Reflection 15

Well it looks like this is pretty much it for the semester. This is the last blog post and i am not quite sure what to say. I did enjoy this class, no matter how many tons of reading or strenuous group projects we had to do. I guess that I wish I had maybe talked more in class, but that is something I always wish for when I am finished with a class. I know I am really quiet in class, but sitting in a room of 20 people, most of whom are more outspoken than me and seem to pull outside information into the class that I didn't even know existed, makes me severely intimidated. I really don't generally speak my mind unless I am having a conversation with a small group of people about something i know a lot about. Otherwise I just worry that i am going to get something horribly wrong and people are going to call me out on it.
But besides that, I did generally enjoy the class, and we did hit some issues I feel very strongly about, which I am sure will be quite obvious in my blog posts. I think more than anything I enjoyed having a class where everyone knows each other and can come talk to you about what you said in class later. It was slightly relieving to walk into the lounge the day before the mid term was due only to find seven people just as stressed out as me sitting in there rapidly typing on their computers. Luckily, that is not something that is going to change next semester, but it is something I think I will miss very much next year.

Reflection 14—

The simulation…would have been better if we had simply had one or two more class periods to hash out all of the different issues. The topic was extremely stimulating and interesting and I just wish that we had been able to see it through to at least some sort of conclusion. However, overall I would deem the experience to be a success given the parameters of the assignment, although it would have been beneficial if some groups had participated in the representation of their entity more thoroughly. This would have been a good stimulus for discussion and also prevented other outside groups from influencing their decisions based on outside interests rather than internal facts about their organization. Despite this minor setback, the different constituencies brought to the conference introduced a variety of interests that were on the whole well represented. This simulation was a great way to employ some of what we have learned this semester, while forcing us to once again represent a group that we might not typically side with. As a representative of McDonalds it was difficult to separate my personal thoughts from the objectives of the McDonalds Corporation. However, as a group I though McDonalds was extremely well represented, even if some views were manipulated to support what we as individuals thought was important. Overall the simulation was engaging and informative and left the class on a good note. Thanks for all the time and work Class, Erin, and PTJ.

Simulation Forecast

Tomorrow is the simulation. I am already anticipating being marginalized as the WWF. Many of the guidelines proposed are economically based and I don’t think groups are going to have the environment on their agenda at all. Although we are connecting our own purposes to the economically driven guidelines, I still feel that we are going to have to make an extra effort for our voices to be heard.

I am pleased with the way our video turned out, thanks to Rachel for taking ownership of its creation, and I am confident with the extensive research we have found. Kate was successful in finding relevant case study and her and I have combined our research on a few topics in a way that I think will make our presentation effective.   

I do expect to have to fight a little harder to keep our objectives from being pushed aside but with what we’ve prepared, I think we’ll be able to do it.

Reflection 13—

The Museum of the American Indian is inherently ironic in its formation. The dismissal of reality is an unfortunate product of our cultural and political contempt for the indigenous people of America. The government displays the mirage of honoring and representing Indian culture and history on our national mall, when it is more of a glossing over of the past and present Indian reality. We have to make the conscious choice of whether to fully acknowledge Native American history or at least do it the service of honestly ignoring it altogether. Instead of choosing one of these two truthful options, we have decided that it is better to misrepresent the Indian past by focusing on the rich and diverse cultures. This would be all well and good accept for the fact that it was these cultures that America dismantled, discounted, and disrespected. It is a futile enterprise of reconciliation to now acknowledge the cultures without also recognizing the gross misdeeds we have performed.

Reflection 14

I find it really ironic that we are reading the Todorov book this week. Of course, this week is thanksgiving, where we celebrate being together and being alive with mountains of food and time off of work and school. Of course, on the Original thanksgiving, the feast they made came from the help of the Native Americans, who taught the settlers of the Mayflower how to farm and hunt, and they celebrated the fact that the native Americans pretty much saved them from death. Then we go on to read Todorov, that offers deep insight into how the European settlers destroyed the Native American populations by killing them and giving them diseases. When I actually realized what was happening, I kind of laughed a little bit.
I thought about it a little more, and I realized how much the institution of thanksgiving in general directly correlates with constructivism. Thanksgiving is a purely American institution, where people spend hundreds of dollars traveling to family homes to spend a long weekend together, while for the rest of the world it's just another weekend. Thanksgiving gives the American public an identity completely unique to them, which distinguishes them from the rest of the world. And so thanksgiving also contributes to the theory of constructivism.

Reflection 13

I found the Native American museum this week very interesting. It was kind of funny actually, I was always really interested in Native American culture as a child, and going to the museum on Wednesday reminded me of that. I was always interested in the culture, history, and mythology of Native American tribes, and that led me to thinking about why that possibly was. Then I remembered, that at the time I was being taught about Native Americans, I was in the fourth grade, and had lived in this country for no more than two years. At this point, I did have some friends, but my transition into an American lifestyle was horrible, and, luckily*, it never became complete. I was tormented every day for the first year, my mom talked of nothing but how much she wished she were back in the UK, and I had to learn what different words meant (like eraser and pants) while getting accustomed to habits that I had been taught were impolite (like eating french fries with your fingers). Anyways, I digress. the reason this is important is because at that point in my life, I hated this country and came home from school near tears every day, just wanting to go back home with my friends and family. The only thing that was going well for me was my schoolwork. Then I learned about the Native Americans, and I discovered a part of American history that was completely different to anything I had learned up to that point. I guess it gave me a little bit of hope that not everything in this country is bad, which is lucky because when I was given the decision to go back to the UK or not in 4th grade, I decided to stay here. So it must have done something to change my views of the US. sure, I know now how much Native American culture is removed from US culture, but at the time it had an impact on me. Anyway, it was nice to feel nostalgic as I was walking through that museum.

*Just to clarify, I do not in anyway use that word to suggest I don't like the US or don't want to be an American. It is more to clarify that I love being who I am, and that is British. It is a joke I use a lot but I sometimes get myself into trouble for it, so I just had to clarify to anyone who took offense to that.

Blog 11—

Columbus is unique. His religious piety that he prized over wealth makes him a remarkable man. However, his progression from a respectful bewilderment of the Indians to an antagonistic force, bent on subjugating their culture, undeniably rests some degree of blame for the subsequent colonization on his shoulders.

Arguably any other European would have more quickly made the jump from assimilation to colonization, but the reality is that Columbus was the first European man with the ability to make that transition; which of course he did. It is clear that he delights in the natural aspects of the new world, which many other men would have viewed as secondary to wealth, but his discovery of Indian culture was altogether normal and predictable. Tzvetan Todorov asserts that Columbus possessed an extraordinary amount of pride, predisposing him to infuse irrevocable truth in the skewed observations he ascribes to the new world. This idea can be expanded to the sentiment of European superiority, so although other Europeans would have had the same enslaving colonialist doctrine as Columbus, it was Columbus who first shaped the Indian reality in that light.

Columbus began the inevitable progression from discovery to domination, and despite the fact that he went about the transformation in a slightly novel manner, he crossed that bridge. The subsequent actions of Spanish colonizers were dually part of their own subversive intentions as well as reflections of the precedent set by Columbus. With the great praise gifted to Columbus for his world altering discovery, there must also be dispensed an equally harsh degree of responsibility for the actions that his discovery initiated.

Did Columbus set off the domino effect?

Since Columbus was the one to have the first ever encounter with Native Americans, his observations and reactions obviously had greater significance than if others had interacted with the Native Americans before. But what happened after he “discovered” the Americas is more a matter of European identity. Upon seeing a different culture, Europeans developed the belief that they were superior, so even if Columbus hadn’t had those interactions, it’s very likely that another European would have. As Rowland said, it has a lot to do with Europe’s identity and reaction to “the other.” When Columbus observed the Native Americans without any indication of religion, law, language or clothing, he came to the conclusion that they were barbaric and uncivilized people.  When comparing these characteristics to his own identity, one well-established and one he had always known, it made the Europeans feel superior. If Columbus didn’t react with these observations, then it is likely that others would have, given Europe’s identity. This identity developed because of Europe’s conditions at the time. As Angelica pointed out, Europe had just come out of a period characterized by stagnant social conditions and a new atmosphere breeding new ideas and expansionist thinking was emerging. This contributed to the future conquests and colonization that occurred after Columbus discovered the Americas, so Columbus’s actions and interactions with the native population were not what set things off on a course but it was instead inevitable because of Europe’s circumstances and identity at the time.

Bonus Blog question

I am not going to lie, the first time I saw this photo I rolled my eyes a little bit. I have never much taken to "football" (remembering i'm English), and it's no offence to anyone but that is just generally the usual response I give to anything "football" related. But I digress; that is not what this blog post is supposed to be about.
In terms of which representation of Native Americans is more acceptable, I believe you could see both representations either way. Most Native American rights advocates (as well as the Native Americans themselves) would find the museum a more acceptable view of "Indians" because it showcases and represents the history and culture of various Native American tribes that generally most people don't know about and don't think about on a regular basis. They would also probably find the representations of "Indians" made by the Redskins unacceptable because in their view, it is an innacurate representation of Native Americans and possibly an ethnic slur. But at the same time, Football fans probably don't think much about the slurs behind naming a football team a Native American derogatory term, and see it simply as a representation of the sports team they love and support until the day they die. But the senario becomes different when talking about how the same football fans would view the Native American museum. In this case, the football fans take on the same view as the American public; which is that they don't know very much about Native Americans in the first place. That is not anyone's fault though, because Native American affairs simply are not prevalent in American news and culture, so they are often forgotten about. Sure, people are taught about Native Americans in elementary school, but it is not likely they still remember it far into their adulthood. So in this case, it is impossible to say wether these people view the museum as acceptable or not, because they just don't know enough to decide in the first place.

Blog Post 11

Despite everything that Columbus did to the Native Americans in Hispaniola, he did find (not discover) the America which opened a whole new set of resources and a plethora of knowledge up to the Europeans, as well as a new area of the world to expand into and eventually a little country called the United States of America. So, even though it is widely believed that Columbus did not do very many positive things in terms of finding Hispaniola, there were a few good things that came out of his voyage.

That being said, there is a lot to blame him for. He did still highly marginalize the indigenous people, bring disease from Europe and enslave the natives. He was sent to prison for the way he governed Hispaniola, and he started a trend of explorers dehumanizing the Natives in the areas they find. You could blame Columbus for a lot of things that happened to the Native Americans in Hispaniola.

At the same time, Columbus didn't influence or tell other explorers and conquistadors to treat the natives they encountered in the same way. Everything that happened to the Native Americans in the rest of the Americas was exactly the same as what happened to them in Hispaniola. So it is impossible to blame Columbus for everything that happened to the Native Americans, because it was not Columbus who told Cortez to conquer the Aztecs, or told the Continental and British armies in the American Revolution to have Native Americans fight for them and then kill them off.

Reflection: Prioritizing

I’d like to address PTJ’s question from class today about whether or not addressing climate change is something worth focusing our efforts on.  

The problem of climate change is important but addressing it doesn’t yield immediate results by any means and there are things just as important, and I will argue more important, that need immediate attention. Eradicating poverty, guaranteeing access to clean water, and providing education to all are what I believe should be top on the priority list. We cannot be concerned only with ensuring a sustainable future when we don’t even know if we’ll make it to the future.  Because we presently face numerous threats to our existence, we could potentially die off before even reaching the time when efforts addressing climate change would show results. If we don’t focus on what’s important now, like ensuring a fair distribution of resources or providing access to clean water, then our population will die of starvation and disease.  So yes, there are many issues that deserve attention, such as climate change, but since we cannot realistically or efficiently address all of them, we have to pick and choose based on which are the most pressing and which will yield most immediate results.

Reflection: The reality of what circumstances can mean

During Friday’s discussion, we got to talking about education as a right vs. a privilege and how accessible higher education is to society. When some people started saying things like, “you can get anything you want if you work for it,” and “college is possible for those who really want it,” I started to get a bit annoyed and it got to me on a personal level. I was frustrated at people’s ignorance, but at the same time I recognize that some people are just removed from certain situations and thus stems their lack of knowledge. I raised my hand to voice my opinion and concluded with something along the lines of “it all depends on circumstances.” PTJ then asked, “like what?” and at that, a flood of emotions washed over me.  Since I was not comfortable sharing personal situations, and since that was all that was going through my mind at the time, I wasn’t able to verbalize my thoughts or offer any examples as to what circumstances I was talking about.  I’d like to try again.

While victorious stories like those of Chris Gardner’s in the Pursuit of Happyness can and do happen, for many people, such a rise to success through hard work and determination is not always a reality. To echo what Katrina stated, there are countless circumstances that factor into the chance for someone to obtain a higher degree, including both social and economic factors. If, for example, the eldest child of a family acts as the caregiver for younger siblings, and the parents (or parent) cannot afford to hire someone else, then that teenager will likely be forced to forgo any college opportunity. If the mother of a family is illiterate and her daughter is the one who pays the bills, reads the mail, and sorts her mother’s prescriptions, then whether the daughter gets accepted into college or not doesn’t matter because there’s no way she can leave her mother. It doesn’t matter how much he/she may want to get a college degree and it doesn’t matter how hard he/she works to earn the chance to get a college degree, there are always going to be circumstances for some people that pose an impassable barrier.  

Reflection 12

We had a very interesting discussion in class this week about who deserves an education and what it means to attain an education. A few people brought up the point that it is possible for someone to attain higher education, and if they could not afford it, that they would find a way to pay for their education. And I could not disagree more. In this country, to go to a good university, it can cost up to $50,000 a year. To a good percentage of the population, that is more than a yearly salary. It is not possible for those people to send their children to a school like American University. Some would respond: Well what about financial aid? It is true that schools offer financial aid to students who need it, but it is simply impossible to offer full scholarships to everyone who needs them. And even at Ivy League institutions, where the average gpa of an accepted student is 4.0 and SAT scores are close to perfect, it is not possible to offer every poor child who gets those figures full financial aid, and there is not even a guarantee of getting in to that school when every single applicant to that school has a perfect gpa and perfect SAT and AP scores as well. It simply is not fair that a student with a 3.0 gpa, 1670 SAT score and no AP's can go to college because they can afford it and a student with a 4.0 GPA, 2300 SAT score and all 4's and 5's on several AP's cannot go to that same school because they cannot afford it, even with financial aid.

The University of Oxford in England costs 3,375 pounds, or approximately 5418 dollars a year to attend. The University of Tokyo in Japan costs 535,000 Yen, or approximately 6446 dollars a year to attend. Australian National University in Australia costs 8859 australian dollars, or approximately 8723 US dollars at the most to attend. It is highly unlikely that in these countries, there is a big issue with money when thinking about going to University. And in these countries, education is no joke. You have to work unbelievably hard to get into University in those countries as well. The people who are informed about the educational situation in these countries would say that the only reason it is so cheap to go to school in these countries is because the government funds education. Exactly. In most of the modernized world, the government subsidizes education, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be done in the US as well. the privatization of education does nothing but drive up the price of education, causing it to be nearly impossible for the poor to attend a very good university. A person should not have to choose what school they go to based on the amount of money they get from that school. Some of the best minds come from the working and lower classes, and they are being deprived of many opportunities because they cant afford higher education.

Reflection 12—

So as we left class about twenty minutes ago, PTJ brought up the question we will be addressing next week regarding the aim and intent of international aid, and how those should be configured. All my life I have wanted to be involved with some sort of NGO or aid organization that helps people on the ground, in the field. On a human plane this is extremely rewarding for both the anthropologist and the receiver of aid.

However…in light of some strong points in today’s discussion, it seems as if the best way to facilitate general well-being is to interact with governments rather than individual civilians. If someone builds a school in an African nation or even a school district, that affects what…10,000 people max? Instead if the government is supported and solidified fiscally, economically, and in terms of security, there is a far higher probability that the nation as a whole will experience great benefit, rather than a single community. The gap between funds and efforts that it takes to reform a government is certainly extreme, but even partial reforms will have a larger umbrella effect than educational engagement in a individual community.

This is not to discourage anthropological efforts because in terms of human relationship personal efforts are far more valuable. However, there are two levels of foreign aid that need to be addressed and the first is undeniably macro engagement. Once fundamental government responsibility is established, from there NGO projects and the kind of aid we would normally consider to be “aid” becomes more sustainable and eventually can be built upon. That is why a country like Kenya with a more stable government is far more capable of sustaining development, than a country like Chad, whose government is merely a means for leaders to steal enough from the people so that they can experience a comfortable European exile. Governmental structures are what international aid should first address.

Acknowledging perspectives

It is always important to analyze situations from different perspectives so that you can get the truest sense of what’s going on and then be able to address a situation accordingly. Especially when dealing with historical events, in which we cannot really ever say what actually happened with one hundred percent certainty, examining alternative perspectives allows us to put the pieces together and come to the most accurate story possible.  Since current world affairs are much a result of everything that’s ever happened in the past, the way in which we view history is relevant when analyzing global politics. We need to look at the past from different angles to understand how states were formed, how relationships between states were created, how culture, traditions, and beliefs of a people developed, etc. It is also important to listen to the voices of the marginalized and understand their intentions before making an assumption.

Most of the news we hear about Afghanistan, for example, revolves around the Taliban and other terrorist regimes. Yes, it is true that many Afghan boys join the Taliban, but is it because they want to? Is it because they have a desire to kill? Or could it be because of social pressures… or for a lack of any future in any other sector of the “career world”…or ignorance and lack of education? Also, there is a whole population of people living in Afghanistan outside of the Taliban, people with human needs and desires much like our own. There are also people who are willing to work with Americans for a common purpose. Do we consider these people when analyzing world politics? Or do we just focus on our national security and the threat of terrorism as if it were coming from the country as a whole? I was reading an article the other day and a quote from a shura left an impression on me:  “God does not like terrorists. Terrorism is not promoted in the Koran. They are not only the enemy of America; they are our enemy. All of us have to work together to stop them.” When we view the situation from this perspective, we realize that the Afghan people are just as determined to fight terrorism as we are. They see it as something they need to unite with America against, but do we analyze it that way? If we were to view terrorism from their perspective then we might change our “We are the almighty global police force and will win this war with military superiority” view to one grounded on understanding and cooperation. Who says we can’t have strength in numbers without military force? The Afghan people want to work with us and they need our support. Maybe if we listened to these marginalized voices we would be able to work together with them to reach a common goal.

I acknowledge that it’s hard to listen to all voices and all perspectives all the time but sometimes it’s worth putting aside the guns and weapons to listen to the civilians of a war-inflicted country. Analyzing the situation from their perspective will help eliminate mistrust and encourage cooperation.   

Addressing the root cause

So I didn’t answer the blog question about whether or not having troops in Afghanistan made me feel secure but in reading through other people’s responses I decided that there is something I want to say about our current deployment of troops in Afghanistan. While I’m not going to discuss the issue of security, I am going to explore the reasons why I don’t think we are gaining anything by having troops deployed there.  

While I do not deny that an immediate military response was necessary after 9/11 when the welfare of our nation was threatened, military presence in Afghanistan 9 years later is unnecessary and counterproductive.  

To deal with the Taliban most effectively, we need to address the root of the problem. The cause of religious extremism and distortion of the Koran is ignorance, illiteracy, and joblessness. Many teenage boys join the Taliban because there is no other job for them to do. Providing educational opportunities will address all of these issues and for the cost of an American soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, you can build 20 schools.  Most people think that education and development are impossible in areas of Afghanistan where there is a dominant presence of Taliban. That view is wrong. Greg Mortenson, along with many other humanitarians, have proven that it is quite possible to build schools even in the most insecure parts of Afghanistan. The key to the sustainability of the schools is engaging individuals and communities. Many times the schools that are built by governmental organizations are burnt down or attacked by the Taliban. This is because they are seen as alien institutions built by outsiders. Once you involve the people of the community, once they begin to feel ownership for what they are doing, then support and trust will grow and schools will be able to withstand Taliban opposition. Insurgents are less likely to oppose projects backed by  large groups of people. But in order to gain the respect of the village it is imperative that the locals are the ones directly involved in the process.  When ineffective institutions interfere with the Afghan way of life it creates a dispiriting lack of progress and locals will be reluctant to risk a relationship with foreigners. Education is possible and is the most effective way to address the current situation. This war cannot be won with superior military equipment or manpower; the root issues needs to be addressed first in order to build mutual respect and understanding. 

Military force is limited in what it can achieve, but education yields invaluable results.

Reflection 11—

So yesterday I was watching this comedy skit by John Oliver, who is Jon Stewart’s senior correspondent on “The Daily Show.” Oliver is British, so his material is mostly concerned with how ludicrous people in America are, and how ridiculous our government is. At one point in the routine he tells a story about when he was watching TV one day he saw an advertisement for an inflatable barbeque. The idea of this marvelous invention is that you can cook while you swim. Oliver pointed out that only in America would you find this toy. He talked about how the Chinese could certainly make it and for cheap, but no Chinese family could ever “pull off” an inflatable barbeque.

This joke taken lightly is hilarious, but when one really considers the fact that American companies are investing even a cent in the production of inflatable barbeques you have to be a little worried. As we go into the next couple weeks discussing poverty, the disgusting material whorishness of Americans should certainly be on our minds. This last week we talked about an income gap in America. The global income gap and rift in standard of living is far more pronounced and far direr. It may be worth exploring alternatives to inflatable barbeques in the interest of promoting some semblance of balance across the globe.

Reflection 11

Since we have been talking about Security and Insecurity all this week, I would like to take some time to point out the slightly alarming things I found when we went to the pentagon on Wednesday. First of all, I may just be over reacting, but I feel a little uncomfortable at the fact that the Pentagon has its own metro stop. Sure, it is the pentagon, and it is, to some extent, a tourist site. But it is also the center for security of the entire Nation, and I just can't help but worry how easy it would be to just run out of the subway station and cause major damage to the tourists and the guards on duty. I also found it even more alarming to learn that the escalators leading out from the subway station came right up inside the pentagon. First of all, whose smart subway planning was that? Second of all, it is unbelievably easy for a very dangerous person to walk right into the Pentagon and detonate something (this might be an exageration, but it's not completely impossible.) Last of all, what? just, what? I'm going to stop thinking about it now because I'm hoping there was some form of SUPER STATE OF THE ART security technology to prevent things like that from happening.
I also found it unbelievably ironic to find that they actually sold Pentagon shot glasses. I spent a good half hour cracking up at the idea in my head.

Security?

Having troops deployed to Afghanistan was a great way to make people feel secure back in 2001, when people were scared and they knew that the organizer of the attack was in Afghanistan. Not only did it help people feel secure, but it also had a clear purpose. Troops were sent in to help break up Al-Qaeda and find Osama Bin Laden.

But that was nine years ago, and it is questionable wether there is still as much use to the US being in Afghanistan as there was back then. The US has lost track of Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda insurgents are now being trained and sheltered in Pakistan and it is also believed that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan. If the US really wanted to make headway in the fight against Al- Qaeda they would force Pakistan, a supposed ally to the US, to give up all known Al-Qaeda leaders and insurgents in Pakistan, or at least have them do a thorough search for those leaders and insurgents. But I myself no longer see how we can make headway in Afghanistan.

Not only that, but the war in Afghanistan is the last thing on people's minds anymore. It is no longer heavily covered in the news and people are more concerned with the Economy as well as other domestic interests. The US's campaign in Afghanistan no longer effects people's sence of security because it has been going on for so long that people have simply gotten used to their current security status. No one can survive being scared for nine whole years, so everyone just goes on with their lives as normal.

Blog 9—

In terms of our perception of our own security, there is something inherently comforting about knowing that our troops are off somewhere fighting a bad guy. This is our natural reaction to foreign intervention before we logically assess the impact of waging a war in a country halfway across the globe. Another way to conceptualize the affect of the war in Afghanistan on our security is that it really has no impact. The Taliban isn’t about to invade the United States, they don’t have a stockpile of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of destroying western ideals and democracy. So why do we care?

In the Krebs article he makes the case that the War on Terror is a rhetorically formulated idea that allows the U.S. to intervene in places like Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of subverting terrorist operations that are threatening America. In reality, Afghanistan may be harboring Osama bin Laden, but how important is that to our security? Not very. Having thousands of troops deployed in the Middle East does very little to prevent a terrorist attack on the United States, and is hard pressed to have any sizable impact on stemming the growth of existing terrorist organizations.

The primary result of indefinite engagement in the Middle East is the utter waste of American capital and resources. When Mayor Giuliani spoke during parents weekend he attempted to make the point that war was stimulating to the economy. Well welcome to the 21^st century Mayor, because war no longer creates millions of jobs in weapon production because it doesn’t take 10,000 tanks to fight Al Qaeda; one might even be too many. War simply saps the strength of our nation, as illustrated beautifully in Diplomatic Risk when armies were removed for active wars. If there were any way to categorize the war in Afghanistan as it relates to our security, it would be dangerous. It is harmful to our economy, which according to our President is an integral factor to our stability and security as a nation. The former administration got us all wrapped up in warfare, which ended up threatening our sovereignty rather than strengthening it as was hopefully intended.

Reflection: Rally!

The rally on Saturday was definitely one of my most memorable college experiences thus far. Not only was it an absolutely beautiful day outside, it was so exciting to be on the National Mall with thousands of other equally excited and energetic people. Getting to the rally was part of the adventure. Elana, Dayna, and I decided not to go with the super early group but we still left campus fairly early. We got to the Metro Center stop just as the train was about to close its doors. It was packed with people, and there was already a crowd in front of us waiting for the platform. The doors closed but then opened again. After a few times of opening and closing, the conductor asked all passengers to check if an article of clothing or something else was in the way. About five minutes and a few more unsuccessful tries later, the conductor announced that the train was shut down for service. A swarm of people bolted out of the train joining the crowd on the platform as they started rushing up the stairs. At first I thought the walk would be too long but since it was such glorious weather and since we were walking with a purpose, I didn’t mind at all. (Coming back on the metro was even worse, but that’s a whole other story). 

As we drew closer I could feel the energy. We made our way towards the front, stopping to read signs and take pictures, and found a spot somewhere in the crowd. Minutes before the rally started, one brave soul decided to climb a nearby tree. He kept going further and further until the crowd’s worry stopped him. A few friends followed him up the same tree and then people started climbing up other trees around us. They probably had the best seat in the house and to be honest, they looked pretty comfortable.

It was exhilarating to be in the presence of Jon Stewart, and so many other great performers, even if we weren’t very close to them. Putting Stewart and Colbert together was bound to create a laugh and I definitely enjoyed hearing the two of them. During the rally I kept thinking about how incredibly lucky I am to be going to school in the nation’s capital which has so much to offer. Just two weeks ago I spent the day engrossed in the National Gallery of Art, followed by a trip to the National Zoo that same day. I’ve been here two months and already I’ve had so many extraordinary opportunities and rewarding experiences, more than I would in high school and more than I would have had at a college outside of a big city. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed going to the rally and am grateful for the opportunity to have done so.

Reflection 10

I want to start off by saying that I still stand by my stance that security is not all encompasing, as I said on Wednesday (or Thursday morning). But I just want to reflect a little bit on the 2010 Security strategy. One of the means of advancing US interests as stated in the National Security strategy is Prosperity, meaning economic stablility and the well being of the citizens. This week we went to the Christ house, where many homeless people with chronic sicknesses go to get well before they move on to improve their lives. This is a great establishment, and shows that there are people out there who are trying to help people contribute to US society. But at the same time, the fact that there are so many homeless people overshadows the National Security strategy's efforts to promote prosperity. Sick and homeless people can not help the country increase its prosperity, and therefore they have to be taken care of and put in homes before they can ever contribute to society. If prosperity is key to national security, you have to start out by making sure the citizens of your country can contribute to that prosperity. That is all I have to say for today.

Reflection 10—

So let me see if I can somehow relate this to security. Last night I was on the phone with my girlfriend (as usual) and she had just seen the movie “Food Inc.” Now, I haven’t seen the film, but it sounds like the basic premise of it is to say that if there isn’t reform to the food industry, bad things are going to happen. In Obama’s NSS 2010 he relates the security of America to essentially the stability and prosperity of its citizens. In “Food Inc.” one statistic says (don’t quote me on this) that in the near future, over 50% of American minorities will have contracted diabetes. Isn’t this the kind of epidemic that Obama is striving to prevent? The problem with such a sophisticated and modernized world is that there are insufficient funds and insufficient time to properly address all of the threats to our society. I’d say the prospect of millions of Americans having a potentially fatal disease is a pretty substantial threat to our way of life. Any kind of universal healthcare will be crushed if funds are consumed with just an individual problem. The domino affect of something like this is massive. Why am I not terrified…or why will I not care tomorrow? Is it because there are bigger threats to our security? Not really. It is because I can’t do anything about it. Yes the idea of “oh if one person addresses it and then another and another until everyone has changed” is quite a beautiful fantasy, that logic discounts reason. As a singular citizen I have no power beyond filling in a bubble on a scantron. Our security as a nation depends on the effectiveness of our leaders in a system designed to render them ineffective. Senator Kaufman told Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” Tuesday night that the system is fundamentally structured to crush legislation…Well that sucks. Unless some serious reorientation of the political and economic systems occur then all of these issues we are facing will become malignant and effectively screw us over, whatever that means.

Blog 8

National Security involves the measures that are taken, or should be taken, to ensure that the citizens of a country are physically safe and under a stable government. That means stopping and preventing any threats of attack or even sending troops abroad to prevent an attack on the people from happening. But to the US today, it doesn't seem like that is the way things are. The US seems to put every issue in its country as a matter of National Security.
After reading the NSC68 document, it was very clear to me what the US's security strategy was in 1950. The US wanted to subdue the threat of communism because it went against everything the US constitution stood for (under a stable government) and it wanted to try and counter any possible nuclear attack from the USSR (physically safe). That was the basic idea of this top secret security strategy, and it involved nothing but security.
The 2010 security strategy is a little bit different. Not only is it out in the open for anyone to read, which I protest to, but it is very general in terms of what it considers security. Sure, it involves actual security and military options, but for some reason the US seems to consider improving the economy, human rights abroad and education parts of national security, which I just don't agree with. Sure, I understand how educating the youth can contribute to National Security, or how improving the Economy can contribute to National Security. But I don't believe that either of these things really ARE National Security the way that defense is.

Stretching the boundaries too far

Obama’s national security speech encompassed an extremely broad range of threats to be considered in planning national security policy. He mentioned terrorism, nuclear proliferation, violent extremism, cyber warfare, climate change, global health, violations of universal human rights, and a changing global economy.

Determining what the exact boundaries to security policy are depends on how one defines security. National security means maintaining the existence of the nation state through economic, military, and political power. If something impinges on the economic, military, or political security of a nation, or impinges on the values at the core of the nation, then it is considered a threat to security.

With this in mind, something like fighting disease would not be within the boundaries of security policy. Although it does threaten the safety of citizens, it is not something that is a threat to the economic, political, or military security of a nation, nor does it pose a danger to our values. Also, disease doesn’t need to be on the radar 24/7 (except for preventative measures) but can be focused on when an outbreak occurs.  Climate change is beyond the boundary of security for similar reasons. Yes, it is dangerous in the long term and yes, preventative measures need to be taken, but with more pressing matters at hand, such as the increasing presence of terrorist organizations which pose an immediate threat, national security strategy cannot spread itself to cover every single problem or it would be sacrificing attention that is much needed elsewhere.  

I guess that administration needs to be aware of things like disease and climate change because they do pose a danger to our safety, but they should not be trying to deal with these in addition to the more urgent threats.  There are different levels of threats and terrorism, violent extremism, nuclear proliferation, and cyber warfare come first and foremost in protecting our nation.

I think that Obama’s laundry list of threats weakened his overall argument and that focusing his attention on the current critical challenges would have been more effective. Administration should be mindful of things that are dangerous to humanity in all areas, which is why it is good that Obama recognized and mentioned all of these things, but being too inclusive is going to be problematic because certain threats need more attention, even undivided attention, over the others.   

Blog 8—

Determining what the aspects of a security strategy should be or exclude, first begs a definition of security. This definition is dependant upon which theoretical school of thought one identifies with, because they range from narrow to broad interpretations of security. A realist would argue that military force is the primary component of security and probably economic superiority as well. The offensive nature of realist IR dictates that the best defense is having a bigger stick than everyone else. Conversely a liberal would concede that military power is important for security, but on a more defensive scale. The liberal doctrine would promote the idea of diplomacy as the key component of security. Strong alliances and an international presence rule liberal security thought. Constructivists would advocate for the promotion of shared values throughout the world. If the international community were to have the same basic set of moral and humanitarian standards, then the community would be far more socially cohesive, thus ensuring the security of all nations.

In President Obama’s National Security Strategy he addresses all of these scholarly viewpoints. He realistically makes the assertion that the U.S. military must adapt to a new and more versatile enemy, thus remodeling the American war machine to be better suited to wage war in the modern world. There was also a heavy focus on healing our economy to retain our hegemonic economic supremacy. The document also prescribes a massive influx of American diplomats to countries around the world, in order to promote peace and democracy. Obama also spoke about keeping the values of the U.S. strong as well as spreading them to places where people are oppressed and can barely conceive the idea of freedom.

The document addressed a large variety of topics as they relate to security, and all have an argument to support them. The only issue with the document, which is a fundamental one, is that there was no outline for how any of the goals he presented were to be achieved. This leaves us with the big question of 'will any change actually occur.'

Reflection 9

Since I put most of the action stuff in my Blog from yesterday, I think I am going to just reflect on how I felt about the Risk game in general. i had never played Risk before, and it was a really exciting experience to learn how to play in a world politics setting. I am sure it probably will have ruined the real version of Risk for me, should I ever choose to play it. On one hand, I wish it would have just kept going, but on the other, I was kind of glad to finally get it done and over with. I was happy that all of our tactics seemed to be working, but after a while I just wanted the game to end and to move on, because it just felt like no one was coming any closer to their goal, we were all just getting rid of people instead of working to win. But I guess that's how it has to work in the world of Liberalism, which I hadn't thought about yesterday. when you work with other people, things take longer to get done, and so in the end, it is just easier to go at it by yourself sometimes, from a world politics point of view. I guess that is another reason why not everyone in the world will just give in to Liberalism. But anyway, this was probably my favorite subject of the class so far, and hope we can play a game like that again in the future.

Reflection—9

More Diplomatic Risk…So this week of the game really sucked. My teammates and I (the blue team) had a perfectly devised plan to achieve our objective in the game. Since it is over now (sadly) I feel fine revealing fully our two objectives, which were to either have 15 alliances on the Diplomatic Status board or to have no wars declared on the board. At the end of Fridays class the blue team, almost single handedly, tapped into our physical and diplomatic resources to eliminate the red team from the game. We did this successfully, clearing the status board of wars. The only two neutral squares remaining were determined by the black team and us. Our secret power (as we understood it) was that we could censure any team from changing the diplomatic status board from one round of play. So…if you can follow the logic, we clearly were not going to declare war and could censure black if they attempted to declare war. No wars on the status board…game won…blue team kicks ass. Roland and I are high-fiving, Rachel and Hillary are giggling, and Kate is about to have a nervous breakdown she’s so excited. Then we were informed by PTJ that we could only use our power to freeze the board at the beginning of the round, effectively ruining our beautiful moment. Thanks a lot.

Reflection: The Black and Whites of Risk

I really enjoyed playing Diplomatic Risk in class. As diplomat for one of the class periods, I had the chance to represent our team at the World Council and strategize for what the order of play should be, I talked with other diplomats about the courses of action we wanted to take, discussed certain deals and negotiations, and predicted what other teams were planning to do. During the game, and especially when I was diplomat, I found myself recalling Machiavelli’s assertions about world politics. I don’t think it’s this way in the real world, but in the fictional realm of world politics, it was impossible to trust anyone. Even the teams who we were on good terms with were sneaky on numerous occasions. There was no true “working together” because every team wanted to win, and only one team could do so. In the real world there aren’t as many black and whites as there were in the game.  In Risk, everybody wanted to win and there were specific goals that we each had to reach in order to attain the status of victorious. In the real world success isn’t measured by a clear “win” or “loss” but in my opinion, is measured more by…how things are going…and what current relationships between states are.   Also, in the game of Risk there was a definitive end, something entirely uncharacteristic of actual world politics, for the obvious reason that life seems to continuing every day, and this makes a difference because you know how much time you have to reach a certain point.

Blog 7

Before I say anything about Risk relating to World Politics, I would just like to clarify that I had no idea we had been trying to bring the Green Team down and was only made aware by my diplomat well after hope was already lost for the Green team. Just clarifying so that I don't get as may angry glares as I already am.
In the beginning of the game, we almost exactly simulated World Politics. Every group was acting in its own interest, simulating Realism, but at the same time was making deals and alliances with other groups to help themselves acheive their goal, simulating Realism. But that as because we had all just started to play the game, and everyone had a general interest in the affairs of their respective "countries." Then, time went by and after several thousand backdoor deals and meetings took place in the dorms, teams started to band together and trust eachother to help neutralize a common threat, which at that time was the red team. This is exactly like when Russia and the US set aside their political differences in WW 2 to defeat the Nazi's, because they decided that since they had the same goal, it was better to work together to acheive it than try to take on Germany by themselves. After the Red country was gone, things started to change. several people lost interest and those who were interested became more interested. After that, people were making secret alliances left and right, while some (which I must once again clarify, had nothing to do with me) turned their back on their allies without them knowing. During the last round of Risk, the Yellow, Blue, and Black teams arranged a three way tie by completely destroying the other two nations.
During the game, the Yellow team was working very closely with the Green team to mutually acheive their goals. But later, the Yellow team (EXCLUDING ME) decided that the green and yellow teams could not win together, so they decided to find another way to win. This is exactly like when the USSR and the US's friendly relations fell apart shortly after destroying Nazi Germany, because it was immediately after the red team had been destroyed that green-yellow relations fell apart.
So overall, I believe it almost exactly simulated real world politics, except for the three way tie at the end. The ending of this game showed that Liberalism is the way the world chose to go, but in the actual world things would have never happened like that. The world's countries will never be able to trust each other enough to put their entire fate in another country's hands, for fear that they will betray them. In the real world, everyone is still scared of each other to the point that they don't quite trust anyone, which is why the three theories of International Relations are so balanced in the real world. And that is why things will never be as they were in our game of Risk.

Blog—7

Diplomatic Risk is the shit. I think PTJ should make it a game that other people can buy, because it’s just about the most stimulating board game on earth. However, to engage the actual question posed, the key element that relates Diplomatic Risk to the real world is the people behind the scenes. The Heads of State are only partially in power during DR because they are constantly being advised of the group plan, because as they are sitting isolated from the bustle of the game, they are relatively uninformed about the workings of their state. This is very unlike the real world where a Head of State would ideally have the most comprehensive grasp of state strategy and status.

The realistic component of the game which makes it so enjoyable is the off board and off World Council allegiances, bargains, and treachery. Players are constantly aligning themselves with one thread of play and revolutionizing their gameplay at the end of every turn. As things change and shift in the real world, so do the interactions between states, as they do in DR. The disease outbreak in the United States is one such incident where states act mainly out of self-interest and their viewpoints change, as they do in the real world.

However, similar to real states, each team in DR has a way to win the game or “objective” that they are constantly working to achieve. This can be equated to the core values that all nations hold and define the way a nation goes about conducting their foreign policy. DR is an effective instrument to immerse IR students in a simulation setting that exposes us to some semblance of what goes on in the international community.

Diplomatic Risk vs. the Real World

Diplomatic Risk accurately represents the complexity of a community where highly conflicting objectives exist. Some states will be against each other, maybe not because of any personal hatred or dislike, but simply because they both want (and can’t both have) the same thing. Problems also arose in Diplomatic Risk when states who wanted to help others couldn’t always do so because it might mean compromising their own goals. For example, we had a mutual alliance with the green team. They had the capacity and desire to help us, but what we wanted them to do for us would have meant a sacrifice on their part which realistically can’t be done.  

Additionally, there were far too many alliances for the real world. Blue was allied with every nation, even though some of those nations were at war with each other or not on good terms. If in the real world a state were to help a nation pursue action against another nation, they could be turning against another one of their allies.  This wouldn’t go over too well in real life world politics because you just can’t be friends with everyone, even if you’re the “peace and love” nation.

Also, there were times when I noticed a head of state making decisions without consulting members of their team. While there may be moments of pressure when time is of the essence, I don’t think it’s realistic for a head of state to take on an autocratic role and disregard all pillars of democracy. The reason we have checks on power is to prevent one sole being from making judgments based on what he thinks is best.  Diplomatic Risk portrayed a world that seemed to have five beings in control of all world affairs. It didn’t accurately represent the slew of people behind those heads of state who contribute to the decision making process.  

Reflection 8

I was really looking forward to the Salome show, as I had never been to an opera before. It made me even more excited to learn that it was in German, as I am learning the language and am very interested in it. Getting there was a different story though. First of all, I had forgotten my glasses and could not see the supertitles very well. So, from that point on, I just had to go by what little German I know, and it did not go well overall. I understood "Give me the head of Johannen" pretty well though. But that wasn't really the important part to me. What I found interesting was how such a raw and grotesque scene as Salome holding the head of Johannen was surrounded by an audience of mostly older upper class men and women, which isn't exactly the kind of audience you would expect to find watching a show like that. But even so, it is the Opera; I feel as if the very fact that they are going to the opera would entice them to go, because it has always been an upper class activity. It really shows you that a good portion of society functions upon the stereotypes with which it identify's itself with.

At any rate, I wouldn't go back. There was just a general pretentiousness to the atmosphere that didn't really sit well with me; it just made me feel uncomfortable, or like I didn't belong. And in all honesty, I didn't find the acting all that good. I found the scenes, especially the final one with Salome gripping the head of Johannen, to be unnecessarily long and drawn out. The music and singing were pretty good, I will give them that. But in all honesty I would rather go see Wicked on broadway, and I honestly feel like it would have been more entertaining generally.

Risk

There were two things I noticed in our game of Risk that I wondered how problematic they would be if it happened this way in the real world. One was a lack of communication between our head of state and diplomat and the other was the lightning speed with which changes on the global platform were occurring. Regarding the first, I felt that there were several occasions where our diplomat would find out new information, make an alliance with someone, or decide on a new plan of action and this information wouldn’t be transferred over to our head of state. There was one instance where we made a peacekeeping agreement with another group but when I went over to our head of state to see how things were progressing, he had no knowledge of the agreement and was clearly caught off guard by the sudden change. Also, it seemed like every thirty seconds there would be a whole new slew of alliances, changed aims, and different negotiations being made. It was hard to keep up with everyone else’s change of plans, let alone know what was going on with my own team’s plan. I guess the moral of the story is that head of state and diplomat must be on the same page at all times, and that maybe not major, but definitely minor changes are constantly occurring, making world politics as complex as they currently are.    

Reflection—7

All of the groups that presented in our simulation all had compelling arguments from the standpoint they were tasked to represent. The views of the Sierra Club would coincide more with my personal outlook on the issue, which made it difficult to form a compelling argument to counter their points. This is the challenge with a debate type forum where viewpoints are assigned because many times you are forced to argue a point that you don’t agree with. I would like to further explore this ability because it was difficult to form a cohesive and substantive argument from a perspective that I saw so many holes in.

Also during the rebuttal time, it would have been useful for other groups besides the one presenting, to offer a second rebuttal, making the debate more into a discussion rather than a presentation of points (although that may have defeated the purpose of having a debate). However, altogether interactions with group mates as well as people in other groups were positive and easy to do. It was great working with a group that accomplished everything in a timely manner.

Reflection 7

I was very impressed with the way the simulation went. Everyone had good arguments and critiques relative to their topics, and their videos were equally as good. I personally thought that when we were given eight minutes of time in which to do our presentations, it was going to be easy to keep our presentation under eight minutes and still prove our point. That was until I edited our groups video and it ended up being 7 minutes and 50 seconds long. We had to cut out almost half of our material in that video, which made me a little dissapointed because the video became choppy and we didn't get to express everything we wanted to in it. Then, when we had three minutes for our rebuttal, I was unable to address all the arguments I wanted to because my other group members just had enough time to be able to address all the arguments they needed to. So I believe that it would have been beneficial to have had more time to present this simulation, maybe during a lab period. I also think it would have been beneficial to have had some debate time so that we could address each argument but also develop arguments against the rebuttals. I feel like the whole process was very formal and rigid, and I feel like we would have been able to convince our president to sway to one side or the other if we had been able to debate our issues. Otherwise it turned out much better than expected, and I look forward to doing something like it again.

Reflection: Simulation

Overall I liked the simulation assignment and found it to be a valuable exercise in strengthening our skills in public speaking, critical thinking, and analyzing both sides of an issue. Our group’s video was based primarily on an appeal to pathos. While it was highly exaggerated and strayed slightly from reality (for example the fact that it is more likely for GM to outsource to China or India than Italy), our strategy was to invoke emotions in the audience that were favorable to the objective of our speech. We wanted to emphasize the hardship that would ensue for millions of Americans losing their job if the taxes on imports were eliminated.  We still addressed the facts of the case, just chose to do this in our statement and rebuttal as opposed to the video.  If we could change one thing about the exercise, I would vote for more time for rebuttal and less on the presentation because an important part of making one’s case is being able to effectively respond to what an opposing argument brings up.

Reflection—6

After discussion of marginalization in class on Friday, two basic positions arose. The first was that those on the outskirts of society do have an important impact on the public and need to be given a voice. The other was a slight clarification of this idea, acknowledging that the bottom rung is important, but only when they themselves forcefully make their voice heard. There also is a distinct difference between a marginalized people and a people being marginalized, which seemed to be overlooked in class. Suppression is a wholly different attitude than marginalization. The deliberate act of stifling a certain group’s voice in society reverts more to the idea of a dictatorship, than anything that is integral in contemporary democracy. However, to use the past United States as an example, the treatment of African Americans after the abolition of slavery is a clear policy of suppression because of it’s design to intentionally subjugate the interests of a specific group. To combat this, our current democracy has practices such as affirmative action, which have been put in place in the attempt to bring people in from the margins.

The question then arises, how much of this talk of marginalization is applicable to world politics or more specifically IR. In the case of world politics there is some impact in the sense that benevolent international powers, such as the U.S., engage in humanitarian operations to help those who are being suppressed (not those who are naturally marginalized). However, in terms of IR theory, the idea of marginalization is less tangible. Certainly there are states on the outside of power looking in, but that is because they have not established themselves as worth engaging. They impose no threat and provide little benefit to the international community. Third world nations rarely are involved as primary parties of important alliances because their international standing is focused on development more than substantial involvement.

International powers cannot be expected to cater to the desires of non-influential states, even though they sometimes do. States without a high level of international weight can only expect their opinions to be heard, not necessarily acted upon. Therefore they are inherently marginalized but certainly far from suppressed.

My exhilarating journey into one of Manhattan’s most vibrant communities

This past weekend in New York I saw a production of In The Heights with my family and discovered many parallels to some recent topics of class discussion- immigration, the American dream, and social identity. The musical focuses on a tight-knit community in Washington Heights and the hopes and dreams of three generations as they struggle to forge an identity in a neighborhood on the brink of transition. It is a community characterized by its predominantly Hispanic population and lively mix of cultural traditions.  More than any other city in America, Manhattan and New York’s other four boroughs are defined by a varied immigrant population; thirty-six percent of the city’s population is foreign born. Although the “old immigrant” neighborhoods retain some of their original character and culture, much has been subverted over time by assimilation, new immigrant groups moving in and economic change.  Many immigrants, both old and new, come to America to escape oppression- be it political, economic or religious- and to pursue the American dream.  However, their new life comes with many struggles.  Many immigrants experience a tension between the need to assimilate and the equally powerful need to preserve cultural identity, an issue we discussed in class. For the many Hispanic communities in New York City, cultural identity resides, more than anywhere else, in their language. It is a crucial link to the past, and more importantly, a means of preserving their culture for future generations. This brings us back to the debate over whether or not immigrants should be forced to speak English in America. When we encourage assimilation, do we mean obliteration of cultural identity? Though it is important to learn English to prosper in America, In the Heights demonstrates the beauty of holding onto traditions while, at the same time, embracing an additional identity. The multi-cultural identity of immigrants with a strong attachment to cultural roots is what makes the diverse and unique America we have today, an aspect of our country I greatly value.  

Incompatible Perspectives

There’s nothing we can do about the incompatibility between perspectives. Conflicting viewpoints are inevitable and unavoidable. There can’t be a “right” and “wrong” with respect to IR theories because every theory has its strengths and every theory has its weaknesses. Realism focuses on the defense of a nation backed by pessimistic reasoning. Is it an accurate statement then that no one is trustworthy, or that self-interest is always at the heart of every state’s actions? While there may certainly be times to be particularly cautious of other states’ intentions, this does not apply for every situation. Also, where do human rights fit in to the realist perspective? They seem to be left out…Does this make realism wrong or just ill-equipped to deal with issues regarding human rights? There are always exceptions to ways of addressing issues and to ways of thinking about issues. There can never be a set way to deal with everything because the variables of any given situation are never constant. So, we can’t choose one theory to live by and deem it “the best.” All theories focus on different aspects of the international system – security and power, global cooperation, and social change and intersubjectivity – all of which need to be applied at the appropriate times.

Often states do not act in a “pure” liberal/realist/constructivist fashion but rather adapt their theories to meet the needs of the situation at hand. For example, many argue that the United States acted outside liberal fashion in their quick decision to send troops overseas after 9/11. It doesn’t mean that liberalism suddenly became the wrong way to address a problem. Instead it demonstrates how certain conditions call for certain actions and in said circumstance, the United States had reason to act in a manner some may call "uncharacteristic."

Blog 6—

Just as World Politics is composed of different IR theories attempting to explain how international politics works, or how it should work, so too do these theories attempt to explain an international institution like Bretton Woods. Looking at IR as a whole, it is clear that not every state or individual with tangible influence in the system is in agreement with what philosophy is the best, and therefore each practices a different flavor of theory. The same could be true about how the different theories interact with international institutions. Is it possible that the three different premises could work harmoniously to achieve a general positive outcome? Or when the three IR theories are combined are their diversions simply too sharp to reconcile?

There is proof that they are in some way compatible because few, if any, of the current international institutions are homogenous in their IR views. Separate states enter with undeniably separate identities and many times unique goals and intentions, creating a sort of melting pot of IR thought. In these situations what ends up happening is that there is a majority or general consensus on how the institution is going to be run. The theory the institution operates under is not necessarily strictly one philosophy or another, but it is the ideology best fit for the organization; or at least that is the intention. In order for a state to enter into an international institution and experience any level of success, they are forced to concede some part of their views because these organizations are inherently based on cooperation and frequent compromise. A Hobbesian realist would be hard put to adhere to these standards of institutional involvement, which is one of the reasons why realists have an expressed disdain for these organizations.

Entering into an international institution like Bretton Woods brings radical realists or liberals back from the fringes of IR thought, into a situation that is more conducive to cooperation. Bretton Woods has a more liberal feel to the organization because it has a focus in installing a fair monetary measure for all states involved. However, there is also the realist aspect of states being interested in achieving the best value for their currency. Each institution is a conglomerate of ideas because if it were simply one theory it wouldn’t be a whole. There are gaps in realist, liberal, and constructivist thinking, and international institutions use each to subsidize the shortcomings of the others.

Reflection: America's Image

Seeing the promotional videos of America made me reflect upon the image we, as Americans, present of our country and the way in which it is perceived by outsiders. One of the welcome videos depicted America as the land of the green rolling hills where food is plenty and happiness is known to all. But really, how realistic is this? As Kate pointed out, campaigns deliberately show the best aspects of a given focus and intentionally avoid others…this is expected; it’s just how it works. But then who decided that what was portrayed in the video are the best aspects of America? I think a large part of American life was left out is the freedoms that encourage self expression and creativity.  If our country prides itself on its melting pot of diverse ethnicities, races, and religions, and on the uniqueness of individuals, then why weren’t these pieces present in the video? The only suggestions of diversity consisted of separate snapshots of different races and ethnicities. I don’t recall any reference to the arts and if there was one then it wasn’t memorable. Even a scene of New Orleans would have been testament to the rich culture of music and expression of originality present in the states. Also, I can understand the exclusion of religious elements or references to sexuality in a promotional video, because both are sensitive areas, but what about the handicapped?  Does our video welcome the disabled? Overall I think the video displayed a very bland, homogenized group of people that all seemed pretty superficial to me.

Reflection 5

I do believe reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is a controversial and important topic. I have discussed this in classes in the past, and it seems to me like most people have the same opinion in that it doesn't seem to be a big issue. The reason I think it is is that from the time children are 4 or 5 years old, they are taught the words of the pledge of allegiance and are told that they have to say it every day. The idea that children have to pledge their allegiance to a country is frankly, in my opinion frightening. It is almost as if by not pledging allegiance to the country, they might grow up to not be proud of the country, or believe that a different form of government is suitable. When I started elementary school in New York in 3rd grade after just moving there from England, what the pledge of allegiance actually meant never occurred to me. it wasn't until 9th grade that I realized what I was actually saying when I recited the pledge of allegiance, and also that I was pledging allegiance to a country that wasn't my country. So I stopped saying the pledge. Every day, for a year and a half, I was bullied because I didn't say the pledge of allegiance. Two guys who were in my homeroom would shout at me to say the pledge every day and call attention to it. People would stop me in the hallway to ask me why I didn't say the pledge every morning. In the end, I was forced to say the pledge every day because it became a huge problem. I was being bullied for not participating in something which was not relevant to me. I do not have a problem with the action of reciting the pledge; I have a problem with being forced to recite it like I was.

I also was very surprised by the "This is Alabama, we speak English" ad. To a certain extent, I did believe there were still people in this country who were anti-immigration and to some extent, prejudiced against foreigners, but I didn't realize that an ad like this could represent a significant amount of people.

Reflection 5—

The pledge of allegiance has garnered a bad reputation; it has become an enormously controversial institution in the United States. The fact of the matter is that it is not that controversial and not that important. There is the “under God” portion of the pledge, which is understandably divisive, but how much does that actually matter? If you don’t believe in God then don’t say “under God.” The pledge of allegiance by its nature is a personal pledge to your country, and if you don’t think that your country is omnisciently governed then omit that part; the words still flow quite nicely. The day that your government starts installing camera’s in every elementary school to see if each child is mouthing the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, is the day where you can be upset about it.

However, the crux of the dilemma with the pledge is that if people are upset with their government they refuse to say it. Where are the words “congress, president, government, vice president, cabinet, governor,” or any other word relating to contemporary government officials in the pledge? Hint: there aren’t any, so stop complaining about the pledge because you have a problem with George Bush or think a democratic majority in congress “sucks.” If every morning in your first period in high school you’re exhausted from staying up until 2am the night before playing Modern Warfare 2 and you don’t feel like standing up because you’re having trouble keeping your eyes open, then by all means stay seated. But if you stay in your seat as a pitiful act of ignorant protest against a pledge that promotes the ideals of “liberty and justice for all,” then maybe you should move to Canada.

Blog post 5

About the question of wether there are things states can and can't do based on social norms and expectations, Of course their are certain things states cannot do. Every state is subject to the judgements of other states, and not to mention international law, on every action they take at both an international and domestic level. If a state believes that another state is doing wrong by another state, or by it's people, it has been common in the past for that state to intervene when the situation proved to be unresolvable in any other way.

One good example is with genocide. Starting with the Nazi genocide on Jews, Homosexuals, and other minorities during world war II, there have been several other genocides in the past sixty years. Genocide is such an international outrage because the state itself, rather than protecting it's people, is killing off the people it deems undesirable. Even so, Genocide is a really tricky issue. It is really tricky to tell if Genocide is actually going on. One example is the controversial Turkish-Armenian genocide. According to Armenians, the Turks commited genocide against them in the World War 1 period. It is believed that there were 25 concentration camps, and that the death toll was somewhere near 1.5 million. Armenians are constantly fighting to have the genocide recognized by other countries. But the Turks insist that a Genocide never took place, there is nothing in the governmental archives about it, and in fact even accusing Turkey of genocide is against the law in Turkey. So when hearing two very different stories from both sides, it is very hard to tell wether or not something actually happened, thus making Genocide a really tricky topic.

Another issue, which seems to give everyone the chills when it comes up, is the production of Nuclear Weapons. The Cold War left the world forever fearful of the power of Nuclear weapons, after the Cuban missile crisis had everyone fearing for the end of the world. And according to the Center for Defence Information (http://www.cdi.org/) the US alone could possibly have enough Nuclear weapons to destroy the world, and they have since reduced their Nuclear Arsenal greatly. So it is natural that when you hear of another country developing a Nuclear Weapon, for example the current situation with North Korea, The rest of the world goes crazy over it. Right now even the US is highly concerned with the possibility of North Korea developing a Nuclear weapon, and are intervening to try to put an end to it. This has also happened with Iraq and Iran in the past; President George W. Bush was even suspected of falsely giving information of WMD's in Iraq to convince the Senate to invade. The development of nuclear weapons is almost prohibited on the world stage.

State Actions and Social Standards

With regards to the international system, there are most definitely actions that states should not take because they would be deemed unacceptable by social standards.

States should not attack or declare war on countries without reason. If one state were to invade another state and steal resources or kill their people without any justification, this would be unacceptable among social norms. Our social norms and expectations are based on morals and ethics; we expect states to act with honesty and integrity, to be fair and act rationally, and to work diplomatically with one another.    

In addition, states should not violate human rights. Violations would include genocide, torture, slavery, and rape, among other things. Certain basic rights apply universally and social expectations say that human rights must be upheld by justice, tolerance, and human dignity.

Blog 5—

On the international playground there are certain things that you just don’t do. You don’t throw woodchips at a girl, you don’t push you’re friend off the slide, you don’t hang on the monkey bars so long that nobody else gets a turn. Constructivists are correct in their assertion that there are certain unalienable social norms, inherent to the theatre of International Relations. These norms simply are more developed than what we consider to be social norms today. Instead of covering your mouth when you cough, there is International Law. Instead of holding the door open for people, there is the idea of War Crimes. When these generally accepted rules are broken, instead of awkward laugher, there are sanctions, indictments, and sometimes wars. The idea of humanitarianism is a widely recognized ideal throughout the world; it is something that states are expected to adhere to. However, just like social norms, international norms are not followed by everyone, but there is a strong incentive for states to follow them because, lets face it, nobody wants to be the guy who sneezes in his girlfriends face.

The reality of social norms can hardly be taken in a realist perspective as an agent of self-interest or furtherance of power. By the nature of a social norm, it is something that is restrictive. Norms or rules disallow or discourage people and states to act in their natural ways. A state has an instinctive drive to both expand and protect itself, and many times these social norms prevent states from becoming aggressive and taking measures to ensure their safety. For example, England or France do not set up military bases all over the U.S. because they are our ally, and it is a indisputable norm to trust your friends. Those European countries would certainly benefit both offensively and defensively by having bases in America, but their presence is limited because distrusting an ally could be considered “bad form.” International Law is not necessarily arbitrated throughout the world in as severe of a way as a set of laws would generally be adhered to, and that is because it is based on a general acceptance of what is right and wrong throughout the international community.

These norms are a function of our human commonality and serve an important purpose in the preservation of world order. Norms are constantly subject to change depending on the circumstances and hen these norms are violated there can be consequences. When penalties are imposed they redefine the limits and boundaries of what is acceptable in IR.

Reflection 4- In the comparison between realism and liberalism that we have been exploring in the last two weeks, I have found myself conflicted by the rationality of both arguments, however, there is one commonality that both theories recognize which is indicative as to which theory is superior. The assertion by realists that the primary obligation of a state, in terms of international relations, is to uphold their sovereignty or survival is undeniably true. Liberalists attempt to refute this, but the immutable certainty is that if a state has no power or any other aspects of sovereignty within their borders, they cease to be a state and all other parts of IR are essentially moot. However, in the realist haste to “over-preserve” the state, and their preoccupation with the balance of power, they overlook some key characteristics of a state that make autonomy worthwhile. By interacting with other nations as hostile entities, simply bargaining for economic and military dominance, realists lose sight of the rationality behind having a co-dependant relationship. Realists completely discount the idea of trade as mutually beneficial and instead depend on the idea of comparative trade benefits. Liberals are of the mind that trade that stimulates two states’ economies doesn’t only benefit the internal workings of each state, but also works to foster a positive reliance between the two that is conducive to peace. Each theory has some of the greater picture of IR, but when they are put together, a more sophisticated and complete philosophy begins to emerge.

However, because America is all about being on one side or the other, there is a clear victor in the debate of Realism vs. Liberalism. The Prisoner’s Dilemma Model demonstrates this. The fact that if two states both practice realism they end up as a 3,3 which is not beneficial for either, that indicates that it is the lesser theory. With Liberalism, the two states would land on 2,2 which is the best option possible if you take both of the states’ bests interests into consideration. Therefore liberalism is the stronger of the two IR theories that we have addressed thus far.