Horizons sovereignty dilemma

"The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Horizons, p. 245


I cannot agree holistically with the sentiment described above in Mary Rosenblum's novel, nor can I condone the belief that "sovereignty protects difference." In my opinion, such a way of thinking is dangerous and irresponsible, especially when applied to our discussion of the Other. The separation portrayed by Rosenblum in her fictitious, futuristic narrative mimics actual human history's infatuation with racism, prejudice, segregation, ethnic cleansing, religious crusades, etc. Sovereignty can be utilized as a way of protecting one population's cultural and geographic ties; however, mankind cannot afford to use the physical boundaries of sovereignty to dictate human interaction. A nation may choose "to protect its own", yet that does not necessitate isolation from external influence. Horizons explores this concept through the continual debate within the Platforms regarding trade agreements with Earth. The same discussion occurs within our own political environment, among the First World and the Third, between the East and the West, between communist and democratic forms of governance.  Sovereignty, in this context, has less to do with protecting one's own people and everything to do with solidifying the divide between us and them. Physical borders and separations based upon ideological difference or skin pigmentation (in addition to countless other "sameness" checkpoints) highlight those so-called disparities even further and inspire more suspicion between the two groups. At times sovereignty seems, to me, to be far too easy an excuse to which apprehensive isolationists may cling. And in an increasingly globalized dynamic among "nation-states", the purview of sovereignty becomes all the more ill-defined. 

Reflection 15 :(

College! I can’t believe the first semester of college is over. Everyone wasn’t kidding when they said that these four years will fly by- we’re 1/8 of the way done and it felt like I just got here. I am so grateful for all the experiences and the opportunities that we were given as a UC- to visit great things that really let all of us witness the movers and shakers of Washington. The places we’ve gone are all really amazing collectively; seeing the Pentagon, going into the Newseum and Spy Museum...all just on a regular Wednesday. The discussions have really opened up my eyes to the happenings everywhere that have affected us so greatly on an international scale.

From actually being able to define something so broad as sovereignty to playing Diplomatic Risk and interpreting it as a microcosm for the real world...this has been a great experience overall. The people I’ve met and connected with have also greatly affected my time here- and made it all the more enjoyable. We really have bonded as a floor and I think it is in part due to the hard work of Gunperi and Erin. I have really been surrounded by people who care so much about what happens in the world and are fully capable of discussing world events and politics in a knowledgeable and intelligent manner. This upcoming semester will be even better because of how much we have learned and how strongly we can apply everything to daily life and new classes. Honestly, I cant wait.

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 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

In light of the recent discussions about Thanksgiving and its rather cruel origins, I found myself looking a little more closely at where we stand in commemorating the actual meaning behind Thanksgiving. The common consensus at our dinner table on Thursday was that Thanksgiving is only celebrated so popularly because it is not tied in anyway to a religion so people have very few qualms about it. I found it odd that people generally agree that it is such a non-controversial holiday now because of political correctness, but it has foundations as one of the most controversial holidays- the essential wipe out of an entire people as a mechanism of racism and greed.

The setting in Horizons is similar to the feeling of newness that I felt when being brought out of the home I had grown up in. The personality changes that I experienced, the evolution of character I saw as I stayed with different people for different amounts of time and left others was clearly visible as circumstances and settings changed for me. The same is true of Horizons, because I essentially saw a struggle in myself to reform what I had previously identified as bad characteristics and traits in myself and keep the good characteristics. What choice did Ahni have in preserving certain characteristics of the previous life that he had known? Do you hand-pick the parts of humanity that you approve of now? Who is to decide the good characteristics (the keep-able ones) of humankind?

Reflection #14

The timing of Horizons in the semester could not have been more perfect; as I read of Ahni's trials and tribulations on Earth and beyond its atmosphere, I recognized the parallels between the characters' experiences and my own. The feeling of marginalization, or simply of difference, resonated profoundly as I made the nine-hour journey back to Massachusetts via bus, then train, and finally by car. To say that I was anxious would be a gross understatement; the day I left campus with my suitcase, the day that I arrived in Westfield after three and a half months of preoccupied distance, did not pass as quickly as I had hoped as I squirmed in my bus seat and nearly flattened everyone in my path through Grand Central. In retrospect, my agitation was due to my curiosity of what waited for me beyond campus, of what I had left behind and would find again in my hometown. I wondered if things would be as effortless and natural with my friends that I've shared everything with since the third grade, but who I've lived apart from since mid-August. I wondered if I would feel out of place sitting in my solitary bedroom or at an actual table in a non-TDR setting. These were thoughts that plagued my mind as I tried to concentrate on Horizons. My chief concern continually revolved around the concept of then and now, here and there. And I believe that is one of the motifs that haunts the pages of Mary Rosenblum's novel. Ahni, and humanity itself, struggles to preserve the familiar traditions of the past (life on Earth, familial ties, definitions of human) and embrace the progress promised by the future (life on the Platforms, new acquaintances, who is entitled to the parameters of humanity). As college freshmen, we confront the same tension, especially at this time of year when our worries are amplified by final exams and the ghosts of times past that visit us during breaks from school. I'm not certain how to effectively settle this disparity between old and new, or if it is supposed to be managed at all. Until then, I will search for the way to properly integrate both aspects of my life into the present, to cherish both the here and there as components of my here and now.

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.

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.

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

The concept of othering is not new to me. I’ve dealt with othering as a minority, dealt with othering as a woman, and dealt with othering as an individual. Todorov’s concept of “othering” is not surprising to me- it explains the very core of why the Natives were separated completely and treated so poorly. The euro-centric view that plagued Columbus and his men is entirely representative of that era. We discussed in class the concept of political correctness, but I stand by my statement that I made during the discussion. The era of political correctness is relatively new. Stepping on people’s toes because of political incorrectness, and a lack of sensitivity shown towards the differences seen in others is an age-old thing because of how commonly accepted it was to view the white/patriarchal/capitalist society as normal. Any deviation from this norm was automatically regarded with caution and some degree of fear. As a Christian, I acknowledge the fact that there is some sort of hubris associated with historic events tied to the religion itself- a stubbornness to accept that other cultures simply have a different way of worship, and may not understand the concepts of a Savior that many Christians are indoctrinated with since birth. However, I feel as though the only reason I truly understand this is because of how politically correct I was raised to be. My parents would never tolerate any kind of bigoted or prejudiced statements, or excuse any sort of biased behavior because it’s simply the way I feel. Our society has moved almost to the opposite side of the spectrum, approaching political correctness almost as a religious rite and great sensitivity with the utmost care. We’d like to think we’ve progressed so far from the time of the conquistadors that we can write books that show utmost disdain for the actions against the Natives.

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 #13

In The Conquest of America, Todorov examines the individual’s relationship with the Other: how we recognize and react to the surface and internal differences of those around us. Intrinsically, humans exercise caution in the presence of difference, for it forces them to instinctively question which side of difference is the correct? Whose difference is acceptable and whose must be changed to match what is “proper” or “normal”?

I believe that this was the case of the Spanish conquistadors that Todorov seeks to examine, dissect, and condemn in his book. These men arrive in America and encounter beings that are entirely unknown to them, and who also conveniently occupy resource-rich land. Some men, such as Columbus, immediately refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the Indian livelihood could be equivalent (and therefore comparable) to the European way of life. Therefore, the Indian population becomes a resource itself, from which can be gleaned human capital, slave labor, and the confirmation of Spanish superiority. Columbus can confidently say that his side of difference is the correct one, simply because he survives and the Indians do not. He is a God-fearing Christian, and the Indians are not. Yet the perpetual discussion of Christianity throughout Conquest contains a substantial degree of mockery on Todorov’s part. He writes, “Far from the central government, far from royal law, all prohibitions give way, the social link, already loosened, snaps, revealing not a primitive nature, the best sleeping in each of us, but a modern being, one with a great future in fact, restrained by no morality and inflicting death because and when he pleases.” (145). The colonizers involved in the conquest were oceans and continents away from their motherland. Yet what can we say about their remoteness from morality? The conquistadors continually mention their commitment to Christianity and its tenets. Yet their actions display an inherent disrespect for the “love thy neighbor” commandment. Todorov states, “Everything occurs as if the Spaniards were finding an intrinsic pleasure in cruelty, in the fact of exerting their power over others, in the demonstration of their capacity to inflict death.” (143). The exertion of power relates directly to the dilemma of “I” versus “the Other.” The fact that the conquistadors could, in fact, conquer equates (in their minds) to the verification that they are in the right, that they should force the Indians to bow to their demands as a sign of acceptance of the European side of difference. They conduct God’s work, and He facilitates the conquest; therefore, their cause is just. They are in the right.

What I find so frightening is the tenacity of this way of thinking. People wage wars and prolong conflict because of divine right, or because their form of government is the only workable model, or because they simply know best. We still cannot confront our differences honestly, without clinging to accusations and justifications that our side of difference must be right, that we cannot possibly be the ones who will be forced to change. I do not understand why that change is necessary, why this question demands a winner and loser. What would the result be if we sought for understanding and acceptance rather than condemnations and forced compliance?

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?

Blog 11

1492. As children we were taught to memorize this year with pride and joy as the year people began living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America. Actually, people had been living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America for hundreds of years before that. 1492 was simply the year sea pirates began to rob, cheat, and kill them. -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

“Many Indians were running along the shore with two banners whih they raised and lowered, signaling us to approach; but the captain did not wish to....The Indians sent one of the canoes ahead to find out what we wanted. The interpreter told them we were looking for gold...The captain told them we did not want anything but gold.” Todorov goes on to say that the first interpreters were Indians, and the interpreter ay or may not have been accurately transmitting what he was told- because an issue of trust was undoubtedly a pivotal issue between two completely foreign entities. The Aztecs were not expected to know how to speak or answer, and the shouts by the Spaniards as orders or exclamations would later become a means of subjugation and colonization. Cortes was an incredibly smart conquistador- successfully manipulating the “caciques” and asking them questions about the state of Mexico and the conduct of war. Because of all these questions and extracted information, he was able to get an intimate understanding of the internal dissensions, and was then able to successfully act as conquistador.

The lasting impact of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs is a source of great heated debate- the methods by which the Spaniards conquered the Aztecs was surely brutal and unwarranted. The welcoming nature with which the Aztecs greeted the Spaniards was purely religious- Queztalcoatl was supposedly a light-skinned god and the Aztecs believed that the visiting Spaniards could be a possible manifestation of this god. I agree with Todorov’s answer to the question of how the Aztecs were conquered by means of signs, because it was essentially through the manipulation of communication that the Spaniards were capable of robbing, cheating, and killing. The lack of communication between the Aztecs and Spaniards may not have been the issue- because they were in constant contact. Leaders of tribes were used as a means of representation for the entire people, but the Spaniards, painted in a negative light, undoubtedly used the miscommunication that happened between the Aztecan people and the Spaniards to their advantage. Unfortunately, the only way that they could effectively communicate with each other was through simple methods of sign language and using almost infant-like means of telling each other what they wanted and needed.

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

The World Bank speaker brought up some interesting talking points to discuss in terms of world necessity and impoverished nations. I think the point that she hit on a lot was the fact that nations who have been brought out of economic depressions by the World Bank funds hopefully circle back and become a donator for other nations in the same situation, kind of a “pay-it-forward” deal. This discussion involving the financial resources comparatively and internationally fit neatly into our class discussion of poverty on a grander scale. The donations to charity that are made from relatively wealthier nations sometimes stem from a feeling of guilt and shame for having better fortune than others, for no real reason. From a personal point of view, there is no real reason as to why I was born into a family that will never (presumably) have the same fears as a family struggling in a third world country.

Unfortunately, the common American ideal is one of equality and justice for all- but how does that coexist peacefully with the image of a starving child in a nation across the globe? How do we, as those who are privileged, explain the discrepancy between income and opportunity gaps and still promote the same concepts of equality and justice? This is where the question of equality of opportunity. I think the better explanation for why we allow this to continue is because we believe in equality of opportunity- the misguided notion that we are all blessed with the same amounts of opportunity if you really, really try (hard enough, and if it doesn’t work, try harder). The reality is, sometimes you can’t work hard enough to pull yourself out of the societal rut that has plagued generations. The discussion of poverty in third-world countries is often accompanied by the discussion of development and the best course of action to remedy the situation that is often connected to (a lack of) infrastructure. Poverty is not an issue that can be remedied by simple guilt, but rather an entirely new perspective on charity and how giving should not be necessarily associated with guilt.

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.

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).

Reflection #12

"To propagate the faith presupposes that the Indians are considered his equals (before God). But what if they are unwilling to give their wealth? Then they must be subdued, in military and political terms, so that it may be taken from them by force..." (Todorov 45)

This quote taken from our reading of The Conquest of America, though its context belongs to centuries-old circumstances, is entirely relevant to our discussion of poverty and the subsequent dynamic between the First World and the Global South. During class on Thursday, we generally accepted the efforts of international aid organizations such as World Vision as honorable in intention, though doubtful in execution. Yet I couldn't stop myself from thinking about the inadvertent hypocrisy in these do-gooder actions. Groups such as World Vision and Heifer International cater to the materially-driven, "socially cognizant", typically Christian First World citizen; this demographic clings desperately to the notions of social activism and world citizenry and believe that they positively contribute to these objectives because they have the capacity to charge their credit cards to buy a few chickens or t-shirts whose partial profits benefit Darfur. It is my belief that these aid initiatives, though honorable in intent, actually exacerbate the divide between the First World and the Global South. The current international aid system allows the First World to know about issues within the Global South and "help" from a safe distance: behind their expensive computer screens or within the cheery ambience of their local mall. Absolutely no emotional, personal, human connection is formed. The idea of "us" and "them", of the inherent existence of "The Other" is perpetuated.

When I consider the numerous international aid organizations that emphasize our common humanity or the moral obligation to help the impoverished, and then when I examine the actual status quo within the Global South, there is no doubt in my mind that the current system of international aid contains inexcusable flaws. It seems to me that citizens within the First World are only willing to give back and adhere to their moral compass when they themselves will benefit. We discussed the spiritual/religion appeal of donating to the less fortunate. However, as the quote above demonstrates, we are not willing to redeem our souls if it equates to sacrificing our comfortable standard of living. The best example of this that I can offer is the lack of response to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the deplorable, undeniable facts of rape, murder, and child slavery, the world seems content to allow the deadliest conflict since World War II to wage on because their suffering results in our benefit. "The UN Refugee Agency says the war killed 2.5 million people, directly or indirectly, since August 1998, and later a UN panel says the warring parties deliberately prolonged the conflict to plunder gold, diamonds, timber, and coltan in the regions." (http://www.fallingwhistles.com/timeline/) The war in the DRC, though riddled with injustice and atrocities, is too valuable to the First World to be put to an end by international intervention. Moral obligation dissolves in the face of dollar signs. This opinion was true in Columbus' time, and it remains to be so today. The question is when humanity will recognize its dishonor.

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".