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.

Horizons Reflection

In Horizons there is a concept posed about the "weight" of the past in regards to the future. That is to say that history does give mankind something to learn from and build upon, however, it neglects the ability to start "fresh". If society were able to start over there is potential to avoid some of the existing issues such as hunger, literacy, etc.

It is the past that makes it difficult to organize for the sake of the future. As a result of prior problems and set laws, there is a difficulty in moving on to new horizons. The idea is that a "clean slate" in regards to sociological organizations allows for new techniques or ideas to be put into practice. Presently, such a clean slate is difficult/ next to impossible, thus policy makers must maneuver around existing issues and legislation to achieve their ultimate goal. For instance, the DC government must reinvigorate the Anacostia area instead of completely starting fresh. This mean that large sums of funding must be poured into the area in order to even have potential. It is easy to say that with a clear chance, in this case undeveloped land, would allow for the government to implement whatever it saw fit (potentially costing substantially less).

However, the "weight" of the past does have substantial value. Without the mistakes and successes of the past, policy makers and society as a whole would not have the current knowledge of what works and what doesnt. These lessons would have to be re/learned if humankind was to start over. As easy a clean slate is, there is beauty in constructing successes out of prior problems. For instance the DC Metro is (arguably) better then the majority of transit systems in America. This is a result of the planners analyzing existing systems and recognizing the faults and positive aspects and using them to create a new system.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reflection 2

One of the most interesting parts of my week was seeing the cyber security exhibit in the Spy Museum. The issue of cyber security is an ever evolving issue that my generation will undoubtedly be forced to try to resolve.

What makes this entire issue so fascinating is the new definition of the enemy. No longer are we able to fight or track people, with technology we are fighting ideologies. How are security forces to go about tracking a moving thought? If people learned nothing from Inception they should at least take away the lesson that an idea is the most infectious thing. Viewpoints or orthodox dogmas might be able to spread at an astronomical rate, one that no technological invention can stop. The spread of dogma isn't necessarily a negative thing, it only becomes a bad thing when that dogma includes the hatred of a group of people. Some groups choose to act upon this hatred in extremely forceful ways (biological weapons, bombs, hijacking's, mass murders, etc).

The idea that these groups can grab hold of technology that could tear apart the infrastructure of a nation is frightening. With able minds, and an access to a capable computer or weapon, entire states could go without power. This could lead to a lack of water, electricity, heat, air conditioning, and communications. At the point of crumbling infrastructure government could no longer intervene because the ability to communicate is gone. Several questions thus arrive: how do we define our enemy? How do we go about protecting ourselves from the enemy? Do we have the ability to defend ourselves? Our government in the US and the world entirely need to realize the importance of this issue and its complexity. Governments should put cyber security at the front of their agenda, and citizens should be cautious as the the sites they visit online and what they do while on the internet.

Reflection

Within our class discussion the United States, nationalism, and globalization were repeatedly brought up- sometimes even in the same sentence. The United States, as countless people in the past have pointed out, is unlike any other nation in the world today. The U.S. is a sample of everything humanity has to offer; a mix of all races, ethnicities, religions, and political ideals. It is this mix that makes it so hard to simply define nationalism in America. Some have even argued that nationalism doesn't truly exist in America. This is mainly because our nation originated from an imperialist state (England) pushing out the natives, only for the former to then be pushed out by colonists that had roots in England (in principle, an attack on nationalism). Fast forward to the present day and one will see a nation that has countless individuals that were not born here but came for the opportunities, citizens who have close elders that were not born here but have grown to love the democracy that is the U.S.

Other nations have deep rooted ancestry on the territory their state claims. Traditions, morals, values, and for the most part a sense homogeneity have been established after hundreds of years of history. For example, one can walk down a street in China and see the Imperialist Palace or sweep across Europe and find a large number of greek orthodox churches.

The question is then raised, how can America define its nationalism? Can this country have nationalism without having deep rooted ancestry to the soil we live on or a greater sense of homogeneity? Is our nationalism simply defined by the people's love for the life and opportunity this nation brings? I would like to think of America as an example for the future world, a place where people of all backgrounds and lifestyles can come together, untied under basic fundamental rights regardless of ideologies. A future world where citizens can speak out and participate, change the face of their nation/government whenever they please. A new nation where each individual has love for their peers regardless of differences. I understand that America has a long list of vices, but the beautiful thing about this nation is that the vices are eventually realized and worked on. But my greatest point is that I don't believe America is simply the future, I believe something greater is to come- a new nation. But this new nation can only come about when our world redefines nationalism to be the love of humanity as a nation rather then a territory or ancestral background.