Wow. I can't believe that this is my last world politics blog, that there are no more wp classes, and that this semester is nearly over... it just doesn't feel like it's been a whole semester! I'm glad that I did uc because I've met so many cool people and made amazing friends - what would I do without you? While I didn't get to know everyone as well as I would have liked to - despite our differences at times - we do have another semester here and I hope that we can better understand each other as time goes on.
Though others apparently disagree, I liked the simulation and thought that it was an effective, accurate portrayal of reality. A lot of times in discussions, we become detached from how things truly are because despite our (very) diverse backgrounds, we all have something in common: we are all freshmen at American University; we all chose to come to this school and are all pursuing higher education. Even with our resident dissident voices, many times we are able to rationalize, see from each others' point of view and come to an agreement, even if it is not always a consensus. This underlying unity makes it difficult for us to remember the red tape that exists in reality, the reason that real international decisions take so much time to plan and still do not always actually work.
By representing many very different players in global development, our unifying chord was broken. True, we all still represented groups of human beings who wish to encourage development, however, this thread is not nearly as strong as that which we, in uc wp, actually share. Though I certainly would have liked to talk about issues besides anti-corruption and privatization, it was inevitable that we get stuck on only a few issues that many groups (or at least my group) considered much less significant than things like trade liberalization. I agree that given more time we could have furthered our discussion, but we knew that we had a time limit and did not budget our time well; this, again, is quite representative of international (and national) decision making. They take longer than planned yet do not finish what they set out to do. Such is politics.
Overall, I'm glad I took world politics. Yes, there was a focus on theory, but theory helps us to tie together more complicated concepts and relate events and perspectives. This is an introductory course and I think it did a good job of laying down a foundation so that if we choose to take (or need to for those IR majors) more SIS courses, we have a solid background in the basics of the subject. I think that we covered the material in a creative manner, with many different activities so that we could really learn and comprehend the subjects rather than just reading a book and being lectured at (to?). I love that we had the opportunity to have intense discussions, simulations and excursions to delve into that which is world politics.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
World Politics reflection/simulataion
The simulation was not that helpful. All it did was help me realize that when people get together in a large group and try to use Robert's rules of order; nothing will get done. When you have to vote to vote things get confusing and nothing gets done. Even less things get done when we have "environmentalists" crash the conference. In my opinion we didn't talk about the issues that were most important in helping a developing nation such as trade liberalization. Nations can and do get corrupt officials overthrown when the population grows tired of the corruption. An example of a country overthrowing a corrupt government was in Poland with the Polish group Solidarity overthrowing the government and taking its place. Other countries have established anti-corruption measures without the aid of third parties or other nations. Anti-corruption is a thing that is best done at the behest of the people of the particular country.
As an overview of the semester, I was disappointed with the UC class. This class talked mainly about IR theory while it was supposed to be a World Politics course. While I learned a lot about IR theory, I felt that this is not what a World Politics class should cover, at least for the entire semester. A more practical use World Politics course would have been more useful in gaining an appreciation for the subject. The abstract theories caused many of us to become dissatisfied with the course. Furthermore, it was not really necessary to buy any of the books for the class as the class discussions rarely centered around the use of the books and when they did, it was easy enough to make comments without ever actually reading the book. While I have made some good friends in the class, I would say the overall experience of the course was disappointing and not at all what I had originally expected or hoped to gain from the experience.
As an overview of the semester, I was disappointed with the UC class. This class talked mainly about IR theory while it was supposed to be a World Politics course. While I learned a lot about IR theory, I felt that this is not what a World Politics class should cover, at least for the entire semester. A more practical use World Politics course would have been more useful in gaining an appreciation for the subject. The abstract theories caused many of us to become dissatisfied with the course. Furthermore, it was not really necessary to buy any of the books for the class as the class discussions rarely centered around the use of the books and when they did, it was easy enough to make comments without ever actually reading the book. While I have made some good friends in the class, I would say the overall experience of the course was disappointing and not at all what I had originally expected or hoped to gain from the experience.
simulation reflection
In regards to the simulation, I would like to echo Rebecca's point and say that I was extremely dissapointed with the outcome. As a representative from Doctors Without Borders, I was left in awe by the unwavering reluctance for states to recognize internal corruption as a barrier to their development. How are NGOs like us supposed to help countries like uganda when government officials are selling the resources they get in order to boost their wallets? It is just not feasible. And to peg anti-corruption as a "domestic" issue is utterly ridiculous. I would be curious to know how a corrupt state plans to go about fixing said problem without the aid of international and third party help.
While Doctors without Borders would never refuse a call to aid, it is nearly impossible to help in these situations. This leads me to my next point, privitization. Certain delegations (most notably McDonald), noted that our efforts to privitize in states actually made things worse. The truth is, these so-called "failures" are happening in countries where the governments are so screwed up internally that we can not begin to make a dent (which brings us back to internal state corruption). I realize that there were other important issues that did not get brought up, but from the standpoint of DWB, the two aforementioned issues really are our primary concerns and it is no suprise we got as worked up as we did when they were taken off the list.
Despite endless frustration over the selfishness and apathy displayed at the conference, I did find it enjoyable to have some healthy debate. I just wish that it could have been taken more seriously and been more productive. It would have been nice to get to some other issues, but the amount of time really wasn't enough for the task at hand. Some groups seemed to play into their roles better than others. I felt to me like some people just didn't care and would do anything to call an issue to order. After a point people seemed to "give up", which was dissapointing to say the least. Well, I suppose debating isn't everyones favorite thing, and I think it still worked well. I just wish we had triple the time.
While Doctors without Borders would never refuse a call to aid, it is nearly impossible to help in these situations. This leads me to my next point, privitization. Certain delegations (most notably McDonald), noted that our efforts to privitize in states actually made things worse. The truth is, these so-called "failures" are happening in countries where the governments are so screwed up internally that we can not begin to make a dent (which brings us back to internal state corruption). I realize that there were other important issues that did not get brought up, but from the standpoint of DWB, the two aforementioned issues really are our primary concerns and it is no suprise we got as worked up as we did when they were taken off the list.
Despite endless frustration over the selfishness and apathy displayed at the conference, I did find it enjoyable to have some healthy debate. I just wish that it could have been taken more seriously and been more productive. It would have been nice to get to some other issues, but the amount of time really wasn't enough for the task at hand. Some groups seemed to play into their roles better than others. I felt to me like some people just didn't care and would do anything to call an issue to order. After a point people seemed to "give up", which was dissapointing to say the least. Well, I suppose debating isn't everyones favorite thing, and I think it still worked well. I just wish we had triple the time.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Anti-Corruption is Universal
I was very disappointed with the outcome of the simulation, first because each group spent so much time researching and developing a position and we didn't have enough time to complete the discussion and secondly, because of the general outcome decided by the six different parties, which I, coming from Doctors Without Borders, feel was missing an essential element.
There are two subject that I would like to touch on: the voting out of anti-corruption, because it is not too late to continue to push the subject, and the privatization issue which was debated concerning Doctors Without Borders.
To restate our goals, anti-corruption policies, privatization, trade liberalization, and foreign direct investment were our main points in that order of importance. I find it hard to believe that any government, especially the three of which were represented at the conference which have incredibly corrupt governments or histories, would choose to remove anti-corruption completely from the list. Deeming it a 'domestic' and 'personal' issue does not remove corruption from the state, nor distance it from the appeal for help, which is what we were developing in this conference. The fact is that corruption within a country leads to fairly in every other aspect. How will trade liberalization and foreign direct investment work if governments are corrupt and therefore cannot conduct the trade and products will not reach the people at lower prices as one of many possible outcomes. Countries such as Uganda and Ukraine where AIDS drugs are necessary have had problems distributed the drugs because of corruption in the government. All of this works to weaken the country, the population, which in the end determines the economic status of the country. One full of AIDS victims and other health risks, unsanitary water, electricity and other infrastructure problems, will not be able to overcome this solely by ignoring the corruption in its own country (trying to fix it on its own) and intending to continue relations with foreign states. Privatization and anti-corruption measures must work together as we tried to point out in class. As Titus mentioned, there is also corruption in the private sector, so privatizing is not always a solution, yet if the government is not corrupt, it is able to monitor that the private corporations within its state are doing their job correctly. Privatization, when working alongside a functioning government is able to greatly increase clean water, electricity, transportation, and most sections of infrastructure, as was mentioned in class.
As for the privatization remark about negative results found on the Doctors Without Borders website, I would like to say that of course, our outline of points would not work everywhere, yet a framework must be what is for the common good and can therefore help the largest amount of countries. The specific example that is listed on the Doctors Without Borders website is of Colombia, a country that has struggled for decades with incredibly resilient drug traders. Not only is Colombia a major producer of cocaine, but it also has had many changes in the government as well as corruption especially among police forces. As we mentioned, it is difficult to privatize without first eliminating corruption, yet it is still possible. I think it is unjust to jump on Doctors Without Borders as hypocritical with this one example of a country where privatization did not work, especially when there are examples such as the Dominican Republic where privatization is beginning to improve their electrical system which has been failing for many years.
The idea is a development conference, something to aid those places that need help in developing their countries. Most countries that are considered 'developing' are those that have withstood military dictatorships and corruption within the government as well as outside forces. Corruption is universal and is not something that can necessarily be fixed within a country. Many times it is something foreign that causes the corruption. To go back to Colombia as the example country, someone buys the cocaine. The corruption related to drugs, (as well as in Perú and Bolivia) is connected to an outside source that feeds that problem and the trade continues. It is a chain which doesn't end when the drug is resold; it is resold and transferred and sold again. Corruption is not something that exists solely within the country and is most definetely not something that the government can deal with on its own. Therefore, I am astonished that it was so quickly pushed off of the list. For all of the above reasons and others, Doctors Without Borders continued to push for anti-corruption measures to remain in the framework.
I enjoyed working on the simulation and researching the backgrounds on countries. I find the system of deciding these policies interesting, yet wish that we had more time, because I feel as though much of the research and information that we all have went to waste, in terms of talking in class. It is definetely the type of project where everyone must research the background behind the group in order to clearly represent, which at times was obvious.
There are two subject that I would like to touch on: the voting out of anti-corruption, because it is not too late to continue to push the subject, and the privatization issue which was debated concerning Doctors Without Borders.
To restate our goals, anti-corruption policies, privatization, trade liberalization, and foreign direct investment were our main points in that order of importance. I find it hard to believe that any government, especially the three of which were represented at the conference which have incredibly corrupt governments or histories, would choose to remove anti-corruption completely from the list. Deeming it a 'domestic' and 'personal' issue does not remove corruption from the state, nor distance it from the appeal for help, which is what we were developing in this conference. The fact is that corruption within a country leads to fairly in every other aspect. How will trade liberalization and foreign direct investment work if governments are corrupt and therefore cannot conduct the trade and products will not reach the people at lower prices as one of many possible outcomes. Countries such as Uganda and Ukraine where AIDS drugs are necessary have had problems distributed the drugs because of corruption in the government. All of this works to weaken the country, the population, which in the end determines the economic status of the country. One full of AIDS victims and other health risks, unsanitary water, electricity and other infrastructure problems, will not be able to overcome this solely by ignoring the corruption in its own country (trying to fix it on its own) and intending to continue relations with foreign states. Privatization and anti-corruption measures must work together as we tried to point out in class. As Titus mentioned, there is also corruption in the private sector, so privatizing is not always a solution, yet if the government is not corrupt, it is able to monitor that the private corporations within its state are doing their job correctly. Privatization, when working alongside a functioning government is able to greatly increase clean water, electricity, transportation, and most sections of infrastructure, as was mentioned in class.
As for the privatization remark about negative results found on the Doctors Without Borders website, I would like to say that of course, our outline of points would not work everywhere, yet a framework must be what is for the common good and can therefore help the largest amount of countries. The specific example that is listed on the Doctors Without Borders website is of Colombia, a country that has struggled for decades with incredibly resilient drug traders. Not only is Colombia a major producer of cocaine, but it also has had many changes in the government as well as corruption especially among police forces. As we mentioned, it is difficult to privatize without first eliminating corruption, yet it is still possible. I think it is unjust to jump on Doctors Without Borders as hypocritical with this one example of a country where privatization did not work, especially when there are examples such as the Dominican Republic where privatization is beginning to improve their electrical system which has been failing for many years.
The idea is a development conference, something to aid those places that need help in developing their countries. Most countries that are considered 'developing' are those that have withstood military dictatorships and corruption within the government as well as outside forces. Corruption is universal and is not something that can necessarily be fixed within a country. Many times it is something foreign that causes the corruption. To go back to Colombia as the example country, someone buys the cocaine. The corruption related to drugs, (as well as in Perú and Bolivia) is connected to an outside source that feeds that problem and the trade continues. It is a chain which doesn't end when the drug is resold; it is resold and transferred and sold again. Corruption is not something that exists solely within the country and is most definetely not something that the government can deal with on its own. Therefore, I am astonished that it was so quickly pushed off of the list. For all of the above reasons and others, Doctors Without Borders continued to push for anti-corruption measures to remain in the framework.
I enjoyed working on the simulation and researching the backgrounds on countries. I find the system of deciding these policies interesting, yet wish that we had more time, because I feel as though much of the research and information that we all have went to waste, in terms of talking in class. It is definetely the type of project where everyone must research the background behind the group in order to clearly represent, which at times was obvious.
Monday, December 3, 2007
reflection week fourteen
This week was consumed with the making of the video for the major simulation. Following our discussion of Ethical Realism, which made for an enjoyable train-ride-read, my main focus was upon wrapping up research and figuring our what we would do for our presentation. As McDonald's, our group's initial worry was that none of us particularly liked eating at the corporation that we were representing; however, we quickly realized that it was just that: a corporation, a world wide company. We need not particularly concern ourselves with our opinions of the food that they produced, simply that they produced food and stimulated business globally. We found that thinking in terms of a global corporation was easier said than done as some of the presented topics really only applied only to sovereign governments. We found this out after researching each topic, but it made narrowing down those which we found most important easier.
I think that so far, the simulations are going quite well. Each group's videos present the necessary information - their opinions on global economic policies for aiding in reducing poverty - while still having a less formal / more amusing aspect to them. I like the set up of this simulation better with each group having the opportunity to ask questions (including follow up, if appropriate, which I think is important to receiving a clear, comprehensive answer). I anxiously await the time in which we are able to deliberate flat out upon which policies are best and (hopefully!) come to an agreement upon those that are most important and should be enacted. My only fear though is that some groups will be unwilling to compromise/budge on certain aspects that we do not all agree upon; is this a consensus or a simple majority? Are certain groups required in the majority for certain policies to be added to the list? For example, monetary funding from the EU and through McDonald's restaurants being established are necessary in many cases to fund any of the other projects that the more impoverished countries wish to establish. Do they need our backing?
I think that so far, the simulations are going quite well. Each group's videos present the necessary information - their opinions on global economic policies for aiding in reducing poverty - while still having a less formal / more amusing aspect to them. I like the set up of this simulation better with each group having the opportunity to ask questions (including follow up, if appropriate, which I think is important to receiving a clear, comprehensive answer). I anxiously await the time in which we are able to deliberate flat out upon which policies are best and (hopefully!) come to an agreement upon those that are most important and should be enacted. My only fear though is that some groups will be unwilling to compromise/budge on certain aspects that we do not all agree upon; is this a consensus or a simple majority? Are certain groups required in the majority for certain policies to be added to the list? For example, monetary funding from the EU and through McDonald's restaurants being established are necessary in many cases to fund any of the other projects that the more impoverished countries wish to establish. Do they need our backing?
UC Common Events
Okay, so I realize that this is incredibly late, but I had completely forgotten to write about the UC Common Event until someone recently reminded me.
I was in the "Individual Freedom vs. Authority" UC group with Professor Flanagan. The first meeting, we introduced ourselves, playing name games, then launched into a discussion about several of the group members' unique interests; the focus was upon one guy's interest in film making and technique preferences. We were then assigned three readings, none of which were long on their own, but combined were a significant amount considering the only incentive was for that one hour discussion that we would have on Halloween.
The morning of Halloween, it was clear that many people had not done the readings; had the assignment been to watch a movie or do only one reading - or perhaps several that weren't quite so heavy as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all at once - then surely more would have done it. I recognize that those Greek philosophers are the essence of the course, but bombarding us with all of them was overwhelming and many lacked motivation to put in the effort to understand the readings.
In our second meeting, we discussed the readings, focusing upon the one from Plato's Republic. We looked at perception and truth and how they rely upon experience and culture. One culture may laugh at the actions of another and value different skills than the other simply because they don't have the same rituals and values. This relates quite well to our discussion of Columbus and Cortes as they misunderstood and were ignorant of the Native American culture, thinking it not as good as their own. Even today, people make assumptions about other cultures based solely upon their own upbringings, leading to incorrect stereotypes. If we would approach unknown rituals and ideas with an open mind, seeking to learn about what they are and why people do them, then perhaps there would be just a little less fighting in the world...
Finally, I'd like to say that I'm upset that I wasn't able to go to the event today as I heard (from very reliable sources) that the food was good, the game was fun, and the slide show was cool; I had a required AU in Motion (AU's resident dance club!) meeting as our show is this coming weekend (Everyone should go! It's going to be awesome! Talk to me or Ashley if you want more information.) So, I was wondering if there is any way someone can put the slide show online? Perhaps on the UC website? That would be great :)
I was in the "Individual Freedom vs. Authority" UC group with Professor Flanagan. The first meeting, we introduced ourselves, playing name games, then launched into a discussion about several of the group members' unique interests; the focus was upon one guy's interest in film making and technique preferences. We were then assigned three readings, none of which were long on their own, but combined were a significant amount considering the only incentive was for that one hour discussion that we would have on Halloween.
The morning of Halloween, it was clear that many people had not done the readings; had the assignment been to watch a movie or do only one reading - or perhaps several that weren't quite so heavy as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all at once - then surely more would have done it. I recognize that those Greek philosophers are the essence of the course, but bombarding us with all of them was overwhelming and many lacked motivation to put in the effort to understand the readings.
In our second meeting, we discussed the readings, focusing upon the one from Plato's Republic. We looked at perception and truth and how they rely upon experience and culture. One culture may laugh at the actions of another and value different skills than the other simply because they don't have the same rituals and values. This relates quite well to our discussion of Columbus and Cortes as they misunderstood and were ignorant of the Native American culture, thinking it not as good as their own. Even today, people make assumptions about other cultures based solely upon their own upbringings, leading to incorrect stereotypes. If we would approach unknown rituals and ideas with an open mind, seeking to learn about what they are and why people do them, then perhaps there would be just a little less fighting in the world...
Finally, I'd like to say that I'm upset that I wasn't able to go to the event today as I heard (from very reliable sources) that the food was good, the game was fun, and the slide show was cool; I had a required AU in Motion (AU's resident dance club!) meeting as our show is this coming weekend (Everyone should go! It's going to be awesome! Talk to me or Ashley if you want more information.) So, I was wondering if there is any way someone can put the slide show online? Perhaps on the UC website? That would be great :)
Sunday, December 2, 2007
post-thanksgiving reflection
Now that I have finally digested all of that thanksgiving food, it seems time to reflect on the past week of class. First of all, I really enjoyed reading the text Ethical Realism, as it was well-written and the information was presented in a way that was accesible and easy to understand (unlike Todorov, for example). It enjoyed reading about the works of past presidential administrations as compared to today. It really offered a stark view of what's gone awry with American foreign policy in the 21st century. I also felt that I had a leg up on the material being discussed because I had already read the national security briefing that was referred to in the text. As we discussed in class, the ideas of the Great Capitalist Peace may be just as idealist as any but to me they really make sens. I disagree with the views of Gunperi and others who say that states need enemies in order to move forward with their policy. Call me a crazy liberal, but I like to belive that at some fundamental level all states want to do is get along and not have to worry about security from one another. After all, if you take away that threat, imagine all the other areas that money could go to (just look at the US federal budget and military spending...that's a lot of cash right there). All in all the book was quite interesting and I made my holiday traveling much more pleasurable.
Also, the simulation so far has been a good experience. I enjoyed the filming process and getting the chance to use imovie (I'm pretty much a pro now, after four hours of editing). It was interesting to watch the other groups' films and I thought the question and answer peroids were effective. I just can't wait until we are able to "let loose" and take some shots on the other groups. Needless to say I'm looking forward to tuesday's class and really getting down into this simulation. It's like a good old fashion debate and it's been a while since I've done that.
Also, the simulation so far has been a good experience. I enjoyed the filming process and getting the chance to use imovie (I'm pretty much a pro now, after four hours of editing). It was interesting to watch the other groups' films and I thought the question and answer peroids were effective. I just can't wait until we are able to "let loose" and take some shots on the other groups. Needless to say I'm looking forward to tuesday's class and really getting down into this simulation. It's like a good old fashion debate and it's been a while since I've done that.
Reflection simulation 2
In class we discussed ethical realism and did our simulations based off the Washington Consensus. The book Ethical Realism was very interesting and well written. In the end, the book is right for most policies of the United States. However, it is wrong when it comes to a capitalist peace. In an ideal world, a capitalist peace would work, but we do not live in an ideal world so therefore the capitalist peace would never work.
For the simulations, they were fairly interesting to see what the groups did with each of their movies. Everyone got their point across, even though most of the videos ended up being a little cheesy. Some of the questions asked were to detailed as it would have required a much larger knowledge base of the country or organization than the project called for. This made it hard for the groups to answer these questions. In looking at the simulation, I think that it would be a good idea, in the future, to allow people to choose a couple different options for the simulation - instead of just a video. This would make the class more interesting and keep people from becoming placated by the movies.
For the simulations, they were fairly interesting to see what the groups did with each of their movies. Everyone got their point across, even though most of the videos ended up being a little cheesy. Some of the questions asked were to detailed as it would have required a much larger knowledge base of the country or organization than the project called for. This made it hard for the groups to answer these questions. In looking at the simulation, I think that it would be a good idea, in the future, to allow people to choose a couple different options for the simulation - instead of just a video. This would make the class more interesting and keep people from becoming placated by the movies.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Peace Conference
In World Politics, most of my week was consumed by the simulation. I am very interested in representing Doctors Without Borders because it is a program that I believe very much in in my real life. I have often considered participating with an organization such as Doctors Without Borders and have focused my last year on humanitarian work and would like to continue with that throughout my life. It is very interesting to look at the economic connections with humanitarian work, something that I have thought about before, but never actually researched. For this reason, I find it enjoyable to read about Uganda, Ukraine, and Dominican Republic and to understand as much as possible about the differences and similarities within the economics of each state. I do not want to talk too much about the possible outcomes of the simulation or what our position as Doctors Without Borders is without finishing the debate on Tuesday. I thought that the questions asked of groups were interesting, but to push my point, I want to state once again that my group is a NGO, therefore we exist to help the people and therefore we should know what some of the major and most important areas are within the humanitarian aspect. It is a given that we will disagree in many areas as Rachel talked about in her blog, yet this is a real model of how many conferences work where often an agreement is not met.
I would like to mention briefly something that I brought up in class on Tuesday about the Palestinian-Israeli meeting that took place in Maryland this past week. I think it is interesting that Ethical Realism describes in detail the method of creating peace in Israel and the exact limits for each side. Although limits and rules can be given, it has never worked... the U.S. does not always work in the middle and cannot always create a solution. The Maryland conference created an opportunity after a seven-year break in peace talks for the gathering of Israel, Palestinian, US, and many other Arab state leaders to discuss the near future of Israel. Leaders agreed to talk in December, yet the unrealistic limits set in Ethical Realism were not met, nor will they ever be met. Syria has already proclaimed the meeting a defeat for the Palestinians and Hamas stated its disapproval for any peace efforts. Peace can only be achieved with an end to Palestinian occupation. From this, we see that the ideas of Ethical Realism cannot fit into the real world; states do not agree and it is not so easy to block out a group of terrorists who will die for their cause. It is nice that leaders left the conference with the hope of an agreement, yet the many different perspectives show the difficulty in creating agreement between ALL states of the Middle East who are involved in Israel.
I would like to mention briefly something that I brought up in class on Tuesday about the Palestinian-Israeli meeting that took place in Maryland this past week. I think it is interesting that Ethical Realism describes in detail the method of creating peace in Israel and the exact limits for each side. Although limits and rules can be given, it has never worked... the U.S. does not always work in the middle and cannot always create a solution. The Maryland conference created an opportunity after a seven-year break in peace talks for the gathering of Israel, Palestinian, US, and many other Arab state leaders to discuss the near future of Israel. Leaders agreed to talk in December, yet the unrealistic limits set in Ethical Realism were not met, nor will they ever be met. Syria has already proclaimed the meeting a defeat for the Palestinians and Hamas stated its disapproval for any peace efforts. Peace can only be achieved with an end to Palestinian occupation. From this, we see that the ideas of Ethical Realism cannot fit into the real world; states do not agree and it is not so easy to block out a group of terrorists who will die for their cause. It is nice that leaders left the conference with the hope of an agreement, yet the many different perspectives show the difficulty in creating agreement between ALL states of the Middle East who are involved in Israel.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, November 26, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Monday, November 19, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, November 12, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)