Reflection 15

It’s hard to believe that this semester is already over. It feels like it has just started, but it is hard to deny that I have learned a lot both in World Politics and in my other classes.

I feel like I learned a lot especially in World Politics. It was helpful not only in learning about IR theory (which will only help me more as I continue at AU, because I’m in SIS) but I also thought the structure of the class provided a good learning environment, too. The discussions were very enlightening, because it allowed me to consider points of view that I had not previously given thought. Despite enjoying this phase of the class, I am very excited that it is over so I can begin working on the research project next semester. I am excited about our group’s topic and I am really looking forward to putting the project together.

Even though I have learned a lot in the class as it has progressed, since receiving the essay topic I keep revisiting our first blog entry. I wrote that the economy is the main issue in world politics. I still agree that it is a very important issue that affects all countries, but I am hesitant to say that it is the most important issue, so I doubt my final essay will be about this topic. I definitely have to do some thinking for the final, and figure out what I believe, because if nothing else this class this class has shown me that there is no one right answer in world politics.

Reflection 14

I was very excited to come home for Thanksgiving this past weekend. It is not one of my favorite holidays (I enjoy the thought behind it, but I cannot get past the country’s past treatment of the Native Americans and how many people choose to gloss over these events) but I was eager to go home to visit my family and friends.

The discussions in class, during the very appropriate time of the week before Thanksgiving, really articulated different issues I have with the idea of conquest and with the founding of America. However, there was one issue that Todorov brought up in “The Conquest of America” and that we discussed in class that I had never considered. What is the link between understanding and elimination? Is understanding necessary to elimination? Is elimination a natural effect of understanding?

These are very hard concepts to wrestle with. It is hard to disagree with the notion that understanding has a very important role to play in the elimination of a group. It undeniably helped Cortes conquer the Aztecs. This idea has also played out in different genocides throughout time, too, though sometimes in different ways. The Holocaust is one of the more recent and probably the most-often talked about genocide in history, and it probably would not have happened if Adolf Hitler did not have understanding. However, his was not understanding of the people he targeted and ordered to be murdered. This understanding was of the people he manipulated into his way of thinking. Understanding and elimination might have a connection, perhaps in more ways than one.

Which is a more accurate representation of "Indians"?

In contemporary society, there are many different representations of a Native American, almost all complete stereotypes. As a little girl in elementary school, I learned about them as people who wore feathers in their hair and lived in wigwams. Obviously, this is not an accurate representation of the Native American people, yet this homogenization of Native American culture still persists.

For a lot of different reasons, the Museum of the American Indian is a much more respectful and a much better representation of Native American culture than a sports team. I am from Kansas City, home of the Chiefs football team. On the helmets, there is a white arrowhead, and the team plays in Arrowhead Stadium. The team has essentially co-opted a part of Native American culture – the idea of the tribal leader – to suit their purposes, without ever paying proper respect to the culture. This very much frustrates me about American society – so much Native American culture is constantly co-opted based on stereotypes that do not accurately represent the Native American people. These representations homogenize and ultimately tokenize the cultures of these people.

Reflection 13

This is definitely a very appropriate time to be reading “Conquest of America” and visiting the National Museum of the American Indian. Thanksgiving always gives me very mixed feelings, because although I do have a lot in my life to be thankful for, I cannot help but remember the origins of the holiday and be more than a little outraged at the injustices perpetrated against the Native Americans.

The debate in class made me consider other points of view, however. I was in the group that was in charge of defending Cortes against charges of crimes against humanity. This was a very difficult debate to have, because it is nearly impossible to take the morals and societal norms of contemporary times and transfer them onto events that took place 500 years ago. Things were simply different half of a millennium ago. Yet, it is personally hard to NOT blame Cortes, if only because he realistically could have chosen to not orchestrate the deaths of many Aztec people. Although the times were different, he caused the fall of the Aztec empire. He knew he was doing so. This cannot be forgiven.

I truly do keep on going back and forth on the issue. It is very hard for me to reconcile was Cortes did with what we believe, as a society, to be just. Yet, it is just as hard for me to not recognize that Cortes lived in an age that had very little notion of diplomacy, and an even smaller notion of the idea of difference.

Reflection 12

The issue of poverty this week was very fascinating. I thought, on Thursday especially, we were able to discuss an issue that I have often wondered about and struggled with: the issue of donating. There are so many different issues that need resources and general support, but are they all valid issues that need our help? Do some necessitate more of our support than other issues? These are all tough issues to work past. However, the one point I always question myself on are the merits of the people who donate money to charities, especially the internationally-focused charities, and the motives of the charities themselves.

A lot of the people in our class felt as if, frequently, the people who donated to these charities were doing so in order to feel better about their own personal wealth (a version of “white guilt”, almost) or to look impressive to their neighbors and community members. To an extent, I had to agree. There are obviously many people who care very deeply about the issues they support and give money to, and it would be very inappropriate to generalize the entire population, but giving to charities seems to be almost a fad among the privileged and affluent members of American society. However, do the motives even matter? As long as they’re giving money to causes that need the support, do the motives of the givers matter?

We also questioned the motives behind the charities, and the actual effects they had on the people they were claiming to help. One of the issues that sprung to mind, personally, was Bono, the lead singer of U2. He established the ONE foundation, which was created to help both alleviate poverty and help the AIDS crisis, and gained a great deal of support. The foundation raised £9.6 million, but news sprung up in September that the foundation used £5 million to pay the salaries of the people working for the foundation. Only 1.2% (£118,000) went toward helping the needy (The Daily Mail).

It is very admirable that people want to give money to causes that need the support and resources. To a certain extent, I could care less if they are only doing it to impress their friends, because the money is still going to people who could use it. However, I wish people would investigate very carefully the organizations they are choosing to give money to, if only to make sure that their money is going to where the organization says it is.

Is the economic success or failure of a state a fair outcome? If so, why? If not, what should be done?

To evaluate whether something is fair or unfair, we usually have to look whether or not something is deserved. In this case, it is a country’s success in the global economy. Does any country have an inherent “right” to be successful? True, some states are much more prepared than others to compete in the global economy. Does this mean that, when a country fails because they do not have adequate preparation for this global competition, that it is unfair?

Ultimately, I think no. This is simply because success in the global economy is not about what is fair or unfair. I don’t know if there is anything that can be classified as fair or unfair about a state's success – or lack thereof. Is it fair that the United States, rich in resources and holding a very beneficial geographic location, has had immense success? Is it fair that post-colonial countries, like those in sub-Saharan Africa, have not? Or, that many other states have defied the odds and succeeded when they have not been expected to? It would be fair or unfair if any state had an inherent “right” to success and wealth. But no state does. Thus, “fairness” cannot be adequately applied to this situation.

Reflection 11

The idea of “wealth” is hard to determine, certainly. Is one person wealthy because they have a big house, a nice car, and fancy clothes? There would probably not be much contention – they would be seen as wealthy. By the same token, a person who does not have these things is probably not seen as wealthy. Yet, this ideology is ultimately flawed. No one can ever truly determine wealth based on appearance alone. Many people choose to distribute their money differently – savings account deposits instead of new cars, investments instead of clothes. Even “hipsters” – who typically spend sizable portions of money in order to look like they don’t spend a lot of money – can be hard to classify as wealthy or poor.

The problem with defining classes in America is that not everything is black and white. True, there are some people that are blatantly rich, or upper class, and blatantly poor, or lower class. But these people do not make up the majority of America. Though it is obviously unfair to judge people based on appearance, most of the time that is all people have to go on. Additionally, classes intermingle now more than ever before. This all begs the question: do classes have any validity? Perhaps not validity, but any importance? The immediate answer for most people would probably be yes, but the more I think about it, the more I am not sure.

Reflection 10

This weekend was certainly an exciting weekend for many people, myself included. I’m not a big Halloween-celebrating person, but I very much enjoyed trick or treating on Embassy Row. It was fun to participate in a tradition that is distinctly DC. I liked that some embassies invited the trick-or-treaters in, but I wish that more embassies had given out candy from their country, or had some information about their country. Korea was the only embassy I went to that had international candy, and they paired it with music and an exhibit. Overall, it was a fun couple of hours to spend in the city.

The other (probably more exciting, in my opinion) event this weekend was the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The fact is, I am such a huge fan of those two that I would have loved the rally regardless of what happened. But, having also gone to Glenn Beck’s Rally to Restore Honor in August, it was extra fun to see Stewart and Colbert openly parody Beck’s gathering. However, I think the crowd was my favorite part. When looking back on my pictures from Beck’s rally, I honestly saw nothing except for white people. Beck’s rally focused on a specific demographic, for better or for worse. The Stewart/Colbert rally, however, had a more diverse mixture of people. It was nice to see a variety of people come together for a fun event.

Basically, I loved this weekend.

Other than terrorism, what is the greatest threat to global peace and security?

Global peace and security hinges on public health. The poor public health in the world is currently the biggest threat to the peace and security that is being striven for on a global level.

The health of the world’s citizens is necessary to maintain peace and security. For individual countries, their security is very much threatened when their population becomes sick. Sickness has the obvious possible result in death (and thus a smaller population) but it can also lead to a lack of efficiency in the country, threatening security. In addition, there is the threat of people traveling into individual countries and infecting populations, which can radically alter the way that individual states conduct international relations.

Public health problems are prevalent in the world and greatly effect the relations between states. In America, the government sees obesity as one of the major national security threats, because it threatens the country’s ability to recruit for the military and thus hampers defense. In Haiti, a cholera outbreak threatens the progress the nation has made in the past year. Africa is also overwhelmed with public health concerns. Not only are various states grappling with HIV/AIDS and malaria, they are also forced to deal with the health effects from a lack of clean water and proper nutrition. The world will need to deal with these and a plethora of other public health problems before they can truly become secure.

Reflection 9

This week focused on security, which we dealt with through playing Diplomatic Risk and discussing the different aspects of the definition of security. Thinking back on the game, so much of it involved security. Some teams placed a large number of troops in a territory they did not want to lose, and that was their security. Some teams forged alliances. Other teams simply tried to seize every territory possible, in order to expand their influence. Security played into almost every aspect of that game, because no one wanted to be eliminated.

Prof. Jackson stated in class that, if we had wrapped up the game last Thursday, then the blog topic for this past week would have discussed if there was anything that was not security. Personally, in thinking about it, I have a hard time coming up with anything that could not be labeled security. Depending on the country (and the IR theory that one personally adheres to) almost anything could be considered security. Security is the military strength and capability that we possess, both in resources and in people. That is probably the most obvious one. It is also the countries we choose to align with, and the countries that we have no business with. Alliances make up a very important part, both because they contribute money and resources when we are threatened, but also because it spreads the influence of the country over a wider realm, and could have many other benefits, including legitimizing a country and gaining soft power, another form of security.

Not everything is security in every situation, but I could not think of anything that is never security. This week really broadened my understanding of security as a whole, as well as the many different forms it takes.

Reflection 8

This week was a hectic week for all, I am sure. Not only did most of us have midterms in our other classes, we had a paper midterm in World Politics and the UC event at the Kennedy Center. Because of this, it was especially nice to not have homework in WP, and just have a game to play.

The game ended up being so much fun and a lot more challenging than I expected. I had never played Risk before, but my dad and brother are both fervent Risk fans, so I had seen the game played multiple times before. I was most excited about the diplomacy aspect of the game, because it allowed for more people to contribute to the game, other than just the head of state. It is really fascinating to try and figure out the objectives of the other teams, and try and see what IR theory PTJ might have meant by the objectives. Who is the realist? The constructivist? The liberal? Who encompasses multiple theories? It’s nice to be able to use IR theory in a hands-on approach, and to have fun while doing so.

Reflection 7

To be honest, I have absolutely no interest in cars. I have no interest in driving or buying or researching anything that has to do with the auto industry. Yet, I was very fascinated the entire time I worked on the simulation for class. I was in the AIAM group, the Association of International Auto Manufacturers.

What was interesting to me was the fact that it was a little hard to pinpoint exactly what theory of international relations we were using during the simulation. Our group advocated removing domestic content requirements for cars. This suggests a free market society, which is obviously liberal. Yet, there were strong ideas of constructivism also. Auto manufacturers like Ford, GM, etc. are seen as inherently American because they began in America. But they also have a very large international presence. What is their identity? What is the identity of these foreign auto manufacturers – are they truly foreign if they have such a large presence in America? Finally, realism also played a role, in the idea of a monopoly on the American car industry and the need to regulate the industry to ensure American success.

Reflection 6

The class discussion on Thursday brought up a lot of good points about the marginalized population and their function in a state. Do they undermine the existing IR theories? Current IR theories dictate that the state is of supreme importance – even in liberalism and constructivism, where other institutions can play large roles, the state is still the head honcho.

However, I do not believe that recognizing the importance and power of marginalized people contradicts the three prevailing IR theories. Especially in liberalism and constructivism, the marginalized groups can easily fit in with the theories. If one argues that states are the most important entity in international political theory, that argument does not necessary dispute the existence or importance of other institutions or sources of power. It would probably be very hard to argue that marginalized people have never held any power or affected the international political realm, even in the slightest way. It would also be hard to argue these marginalized groups have power over state entities.

Instead, what we need to do is examine the power of all institutions and states and marginalized groups, and recognize that they all play a role in how states deal with each other. This is especially true in the age of technology, when the majority of the planet has access to learn about the groups in America and in other places that have been pushed to the bottom rungs.

The UN recently decided to appoint an ambassador in case of alien contact. Is this a good idea?

From a constructivist perspective, the United Nations appointing an ambassador for extra-terrestrial affairs is a very smart decision. Constructivists are very concerned with their identity and the images that they give others, as well as the identity and image that others have. Assuming that aliens ever come to Earth, an ambassador would be seen as very non-threatening. It would give the sense that the world was open to diplomatic negotiations and might help divert a small portion of the tension that comes with making contact. We might look at the idea of diplomacy as an institution in itself, and the norms that diplomacy has would help quell hostilities that the aliens might perceive. However, if some countries think that the ambassadorship is unnecessary, then they may not recognize the validity of the post and disregard it completely. The UN needs to cultivate the image of the alien ambassador is useful and completely necessary for security reasons, without sending the world into a panic.

From a realist perspective, the ambassador can be useful but in a much different way. A realist would argue that everyone works in their own self-interest, regardless of what any other state does, and that the work is all to achieve dominance. Thus, if aliens come to Earth, the ambassador would put on a nice show for a little while but conflict would inevitably ensue. Both aliens and humans would be fighting for dominance, so conflict would be a foregone conclusion. They would not be able to trust each other. The aliens would probably not trust the Earth ambassador in the end.

Reflection 5

I really, really liked the alien simulation that took place in class on Thursday. I thought that it was a fascinating and hands-on way to examine the idea of constructivism in a way that is accessible to everyone.

For me, a lot of the decisions made about how to prepare for the aliens rested on the idea of constructivism. Since constructivism involves the creation and application of identities for states and institutions, the process of answering an incoming alien vessel rested on how America’s identity perceived the aliens’ identity. If the decision-makers saw the aliens as peaceful and diplomatic, the hope is that the creatures would not feel threatened. However, one does not want to be without defenses in case something happened.

Gunperi mentioned at the end of the class that no one had discussed the possibility that the shuttle coming down to Earth was empty, or filled with things that were not aliens. I think that this is a very interesting possibility. We tended to make our decisions in class partly because of all of the alien invasion movies we had seen. The shuttle being empty would have really confused us, and it would have sent the world into a panic, maybe more so than if the shuttle had been filled with little green martians. I think the lack of knowledge of what was manning the shuttle and, foremost, why it had come to Earth, would have driven everyone crazy with curiosity and fear. We would have been forced to reevaluate the past decisions and possibly keep the world’s defenses on very high alert.

Suppose that Lady Gaga were a state.

The idea of Lady Gaga being a state in an international system is certainly a fascinating one. The first thing that came to mind when I thought of Lady Gaga was how open she was – she actively tries to make all of her fans, her “Little Monsters”, feel included and like they belong. Because of this, her state would probably have very open immigration, and it would thus be very easy to enter and leave the Lady Gaga state. Other states might criticize this about the Lady Gaga state, the lack of rules regarding immigration. For many states, this is seen as a security risk and an economic liability.

Obviously, one of the defining characteristics about Lady Gaga is her willingness and even desire to buck social conventions and be outrageous. It has gotten to the point where her image – that of someone who deliberately goes against societal norms – is turning into a norm in itself. Because of this, when the Lady Gaga state is first establishes it would probably incite many different reactions. While some might appreciate the openness of the state, many other states would be offended. The state would most likely receive many threats and that has the possibility in erupting in violence.

The Lady Gaga state would ultimately fail. Its economy would not be able to handle the immigration and it would receive threats from many different countries for blatantly ignoring international norms.

Reflection 4

“Is not spreading democracy to other countries racist? Are we saying that the societies are too primitive to have democracy?”

Prof. Jackson said something to this effect in class, and it really stuck with me. Is it a form of racism to not even try to spread democracy? Is it a form of elitism? This assertion implies that democracy is the best government and is what all countries should strive for – yet, we have seen that many countries are working quite well without a democratic system of government, namely China. The belief also implies that democracy will not spread without precise action from the United States, and that the US merely acting as the “golden standard” for other countries to look toward and emulate is not enough. Intervention would be required.

However, the most important thing that statement implies is that it would NOT be racist to go in and perhaps, force a regime change. Most of the time, it is ultimately so much more racist to try and spread democracy by force to other countries. By forcing another government to change their ways, it strips that country of its sovereignty and makes the case that the state is too “primitive” to make decisions on their own.

Imposing one’s will on other states defeats the purpose of sovereignty. It creates a colonialism-type environment that will not end well for anyone. While liberalism may say that the best foreign policy option for the US would be to have as many democratic states as possible, forcing states to do anything hardly ever ends well.

Would you rather live in a society that did not have governmental elections?

Some arguments could certainly be made about the purposes of elections. Yes, they offer citizens a chance to democratically elect their representatives and leaders. But they also have a hand in quelling political protest – when citizens vote, they feel as if they have played their role in the political process and nothing else needs to be done, especially in places like America, where free speech and protest, as well as voting rights, have been guaranteed for as long as anyone alive can remember. Despite the possible de-politicizing of the populace, I am unequivocally in support of governmental elections.

There are very few alternatives to the election system. Elections are, fundamentally, positive to American society and society in general. Governmental elections – when conducted correctly – are a just way of conducting government. To live in a society without elections would be simply unimaginable for many Americans. That type of society would also imply a lack of free speech, which would mean a lack of dissenting voice against the government.

Despite all of the good elections do, the general apathy of the populace is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Voter turnout has stayed consistently between 50-60% for the last 50 years, which is not exceedingly low. But it is definitely not something to be desired. If America were to make changes to the voting process, it could encourage more people to go and vote. These changes could include holding elections on the weekend (which would especially help people of lower socioeconomic groups, because it would conflict with less jobs), as well as simplifying the voter registration processes. But making elections more convenient for the populace would not help with the political apathy plaguing the nation. Is it truly a result of the elections? Or is it merely a function of not having to fight for our rights, as so many citizens do in countries around the world, so we take our rights for granted? It is definitely a complicated problem without easy solutions.

Reflection

I very much enjoyed our trip to the Newseum. It’s a really fantastic museum and I wish we’d had more time to spend exploring the exhibits. The Hurricane Katrina exhibit really stayed with me, though, mainly because it brought about strong feelings of anger and sadness.

But one particular part of the exhibit caught my eye. It noted that many people who were staying in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina were being referred to by the media as “refugees”. The main people being called refugees were African American. (After people began to speak out about the harms in calling citizens in their own country “refugees”, many news corporations banned the word from being used.) There were similar inconsistencies in other areas, too. A photo with a white couple carrying groceries through the flood water was published with a caption that said they “found” the food in a grocery store. A similar photo with a young African American boy had a caption that used the word “looted” instead.

It is almost sickening that a supposedly unbiased media still looks at different races in America in completely different lights. Following the election of President Obama, many referred to our country as post-racial. That is an incredibly naïve statement for anyone to make. Nothing is post-racial. It was incredibly disheartening to see that even news reporters -- perhaps unconsciously -- treated the victims of the hurricane so differently.

Is "fortune favors the bold" good advice? Does it cohere with Machiavelli's other pieces of advice throughout the book?

Machiavelli makes many broad, generalized statements that he claims are keys to political success. The importance of stability, the difficulty in trying to manage compassion and cruelty for the ruler’s subjects, and the impact of choosing allies are talked about frequently in “The Prince”. He also suggests that fortune favors the bold. While this may be true to an extent, it is NEVER intelligent to continually make the same decisions without taking the context of the situation into account. What is very wise one moment can be incredibly foolish the next, depending on the setting.

Machiavelli acknowledges this in his work. “… if one knew how to change one’s character as time and circumstances change, one’s luck would never change” (76) he writes. Machiavelli brought lots of concrete advice forward in the book, then advocated evaluating the situation to decide the next step forward.

It seems a little strange that Machiavelli continually brings up the idea of fortune and luck in his writing. Much of his advice is concrete and pragmatic, yet he writes, “I do think, however, that it is better to be headstrong than cautious, for fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to master her, to beat and strike her. And one sees she more often submits to those who act boldly than those who proceed in a calculating fashion” (76-77). It does seem a little incongruous he puts so much stock in superstition, when the rest of the book is almost hyper-pragmatic and rational.