYS have to be used, but in certain times when truly necessary, something that can be considered and done. It can help prevent watching children die of untreatable disease.

People who often oppose abortions often criticize people with unplanned pregnancies, saying it’s irresponsible and those people should have used birth control. And that’s partially true. However, even with birth control, there are more than half of pregnancies that still occur.

Adoption. People also say, if you don’t want the child just give it up for adoption. It’s not that simple. Although that could be an option, it’s still quite dangerous for a woman who is not fit (emotionally or mentally) to have a child, give birth.

Another thing I want to bring up is rape abortions. There was a recent article of a 10-year-old being raped and getting pregnant. 10-year-old. That poor child had to travel to another state to get an abortion, since her state doesn’t allow abortions. Are you seriously going to force a 10 year old child, someone who is still learning, still maturing, still is a child and is dependent on their own parents, to become a mother and raise a child themselves??? Do you not understand how bad this is? How much pain and trauma can this have on her? Do you seriously want this poor child to suffer and go through pain, and a life-threatening thing just because you think abortion is wrong and the fetus is a living person? What if she dies??? Who knows what could happen.

In short, it should be a woman’s decision on what they should do. Some politicians should not be given the right to put their own beliefs and opinions into a decision that affects my body. The thought of having someone who I don’t even know make a decision about my own body and choice is a bit uncomfortable. I should have the right to decide what I do to my body and why. (I refer to women/ me as a woman/girl) I’m the one who knows it best. Not only that, I’m the one who knows what happens in my life. Those mothers and women have the strongest connection with the fetus and baby. They are the ones who should decide. It’s not like they willingly want to for fun and because all of a sudden they don’t want a baby anymore. Sometimes they’re not ready for it. If they give birth, based on their current life/status, the baby may not have a happy life. Or maybe the baby may not get all the love they deserve. Those mothers/women don’t want the baby to go through that. They want to raise a child with life and care in a good, steady, comfortable part of their life where they can emotionally, mentally, and financially support the child and their needs. They look forward and try to hope for the best for their child. This decision they make is difficult, but often necessary.

Abortion should be a choice made by the person having one. I believe that they are the only ones who can make the best decision for themselves and the fetus/baby. They should be the judge on what to do, and apply their own morals, experiences, opinions, etc. into a decision for themselves. They should not be pushed nor forced by others to do something they don’t want to or prevent them from doing. It should be an available option when necessary, no matter what. 
The last thing I want to talk about is rights. After the overturn of Roe v. Wade, there have been so many claims and protests saying abortion is their rights. I agree as well. But, for how long will we continue saying this? Will we continue protesting and demanding for a change and that abortion rights are women’s rights until the decision is flipped again? And then what happens after that? What happens then if it is once again flipped? Will we continue going back and forth? Instead of blaming these politicians and governors for making these decisions, shouldn’t we instead try to make it an official declaration? Shouldn’t we make it final, make it an official law that abortion is women’s rights? The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the meaning of the law, and decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of given facts. That means, based upon the majority of what the judges believe in the Court at that time, the decision/law will be interpreted differently. You can interpret something differently based on your beliefs or opinions, and that changes the outcome of things. 
A Supreme Court Justice remains in office as long as they choose and can only be removed by impeachment. That means we probably won’t be able to flip the decision again until the judges change to become in favor of pro-choice. Who knows how long that will take. So instead of continuously blaming governors and so many other people for making a decision that a state can have abortions or not, why not go and make it a law. Put it into the Constitution. 
The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments added to our Constitution. They were made for us to have rights and the freedom to do things. For example, the right to speech or religion, the right to not incriminate yourself in court, the rights not written yet still given to the people, etc. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee certain rights to the people.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That is the exact wording of the Constitution. It articulates the rights of citizens that institutions, procedures or legislation must not infringe, and which the state must strive to ensure. This being said, if you want to have abortion rights, shouldn’t we make it an amendment to the Constitution? By doing so we could establish it is a right, and no one, not even the states can infringe our right from it. Make it official. 
Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, people were able to get abortions. This being said, now that it is illegal in some states, are those women who want an abortion, no longer equal to those who previously could? We believe and try so hard to promote equality, equity, and bring everyone to the same level as one another within our needs, yet by not giving these rights, aren’t the two not equal anymore? 
The United States is often an example for others. We’re seen as a role model, a country that supports our allies and is the land of the free and home of the brave. Our entire government was built upon establishing our rights and freedoms we were denied of in England. When we don’t give equal rights to women to have abortions, wouldn’t other countries follow suit? Wouldn’t they see us differently? Aren’t we pretty much contradicting what we stand for? So is it really fair to remove a woman of her rights to have an abortion, when this not only makes her less equal to those who have before, but also to those in other countries who can today? (I’m not trying to compare countries or other people living in them, but trying to show how by banning abortion rights women are no longer equal to one another as well as others-not just women- in the world as well.)
Below I’ve linked some sources that helped me during my research on this topic. They give both sides to the debate and were interesting to read though:

Part 163- Ukraine & Russia

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice , , , , ,

Big things are happening in the world right now. Specifically, Russia invading Ukraine. I want to talk about the major questions that have come in throughout these past few days involving this war. Why is Russia invading Ukraine? Why isn’t NATO or the UN helping? Why isn’t the US helping? These questions all go back a long way to WWII. From the midst of it up until now, so many events have accumulated, leading us to this problem today.

Let’s start with the main question.

 Why is Russia invading Ukraine in the first place?

The answer to this is a bit complicated. The main start to this begins a long time ago when the USSR was ending. After the Soviet Union was declared as no longer existing, many republics began to declare independence. Among these included Ukraine. After this, Russia remained. The USSR was heavily ruined after WWII. It faced a lot of damage in the aftermath, and with the republics declaring independence from the Union, Russia – after the collapse- lost many resources.

When making machinery or militia, not everything is made in the same place. Different parts are built in various places and then brought together in one place to assemble the final product. Because of this, Russia lost many weapons and nuclear arsenal when Ukraine declared independence. That’s one thing. Although Ukraine and Russia had an agreement and Ukraine gave up all the arsenal to Russia, there is another thing that Russia could be after. The reason why Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal in place. Ukraine sits on an abundant amount of Uranium. Uranium is used to make nuclear weapons. Although Russia does have Uranium, Ukraine has a plentiful amount of it, hence a reason to invade.

Another reason is oil. Ukraine is near the Black Sea, which leads to the Mediterranean Sea and then to the Middle East. What’s found in the Middle East? Oil. 

Source{Library of Congress}

Oil and Uranium are the most possible reasons why Russia is invading Ukraine. I’ve done some research on this incident and officials- or merely just reporters- are saying there are other reasons relating to why Russia is invading Ukraine other than the ones I’ve listed. So, we don’t know just yet.

Why isn’t NATO helping? 

Well, what exactly is NATO? Let’s backtrack.

During WWII, the heads of the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet had a meeting to discuss the postwar reorganization of Germany and Europe. This was known as the Yalta Conference, which took place near Yalta in Crimea, Soviet Union. Within a few years, the Cold War began.

The Cold War was a period of tension between two major superpowers at the time, Russia and the United States, and each of their respective allies. Although this conflict was never through any actual war, many proxy wars occurred between the two. One example is Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was used for one of the proxy wars that occurred between the US and Russia. Neither wanted to get into a war on their turf, as seen during WWII, so it was better to fight on another country’s land instead. The US helped a group grow to fight Russia. It’s one we’re very familiar with. The Taliban. However, Afghanistan isn’t surrounded by water. So, the US was pretty much bringing the Taliban through Pakistan, to Afghanistan. This led to Pakistan being on US’s side, as the US was helping them. Since Pakistan and India have many, many conflicts, Russia decided to help India. But anyways, the US was trying to grow the Taliban under their influence so they’ll fight against Russia. In the end, they left Afghanistan in ruins and decided they weren’t going to do anything with the Taliban anymore. This led to the group growing even more and becoming a terrorist group, which was led by Osama bin Laden to attack the Twin Towers. A bit ironic isn’t it?

Another proxy war was the Vietnamese war. Russians fought on Vietnamese land with Vietnamese people against the United States and ended up leaving Vietnam in ruins as well.

Anyway, the Cold War pretty much created a division between the continent. Germany was split into two parts, West and East Germany. East Germany was controlled by the Soviet Union, while West Germany was controlled by the US, Britain, and France. After this, the United States and its allies created NATO.
Russia, seeing this, forms its own “group” called the Warsaw Pact with Eastern European Countries, as an equal balance of power with NATO. 

Source {The Glass Files}

Now, as I said before, the United States is not surrounded by any other countries, except Canada and Mexico. Russia, on the other hand, is bordered by 14 countries. This is a problem for Russia, as they cannot get close to the USA as easily. The US, on the other hand, can. The entire Western border of countries that surround Russia- except for Ukraine- are all part of NATO. Why not Ukraine? Well, Ukraine is directly next to Russia. If Ukraine were to join NATO, that means the US would have access to have its missiles and troops directly at Russia. Ukraine is an aspiring member of NATO, not yet a member, and Russia wants NATO to promise to never accept Ukraine as a member. They said that Ukraine joining NATO would be a threat to Russia’s borders, as already there are 5 NATO countries currently bordering Russia. Because of this, NATO, unfortunately, cannot help Ukraine. 

Source { Quora}

What about the UN?

In the United Nations, there is something called a Security Council. In the Security Council, there are 5 permanent members and many temporary members which change. The 5 permanent members are the USA, UK, France, China, and Russia. These 5 members have veto power over UN resolutions. This means that a permanent member can block the adoption of a resolution without having to debate on it. So, if one member says no, then the resolution is vetoed, even if the others say yes. Everyone has to agree.

Source {Cambridge Global Affair}
Source {dw.com}
Council meeting to discuss Ukraine-Russia
Situation

When Ukraine came to the UN, Russia- a permanent member- vetoed the resolution to help Ukraine. Because Russia said no, nobody could do anything, which means that the UN cannot help Ukraine as well.
There is one country that could help Ukraine, but they have stepped back. India. India became the President of the Security Council, and could help Ukraine, but has already said that it will remain independent and balanced, and will not help. India has a very strong reason to do so.

When India was testing nuclear weapons, Ukraine thought of India as bad. Many times, Ukraine has always condemned India and said India was bad for many things, including its conflicts with Pakistan. Ukraine even sent tanks to Pakistan, which were then used against Indians. So, when Ukraine came to India to help them, India chose to stay out and remain independent.

What about other countries?

Many other countries in Europe can’t help Ukraine, as Russia controls an energy supply, which can be cut off by them.

One other question I’d like to talk about is about what was to happen if Ukraine ended up being taken by Russia.

First, let’s go back to the end of WWII- again- and start from there. When Germany realized it was going to lose the war, it started to crumble and was destroyed. However, there was still one country that was still fighting. Japan. At this time, the United States decides to finally stop this and dops two nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seeing the effects of the bombs, the world was shocked. This was when they realized the United States was on a completely different level compared to them. At that time, the United States didn’t see Russia as a threat. Russia was left in ruins after the war, while the US was perfectly fine, as there was almost no fighting on US soil.

Slowly, over time, Russia began building itself up again, until it became a superpower as well. Soon the Cold War emerged, and Europe was divided between two sides. Pro-USA or Pro-Russia. As I mentioned before, Ukraine has an abundant amount of Uranium. Russia has already close to the level the US is at now, so there is some tension between the two. The US doesn’t want them to be the same, and so they don’t want Russia to get their hands on that Uranium. So, as far as I have heard, the US has troops ready and planned to send some, but they are still not sent just yet.

Overall, I think Ukraine might be the one to blame here. It got itself in its mess. Although Russia is wrong to just attack Ukraine like that and is using hostile force, Ukraine can’t do anything about it. Although the rest of the world is trying to help them, I feel like they should have planned or even seen this coming. I mean, Russia and Ukraine have been having problems since 2014. Ukraine should have been better prepared in case this happened. They also shouldn’t have been too hasty in taking sides. India could have helped Ukraine and talked with Russia about this issue If Ukraine hadn’t condemned India many times in the past. Ukraine was hasty to make a decision and jump to say that India was bad, without even thinking of what could have happened in the future. It’s practically karma. Not only that, Ukraine was aspiring to be part of NATO.

There are many requirements to joining NATO and Ukraine didn’t meet any of those at first. With the help of NATO, Ukraine was getting there. However, many European Allies were against Ukraine joining since it could affect their relationship with Russia. They hoped they could have a closer relationship with Moscow, and Ukraine joining NATO could be a problem. If those Allies could have overcome those thoughts, we possibly could have saved a lot of Ukrainian and Russian lives by now.

The UN is also at partial fault. I feel like their system is very slightly biased. Out of the 5 permanent members, there are three European members, one Asian member, and one North American Member. There are six continents, excluding Antarctica. More than half of the permanent members are from one. Not only that, these countries are all those big powerful ones, and they won’t give up their positions. Because of that, they don’t let countries that need voices to speak out have a chance. Yes, sometimes you need these stronger countries to lead and make decisions because they have the resources and can often make the best decisions to help, but it’s always biased. These big countries that have conflicts with other smaller countries- Russia or China- will use their power as permanent members to prevent those smaller countries to have a voice in decisions. They kind of overpower the others. The concept of the UN was made with good intentions, by a great man. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had a dream and decided that the United States cannot ever turn its backs on the world again. From this dream, the UN soon came to be. Although many beneficial things have come out of the efforts of the UN, sometimes the resolutions to certain problems are biased. Or the problems may not even be solved, like what’s happening with Ukraine. I believe there should be a better division of power between the permanent members. Maybe a member per continent or even an ally speaks on behalf of many other countries and is represented. I’m not sure how that could or even would complicate things, but it is a suggestion.

Anyways, that was my take on the Ukraine-Russia situation. I wonder how the other countries will assist Ukraine, and how Ukraine figures out a way to solve this matter. I also wonder if Ukraine will still be an aspiring member and if it ever will get to be a part of NATO.

Part 161- Native Americans and History

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment General Topics, Law and Justice, School Life, Social Responsibilities , ,

So in History we’ve started a new unit. We’ve finished Madison’s Presidency, War of 1812, Industrial Revolution, and Monroe’s Presidency. Now, we’ve started Jackson’s Presidency. We’ve only just started the unit, so I’m still learning. However, we did a brief insight on what the unit covers. One of the things that stood out to me- well two- were the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears.

The Indian Removal Act authorized President Andrew Jackson to negotiate land-exchange treaties with tribes living east of the Mississippi. The treaties enacted under this act’s provisions led to the reluctant-and often forcible- emigration of tens of thousands of American Indians to plots of land west of the Mississippi. This is more commonly known as the Trail of Tears. The Cherokee Indians, and many other tribes, were forced to leave their lands and travel from North Carolina and Georgia through Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas. More than 800 miles ( 1,287 km)- to the Indian Territory. It’s said that President Jackson did so for the good of the Natives, and so they would be able to live away from the colonies and not be affected by them. However, if that was the intention, then why couldn’t the Natives be transported by train or cart? We had just gotten out of the Industrial Revolution at that time, and had developed all these amazing, efficient ways to travel yet we forced the Indians to travel by FOOT on a 116 day journey, and on which more than 4,000 out of 15,000 Cherokees died of cold, disease, and lack of food? We were doing this for their better good, yet we ended up killing a fourth of their population! And for what? The land we promised them, eventually was taken away. Again! By the US! Couldn’t we have provided them with food or clothing or even better transportation in order to help them safely reach their destination? It’s called the Trail of Tears because of the tears shed for the loved ones lost from this journey. However, this is only one event.

 In the past, the Treaty of Hopewell was signed in Georgia, protecting Cherokee Native Americans in the United States, yet we sectioned off their land. Then there’s the Treaty of Houston, in which all of their land outside of the borders previously established is given up. All within 6 years. 

The Battle of Timbers was the last major battle over the Northwest territory following the American Revolution. Then we have the Louisiana Purchase. France pretty much just sold it to us without caring about who lived there or not.

In 1814, US forces and Native American allies attacked Creek Indians who opposed American expansion and encroachment of their territory. The Creeks cede more than 20 million acres of land after their loss.

After President Jackson, President Martin Van Buren did a similar thing. In order to speed up the process of the Cherokees leaving their land, he enlists 7,000 troops to hold them at gunpoint and marches them 1,200 miles. GUNPOINT! Firstly, we strip them of their own land without their consent and force them to walk 800 miles to new land. Then, because there are still some left and we want to speed it up, we ( the US) decide to make them march 1,200 miles at gunpoint. How absurd is that?! 

Not only that, we start passing acts that forbid them from leaving their reservations unless they have permission. We basically trap them in a plot of land smaller than they once had, just because we want to settle further west and expand. What happened to ‘the good of the Indians’?

Daily living on the reservations was difficult. It was almost impossible for tribes to maintain their culture and traditions inside a confined area. Not only that, feuding tribes were carelessly thrown together, and Indians who once were hunters, struggled as farmers. They were forced to get out of their spiritual beliefs by converting to Christianity, learn English, and wear non-Indian clothing.

Although the intention of this was to help the natives improve their quality of life by assimilating into white culture easier and faster, it really didn’t do anything. As the land owned by the Indians grew smaller and smaller, more land was opened to white settlers and railroads. Much of the reservation wasn’t even good farmland, and many Indians couldn’t afford the supplies needed to reap a harvest.

After all this, in 1934 a new act was passed. The Indian Reorganization Act. It was passed with the goals of restoring Native American culture and returning surplus land to tribes. It also encouraged tribes to self-govern and write their own constitutions and provided financial aid for any reservation infrastructure.

Today, modern Indian reservations still exist, and fall under the umbrella of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA is a United States federal agency within the Department of the Interior, and is responsible for implementing federal laws and policies related to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. It works with tribal governments to help administer law enforcement and justice; promote development in agriculture, infrastructure, and the economy; enhance tribal governance; manage natural resources; and generally advance the quality of life in tribal communities.

Despite that this is meant to help the Natives, I can’t help but feel it’s ironic. I mean, before they literally pushed the Natives as far as they could to help the US develop and expand, and this led to the reason they suffered and could barely survive. They did this without caring about the conditions there or how it could affect their lifestyle, and now they have an entire agency that helps advance the quality of their life. It’s basically like, okay we’re gonna take all your land despite the kindness you’ve shown, expand our own country and develop it first, and then we’ll create this agency to help you have a better life and help take care of your tribe. If only we had never pushed the natives, we wouldn’t be like this.

Even though we have an agency that helps the tribes, living conditions on the reservations aren’t ideal and are often compared to that of a third-world or try. Housing is overcrowded and often below standards, and many people on the reservations are stuck in a cycle of poverty. Health care is provided on reservations, but it’s underfunded and, in some cases, practically non-existent. I get that the BIA may be doing as much as it can to help the natives, but this is really ridiculous.

We’ve pretty much forced them to adapt and live in a home smaller than what was theirs, and get used to our modern society while they’re still struggling to survive and improve their living conditions. While it’s a good thing that we’re trying to fix our mistakes by helping them, it really just seems a bit ironic to me.

Another thing I want to add is the Worcester v. Georgia case. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee nation was a “domestic dependent nation” with no rights binding on a state. That being said, they should be able to do what they want, right? Well, no. Even though they lost in court because they were ruled as a distinct nation, they were never treated like one. They were practically treated like animals as they were forced to move and give up their land. The land that was rightfully theirs first.

But why would this have happened? Why is it that now we started caring instead of back then? Well, the same reason why slavery existed. Because of the race and color. The Europeans fought with each other for territory. They didn’t just take it and say, oh this is mine now. Why? Well because they were mostly of the same color. They looked similar. They were white. But when they come to the New World and see the natives of a different color ( darker than them) they think it’s okay for them to ignore the natives. The color isn’t the same, so why should they care? It’s because they’re different that settlers pushed them back. If the natives weren’t, most likely there wouldn’t have been the same problems as there were in history.

But, even after all the problems and challenges they’ve had to go through in the past and even now, the natives continue to hold onto their heritage and thrive as a community. I admire that. Although they’ve experienced pain, and suffering, and gone through so many hardships, they continue to persist and pass down their traditions and beliefs. They continue to, and forever will. They’ve never given up, and that’s truly remarkable. 

I feel guilty knowing how the settlers pretty much kicked the natives out of their own homes. It’s upsetting how this part of history is skimmed over and not thoroughly understood. I know slavery and the actions with the natives are two different things, but they are similar in some ways. Recently, people have been taking out evidence of the Confederate to erase that part in history. If they’re taking that out, then shouldn’t they remove everything we did to the natives as well? Or at least bring it to light, as that’s what we’ve been doing with the BLM movement.  I find it hypocritical.The United States is always trying to defend human rights and speak out against genocide. However, what people don’t realize is that what we’ve done to natives in the past is similar. For example, Uyghur genocide in China, or the  Holocaust. I know that these topic are far more brutal and much much more worse than the history with Native Americans. It does not come onto the same level as them. The Holocaust was a genocide of European Jews, of which over 6 million were killed. Extermination through labor in concentration camps, mass shootings, gas chambers, extermination camps, and so many other ways to implement the persecution. In China, the Uyghur genocide is being done through state-sponsored internment camps, forced labor, suppression of Uyghur religious practices, forced sterilization, etc. I don’t even know how to describe them. It’s horrible. Although I cannot compare it to the situations with the Native Americans in the past, it is only slightly similar. It’s hypocritical of us to speak out and do so much to change all the racial persecution and discrimination in the world when it’s what we’ve done in the past. We need to change this. The United States is the land of the free. It’s shown in a good light. We’re always trying to make a change and show ourselves as a protector. But how do we do that if we never protected the people who welcomed us on their land. Who helped us survive and actually helped us grow? This brings up another thing. Thanksgiving. The whole idea behind this holiday is ironic. We celebrate Thanksgiving as a reminder of how the Native Americans helped us and treated us kindly when we arrived on their land. To be thankful. In reality though, we’ve never returned their kindness. We took it for granted and drive them out of their homes. While there are thousands out there suffering, and living in poverty, we sit at a table with the original Thanksgiving meal, thanking them for their kindness. How ironic is that. I don’t mind Thanksgiving. At least we’re acknowledging their kindness. But ho ware we going to repay it? That’s what we should  be doing instead. On Thanksgiving, instead of sitting and having a grand meal as a tradition, isn’t there something else we can do? A way to show we’re actually thankful? Maybe help get them out of poverty? Or even give back a proper compensation for all the land we’ve taken from them? Maybe not just in money, but if possible, in the land that is left?I only mention this because I think this is also an important part of history we should understand. We need to understand how 13 colonies grew to a country. Not just by the presidents and wars, but also by how we took the land from others. We need to know our mistakes and be able to fix them, or at least compensate for them in order to move on and progress. That’s how we understand history.