My Last Reflection

so..all good things come to an end and this is no different. People always say that so I thought I'd use it too :) I enjoyed world politics class. I enjoyed the fact that everyone had different views, yet were not blind to the valid points other people made. Being in the class helped me figure out how I actually felt about certain issues, like education, the definition of poverty, development, sovereignty, identity ect. I did not come into the class knowing alot about realism, liberalism, or constructivism. I did not look at cnn or read a newspaper everyday. I could not and still can't spout quotes about history. I do feel that I have narrowed down a few things that I am interested in pursuing further. World Politics was a starting point giving me the basis to look further into the global world from my own point of view, in my own way. I still don't know what I want to do but, I'm learning what I like and what I don't like. Which means I am moving in the right direction. Thank You to PTJ and Erin and others in my class teaching a little something something about world politics :) I may have learned what I don't like, but I know I still want to do international studies.

to an anonymous Mayan woman devoured by dogs

This dedication sparked in me the same feeling I felt when I read Lucille Clifton's poem:

"at the cemetery, walnut grove plantation, south carolina, 1989"

among the rocks

at walnut grove

your silence drumming

in my bones,

tell me your names

nobody mentioned slaves

and yet the curious tools

shine with your finger prints.

nobody mentioned slaves

but somebody did this work

who had no guide, no stone,

who moulders under rock.

tell me your names,

tell me your bashful names

and I will testify

the inventory lists ten slaves

but only men were recognized.

among the rocks

at walnut grove

some of those honored dead

were dark

some of these dark

were slaves

some of these slaves

were women

some of them did this

honored work.

tell me your names

foremothers, brothers,

tell me your dishonored names.

here lies

here lies

here lies

here lies

hear

Lucille writes to honor the slaves that were not mentioned on her tour of the walnut Grove Plantation. She writes and though she does not enumerate their hardships, she tells their story. They have been forgotten and overlooked. They did not matter in history to the person giving the tour. They did not matter enough to be named, and women did not count at all. my favorite part of the poem is the the repetition of here lies and the word play she introduces in the end with the word hear, as if to say to the reader, hear the lies they have been telling. In a way I feel that Todorov's dedication is a way to honor those who can not tell their story anymore. Those who no longer have names. The people who died at the hand of the Spanish who came and conquered them.

Protecting Difference

I do not agree with the idea that Sovereignty protects difference. In a way, sovereignty is an avenue in which difference is exploited and turned into something that is wrong. Sovereignty allows a state or a certain group of people to govern themselves and make their own decisions. It also more clearly establishes the '' them". Different States have different cultures, different rules, and have the right to do so. With sovereignty, there is a certain identity, and nationalist feeling associated. We have become Americans, French, Iranian, not just people anymore. there is nothing wrong with loving where you come from, but there is a problem with thinking that every state that decides to act differently is wrong. The girl in the novel basically suggests that the only way for the space people to best survive is to grant them sovereignty. Without it, they are apart of The united States or whatever other country. that means that if something happens to the people in space, it is the equivalent of something happening in any one of the fifty states today. Yes, they are different phenotypically, but as pointed out in the question, they are genetically the same. human beings. With individual states, we seem to forget that often. Although they may live differently, they are still like "us", they are human beings. When we separate ourselves, it makes it easier for the 'us" and "them" situations that arise when referring to other countries, and different groups of people. People might feel more justified in their belief that they are better, or that other groups of people lack civilization. When thinking of the answer to this question I thought of what we read in Todorov's book. The Europeans came to the America's with no idea of the systems that the native Americans had in place as far as culture and social structures. The difference, for some, inspired the idea that there was no structure present at all, no civilization. Others thought that the system was wrong and inferior and needed to be changed to their own. This mentality is still around today, even more so. America is constantly taking the view that they need to save groups from "oppressive'' systems. The more different the system , the more oppressive it is viewed. Even though sovereign states have a right to govern themselves, other sovereign bodies feel the need to change the systems(I'm not saying human rights violations should not be dealt with though). It almost makes people feel that they have a duty to change everyone else instead of accepting the differences and moving on. When certain ideologies become popular, the sovereign states that do not practice that ideology feel a need to protect their sovereignty, they feel threatened and wish to try to get rid of that which is different. We see it in history between the U.S and Democracy and Communism. The bottom line is, people are more likely to accept difference in their own country and try to protect it more than in another country. (I think I make a little sense)

Thanksgiving

I spent a lot of time over break thinking about Thanksgiving and the lies that were told to the elementary and middle school students. What does your average student in highschool really know about Native Americans? It made me think hard about how we actually view native americans today. One of my friends said that she felt that she almost forgot that there were native americans still in America. I know stupid right, but it made me wonder, is it really her fault or is it socities fault. Is it because history books in school don't really get into native american culture in modern day times. It's almost like they are a forgotten group of people, glossed over in the things we learned in class but such an important part of history. when I went to the museum of the american indian, I felt that something was missing. Unlike some of my peers, I felt that the museum was more like an art museum. I felt like it was something generic to it. I took into great consideration, the fact that the museum is remembered most for the food court and not the displays themselves. All I took away was that they have great tamale and fish. It surely was not a holocaust museum, even though many Native Americans were killed in early America.

Has everything REALLy changed?

In class we talked about Columbus and hos view of the indigenous people. he saw them as something other than human. He saw them as a group that needed to be given civilization and religion, savages. As 21st century people, we like to think that we would not respond like Columbus. If a person from the United States found an unknown Island with people who were totally different than any known society, what would we do? Some people say that they would just do research on these people and the Island. I disagree. Just look at how we treat people in other countries now, when they have different beliefs. We think that they need saving, they need to be brought democracy, freedom of religion, liberation. Would we not think the same of people, who have not existed in the world in any of the ways we are familiar with? I don't have much to say but would ask us to really look into ourselves and ask, is everything so completely different than 1462? We speculate, we justify, we assume. When we all die, I'm pretty sure college students will sit around and talk about these aspects of our society just like we can easily find the error in the previous era. hindsight is 20 20 and we all know that people like to think their ish don't stank, but if you lean a little bit closer, they will find out otherwise.

which is more acceptable

Personally, I believe that neither of these are acceptable ways to represent the Native American people. Throughout the entire museum, I felt like everything was presented in a way to erase the devastation. The focus really wasn't on the history. I felt that the exhibits were more, "look at our pretty clothes and jewelry" and didn't really focus on the fact that many were massacred for their land, forced off. There was something lacking in the presentation. Unlike in the Holocaust museum, I was not moved by the tragic events, and I believe it due to the fact because that was not the focus. And then I realized after the fact that the name of the museum is "The National Museum of the American Indian." Columbus made a mistake in thinking this was India, and still they bear that name to identify them, "Indians".

The Red Skins, do I even need to say anymore. This is a stereotypical representation of the Native people. In cartoons, they are always people with red skin and a feather in their hair, prime example is peter pan. Then the fact that there is a Native American representing such an American pass time. Then it actually made me think., do any Native Americans play football? I just think there is something wrong with the ways in which these people are represented in our culture.

What if it was me?

In class I was surprised that people would argue that everyone does NOT have a right to food. Survival of the fittest some people claimed. I feel that response is rash and harsh. Only the strongest should survive they claim, but what if it was you? People don't have a choice about what family they are born into. People can't always control circumstances. One day you have a job, you get in an accident and have to be hospitalized, you can't work so you can't pay your bills and you lose your house and end up on the street. What if you've been laid off from your job, you look all around town for jobs but none are available. Should these people not eat? People are so quick to say everyone does not have a right to food until they are put into a situation where they, themselves can not eat and people deny them the ability to get food. I bet they'd change their minds then. But why does it have to be like that? Why can't people just think, What if it was me all the time. What if it was me starving? What if it was me who had to work for a wage I could not raise a family on? Because if it was you wouldn't you want someone to care. Wouldn't you want someone to implement policies to help you get back on your feet? Wouldn't you want someone to say that you have a right to food just as much as you have a right to life? Alot of people say that emotions should have nothing to do with government leadership and global order. I disagree. I feek that if you can see yourself in the people you create policies for, you will be able to help those who need it.

HIStory can be different than HERstory..but you need both to know the truth

I feel that this question can be put like this, "Is there a point in hearing both sides of an argument before determining what is really going on?" I find it strange that we just listen to one account of history, but when two people get in an argument, we often say "Let me hear her side of story." What Sally tells you about Ann can be totally different than what Ann tells you about Sally. Only when you put these two accounts together, are you even capable of having the truth. I don't think that anyone is capable of total objectivity. We are Human, not robotrons, as a result, how we feel, perceive things, rank things by importance to us, the histories we account reflect that. Look at the issue of the Britain and the American Revolution. Do you think that it's written the same way in American textbooks as British textbooks? Just think about the perceptions of the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are not the same as what we may see them. It is important to look at both views. We cannot be content with half the story albeit history or present. If we do not seek out alternative stories, we will never know the full truth on how things came to be seen today. Then if we take into account, like J. Tickner states, the histories have been written by men of influence. What about the people who were not in a position to tell their stories, the marginalized populations of the world, do their stories not count? Without alternative foundational stories, part of the truth is missing. Thus, the value in analyzing world politics from different perspectives is the ability to see the world clearer.

wealth in America

In class Erin asked in what way do we see the issue of the great economic disparity in this country, more like that of car crashes or the way we see terrorist attacks. I really think that people see it in the way one sees a car crashes. People detach themselves from the situation and they blame others. "Oh they didn't work hard enough" or "All they have to do is pull themselves up by their own boot straps." Well, what happens if there is no work for them? What happens if they don't have boots at all. For me this is a touchy topic. I am not upper class, I am not middle class, I come from a single parent household. I live in inner city. I went to public schools in a school system that is failing children. I also had the opportunities that many students like me do not get the chance to recieve. I went to a school that, basically helped to nurture my raw ability, gave me the opportunity to do research with NASA, Intern with the ACLU ect. But I go home and I see people with more potential than me amounting to nothing and I assure it is not always because they did not work hard enough. It is because some people don't get the chance to better themselves, they do not get the opportunity to work. There are very few chances they get to do better than their parents, what we know to be called "Social Mobility" I think that the economic gap is a problem for national security. The current system is breading generations of people who can not climb out of a hole that they did not even digg for themselves. A child can be smart and have great potential, but if that child is forced to read outdated books, in a classroom with 37 children, on an empty stomach, in a neighborhood that is not entirely safe. It is scientifically proven they can not succeed( Maslows Hierarchy of Needs). The system of capitalism is not the fatal flaw, in my opinion. I feel that there are systematic social constructions and things that take place in society that create an inequility of opportunities. America is falling behind in technology, competition abroad, and in education in general. Can people say that it has nothing to do with the economic state today. There are potential scientists, doctors, economist ect, hidden among the lower classes, but they will not get the opportunity to do so because they are not afforded the tools to turn potential into substance and reality.

Do I Feel Secure?

I don’t’ think that the troops in Afghanistan make me more secure. The troops in Afghanistan are there in order to do what? In the words of Kat Williams, “Terror can’t keep a home address.” There is no way of completely knowing who, what, when, where, and how in relation to the institution of terrorism. We discussed in class that terror organizations don’t have front offices; they are covert organizations that span multiple countries. Troops being in Afghanistan are not changing the fact that these terrorists can just go somewhere else and are in many other places. But for some reason, even though I know that nothing can be fully accounted for, I still feel secure. I feel that my security doesn't mean that I don’t fear what might happen; it’s just that my fears are not presented in reality everyday. People are not getting blown up everyday in America. I don’t think I can just chalk it up to the troops being in Afghanistan. It’s more of I know something “could” happen vs. what “will” happen. I know there could be an attack tomorrow, but I also know that it’s not likely that that will happen. This comes more from my day-to-day experiences and American History in general.

Speaking of fear, people in class just looked at it in this negative way. They neglected to realize that some degree of fear could save your life. That’s on of the reasons we were given this emotion. When one has a reasonable amount of fear, it allows them to take precaution. It allows you to be ready, just in case you need to fight or run. There are some things that people should fear, if not the absence of fear could be detrimental. To not fear a lion you come across on a path could mean the potential of thinking it will do you no harm, you won’t be ready to do what you can to survive. Further more I don’t think fear means a feeling of less security. It means accepting reality when you have a rational need for fear. If we did not fear terror our security would not be adequate and more attacks would happen.

The situation in Afghanistan doesn't erase my fear. It does not make me feel safer than I was before. I just recognize that it is irrational to disrupt my life for something that only “could” happen. I fear the unknown like most, but I won’t let that keep me in for the rest of my life. Security is reality staying in the could happens and not the will happens.

Mashallah...I was pleasantly surprised to find kindess

My Halloween night was anything but pleasant. That is until I got into the cab to come back to the dorm from U street. The only thing that turned my night around was the amazingly, genuinely kind cab driver Omar. Now that I think about it, I think it was fate that I went out, missed the metro, froze my but off waiting as all the other cabs were full, realized that my group of friends only had $15 between us and the ride would cost us at least $20, and somehow ended up in Omar cab. When we told him all we had was $15 dollars he looked at us and said, " If that is all you have, then that is what I will take." I was amazed, I was ready to take off my shoes and begin walking back to campus, or calling public safety for a safe ride home, but that was not necessary. Most of the ride was silent, except for Omar's conversation in Arabic.

During the ride I found out that Omar actually had a degree in Arabic and Islamic studies. When i found this out I was even more shocked. "Why was he driving a cab when he had a degree?" This made me start to think. This is not the first situation in which I've heard of people from other countries coming to America, and being subjected to working in jobs beneath their education level. My old AP US history teacher told me that the woman who bagged his groceries studied medicine. Why does this happen to highly intelligent, and qualified people. More importantly, how are these people able to be positive and even kind when in their own lives, people have not treated them the same way. I know, what does this have to do with world politics? Well, it is helping me construct my views of society today. This experience has helped my position, that there is hope, kindness, fairness still out there. That I don't have to suspect horrible things will happen all the time. But if they do, there is still those things that remind me of the goodness in humanity. If your still wondering, look at the constant state of cynicism, and the lack of optimism in many people's view of the world and how things work. Further, why are people surprised by kindness nowadays?

Uhhh

I really don't have much to say about this week. We played risk again and that was okay I guess. A lot of people REALLY got into the game. Maybe a little too much, but its over now. I had fun, but I'm happy that it's over at the same time. I did learn somethings though. For the most part I found that I was not really big on realism. However, other people in the game were heavy on the realist side of IR and I found that I was beginning to take that view just to protect myself. That just makes me think that the IR theory needed to be successful is not set in stone. These things probably change depending on how others act on the world stage. If all other states are realists a state that is more constructivist might not be able to thrive. I really am curious. If we wanted the world to follow one main theory, should we just have more of it, and pressure the others into joining. Would it work like peer pressure works. "This is the cool thing to do." or " Look everyone else is doing it." Or do these views just arise from necessity. " We have to think this way because everyone else is"

Risk and the Real World

In the game of risks, each team has a goal that they must accomplish to win. With this goal comes a lot of strategic actions in order to further your ambitions whether it be world peace or world domination. In this aspect, risk is a lot like the international world. Every state has its own goals and it acts to make strides in gaining that goal. There is also a lot of double crossing and rescinding statements of allegiance, withholding and fabricating information in order to win. I think this also stays true to the world of world politics. Just because a head of state says something, it doesn't mean that he/ she will do it. Just because one country extends an alliance to another, it doesn't mean that the other country has to accept. With the game of risks, there are some rules on how things HAVE to happen. In the real world, these could be seen as socially constructed norms that exists in the international system. It was a given, if you wanted to go to war with another team you had to be follow the rules of the game. Although forced upon us, they began to be seen as simply "how it is" and no one questioned, this rule or the rules pertaining to order of play etc. With this being said somethings were not realistic like the random zombie plaque that wouldn't stop spreading unless each team gave two armies. I don't think that is really likely to stop the spreading of a disease. Another thing that was not realistic was the secret weapon that each team has. In the real world, the secret weapons are not limited to single states. The ability to go to war with any state even if they are your allies is not a singular power nor is guerrilla warfare. In the game, we are able to see the different IR theories being implemented by each group and their diplomats, some have a large realist stance at times with their trust no team attitude, others display liberal ideals with their questions of, how can this benefit me and how can we mutually gain from this deal. And every team was given an identity when they were given their sheet of paper listing their goals and ambitions. All in all I feel this is really helping us to really see how IR theory is used and how the international system works on a finite level in our classroom.

The Opera and The Game of Risk

I thoroughly enjoyed this past week. I did two things that I had never done, playing risk and going to an opera. I honestly feel that last weeks class playing risk was the best class I had in World Politics. The class finally put things into perspective in terms of REAL international relations. I was the diplomat for my team, so i got to see first hand how states might interact. I got to experience a situation in a realist point of view. Every team had their own interests that they were trying to further, in the game in order to win. This whole situation cause us to suspect other teams of world domination, begin to unite in order to protect ourselves, and secure a win. It was a state of anarchy because no one really knew whether what the teams true intentions were. We did not know whether to trust that the red team really only want X and the black team really only wanted Y. Then Professor Jackson introduced things into the game like the man eating virus that would continue to spread if all five teams didn't donate two armies. I started to think, "For the good of humanity or the ability to protect my interests?" I still don't know what to do and it is only a board game. It is really a person's job to make that decision.

As for the Opera, I was really excited to have that Prince. I am really thankful to the UC program for giving students the opportunity to experience culture they might not have before. Unfortunately, Salome wasn't my favorite. I don't think I hate opera as an art form. I just think that maybe I should go see something else. My fatigue could have played a part in my likeness of the opera, but I will not know until I go again. All in all this was a busy week full of new and exciting things. I look forward to having more.

This Week Was...

This past week was very enjoyable....when it ended. Working on the project with my group was amazing. I got to talk to people I usually don't talk to, and I got to know some of my classmates better. I felt that my group worked together exceptionally well. Whenever people had conflicts we found a way to work around them. I still was sort of stressed out about the presentation, the control freak that I am. I always obsess over what to say, and the fact that I was in the rebuttle section prevented me from knowing exactly what I would be saying. I was more than relieved when the projects were over. I feel like I did okay.

Also during that week I went to a meeting about the genocide in Darfur. The man who talked to us had been on the Sudan Freedom walk. The walk started from outside the UN in NewYork and Ended at the Whitehouse. The man, whose name is alluding me, was given to another family as a slave. When people think of slavery, they think of it as a figment of the past. He let us know that right now the ethnic tribes in Sudan were being enslaved. Another man's entire family was killed. It really hurt my heart to hear these things. All the people who spokeand walked told us that they did so inorder to inspire change. They did so inorder to show action when many other individuals were JUST talking. This session put the world in perspective for me. I am free todday but others are not. I am alive and have a family, but others do not. I have a government that protects me, not one that advocates and supports the killing of my people. I am greatful, but I feel sort of guilty. How many people really know what is going on in the world, in places like Sudan. What are people doing to help? Do people even care?

soo..aparently I am a marganilized individual in world politics class

I didn't identify myself as a person without a voice in class. If I wanted to speak I would raise my hand and say something. When I got the blue lightsaber I asked myself, "Why is he giving me this?" I was sure other people should have it. There are people, that even in small groups, do not speak. I'm not shy, class discussions don't intimidte me into silence. I just like to speak when I have something to say that I think is really important to the discussion. Having the lightsaber didn't make me feel like I was imbued with some holy power to speak. I didn't need that. When I got the lightsaber, I did not feel like all of a sudden I was all powerful. I feel that at anytime I can put in my own opinions. So I ask, why did I get the lightsaber? Why did he say he was giving it to the bottom rungs, me and Rachel. This makes me wonder, does this happen to real people? Do groups see themselves as having a voice, feeling completely sure of their ability to speak, but the "authority" decides that you are a silent and marginalized population. In spanish class we are studying idiomatic expression using parts of the body. One that I feel is appropriate for this situation is, "En boca cerrada no entran moscas". This means silence is golden. In this situation, I take it as meaning silence is golden when you make the conscious choice not to speak. When the chance to speak is not denied you.

Dimensions of truth

The world is not totally one way or the other. I feel that the world is made up of multiple truths. The way I may see the world may not be the way you see the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean my view is wrong. I sort of see reality as a three dimensional thing, like a diamond. There are many surfaces and planes which casts off every color in the spectrum. If you look one way you see one color, but if you look at it from another angle you see a totally different color. Just because one person sees a situation through a certain lens does not mean that others do not exist or are wrong. When thinking about the incompatibility between the three different schools of thoughts and their interpretation of the Brenton Wood system I hate how society tells us that we have to choose what is right and what is wrong. Instead I feel that we should see these different approaches as just a different plane and not choose right or wrong. As we talked about in class, the people in each school of thought looks at different things when examining the system. They have different definitions for what consists of an institution they look at different entities ( groups and norms vs. individuals etc. They look at the world in different colors. We should take these colors, combine them and make a rainbow. or create a multi-colored lens that allows us to see the world through different perspectives. Okay, the constructivist, the liberals, and the realists do not see the Brenton Wood system the same, but I find no reason to pick which view is right, indefinitely. We should pick the view that is right for the situation and the parties involved. Keep each view in our "IR Tool Belt." By doing so we can see where each view is lacking and use the others to allow us to see interactions between countries more clearly.

In Alabama We Speak English

I was pretty much disgusted with the campaign video that we watched in class on friday. I literally thought that it was the parity of the real thing. I couldn't believe that someine really felt that way about the diversity we have in the United States. I know that in my community at home everyday I encounter a different ethnic group that has their own language. I love it.At anytime in my neighborhood at home you can hear spanish, an african dialect, arabic, or mandarin. It is a part of my neighborhoods culture. I can honestly say that no one in that neighborhood really resents the presence of these languages. Unlike in Alabama where this apparently is a big issue.( big enough that its a campaign platform)

This video and discussion in class got me thinking about our visit to the French Embassy. During the discussion with the French diplomat, I remember him saying that in French law there was no concept of the minority. A French man with African heritage is simply french. I thought for a long time and I came to the conclusion that I actually do not like that. He kept stressing integration to French society. Why can' t there just be acceptance. why can I not keep cultural practices from my families heritage? I feel like this policy sort of erases a piece of your heritage. I know American is not perfect and without discrimination, but I love the fact that you can hold on to your culture and still be an American. That's why I was soo shocked to see the campaign add speaking against that diversity.

What The World Will NOT Tolerate

When we went to the State Department and talked with David Bame, someone brought the hostage situation involving American hikers being taken by the Iranian government. When talking about this situation, Mr. Bame pointed out that the actions of the Iranian government went against norms in international interaction and law. Normally, governments do not take hostages, they do not imprison people from other countries without those individuals breaking a law. These actions are typically done by criminal groups and the government turns a blind eye to the situation and feigns ignorance or pledges that they will do all they can to help recover the hostages. Everybody feels a certain heighten in emotions when they think about people being held hostage by extremist groups and it goes without question that these feelings are even more intensified when the government is involved. Today, people in the global society recognize that all people have certain human rights that can not be violated. One manifestation of this idea is the U.N's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One of the things that the U.N decided was a protected universal human right was article 9 of the declaration which states, "No one shall be objected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile. This declaration of universal human rights, in my opinion, lays out things that sovereign states can not get away with violating. The ideas that no one shall be enslaved, and everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person are things also listed in the declaration of universal human rights. I feel that if any of the things listed as universal human rights are things that sovereign states can not violate. If there is a violation the people and the international community will see that justice takes place.

The world will be ours, will be be satisfied with the state in which it is handed down to us?

The world will soon be ours to mold and to control. I sit back in class and I hear how people explain the world. I hear them say, “ This is how it is.” I hear people say that in this world today it is naïve to believe in the good in humanity. They say that the leader of countries around the world do not act with the interest of humanity in mind, only preservation of power. I hear people say that kind actions are seldom ever done out of true kindness. I ask you all, is this the world you wish to live in. Soon and very soon the time of our fathers generation will be up, the way of the world will not be decided for us, we will not sit in classrooms talking about the state of the world around us. We will be creating this world. Policies will be made from our actions, agreements, treaties, peace; prosperity will be achieved through our means. I do not wish to live in a world where helping your neighbor is placed under scrutiny. I do not wish to live in a world where the heart has no place in politics. I do not wish to live in a world where we do not recognize humanity in others, its all strategy and not compassion. I do not want a leader who does not ask him self, “What if that was me?” People say to live in this world is not possible that we never know what people are thinking and this is very true. I speak of the future that our generation can make. Change starts with the thoughts. If we change the way we think we can change the world. The lens we use to see the world inhibits us from seeing the world as the world in its entirety not just of states and sovereign bodies. We automatically create divisions we see as un crossable boundaries. I see the world as a place where boundaries can be blurred by one thing everyone has in common. Are we not all human, do we not all desire to live a life of abundance? Let our respect for humanity transcend cultural differences, religious intolerance, and regional conflicts. I desire to live in a world where different is not wrong different is just different. The good of these different people is no longer just a figment of the imagination, or the minority of choices in a given situation. Lets create a world where optimism can survive.