not possible

In all honesty, I hate to sound pessimistic, but it is simply a necessity in this situation; the Great Capitalist Peace simply is not a realistic goal. The major flaw lies in the initial assumption that all states act in order to earn money - most easily achievable through capitalism and thus allowing for peace through security created by economic dependency upon one another. Individual humans are indeed greedy and would certainly agree to most money-making opportunities, however, there are some things that outweigh even that nearly instinctive desire such as ideals and religious beliefs. If religion can convince suicide bombers to willingly sacrifice their lives to kill others, how can we expect bribing them with a position in the global economy to deter their violent actions? It's true that governments with stronger economies would have more resources to suppress terrorist activity, but what of those governments being run by terrorism, or those with a large investment in it? They are not likely to give it up easily. These contributors, personalities and ideas, will survive no matter how many countries are invaded and governments coup d'état-ed. Peace, capitalist or otherwise, is simply not achievable in the long term on a global scale due to inherent human nature that, despite greed, will sometimes act according to strong beliefs, ruining all hope for a permanent establishment of capitalistic peace.

peace through money?

A capitalist peace is a good ideal but that is all it is, an ideal. The capitalist peace has been tried before, at least in part, with the Marshall Plan. However, this plan failed as not all countries wanted to comply with all the demands of the aid. . This is what would happen again if economic peace was tried again. An economic peace would be tried but inevitably it would never work out. There would be a country, like china, that wouldn't need or want or take the help and not be crippled by needing any one else. A capitalist peace would be seen as a cry for a world dominated by a single country. This would not go well in the world of international politics and any major multi-nation institutions would start to fall apart. A capitalist peace is an ideal that can never be achieved.

Great Capitalist Peace

The Great Capitalist Peace is an idea that is quite irrational, yet something that seems rational coming from Ethical Realism. Most of the book plays off in this way, offering solutions in a way that seem incredible and likely to solve many of the world's problems, yet when thinking outside of the book, the irrationality of it is obvious. Having a Great Capitalist Peace includes the idea of having an international economy that links countries together. This idea alone is very idealistic, not to mention the hoped-for outcome of a secured world peace.

As I have argued often, including my analytical essay, I believe that international relations can be explained through the theory of realism. I understand the points of liberalism and conservatism and some of the more 'idealistic' ideas that fit into these categories more than that of realism, yet in the end, everything can be proved back to realism. The constant argument that states will continue in competition to create security, build a military and conquer to ensure security, is still relevant. This is the main goal. Therefore, it is not possible that a Great Capitalist Peace could in fact create 'world peace,' whatever that might mean. The nature of states is to be warring. Not only that... as we have discusses at moments, someone must be on the bottom and others on the top. The authors include the fact that the United States will be a leader in the global scheme, yet will not be an empire. It is important to remember history at this moment also and the fact that the United States with its imperialist acts has dominated for many years now and it is not easy to switch from being the capitalistic and imperialistic country to a 'leader.' As the economy increases because of supposed increased satisfaction through an international economy, I believe that larger gaps will be created between the wealthy and poor countries because everyone will strive for more revenue and trade, and this causes competition, leading back to security.

The argument never ceases. The ideas of ethical realism offer yes, an 'ethical' way of looking at things, yet realistic? No. Idealism is natural coming from the United States and from humans in general, but it specifically applies to the views of our nation. We seem to think that what we should do and what we can do are the same thing and we do not see the complications that come from our actions. Having a Great Capitalist Peace where the United States is a 'main player' will only cause more tension in the international world.

imperfection

“The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect” (Todorov 250). Is this correct?

Yes.

I think that Todorov expresses the need to openly experience other cultures exactly.
For those who are satisfied with their own country and do not thirst to learn about others' do not know what they are missing out on. They may think that they are happy with what they have, but they clearly have little experience; upon visiting another country - with an open mind - one finds something that they like better about that country/culture than their own. They are beginners who think only of themselves and have not considered what others are like. This inherently makes them imperfect as their eyes are not open to the world. With travel and experience, they may move past this beginner phase and enjoy other countries as well as their own.
For those who are comfortable in every country lack an outsiders' curiosity. They are at home no matter where they are, accepting all country's cultures and learning to fit in with each of them. This, however, prevents them from looking at a culture with an objective view. It is difficult for them to learn more about the culture when they are a part of it. You may be strong and know many different things, but with comfortability, comes a lack of curiosity; when you're comfortable, you stop asking questions and thus stop learning more about the country that you are a part of - making you imperfect.
For those who view the world through a crystal ball, who learn about other countries without claiming them as their own, who observe cultures as if they are foreign, no matter how much they already know about them, they are curious, learning, yet strong in their knowledge so that they could fit into a country if need be (without becoming a part of the country). They are perfect. They are also nonexistent. No person can view all countries like a foreigner, with no ties to any of them. While people may strive to reach this state, to look at the world objectively, taking in as much information as possible, they simply cannot always do it.
Cortes is, too, condemned to this imperfection. I agree with Rebecca, that of these three categories, he would fall under the second, that of a strong man; he often compared the Native Americans and their culture to the Spanish culture, explaining similarities and differences. He seemed to understand their culture as well as Spanish culture and thus was stronger for it.

Strength

“The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect” (Todorov 250).

I agree completely with this statement by Todorov and think of it as a theory in my own life and one that should affect effect everyone in this world. The man who finds his own country sweet is a beginner because he is happy in his own country, comfortable with the customs, language, and his life in general. He does not know what else exists, how traditions in other countries could differ from his own and therefore remains within a small bubble. As Rachel mentions, it is impossible to see the flaws of your own country in any comparison to the rest of the world as well as the benefits. Most of the world lives as beginners in this world, happy with each individual place without exploring any further.

When travelling, it is possible to see how enormous the differences are between cultures. Only from traveling and living in another place is it possible to understand these differences. Perhaps Cortés can be distinguished as a 'strong' man for his ability to think of the Aztecs and their land as a comfortable place: somewhere where he intends to conquer and make his own, which is essentially what happened. If you feel at home somewhere, it does not stretch the possibilities to the end. From my experiences, it is pretty much true that if you feel comfortable in another country, you are not experiencing the most of the culture. Of course, sometimes a 'culture shock' does end, but there are many factors that distinguish two cultures, one from the other.... this has to do with history, native people, customs, and a 'collective knowledge' which is acquired through everything mentioned before. This is where the last option, the 'perfect' man comes in.

I agree with Todorov's quote that the perfect man still views the world as foreign. To have this perception, you must recognize that there are differences. When you land in a new country, you will feel uncomfortable, yet you can hopefully appreciate the differences. Being 'foreign' gives something a mystique that allows for discovery... in this way, the perfect man will continue to learn and understand other cultures, yet the world will continue to remain foreign. It is not a positive or negative thing in all situations, yet normally it is better (and the only way) to remain slightly outside the comfort zone, learning new languages and individual differences between cultures. It is not necessary to lose oneself in order to view the rest of the world as foreign.

Todorov

“The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect” (Todorov 250).



I agree completely with this statement by Todorov and think of it as a theory in my own life and one that should affect effect everyone in this world. The man who finds his own country sweet is a beginner because he is happy in his own country, comfortable with the customs, language, and his life in general. He does not know what else exists, how traditions in other countries could differ from his own and therefore remains within a small bubble. As Rachel mentions, it is impossible to see the flaws of your own country in any comparison to the rest of the world as well as the benefits. Most of the world lives as beginners in this world, happy with each individual place without exploring any further.



When travelling, it is possible to see how enormous the differences are between cultures. Only from traveling and living in another place is it possible to understand these differences. Perhaps Cortés can be distinguished as a 'strong' man for his ability to think of the Aztecs and their land as a comfortable place: somewhere where he intends to conquer and make his own, which is essentially what happened. If you feel at home somewhere, it does not stretch the possibilities to the end. From my experiences, it is pretty much true that if you feel comfortable in another country, you are not experiencing the most of the culture. Of course, sometimes a 'culture shock' does end, but there are many factors that distinguish two cultures, one from the other.... this has to do with history, native people, customs, and a 'collective knowledge' which is acquired through everything mentioned before. This is where the last option, the 'perfect' man comes in.



I agree with Todorov's quote that the perfect man still views the world as foreign. To have this perception, you must recognize that there are differences. When you land in a new country, you will feel uncomfortable, yet you can hopefully appreciate the differences. Being 'foreign' gives something a mystique that allows for discovery... in this way, the perfect man will continue to learn and understand other cultures, yet the world will continue to remain foreign. It is not a positive or negative thing in all situations, yet normally it is better (and the only way) to remain slightly outside the comfort zone, learning new languages and individual differences between cultures.

todorov/american indian museum

Ok so this reflection is a little late, but I figured better than none at all. There are few things that I wanted to talk about in regards to this past weeks classes. First of all, let me begin with some thoughts on Todorov's book. At first look, I anticipated a good read. The topics seemed interesting and I have always considered myself interested in history, especially that of early and medieval Europe. However, I was dissapointed with the writing style of Todorov, as it seemed his primary concern was spitting out facts and dissertations from the journals of Colomubs and Cortes, rather than engaging the reading. What could have been an opportunity for great storytelling was lost in the dense nature of the text. While I realize that the primary purpose of the book was academic, I still would have preferred to feel like I was reading something other than a textbook. The content that was covered in the text seemed fairly selft explanatory; the fact that Columbus and Cortes came here for Gold, and to convert the "new world" over to the Big See. Ok, so it felt like everything I learned in middle school kicked up a few notches. It was basically a roundabout way of reiterating conventional knowldge. Although there were many more details and viewpoints presented, I don't feel that my preconcieved notions of the two explorers was altered that much. I didn't find Tuesday's discussion all that interesting and after class, I found that several of our classmates agreed. While I did appreciate the introduction and use of the text in class, I don't think that we can attempt to put the views of Columbus and Cortes into modern times. It was a completely different world and while we can speculate what might have been going through their heads, we will never know for sure. And with that fact, I'm not sure how relevant it is to world politics as we seem them today. As we agreed upon in class, there really aren't any places that are completely unknown. Even space, we decided, can be invisioned hypothetically. I just think it turned into a psychological discussion when we could have been discussing the overall events and consequences.
In regards to Wednesday's visit to the American Indian Museum, I agree wholehartedly with the view of James and Lauren L. It really was an enourmous waste and I don't think I learned anything that I hadn't learned in middle school. I thought that the overall "vibe" was off and it seemed more like collective "we're sorry" to the Native cultures than an attempt to educate people. Sure, there were elaborate costumes and displays about modern native cultures, but I found that it lacked historical facts and failed to give that genuine heritage feel. There is so much more that could have been done to create a feel of the Native life. There could have been facts about Wars and famous native american's and information about how they used to live. Instead, it focused on the modern aspect, leaving much to be desired. As an 18 year old college student surrounded by shrieking 8 year olds, I felt a bit out of place.

Columbus - hero or not - reflection

Columbus is taught to us in one way, in elementary school, only to later be found that we were lied to. Columbus was not some great intellectual hero. The estimates he used to calculate the size of the earth and the size of the euro/asian landmass were not the accepted ones of the time. . Furthermore, Columbus went on the voyage for the object of gold. As we discussed in our class and aim group, Columbus came for gold - here is a little bit of our aim transcript which is Me, Liz, Erica, Ashely, and Travis.
Danseuse810 (11:40:40 AM): seems like Columbus is sucking up to the people he wants something from
Fallenskye89 (11:40:57 AM): that kinda goes back to how he said that he mentioned gold on every page of the journals for the spanish
cool3cubed (11:41:02 AM): eh thats how it works. you want something done so you suck up
Danseuse810 (11:41:30 AM): yeah, he talks about gold and glory when he talks to Ferdinand and Isabella
Secondly, Columbus went out on a mission for the glory of the church and the pope. In order to get the Pope's blessing he had to show that he was a pious man and wanted to convert those not of the Christian faith to see the light. Here's a little more of the transcript from class.
Danseuse810 (11:43:06 AM): but the pope could say no you dont have my support and im going to turn people against you
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (11:43:20 AM): he would have been dumb too
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (11:43:35 AM): turning down expansion of catholicism...what he represents?
cool3cubed (11:43:36 AM): well thats true especially since spain was a catholic country and looked to the pope for guidance
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (11:43:47 AM): doesnt make sense
Fallenskye89 (11:44:02 AM): at the time everything was so strongly rooted in religion
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (11:44:21 AM): agreed
Fallenskye89 (11:44:33 AM): If you want support from the country and the people you need to be in sync with their religion
Danseuse810 (11:44:35 AM): but if columbus didnt talk about God the pope would have said he would not support him because he is not pious
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (11:45:42 AM): yeah..so doesnt that support the point that the pope had to back columbus because he was representing catholicism and spreading the religion
There is an agreement amongst us that Columbus, in the end was more interested in gold than in Christianity itself, but in order to get the popes blessing he had to show that he was a pious man.
Finally, Columbus went for glory. This is a fact undisputed in all areas of thought. Columbus wanted power and honor from any discoveries he might have made.
Fallenskye89 (12:18:46 PM): i don't think he was capable of understanding their culture, but at the same time I don't know that columbus really wanted to understand thier culture
cool3cubed (12:18:55 PM): yea
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (12:19:04 PM): thats a good point
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (12:19:15 PM): i know this sounds terrible
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (12:19:34 PM): but when experiencing a new culture...sometimes people assume their is better because they find the other intimidating
xBrOwN EyE GrRrL (12:19:55 PM): and see the other as inferior
Danseuse810 (12:19:59 PM): true.
cool3cubed (12:20:13 PM): i agree
Danseuse810 (12:21:38 PM): he wants the sailors to go back and say that they discovered something so that Europe will think he is a hero
Fallenskye89 (12:21:59 PM): hes completely unwilling to accept that he could be a failure
Danseuse810 (12:22:56 PM): agreed. he doesnt want to discover as much as become a hero
Danseuse810 (12:23:06 PM): i think i read something about that once
He was more interested in power and being a hero, then actually discovering something good.
This goes to show that in the end, what they teach about Columbus in elementary school in the United States is a lie and that Columbus only paved the way for violence.

The use of aim in class was very interesting and it showed that once the discussion starts going people use aim to understand and further the discussion as well as change the direction of the oral conversation. It was a very interesting experiment and I hope it shows those who had doubts about aim being used in class that it can be a good thing to help solve confusion and help others get their point out if they are not allowed to talk in class.

reflection week twelve

I must say that I really liked the chatroom/discussion this week, though I am slightly biased as I generally like chats where you can see the ideas being spoken, then discussed on aim, then brought back into the class discussion. This method allows more ideas to be shared as there is no waiting to be called upon - you can say however much you want, whenever you want to. I tried to bring up ideas aloud as well as participating in the aim chat as I felt it was important to publicize some of the things that we came up with. While I could only see my group's chat, I still noticed certain trends that we brought in and others that people said and we took to discussing. Even with a smaller group - we started off with only 5 and by the end we were down to 4 - I feel like we definitely raised some good points. It was, at times, difficult to pay attention to both the aim chat and the actual discussion, but luckily our chat stayed fairly on topic as we would all pause typing every so often to listen to the conversation, typing furiously after hearing a particularly controversial opinion and providing our own takes on it. I'm anxious to hear/read how ideas actually traveled between groups!

I found the Museum of the American Indian to actually be quite interesting. While I agree with many others in that it was disappointingly (is that a word? it is now...) small and the organization did not optimize the space or artifacts that they had, there was a lot of really cool information present. Yes there were a lot of little kids running around, but it was the middle of the day in the middle of the week; who else do you think is going to be there? Older kids are in school & it is prime field trip taking time for smaller children. Yes they are loud and can be annoying, but think about what you were like at that age. That's just how little kids act. Honestly, I think it's awesome that their schools are making an effort to get them out into the city and exposing them to some of our country's history, even if it is biased. It's true that a lot of the information presented seemed skewed, as Lauren and James talk about in their blog, but that doesn't make it worthless. It may not be an accurate representation, but it is something, which is certainly better than nothing. The museum provided a basis, a starting point at looking into the lives of Native Americans though many included traditions that were obtained after the European invasion.

There was one corner on the fourth floor that I found particularly impressive, though it was definitely shoved in the corner and not at all obvious; had I not been visiting every single section of the museum, I probably would have missed it. It quoted a Native American, though I'm not sure who - I wish that I had taken a picture. It basically said that we should take everything that we are presented with a grain of salt. It said that a lot of Native American history is not completely true anymore. But it encouraged us to continue looking around the museum, to continue learning about the culture that is presented because underneath the skewed perspective is the true lifestyle of the Native Americans. To get some idea of how they lived teaches us about them and allows us a view into their time. It is nearly impossible to get a perfect idea now of how things were, but we should take advantage of what we are given and learn what we can from it.

Heritage

It is interesting that in the week when we were studying native cultures of the Americas, it was also Native American Heritage Week. I am very interesting in native cultures, specifically those of the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca, yet I feel like these are areas that we do not study like that of American Indians. Perhaps therefore, the visit to the museum was a good 'tribute' to this week. I visited the museum of the American Indian over parent's weekend and therefore did not think it was very beneficial to revisit two weeks later. I think the museum is rather disappointing in the way that it is set up with only two floors of exhibitions. I also feel that we learn about the American Indian all through elementary and middle school. (At least coming from New Hampshire). Where I come from, there are many memorials and museums of the Native Americans and I have been to a few pow-wows as well as these traditional exhibitions. Basically, I wish that we had been given another option for the Wednesday excursion, even a movie that talked about Native American cultures including those to the south of the U.S. since that is what we are also talking about. I was disappointed that for a required activity, there were at least six people who did not show up.

Something that I did find the most interesting in the museum was the different regalia, the art of making the dresses, and what the decorations can mean. It is really an art that has been dying out and the voices of some descendants of Native Americans voice this in the video at the museum.

I do believe that it is important to remember the heritage of the United States and to consider that these people still exist to this day. In the 2000 census, 2.48 million people identified themselves as American Indian and there are more than 300 tribes recognized by the U.S. federal government. More than half of our 50 states are named after Native American tribes! There is still a large presence of the native culture today, even though much of it has been repressed in reservations, which were originally designed to create a place for the displaced people.

Something that I like the most about Native American culture is their beliefs about animals.

"If all the beasts were gone, we would die from a great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beasts,happens to us all.All things are connected.Whatever befalls the earth,befalls the children of the earth."~Chief Seattle

http://www.geocities.com/klazyfox/nativeam-3.html

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570777/Native_Americans_of_North_America.html

Signs and Cortés

Overall, I do not believe that it was possible for any of the Spanish conquerers to trick the natives into being captured, through signs or any other means. As Rachel mentions, the culture that Cortés encountered was a culture that happened to rely and believe completely in signs of every nature, something which would not have been completely possible for Cortés to understand at that time. The truth is that no one knows what truly happened before the Spaniards arrived in the Americas because little is left from that time period and the journals and letters of Spaniards are not enough to use as definite evidence. On pg. 74 of Todorov, it mentions the omens that seem to always precede the arrival of the Spaniards and shortly after this is dismissed as something that was probably made up after-the-fact, in order to not question their knowledge of the future and the possibility that they didn't predict something correctly. How do we know that this is actually false? Perhaps this is an idea that is brought up by someone like Cortés in order to make his argument of deceiving by signs more valid. Perhaps he himself is confused by how easily he conquered the Aztecs...I think these ideas must be considered.

The fact that the Aztec culture relies almost completely on signs is not something individual to that culture; the Incas, the Mayas, and Native Americans are also cultures that incorporate symbols, signs, and interpretations into every moment of life. The fact that these people come from a culture that relies on signs and Cortés comes from a culture that had no knowledge of this is as different as Columbus landing and meeting natives in America and not being able to understand their differences.

Perhaps it is not so much that Cortés CONQUERED the Aztecs, but rather because of their beliefs, they gave in without knowing it. I believe that this is more likely than Cortés's knowledge and stealth in understanding the culture. The Aztecs could be waiting to predict a day when something specific will happen, believe that the Spaniards are gods, and this changes their actions incredibly. Whether the Aztecs would have attacked if they did not have an intense culture of signs and religious beliefs which are incredibly different from those of the Spaniards.

I would like to disagree with Liz about the Vietnam comparison. I think that if you compare something like a conquest to the Americas to Vietnam, it will be expanded to things like Japanese warfare during WWII, suicide bombers, or torture tactics because these are all parts of other cultures that are not necessarily understood by the United States (or whoever is against). Vietnam was already in a war and the United States joined, and no, they could not understand the tacticts, but I do not think that this can be compared with a Spanish conquest that goes for the sole purpose of bringing back gold and benefiting... in the end, they did massacre the Aztecs and destroy the kingdom. Therefore, I think there is a big difference between Vietnam and Cortés.

Columbus and the Indians

To a certain extent I believe that the Spaniards conquered the Indians through the use of signs, but also that it was much more than just the signs. The Spanish had the help of disease. The diseases that the Spanish brought with them to the Americas ended up being one of the most deadly weapons as the Indian immune system had no defenses against them and ended up killing the majority of the Indians. The Spanish also had the help of other Indians who were tired of the rule of the Incas, Mayas and other large Indian clans. The Spanish, not knowing the territory or methods of the natives were constantly on the verge of loosing all the battles. But then an Indian group would come in and save the Spaniards by pillaging and taking out the already weakened larger tribal group and thereby destroying them. Due to reasons such as the ones already presented, I disagree that the Spanish defeated the Indians due to means of signs. It is widely known that the Indians viewed the Spaniards as "gods" and that the Spaniards would use this influence to be able to go places and do things that they would not have been able to do otherwise. So while it is true that the Spaniards did use this belief that they were gods to aid in the Indians defeat, it was disease and other native Indian tribes that lead to the downfall of Indian society and the eventual conquest of the Americas by the Spaniards.

poverty reflection

The buzz word in this week's class was poverty-something we really hadn't adressed up until this point. I think it is a topic worth mentioning and spending time on, because it really is a problem in our world. Sadly, as long as there on this Earth, there will be extreme gaps in wealth, from the rich to the poor. Whether or not you care to believe it (I don't like to), it seems poverty is inevitable. Unless we created some kind of worldwide socialism where everyone gets equal amounts of everything, we cannot fix poverty. After all, isn't capitalism and competition what makes the world keep turning? What would be the motivation to keep working if everyone had the same means as everything else? Ok, so that's probably not really what I think. Truthfully, those who are impovrished are not "lazy"; there are a number of things that go into the equation. Programs like soup kitchens, bread for the city, and Doctors without borders (just a plug for our simulation), are all playing a part in the fight.

I thought that friday's simulation was a good way to see difference in priorities. Our group was fairly split, with Ian and Caitlin advocating spending all ten "simoleons" on global education standards. Now, I am all for education but I don't think that will solve poverty. I think you need basic needs such as food, clean water, and shelter before you can worry about educatoin. And anyways, a high school education isn't going to do any good if you're country doesn't have the basic infastructure it needs to survive in the world. So, I agree that we do need literacy and education throughout the world, and I belive that is an important step to curbing poverty. I just think that there are other needs that come before that. You need to be able to sustain your self before you can go to school and things like that. It will be interesting to see in the next simulation what priorites and interests rise above the rest. As I saw when reading the Copenhagen article, it is nearly impossible to get people agree on something unless personal values and opinions are cast aside. Is it possible to view poverty from a stricly business like view? Probably not, but perhaps that is the best path to take to try and fix it.

reflection week eleven - problem solving

This Saturday, I had lunch with my high school French teacher and a couple of other people from the class. Anyways, she told us about her son, Dan, and how he's currently in New Orleans with the Teach for America program. The ideas behind this program are good - to provide quality education for children in poverty. Granted this program is (as the name subtly points out) only for children in America, but regardless, the standards that it wishes to abide by are in no way a reality. The schools are in shambles - money is sent to repair them but the school boards cant seem to get it to schools to make repairs. In early September, half of the electrical grid shut down at the school where Dan teaches and it has yet to be repaired. The classes from that section of the building are shoved in various other locations providing an unstable learning environment. The teachers have few supplies to work with and must purchase many out of pocket, which in an area such as New Orleans, is not a large salary. At the start of the year, they were expecting 600 children to come to school; only 200 showed up.

America may have a school system that can educate those in poverty, but if they cannot or do not go to school, then what help is it? If children must drop out of school as young as 13 or 14 to work and support their family, how can they have a good education? Besides having low attendance and buildings that are falling apart, the education that is provided in such areas of poverty is no where near that of the remainder of the country. According to the Teach for America mission statement, "Nine-year-olds growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities." This means that these nine year olds, who would in other places be at a third grade level, are learning at a kindergarten level. Nine year old kindergarteners. Even with programs sending more qualified teachers to improve the level at which the children are expected to learn, how can they do so without their basic needs taken care of - if they are hungry, tired, cold how can they learn? if they have no way of getting to school, have to work, or simply choose not to go because of societal pressures, how can they learn?

In class Friday, we argued over the value of education and how important it is for lifting people out of poverty, but I ask: if America, the so-called 'land of opportunity', cannot provide a decent education for those in poverty, how can we expect to spread this knowledge worldwide? Don't get me wrong- I think that at least achieving literacy in one's native language is incredibly important and we should definitely invest in providing that to all, but I'm curious as to how we can achieve these ambitious goals. I think that our class did a good job of arguing about which things, given limited resources, are the most important to repair, but the real - more important - question that we must face is how. How can we ensure that funding does not stop within the many levels of bureaucracy, that it actually goes to improving schools? So many non-profit organizations gather money to aid third world countries, but so many people remain in poverty, uneducated, unable to get to school due to a lack of infrastructure. Instead of talking about what needs to be fixed, lets choose a problem and discuss how to solve it.

Poverty

This week we looked at poverty in D.C. and the world. We visited bread for life and i thought that it was very interesting that they had a free medical service and basically a life improvement service on top of food and clothes. This makes perfect sense to me as if you give someone food they will come back for it and not know how to improve their life. This shows that this company has realized that giving away things is not good enough. The old cliche give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach a man how to fish and he can eat for a lifetime rings true. That is exactly what bread for life is doing, "teaching men to fish." They are also giving away "fish", but those people will come back and then ask for the other services.
This then made an interesting turn around in the class on Friday. There was means to give people knowledge to get them out of poverty, global education, but no group chose this means. They chose something similar, literacy, but just because you are literate does not mean you know what to do with what you have. Just because you can read does not mean you suddenly have the means to get books and therefore the literacy is then pointless to have. Having an education will allow someone to be able to do something with that literacy they would gain from their education. They would also be able to do countless other things and get themselves out of poverty and not have to rely on anyone else. Dignity is an important part of self-esteem and if you have no dignity then you have little self esteem. You will have little to no dignity if you know you cannot provide for your self or for your family, if you have one. If only one point is taken from reading this blog it should be that education is vital to eliminate poverty, as well as other things. Teach a man how to fish, he can eat. Teach a man knowledge, he will be able to survive and thrive in a harsh world. Knowledge, global education, is a weapon that will allow someone to live above the poverty line and be able to thrive. Strive for an education and a means for allowing yourself to live. Don't throw away dollars or cents to those who do not know how to use them. Give your money to the organizations that knows what to do with the money to help eliminate poverty and help the poor overcome their status.

Poverty in the world

I have a quick story that I just remembered about a moment when I encountered poverty and was quite affected by it. Last summer while I was in Peru, I took a bus ride from Cuzco to Lima, which is supposed to take 18 hours. Instead, the ride took 30 hours in a bus with no heat/air conditioning and no food. This was caused by professors across the nation who were on strike, and as a result, camping on the highways all night, burning trees and throwing boulders into the road. We ended up sleeping 6 hours on the side of the road and the next morning, yelling face-to-face with professors. It is amazing that this is how the 'intellectual' crowd deals with problems. There were many elderly and babies on the bus, but no option for help, food, etc.. Upon arrival at the destination around 3 AM, it was rainy and cold and the streets of Lima, a fairly dangerous city, were dark. An elderly woman who only spoke Quechua, the native language of Peru, was being taken care of by a younger woman and her small daughter. The woman, crying was very angry because the elderly woman could have died, she was sick, and no one took care of her... plus she had no blanket and we had to wait outside in the cold until the sun rose. Meanwhile, the young daughter needed to use the bathroom with cost 50 cents, about 20 American cents, yet the mother told her she did not have enough money. This is where you realize the dirt bottom and you feel incredibly guilty for no particular reason. The fact that people live like this is a disgusting feeling especially when you see it directly in front of you... and I knew that I would always be the white one who probably had no idea what they were talking about. My time in Peru has definetely changed my view on poverty.

Unlike most of the topics that we have discussed in class, poverty is something that most of us have background knowledge on. I felt like I could finally state an opinion on something that I was sure on; I am very secure with my opinion on poverty and really enjoy studying and discussing poverty.
I am happy that there were many voices raised, as in volume, during class. By the fact that there are so many opinions on this subject, it is obvious what a large part of our world poverty is.
When leaving class, I and a few other people continued the discussion about education. The argument that general education (in our simulation using the complete budget), is essential in ending poverty, I believe shows the view of an American, specifically a view of America and how perhaps HERE, education is the basis to pull out of poverty. We are speaking of world poverty, however, which means that the basic on which decisions should be made, is at a third world level, because poverty in the United States and poverty in Haiti have two incredibly different definitions. If we want to look specifically at ending poverty in the U.S., then yes, education would definetely raise the number of people living above the poverty line. However, consider much of the world that lives without an infrastructure, something that we take for granted here, and that allows us to skip to the education step. How would introducing education help these people who do not have clean water, a method to even get to hospitals, much less read and write their own language? This is why my group chose literacy over education because with literacy, the people can read and speak their native language. They speak this language, so learning to read and write only develops the ability to understand health pamphlets, methods of agriculture (which brings food), and methods of transport. Without roads, aqueducts, bridges, electricity, and irrigation, as were included in the infrastructure section, trade is reduced and there is very little interaction between people.
We must also remember that we are speaking of education as in education how we view it in the United States. Do we need to teach rural farmers of Peru about chemical reactions in chemistry class, or trigonometry? How is this at all relevant to their survival which is threatened by pollution, health risks, and almost no contact with large cities and trade? These people work every day, from sunset to sundown, perhaps in the fields, and they may not care about topics that seem important to us here. Their goal is survival; producing food and perhaps an occasional visit to the doctor or dentist, and if anything is left over, a child might go to the university. With literacy, native people will be able to understand how they can better their own lives. With the ability to read, many opportunities open up and the hope is that people will be inspired to pursue further education.

I also really enjoyed this week's trip to Bread for the City and feel that it was a necessary trip for a World Politics class. After all, we are learning about IR theories, economies, and poverty has played an incredible part in determining the strengths, weaknesses, finances, and responsibilities of states. As someone who would like to spend my life in international social work, I am especially interested in people who do this as a career, whether internationally or within the U.S.

Comment for Tom

Sorry guys, this one is for Tom.

You mention that states mess things up when they think poverty should be eradicated. Aren't the responsibility to help poverty-stricken people and the complete eradication two different things. I would agree with you that poverty is not something that can be eradicated, yet shouldn't the government, the leader of the country, have some responsibility to all of its citizens, especially those who work and live below the poverty line? You mention a few examples of countries that act on something and when you say these names, specifically it refers to the government of that country... they are also the ones that cause financial and economic problems within the country.

poverty

I am posting this comment which is intended to respond to Ian's blog, but I can't figure out how to post it on that blog without creating a LiveJournal account.

In your first paragraph, you sort of leave the decision up to tax payers, as to whether they want to fix poverty or not. My response to that would be that, for example, how we are now and the amount of money that taxpayers are giving to the government-wouldn't many of them rather have a larger percentage of their money spent towards poverty than perhaps Iraq or other research? Is it necessarily dependent on what the taxpayers want, as doesn't the government have the ability to use the money that it has already aquired, and have the responsibility to use it wisely and to its best extent?

governments and poverty

So we are talking about poverty whether it is domestically based or internationally based. I believe that governments have the responsibility to help their citizens out of poverty. While it is not the direct fault of the government that some people are poor; it makes sense to believe that the government does have the responsibility to help promote the welfare of its citizens. However, a major distinction of who is poor or not depends on the definition of poor and who goes along with that definition. Reagan once said, about his own Illinois childhood, "We were poor when I was young, but the difference then was that the government didn't come around telling you you were poor." What gives governments the right to decide who is poor? Someone might be poor in materialistic needs -therefore the government would classify them as poor - alas, they might not themselves classify them as poor seeing as how they are rich in spirit. Also as class discussion went along, it was discussed that a millionaire would be poor compared to a billionaire. This has to do with perception. One person's definition of poor will not be the same as another persons definition of poor. The government should be focusing on poverty but what they should be doing is helping prevent poverty. Giving people jobs before they become impoverished, helping people learn skills to help them get a job etc. In doing projects like the ones mentioned before, it would greatly decrease poverty. Any government that has the people of that country as its greatest challenge to help, should focus on eliminating and preventing poverty. This should be the goal of any country that is not run by a dictator or an oppressive tyrannical leader. A government should help as many believe in the pursuit of happiness, or some form thereof, and so should help its people not live in poverty and squaller as no one is happy in those conditions. Saving the countries poor should be a major concern of any government in the world.

minimizing poverty

Before addressing the questions at hand, I would like to take this opportunity to provide a dictionary definition of both poor. According to the first entry, poor is having little or no money, goods, or other means of support. It is not until the fourth definition that "poor in something" is brought up. To me, this signals that while someone may be "poor in" solid gold bars, it is much more urgent to address the needs of the person who has an empty bank account and no cash.
Despite some people insisting that there was a significant difference between poor and poverty, poverty is merely the condition of being poor; the two terms can basically be used interchangeably.

That being said, I believe that the government is obligated to minimize poverty. I do not think that poverty can ever be completely eliminated, but it is necessary to attempt to achieve that goal. People in the United States have an expectation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; it is quite difficult to pursue happiness when you are homeless, jobless, and unable to get out of the situation because of the way society runs (such as when welfare is taken from those who are still in desperate need of it - as we discussed today at Bread for Life). The government needs to provide aid in some way so that people are capable of - or at least have the opportunity to - realistically get out of poverty. This could be done through government programs or through donations to private companies aiding the poor. Since it is really about the money that is being invested, they may as well just provide more funds to non-profit organizations to help the poor so long as there are checks to make sure that no one at those organizations is skimming off of the top and indeed making a profit.

As far as international situations, I do not feel that our country alone should be obligated to aid all impoverished nations. Don't get me wrong - I definitely think that we should help! I just think that our government should deal with some of the poverty within our country before or while sending aid abroad. When some nations have a GDP in the hundreds and most are well within the thousands, there is clearly an issue that needs addressing. Rather than just relying on the United States, all well-off countries should donate to the people of those countries as many governments are corrupt and hoard their wealth among only a select few individuals. If aid - food, clean water, clothes and supplies - are sent into these countries, then their standard of living may be slightly raised. Also, this coalition of governments should expand upon already existing microcredit programs so that the capital of the people and the country will be raised, albeit slowly. Perhaps similar programs could even be introduced within the U.S. to deal with poverty? It is certainly something to consider ...

Eliminating Domestic Poverty

The role of any government is to ensure and protect the well-being and security of it's people. After all, if the citizens of a nation do not have the means to succed in life, the country itself will suffer. In respect to the issue of poverty, state governments must take it upon themsevles to try and alleviate this misfortune. We need to have citizens that know how to read, know how to write, know how to interact with each other, know the value and importance of punctuality, and how to carry themselves in today's world. A good point was brought up today at Bread; the importance of dignity. If we can preserve and foster the dignity and self esteem of the hardest hit people, society will finally be on the upswing.

feel that domestically speaking, it is absoluetly necessary for governments to adress dispairitys among people. Unforunately, the government (at least in the United States) does a horrible job of dealing with this issue. Sure, food stamps and welfare programs look great on paper, but when put into practice they fall well short of a creating a sustainible solution. The resources pumped into these programs do not go into solving poverty but rather feed the never ending struggle to get ahead. It's a vicious cycle and the gap between the rich and poor increases daily.

Now, some may argue that people are poor or homeless simply because they are lazy or irresponsible. While this is certainly plausible and does make up some part of the impovrished, a number of people find themselves struggling simply because they had a bout of bad luck. Back in New Hampshire, I voulunteer my time at the local soup kitchen. Most of the people we get there simply do not have the skills or resources to provide a hot, nutrious meal for themselves. Others are there more for acceptance and fellowship then anything else. I find that many common misconceptions about the "homeless" do not ring true. Sure, I would not reccomend going into Southeast DC alone, or wandering through Dorchester, MA at any time of day, but a good number of impovrished people just need a helping hand. They are not hopeless from birth. I don't believe people are born with a predisposition towards violence. But I digress, that is a completely difference discussion all together.

So the fundamental question is, should governments interve to try and alleviate poverty? The obvious answer is, "yes". We owe it to our citizens to ensure that they all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I know it sounds cliche, but it is the simplist way I can think of to describe why we must adress poverty. Luckily, there are a number of nonprofits such as Bread for the City that are doing a hell of a lot better than our government could ever do. Sadly though, they cannot continue to do what they do withouth the funding and support of federal and private donors. The rate of poverty is not declining, whilst all the factors that contribute to it (oil prices, inflation, housing costs) continue to skyrocket. There is no immediate solution in sight but as long as we keep committed to helping those in need and eliminate the popular stigma towards "poor" people, I believe there is hope out there.

Poverty is the Responsibility of the Government

Unlike many of the opinions voiced on this week's response, I believe that the government and poverty are directly related and that the government does have an obligation to address poverty. As Caitlin mentions in the beginning of her blog, a major concern of the government should be creating the best circumstances for its people which can include potential of its own people. Some people have said that the government is a separate section from the people and that a small group of people who are living in poverty should not dictate a responsibility onto the government. This, I disagree with completely because poverty is tied in with many factors included the economy and social problems, many of which are created by the government. With tax cuts, tax raises, new law reforms, presidential bills, changes in the economy and stock market system, the effects on the population are endless. Much unemployment occurs from a loss of jobs caused by the government. As we heard today at Bread for the City, the government is responsible for putting many citizens in a difficult position between employment and welfare. Is it right that once employed, the government can take away from that person health insurance, pushing them back into poverty because they do not earn enough to pay for bills? Liz writes in her blog about the government's responsibility to its people in general, not only those in poverty. It is important to remember that the government does reflect the people and if a specific government is passive about ending poverty, this reflects the entire country. Poverty is something that weighs down a government, so if for no other reason, it should be top priority to raise minimum wage and employ those who are unemployed.

This is not even mentioning the moral requirement that is attached to a government, no matter where in the world it is located. Thankfully, in the United States, our government is fairly wealthy, (although in great debt). I find it hard to believe that if we can fund excursions into other countries for security reasons, how can we not work to end something that is so prominent in our society? Poverty is most definetely an issue for public policy to undertake. Public policy should have to do with undertaking problems and projects that will benefit the people.... although sometimes this is addressed, policy should literally mark poverty as a government responsibility. Poverty is a weakness in the country, which can be considered the government, therefore, with a government that has such a weakness, it should be happy to try to fix it.

Lastly, as many people have mentioned in previous blogs, poverty is most likely something that will never be ended. This is life: from the most miniscule, one individual, to larger scale of states and economies, people will not survive without competition, without the need to do better than someone else. This can work the same with states...the economic level of certain nations will probably never, or at least take quite some time to reach a level as, for example, the United States. This point is to push the fact that poverty is permanent and therefore needs designation and an agreement from the government, the highest power that can 'do something.' So, although poverty may be something with no end, this does not give the government the right to look away.

Liberalism simulation

As appears to be the case with most of the class, I found it hard to distinguish between the concepts of embedded vs. disembedded liberalism. The Ruggie article was extremely detailed and the language was just not easy to understand. Tuesday’s “fishbowl” type discussion did help me to understand a bit, although being outside the “bowl” made it easy to drift away and lose focus when talking about such an in-depth topic. It felt like everyone was still tyring to make sense of the issue, and the fact that you were only contributing half the time did not help the cause. With that said, I hope Friday’s simulation did help people to make sense of the two economic theories. As a member of group 2, we tried to come up with something that would be both fun (candy) and easy to understand. Our goal was to come up with ways to facilitate trade among mock nations while providing an accurate arena to explore the two theories. Unfortunately, several groups were more interested with keeping their candy than engaging themselves in the simulation. This was very frustrating, as the purpose of the exercise was rooted deeper than getting candy. If you want candy, just go to CVS and buy some of your own. The introduction of the ICF and unpredictable changes in reserve requirements seemed to cause more trouble than good. I guess recreating a world market is more complicated than meets the eye. Of course, you always have the black market and other powerful states that prefer to break the rules or not trade at all rather than cooperate with the greater community.
The other event that took place this week was the UC common event. I was placed in the “Politics in the US” section with professor Steven Taylor (not Steven Tyler…) We had a good discussion about the book and the movie “gangs of New York.” We also talked about the validity of movies vs. journalistic accounts when doing research. It was an interesting conversation, touching upon the roles that motives (specifically money), bias, and prejudice play in writing and research. I did enjoy the discussion and it seems like the common event was a good idea in that I got to experience a new subject and different teaching styles. After taking this seminar I am strongly leaning towards taking more government and polisci classes in the future. Professor Taylor really stressed the importance of scholarship and learning in the world.

reflection week ten

I liked that this week's discussions related to economics as I am taking macro, so I felt that both made a little more sense.
The fish bowl on Tuesday was ... strained; usually there are an abundance of people who wish to participate in discussions. Those such days would benefit from the separation into smaller groups. However, the reading was difficult to get right away and thus not very controversial. The difficulty discouraged those who are usually quiet from talking for fear of being wrong about their interpretation of the piece. Also, it was not a topic that anyone was versed in beforehand, meaning that those who did not do the reading could not participate at all. With the class already cut in half, these other restrictions on those who could intelligently discuss the topic decreased immensely. Yet I am definitely looking forward to trying the fish bowl again with a more controversial topic; I feel that it will then serve its purpose in allowing more (and different) people to participate.
The discussion did, however, give me a much more solid idea of the differences between embedded and disembedded liberalism than the reading did. Upon blogging and reading others' blogs, I really felt that I knew the basics of each system. Though I felt that many people avoided the question and chose not to take a stance on one side or the other; Obviously a mixture would be best, but the question proposed a hypothetical situation in which only one system could be present. Choosing one forced us to compare and contrast the two and to actually know what we are talking about...

The simulation on Friday was really good. It solidified the differences between each type of liberalism for me and it was fun (though pretty much anything involving candy -and keeping it at the end - is fun). I liked that each group had different requirements and depending on our starting resources, made us represent different countries from the start. Through our actions and our types of candy we established ourselves in the first round, each trading to reach a certain goal. In the second round, much of the trade stopped. I feel that this was because there were few incentives to continue trade; there were only a few new items introduced and those groups with the new types of candy were reluctant to trade them away because they would rather, understandably, keep them. I think that this could have been improved by giving out many new types of candy so that people would actually want to trade for other kinds. I understand though that this is not the most practical of things in our setup, but regardless, it is a suggestion. Overall, I thought that Friday was delicious as well as a great learning experience. Good job group 2 :)

liberalism

I would like to start off by saying that I was not emotionally stable for the first part of the week and so my attention to class was minimal. As the reasons for my instability had nothing to do with the class I will not go into detail about it, but I am overcoming it. And for that reason this reflection blog will not be very long this week.

So for the discussion this week on embedded versus dis-embedded liberalism I was very confused. The entire discussion did not make much sense with how circular the discussion seemed to be going. However, with the class simulation we did with the fake candy market, my understanding of the two became much more clear. It was very interesting to note that even though there were two different markets represented the groups tended to act in similar ways. The only difference seemed to be that in the first one, there was rules and regulations and the second part had no rules. The majority of the groups did not seem to care about the regulations in the first part and then as there were none in the second part, there was little to no trading going on.

Cross-Cultural Communication and Embedded Liberalism

I started out this week feeling very lost on the topic of embedded liberalism, and because of this, I was not able to say anything in class on Tuesday (as I was busily trying to look up more information online about embedded liberalism). After reading quite a bit online, I began to understand a few facts, but it was not until today's class, Friday, that I really understood the basics of embedded liberalism.
Although I am not a big fan of simulations, I thought that today's simulation designed by group two was very accurate and helpful in demonstrating some of the key parts of both the embedded and disembedded systems. My group began with probably the smallest amount of resources, yet because of larger institutions like the IMF, we were able to create agreements that would ensure us wealth, or at least an unchanging set of rules. When there are trade laws that require countries to retain a certain amount of resources, it also creates an even playing ground for every nation to know the value of the resources. (Of course, if the value changes, such as a new use for oil is discovered, as we discussed, the known value will also change.) Having an embedded market allows for that to be part of the social system, dealing with trade between countries and an almost constant power that controls the system, unlike disembedded liberalism.
We were able to see with disembedded liberalism how the value of items was very inconspicuous, which to me seems like it could lead to so-called corruption in the trade environment. There will be some countries that can never afford what the wealthier have and trade becomes dependent on who can find the best deal. Although in the classroom, much of the hoarding of resources was because of a like or dislike of a certain candy, in the disembedded system, the goal would be to have as many resources of different kinds, but since there are no rules, some countries can not even keep resources.
I am beginning to find this topic interesting, especially because I do not know much about trade between countries, yet would like to understand embedded liberalism in more detail. I like the rules that it outlines and see how it could work and function in the world.

In the second part of my reflection, I would like to talk about the UC Common Event that we had this past Wednesday. I ended up being in Cross-Cultural Communications, which for me, is an incredibly interesting subject, and something that I have considered studying. A few years ago, I began playing chamber music in a 'Playing for Peace' program that brought together students from around the world, especially those from conflict areas such as Israel/West Bank, Cyprus, Ireland, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. Through this experience, I began to learn the importance of communicating in different cultures and about how there are so many differences between cultures that are unimaginable to us. I became obsessed with other cultures, learning about them, speaking with people from other countries, because I felt that I was learning more than I ever had, even just learning one word in Arabic. I have now lived in South America and in Israel, and I see even more the presence of problems creating by miscommunication. Not only can we not speak the same language, but we are also not willing to open up and view another culture for its own values, that may be completely different from ours. In our discussion on Wednesday, we talked about the idea that it is only possible to truly understand another culture by living in it, experiencing every day life, speaking the language, cooking, attending cultural events, and viewing in real life the parts of life that are essential to that particular culture.
This is just to reflect on the fact that I really enjoyed the common event. It really made me think and consider the reasons that I began to interest myself in other countries, in studying and living abroad, and in coming to AU. I hope to continue in the path of cross-cultural communication because, for me, individual cultures are the essence of the world, yet there needs to be some middle-ground so that miscommunication does not cause unnecessary wars.