I'm fairly sure that we all want to change something about the world. It varies from person to person, both in the subject of our attention and our motivation to do something about it. However, is there any way that we can bring our good intentions to action?
We all certainly would like to make a change in the world.
Leave our mark on history so to speak.
If only it was that easy.
We hear every day about protesters being beaten down, and even more often we don't hear about the protests at all. It's discouraging to think about all the things we would like to do, and then think about the scarity of things actually happening. Indeed, we are often overwhelmed by how willing everyone is to ignore us. Even people who support our causes will often turn their backs and feel that we're being childish. Some will believe that we are fighting for a lost cause, and others will not want to risk their content livelihood on something as fickle as a protest.
Now there is still a very important question to be asked. Are they wrong to ignoring us? Are we doing something that we ought not be doing? Are we not doing something that we should be doing?
Perhaps we are.
Let's look at examples of successful protests throughout the years.
This first example is one that many of us will probably remember, as it took place not long ago:
The global strike against the war in Iraq.
When the USA declared its intention to attack the country of Iraq as a counterstrike against the 9/11 plane crashes, the world immediately flared up in protests. Not only was the link between Iraq and the 9/11 crashes unfounded, but it was only a small group that would need to be targeted. the Iraq government had been right not to allow the USA to enter and search for the supposed 'terrorists'. There were too many uninvolved innocents that would be assumed guilty. Yet, in spite of this, the USA decided to declare war.
Several million people began forming protests against this blatant hostility and unnecessary use of force. Europe, North Amercia, Asia, Austrailia; each continent had its own degree of anti-war sentiment. Together with by-and-large support from their own governments, these protests lasted for a while, though they ultimately did not stop the war, they can be traced back as an incentive for post-war aid to those countries that were effected by the actions of the USA.
A more youth oriented strike was the Newsboys strike of 1899 in New York City:
Newsboys were essentially homeless children who became a necessity for the newspaper companies as a means of mass distribution. The price of the papers was 50 cents for 100 papers to the newsboys, who then sold the papers for 1 cent each. Unfortunately, if they baught too many papers they were unable to do anything about it and lost money. Typically, a newsboy could make a 30 cent profit, leaving them with 20 unsold papers that they would have to simply throw away, as papers couldn't be resold.
Due to the increase in newspaper sales during the Spanish-American war, the publishers began selling the papers to the newsboys at a higher price, 60 cents, enabling the publishers to make an additional 10 percent profit, but causing the already homeless and poor newsboys to lose 10 percent of their own profit. 10 Percent that they could hardly live without.
The strike was run and maintained completely by the newsboys, forming the very first children's labour union. By refusing to circulate the papers and having several rallies in which they drew more paperboys to their cause, they effectively cutdown the circulation of the papers to a mere 1/3 of it's former amount. The publishing companies hired violent gangs to break up the rallies and protect the still-circulating newspaper deliverers. It was not a notably peaceful strike in that regard, but it was also not an anti-violence protest.
Eventually the newspaper companies agreed to allow the newsboys to sell the papers back to the company if they were left unsold, relieving the stress on the newsboys. The 'union' was disbanded once the demands were met.
What was it that allowed these strikes to take root; to hold their own against opressive forces and, in the end, lead to a change in the way things worked?
There are a number of things that we see in both cases.
First of all, there is a clear goal and focus of both of these strikes. There is no way that there can be a comprimise, even if they are ignored, they know what they want. Both the newboys and the Global anti-war protesters focused exactly on what they wanted, something completely reasonable and impossible to misinterpret. In the Global strike it was clearly the suppression of the USA which was acting outside of the United Nations and was clearly ignoring the rights of the innocent people in the country they would be warring against. In the case of the Newsboys it was even more specific. They wanted to not have their earnings taken away from them and wanted compensation for their hard work.
Second of all, there were many people who shared a similar sentiment. By being under single banner and not overcomplecating their demands, many people were inclined to join both of these strike movements. Whether it was the loss of already meagre profits or a demand not to start a pointless and inhumane war, people could, and did, sympathize with them.
Thirdly, they did not lose their drive for success. Though there seemed to be no improvement in the USA's attitude, the global protesters realized that they could not just fade away until the war had officially moved beyond all hope of aversion. In the Newsboys strike it was even more vital. The strikers and rallies were under not only critical, but also physical attack. What set them apart from other attempts at strike over the course of history is that they took hold of their rights and didn't falter in the face of adversity that they couldn't physically overcome without a lot of guts.
All three of these things are often missing, with the second reason being most often present, but completely ignoring the first and third. Because protests do not often have a clear goal, and the protests quickly crumple under adversity, there are few people who want to join them. Who wants to be part of a cause that doesn't know what it wants and doesn't have enough commitment to hold on even when things look like ther wont turn out.
Perhaps the Newsboys had an advantage over us, they didn't have anything else to worry about, so it was obvious that they wouldn't give in when the one thing they had was taken from them. However, I think that youth and adults alike could learn from them and the global protesters.
Have a clear goal that you want to achieve, find people who believe in what you want to fight for, and don't give in when you don't get what you want immediately.
Protests fail today because of all of these things, but the third is the most vital and least seen in the world today.
Even if someone doesn't agree with you, they might support you if you show that what your doing matters. If not necessarily to them, then at least to YOU.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Poland; Tragedy From WWII
Though there are many modern conflicts, and their impact on the environment and on the people in the area is undeniable, I'd like to take a step back from the modern world which we all understand and can see with our own eyes. I would like to take you all back to a time in the middle 1900's, a time when the world was at war, yet again.
Immediately images from the movie renditions of the holocaust may fill your mind, perhaps even German propaganda regarding the evil people that the Germans were. Or maybe you recall the desolated landscape that remained with the people of Poland for a great many years to come.
Though that is unlikely.
Poland was, and is considered one of the greatest mistakes made by the people countering the German offensive. Even within Poland resentment still is not pushed aside for what the 'allies' FAILED to do. They FAILED to provide adequate aid for Poland, they FAILED to save them from the social, economical, and environmental stresses they were put under, then and now.
Of course, one can argue that there was nothing that the 'allies' could have done. Perhaps even argue that Poland was hardly a large sacrifice in the grand scheme of the war. That may be the case looking back, but I feel there is a need to look again and realize exactly what happened because of the inability to create peace in time.
Poland has always had a very precarious standing with regards to its international relations. Russia had annexed a portion of its land, even while it was allied with Britain and France, and when Russia joined the war effort against Germany, there was only more confusion to be had. Seeing as Russia would not directly help Poland, considering their past, and England saw Poland as it did many of its other 'broken off' countries, as a overly ambitius country with no grasp on how a government should be run.
With such misunderstandings dominating the global view of Poland, it seems much less climatic that Poland was taken over by Germany. Particularily in the way that it was done. Germany attacked Poland from north south and west using the chaotic and heavily damaging Blitzkrieg technique, something which had not been performed previously and caught the Polish people off guard. In spite of this, the Poles defended themselves for several days before Russia (then the USSR) attacked from the East, surrounding the Poles entirely. When petitioned for aid by the Polish government, the 'allies' did nothing. After 35 days of fierce battling, Poland was officially defeated, not to be freed until after the war.
The reasons why it would never become strong again was that a great many of the fighting men were dead, the holocaust had taken hold in Poland in spite of anti-germany sentiment, and there had been another genocide involving a Ukrainian semi-ruler and many other issues for racial minorities in the country.
What we end up with is a desperate country breaking away from former bondage after a great many years of not being rescued by the 'allied' forces, its allies. Having suffered more damage to the populous than many of the other anti-German forces and having any infrastructure they had established destroyed, it is no wonder that Poland is one of the worst off European countries.
In addition, due to the Blitzkrieg already mentioned, there was very little environment left over, and what little there was would be destroyed or abused by the occupying forces.
So you see, Poland has received a reputation as being one of the quickest to submit to the German forces, while all along it was the one that was given the least help. It was because of this lack of aid that Poland suffered the incredible losses it did, comparable even to any modern conflict and equally tragic.
"Lest we forget."
Immediately images from the movie renditions of the holocaust may fill your mind, perhaps even German propaganda regarding the evil people that the Germans were. Or maybe you recall the desolated landscape that remained with the people of Poland for a great many years to come.
Though that is unlikely.
Poland was, and is considered one of the greatest mistakes made by the people countering the German offensive. Even within Poland resentment still is not pushed aside for what the 'allies' FAILED to do. They FAILED to provide adequate aid for Poland, they FAILED to save them from the social, economical, and environmental stresses they were put under, then and now.
Of course, one can argue that there was nothing that the 'allies' could have done. Perhaps even argue that Poland was hardly a large sacrifice in the grand scheme of the war. That may be the case looking back, but I feel there is a need to look again and realize exactly what happened because of the inability to create peace in time.
Poland has always had a very precarious standing with regards to its international relations. Russia had annexed a portion of its land, even while it was allied with Britain and France, and when Russia joined the war effort against Germany, there was only more confusion to be had. Seeing as Russia would not directly help Poland, considering their past, and England saw Poland as it did many of its other 'broken off' countries, as a overly ambitius country with no grasp on how a government should be run.
With such misunderstandings dominating the global view of Poland, it seems much less climatic that Poland was taken over by Germany. Particularily in the way that it was done. Germany attacked Poland from north south and west using the chaotic and heavily damaging Blitzkrieg technique, something which had not been performed previously and caught the Polish people off guard. In spite of this, the Poles defended themselves for several days before Russia (then the USSR) attacked from the East, surrounding the Poles entirely. When petitioned for aid by the Polish government, the 'allies' did nothing. After 35 days of fierce battling, Poland was officially defeated, not to be freed until after the war.
The reasons why it would never become strong again was that a great many of the fighting men were dead, the holocaust had taken hold in Poland in spite of anti-germany sentiment, and there had been another genocide involving a Ukrainian semi-ruler and many other issues for racial minorities in the country.
What we end up with is a desperate country breaking away from former bondage after a great many years of not being rescued by the 'allied' forces, its allies. Having suffered more damage to the populous than many of the other anti-German forces and having any infrastructure they had established destroyed, it is no wonder that Poland is one of the worst off European countries.
In addition, due to the Blitzkrieg already mentioned, there was very little environment left over, and what little there was would be destroyed or abused by the occupying forces.
So you see, Poland has received a reputation as being one of the quickest to submit to the German forces, while all along it was the one that was given the least help. It was because of this lack of aid that Poland suffered the incredible losses it did, comparable even to any modern conflict and equally tragic.
"Lest we forget."
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Militainment: Changing the Face of Democracy as We Thought We Knew it
It could be any average afternoon, maybe a bit cold and rainy. You flick on the TV and, of course, the news is the only thing on this early in the day. So what are today's headlines? NHL? Cat saved from a tree? War? Activists protesting the creation of natural leather?
Hmm... Nothing out of the ordinary.
Sadly that's become rather true of our media culture. Right alongside sports and activist protests is war, sliding in easily into the headlines. War is just a flashy news special anyway. Nothing wrong with that.
According to the pentagon that is exactly what you're meant to think. Now introducing Militainment Inc. The company that tells you what the government wants you to be told! Basically, a proverbial "throwing from the window" for the freedom of the press.
The Militainment inc. Movie is a very long thing, so I viewed the topics that interested me: the introduction, "Clean war?", "How to get you hating 'the enemy'", Video games and "How to make peace activists look bad: Dissent."
While overall the video seemed well thought-out, and mostly factual, drawing logical conclusions based on media literacy. Some of the conspiracies are slightly far fetched, though I wont outright dispute their validity, just noting that the examples are 'according to the movie' when that's what they are.
Some of the examples that I really noticed involved the desensitization of people using common film techniques that draw our attention toward the 'light show' rather than the devastation that occurs. For example, we see bombs hitting enemy territory all the time. What are these bombs hitting? Why aren't we shown how this effects the everyday person in the area? How are the bombs helping the situation in any way what so ever?
According to the movie, it's because showing the truth about that would make people lose faith in the war, which is not what militainment inc. wants for YOU! They want you to continue to support them, make a grand spectacle of the justice of it all rather than show what an inhumanity it really is.
Take, for instance, the example they used: the initial fanfare of the beginning of the war against Iraq. There are so many explosions it's hard not to be impressed, unless you see the half burnt faces of the children who used to live where that missile just landed. The civilian death count was astronomically high, much higher than that of the US's excuse for the war in the beginning. The Twin Towers incident of 9/11.
On that note, have you noticed the overwhelming underwhelmingness of the bombs the US drops on foreign countries? While the Bombs of the 'terrorists' are clearly more effective, often leaving families in unjust ruins? That's obviously not the whole story, but from the way these are presented in the media it would be very hard to think otherwise.
"Wait... there could have been CHILDREN in those buildings!?"
Yes, when you get down to it, the 3000 death count of 9/11 seems merely pitiable in comparison to the conservatively estimated losses in Iraq, 100,000+ deaths; that only considers civilians. Of course, one certainly wont be found on any American news network.
This was mostly the work of a small group of people at the height of corporate and political power. This is definitely not what all the citizens of the US want! Perhaps it wouldn't be, aside from terrible media coverage, which is likewise very critical of the public. After all, a voice of reason saying that 'war isn't necessary' and 'we want our sons and daughters home' isn't a good image for the war or the government, particularly if it goes on unaddressed. The way they 'deal' with this is probably the most disturbing thing in the entire film.
They criminalize the protests.
That's right, supporters of the protests are criminals who resist the police and are CLEARLY trying to lower the morale of the soldiers, essentially KILLING SAID SOLDIERS BY TAKING AWAY THEIR DESIRE TO GET SHOT FOR THEIR COUNTRY.
I do believe the point has been missed here.
What is seen as 'lowering morale' is simply 'applying common sense'. They don't need to fight this war. They don't need to get themselves killed. They simply need to be pulled out so that peace can finally begin to move into the scene. However, Militainment cannot allow that to happen, definitely not. The US government can make no mistakes, certainly not by starting the war in the first place. Therefore anyone who contradicts them is wrong beyond any shadow of doubt, no matter how many lives must be taken to prove as much.
This is ridiculous.
After all, war is never started over actually caring about what happens to those around you.
Hmm... Nothing out of the ordinary.
Sadly that's become rather true of our media culture. Right alongside sports and activist protests is war, sliding in easily into the headlines. War is just a flashy news special anyway. Nothing wrong with that.
According to the pentagon that is exactly what you're meant to think. Now introducing Militainment Inc. The company that tells you what the government wants you to be told! Basically, a proverbial "throwing from the window" for the freedom of the press.
The Militainment inc. Movie is a very long thing, so I viewed the topics that interested me: the introduction, "Clean war?", "How to get you hating 'the enemy'", Video games and "How to make peace activists look bad: Dissent."
While overall the video seemed well thought-out, and mostly factual, drawing logical conclusions based on media literacy. Some of the conspiracies are slightly far fetched, though I wont outright dispute their validity, just noting that the examples are 'according to the movie' when that's what they are.
Some of the examples that I really noticed involved the desensitization of people using common film techniques that draw our attention toward the 'light show' rather than the devastation that occurs. For example, we see bombs hitting enemy territory all the time. What are these bombs hitting? Why aren't we shown how this effects the everyday person in the area? How are the bombs helping the situation in any way what so ever?
According to the movie, it's because showing the truth about that would make people lose faith in the war, which is not what militainment inc. wants for YOU! They want you to continue to support them, make a grand spectacle of the justice of it all rather than show what an inhumanity it really is.
Take, for instance, the example they used: the initial fanfare of the beginning of the war against Iraq. There are so many explosions it's hard not to be impressed, unless you see the half burnt faces of the children who used to live where that missile just landed. The civilian death count was astronomically high, much higher than that of the US's excuse for the war in the beginning. The Twin Towers incident of 9/11.
On that note, have you noticed the overwhelming underwhelmingness of the bombs the US drops on foreign countries? While the Bombs of the 'terrorists' are clearly more effective, often leaving families in unjust ruins? That's obviously not the whole story, but from the way these are presented in the media it would be very hard to think otherwise.
"Wait... there could have been CHILDREN in those buildings!?"
Yes, when you get down to it, the 3000 death count of 9/11 seems merely pitiable in comparison to the conservatively estimated losses in Iraq, 100,000+ deaths; that only considers civilians. Of course, one certainly wont be found on any American news network.
This was mostly the work of a small group of people at the height of corporate and political power. This is definitely not what all the citizens of the US want! Perhaps it wouldn't be, aside from terrible media coverage, which is likewise very critical of the public. After all, a voice of reason saying that 'war isn't necessary' and 'we want our sons and daughters home' isn't a good image for the war or the government, particularly if it goes on unaddressed. The way they 'deal' with this is probably the most disturbing thing in the entire film.
They criminalize the protests.
That's right, supporters of the protests are criminals who resist the police and are CLEARLY trying to lower the morale of the soldiers, essentially KILLING SAID SOLDIERS BY TAKING AWAY THEIR DESIRE TO GET SHOT FOR THEIR COUNTRY.
I do believe the point has been missed here.
What is seen as 'lowering morale' is simply 'applying common sense'. They don't need to fight this war. They don't need to get themselves killed. They simply need to be pulled out so that peace can finally begin to move into the scene. However, Militainment cannot allow that to happen, definitely not. The US government can make no mistakes, certainly not by starting the war in the first place. Therefore anyone who contradicts them is wrong beyond any shadow of doubt, no matter how many lives must be taken to prove as much.
This is ridiculous.
After all, war is never started over actually caring about what happens to those around you.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Peace Culture list.
A method that one could use to guage the level of peace in a person's life is by seeing how many direct links to peace they can make in a variety of catagories. I'm not entirely sure about the factuality of that method, as simply knowing about war and practicing it are different things, likewise, knowing about peace and practicing peace are very, very different things.
However, I digress, here is the list I made:
1. .Name a movie about peace. Any number of Disney fairy tales.
2. .Picture a peace uniform. The uniform of the RCMP.
3. .Name a high-school course that studies peace (okay, okay, I know!!) THIS ONE! XP And Social Studies 11 I believe.
4. .Picture a peace painting. The painting of St.Fancis of Aussisi.(I forget the painter... )
5. .Name a television show about peace. Phineas and Ferb. (how much more peaceful than summer vacation can you get? ^^!
6. .Name a peace hero. Mother Theresa
7. .Name a video game based on peace. Animal Crossing
8. .Picture or name a peace toy. (What qualifies as a "peace toy"?????)
9. .Picture or name a peace memorial or monument. I suppose the old Giant penny would count... Though I'm sure I know a better one. >.<#
10. .Name a poem, book, or story about peace. "Drummer Boy" by Ted Dekker
Surprisingly (for myself), I had an almost equal number of items on the above list and the matching list for violence/war. Although, as I said before, that could mean I'm simply knowledgeable about both sides, I practice both sides (somehow), or I know about one side and practice the other, it's very hard to say for a objective person looking at only the results...
At any rate, I do actually believe that the amount of items on the 'violence' list does effect our culture, perhaps more than we readily admit. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing.
"Oh no! Don't say that! Knowing about war so much means it's common and that is BAD!" *evil glares*
Quite right, but there is also the fact that we aren't simply pretending that the wars aren't happening. They may be overglorified at times, but ignorance is only bliss until the war spreds to somewhere you can't ignore it anymore. Knowing about how war works, the mechanics of it, the people who start and end them- those are all key resources for people trying to predict and diffuse violent and hateful situations from which wars escalate. Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on peace, but the fact that war is very real is not something that should be ignored.
On a side note, could it be that we are naturally a very violent people? Are we drawn towards violence in media and art because we secretly long to be actively involved in such atrocities? My answer to this may be a little harsh, but I believe it to be true. We are a naturally violent society. Humanity has long praised itself for not being held back, being able to exceed their limits and bring themselves to levels of power that would seem to be impossible. And it is this aspiration- this desire to be more- that is active in both our greatest triumphs of art and peace, and in the atrocities of war and hatred. Unfortunately, we very rarely view our options and end up in the midst of hatred more often than not, and loving it for the power we feel it gives us.
In conclusion, there is war in the world that we can't ignore, but we also cannot make it greater than the unending pain and tradgedy that it is. We need to use our desire to exceed our limits to treat people, not how they 'deserve' to be treated, but as we would want them to treat us if our roles were reversed.
However, I digress, here is the list I made:
1. .Name a movie about peace. Any number of Disney fairy tales.
2. .Picture a peace uniform. The uniform of the RCMP.
3. .Name a high-school course that studies peace (okay, okay, I know!!) THIS ONE! XP And Social Studies 11 I believe.
4. .Picture a peace painting. The painting of St.Fancis of Aussisi.(I forget the painter... )
5. .Name a television show about peace. Phineas and Ferb. (how much more peaceful than summer vacation can you get? ^^!
6. .Name a peace hero. Mother Theresa
7. .Name a video game based on peace. Animal Crossing
8. .Picture or name a peace toy. (What qualifies as a "peace toy"?????)
9. .Picture or name a peace memorial or monument. I suppose the old Giant penny would count... Though I'm sure I know a better one. >.<#
10. .Name a poem, book, or story about peace. "Drummer Boy" by Ted Dekker
Surprisingly (for myself), I had an almost equal number of items on the above list and the matching list for violence/war. Although, as I said before, that could mean I'm simply knowledgeable about both sides, I practice both sides (somehow), or I know about one side and practice the other, it's very hard to say for a objective person looking at only the results...
At any rate, I do actually believe that the amount of items on the 'violence' list does effect our culture, perhaps more than we readily admit. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing.
"Oh no! Don't say that! Knowing about war so much means it's common and that is BAD!" *evil glares*
Quite right, but there is also the fact that we aren't simply pretending that the wars aren't happening. They may be overglorified at times, but ignorance is only bliss until the war spreds to somewhere you can't ignore it anymore. Knowing about how war works, the mechanics of it, the people who start and end them- those are all key resources for people trying to predict and diffuse violent and hateful situations from which wars escalate. Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on peace, but the fact that war is very real is not something that should be ignored.
On a side note, could it be that we are naturally a very violent people? Are we drawn towards violence in media and art because we secretly long to be actively involved in such atrocities? My answer to this may be a little harsh, but I believe it to be true. We are a naturally violent society. Humanity has long praised itself for not being held back, being able to exceed their limits and bring themselves to levels of power that would seem to be impossible. And it is this aspiration- this desire to be more- that is active in both our greatest triumphs of art and peace, and in the atrocities of war and hatred. Unfortunately, we very rarely view our options and end up in the midst of hatred more often than not, and loving it for the power we feel it gives us.
In conclusion, there is war in the world that we can't ignore, but we also cannot make it greater than the unending pain and tradgedy that it is. We need to use our desire to exceed our limits to treat people, not how they 'deserve' to be treated, but as we would want them to treat us if our roles were reversed.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
And so the games begin!
Or something to that effect.
My name is Chris Dimock and, as one might infer from the title of the blog, I'm entering a class called Peace and Youth Culture. I personally... am very much disliking the fact that there is no way to automatically indent paragraphs. Thankfully doing so is fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Now where was I...? Ah. Yes. The reason I'm taking this class primarily for my writing. In fiction, conflicts are the way an authour can show the growth of a charactor and establish their beliefs. Therefore, a proper understanding of both conflict and the ways it is dealt with are vitally important.
Also, though I tend towards being a rather peaceful and even passive individual, being able to understand conflicts better is never a hinderance in attempting to end them in real life aswell. I'm not exactly what one would call 'influential' but I think this class will help me on an individual basis aswell.
On a much slightly less relevant note, I already have some fairly strong oppinions regarding peace and culture, however, I intend to savour the explanation of them until such a time as I discuss them in class.
... Of course all of this remains to be seen, as the class hasn't 'officially' started yet.
My name is Chris Dimock and, as one might infer from the title of the blog, I'm entering a class called Peace and Youth Culture. I personally... am very much disliking the fact that there is no way to automatically indent paragraphs. Thankfully doing so is fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Now where was I...? Ah. Yes. The reason I'm taking this class primarily for my writing. In fiction, conflicts are the way an authour can show the growth of a charactor and establish their beliefs. Therefore, a proper understanding of both conflict and the ways it is dealt with are vitally important.
Also, though I tend towards being a rather peaceful and even passive individual, being able to understand conflicts better is never a hinderance in attempting to end them in real life aswell. I'm not exactly what one would call 'influential' but I think this class will help me on an individual basis aswell.
On a much slightly less relevant note, I already have some fairly strong oppinions regarding peace and culture, however, I intend to savour the explanation of them until such a time as I discuss them in class.
... Of course all of this remains to be seen, as the class hasn't 'officially' started yet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)