Reflection: My First Semester at AU

I am a firm believer that everything in an individual's life happens for a reason and that all things are interrelated. I now know, after only the first semester, that I am where I belong- in D.C., at American University, in UC World Politics.

I am truly thankful that the UC program exists and that I chose to take part in it. It helped make my transition from high school graduate to college student much easier. The program has brought me to a new group of friends that I believe will be around for the long term, and to the doorstep of professional and academic betterment. I now have a strong support network of extraordinary friends to aid me both in my academic and personal journeys, as I am there to help them with the same. The unique aspect of this class bringing a new group of friends extends far beyond my personal life. As a result of living with classmates there was reinforcement of the curriculum, whether it popped up in general conversation or actually was the conversation at the moment. This helped to not only expand upon the information learned but further solidify my knowledge as I had to defend my point and reinforce it.

Furthermore, the combination of knowledgeable PA's (Gunperi and Erin) and access to DC resources (Wednesday lab's) proved to further reinforce my knowledge and expand my horizons as to career opportunities, what is going on in my community, and extent of issues (past, present, and future). Also, the ability to get to know Professor Jackson in greater depth then an average class would allow helped to solidify the curriculum, helping to strengthen and mature both my arguments and knowledge.

I can sincerely say that if I was given the opportunity to do it all over again I would choose the program again (and again). It saddens me to think that I might not be living with these extraordinary people next year or have the same abilities to bond as a group, such as the UC common events.

Reflection: Identity

"The fact is worthy of astonishment, for man is never alone, and would not be what he is without his social dimension. And yet this is the call: for the newborn chid, his world is the world, and growth is an apprenticeship in exteriority and sociality; we might say, somewhat cavalierly, that human life is confined between these two extreme, one were the I invades the world, and one where the world ultimately absorbs the I in the form of a corpse or of ashes." (Todorov 1999, 247)

There is something to be said about the world shaping the individual and the individual shaping their world. On a developmental level, the individual gains a scope of the world through the society they are born into. The lens becomes that of which is sculpted by their societies culture. For example, American citizens have a view fostered by the values the American culture has taken as part of its identity. Contemporary America has an extreme passion for the free market and capitalism, free speech, democracy, social mobility, and various other things. Although the modern world would like to argue that people understand, this understanding of “others” comes through the eyes of the sculpted cultural lense. That is Americans will “understand” other by relating them to their culture/values; free market and capitalism, free speech, democracy, and in some sense social mobility, etc. Therefore there lacks to exist an unbiased understanding because of the fostering development of individuals, their “world” shapes them and ultimately shapes their “understanding” of other “worlds”.

There are instances where an individual shapes the society and culture they are fostered in. Still, this change is done through an underlying value (in society and within the individual) that was not necessarily recognized prior to the individual’s alteration. For example, the Civil Rights Movement occurred because of a mix of societal and individual values. On the societal side, the values of equality and progression existed they were just not utilized to such an extent until the point of the movement. On the individual side, the call for equality amongst neighbors, the call for societal betterment was always within, it just had yet to be recognized and utilized.

Although as humans our species is prone to group organization, we are inherently alone. When an individual retires to their quarters or simply their life ceases to continue it is alone; there is no companion with you. Octavio Paz once wrote; “Solitude is the profoundest fact of the human condition. Man is the only being who knows he is alone”. Thus the question remains which identity is more important or more relevant, that of the individual as a part of society or that of an individual being the sole proprietor of their life?

Conquest through Symbols

Todorov asks on page 53, "A mystery concerning the very outcome of the combat stills hovers over the conquest: why this lightninlike victory, when the inhabitants of America are so superior in number to their adversaries and fighting on their own territory as well?" Several answers, somewhat debated, are offered to this question; Montezuma's reaction to the Spaniards, the Spanish alliance with the Tlaxcaltecs, and perhaps most destructive and significant is the destruction of the Indian culture.

Montezuma is presented as an ideal leader; sacrificing his own status of power in order to prevent revolution in his own territory. The way the "great" leader is presented in the text, paints a picture of a ruler with his people as his main concern. "Montezuma tries by ever means in his power to keep war from breaking out in his city: he prefers to abandon his leadership, his privleges, and his wealth. Even during Cortes's breif absence, when the Spaniard has gone to face the punitive expedition sent against him, Montezuma will not attempt to take advantage of the situation in order to get rid of the invaders"(Todorov 56). The Spaniards imposed harsh conditions upon him and still he would not break or defy them, although at his command the people would have revolted. "He seemed to obey injunctions much harsher than the rules of grammar imposed upon little children, and with great patience endured everything in order to prevent an uprising of his subjects and his nobles. Any yoke seemed to him lighter than a revolt of his people" (Todorov 57). However, having the native leader as a subject to the Spaniards does not fully explain the conquest. The Spaniards framed their conquest as one set out for wealth (especially in regards to gold), but much of this wealth had already been taken by the Aztecs when they conquered the natives and furthermore by Montezuma's officials. It is this Aztec conquest that perhaps plays the biggest role in the success of the Spaniards. The Spaniards were originally met with little resistance because the natives had already been conquered. This past domination allowed for the Spaniardsto ally with the Tlaxcaltecs to fight the Aztecs (the Tlaxcaltecs felt oppressed by the Aztecs). The Spaniards were then able to capitalize on the already existing social division and push the split further. As the native society began to divide, the Spaniards used that time to destroy the native culture. In place of the former culture Spanish culture dominated and replaced it. The foreigners placed their cultural ideals, especially that of religion into the bloodstream of the former native culture. As a result, the Spanish did not conquer the natives through physical destruction but rather an abstract ideal; the destruction of a culture.

Reflection 12: Cultural Relativity

I was glad to see that the majority of my classmates shared the idea that there is not a unilateral path to development, instead development is completely relative to a state's culture. This was especially apparent when our class discussion turned mainly to Africa. Everyone seemed to remember that Africa is not a country but a continent and furthermore each country is wildly different.

This cultural relativity is expressed in The Conquest of America. When Columbus gave needles to the natives thinking it could be used for the clothes they had also provided, the natives instead used it to pick their teeth and tend to wounds. There were also instances where Columbus traded with the natives receiving something of material gain by Western standards while the natives would receive "meaningless" items or things worth comparatively less but find great worth from them. For example Columbus' men traded gloves for land. Cultural relativity and diversity is also exemplified in the instances where the natives would "offer their homes" to the Christians, meaning they would give the Christians whatever they desired. Yet, when the natives returned this practice, the Christians were angered and considered the natives thieves.

The concept and understanding of cultural relativity is important to identity but vital for the understanding of development. This relativity must be kept in mind so that states or organizations seeking to aid other nations don't look to help other states develop with a one-sided view or with the idea of unilateral development. Global actors must recognize and understand differences in order to ensure peace between states and the achievement of goals (in this case aiding in development).

Fairness of Economic Success or Failure

I find this economic success/failure to be unfair, especially for developing nations, because there is the misconception of unilateral development. There seems to be a preconceived notion that every state develops along a single path (in the mind of a Western power). The first step is preindustrialziation, that is the state is organized in a way of the past such as a tribe. Then there is a stage of industrialization or development where the state sees technological and societal developments, riding of the "old", and a creation of a stable government. The final state postindustrialization. All of this is done under the current Western definition of development; the state becomes a capitalist democracy. Any form of development that does not fit the Western mold is deemed "backward", "third world", or the "global south".

These "third world" states are on an entirely different playing field and should not be subject to the same expectations as other states. States that have developed in the wake of the colonial era such as Rwanda or South Africa have had to deal with state development, and arguably continue to do so. This puts states at a disadvantage for economic success because they are dealign with stability issues on a grand scale, and are therefore unable to focus on economic prosperity as more "developed" states. Furthermore it is these "developed" states that have put these developing states at a disadvantages. States like Great Britain, arguably the greatest colonial power, instilled western principles into its colonies leaving developmental issues in it's wake. The African states are still trying to battle their African identity and custom while working to develop. Furthermore, to have the same expectations for economic success would mean that all cultures and states are organized homogeneously. This notion lacks respect for the diversity of cultural norms and values amongst different states. For instance, in precolonial Africa many tribes were centralized and worked in a communal form of organization. This value of centralization and community is still, arguably, inherently part of the "African" identity. Western nations, although there is a communal aspect to society, respects the individuals and means of wealth such as private land ownership. Therefore the division of labor and various other capitalist ideals havent fully permeated every state. This means that states are competing on different "scale" on different "fields".

Reflection

One student brought up the point that the poverty in the post-industrial world (i.e. the Untied States and the Western world), was different then that of the “pre-industrial” nations. In this definition of industrialization a nation is gathering resources, utilizing them, capitalizing on goods, making scientific strides and finding new knowledge and processes with an overall focus on modernization. The goal of this modernization is to eliminate the vices within society and stride for a form of utopia. My argument would then be that our world has yet to see post-industrialization. If a country such as the United States is “post-industrial” then why do problems such as poverty run rampant? When is the last time that an individual has traveled to a major metropolitan area and neglects to see a food bank, a soup kitchen, homeless man? Its impossible. The issue of poverty isn’t solely focused in the urban but also the rural areas of this nation. If poverty exists in all forms and extremes in all areas, how has this nation utilized its resources? This country, much like the rest of the west and arguably the world, has failed to utilize its primary resources human capital.

Furthermore, through the existence of financial poverty in America and lacking any solution to the issue, our nation is becoming poor in another way, democratically. The Untied States is beginning to be poor in democratic principles. Our society upholds the idea of capitalism as synonym for patriotic America yet we are unable to alleviate the systems negative side effects. Why should one individual ultimately have more then another in a democratic society? If our country is founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (in all just pursuits) all under the banner of cooperation, how can we truly be democratic if we are on such an unleveled playing field? Our society is becoming so economically fragmented from our societies sole focus on monetary gains, that we have lost sight on human gains. Our nation should turn to acts more meaningful. Instead of saving money we should save lives, instead of making financial investments we should invest in making new relationships, instead of competing for wages and profits we should compete for the love our neighbors.

Supernational Integration

I hold a "utopian ideal" that one day the world will work as one, meaning we will all live under the same umbrella in every instance- particularly government. Specifically each individual on Earth will be a part of the same civil society, actively partaking in the culture and society which they live in. For this to be accomplished it will take more then just supernational integration, but a destruction of the definition of separate states into one overarching state.

I do argue, however, that before we can reach this civil society there must be supernational integration. This integration brings about a human culture of cooperation, understanding, tolerance, and an overall "togetherness". Creating a pattern of united forces will bridge the gap between continents, cultures, and governments. With this pattern becoming customary, the transition to a unified state for the entire globe will be seamless.

The beasts our world faces with each new day grow in severity and complexity. It takes more then just one state or "benevolent hegemon" to conquer these beasts. Therefore it is absolutely necessary for state to state cooperation and integration in order to achieve large scale tasks, especially in the name of the citizens of the world. With this in mind, I see the unilateral evolution of humanity to be one under a single state.

Reflection: Security/ Sanity Week

This week was paired with a heightened sense of caution amongst the citizens. There was a plot thwarted to bomb the Metro system, a flight from Yemen carrying "suspicious" cargo escorted by fighter jets to JFK, and a slight sense of anxiety from the high influx of people for the Rally to Restore Sanity. These events have led some to be more cautious in their day to day activities across the country, but D.C. in particular.

This heightened caution relates to our class discussion on security. The question I raise from these events is; what is a greater security threat, the events themselves (the thwarted plot, the flight, the large quantity of people) or the response to these potential threats? My argument would be toward the latter. For although these security risks may be great, our society's response may trigger a amplification of threat. Take for example the Rally to Restore Sanity. In hindsight, there was no meaningful damage done to the citizens or to the area. However, if individuals became frightened by the influx of people, the overcrowding of the metro, or the crowd in general, there could have been mass hysteria. This could ultimately lead people to feel uncomfortable in their homes, stray away from stores, or possibly suspect other individuals as threats to individual security. The actions taken, such as preemptive self-defesne could result in damage to other individuals and their property.

My argument is not that society should let security risks go unattended, but rather asses the threat. This assessment an analysis of potential damages, financial costs of said damages, potential courses of action to avoid threat (including inaction), and weighing of importance in regards to other threats. If individual, groups, or society misinterpret a threat or neglect to properly analyze it, the consequences could be more dire then the original threat. Therefore, threat assessment is vital in ensuring security for all.

The Greatest Threat to Global Peace and Security

The greatest threat to global peace and security is the suppression of free thought and lack of acceptance socially and culturally. The ignorance that causes states, citizens, and non-state actors to oppress free thought and reject 'others" leads to other threats such as; nuclear war, terrorist attacks, wars, genocide, catastrophic climate change, economic crisis, etc. Threat in this scope is anything that can disrupt civil society that is to say a voluntary society with collective action.

When an individual or group (state and otherwise) attempts to suppress free thought/expression they impede any natural form of progress within society. For example, suppressing a dissenting voice against a leader might lead to a totalitarian society where this leader then controls almost every action made by a citizen. The suppression destroys any chance at civil society because individuals are coerced into action. As for a lack of acceptance, it is this form of neglect that ultimately leads to further aggression. Those who are not accepted or cast as “others” will seek vengeance against the society that failed to accept them. The other opportunity for threat is for the “others” to be attacked by the non-accepting group/individual. For instance, Al Qaeda is unaccepting of the Untied States way of life and thus seeks to bring its western tradition down.

The greatest way for our world as a whole to see less conflict and therefore a lack of threat to security and global peace is to be more accepting of those seen as different, as well as allowing for expression by individuals and groups. This way the true landscape of the globe is painted; flaws can be pinpointed and fixed, ultimately leading to further progression for mankind.

Reflection 9

Our class spent a large amount of time discussing the security foci of the NSC 68 and the Obama document. The NSC 68's main scope was the Soviet Union and communism, in regards to their affect on the United States and democracy. The Obama document evolved security to focus on the environment, education Al-Qaeda, economic strength, global cooperation, US technological and scientific innovation, alliances, and advancement of democracy in the Middle East. The definition of US security expanded greatly under the Obama document, leading one to wonder what security is.

In my opinion, the Obama document expanded the definition of security in an effort to not leave anything out in the case that circumstances change in the world. That is to say, the United States' resources may no longer be focused on AL-Qaeda or another organization and therefore there must be another scope of focus. However, the expansion of the definition also shows that the administration realizes that US resources cannot be solely focused in one area.

I see security threats to be anything that can make a dent to the US and Western way of life. This gives a great scope of security because the western way of life is so broad; economics, the business sector, media, education, technology, medicine/health, democratic ideals, etc. Therefore it is up to the government and the citizens to realize the great source of threat in the world and seek to secure their way of life. This, in my opinion, means a focus on the expansion on education, technology, "green" products/ values, the spread of democracy, economic stability, cooperation with global actors (states and institutions), and helping citizens in nations that are unable to provide for their people. Security means carefully watching each section of life and maintaining stability within it, either through government or civic in/action.

Reflection 8

Salome was an entirely new experience for me. Not only was it my first opera, it was also my first journey to the Kennedy Center. However, the greatest part of the night was the chance to further bond with my floor. Since the school year has started, I have felt a strong bond between the individuals on my floor and myself. I have been blessed with the opportunity to meet such wonderful people that have surely made my transition into college a whole lot easier.

I can easily say that my greatest decision in college thus far has been to partake in the University College program. My floor has been a source of intellectual excitement, laughs, and overall joy. This isn’t to say I don’t have friends outside of my floor, I simply mean that my floor is a refresh point. I can rely on Letts 6 South to be a place for me to have fun and learn more then I ever expected to and I am deeply indebted to them for that.

The saddest part of these memories being made is that I may never get the chance to live with these extraordinary human beings again. The idea of living with new people next year makes me a little anxious. However, I am happy to know that my friends are here to stay and no matter where we live or where we end up, I will always be there for them and trust they will always be there for me.

Simulation Reflection

It would be an understatement to say that the United States political system is complicated. The arena that is our domestic politics is full of interest groups, partisan bias, vicious attacks, and individual interests that dilute the democratic ideals we claim to uphold. If nothing else, the class simulation presented to me an interesting side to the fight for political power.

Within our presentations, various groups included the same points regarding the workers/consumers, the environment, the economy, etc. However, there seem to be times when certain groups attacked others- even if they were fighting, to some extent, for the same ends. Is it that our political system has been so focused on the fight, so focused on winning the war for power and money to prove our side is “right”, that we have neglected to focus on the true issue at hand. For example (this is not necessarily the views expressed within their simulation) but within the idea of domestic product protection, Ford fought in order to protect itself as a corporation. Rather then realize the cost and benefits of the issue, altering its corporate structure depending on what could truly benefit the nation and thus go along with change or seeking common ground, they fought for their individual interests. But like all good marketing campaigns, the body involved presents its values/views as common sense and purely the “right way”. The democracy they tell us about as children, the greatness our nation is meant to posses, is one where individuals and collectives can put down their own interests, throw out bias, and bind together to uplift a society entirely. Our nation is meant to seek out the minority, give it a voice, seek out the majority and ensure it isn’t monopolizing power, and openly debate topics in such a way to bring about action.

My argument isn’t that our system is terrible and full of corruption (there is plenty of it though). My argument is that our system has started to see a rise to flaws and it is in the general interest to momentarily suspend individual concerns and fulfill our roles as up-lifters. We should take on the responsibility as Americans, a nation fostered upon change, to alter our system once again.

Reflection

One thing that seems to be quite important in any political arena is linguistics. Political thinkers tend to refer to other nations with such terms as “third-world” and other movements as “terrorism”. Sociological terms are constantly deemed unacceptable or politically correct, only to be replaced with a new “acceptable” term that will undoubtedly have it’s own expiration date. Where I take issue is the “simplistic” wording because of its purpose, it’s a summarization of a cataclysmically complex scenario. Words are an attempt to simplify a meaningful and complex matter.

The term “third-world” in itself is annoying to me. How is a nation “third world” or underdeveloped? What guidelines can one use to determine such a standing? It appears to be relative to westernization. A nation is deemed “third world” if it does not live up to the expectations or standards of the western world. This notion is in itself, in my opinion, is a step backwards. It is premodern to be so judgmental and unopen to the ideas of other cultures. Any attempt to try and consider our world as one equal playing field is moronic. Individual nations maintain certain cultural ideals over others and therefore should be respected. Who’s to say the west if the forward facing world? Why is there a need to declare a backwards and a forwards? The world is a system of trial and errors; each nation is still attempting perfection.

American revolutionaries would be considered terrorists in the modern day. It is only when you consider the entire situation that one realizes the meaning of it. The revolutionaries were fighting for freedom from tyranny in order to have a chance at something better. Therefore, individuals should be careful in there choice of words. Summarizations of movements disrespect the depth of emotion behind them.

UN Alien Appointment

The vast size of the universe leads a large number of individuals to believe that that there is in no way a possibility of Earth being the only planet with life forms. If there is other life somewhere out “there”, then it is only a matter of time before our world make contact. Under constructivism, the idea of relations with an alien species (leading to the ultimate appointment of a UN ambassador) is a difficult issue to tackle.
Constructivists are about the constant evaluation of the current field of identities. States create an identity of themselves in relation to others, yet there identity is different depending on the “other” they are dealing with. So an ultimate expectation by a constructivist is that the UN as a whole would deal with this situation in one way, yet individual nations might have their own reservations towards the alien species and therefore have stipulations within the relationship. For instance, the United Nations as a whole may simply decide to allow them to join the General Assembly and exist within the market. However, a nation such Russia might decide that they don’t want to freely trade with this alien nation and ultimately have a different relationship with the aliens outside of the UN. Yet, this relationship at any time could change, with Russia or the UN, through such methods as altercasting. More important than simply trade, though, is our world’s security. This alien force poses an additional state to add to our security/defense force within the UN or a potential threat to our world, which could ultimately lead to a complete change in the identities of the globe- where every nation bonds together to ward off this unitary enemy. However, before it gets to any point of changes in relationships, the UN (through the eyes of constructivism) should treat the alien force the way in which the nations within the UN would want to be treated by the aliens.
Under the idea of constructivism, international institutions set standards to which states can legitimately be held. The alien force would ultimately have to live up to these standards if it wishes to continue have a legitimized existence within the UN.

EU Reflection

I found it interesting that that Dr. Deak, an employee of the European Union- a collective of nations, said that there is no such thing as a "European Identity". Meaning that each nation is to be recognized separately rather then together, in any circumstance. However, if one were to look back in history they would easily realize that Europe definitely does have unitary identity. This identity being one of teamwork and collective effort.

For instance, both World War I and World War II. Though Europe was technically pitted against each other, the continent did so in teams of allied forces. Allied vs Central Powers andAxis Powers vs Allied Powers respectively. The present structure of Europe itself was formed through the process of unity and consolidation, such as the Italian states which formed much later into Italy and Germanic states which eventually became Germany.

In writing on this subject I find it difficult to avoid using "it" when referring to Europe. Which I believe stems from my subconscious recognizing my social studies and the involvement of Europe as a whole in global efforts, such as the War on Terrorism and relief efforts such as AIDS. The idea of the European Union alone shows the continent's pattern of collectivity. There is no such organization in existence today. There isn't a North American Union, and Asian Union, an African Union, or a South African Union. Arguable the United Nations is like the European Union, however, the U.N.'s power could be argued to be less substantial. My point in this recognition of the "European identity" is the eventual recognition of a "Human identity", where we may all come together in a more unified effort to fight the terrors and vices of everyday life.

The United States of Gaga

If Lady Gaga was embodied as a state, it might be a closer form of the nations the "american dream" shoots for. Gaga is known for her outspoken nature, flaunting of individuality, acceptance for all (including the slimmest minorities) and vast amount of passion and love. If a state were to hold these qualities, I believe it would put the citizens at the true forefront of government, with the true purpose of government being to improve the daily lives of the citizens.

Presently, the United States (as well as other nations) neglect to speak out on various atrocities in the world simply because of economic or other diplomatic concerns. For instance, the United States refused to stop known genocide in Turkey in order to preserve the U.S.'s neutrality in World War I. However, the United States of Gaga would let it be known that the state will not stand for an atrocity such as genocide and would not be afraid to act upon such a claim. The United States of Gaga wouldn't worry if it was with other nations in the effort or standing alone, it would "stick to it's guns" and live the dogma it preaches. The citizens within the state would see to it that they could be whoever they wished, filling a role they were suited for and choose to fill. This wouldn't be simply a social improvement but an economic one as well. Individuals would be more comfortable with themselves, appreciative of others, and ultimately happier because of the lack of stress in society. The greatest influence of all Gaga values would be her love and passion. Every song she has ever written deals with a form of love, whether it be an infatuation or a truly meaningful bond. The spread of love would result in a rise in social capital. The increase in bonds and the bolstering of the strength of these bonds would lead to a more productive nation, with more secure borders. Citizens would feel a greater sense of pride than ever experienced and thus remain rallied around the flag.

The United States of Gaga is something modern democracies might want to emulate. After all the persona that is Gaga is simply the values democratic nations attempt to project; a voice for the minority, acceptance, connected citizens, and defense of democracy.

Reflection 4

In class we discussed the responsibility of government, to either ensure the status quo or to be a catalyst for social betterment for the citizens. However, I believe another conversation is in order, one of the responsibility of citizens to their government. In my opinion, individuals have a responsibility to their government- to be the most productive citizens they can be. This means filling the role they are best suited for, voting in all elections to ensure that politicians truly hear the voice of America and not the voice of an interest group or elitists, and abiding by the laws that our government creates. Furthermore, citizens should have the responsibility to continually analyze the standing of the nation. This means that when the general public views an general practice, action, law, or imminent movements immoral or somehow unjust, to voice their opinion in an acceptable and peaceful way.

Under founding American principles, when the general public decides that government is not living up to its expectation, citizens reserve the right to abolish it. However, our vote is the first step to avoiding an ineffective government. Citizens are able to change the face of government in such a way that people could be satisfied. With that said, citizens need to understand that unforeseen consequences of certain elections are going to arise, but understand that they can counteract these consequences. The counteracting forces again are voting in the next election, communication with an incumbent, or peaceful protest. Civil activity is key under a democratic republic. Without such activity people can only expect their governments to do “wrong”, because these governments won't truly know what is “right” by their people- unless the people speak up.

We can assume that going to school in D.C., going to a socially aware university, and most likely majoring in a field related to the political realm, that our class is and will always be civilly active. However, our education and place in society means we have a deeper rooted responsibility. We have the responsibility to stand as shining examples; voting, voicing our opinions, organizing our community, staying informed and attempting to inform others, being the voices for those who might not presently have a voice. We have been blessed to exist in this nation, and should see to it we give back more then what we receive, for when we do this it will lead to our generation and those to come receiving extraordinary benefits.

Question 4

Justice Louis D. Brandeis once said, “The most important political office is that of the private citizen.” In my opinion this statement is completely true, I think a government in which the people do not elect government officials and thus do not have direct representation should be deemed invalid. The purpose of all government, even if the bureaucracy holds the power, is meant to serve its people. States are created, militias are formed, laws are put in place, and order is established to ensure some sort of peace and tranquility for the citizens.

Under systems of government, the people are meant to be protected. When an individual loses their right to vote, or was never given that right to begin with, they are put in danger. Without the ability to have some pull in government, to have some influence, citizens are completely under the control of a completely depersonalized, out of contact government. Without the protection that the right to vote gives an individual, to deter government from wrongful action or to alter the face of government completely, the concept of a governmental body is irrelevant.

Why would an individual or groups of people want a government if no safety or benefits came as a part of the bargain? Humans might as well take their chances and live an anarchic world. A world of anarchy would give individuals the same ensured security or privileges. Without voting government of any kind would be worse than anarchy because there is a force which can direct an individuals life. Something that American basic principle go against- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Reflection 3

I have had countless amounts of people tell me how extraordinary the Newseum is. So going into the Metro Station this past Wednesday, I had high expectation. As expected, the Newseum blew me away. In my eyes, one of the most powerful exhibits was the Katrina exhibit. In high school I had studied the disaster in both AP Government & Politics, as well as Civics & Economics. The main focus was the concept of federalism and the discussion of how it failed during this particular time in history. I can remember the discussion always turned to a blame game as to who's fault it was that things got to the horrible extent they reached. Many blamed President Bush, others blamed Michael Brown who stepped down from his positon in FEMA following the ordeal, and others say the blame rested with the Louisiana governor, Kathleen Blanco.

However, the Hurricane Katrina exhibit enlightened me on a new side to the story. There is a substantial argument that the media played a role in poor handling of the crisis. Reports falsely reported several rumors they had heard which riled up the citizens into a state of panic and slowed the process of help by striking fear into the minds of potential heroes. Other reporters simply reported personal accounts without researching the information. The Katrina exhibit displayed quotes and descriptions of the media's role in this disaster and ,even if they weren't the largest contributor to the chaos, how the media impeded the help from government, private, and nonprofit organizations.

Too often does society neglect to fully think the situation through. We fail to realize all the players in a game and look to demonize a specific character. If we were to step out, focus on the situation as a whole (without bias) we might have a chance in truly learning from it and working to ensure the same mistakes aren't repeated.

Reflection #3

Our discussion in class on Thursday solidified my belief that culture is topical when it comes to realism. A nation’s culture encompasses its distinct identity in terms of language, custom, art, and social institutions. If a nation chooses, the preservation of a distinct culture can equate to the survival of the state; it is just as strategically promising as the strengthening of a national military when developed correctly. I would like to briefly mention two modern examples of cultural protection. The first is France, an infamously proud nation, so proud that it actively relies upon the Academie Francaise to monitor and protect its language from foreign contaminants (usually English terminology relating to technology, such as “email”, “blog”, etc.) In this way, France militantly defends its culture to reinforce its image as a strong, independent nation-state that participates in a globalized world, but certainly is not consumed by it. From another perspective, Germany has become the main destination in Europe for refugees and those seeking asylum. In 2005, the German Federal Minister of the Interior Otto Schilly remarked, “Because of its history, Germany has a special obligation to accept political refugees. We are grateful that thousands of those persecuted during the Nazi regime on the basis of their race and political convictions were able to find refuge in other countries. Germany takes its responsibility seriously to grant asylum to victims of political persecution and to provide a new home for Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe.” (http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5280.html) Germany now faces a myriad of issues regarding immigration, especially tensions between the native population and Turkish families. German culture is now inherently tied to Turkish influences, and only time will reveal the effect of this transformation on the nation. From a realist point of view, Germany’s loose immigration policy and willingness to accept foreigners as a form of redemption for past mistakes represents a weakness in political strategy that could eventually lead to the destruction of former Germany.