final reflection

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.

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?

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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 :)

embedded vs. disembedded liberalism

Clearly, a combination of the two types of markets is most realistic and desirable, a system in which we can choose which type of liberalism (embedded or disembedded) to follow depending on the state of the market.

However, if I could only choose one, I would choose a market system operating under disembedded liberalism. Honestly, there is enough red tape for both businesses and individuals wishing to participate in the financial market already; adding more restrictions through embedded liberalism certainly would not help that situation. We want business to flourish, not to be weighed down by overbearing "grammar." So while certain rules are necessary to that the market can exist and function properly, more laws are unneeded. The government has more than enough responsibilities already, so by leaving the financial market in a laissez-faire state, unless emergency strikes, frees them to deal with more pressing matters.

Additionally, a disembedded market encourages interdependence among international countries and corporations more so than an embedded market which tends to promote autonomy and self-sufficiency before trade. As any economics student can (or should be able to) tell you, countries benefit when they specialize in producing a product for which they have comparative advantage and trade for other products. While surviving only upon what your country produces may have been necessary or practical at a time when travel was more difficult, that is no longer an excuse. As technology progresses - due to information trade - transporting products will become even cheaper and easier. We stated in class that embedded liberalism would make the world market less fragile; if one country's economy were to crash, the rest of the world would not suffer. However, the benefits that come from depending upon each other severely outweigh this possible loss; though this happened during the Great Depression, we now know the cause and the signs that led up to the Great Depression so that we may avoid any similar situation.

Though disembedded liberalism is not for developing countries, many of whose people need welfare and aid in starting new businesses, in a country such as the U.S., the majority can prosper under a more open set of rules. With too many restrictions, our innovation will be severely restricted as will our ability to prosper to the fullest of our potential.

reflection week 9

As this was parent's weekend, mine visited and brought me Halloween decorations and candy corn. Saturday night, a group of us were eating the candy corn and for some reason we related the way we ate the candy corn to the security of sovereign states as we discussed in world politics this week. Random? yes. Relevant? completely.
So after discussing the superiority of the pumpkin shaped candy corns - because they're richer in taste - we decided that if the candy corn were all sovereign states, the pumpkins would be the richest and thus (in this completely theoretical late-night situation) most powerful. However, their security was threatened and ultimately destroyed when I proceeded to eat all of the pumpkins leaving only the candy corns. While not nearly as rich, they became more powerful, more desirable when the pumpkins were gone and thus their security was also threatened.
I guess what I'm trying to say with this analogy is when the security/sovereignty/existence of a rich/powerful nation is threatened or overcome, the security of the weaker nations is then also threatened - they rely upon the other nation for protection. If the pumpkins were to focus only upon becoming richer and more powerful in hopes of being able to ward off potential enemies - which obviously cant happen as I will eat them no matter what - then they are not fulfilling their role on a "global" scale to the weaker candy corns. Anyways, I just found the whole incidence amusing and thought that I would share; as this is a reflection blog where we reflect on what has happened related to the class this week, I figured that this was a good place to do it.
I'd also like to add that I thought that both discussions this week were interesting; Tuesday we were able to relate current events to our weekly topic, which we should be able to do every week seeing as we're studying world politics and they are surrounding us, but I liked that we actually discussed specific, (very) recent events rather than just talking about theory. In the beginning, the class was split as to whether to focus upon domestic fires or international conflict in the middle east; as the class progressed, more people came to see that internal security is necessary before we can fulfill our role as 'global police.' The fires that many were saying should not be a priority because they were not a big deal decided to prove those people wrong. Though most are under control, there are still, after nearly a week, fires blazing in southern California. Meanwhile in northern Iraq, tensions are rising as the PKK, who sparked the initial conflict between Turkey and Iraq holds their position lodged, hidden in the mountains. It is good that the US did not brush off the threat of fire as they caused so much destruction; in the same time there is tension but no war between Iraq and Turkey- the peace held for this week as we dealt with internal affairs. Clearly we did not stop international diplomacy because as many in the class were quick to point out, we do not have to only choose one issue to deal with because one involves firefighters and the other, diplomats. True as this is, if we cared about budget, then we would have financial restrictions and may not be able to fund both projects at the same time. However, the U.S. likes to multi-task and we have already spent so many billions more in the middle east than was initially intended, does a few more really matter?

listen to an uneducated public?

If the average voting American could not pass a citizenship test, then why would we want them to completely determine national public policy? How could they avoid historical mistakes if they do not know them? How could they consider other counties' perspectives when they do not even historically know their own?

I agree that the current government seems to utterly ignore public opinion and disregards the public dis-rest that their actions cause; I am not arguing that public opinion should not matter as that is the entire point of living in a democracy. However, I would like to emphasize the lack of public awareness in regards to international affairs. If they concern themselves at all with such things, they hear only from a (probably biased) news report. There is no follow up or real concern in furthering their knowledge on the subject. A group may go online and educate themselves more thoroughly on world events, reading various sources to end up with a rounded set of information. This, sadly, is not often the case though.

Here at American University, in Washington DC and at the heart of our country's political being, it is easy to forget how unattached many areas of the United States are with politics. Their opinions are completely uneducated and thus are probably not the best thing to go off of when running a country. We elect public officials because we agree to trust their judgment. They should of course consider the will of the people, but if their foresight allows them to see outcomes unknown to the general public, then they must act upon that educated vision. Politicians are obligated (though they certainly don't always adhere to said obligations, that is another matter entirely) to do what is best for the country. I believe that those are the best guidelines, no matter how unclear, for national policy.

"What's best," though completely subject to opinion, requires (or tries to) national policy to consider America as a whole as well as individual interest groups. It is all-encompassing and thus impossible. Yet it is something to strive towards; the light at the end of a long, dark tunnel, it provides a goal for policy makers to look towards. The American public, I fear, has even less of a chance than the government does of discovering what is at the end of the tunnel and realizing how to reach it. So, though I wouldn't mind the government being slightly more responsive to public opinion, I prefer that they run the country.

reflection week eight - rants on disarming, oblivious feminists, and necessary jargon

I thought that Friday's discussion, once it got going, went really well. It had a somewhat slow start; not only was it a little confusing at first, but sometimes you don't want to argue with the person before you. Though it was a good concept (as the other 'snake' was) since everyone had to participate in the discussion, I thought that once it was open so that anyone could speak after each person, we brought up much more substantive points. It is sometimes difficult to be forced to comment on something; the activity that I preferred was the one in which each person had to speak but they did so by raising their hand and responding to what was said before them - when they chose to participate. Regardless of the method, there were several ideas however that I completely disagree with and would like to take advantage of this blog to refute.

First, someone brought up the idea of disarming and taking a technological step backwards so that warfare would not have such large destructive potential. As nice as that would be, I think that it is completely impossible. If the U.S. were to get rid of their nuclear weapons, other countries would not follow along and also disarm; rather, we would have more attacks than ever before as we would be in a weakened state and would not be able to retaliate as effectively. Terrorists would take advantage of our ignorance and we would have hell to face. Once the technology exists, we cannot simply ignore or abandon it. Though we do not have to actively use nuclear weapons, we should be prepared to do so if necessary. Though this sounds incredibly realist, disarming would compromise our security and thus we should not consider it in the slightest.

Second, is the issue of females working in such a male dominated environment such as nuclear war possibilities. Though we didn't seem to have anyone advocating that females do not belong in such a position (thank goodness or I would have gone off on them as would, I believe, many of the other girls in the class), the unequal ratio was questioned. Someone stated that it is a difficult field for females to get involved in since it has always been so male dominated. I do not believe that this is true. Do you know why liberal arts schools like American have such a skewed ratio of girls to guys? It is because at technical schools the ratio is reversed. Many girls pursue careers in other fields rather than continuing in math and science as seen in this commercial. If they wanted to, females could pursue those careers. The problem is not really the lack of female presence in defense intelligence, but rather the lack of confidence in those who are there. The ratios do not need to be equal simply because they aren't going to be so long as females are not forced into math and science. The way each gender is treated in the work place should be equal. That however is not attained in the U.S., much less in other nations worldwide and thus is an issue for another day...

Finally, many argued that the jargon used was an unnecessary way to avoid thinking about the responsibility that comes with the destruction that these "nuclear strategic analysts'" jobs. They claimed that the jargon distracted from the seriousness of their jobs and the outcomes of their choices. I, however, believe that this distraction is necessary. The analysts are supposed to look at how to react to possible outcomes, namely the "worst case scenarios." Considering the results would make it impossible to create an effective strategy; they would think only of the death involved and not be able to fully consider the damage that was/could be done in the first place. In times of trouble, there is not time for planning; a decision must be made immediately. If there are already multiple scenarios mapped out with an action and a possible reaction, does it matter what kind of language is used to express the ideas? Someone mentioned that a metaphor is used to make things easier to understand, so they should be used in complicated matters such as nuclear weaponry. If that makes it easier then leave them be. Let the diplomats deal with avoiding war and nuclear weapon use. Let the thinkers ponder the possibilities and make plans now that could possibly save us in the future with whatever language they choose.

reflection week seven

Though controversial on several levels, I thought that this week's discussion went well.
Many people did not approve of our discussing "creepy ian," a boy that they did not know and thus were reluctant to marginalize. Out of those who had met him, it seemed, at least to me, that we did not mind categorizing him as "creepy" and separating him from our ian (larry! haha) so that others could be aware of the distinction. Yet was the categorization of "creepy" a difference or more of a stereotype (by the definitions given in my previous blog this week)? Even after the stories and meeting him, I still think that "creepy" is a stereotype. There is no (proven) biological/physical difference between people who are "creepy" and those who aren't; although certain personality characteristics are common threads through each of these characterizations, I belive that personalities are interpreted differently by everyone. Many may consider "creepy ian" to be creepy and thus justify stereotyping him as such but, since it is not something that all can agree upon, it is not a "real difference."

Another topic that I would like to address is that of aim conversations during world politics class. It seems that some do not like that others partake in this act; I, however, (as should be clear by my posting a conversation from this weeks class) think that they are a great way for more people to participate and get their ideas heard throughout the class. With so many opinionated people in our class, it is sometimes difficult to get our ideas heard; by conversing about them on aim as we have a discussion, people who get the opprotunity to speak can bring up points made in the aim conversation. I defintely would like to further the idea of one big class chat (which is what I was going for this past week - if you have aim & are on in class, let me know & i'll add you to the chat next time); after tuesday's class, some of us stayed and spoke with ptj about having one class in which the conversation is recorded as everyone also participates in an aim chat - but in 3 distinct groups - so that we can track how ideas move through chats & the class discussion. I think that if we have technology that can make expression easier, then we should take advantage of it; this experiment would allow us to do so even more than normal.

facts vs opinions

On the most basic level, a difference is a distinguishing characteristic, distinctive quality or feature, and a stereotpye is a conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
While a stereotype is based on what someone thinks, a real difference is based on fact. Though we may not always use the most accurate words to express those differences, the idea that we are stating something that is true no matter who says it differentiates it from a stereotype which is based on perception. For example, calling African Americans "black" and Caucasians "white"... neither group is actually either of those colors, but the chosen words describe the factual difference between the tone of their skin. It just is. There is no bias or skew involved; black people's skin is darker than white people's. It becomes a stereotype rather than a difference when one begins to assume things based on these real differences. For example, if I were to say that all black people listen to rap music that would be a (n incorrect) stereotype; obviously this is a mild example, but it serves its purpose in showing that stereotypes take differences one step further.
As far as when marginalization is acceptable, I feel that differences in themselves marginalize the parties involved. This is, however, a necessarycomponent in separating and identifying various characteristics; it's not wrong because they just are. Stereotypes marginalize in an unacceptable manner in that they are often insulting. We must make sure to marginalize only according to differences as if we go by stereotypes we are being demeaning. We know that we are doing this only when we go by facts rather than opinioins.

AIM Chat

Okay so here's the transcript from the AIM Chat during today's class -with a few minor edits like the preliminary stuff which had absolutely nothing to do with anything as there was no discussion going on at that point.
If anyone who was not involved in this discussion would like to be, just let me know what your screenname is so I can invite you next time.
Voila-

James (11:22:06 AM): hola

Autumn (11:22:12 AM): hola

Travis (11:22:18 AM): wordddd

Travis (11:22:47 AM): jackson is probably still mouring those yankees

Autumn (11:22:51 AM): hahaa

James (11:22:57 AM): yea baby

Lauren L (11:23:02 AM): grrrr travis

Autumn (11:23:12 AM): yeah so i figure we can comment on convos on here & not have to wait to jump in til he calls on all of us

James (11:23:26 AM): yea good call

Lauren L (11:23:27 AM): smart thinking

Lauren S (11:30:04 AM): doodle doodle hey

Ashley (11:30:06 AM): huh??

Autumn (11:30:41 AM): poor ian..

Ashley (11:30:46 AM): aw ian..your identity!

Travis (11:30:55 AM): yeah we dont want you to lose your identity

Travis (11:30:58 AM): you gotta be assertive man

Lauren L (11:30:59 AM): not just identity... ontological identity.....

Autumn (11:31:01 AM): change it! go constructivist!

Travis (11:31:05 AM): haha

James (11:31:14 AM): all the way

Travis (11:31:21 AM): well wouldn't realist ian just kick the crap out of creepy ian

Lauren L (11:31:27 AM): haha

Ian (11:31:30 AM): good idea trav

James (11:31:35 AM): yea

Autumn (11:31:37 AM): our ian's the default - creepy ian's obviously the other.. duhh

Ian (11:31:42 AM): except he might bite me and then i'll get rabies

Autumn (11:31:45 AM): ahhah

Travis (11:32:15 AM): yeh you gotta represent

Travis (11:33:54 AM): ians gotta bond together

Lauren L (11:34:10 AM): i like this conversation...

James (11:34:17 AM): yea its good

Lauren L (11:35:46 AM): ash/autumn i'm totally tempted to tell the story about what happened when we were passing eaglesnest

Autumn (11:36:14 AM): hahahah

Travis (11:36:16 AM): i just think its funny that we are picking on a real person

Travis (11:36:22 AM): hope he doesn't walk in

Autumn (11:36:23 AM): yeahh...

Lauren L (11:36:34 AM): apparantly i let him into an elavator...

James (11:36:50 AM): haha

Autumn (11:36:52 AM): haha yeahh you did lol

Lauren L (11:37:20 AM): should i tell the story?

Travis (11:37:27 AM): dooo it

Autumn (11:37:29 AM): go for it!

Ashley (11:38:31 AM): that was amazing

Autumn (11:38:37 AM): lots of individual experiences that correlate = he's actually creepy.

Travis (11:38:48 AM): he should feel honored we are dedicating a class to him...

James (11:38:51 AM): haha yep

Lauren L (11:38:52 AM): lol

Autumn (11:38:55 AM): lmao

Sam (11:38:57 AM): haha

Ashley (11:39:05 AM): what if he walked by

Ashley (11:39:12 AM): i would cry - id feel so bad

Autumn (11:39:13 AM): that would be so hilarious

Lauren L (11:39:15 AM): that would be amazing

Lauren L (11:39:28 AM): cool

Autumn (11:39:32 AM): it's not like he'd hear what's going on in the classroom ashley

Travis (11:39:39 AM): hah yeh

Travis (11:39:39 AM): lizzzzz

Liz (11:39:43 AM): travey poo

Travis (11:41:09 AM): ok kids lets keep it professional

Travis (11:41:09 AM): haha

James (11:41:10 AM): how are you enjoying this conversation?

Travis (11:41:23 AM): yeah liz do you know creepy ian?

Liz (11:41:33 AM): no i dont

Autumn (11:41:38 AM): i like how ptj keeps tying back to ir theory & then we just tell more stories.. oops we should prolly stop that

Liz (11:41:39 AM): y the hell are we talking about him. im confused

Travis (11:41:44 AM): i dont know if he is a threat to our survival as a floor

Travis (11:41:56 AM): is he dangerous? haha

Autumn (11:42:03 AM): quite possibly ..?

Lauren L (11:42:06 AM): i still hafta say sublimilly, game?

Sam (11:42:19 AM): we could gang up. im sure all of us could take him on

Travis (11:42:28 AM): oh.. that is creepy

Autumn (11:42:30 AM): scaryyyy!!

Ashley (11:42:32 AM): yea

Travis (11:42:47 AM): we should let creepy ian testify or something

Ashley (11:42:51 AM): and apparently there are theories about other things he did that they cant prove

Lauren L (11:43:22 AM): wanna share?

Travis (11:43:28 AM): oh yah well ian is so cool he can't be brought down by larry

Autumn (11:43:38 AM): wait what?

Ian (11:43:38 AM): i don't want to lose my identity

Ashley (11:43:55 AM): no its inappropriate and idk how true or not it is they just have suspicians

Travis (11:43:55 AM): i don't blame you he has it comin to him

Autumn (11:44:04 AM): we dont know his last name..

Travis (11:44:04 AM): it is to warn people duh

Travis (11:44:07 AM): yeah

Autumn (11:44:11 AM): yeah that's pretty important too

Travis (11:44:19 AM): creepy pretty much says it all

Travis (11:44:25 AM): covers all the bases

Autumn (11:44:51 AM): obviously!

Travis (11:45:00 AM): wait what class are we in?

Autumn (11:45:06 AM): i cant remember...

Travis (11:45:07 AM): ohh yeah

Autumn (11:45:12 AM): titus remind us again?

Ashley (11:45:19 AM): lol

Travis (11:45:20 AM): yes, please

Autumn (11:45:22 AM): oh yeah wp!

Sam (11:45:31 AM): haha

Travis (11:45:37 AM): lol "agressive"

Travis (11:45:45 AM): thats one way to put it i suppose

Autumn (11:45:46 AM): yay for cool smilies!

Ashley (11:45:48 AM): no they run away from him

Ian (11:45:48 AM): he's the creeps freedom fighter

Lauren L (11:45:50 AM): .... if he has friends...

Ashley (11:45:58 AM): i've seen it

James (11:46:02 AM): johnny is his friend

Travis (11:46:09 AM): little johnny

Travis (11:46:13 AM): ow ow

Ashley (11:46:16 AM): he doesnt like him

James (11:46:22 AM): oo

James (11:46:30 AM): whatevs then

Autumn (11:46:33 AM): johnny doesnt like ian or the other way around? je suis confu

Lauren L (11:46:37 AM): johnny's creepy too though, right?

Ashley (11:46:40 AM): the way you said

Autumn (11:46:48 AM): o ok

Ashley (11:46:49 AM): johnny is just very socially awkward

Travis (11:46:50 AM): yeah maybe they are like a little creepy army

Lauren L (11:46:57 AM): haha

Travis (11:47:09 AM): well the evidence is there...

Travis (11:47:16 AM): i think there is solid proof

Travis (11:47:19 AM): right?

Travis (11:47:22 AM): jams and whatever

Autumn (11:47:27 AM): but then you're on your guard when you actually meet him & you can be careful!

Ian (11:47:38 AM): i'll say it to his face

Ian (11:47:49 AM): he brings shame to the noble name of ian

Autumn (11:47:52 AM): hhahha

Lauren S (11:47:56 AM): that's awful

James (11:47:57 AM): yea dude

Travis (11:47:59 AM): well i don't know though if these preconceived nothions are valid until you have a creepy experience

Autumn (11:48:18 AM): true true

James (11:48:21 AM): id say the jams thing is pretty creepy

Sam (11:48:24 AM): but do you want to have a creepy experience is the question?

James (11:48:31 AM): exactly

Autumn (11:48:38 AM): no. not really.

Liz (11:48:52 AM): sorry guys

Autumn (11:48:56 AM): that's a good question...

Liz (11:48:58 AM): i dont get the point of this conversation

Autumn (11:48:58 AM): idk?

Liz (11:49:02 AM): and think its kinda dumb

Sam (11:49:02 AM): yea the mouse experience i had was slightly creepy

Ian (11:49:09 AM): did you read enloe?

Autumn (11:49:18 AM): yepp

Liz (11:49:18 AM): yes i did

Liz (11:49:22 AM): but get a better example

Travis (11:49:27 AM): yeh it was kind of out there

Liz (11:49:31 AM): one with relevance?

James (11:49:35 AM): id prefer a better example

Travis (11:49:45 AM): yeh we are taking this to far

Lauren L (11:49:46 AM): how did this even start?

James (11:49:52 AM): idk

Liz (11:49:53 AM): yeah

Autumn (11:50:07 AM): ....

Travis (11:50:19 AM): yeah this is totally irrelivant why don't we talk about enloe

Travis (11:50:20 AM): yeah

Travis (11:50:36 AM): this really isn't going anywhere

Sam (11:50:41 AM): no no its not

Travis (11:50:47 AM): we can talk about mexican peasant uprisings

James (11:50:50 AM): not at all

Travis (11:50:51 AM): or something

Liz (11:51:00 AM): something with substance

Sam (11:51:11 AM): the blackwater mercenaries haha

James (11:51:20 AM): yea lets go with that

Liz (11:51:24 AM): someone say that

Autumn (11:51:26 AM): go for it

James (11:51:27 AM): its more interesting anyway

Travis (11:51:27 AM): well i mean according to the article shouldn't we be worried that creepy ian is gonna rise up against us

Liz (11:51:34 AM): travis

Travis (11:51:38 AM): haha

Liz (11:51:41 AM): please

Travis (11:51:41 AM): yes?

Liz (11:51:48 AM): be sexy and be queit

Travis (11:51:53 AM): ok, ok we will try and shift the conversatino

Ian (11:51:58 AM): well in response to shultzy, is it fair for me to be brought down by this ian?

Lauren S (11:52:12 AM): no

Liz (11:52:17 AM): no ian

Ian (11:52:17 AM): i think its my duty to make the delineation

Liz (11:52:19 AM): but its not about u

Travis (11:52:23 AM): well he shouldnt affect you i mean you should be able to maintain your image

Liz (11:52:25 AM): u have hte same name

Liz (11:52:27 AM): sucks

Liz (11:52:29 AM): but watever

Travis (11:52:55 AM): yeah let's just talk about something else i don't want to spend a whole class on ian

Ian (11:52:59 AM): same actually

Liz (11:53:02 AM): i agree. sorry ian

Ian (11:53:03 AM): we are getting off it now

Lauren S (11:53:09 AM): ouch

Lauren S (11:53:09 AM): hahha

James (11:53:10 AM): sort of

James (11:53:29 AM): why are we talking about how to talk about people?

James (11:53:37 AM): and the n word

Ashley (11:53:37 AM): were really just using it as a model, I dont really think that it matters how well or not well we know him because were taking it out to use to explain things. we arent discussing ian we're discussing marginalization

Travis (11:53:51 AM): yeah but its just disrespectful i think

Lauren L (11:53:53 AM): because labels leads to otherization

Travis (11:54:01 AM): we should use a broader example

Ian (11:54:03 AM): except some people haven't read enloe so don't know this

Travis (11:54:11 AM): well screw them

Travis (11:54:14 AM): they should have done the hw

Ashley (11:54:18 AM): I mean everything is relative. I feel like you cant give people some sort of label if you have no basis or knowledge for it

Autumn (11:54:34 AM): yeah but once you have some knowledge then ...

Autumn (11:55:18 AM): isnt queer eye starting soon?

Travis (11:55:23 AM): i hope so man

Ashley (11:55:26 AM): lol i dont know

Autumn (11:55:31 AM): lauren l- we were talking about it before do you know?

Sam (11:55:35 AM): idk dont watch the show

Lauren L (11:55:37 AM): we don't get bravo so it doens't matter

Travis (11:55:41 AM): oh crapp

Autumn (11:55:43 AM): awwww mann...

Travis (11:55:48 AM): way to be a downer

Ashley (11:55:53 AM): i also think that it really depends whether or not your welcomed into the community whether or not you can use your terms

Lauren L (11:55:56 AM): sorrrry

Liz (11:55:56 AM): travis ur always a downer

Travis (11:56:05 AM): so...hows that paper gonig for y'all?

Autumn (11:56:20 AM): ... lets not discuss that.

Travis (11:56:27 AM): haha ok ok

Travis (11:56:29 AM): fair enough

Autumn (11:57:04 AM): except that just saying we should move away from a word doesnt mean that people will actually do it

Lauren L (11:57:15 AM): yeah

Sam (11:57:25 AM): also the meaning of words change. degrading words or otherwise

Travis (11:57:27 AM): well its an understanding or a social norm

Travis (11:57:36 AM): didn't you watch the daily show yesterday

James (11:57:36 AM): yea thats true

Travis (11:57:44 AM): words are losing their definitions

Autumn (11:57:44 AM): no

Travis (11:57:52 AM): its a serious matter

James (11:57:54 AM): it was good

Travis (11:57:54 AM): haha

Lauren L (11:58:07 AM): find the clip and play it?

James (11:58:16 AM): we could

Travis (11:58:18 AM): haha maybe

Autumn (11:58:18 AM): i mean no i didnt watch it not no words are losing their definitions... definitions are always changing

Autumn (11:58:28 AM): pirates & emperors!

Autumn (11:58:35 AM): pirates of the caribbean!

Travis (11:58:38 AM): we dont have the AV stuff

Autumn (11:58:42 AM): yeah w/e

Sam (11:58:43 AM): ewww not that movie

Lauren L (11:58:49 AM): you have ur laptop ...

Travis (11:58:57 AM): savvy

Autumn (11:59:02 AM): you could send the link around & we could watch on various laptops throughout the room savvy?

Travis (11:59:19 AM): perhaps

James (11:59:21 AM): lets stop saying savvy savvy?

Autumn (11:59:29 AM): savvy.

Autumn (11:59:46 AM): aww the squirrels!

Travis (11:59:55 AM): wouldnt it be better if instad of marginalize we just used pick on or opress

Sam (12:00:03 PM): haha the three subspecies of the squirrls yay!

Lauren L (12:00:09 PM): my friend got really drunk once, and her roomate had a picture of pirates of the C on her wall, and she told her roomate to "tell johnny depp to stop moving and why is orlando bloom so angry"

Autumn (12:00:18 PM): hahaha

James (12:00:36 PM): jackson can see my computer

James (12:00:40 PM): just so you know

Autumn (12:01:00 PM): but travis- marginalize sounds less harsh & thus we use it because we want to sound nicer than if we said 'pick on' or 'oppress'

Lauren L (12:01:09 PM): hahaha oops

Travis (12:01:23 PM): although we cant watch it

Travis (12:01:26 PM): without sound

Autumn (12:01:26 PM): well we're posting it anyways...

Travis (12:01:27 PM): so w/e

James (12:01:34 PM): marginalize is a word whose meaning is just more positively pitched

Autumn (12:01:39 PM): exactly

Sam (12:01:43 PM): wow this was so english class with the use of slanting words haha

Travis (12:01:47 PM): yeah haha

Lauren L (12:02:02 PM): yup sam

Autumn (12:02:19 PM): wow...

Travis (12:02:22 PM): this clip is actually really good it talks about freedom of speech and personal opinion, etc

Autumn (12:02:31 PM): yeah something should have happened though!

Travis (12:02:38 PM): you should watch it later or something

Autumn (12:02:49 PM): post the link & we can watch it later/mention it in blogs

James (12:02:53 PM): yea we should

James (12:02:59 PM): yea

Travis (12:03:05 PM): yeah i posted it up there but i can repost it later

Autumn (12:03:22 PM): up where? it's not in this convo...?

Liz (12:03:27 PM): i always sound like im gonna cry in this class

Travis (12:03:29 PM): is it not

Liz (12:03:49 PM): ..random...

Autumn (12:03:53 PM): no- you definitely had reason to get mad about that!

Autumn (12:04:07 PM): i would too - that's totally awful

Travis (12:04:14 PM): whatever the URL is too long

Travis (12:04:17 PM): i will put it somewhre else

Liz (12:04:27 PM): ha thanks...

James (12:04:31 PM): whats awful?

Autumn (12:04:38 PM): copy... paste... it doesnt really matter if it's long lolll

James (12:04:42 PM): the nword thing?

Autumn (12:04:48 PM): yeahhh

James (12:05:02 PM): its really not that bad

Travis (12:05:11 PM): no AIM has a limit on how long your messge can be

Autumn (12:05:20 PM): really? i never knew that..

James (12:05:23 PM): words are words. thy get their meaning because of how we use them

Autumn (12:05:28 PM): alrite some other time then

Travis (12:05:35 PM): yeah exactly they are so arbitrary

Travis (12:05:43 PM): i'll say it i don't care

Travis (12:05:52 PM): well i mean i do care

James (12:05:52 PM): i will too

Travis (12:05:56 PM): but i will still say it

Autumn (12:06:11 PM): i wouldnt want to..

James (12:06:18 PM): i care, but you can say it if you feel the need to

Liz (12:06:23 PM): i disagree

Ashley (12:06:28 PM): i wont just because it carries so much history and neativity tied to it but thats what people make it

James (12:06:29 PM): what if you used it positively?

Travis (12:06:36 PM): dude i will call a fat person a fat person

Liz (12:06:38 PM): how can u use it positively

Travis (12:06:39 PM): ...no

Travis (12:06:40 PM): i wont

Ashley (12:06:41 PM): if people decided it wasnt negative anymore that would even be better

Liz (12:06:46 PM): when it has been taught that its a negative word?

Travis (12:06:50 PM): well you can't there is too much history

Travis (12:07:03 PM): you can't just decide to change a word its way easier to just have ppl stop using it

James (12:07:10 PM): just say it when describing a positive attribute of a black person

Autumn (12:07:16 PM): yeah but i dont think that you can use it positively . i mean white people just cant say it positively because of the history...

Liz (12:07:21 PM): how would u make that sound positive

Lauren L (12:07:23 PM): that's not gonna work...

Ashley (12:07:32 PM): there are ways that you can get past it though, people revitalize neighborhoods that had previously been associated with crime and poverty

Travis (12:07:33 PM): you wouldn't the only thing you can do its just not use it

Travis (12:07:36 PM): or not care

James (12:07:38 PM): cuz youre thinking too deeply into the word

Ashley (12:07:41 PM): eventually that association goes away

Travis (12:07:47 PM): i dont think it does

Ashley (12:07:47 PM): why should this be any different

Liz (12:07:48 PM): but how can u not think deepy?

James (12:07:48 PM): in its most basic form, it denotes black person

Liz (12:07:53 PM): words go hand in hand with feeligns

James (12:07:56 PM): youre letting the history clod the true meaning of it

Liz (12:07:58 PM): they bring up feelings and emotions

Travis (12:07:58 PM): yeah but pop culture says differently

Liz (12:08:03 PM): and a word like that

Lauren L (12:08:05 PM): then just say black, there

Liz (12:08:06 PM): that has such depth

Ashley (12:08:08 PM): im still not saying that its right to say but i do think that if it was focused on it could be changed

Travis (12:08:09 PM): its just got bad connotations

Lauren L (12:08:09 PM): s no need to use the nword

Liz (12:08:09 PM): cannot be ogtten rid of

Travis (12:08:20 PM): yeah you aren't gonna change it

James (12:08:28 PM): see i love what a simple comment can do

Travis (12:08:28 PM): its not worth the trouble

Lauren L (12:08:29 PM): then just say black, no need to use the n word*

Autumn (12:08:35 PM): exactly

James (12:08:38 PM): i would never say it, but look how active evryone got

Autumn (12:08:50 PM): except you said that you would...

Lauren L (12:08:50 PM): because u said u'd say it lol

Liz (12:08:51 PM): ....wow

Travis (12:09:17 PM): well i mean its just a word...if i locked myself in a room and shouted the nword no one would know

Travis (12:09:19 PM): and it would mean nothing

James (12:09:21 PM): i know what i said

Autumn (12:09:27 PM): i dont think it's a problem to use descriptions as long as they're not derogatory in any sense

James (12:09:27 PM): that doent mean i believe it

Travis (12:09:50 PM): its all about how each person involved takes the word

Travis (12:09:56 PM): some people might not care

Travis (12:10:05 PM): it just depends ya know

James (12:10:06 PM): exactly

James (12:10:24 PM): a word is a word

James (12:10:31 PM): connotation is different

Travis (12:10:33 PM): black actually makes more sense

James (12:10:42 PM): it does

Travis (12:10:44 PM): not many black ppl have ever been to africa

Liz (12:10:50 PM): word

Travis (12:10:50 PM): so...yeah

Lauren S (12:10:54 PM): nor are from africa

Autumn (12:10:55 PM): yepp

James (12:10:58 PM): many arent even from africa

Lauren S (12:11:01 PM): there are people from the caribbean

Lauren S (12:11:03 PM): and such

James (12:11:06 PM): yea

Lauren L (12:11:13 PM): the offiice james!

James (12:11:18 PM): i had a friend who was latin

James (12:11:21 PM): yes!

James (12:11:30 PM): and he asked us to refer to him as black

Lauren S (12:11:36 PM): yep

Lauren S (12:11:45 PM): b/c that's how the latinos deal w.it

Travis (12:11:51 PM): i mean really the only time i use the term black is when i need to describe someone to someone

James (12:11:54 PM): african-american just wasnt true

Travis (12:11:55 PM): like if they are looking for them

James (12:11:56 PM): exactly

Travis (12:12:00 PM): its nothing derrogatory

Autumn (12:12:10 PM): yeah it just is.

James (12:12:14 PM): mhmm

Travis (12:12:16 PM): but how else are you going to distinguish

Lauren S (12:12:30 PM): do you call yourself a european american?

Autumn (12:12:34 PM): "african american" is just such a mouthful..

Liz (12:12:36 PM): y do we need to distinguish?

Autumn (12:12:38 PM): nooo haha

Travis (12:12:41 PM): i mean, some people might say you dont need to distinguish, that is houldnt matter

Liz (12:12:43 PM): thought id be annyoing

Travis (12:12:44 PM): yeah

Lauren S (12:12:45 PM): then why would you say african american?

Travis (12:12:47 PM): exactly

Autumn (12:12:51 PM): exactly.

Travis (12:12:58 PM): i mean i suppose it really shouldn't matter

Liz (12:13:02 PM): i know

Liz (12:13:12 PM): its kind of troublesome thinking about it

Travis (12:13:20 PM): but its just in our nature to notice things that are different

Liz (12:13:25 PM): we are arguing on how to refer to people

Travis (12:13:36 PM): if two ppl are together youd say, "a black man and a white man"

Travis (12:13:43 PM): most likely

Lauren L (12:13:45 PM): but then, if there's a group of black kids and one white kid is ti bad to be like "oh she's the white one"? it's the same idea...

Lauren S (12:13:48 PM): there's no problem saying someone is black. the problem is when you say you hate black people

Lauren L (12:13:55 PM): yeah i agree

Travis (12:13:56 PM): yeah right

Travis (12:13:59 PM): thats it

Liz (12:14:02 PM): agreed lauiren

James (12:14:03 PM): yea

Liz (12:14:03 PM): lauren

Lauren S (12:14:12 PM): black ppl don't care if you call them black

Travis (12:14:20 PM): but i think a lot black people might think the word black equals hatred or condesending

Lauren S (12:14:38 PM): ou of all the black ppl i've ever talked to, i've never heard that

Travis (12:14:39 PM): but if you think about it it is just a word and it is just logical

Travis (12:14:45 PM): well im just saying

Travis (12:14:49 PM): perhaps

Lauren L (12:14:49 PM): unless you link "black" with some sort of negatve connotation. it all depends on the context

Liz (12:14:50 PM): but a word carries a lot f meaning

Travis (12:14:56 PM): yes they do

Autumn (12:15:16 PM): words have power, but i think using 'black' isnt wrong. the nword is.

James (12:15:17 PM): the connotation of a word is what carries meaning

Lauren S (12:15:27 PM): agreed

James (12:15:29 PM): agreed

Liz (12:15:34 PM): hahaha

Liz (12:15:41 PM): we are cute

Lauren S (12:15:46 PM): and the only way we can eliminate the negaive connotation from black is by reintegrating it into our language

Sam (12:15:51 PM): the connotation of a word can be good or bad but its up to you if you let it bother you or not

Lauren S (12:15:54 PM): and not avoiding it

James (12:16:08 PM): thats true too sam

Lauren S (12:16:26 PM): i'm lauren

Liz (12:16:30 PM): yeah but the nword bothers me

James (12:16:36 PM): i was responding to sam

Liz (12:16:40 PM): hahahaha

James (12:16:40 PM): i know oyur lauren

Lauren S (12:16:44 PM): o ok

Travis (12:16:52 PM): well yeah but it really has run its course i think the nword is a 20-30s term

James (12:17:00 PM): i agree with you too lauren

Travis (12:17:04 PM): it really has been weeded out because society says its not appropriate

Sam (12:17:05 PM): im not saying its wrong to be bothered by words its just will you let yourself be destabilized by the use of a word

James (12:17:32 PM): yes

James (12:17:43 PM): i agree with travis and sam

Ian (12:18:01 PM) has left the room.

Autumn (12:18:14 PM): it's easier to generalize groups that you're not a part of

Autumn (12:18:18 PM): yepp

Lauren L (12:18:30 PM): oy

Travis (12:18:30 PM): amen brother

Travis (12:18:43 PM): political correctness is usually dumb

Autumn (12:18:44 PM): yeah political correctness is generally pretty annoying

Sam (12:18:45 PM): yea screw political corectness

Travis (12:18:48 PM): just gotta tell it like it is

Autumn (12:18:56 PM): yeah lets revolt against it!

Travis (12:19:04 PM): way ahead of you hah

Liz (12:19:04 PM): leave it to stephan to open up a can of worms

James (12:19:04 PM): do it!

Travis (12:19:09 PM): hey liz relax

James (12:19:10 PM): yea

Travis (12:19:12 PM): don't be so uptight

Lauren S (12:19:27 PM) has left the room.

Autumn (12:20:06 PM): yeah that would be really weird..

Ashley (12:20:29 PM): that would be weird but i agree with stephan

Travis (12:20:43 PM): yeahh

Ashley (12:20:47 PM): we should just take these traits for what they are and not base any actions by it

Travis (12:20:59 PM): unless you are a republican

James (12:21:05 PM): we should celebrate our differences

Ashley (12:21:10 PM): people look different - get over it

Travis (12:21:16 PM): haha yeahhh they do

James (12:21:16 PM): yup

Liz (12:21:30 PM): ahhhhh

Autumn (12:22:07 PM): ahhhh

Ashley (12:22:29 PM): we should all watch puzzle place

Travis (12:22:34 PM): ??

Ashley (12:25:04 PM): idk

Autumn (12:25:18 PM): this whole convo's bizarre - does it really matter if the question is?

James (12:25:46 PM): haha true that

Autumn (12:26:03 PM): the list on our door!!

Ashley (12:26:03 PM): i think that if its just a visual that is perfectly fine and thats what it should be

Ashley (12:26:33 PM): but if by saying brown thinking arab and by thinking arab your thinking terrorist then its a problem

Lauren L (12:26:40 PM): ummmm. yes there has?

James (12:26:40 PM): yes

Autumn (12:27:56 PM): yeahh they do

Liz (12:28:20 PM): thats y i said wat i said

Lauren L (12:29:07 PM): wait i don't get the ups joke...

Sam (12:29:07 PM): back to what supriya was saying is the word is who you are. i wouldnt be offended if someone called me queer because well i am queer. so it has to do with visuals just as much as who you are

James (12:29:31 PM): yea

James (12:29:45 PM): lauren the joke is 'UPS What can brown do for you?'

James (12:29:50 PM): 'BROWN'

Lauren L (12:29:52 PM): ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

James (12:30:06 PM): good job

Lauren L (12:30:11 PM): shhhhhhhhhhh

James (12:30:15 PM): lol

Ashley (12:31:18 PM): wow laur

James (12:31:29 PM): yea

Lauren L (12:31:35 PM): shhhhhh

James (12:31:47 PM): we're not speaking

Autumn (12:31:57 PM): i know... oops

Autumn (12:32:12 PM): we should get on that but there are so many other people who want to talk...

James (12:32:25 PM): and theres so little time left

Autumn (12:32:32 PM): omg 3minutes

Travis (12:32:35 PM): yeah its not a big deal i dont think

Ashley (12:32:38 PM): yea, everyone has so much to say about this

Travis (12:32:40 PM): i am sooo hungry

Autumn (12:32:48 PM): i didnt realize it was that close to being done!

Travis (12:32:49 PM): just a random aside

Travis (12:32:55 PM): yeahh it went fast today

James (12:33:02 PM): yea

Travis (12:33:03 PM): did you save this?

James (12:33:06 PM): im hungry too

Travis (12:33:07 PM): i lost a bit

Lauren L (12:33:08 PM): haha thanks for sharing trav

Autumn (12:33:10 PM): i'm going to once we're done

Travis (12:33:16 PM): yeah beacuse i got kicked out in there

Travis (12:33:20 PM): so i lost a few minutes

Travis (12:33:22 PM): or stuff

Autumn (12:33:23 PM): but i dont want to miss any last minute comments

Travis (12:33:26 PM): but i have most of it if you need it

Autumn (12:33:36 PM): nope i got it but thnx

James (12:33:43 PM): yup

Travis (12:33:48 PM): alright well only one of us needs to pos ti tright?

Autumn (12:33:53 PM): yeah i'm on it

Travis (12:33:57 PM): good deal

Lauren L (12:34:16 PM): michael jackson syndrome ebecause it lets the margininalized feel closer to the center. which suckkks

Travis (12:34:21 PM): haha

Travis (12:34:23 PM): yeah

Autumn (12:34:41 PM): yeah well screw realists

Travis (12:34:46 PM): amen

Autumn (12:34:54 PM): it shouldnt have connotationslike that

James (12:34:57 PM): thats why ethnic profiling is such a problem

Travis (12:34:58 PM): stupid realists, if there were no realists everyone would be happy

Ashley (12:35:01 PM): realism is blah - i dont like it

Autumn (12:35:04 PM): make up a different word to be derogatory or something

Travis (12:35:10 PM): realism ruins everything

Ashley (12:35:10 PM): yay bffl!!

Ashley (12:35:12 PM): your right

Lauren L (12:35:12 PM): lol. realists also categorize illegal immigrants as "others" so they don't give about helping anyone

Autumn (12:35:20 PM): exactly

James (12:35:29 PM): yea

Travis (12:35:30 PM): ok peace outtt

Autumn (12:35:32 PM): byee

James (12:35:36 PM): later

Lauren L (12:35:39 PM): byee