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.