Clearly, a combination of the two types of markets is most realistic and desirable, a system in which we can choose which type of liberalism (embedded or disembedded) to follow depending on the state of the market.
However, if I could only choose one, I would choose a market system operating under disembedded liberalism. Honestly, there is enough red tape for both businesses and individuals wishing to participate in the financial market already; adding more restrictions through embedded liberalism certainly would not help that situation. We want business to flourish, not to be weighed down by overbearing "grammar." So while certain rules are necessary to that the market can exist and function properly, more laws are unneeded. The government has more than enough responsibilities already, so by leaving the financial market in a laissez-faire state, unless emergency strikes, frees them to deal with more pressing matters.
Additionally, a disembedded market encourages interdependence among international countries and corporations more so than an embedded market which tends to promote autonomy and self-sufficiency before trade. As any economics student can (or should be able to) tell you, countries benefit when they specialize in producing a product for which they have comparative advantage and trade for other products. While surviving only upon what your country produces may have been necessary or practical at a time when travel was more difficult, that is no longer an excuse. As technology progresses - due to information trade - transporting products will become even cheaper and easier. We stated in class that embedded liberalism would make the world market less fragile; if one country's economy were to crash, the rest of the world would not suffer. However, the benefits that come from depending upon each other severely outweigh this possible loss; though this happened during the Great Depression, we now know the cause and the signs that led up to the Great Depression so that we may avoid any similar situation.
Though disembedded liberalism is not for developing countries, many of whose people need welfare and aid in starting new businesses, in a country such as the U.S., the majority can prosper under a more open set of rules. With too many restrictions, our innovation will be severely restricted as will our ability to prosper to the fullest of our potential.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
merits of economic liberalism
Admittedly, domestic economic policy is a relatively abstract issue and I find it can be difficult to conceptualize. When debating the merits between embedded and disembedded liberalism, I find it hard to conclude that one system reigns supreme. Rather, I think they both hold merit in different situations. Generally, I believe the best economic system is one in which the merchants and businessmen have the greatest amount of freedom. This would be considered as “disembedded” liberalism; a system that places the control of the state economy in the hands of those who know it best. There is no debating that money is a motivator, and the government should not have to get their sticky hands into issues of economic policy. History tells us that the free, mercantile form of economic policy yields the greatest results. After all, it was the freeing up of the market that propelled England into world superpower status. France on the other hand was becoming increasingly tied down by its centuries old economic policies. There was just no way to efficiently regulate economic policy so strictly. The laissez faire attitude just makes more sense than the alternative-an embedded economic policy where restrictions are placed on the trade market. With that said however, I do think that there are merits to embedded liberalism. We talked in class about the Great Depression. In this case, when a nation is so struggling to get on its feet economically, I think regulations need to be put in place to protect the citizens of the country. Economic freedom within nations works best when each country is able to support themselves well. On the contrary, when there is mass unemployment, someone has to take charge.
Monday, October 29, 2007
peer review and insecurity
This week we had a different style of teaching given to us. We had our own classmates teach us some IR theory. It was an interesting way to teach the same sort of ideas that we have been learning this entire time with a different method attached to it. Overall, I thought that it was interesting to see IR theory taught in the way of commercials. Oddly enough, it worked very well. The commercials were able to play on peoples sense of insecurity and that the product they were selling, diet mountain dew for instance, would make that insecurity fall away. These commercials, just as the U.S. government, plays upon our fears and so when they give a solution, no matter how stupid, we give in and take it. The U.S. government exploited our fear and passed acts such as the Patriot Act. This overburdened fear led to our freedoms being taken away. These commercials that were played for us were able to give a representation of how that could happen. One of them played on our fear and then showed the army as one big happy, working, fearless group of people. Plus, in order for that to work the President needs all the authority the President can get. How can we have a nation that is safe if we do not have a well equipped, oiled army to protect us? The insecurity the government wants to instill on us is so that the President can gather all power around him and slowly move towards a dictatorship. The vast powers the President has gained is to protect the people of America, and allow him to do whatever he wants whether or not it violates US law or international law. The administration promotes fear so that they can use it to promote the laws and ideals that they want.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Insecurity
I found this week's discussion on insecurity very interesting because there are many ways in which to view perspectives on insecurity. This is part of the theme that we tried to introduce in class on Friday. In addition to the propoganda and commercials that we viewed, which show the media's plight to create insecurity in the customer (therefore resulting in more security when they purchase the product), the group also found some facts that show some other perspectives.
One of the points that I tried to emphasize is the fact that perception is often what causes insecurity. Many points in the Mueller article give examples of this, one of them being about Osama Bin Laden, no matter how far-fetched it seems. Mueller mentions that perhaps the hype over terrorism can create more damage than the terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden have caused an extreme attack on the United States, but also consider the results of their actions and the fact that the U.S. has been searching for him for so many years. The amount of time, people, and money that this takes, in addition to security increases, has spent an incredible amount of resources.
Some other concepts to consider are how we consider ideas within our country such as homocide. Because of the media and how homocides/school shootings are shown throughout the country, it is easy to believe that the homocide rate has gone up recently and must be at a high now. The truth is that from 1992 to 2005, the number of homocides in U.S. schools actually decreased significantly(1). Something else that was mentioned in this week's article, was the fact that the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the U.S. (2). Therefore, why are we so worried about terrorism and not about drowning in a bathtub?! This is a perception of insecurity that we have.
Once we determined a theme for this week's class, it was easy to find examples. You begin to realize how often we generalize and look at society 'through glasses,' without actually looking at facts. Sometimes it is better this way, yet at other times it creates maniacal behavior and it would be better to understand the facts.
1. "Serious Violent Crimes in Schools." 28 Oct. 2007. http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html
2. John Mueller (2005) Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration International Studies Perspectives 6 (2), 208–234. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00203.x
One of the points that I tried to emphasize is the fact that perception is often what causes insecurity. Many points in the Mueller article give examples of this, one of them being about Osama Bin Laden, no matter how far-fetched it seems. Mueller mentions that perhaps the hype over terrorism can create more damage than the terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden have caused an extreme attack on the United States, but also consider the results of their actions and the fact that the U.S. has been searching for him for so many years. The amount of time, people, and money that this takes, in addition to security increases, has spent an incredible amount of resources.
Some other concepts to consider are how we consider ideas within our country such as homocide. Because of the media and how homocides/school shootings are shown throughout the country, it is easy to believe that the homocide rate has gone up recently and must be at a high now. The truth is that from 1992 to 2005, the number of homocides in U.S. schools actually decreased significantly(1). Something else that was mentioned in this week's article, was the fact that the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the U.S. (2). Therefore, why are we so worried about terrorism and not about drowning in a bathtub?! This is a perception of insecurity that we have.
Once we determined a theme for this week's class, it was easy to find examples. You begin to realize how often we generalize and look at society 'through glasses,' without actually looking at facts. Sometimes it is better this way, yet at other times it creates maniacal behavior and it would be better to understand the facts.
1. "Serious Violent Crimes in Schools." 28 Oct. 2007. http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html
2. John Mueller (2005) Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration International Studies Perspectives 6 (2), 208–234. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00203.x
reflection blog
This past wednesday I was fortunate enough to attend a gathering with former President Jimmy Carter. The topic of the forum was Sudan and the conflic in the Darfur region. While President Carter did not go particularly in-depth about the conflict, it was interesting to hear it from his perspective. He mentioned a new international initiative known as the "elders" project, which brings together past world leaders to try and solve human rights issues around the globe. He spoke of the ongoing struggle between the North and South regions of Sudan. Apparently, the discovery of oil along the border has caused peace negotians between these two areas to weaken. Presient carter did say that he did not believe either the North or South wanted to go to war, as the cost and consequences would be far to great. The primary issue with Darfur is that the number of rebel groups in the region is increasing all the time. What started as two or three rebel factions has risen to over 30, making it extremely hard to negotiate peace between them and the central government. Carter was hesitant to call the conflict a "genocide", saying that although it was a serious problem with many casualties, it has not been a premeditated and sustained effort to eliminate all blacks from Sudan. I really did enjoy listening to the President's adress. His southern charm and easy going nature drew some laughs from the crowd, and you could tell he was really sincere and genuine in his concern. I feel extremely lucky to be one of the 100 students allowed in the event. I hope the Mayoral visit was equally informative as to the workings of the DC government.
Friday's class was a nice change of pace, as the advertisements were both humurous and extrodinarily relevant to world politics. While I doubt the manufactures were thinking about terrorism, fear tactics, and freedom when making their commercials, the connections are striking. I especially enjoyed the Mountain Dew add that showed how much more dangerous ferrets are than grizzly bears. This came after I had read an arcticle explaining how American's and the national media constantly overreact to the threat of terrorism. An example is the common misconception that cars and safer to travel in than planes (we know this not to be true). Tom said it well when he gave the example that a news station will never say, "Today, all 1,500 flights landed safely today". You only hear about the one that didn't. So I am looking forward to some more creative student-run classes (not to knock on PTJ's lessons). My group is up next week, so we'll see what's in store ;).
Friday's class was a nice change of pace, as the advertisements were both humurous and extrodinarily relevant to world politics. While I doubt the manufactures were thinking about terrorism, fear tactics, and freedom when making their commercials, the connections are striking. I especially enjoyed the Mountain Dew add that showed how much more dangerous ferrets are than grizzly bears. This came after I had read an arcticle explaining how American's and the national media constantly overreact to the threat of terrorism. An example is the common misconception that cars and safer to travel in than planes (we know this not to be true). Tom said it well when he gave the example that a news station will never say, "Today, all 1,500 flights landed safely today". You only hear about the one that didn't. So I am looking forward to some more creative student-run classes (not to knock on PTJ's lessons). My group is up next week, so we'll see what's in store ;).
reflection week 9
As this was parent's weekend, mine visited and brought me Halloween decorations and candy corn. Saturday night, a group of us were eating the candy corn and for some reason we related the way we ate the candy corn to the security of sovereign states as we discussed in world politics this week. Random? yes. Relevant? completely.
So after discussing the superiority of the pumpkin shaped candy corns - because they're richer in taste - we decided that if the candy corn were all sovereign states, the pumpkins would be the richest and thus (in this completely theoretical late-night situation) most powerful. However, their security was threatened and ultimately destroyed when I proceeded to eat all of the pumpkins leaving only the candy corns. While not nearly as rich, they became more powerful, more desirable when the pumpkins were gone and thus their security was also threatened.
I guess what I'm trying to say with this analogy is when the security/sovereignty/existence of a rich/powerful nation is threatened or overcome, the security of the weaker nations is then also threatened - they rely upon the other nation for protection. If the pumpkins were to focus only upon becoming richer and more powerful in hopes of being able to ward off potential enemies - which obviously cant happen as I will eat them no matter what - then they are not fulfilling their role on a "global" scale to the weaker candy corns. Anyways, I just found the whole incidence amusing and thought that I would share; as this is a reflection blog where we reflect on what has happened related to the class this week, I figured that this was a good place to do it.
I'd also like to add that I thought that both discussions this week were interesting; Tuesday we were able to relate current events to our weekly topic, which we should be able to do every week seeing as we're studying world politics and they are surrounding us, but I liked that we actually discussed specific, (very) recent events rather than just talking about theory. In the beginning, the class was split as to whether to focus upon domestic fires or international conflict in the middle east; as the class progressed, more people came to see that internal security is necessary before we can fulfill our role as 'global police.' The fires that many were saying should not be a priority because they were not a big deal decided to prove those people wrong. Though most are under control, there are still, after nearly a week, fires blazing in southern California. Meanwhile in northern Iraq, tensions are rising as the PKK, who sparked the initial conflict between Turkey and Iraq holds their position lodged, hidden in the mountains. It is good that the US did not brush off the threat of fire as they caused so much destruction; in the same time there is tension but no war between Iraq and Turkey- the peace held for this week as we dealt with internal affairs. Clearly we did not stop international diplomacy because as many in the class were quick to point out, we do not have to only choose one issue to deal with because one involves firefighters and the other, diplomats. True as this is, if we cared about budget, then we would have financial restrictions and may not be able to fund both projects at the same time. However, the U.S. likes to multi-task and we have already spent so many billions more in the middle east than was initially intended, does a few more really matter?
So after discussing the superiority of the pumpkin shaped candy corns - because they're richer in taste - we decided that if the candy corn were all sovereign states, the pumpkins would be the richest and thus (in this completely theoretical late-night situation) most powerful. However, their security was threatened and ultimately destroyed when I proceeded to eat all of the pumpkins leaving only the candy corns. While not nearly as rich, they became more powerful, more desirable when the pumpkins were gone and thus their security was also threatened.
I guess what I'm trying to say with this analogy is when the security/sovereignty/existence of a rich/powerful nation is threatened or overcome, the security of the weaker nations is then also threatened - they rely upon the other nation for protection. If the pumpkins were to focus only upon becoming richer and more powerful in hopes of being able to ward off potential enemies - which obviously cant happen as I will eat them no matter what - then they are not fulfilling their role on a "global" scale to the weaker candy corns. Anyways, I just found the whole incidence amusing and thought that I would share; as this is a reflection blog where we reflect on what has happened related to the class this week, I figured that this was a good place to do it.
I'd also like to add that I thought that both discussions this week were interesting; Tuesday we were able to relate current events to our weekly topic, which we should be able to do every week seeing as we're studying world politics and they are surrounding us, but I liked that we actually discussed specific, (very) recent events rather than just talking about theory. In the beginning, the class was split as to whether to focus upon domestic fires or international conflict in the middle east; as the class progressed, more people came to see that internal security is necessary before we can fulfill our role as 'global police.' The fires that many were saying should not be a priority because they were not a big deal decided to prove those people wrong. Though most are under control, there are still, after nearly a week, fires blazing in southern California. Meanwhile in northern Iraq, tensions are rising as the PKK, who sparked the initial conflict between Turkey and Iraq holds their position lodged, hidden in the mountains. It is good that the US did not brush off the threat of fire as they caused so much destruction; in the same time there is tension but no war between Iraq and Turkey- the peace held for this week as we dealt with internal affairs. Clearly we did not stop international diplomacy because as many in the class were quick to point out, we do not have to only choose one issue to deal with because one involves firefighters and the other, diplomats. True as this is, if we cared about budget, then we would have financial restrictions and may not be able to fund both projects at the same time. However, the U.S. likes to multi-task and we have already spent so many billions more in the middle east than was initially intended, does a few more really matter?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
listen to an uneducated public?
If the average voting American could not pass a citizenship test, then why would we want them to completely determine national public policy? How could they avoid historical mistakes if they do not know them? How could they consider other counties' perspectives when they do not even historically know their own?
I agree that the current government seems to utterly ignore public opinion and disregards the public dis-rest that their actions cause; I am not arguing that public opinion should not matter as that is the entire point of living in a democracy. However, I would like to emphasize the lack of public awareness in regards to international affairs. If they concern themselves at all with such things, they hear only from a (probably biased) news report. There is no follow up or real concern in furthering their knowledge on the subject. A group may go online and educate themselves more thoroughly on world events, reading various sources to end up with a rounded set of information. This, sadly, is not often the case though.
Here at American University, in Washington DC and at the heart of our country's political being, it is easy to forget how unattached many areas of the United States are with politics. Their opinions are completely uneducated and thus are probably not the best thing to go off of when running a country. We elect public officials because we agree to trust their judgment. They should of course consider the will of the people, but if their foresight allows them to see outcomes unknown to the general public, then they must act upon that educated vision. Politicians are obligated (though they certainly don't always adhere to said obligations, that is another matter entirely) to do what is best for the country. I believe that those are the best guidelines, no matter how unclear, for national policy.
"What's best," though completely subject to opinion, requires (or tries to) national policy to consider America as a whole as well as individual interest groups. It is all-encompassing and thus impossible. Yet it is something to strive towards; the light at the end of a long, dark tunnel, it provides a goal for policy makers to look towards. The American public, I fear, has even less of a chance than the government does of discovering what is at the end of the tunnel and realizing how to reach it. So, though I wouldn't mind the government being slightly more responsive to public opinion, I prefer that they run the country.
The will of the people
So in my opinion, I think that the government should take the concern of people into mind but then do what they believe to be best. The founding fathers did not set up a direct democracy. They argued that it would be mob rule and bad for the country as a whole. However, it is argued that this country has expanded into a democracy through time. The will of the people does not take into account minority views. The whole basis of the reason that the founding fathers did not set up a minority because they knew that only the majority would be satisfied. However, I would like to put forward the argument that President Bush has been steadily making the Office of the Presidency into a dictatorship. With many of the laws he has enacted since the start of his presidency, such as the PATRIOT Act, President Bush has expanded the power of that office to a power greater than that of any other president. This then begins to beg the question; is it better to have mob rule or a dictatorship? In this case it would be better to have mob rule. In the case of mob rule, it is much easier to change the government. As the power of the presidency is increased each President that comes next will have to be increasingly careful to make sure that we do not end up as a totalitarian state. The best form of government would be to have a government that is in between a totalitarian dictatorship and mob rule. That way you would have the balance of knowledge of what the people want versus the knowledge that governs the people. This can be used as a system of checks and balances by acknowledging the people but also defending them from themselves. This way all people, in theory, will get what they want, if it is deemed to be good, and no single group will be discriminated against. This is the ideal theory but not the reality, seeing as how America is leaning further toward a dictatorship with the facade of a democracy.
Does our government even care?
I would like to say that I agree with Liz’s nothing that America’s leaders will “do whatever they damn well please, whether their people want it or not.” The last five years in Iraq have been hell and the Bush Administration knows it. Whatever false pretenses the invasion was based on are now mute and the United States government seems to be doing anything possible to get the American public on their side. While the President tries desperately to maintain some semblance public support, he faces an increasing amount of opposition from his fellow republicans. Democrats on the other hand are enduring an all out fist fight over who opposed the war most vehemently, who came to that conclusion quickest, and who will be best suited to end the conflict. And while I do not doubt that each candidate is genuine in their concerns and positions on Iraq, I do think the ongoing debate is almost entirely due to growing dissent about the war. If, for example, people suddenly decided to care solely about North Korea, Darfur, or HIV in Africa, these policies and actions would change from thirty-second sound bites to the focus of all speech and policy. They need to be reminded that we control them, not the other way around, and that we aren’t just simply going to trust that they’re doing the right thing.
Public interest (and vote-getting) aside, I would like to take a moment to highlight the brighter, albeit less represented side of public and foreign policy. Although the general will is ultimately a driving factor, I think that many of our state and world leader’s realize what our values are as a Nation and do not simply blow with the wind, catering to the daily demands of society. For example, I just got back from seeing former President Jimmy Carter. The president spoke of his work on the Elder’s Campaign, a sort of “think tank” task force that deals with issues of human rights abroad. When asked the question of what the next elected President can do to restore our international respect and standing, the answer was simple. In the words of the president himself, “I believe that within a half hour of our next president being inaugurated, we can restore our good standing in the world.” He went on to explain that we must eliminate preemptive war, striking only when our SECURITY is IMMEDIATELY threatened. He also said that we must stop torturing our detainees, and become a champion for human rights across the globe. President Carter truly is a man of incredible knowledge and extreme compassion and the views he expressed are held by everyone, regardless of their party affiliation. I think these are just fall under certain general expectations that we as Americans have of our governmening officials. Unfortunately however, not everyone in positions of authority think like President Carter. Thankfully, he has been able to remain someone of great influence throughout the world.
Public interest (and vote-getting) aside, I would like to take a moment to highlight the brighter, albeit less represented side of public and foreign policy. Although the general will is ultimately a driving factor, I think that many of our state and world leader’s realize what our values are as a Nation and do not simply blow with the wind, catering to the daily demands of society. For example, I just got back from seeing former President Jimmy Carter. The president spoke of his work on the Elder’s Campaign, a sort of “think tank” task force that deals with issues of human rights abroad. When asked the question of what the next elected President can do to restore our international respect and standing, the answer was simple. In the words of the president himself, “I believe that within a half hour of our next president being inaugurated, we can restore our good standing in the world.” He went on to explain that we must eliminate preemptive war, striking only when our SECURITY is IMMEDIATELY threatened. He also said that we must stop torturing our detainees, and become a champion for human rights across the globe. President Carter truly is a man of incredible knowledge and extreme compassion and the views he expressed are held by everyone, regardless of their party affiliation. I think these are just fall under certain general expectations that we as Americans have of our governmening officials. Unfortunately however, not everyone in positions of authority think like President Carter. Thankfully, he has been able to remain someone of great influence throughout the world.
Public Opinion
I am going to respond to Liz's blog with an opposite set of ideas. First, I would like to make the argument that there are many United States citizens who believe that in general, the US is ruled by the people and that decisions are made to better the lives of the people. It is not possible to represent every single person and each specific belief. The point is that there will always be two sides to the situation, those who agree and those who don't.
As we have been discussing in class, security is perhaps the most important goal for sovereign states. Many examples show that the need for security will over-rule the will of the people. Yet, doesn't the overall will of the people consist of a security wish?? We want to be sure that terrorists will not attack the United States and we want security against internal and external threats, so is this not working for the good of the people???
The government and foreign policy do not always look past the will of the people. There are numerous accounts when protests and letters written to the government have changed an outcome. This is how the people can be represented. Our government system also gives a choice to each citizen to elect the politician that will best represent the people.
To respond to the question, I believe that it is not enough to only take public opinion as a concern and as the main grounds for acting. Often, the public does not know what the higher officials are dealing with, and many times, we have no idea what is happening in a foreign country. Remember that we only hear about the most popular and explosive topics and that there is much more that has not been brought to our attention. It is essential that politicians and policy makers take into account the public opinion, but there also is a separation between what the people should be able to influence, and what needs a more discussion among professionals.
As we have been discussing in class, security is perhaps the most important goal for sovereign states. Many examples show that the need for security will over-rule the will of the people. Yet, doesn't the overall will of the people consist of a security wish?? We want to be sure that terrorists will not attack the United States and we want security against internal and external threats, so is this not working for the good of the people???
The government and foreign policy do not always look past the will of the people. There are numerous accounts when protests and letters written to the government have changed an outcome. This is how the people can be represented. Our government system also gives a choice to each citizen to elect the politician that will best represent the people.
To respond to the question, I believe that it is not enough to only take public opinion as a concern and as the main grounds for acting. Often, the public does not know what the higher officials are dealing with, and many times, we have no idea what is happening in a foreign country. Remember that we only hear about the most popular and explosive topics and that there is much more that has not been brought to our attention. It is essential that politicians and policy makers take into account the public opinion, but there also is a separation between what the people should be able to influence, and what needs a more discussion among professionals.
Monday, October 22, 2007
reflection 8. spies and nuclear missiles
I really enjoyed wednesdays class. The spy museum was definately an interesting place to explore and they had a bunch of good war history and artifacts. I especially liked the sections they had about WWII and the german code enigma's. It was an interesting fact that I had never really looked into with much detail. Obviously another highlight of the day was attending the Dali Lama ceremony. Although it was not an "official" class activity I thought it was cool to be there in the midst of such an occasion. His holiness did not adress the crowd in english, but through a translator he conveyed his ideas of world peace via inner peace and how we much all work together in a non-violent way to achieve unity. Now, I'm not one to say that world peace is a realistic goal, but it is encouraging to know that people out there are trying hard to attain that goal.
So...friday's class. I suppose "interesting" might be a good word to describe what it included. First of all, I think the artcile we read was complete BS and I don't know why anyone would take what Ms. Cohn had to say seriously. It seems to me that she is just a paranoid feminist who likes to pick on men and is just pissed off that she can't have the same job they can. Instead of going around complaining and acting like some self righteous preacher she should just relax about the whole thing. The discussion we had in class about the use of nuclear "jargon" was totally pointless and I can't believe people actually cared so much. It doesn't matter what words you use its the same thing. Nuclear warefare isn't guys night playing Halo 3...it's a serious matter. I don't think you can fault a security force for calling a hole a hole or a shaft a shaft. Different missiles are different sizes and its ubsurd to draw any further conclusions. Hell, I could take just about anything and make it into sexual innuendo. In fact, I believe there is a facebook group of that name. The point it is there is no point. You can't expect world peace or that you are just going to "get rid" or all nuclear technology whatsoever. The fact that we were forced to disgaree with the preeceding comment only made it worse. Don't get me wrong, that stragety works when debating issues like abortion or taxes or healthcare but when you are talking about what some crazy lady thinks about what guys do it's so stupid. We can spend our class time fantasizing about the ideal society or we can learn about actual real issues that affect the world.
So...friday's class. I suppose "interesting" might be a good word to describe what it included. First of all, I think the artcile we read was complete BS and I don't know why anyone would take what Ms. Cohn had to say seriously. It seems to me that she is just a paranoid feminist who likes to pick on men and is just pissed off that she can't have the same job they can. Instead of going around complaining and acting like some self righteous preacher she should just relax about the whole thing. The discussion we had in class about the use of nuclear "jargon" was totally pointless and I can't believe people actually cared so much. It doesn't matter what words you use its the same thing. Nuclear warefare isn't guys night playing Halo 3...it's a serious matter. I don't think you can fault a security force for calling a hole a hole or a shaft a shaft. Different missiles are different sizes and its ubsurd to draw any further conclusions. Hell, I could take just about anything and make it into sexual innuendo. In fact, I believe there is a facebook group of that name. The point it is there is no point. You can't expect world peace or that you are just going to "get rid" or all nuclear technology whatsoever. The fact that we were forced to disgaree with the preeceding comment only made it worse. Don't get me wrong, that stragety works when debating issues like abortion or taxes or healthcare but when you are talking about what some crazy lady thinks about what guys do it's so stupid. We can spend our class time fantasizing about the ideal society or we can learn about actual real issues that affect the world.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
reflection week eight - rants on disarming, oblivious feminists, and necessary jargon
I thought that Friday's discussion, once it got going, went really well. It had a somewhat slow start; not only was it a little confusing at first, but sometimes you don't want to argue with the person before you. Though it was a good concept (as the other 'snake' was) since everyone had to participate in the discussion, I thought that once it was open so that anyone could speak after each person, we brought up much more substantive points. It is sometimes difficult to be forced to comment on something; the activity that I preferred was the one in which each person had to speak but they did so by raising their hand and responding to what was said before them - when they chose to participate. Regardless of the method, there were several ideas however that I completely disagree with and would like to take advantage of this blog to refute.
First, someone brought up the idea of disarming and taking a technological step backwards so that warfare would not have such large destructive potential. As nice as that would be, I think that it is completely impossible. If the U.S. were to get rid of their nuclear weapons, other countries would not follow along and also disarm; rather, we would have more attacks than ever before as we would be in a weakened state and would not be able to retaliate as effectively. Terrorists would take advantage of our ignorance and we would have hell to face. Once the technology exists, we cannot simply ignore or abandon it. Though we do not have to actively use nuclear weapons, we should be prepared to do so if necessary. Though this sounds incredibly realist, disarming would compromise our security and thus we should not consider it in the slightest.
Second, is the issue of females working in such a male dominated environment such as nuclear war possibilities. Though we didn't seem to have anyone advocating that females do not belong in such a position (thank goodness or I would have gone off on them as would, I believe, many of the other girls in the class), the unequal ratio was questioned. Someone stated that it is a difficult field for females to get involved in since it has always been so male dominated. I do not believe that this is true. Do you know why liberal arts schools like American have such a skewed ratio of girls to guys? It is because at technical schools the ratio is reversed. Many girls pursue careers in other fields rather than continuing in math and science as seen in this commercial. If they wanted to, females could pursue those careers. The problem is not really the lack of female presence in defense intelligence, but rather the lack of confidence in those who are there. The ratios do not need to be equal simply because they aren't going to be so long as females are not forced into math and science. The way each gender is treated in the work place should be equal. That however is not attained in the U.S., much less in other nations worldwide and thus is an issue for another day...
Finally, many argued that the jargon used was an unnecessary way to avoid thinking about the responsibility that comes with the destruction that these "nuclear strategic analysts'" jobs. They claimed that the jargon distracted from the seriousness of their jobs and the outcomes of their choices. I, however, believe that this distraction is necessary. The analysts are supposed to look at how to react to possible outcomes, namely the "worst case scenarios." Considering the results would make it impossible to create an effective strategy; they would think only of the death involved and not be able to fully consider the damage that was/could be done in the first place. In times of trouble, there is not time for planning; a decision must be made immediately. If there are already multiple scenarios mapped out with an action and a possible reaction, does it matter what kind of language is used to express the ideas? Someone mentioned that a metaphor is used to make things easier to understand, so they should be used in complicated matters such as nuclear weaponry. If that makes it easier then leave them be. Let the diplomats deal with avoiding war and nuclear weapon use. Let the thinkers ponder the possibilities and make plans now that could possibly save us in the future with whatever language they choose.
First, someone brought up the idea of disarming and taking a technological step backwards so that warfare would not have such large destructive potential. As nice as that would be, I think that it is completely impossible. If the U.S. were to get rid of their nuclear weapons, other countries would not follow along and also disarm; rather, we would have more attacks than ever before as we would be in a weakened state and would not be able to retaliate as effectively. Terrorists would take advantage of our ignorance and we would have hell to face. Once the technology exists, we cannot simply ignore or abandon it. Though we do not have to actively use nuclear weapons, we should be prepared to do so if necessary. Though this sounds incredibly realist, disarming would compromise our security and thus we should not consider it in the slightest.
Second, is the issue of females working in such a male dominated environment such as nuclear war possibilities. Though we didn't seem to have anyone advocating that females do not belong in such a position (thank goodness or I would have gone off on them as would, I believe, many of the other girls in the class), the unequal ratio was questioned. Someone stated that it is a difficult field for females to get involved in since it has always been so male dominated. I do not believe that this is true. Do you know why liberal arts schools like American have such a skewed ratio of girls to guys? It is because at technical schools the ratio is reversed. Many girls pursue careers in other fields rather than continuing in math and science as seen in this commercial. If they wanted to, females could pursue those careers. The problem is not really the lack of female presence in defense intelligence, but rather the lack of confidence in those who are there. The ratios do not need to be equal simply because they aren't going to be so long as females are not forced into math and science. The way each gender is treated in the work place should be equal. That however is not attained in the U.S., much less in other nations worldwide and thus is an issue for another day...
Finally, many argued that the jargon used was an unnecessary way to avoid thinking about the responsibility that comes with the destruction that these "nuclear strategic analysts'" jobs. They claimed that the jargon distracted from the seriousness of their jobs and the outcomes of their choices. I, however, believe that this distraction is necessary. The analysts are supposed to look at how to react to possible outcomes, namely the "worst case scenarios." Considering the results would make it impossible to create an effective strategy; they would think only of the death involved and not be able to fully consider the damage that was/could be done in the first place. In times of trouble, there is not time for planning; a decision must be made immediately. If there are already multiple scenarios mapped out with an action and a possible reaction, does it matter what kind of language is used to express the ideas? Someone mentioned that a metaphor is used to make things easier to understand, so they should be used in complicated matters such as nuclear weaponry. If that makes it easier then leave them be. Let the diplomats deal with avoiding war and nuclear weapon use. Let the thinkers ponder the possibilities and make plans now that could possibly save us in the future with whatever language they choose.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Israel and Nuclear Power
During last Friday's class, we discussed nuclear weapons with a definite emphasis on the United States as a main player; in fact, in almost every example, the United States was involved. I have a brief point that I was thinking about during class, which is that, we, as the United States, pick who we are interested in as potential risks, and that is all that really matters. North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are the nuclear threats....and they also happen to be enemies and rivals of the United States.
I am very interested in Israel, as many have probably noticed by now, but I couldn't help thinking about Israel during last class. In the 1950's Israel began planning a nuclear-production spot in the Negev Desert in Israel (1). There is an interesting video that reveals the details, announced by Vanunu in 1986. Israel does not actually announce that they have nuclear weapons and the production is secretive within Israel, literally in the middle of the desert. Today, the production is a 'public-secret' because the existence of nuclear weapons is acknowledged. Although the United States has toured the Dimona site, they were unable to understand exactly the production capacity and the goings-on... it is believed that Israel could have up to 200 nuclear weapons(1).
This being said, I think it is interesting that no one talks about nuclear weapons in Israel, except Iran, which feels threatened by them. I believe that nuclear weapons are a measure of boldness and a means of showing the status of a country. When people mentioned disarmament, I thought about a country like Israel, where if they were to disarm, would probably be immediately attacked, a repeat of many wars past. Countries need to have this threat, even if no one will use them. It is all a 'game' of appearance of strength and of connections. We are allies of Israel, therefore it does not matter whether it amasses nuclear weapons and keeps them 'in secret' for the possible use on enemies.
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf39qkvwOhU
1. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
I am very interested in Israel, as many have probably noticed by now, but I couldn't help thinking about Israel during last class. In the 1950's Israel began planning a nuclear-production spot in the Negev Desert in Israel (1). There is an interesting video that reveals the details, announced by Vanunu in 1986. Israel does not actually announce that they have nuclear weapons and the production is secretive within Israel, literally in the middle of the desert. Today, the production is a 'public-secret' because the existence of nuclear weapons is acknowledged. Although the United States has toured the Dimona site, they were unable to understand exactly the production capacity and the goings-on... it is believed that Israel could have up to 200 nuclear weapons(1).
This being said, I think it is interesting that no one talks about nuclear weapons in Israel, except Iran, which feels threatened by them. I believe that nuclear weapons are a measure of boldness and a means of showing the status of a country. When people mentioned disarmament, I thought about a country like Israel, where if they were to disarm, would probably be immediately attacked, a repeat of many wars past. Countries need to have this threat, even if no one will use them. It is all a 'game' of appearance of strength and of connections. We are allies of Israel, therefore it does not matter whether it amasses nuclear weapons and keeps them 'in secret' for the possible use on enemies.
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf39qkvwOhU
1. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
How Queers Explain the World update
I realized that I did not explain what a cub was for those of you who do not know. A cub is a younger hairy gay man who, just because of age is not quite a bear; he will become a bear once he gets older.
Friday, October 19, 2007
How Queers explain World Politics
In the gay world we have several subcultures that reflect world politics and our discussions of this week. To start off we have bears, this is not the animal - I REPEAT NOT THE ANIMAL – the bear I am talking about is a hairy, older virulent gay man. For the purpose of this blog, the bear can be related to the hegemony that is the United States. The bear is a man who is usually older, and more influential in the sub-culture. They represent the United States this way by being at the top of the game. They are the ones that dictate the rules, the expectations of that particular way of life. This is attractive to others and makes them want to emulate the bears. The cubs are the allies of the bears just as countries such as England are the allies of the United States. This relates to the cold war as the United States and England and the allies grouped together to fight off the evils of communism and today terrorism. The common enemy; communism made the countries of the world feel unsafe and need to do all within their power to be secure in property, life, and liberty.
Next, we have the otters. These men are like the bears except in the fact that they are younger and generally fit. They are like the developing nations of the world. These are the nations that look to the United States, or their enemies, for help. The otters look to the more mature, self-sufficient bear as an example of how to live, act, and behave. These men look to the bears for aid of economic and social help. We have, in the world of politics, third world nations that look to America and its allies – or the bears and cubs – for economic aid, and policy making. In the Cold War, America/bears took it upon themselves to make sure that the cubs and otters, allies and third world nations, stayed on the ideological track of democracy and freedom and not give in to the pressures of the wolves, or the USSR.
Wolves – NOT AN ANIMAL – are hairy gay men who are dominant and aggressive. This represents the USSR during the Cold War days and terrorism for the world of today. This more aggressive sub-culture looks to destabilize the dominance of the bears. While there are wolves the bear lifestyle will always be threatened to the point that the bears will always be trying to keep bettering themselves and their standing in the world. This is also America’s justification for staying on top. While there is always a threat against the ideal of democracy, whether it is the threat of communism or terrorism, the United States must always be striving to stay on top.
While there are wolves, the bears will always fear for their safety and freedom. This never ending fear will lead to an always increasing sense of need for security. The ideals of democracy will always be threatened by an outside force and so there will always be a need to defend ourselves from domestic enemies and our enemies abroad. The gay subculture is an analogy of world politics in the past and today’s world. The ideologies and practices of world politics can be used to explain other societies and groups and vice versa.
Next, we have the otters. These men are like the bears except in the fact that they are younger and generally fit. They are like the developing nations of the world. These are the nations that look to the United States, or their enemies, for help. The otters look to the more mature, self-sufficient bear as an example of how to live, act, and behave. These men look to the bears for aid of economic and social help. We have, in the world of politics, third world nations that look to America and its allies – or the bears and cubs – for economic aid, and policy making. In the Cold War, America/bears took it upon themselves to make sure that the cubs and otters, allies and third world nations, stayed on the ideological track of democracy and freedom and not give in to the pressures of the wolves, or the USSR.
Wolves – NOT AN ANIMAL – are hairy gay men who are dominant and aggressive. This represents the USSR during the Cold War days and terrorism for the world of today. This more aggressive sub-culture looks to destabilize the dominance of the bears. While there are wolves the bear lifestyle will always be threatened to the point that the bears will always be trying to keep bettering themselves and their standing in the world. This is also America’s justification for staying on top. While there is always a threat against the ideal of democracy, whether it is the threat of communism or terrorism, the United States must always be striving to stay on top.
While there are wolves, the bears will always fear for their safety and freedom. This never ending fear will lead to an always increasing sense of need for security. The ideals of democracy will always be threatened by an outside force and so there will always be a need to defend ourselves from domestic enemies and our enemies abroad. The gay subculture is an analogy of world politics in the past and today’s world. The ideologies and practices of world politics can be used to explain other societies and groups and vice versa.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
National Security
I found the 2001 National Security article very interesting and something that I was able to relate to very well, partly because of the language used and because of the fact that it was not written only for highly-authorized personnel.
I would like to focus on this article and on the theory of realism, which I find very prominently in the ideas. The beliefs in realism would agree strongly with most of the ideas presented in the article, specifically the security examples. The United States is at a height, militarily and economically and will do anything to ensure safety, which is part of the realist theory, although realism would not agree with the fact that the United States will try to create free societies and a balance of power.
I do not think that the article follows up much on this subject. The following paragraph states that the fundamental concern of the U.S. is to ensure safety of OUR nation and then it continues to detail the methods of ensuring the country which include methods of military, intelligence, law, and defense. These are all essential parts of defense and security for the theory of realism.
The ideas listed to help prevent terrorism begin by sounding more liberal, yet the bottom line is the safety of the United States, OUR NATION, which is listed over and over again throughout the document. Some of the goals mention relations between nations which in effect will create 'world peace,' yet the end effect is the safety of the United States. The theory of realism is the basis of all decisions made by the United States and this is obvious in the security article. The most important part of this article for realists would be the discussion about destroying terrorism. The methods are clearly listed, and although many reasons including international benefits and preventing attacks against other countries, the main reason to focus on this is the for the security of the United States and other countries BECAUSE IF OUR ALLIES ARE ATTACKED, WE WILL HAVE SECURITY RISKS.
Because of my view on realism, I think that liberalism and constructivism are more parts of realism than theories on their own. I believe that anything can be traced down to realism, because in the end, security is the main concern, and this is the fundamental idea and necessity of realism. Just by the title of the security article, realism is prominent and is the basis of this piece of writing.
I would like to focus on this article and on the theory of realism, which I find very prominently in the ideas. The beliefs in realism would agree strongly with most of the ideas presented in the article, specifically the security examples. The United States is at a height, militarily and economically and will do anything to ensure safety, which is part of the realist theory, although realism would not agree with the fact that the United States will try to create free societies and a balance of power.
I do not think that the article follows up much on this subject. The following paragraph states that the fundamental concern of the U.S. is to ensure safety of OUR nation and then it continues to detail the methods of ensuring the country which include methods of military, intelligence, law, and defense. These are all essential parts of defense and security for the theory of realism.
The ideas listed to help prevent terrorism begin by sounding more liberal, yet the bottom line is the safety of the United States, OUR NATION, which is listed over and over again throughout the document. Some of the goals mention relations between nations which in effect will create 'world peace,' yet the end effect is the safety of the United States. The theory of realism is the basis of all decisions made by the United States and this is obvious in the security article. The most important part of this article for realists would be the discussion about destroying terrorism. The methods are clearly listed, and although many reasons including international benefits and preventing attacks against other countries, the main reason to focus on this is the for the security of the United States and other countries BECAUSE IF OUR ALLIES ARE ATTACKED, WE WILL HAVE SECURITY RISKS.
Because of my view on realism, I think that liberalism and constructivism are more parts of realism than theories on their own. I believe that anything can be traced down to realism, because in the end, security is the main concern, and this is the fundamental idea and necessity of realism. Just by the title of the security article, realism is prominent and is the basis of this piece of writing.
Thoughts on national security documents
Let me begin by saying I found it refreshing to read some "real" documents. That is to say, ones that were based in more modern day issues and weren't the simply the product of theorical IR brooding. It was just cool to know that I had been reading something that was previously "top secret". With that said, I would like to focus on NSC-68, a US security document dealing with the threat of the communist Soviet Union in the 1950s. I found it particulary interesting because, although I learned about the red scare and the threat of the USSR, the information you get in text books is no match for the original.
With the general tone of the document being a genuine "good vs. evil" type of deal, it seemed natural to take a realist standpoint. The overwhelming message of the briefing was that the Soviet Union was a potential threat to the safety and security of the United States and, on a larger scale, the world. The IR realist would take to the idea that we (America) must not trust the USSR to be peaceful. We must prepare for the worst and use our military and economic powers in an attempt to crumble to soviet regime. By allowing the USSR to grow in power, the US would lose ground as the world superpower. The document also gives the impression that the United States would be prepared to take action against the USSR in order to preserve it's own well being. War however is mentioned as a possible way to deal with the USSR, but it is reserved as a last resort. I think if the document was written in the purely realist sense, war would not be looked down upon. After all, if you are a realist the best and most efficient way to eliminate a threat. Of course, liberals maintain that rational people will do whatever possible to avoid going to war as the consequences far outweight the benifits
Aside from the aforementioned realist qualities, there are also strong elements of liberalism present in the nsc-68. For example, the United States has always believe in the promise of the democratic state. This goes along with the notion that the USSR is evil and archaic and the United States is wonderful. The idea of spreading democracy and eliminating communism is present throughout. It is even postulated that communism doesn't represent the will of the Soviet people. On the contrary, they are simply forced to comply. This cites the liberal ideal that people want representation and that they are rational at the core. No one would wish communism upon themselves. Liberals tend to believe that those who were raised and live in an autocratic society would welcome the introduction of democracy with open arms (of course as we can see today, this is not always the case). This idea of spreading representative forms of government and protecting the homeland is seen more in the document regarding the US security policy. It is liberalism and constructivism in the truest sense. It honestly seemed more like a patriotic speech (a bit of propoganda even) than an official guide to national security. It was almost a pump-up speech, like we were going to justify all future military conflicts on the basis that America is the best country and we won't put up with any crap from anybody. Something about phrases like "freedom is on the march" just give the aire of cautioned empire building. I'm not really sure what that means...but I just don't like the idea of assuming responsibilty for every governmental issue in the international community. God only knows we have our fair share of problems to deal with here.
With the general tone of the document being a genuine "good vs. evil" type of deal, it seemed natural to take a realist standpoint. The overwhelming message of the briefing was that the Soviet Union was a potential threat to the safety and security of the United States and, on a larger scale, the world. The IR realist would take to the idea that we (America) must not trust the USSR to be peaceful. We must prepare for the worst and use our military and economic powers in an attempt to crumble to soviet regime. By allowing the USSR to grow in power, the US would lose ground as the world superpower. The document also gives the impression that the United States would be prepared to take action against the USSR in order to preserve it's own well being. War however is mentioned as a possible way to deal with the USSR, but it is reserved as a last resort. I think if the document was written in the purely realist sense, war would not be looked down upon. After all, if you are a realist the best and most efficient way to eliminate a threat. Of course, liberals maintain that rational people will do whatever possible to avoid going to war as the consequences far outweight the benifits
Aside from the aforementioned realist qualities, there are also strong elements of liberalism present in the nsc-68. For example, the United States has always believe in the promise of the democratic state. This goes along with the notion that the USSR is evil and archaic and the United States is wonderful. The idea of spreading democracy and eliminating communism is present throughout. It is even postulated that communism doesn't represent the will of the Soviet people. On the contrary, they are simply forced to comply. This cites the liberal ideal that people want representation and that they are rational at the core. No one would wish communism upon themselves. Liberals tend to believe that those who were raised and live in an autocratic society would welcome the introduction of democracy with open arms (of course as we can see today, this is not always the case). This idea of spreading representative forms of government and protecting the homeland is seen more in the document regarding the US security policy. It is liberalism and constructivism in the truest sense. It honestly seemed more like a patriotic speech (a bit of propoganda even) than an official guide to national security. It was almost a pump-up speech, like we were going to justify all future military conflicts on the basis that America is the best country and we won't put up with any crap from anybody. Something about phrases like "freedom is on the march" just give the aire of cautioned empire building. I'm not really sure what that means...but I just don't like the idea of assuming responsibilty for every governmental issue in the international community. God only knows we have our fair share of problems to deal with here.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Reflection on EU/AIM and the week
This week we went to the EU commission to the U.S. The most interesting thing about the debriefing was that the guy ended up saying absolutely nothing of importance. Everything he said could be found on the EU commission to the U.S's website at
So during the last class, a bunch of us were on aim having a discussion. While admittedly, some of the discussion had nothing to do with the actual class, most of it did. I'd also agree with Autumn about many of us not being able to speak when we want to simply because everyone wants to speak. An aim discussion during class will help in allowing everyone to voice what they want to say whether they say it out loud or on aim; this is the link to autumn's comment. Also, after that class Rachel, Erica, and I were walking back from lunch and talking about the class and PTJ came up and we were discussing the fact that we were still talking about the class and also about the blog discussion that we had. He liked the fact that we were also talking about the class on aim and said that there might be a possibility of having aim groups set up for a future class so we could discuss out loud and on aim and see where one conversation went versus the other and to how related the two actually were. I'd like to end this reflection by saying that the aim conversation should not have to be defended and that while the aim discussion might not have been 100% serious, neither are the class discussions; I mean how can they be when we are trying to relate creepy Ian to marginalization?
So during the last class, a bunch of us were on aim having a discussion. While admittedly, some of the discussion had nothing to do with the actual class, most of it did. I'd also agree with Autumn about many of us not being able to speak when we want to simply because everyone wants to speak. An aim discussion during class will help in allowing everyone to voice what they want to say whether they say it out loud or on aim
Sunday, October 14, 2007
reflection week seven
Though controversial on several levels, I thought that this week's discussion went well.
Many people did not approve of our discussing "creepy ian," a boy that they did not know and thus were reluctant to marginalize. Out of those who had met him, it seemed, at least to me, that we did not mind categorizing him as "creepy" and separating him from our ian (larry! haha) so that others could be aware of the distinction. Yet was the categorization of "creepy" a difference or more of a stereotype (by the definitions given in my previous blog this week)? Even after the stories and meeting him, I still think that "creepy" is a stereotype. There is no (proven) biological/physical difference between people who are "creepy" and those who aren't; although certain personality characteristics are common threads through each of these characterizations, I belive that personalities are interpreted differently by everyone. Many may consider "creepy ian" to be creepy and thus justify stereotyping him as such but, since it is not something that all can agree upon, it is not a "real difference."
Another topic that I would like to address is that of aim conversations during world politics class. It seems that some do not like that others partake in this act; I, however, (as should be clear by my posting a conversation from this weeks class) think that they are a great way for more people to participate and get their ideas heard throughout the class. With so many opinionated people in our class, it is sometimes difficult to get our ideas heard; by conversing about them on aim as we have a discussion, people who get the opprotunity to speak can bring up points made in the aim conversation. I defintely would like to further the idea of one big class chat (which is what I was going for this past week - if you have aim & are on in class, let me know & i'll add you to the chat next time); after tuesday's class, some of us stayed and spoke with ptj about having one class in which the conversation is recorded as everyone also participates in an aim chat - but in 3 distinct groups - so that we can track how ideas move through chats & the class discussion. I think that if we have technology that can make expression easier, then we should take advantage of it; this experiment would allow us to do so even more than normal.
Many people did not approve of our discussing "creepy ian," a boy that they did not know and thus were reluctant to marginalize. Out of those who had met him, it seemed, at least to me, that we did not mind categorizing him as "creepy" and separating him from our ian (larry! haha) so that others could be aware of the distinction. Yet was the categorization of "creepy" a difference or more of a stereotype (by the definitions given in my previous blog this week)? Even after the stories and meeting him, I still think that "creepy" is a stereotype. There is no (proven) biological/physical difference between people who are "creepy" and those who aren't; although certain personality characteristics are common threads through each of these characterizations, I belive that personalities are interpreted differently by everyone. Many may consider "creepy ian" to be creepy and thus justify stereotyping him as such but, since it is not something that all can agree upon, it is not a "real difference."
Another topic that I would like to address is that of aim conversations during world politics class. It seems that some do not like that others partake in this act; I, however, (as should be clear by my posting a conversation from this weeks class) think that they are a great way for more people to participate and get their ideas heard throughout the class. With so many opinionated people in our class, it is sometimes difficult to get our ideas heard; by conversing about them on aim as we have a discussion, people who get the opprotunity to speak can bring up points made in the aim conversation. I defintely would like to further the idea of one big class chat (which is what I was going for this past week - if you have aim & are on in class, let me know & i'll add you to the chat next time); after tuesday's class, some of us stayed and spoke with ptj about having one class in which the conversation is recorded as everyone also participates in an aim chat - but in 3 distinct groups - so that we can track how ideas move through chats & the class discussion. I think that if we have technology that can make expression easier, then we should take advantage of it; this experiment would allow us to do so even more than normal.
maginalize the difference
To look at stereotyping versus characterization one should look at the various different groups and also Hollywoodization of groups and definitions of terms and their changing word usage. The changing culture of homosexuality is a perfect example. In the early 1900s homosexuality was a lifestyle not allowed for the motion picture venue. It was treated by the population as a culture that did not exist. As times changed and activism was starting for the gay and lesbian culture, perception of reality started changing. In the 1960s there were riots targeting homosexuals and the people responded in anger against those riots. By the late 1970s homosexuals started appearing on the big screen, however, they were seen as being suicidal or depressed figures. By the early 1980s, homosexuals started being seen as adolescent relationships. This was a huge step in hollywood dramatization of homosexuals. This showed that the lifestyle was starting to become more accepted by mainstream America and not shown as a sick and twisted lifestyle. The gay epidemic of the 1980s set back acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and it showed in hollywood portrayals as a backlash. However, by the 1990s the homosexual lifestyle showed an accepting lifestyle. DeGeneres became one of the first homosexual out actresses that was portrayed in a good light by the American media and Hollywood. Along with DeGeneres, television shows such as L-word, Queer as folk, and Will and Grace starred gay characters living a normal, or semi-normal lifestyle. With the changing of perception of the homosexual lifestyle in the media the perception changed in the streets. The stereotyping changed from one of hatred and ignorance to that of acceptance and flamboyance. Mainstream America has taken the homosexual lifestyle and made it into one of flamboyance and drama queens. The use of descriptive words has changed from gay to queer to fag. With the homosexual population taking each word in turn and making it their own and no longer a derogatory word. The marginalization of this particular group has made it so that the group itself changes and sticks together. Marginalization has made the group change and grow and show that Hollywood does not portray the label as what it actually is. Taking Jack, from Will and Grace, the homosexual lifestyle has been shown as one that is loud, flamboyant, and sexual. Hollywood has marginalized the culture to that and just as the straight culture, there is more to the homosexual lifestyle then that. Hollywood characterizes a group of people, right or wrong, and then it becomes how society perceives that group. While some in the culture are undoubtedly like that, the big majority of the minority act nothing like Jack and mainstream America does not realize this because of the large influence that Hollywood has on our population.
Thoughts on Marginalization.
If you spend enough time getting to know a particular individual or group of people you get to know their true differences as they compare to yours and your values. Stereotypes occur when a broad, often untrue or uninformed assumption is applied to an equally broad group of people (i.e. all Yankees fans are unintelligent). The main way to distinguish between a "real" or "genuine" difference and a stereotype difference is to examine and observe the individual person. I don't think you can honestly marginalize a whole group of people for exactly this reason. Most stereotypes are formed on the basis of groups as wholes and therefore there is no way to determine wether or not the prejudices are justified. For example, one cannot marginalize all Arabs simply on the basis that they are "all terrorists" or that they all desire to blow up buildings. That is just rediculous and completely dense. On the other hand, if you know about a certain group of people (see Al Qaeda) then the facts point towards violence and radical religious tendencies. In this case, it is justified to marginalize these people on the basis of their previous actions.
I would also like to comment on the subject of being "politically correct". In class we discussed using terms such as "brown" or "black" to desribe people. I agree with Autumn when she says that, although these words are in no way 100% accurate, they are what society has chosen to distinguish between people. They have no bad intent, they just exist as they are...to help us differentiate (which is not the same as marginalizing). I think that these terms are perfectly acceptable as long as their purpose is not derrogetory such as the n-word. People should be proud of who they are and not embarrassed or offended when they are not lumped in with the general populous. If everyone was the same, which they're not, what would be the point in that. Words are what people and society make of them and some people just get offended way too easily.
I would also like to comment on the subject of being "politically correct". In class we discussed using terms such as "brown" or "black" to desribe people. I agree with Autumn when she says that, although these words are in no way 100% accurate, they are what society has chosen to distinguish between people. They have no bad intent, they just exist as they are...to help us differentiate (which is not the same as marginalizing). I think that these terms are perfectly acceptable as long as their purpose is not derrogetory such as the n-word. People should be proud of who they are and not embarrassed or offended when they are not lumped in with the general populous. If everyone was the same, which they're not, what would be the point in that. Words are what people and society make of them and some people just get offended way too easily.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
EU, marginalization
I am glad that I got to visit the EU this week. The presentation was informative and I was pleasantly surprised at how willing the speaker was to answer our questions and give his opinions. I would have like to have had a tour of the building or get to know a little more about the inner workings of the organization. Nevertheless, It was a refreshing change of pace from the more uptight world that is the US Department of State. I think it just reaffirms my positive view of Europe and it's philosophies. The trip was also accentuated by a side excursion to an Afghan kabob house in Dupont. Tuesday's discussion on marginalization brought up some good points but I wasn't very keen on using "creepy" Ian as the target. I have never even met this person and the fact that the whole class ripped on him (and that PTJ allowed it to continue) came as somewhat as a surprise to me. I also wished we could have spend some time on the assigned article because I thought it made some good point and I really would have liked to analyze and try to understand it more. I will also briefly say that I myself was involved in the now infamous "AIM chat" and that I do not have any qualms with the situation. I believe it is a perfectly acceptable way to stay engaged in the disccusion as well as to bounce ideas of each other during class.
facts vs opinions
On the most basic level, a difference is a distinguishing characteristic, distinctive quality or feature, and a stereotpye is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
While a stereotype is based on what someone thinks, a real difference is based on fact. Though we may not always use the most accurate words to express those differences, the idea that we are stating something that is true no matter who says it differentiates it from a stereotype which is based on perception. For example, calling African Americans "black" and Caucasians "white"... neither group is actually either of those colors, but the chosen words describe the factual difference between the tone of their skin. It just is. There is no bias or skew involved; black people's skin is darker than white people's. It becomes a stereotype rather than a difference when one begins to assume things based on these real differences. For example, if I were to say that all black people listen to rap music that would be a (n incorrect) stereotype; obviously this is a mild example, but it serves its purpose in showing that stereotypes take differences one step further.
As far as when marginalization is acceptable, I feel that differences in themselves marginalize the parties involved. This is, however, a necessarycomponent in separating and identifying various characteristics; it's not wrong because they just are. Stereotypes marginalize in an unacceptable manner in that they are often insulting. We must make sure to marginalize only according to differences as if we go by stereotypes we are being demeaning. We know that we are doing this only when we go by facts rather than opinioins.
While a stereotype is based on what someone thinks, a real difference is based on fact. Though we may not always use the most accurate words to express those differences, the idea that we are stating something that is true no matter who says it differentiates it from a stereotype which is based on perception. For example, calling African Americans "black" and Caucasians "white"... neither group is actually either of those colors, but the chosen words describe the factual difference between the tone of their skin. It just is. There is no bias or skew involved; black people's skin is darker than white people's. It becomes a stereotype rather than a difference when one begins to assume things based on these real differences. For example, if I were to say that all black people listen to rap music that would be a (n incorrect) stereotype; obviously this is a mild example, but it serves its purpose in showing that stereotypes take differences one step further.
As far as when marginalization is acceptable, I feel that differences in themselves marginalize the parties involved. This is, however, a necessarycomponent in separating and identifying various characteristics; it's not wrong because they just are. Stereotypes marginalize in an unacceptable manner in that they are often insulting. We must make sure to marginalize only according to differences as if we go by stereotypes we are being demeaning. We know that we are doing this only when we go by facts rather than opinioins.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Halfway
In World Politics, this week has proved very helpful for me. The topics that we have discussed became much clearer because of the essay, which forced me to re-listen to the podcasts and look up some information on my own in order to truly understand what I was writing about. I feel that I now have a good understanding of the IR theories that we have discussed along with how to apply them.
I have already written in a comment about the aim chat which was the part of class that I was not satisfied with, and I believe that I made it clear why in the comment. I really enjoy class when everyone is participating with the whole class and not with a small group. I'm sure that everyone would like to hear your opinions in class, not just posted through a chat on a blog later.
This week's trip to the European Union was interesting for me because I did not know what exactly the purpose of the EU was. Something that I found most interesting that the speaker pointed out was the law that products tested on animals cannot be imported into countries in the European Union. The write-up in the booklet also is interesting, that an organization working at a level like the EU is considering, at least in words, the rights of animals. It mentions the ethical and environmental ideas behind animal torture and the unnecessary use of animals. I found this especially interesting as someone who is strongly against animal testing and the meat industry.
I have already written in a comment about the aim chat which was the part of class that I was not satisfied with, and I believe that I made it clear why in the comment. I really enjoy class when everyone is participating with the whole class and not with a small group. I'm sure that everyone would like to hear your opinions in class, not just posted through a chat on a blog later.
This week's trip to the European Union was interesting for me because I did not know what exactly the purpose of the EU was. Something that I found most interesting that the speaker pointed out was the law that products tested on animals cannot be imported into countries in the European Union. The write-up in the booklet also is interesting, that an organization working at a level like the EU is considering, at least in words, the rights of animals. It mentions the ethical and environmental ideas behind animal torture and the unnecessary use of animals. I found this especially interesting as someone who is strongly against animal testing and the meat industry.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
marginalization
There is a major distinction between marginalization of a group of people (by using their name) and by offending another culture or person with a name that has bad connotations. In class, we referred to some of the most obvious distinctions, using race as an example, but there are many other ways to marginalize people such as religion, social class, ancestry, life style... and they all apply equally.
The issue with our discussion is viewpoint... we all come from a different perspective, having grown up in different parts of the country or world. Most of us can agree that certain words are not appropriate, no matter which subgroup we are discussing and where we are coming from. Yet, in the United States, where everyone worries so much about being politically correct, is this really necessary at all times?? Is it actually correct to call someone an African American instead of just a black American?? I am a white American and someone with dark skin is black and this is not an insulting word.
The same goes for Arab, which was a large part of our discussion on Tuesday. An Arab is someone who comes from a country where Arabic is a national or official language, or someone whose genealogy traces back to Arabic tribes. The definition is complex, but the point is that it encompasses an enormous group of people and DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATION TO RELIGION. There should be no shame in being called an Arab if you are in fact an Arab.
These categories are different from calling someone a 'dirty Arab,' 'white trash,' referring to low-class white people, and derogatory terms that have become known as such in our country. I believe that there is quite a clear distinction in how it is alright to marginalize people without having to discuss it a lot.
The issue with our discussion is viewpoint... we all come from a different perspective, having grown up in different parts of the country or world. Most of us can agree that certain words are not appropriate, no matter which subgroup we are discussing and where we are coming from. Yet, in the United States, where everyone worries so much about being politically correct, is this really necessary at all times?? Is it actually correct to call someone an African American instead of just a black American?? I am a white American and someone with dark skin is black and this is not an insulting word.
The same goes for Arab, which was a large part of our discussion on Tuesday. An Arab is someone who comes from a country where Arabic is a national or official language, or someone whose genealogy traces back to Arabic tribes. The definition is complex, but the point is that it encompasses an enormous group of people and DOES NOT HAVE ANY RELATION TO RELIGION. There should be no shame in being called an Arab if you are in fact an Arab.
These categories are different from calling someone a 'dirty Arab,' 'white trash,' referring to low-class white people, and derogatory terms that have become known as such in our country. I believe that there is quite a clear distinction in how it is alright to marginalize people without having to discuss it a lot.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
AIM Chat
Okay so here's the transcript from the AIM Chat during today's class -with a few minor edits like the preliminary stuff which had absolutely nothing to do with anything as there was no discussion going on at that point.
If anyone who was not involved in this discussion would like to be, just let me know what your screenname is so I can invite you next time.
Voila-
If anyone who was not involved in this discussion would like to be, just let me know what your screenname is so I can invite you next time.
Voila-
James (11:22:06 AM): hola
Autumn (11:22:12 AM): hola
Travis (11:22:18 AM): wordddd
Travis (11:22:47 AM): jackson is probably still mouring those yankees
Autumn (11:22:51 AM): hahaa
James (11:22:57 AM): yea baby
Lauren L (11:23:02 AM): grrrr travis
Autumn (11:23:12 AM): yeah so i figure we can comment on convos on here & not have to wait to jump in til he calls on all of us
James (11:23:26 AM): yea good call
Lauren L (11:23:27 AM): smart thinking
Lauren S (11:30:04 AM): doodle doodle hey
Ashley (11:30:06 AM): huh??
Autumn (11:30:41 AM): poor ian..
Ashley (11:30:46 AM): aw ian..your identity!
Travis (11:30:55 AM): yeah we dont want you to lose your identity
Travis (11:30:58 AM): you gotta be assertive man
Lauren L (11:30:59 AM): not just identity... ontological identity.....
Autumn (11:31:01 AM): change it! go constructivist!
Travis (11:31:05 AM): haha
James (11:31:14 AM): all the way
Travis (11:31:21 AM): well wouldn't realist ian just kick the crap out of creepy ian
Lauren L (11:31:27 AM): haha
Ian (11:31:30 AM): good idea trav
James (11:31:35 AM): yea
Autumn (11:31:37 AM): our ian's the default - creepy ian's obviously the other.. duhh
Ian (11:31:42 AM): except he might bite me and then i'll get rabies
Autumn (11:31:45 AM): ahhah
Travis (11:32:15 AM): yeh you gotta represent
Travis (11:33:54 AM): ians gotta bond together
Lauren L (11:34:10 AM): i like this conversation...
James (11:34:17 AM): yea its good
Lauren L (11:35:46 AM): ash/autumn i'm totally tempted to tell the story about what happened when we were passing eaglesnest
Autumn (11:36:14 AM): hahahah
Travis (11:36:16 AM): i just think its funny that we are picking on a real person
Travis (11:36:22 AM): hope he doesn't walk in
Autumn (11:36:23 AM): yeahh...
Lauren L (11:36:34 AM): apparantly i let him into an elavator...
James (11:36:50 AM): haha
Autumn (11:36:52 AM): haha yeahh you did lol
Lauren L (11:37:20 AM): should i tell the story?
Travis (11:37:27 AM): dooo it
Autumn (11:37:29 AM): go for it!
Ashley (11:38:31 AM): that was amazing
Autumn (11:38:37 AM): lots of individual experiences that correlate = he's actually creepy.
Travis (11:38:48 AM): he should feel honored we are dedicating a class to him...
James (11:38:51 AM): haha yep
Lauren L (11:38:52 AM): lol
Autumn (11:38:55 AM): lmao
Sam (11:38:57 AM): haha
Ashley (11:39:05 AM): what if he walked by
Ashley (11:39:12 AM): i would cry - id feel so bad
Autumn (11:39:13 AM): that would be so hilarious
Lauren L (11:39:15 AM): that would be amazing
Lauren L (11:39:28 AM): cool
Autumn (11:39:32 AM): it's not like he'd hear what's going on in the classroom ashley
Travis (11:39:39 AM): hah yeh
Travis (11:39:39 AM): lizzzzz
Liz (11:39:43 AM): travey poo
Travis (11:41:09 AM): ok kids lets keep it professional
Travis (11:41:09 AM): haha
James (11:41:10 AM): how are you enjoying this conversation?
Travis (11:41:23 AM): yeah liz do you know creepy ian?
Liz (11:41:33 AM): no i dont
Autumn (11:41:38 AM): i like how ptj keeps tying back to ir theory & then we just tell more stories.. oops we should prolly stop that
Liz (11:41:39 AM): y the hell are we talking about him. im confused
Travis (11:41:44 AM): i dont know if he is a threat to our survival as a floor
Travis (11:41:56 AM): is he dangerous? haha
Autumn (11:42:03 AM): quite possibly ..?
Lauren L (11:42:06 AM): i still hafta say sublimilly, game?
Sam (11:42:19 AM): we could gang up. im sure all of us could take him on
Travis (11:42:28 AM): oh.. that is creepy
Autumn (11:42:30 AM): scaryyyy!!
Ashley (11:42:32 AM): yea
Travis (11:42:47 AM): we should let creepy ian testify or something
Ashley (11:42:51 AM): and apparently there are theories about other things he did that they cant prove
Lauren L (11:43:22 AM): wanna share?
Travis (11:43:28 AM): oh yah well ian is so cool he can't be brought down by larry
Autumn (11:43:38 AM): wait what?
Ian (11:43:38 AM): i don't want to lose my identity
Ashley (11:43:55 AM): no its inappropriate and idk how true or not it is they just have suspicians
Travis (11:43:55 AM): i don't blame you he has it comin to him
Autumn (11:44:04 AM): we dont know his last name..
Travis (11:44:04 AM): it is to warn people duh
Travis (11:44:07 AM): yeah
Autumn (11:44:11 AM): yeah that's pretty important too
Travis (11:44:19 AM): creepy pretty much says it all
Travis (11:44:25 AM): covers all the bases
Autumn (11:44:51 AM): obviously!
Travis (11:45:00 AM): wait what class are we in?
Autumn (11:45:06 AM): i cant remember...
Travis (11:45:07 AM): ohh yeah
Autumn (11:45:12 AM): titus remind us again?
Ashley (11:45:19 AM): lol
Travis (11:45:20 AM): yes, please
Autumn (11:45:22 AM): oh yeah wp!
Sam (11:45:31 AM): haha
Travis (11:45:37 AM): lol "agressive"
Travis (11:45:45 AM): thats one way to put it i suppose
Autumn (11:45:46 AM): yay for cool smilies!
Ashley (11:45:48 AM): no they run away from him
Ian (11:45:48 AM): he's the creeps freedom fighter
Lauren L (11:45:50 AM): .... if he has friends...
Ashley (11:45:58 AM): i've seen it
James (11:46:02 AM): johnny is his friend
Travis (11:46:09 AM): little johnny
Travis (11:46:13 AM): ow ow
Ashley (11:46:16 AM): he doesnt like him
James (11:46:22 AM): oo
James (11:46:30 AM): whatevs then
Autumn (11:46:33 AM): johnny doesnt like ian or the other way around? je suis confu
Lauren L (11:46:37 AM): johnny's creepy too though, right?
Ashley (11:46:40 AM): the way you said
Autumn (11:46:48 AM): o ok
Ashley (11:46:49 AM): johnny is just very socially awkward
Travis (11:46:50 AM): yeah maybe they are like a little creepy army
Lauren L (11:46:57 AM): haha
Travis (11:47:09 AM): well the evidence is there...
Travis (11:47:16 AM): i think there is solid proof
Travis (11:47:19 AM): right?
Travis (11:47:22 AM): jams and whatever
Autumn (11:47:27 AM): but then you're on your guard when you actually meet him & you can be careful!
Ian (11:47:38 AM): i'll say it to his face
Ian (11:47:49 AM): he brings shame to the noble name of ian
Autumn (11:47:52 AM): hhahha
Lauren S (11:47:56 AM): that's awful
James (11:47:57 AM): yea dude
Travis (11:47:59 AM): well i don't know though if these preconceived nothions are valid until you have a creepy experience
Autumn (11:48:18 AM): true true
James (11:48:21 AM): id say the jams thing is pretty creepy
Sam (11:48:24 AM): but do you want to have a creepy experience is the question?
James (11:48:31 AM): exactly
Autumn (11:48:38 AM): no. not really.
Liz (11:48:52 AM): sorry guys
Autumn (11:48:56 AM): that's a good question...
Liz (11:48:58 AM): i dont get the point of this conversation
Autumn (11:48:58 AM): idk?
Liz (11:49:02 AM): and think its kinda dumb
Sam (11:49:02 AM): yea the mouse experience i had was slightly creepy
Ian (11:49:09 AM): did you read enloe?
Autumn (11:49:18 AM): yepp
Liz (11:49:18 AM): yes i did
Liz (11:49:22 AM): but get a better example
Travis (11:49:27 AM): yeh it was kind of out there
Liz (11:49:31 AM): one with relevance?
James (11:49:35 AM): id prefer a better example
Travis (11:49:45 AM): yeh we are taking this to far
Lauren L (11:49:46 AM): how did this even start?
James (11:49:52 AM): idk
Liz (11:49:53 AM): yeah
Autumn (11:50:07 AM): ....
Travis (11:50:19 AM): yeah this is totally irrelivant why don't we talk about enloe
Travis (11:50:20 AM): yeah
Travis (11:50:36 AM): this really isn't going anywhere
Sam (11:50:41 AM): no no its not
Travis (11:50:47 AM): we can talk about mexican peasant uprisings
James (11:50:50 AM): not at all
Travis (11:50:51 AM): or something
Liz (11:51:00 AM): something with substance
Sam (11:51:11 AM): the blackwater mercenaries haha
James (11:51:20 AM): yea lets go with that
Liz (11:51:24 AM): someone say that
Autumn (11:51:26 AM): go for it
James (11:51:27 AM): its more interesting anyway
Travis (11:51:27 AM): well i mean according to the article shouldn't we be worried that creepy ian is gonna rise up against us
Liz (11:51:34 AM): travis
Travis (11:51:38 AM): haha
Liz (11:51:41 AM): please
Travis (11:51:41 AM): yes?
Liz (11:51:48 AM): be sexy and be queit
Travis (11:51:53 AM): ok, ok we will try and shift the conversatino
Ian (11:51:58 AM): well in response to shultzy, is it fair for me to be brought down by this ian?
Lauren S (11:52:12 AM): no
Liz (11:52:17 AM): no ian
Ian (11:52:17 AM): i think its my duty to make the delineation
Liz (11:52:19 AM): but its not about u
Travis (11:52:23 AM): well he shouldnt affect you i mean you should be able to maintain your image
Liz (11:52:25 AM): u have hte same name
Liz (11:52:27 AM): sucks
Liz (11:52:29 AM): but watever
Travis (11:52:55 AM): yeah let's just talk about something else i don't want to spend a whole class on ian
Ian (11:52:59 AM): same actually
Liz (11:53:02 AM): i agree. sorry ian
Ian (11:53:03 AM): we are getting off it now
Lauren S (11:53:09 AM): ouch
Lauren S (11:53:09 AM): hahha
James (11:53:10 AM): sort of
James (11:53:29 AM): why are we talking about how to talk about people?
James (11:53:37 AM): and the n word
Ashley (11:53:37 AM): were really just using it as a model, I dont really think that it matters how well or not well we know him because were taking it out to use to explain things. we arent discussing ian we're discussing marginalization
Travis (11:53:51 AM): yeah but its just disrespectful i think
Lauren L (11:53:53 AM): because labels leads to otherization
Travis (11:54:01 AM): we should use a broader example
Ian (11:54:03 AM): except some people haven't read enloe so don't know this
Travis (11:54:11 AM): well screw them
Travis (11:54:14 AM): they should have done the hw
Ashley (11:54:18 AM): I mean everything is relative. I feel like you cant give people some sort of label if you have no basis or knowledge for it
Autumn (11:54:34 AM): yeah but once you have some knowledge then ...
Autumn (11:55:18 AM): isnt queer eye starting soon?
Travis (11:55:23 AM): i hope so man
Ashley (11:55:26 AM): lol i dont know
Autumn (11:55:31 AM): lauren l- we were talking about it before do you know?
Sam (11:55:35 AM): idk dont watch the show
Lauren L (11:55:37 AM): we don't get bravo so it doens't matter
Travis (11:55:41 AM): oh crapp
Autumn (11:55:43 AM): awwww mann...
Travis (11:55:48 AM): way to be a downer
Ashley (11:55:53 AM): i also think that it really depends whether or not your welcomed into the community whether or not you can use your terms
Lauren L (11:55:56 AM): sorrrry
Liz (11:55:56 AM): travis ur always a downer
Travis (11:56:05 AM): so...hows that paper gonig for y'all?
Autumn (11:56:20 AM): ... lets not discuss that.
Travis (11:56:27 AM): haha ok ok
Travis (11:56:29 AM): fair enough
Autumn (11:57:04 AM): except that just saying we should move away from a word doesnt mean that people will actually do it
Lauren L (11:57:15 AM): yeah
Sam (11:57:25 AM): also the meaning of words change. degrading words or otherwise
Travis (11:57:27 AM): well its an understanding or a social norm
Travis (11:57:36 AM): didn't you watch the daily show yesterday
James (11:57:36 AM): yea thats true
Travis (11:57:44 AM): words are losing their definitions
Autumn (11:57:44 AM): no
Travis (11:57:52 AM): its a serious matter
James (11:57:54 AM): it was good
Travis (11:57:54 AM): haha
Lauren L (11:58:07 AM): find the clip and play it?
James (11:58:16 AM): we could
Travis (11:58:18 AM): haha maybe
Autumn (11:58:18 AM): i mean no i didnt watch it not no words are losing their definitions... definitions are always changing
Autumn (11:58:28 AM): pirates & emperors!
Autumn (11:58:35 AM): pirates of the caribbean!
Travis (11:58:38 AM): we dont have the AV stuff
Autumn (11:58:42 AM): yeah w/e
Sam (11:58:43 AM): ewww not that movie
Lauren L (11:58:49 AM): you have ur laptop ...
Travis (11:58:57 AM): savvy
Autumn (11:59:02 AM): you could send the link around & we could watch on various laptops throughout the room savvy?
Travis (11:59:19 AM): perhaps
James (11:59:21 AM): lets stop saying savvy savvy?
Autumn (11:59:29 AM): savvy.
Autumn (11:59:46 AM): aww the squirrels!
Travis (11:59:55 AM): wouldnt it be better if instad of marginalize we just used pick on or opress
Sam (12:00:03 PM): haha the three subspecies of the squirrls yay!
Lauren L (12:00:09 PM): my friend got really drunk once, and her roomate had a picture of pirates of the C on her wall, and she told her roomate to "tell johnny depp to stop moving and why is orlando bloom so angry"
Autumn (12:00:18 PM): hahaha
James (12:00:36 PM): jackson can see my computer
James (12:00:40 PM): just so you know
Autumn (12:01:00 PM): but travis- marginalize sounds less harsh & thus we use it because we want to sound nicer than if we said 'pick on' or 'oppress'
Lauren L (12:01:09 PM): hahaha oops
Travis (12:01:23 PM): although we cant watch it
Travis (12:01:26 PM): without sound
Autumn (12:01:26 PM): well we're posting it anyways...
Travis (12:01:27 PM): so w/e
James (12:01:34 PM): marginalize is a word whose meaning is just more positively pitched
Autumn (12:01:39 PM): exactly
Sam (12:01:43 PM): wow this was so english class with the use of slanting words haha
Travis (12:01:47 PM): yeah haha
Lauren L (12:02:02 PM): yup sam
Autumn (12:02:19 PM): wow...
Travis (12:02:22 PM): this clip is actually really good it talks about freedom of speech and personal opinion, etc
Autumn (12:02:31 PM): yeah something should have happened though!
Travis (12:02:38 PM): you should watch it later or something
Autumn (12:02:49 PM): post the link & we can watch it later/mention it in blogs
James (12:02:53 PM): yea we should
James (12:02:59 PM): yea
Travis (12:03:05 PM): yeah i posted it up there but i can repost it later
Autumn (12:03:22 PM): up where? it's not in this convo...?
Liz (12:03:27 PM): i always sound like im gonna cry in this class
Travis (12:03:29 PM): is it not
Liz (12:03:49 PM): ..random...
Autumn (12:03:53 PM): no- you definitely had reason to get mad about that!
Autumn (12:04:07 PM): i would too - that's totally awful
Travis (12:04:14 PM): whatever the URL is too long
Travis (12:04:17 PM): i will put it somewhre else
Liz (12:04:27 PM): ha thanks...
James (12:04:31 PM): whats awful?
Autumn (12:04:38 PM): copy... paste... it doesnt really matter if it's long lolll
James (12:04:42 PM): the nword thing?
Autumn (12:04:48 PM): yeahhh
James (12:05:02 PM): its really not that bad
Travis (12:05:11 PM): no AIM has a limit on how long your messge can be
Autumn (12:05:20 PM): really? i never knew that..
James (12:05:23 PM): words are words. thy get their meaning because of how we use them
Autumn (12:05:28 PM): alrite some other time then
Travis (12:05:35 PM): yeah exactly they are so arbitrary
Travis (12:05:43 PM): i'll say it i don't care
Travis (12:05:52 PM): well i mean i do care
James (12:05:52 PM): i will too
Travis (12:05:56 PM): but i will still say it
Autumn (12:06:11 PM): i wouldnt want to..
James (12:06:18 PM): i care, but you can say it if you feel the need to
Liz (12:06:23 PM): i disagree
Ashley (12:06:28 PM): i wont just because it carries so much history and neativity tied to it but thats what people make it
James (12:06:29 PM): what if you used it positively?
Travis (12:06:36 PM): dude i will call a fat person a fat person
Liz (12:06:38 PM): how can u use it positively
Travis (12:06:39 PM): ...no
Travis (12:06:40 PM): i wont
Ashley (12:06:41 PM): if people decided it wasnt negative anymore that would even be better
Liz (12:06:46 PM): when it has been taught that its a negative word?
Travis (12:06:50 PM): well you can't there is too much history
Travis (12:07:03 PM): you can't just decide to change a word its way easier to just have ppl stop using it
James (12:07:10 PM): just say it when describing a positive attribute of a black person
Autumn (12:07:16 PM): yeah but i dont think that you can use it positively . i mean white people just cant say it positively because of the history...
Liz (12:07:21 PM): how would u make that sound positive
Lauren L (12:07:23 PM): that's not gonna work...
Ashley (12:07:32 PM): there are ways that you can get past it though, people revitalize neighborhoods that had previously been associated with crime and poverty
Travis (12:07:33 PM): you wouldn't the only thing you can do its just not use it
Travis (12:07:36 PM): or not care
James (12:07:38 PM): cuz youre thinking too deeply into the word
Ashley (12:07:41 PM): eventually that association goes away
Travis (12:07:47 PM): i dont think it does
Ashley (12:07:47 PM): why should this be any different
Liz (12:07:48 PM): but how can u not think deepy?
James (12:07:48 PM): in its most basic form, it denotes black person
Liz (12:07:53 PM): words go hand in hand with feeligns
James (12:07:56 PM): youre letting the history clod the true meaning of it
Liz (12:07:58 PM): they bring up feelings and emotions
Travis (12:07:58 PM): yeah but pop culture says differently
Liz (12:08:03 PM): and a word like that
Lauren L (12:08:05 PM): then just say black, there
Liz (12:08:06 PM): that has such depth
Ashley (12:08:08 PM): im still not saying that its right to say but i do think that if it was focused on it could be changed
Travis (12:08:09 PM): its just got bad connotations
Lauren L (12:08:09 PM): s no need to use the nword
Liz (12:08:09 PM): cannot be ogtten rid of
Travis (12:08:20 PM): yeah you aren't gonna change it
James (12:08:28 PM): see i love what a simple comment can do
Travis (12:08:28 PM): its not worth the trouble
Lauren L (12:08:29 PM): then just say black, no need to use the n word*
Autumn (12:08:35 PM): exactly
James (12:08:38 PM): i would never say it, but look how active evryone got
Autumn (12:08:50 PM): except you said that you would...
Lauren L (12:08:50 PM): because u said u'd say it lol
Liz (12:08:51 PM): ....wow
Travis (12:09:17 PM): well i mean its just a word...if i locked myself in a room and shouted the nword no one would know
Travis (12:09:19 PM): and it would mean nothing
James (12:09:21 PM): i know what i said
Autumn (12:09:27 PM): i dont think it's a problem to use descriptions as long as they're not derogatory in any sense
James (12:09:27 PM): that doent mean i believe it
Travis (12:09:50 PM): its all about how each person involved takes the word
Travis (12:09:56 PM): some people might not care
Travis (12:10:05 PM): it just depends ya know
James (12:10:06 PM): exactly
James (12:10:24 PM): a word is a word
James (12:10:31 PM): connotation is different
Travis (12:10:33 PM): black actually makes more sense
James (12:10:42 PM): it does
Travis (12:10:44 PM): not many black ppl have ever been to africa
Liz (12:10:50 PM): word
Travis (12:10:50 PM): so...yeah
Lauren S (12:10:54 PM): nor are from africa
Autumn (12:10:55 PM): yepp
James (12:10:58 PM): many arent even from africa
Lauren S (12:11:01 PM): there are people from the caribbean
Lauren S (12:11:03 PM): and such
James (12:11:06 PM): yea
Lauren L (12:11:13 PM): the offiice james!
James (12:11:18 PM): i had a friend who was latin
James (12:11:21 PM): yes!
James (12:11:30 PM): and he asked us to refer to him as black
Lauren S (12:11:36 PM): yep
Lauren S (12:11:45 PM): b/c that's how the latinos deal w.it
Travis (12:11:51 PM): i mean really the only time i use the term black is when i need to describe someone to someone
James (12:11:54 PM): african-american just wasnt true
Travis (12:11:55 PM): like if they are looking for them
James (12:11:56 PM): exactly
Travis (12:12:00 PM): its nothing derrogatory
Autumn (12:12:10 PM): yeah it just is.
James (12:12:14 PM): mhmm
Travis (12:12:16 PM): but how else are you going to distinguish
Lauren S (12:12:30 PM): do you call yourself a european american?
Autumn (12:12:34 PM): "african american" is just such a mouthful..
Liz (12:12:36 PM): y do we need to distinguish?
Autumn (12:12:38 PM): nooo haha
Travis (12:12:41 PM): i mean, some people might say you dont need to distinguish, that is houldnt matter
Liz (12:12:43 PM): thought id be annyoing
Travis (12:12:44 PM): yeah
Lauren S (12:12:45 PM): then why would you say african american?
Travis (12:12:47 PM): exactly
Autumn (12:12:51 PM): exactly.
Travis (12:12:58 PM): i mean i suppose it really shouldn't matter
Liz (12:13:02 PM): i know
Liz (12:13:12 PM): its kind of troublesome thinking about it
Travis (12:13:20 PM): but its just in our nature to notice things that are different
Liz (12:13:25 PM): we are arguing on how to refer to people
Travis (12:13:36 PM): if two ppl are together youd say, "a black man and a white man"
Travis (12:13:43 PM): most likely
Lauren L (12:13:45 PM): but then, if there's a group of black kids and one white kid is ti bad to be like "oh she's the white one"? it's the same idea...
Lauren S (12:13:48 PM): there's no problem saying someone is black. the problem is when you say you hate black people
Lauren L (12:13:55 PM): yeah i agree
Travis (12:13:56 PM): yeah right
Travis (12:13:59 PM): thats it
Liz (12:14:02 PM): agreed lauiren
James (12:14:03 PM): yea
Liz (12:14:03 PM): lauren
Lauren S (12:14:12 PM): black ppl don't care if you call them black
Travis (12:14:20 PM): but i think a lot black people might think the word black equals hatred or condesending
Lauren S (12:14:38 PM): ou of all the black ppl i've ever talked to, i've never heard that
Travis (12:14:39 PM): but if you think about it it is just a word and it is just logical
Travis (12:14:45 PM): well im just saying
Travis (12:14:49 PM): perhaps
Lauren L (12:14:49 PM): unless you link "black" with some sort of negatve connotation. it all depends on the context
Liz (12:14:50 PM): but a word carries a lot f meaning
Travis (12:14:56 PM): yes they do
Autumn (12:15:16 PM): words have power, but i think using 'black' isnt wrong. the nword is.
James (12:15:17 PM): the connotation of a word is what carries meaning
Lauren S (12:15:27 PM): agreed
James (12:15:29 PM): agreed
Liz (12:15:34 PM): hahaha
Liz (12:15:41 PM): we are cute
Lauren S (12:15:46 PM): and the only way we can eliminate the negaive connotation from black is by reintegrating it into our language
Sam (12:15:51 PM): the connotation of a word can be good or bad but its up to you if you let it bother you or not
Lauren S (12:15:54 PM): and not avoiding it
James (12:16:08 PM): thats true too sam
Lauren S (12:16:26 PM): i'm lauren
Liz (12:16:30 PM): yeah but the nword bothers me
James (12:16:36 PM): i was responding to sam
Liz (12:16:40 PM): hahahaha
James (12:16:40 PM): i know oyur lauren
Lauren S (12:16:44 PM): o ok
Travis (12:16:52 PM): well yeah but it really has run its course i think the nword is a 20-30s term
James (12:17:00 PM): i agree with you too lauren
Travis (12:17:04 PM): it really has been weeded out because society says its not appropriate
Sam (12:17:05 PM): im not saying its wrong to be bothered by words its just will you let yourself be destabilized by the use of a word
James (12:17:32 PM): yes
James (12:17:43 PM): i agree with travis and sam
Ian (12:18:01 PM) has left the room.
Autumn (12:18:14 PM): it's easier to generalize groups that you're not a part of
Autumn (12:18:18 PM): yepp
Lauren L (12:18:30 PM): oy
Travis (12:18:30 PM): amen brother
Travis (12:18:43 PM): political correctness is usually dumb
Autumn (12:18:44 PM): yeah political correctness is generally pretty annoying
Sam (12:18:45 PM): yea screw political corectness
Travis (12:18:48 PM): just gotta tell it like it is
Autumn (12:18:56 PM): yeah lets revolt against it!
Travis (12:19:04 PM): way ahead of you hah
Liz (12:19:04 PM): leave it to stephan to open up a can of worms
James (12:19:04 PM): do it!
Travis (12:19:09 PM): hey liz relax
James (12:19:10 PM): yea
Travis (12:19:12 PM): don't be so uptight
Lauren S (12:19:27 PM) has left the room.
Autumn (12:20:06 PM): yeah that would be really weird..
Ashley (12:20:29 PM): that would be weird but i agree with stephan
Travis (12:20:43 PM): yeahh
Ashley (12:20:47 PM): we should just take these traits for what they are and not base any actions by it
Travis (12:20:59 PM): unless you are a republican
James (12:21:05 PM): we should celebrate our differences
Ashley (12:21:10 PM): people look different - get over it
Travis (12:21:16 PM): haha yeahhh they do
James (12:21:16 PM): yup
Liz (12:21:30 PM): ahhhhh
Autumn (12:22:07 PM): ahhhh
Ashley (12:22:29 PM): we should all watch puzzle place
Travis (12:22:34 PM): ??
Ashley (12:25:04 PM): idk
Autumn (12:25:18 PM): this whole convo's bizarre - does it really matter if the question is?
James (12:25:46 PM): haha true that
Autumn (12:26:03 PM): the list on our door!!
Ashley (12:26:03 PM): i think that if its just a visual that is perfectly fine and thats what it should be
Ashley (12:26:33 PM): but if by saying brown thinking arab and by thinking arab your thinking terrorist then its a problem
Lauren L (12:26:40 PM): ummmm. yes there has?
James (12:26:40 PM): yes
Autumn (12:27:56 PM): yeahh they do
Liz (12:28:20 PM): thats y i said wat i said
Lauren L (12:29:07 PM): wait i don't get the ups joke...
Sam (12:29:07 PM): back to what supriya was saying is the word is who you are. i wouldnt be offended if someone called me queer because well i am queer. so it has to do with visuals just as much as who you are
James (12:29:31 PM): yea
James (12:29:45 PM): lauren the joke is 'UPS What can brown do for you?'
James (12:29:50 PM): 'BROWN'
Lauren L (12:29:52 PM): ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
James (12:30:06 PM): good job
Lauren L (12:30:11 PM): shhhhhhhhhhh
James (12:30:15 PM): lol
Ashley (12:31:18 PM): wow laur
James (12:31:29 PM): yea
Lauren L (12:31:35 PM): shhhhhh
James (12:31:47 PM): we're not speaking
Autumn (12:31:57 PM): i know... oops
Autumn (12:32:12 PM): we should get on that but there are so many other people who want to talk...
James (12:32:25 PM): and theres so little time left
Autumn (12:32:32 PM): omg 3minutes
Travis (12:32:35 PM): yeah its not a big deal i dont think
Ashley (12:32:38 PM): yea, everyone has so much to say about this
Travis (12:32:40 PM): i am sooo hungry
Autumn (12:32:48 PM): i didnt realize it was that close to being done!
Travis (12:32:49 PM): just a random aside
Travis (12:32:55 PM): yeahh it went fast today
James (12:33:02 PM): yea
Travis (12:33:03 PM): did you save this?
James (12:33:06 PM): im hungry too
Travis (12:33:07 PM): i lost a bit
Lauren L (12:33:08 PM): haha thanks for sharing trav
Autumn (12:33:10 PM): i'm going to once we're done
Travis (12:33:16 PM): yeah beacuse i got kicked out in there
Travis (12:33:20 PM): so i lost a few minutes
Travis (12:33:22 PM): or stuff
Autumn (12:33:23 PM): but i dont want to miss any last minute comments
Travis (12:33:26 PM): but i have most of it if you need it
Autumn (12:33:36 PM): nope i got it but thnx
James (12:33:43 PM): yup
Travis (12:33:48 PM): alright well only one of us needs to pos ti tright?
Autumn (12:33:53 PM): yeah i'm on it
Travis (12:33:57 PM): good deal
Lauren L (12:34:16 PM): michael jackson syndrome ebecause it lets the margininalized feel closer to the center. which suckkks
Travis (12:34:21 PM): haha
Travis (12:34:23 PM): yeah
Autumn (12:34:41 PM): yeah well screw realists
Travis (12:34:46 PM): amen
Autumn (12:34:54 PM): it shouldnt have connotationslike that
James (12:34:57 PM): thats why ethnic profiling is such a problem
Travis (12:34:58 PM): stupid realists, if there were no realists everyone would be happy
Ashley (12:35:01 PM): realism is blah - i dont like it
Autumn (12:35:04 PM): make up a different word to be derogatory or something
Travis (12:35:10 PM): realism ruins everything
Ashley (12:35:10 PM): yay bffl!!
Ashley (12:35:12 PM): your right
Lauren L (12:35:12 PM): lol. realists also categorize illegal immigrants as "others" so they don't give about helping anyone
Autumn (12:35:20 PM): exactly
James (12:35:29 PM): yea
Travis (12:35:30 PM): ok peace outtt
Autumn (12:35:32 PM): byee
James (12:35:36 PM): later
Lauren L (12:35:39 PM): byee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)