History Vs. Tickner-ing Clock

Of course it is valuable to look at the world from multiple perspectives.  Diversity is beautiful because it not only highlights the ways we are the same, but it shows the ways we are different.  Different does not always have to be bad, as it is useful to construct the "self" and  to see where lie personal priorties.  Debates and international coalitions exist as ways to faciliate helpful dialogues. 
     In the same manner, Ms. Silvero noted in her World Bank talk today that identity extends to countries.  Policies cannot be universal because countries are bound to their past experiences and their current relationships.  Thus, policy-makers must be sensitive to cultures and their inherent values.

However, the real question regards the value of alternative IR viewpoints.  Scholars such as Enloe and Tickner have shed much light on the stories of marginalized populations, and this is helpful if we need to re-consider the mainstream theories of realism, liberalism, and constructivism.  Yet, realistically, it is impossible to consider all the IR perspectives existing in the world.  They make for great reading, awesome thinking/dialogues, and notable re-analyzing of our current state of affairs, but having so many perspectives are also inefficient.  The purpose of a theory is to make sense of a disorganized world, but if we consider every thought out there, theory slowly disintegrates.

A re-writing of the history of world politics is a concept that has been explored in the micro level debate of re-writing U.S. history.  It proposes that time is not a line, but branches out in circles.  To a certain extent, I agree that history should not be solely focused on the "great white men" because every cause has an effect, every conqueror has its conquered.  Voices of the marginalized would create more depth to the "white" backbone.  Still, history can only be re-written so much.  Again, we cannot consider all groups and micro events equally because there is not enough time.  If students learned about every role of every citizen during the American Revolution, for instance, it would be a while before they learned who actually won the battle . . . and is that not the main point?

Tickner argues that that is the problem, we are running out of time to re-write history.  Yet, history has been and always will be there.  If individuals want to pursue a subject more in depth, they can do so, but for the general population, maybe a few embellishments here and there would suffice.