The End is Just the Beginning

As I look back on the last semester, I’m not entirely sure what to think. I came into the class knowing nothing about world politics or international relations, knowing nothing about writing papers or thinking critically about things. And even though I know a lot more about these things now, I can’t help but think that I still barely know anything. There’s so much left to learn. 

Despite my obvious lack of participation, I really did enjoy this class. I wasn't sure exactly what to expect, but it definitely exceeded my expectations in terms of what I've learned and how I've learned to think. I’m extremely glad that I chose to do University College also, and that from the options of those I chose world politics. I can’t exactly compare our floor to other UCs or non-UC floors, but I feel like we’ve formed some pretty close friend groups, and a lot of us work well together, despite some of the differences in personalities and hidden hostilities that come from living together. What I do particularly like about this group of people is that while we all have at least one thing in common - our interest in world politics - we are also all so different, from different backgrounds, with different experiences, and with very different political and social views. I also enjoyed the wednesday labs. I got to see a lot of places that I otherwise probably would never have gone to on my own; the french embassy, the state department, the soccer and baseball games, the opera, the pentagon.... 

All things considered, I'd definitely recommend university college and this class to any incoming freshmen. I'm really looking forward to the group research projects next semester also. From what I've heard, everyone has really good ideas. It will be exciting for everyone to do a large-scale project on something that actually interests them (rather than representing McDonalds in a global development simulation, or discussing how foreign auto manufacturers are really doing the best for American workers and consumers). 

Sovereignty Protecting Difference

While I agree that sovereignty can protect difference, as is said in Horizons, I don’t think that it always does well, or that it is the only thing that can. It is true that if there is a group of people that are different from most of the population, they may be more protected by becoming a sovereign nation. However, that is often not the best solution. A sovereign nation that is in some noticeable way “different” than other surrounding nations can be subject to being treated as inferior within the international system. Being sovereign from other nations makes that group have even less in common with the others than they would if they were not sovereign; therefore, they are more likely to be treated as different in a negative way. It could lead to situations such as the Europeans conquering the Americas: they had very little, if anything, in common, and saw them as inferior because of it. 

On the other side is the argument that if they are not sovereign, they would be discriminated against in their own nation, leading to a worse life in general. They would not have proper rights, even though they would be in an unthreatened nation. The extent of their loss or rights would depend on how advanced the nation is, how used to difference they are, and how different the others are. The problems that would result in that group not becoming sovereign would not necessarily be worse than the problems that would result if they did. 

Why We Have To Remember Her

Instead of dedicating his book to the usual loved one or ones, Todorov dedicates The Conquest of America to “the memory of a Mayan woman devoured by dogs.” This is a particularly striking image, as it is probably meant to be. While it only shows the cruel fate of one woman, it represents all of the others that resisted the European conquerers and got repressed or otherwise brutally slaughtered. Todorov explains the story of the Mayan woman in more detail in the epilogue of the book. He says that he tells the story and dedicates the book to that Mayan woman in the hope that “we remember what can happen if we do not succeed in discovering the other.” 

One of the biggest problems states and people in the world had (and still have, to some degree), is understanding the "other." A lack of understanding of other people, customs, and cultures can cause a lot of communication problems. By dedicating the book to the Mayan woman, Todorov acknowledges and makes known some of the worst outcomes that such misunderstandings can have. He presents it as a lesson to be learned, something that we should not let happen again. 

Insert Catchy Blog Title Here

It's seems so strange that we only have a week of classes left before final exams. I feel like we've been here forever and for no time at all, and I can't figure out how much knowledge I was supposed to have crammed into my brain during that time. I've done more work here than in all of high school combined - not that that's saying much - but the more I learn the more I realize how much I don't yet know. We've read so much in this class, but we've only covered the basics, or so it seems.

I find thanksgiving break and the holidays in general interesting, because all of a sudden there is an increase in good will. Many people who didn't have a close enough home or family to go back to got invited along with others to their homes. It's interesting to see people completely alter their behavior and even moods because of a socially constructed holiday. People were playing christmas music and making food and paper snowflakes in the lounge yesterday. It seems like not even finals can kill the good feelings.

This Week

I found the museum this week interesting. It surprised me that it didn't focus at all on the interactions between the tribes it portrayed, or the interactions between them and european invaders. Like some people said, it seemed more like a cultural museum than either a history or an art museum. Each little exhibit seemed somewhat isolated from the others. While they all related in that they were about "American Indians" and each floor had somewhat of a theme, each little section didn't necessarily relate much to the ones around it. I spent a lot of time on the third floor, if only because I was waiting for other people to catch up, and I found it interesting that there was so much space dedicated to these cultures in the current world. I suppose there's nothing in the name "National Museum of the American Indian" that suggests otherwise, but I still expected it to be mostly a history museum. (On a side note, I was also really surprised to see that small section about them in Chicago. In all my years in Chicago, I don't think I've even seen a native american/ american indian. Maybe I'm just not in the right parts of the city.)

I also liked Friday's discussion on whether Columbus saw the natives as human or not. I think that in some cases, it would help to see them less as people and more as animals. Animals can be tamed, domesticated, used for your own purposes. It would be immoral to treat humans the same way, at least today. By thinking of them as animals, the explorers and conquerers could praise them when they did something to their liking, and punish them when they did not, without fear of their conscience getting in the way.

The Logical vs. The Moral

There were several questions posed in class on Friday, and I’d like to discuss a few of them.

Are basic needs and basic rights the same? Like what was said in class, from an American political perspective, yes. If we have the right to life, then we have the right to everything that we need to live - like food and water. But when you have to look at it from different perspectives, it gets trickier. It also gets confusing when you realize that people have different definitions of “basic needs.” Is housing a basic need? You can technically survive without shelter, in some places. Is education a basic need, if you need some sort of education in order to get a job to feed your family? And if these are basic needs, do we also have a right to them? I don’t think so. I don’t think that we can classify a basic need as anything other than the minimum we need to survive - if we also want to claim these things as our rights. That’s not to say that I don’t think everyone should have these things. Everyone should have a place to live. However, once you get beyond the bare minimum needed for survival, then what you should and shouldn’t consider basic rights gets complicated. 

The problem with that is, that if you only guarantee people food, you get into all sorts of moral issues. Maybe it's fair, in theory, to not provide a good amount of affordable healthcare and such to the poor, but anyone with a decent conscience or who has been without healthcare when they need it wouldn't be able to agree with a policy that didn't support people like that. And then you get into another question that was brought up in class - how important is an individual to the state as a whole? Does it really matter if a few people end up sacrificed for the good of the state? Do we need to spend our resources protecting people that don't contribute as much back to society? Again, my logic says no. But my conscience says yes. I wish that the two were more compatible. For whatever reason, they don't agree with each other. Based on my logic earlier, I don't think education is a right. Philosophically it doesn't make sense to me. On a practical level though, I really do think that the government should guarantee education up to a point, and give people loans and grants to get higher education. I wouldn't be here if they didn't.

Money

In class on Friday we talked a lot about economic security of individuals and the country, what makes us feel economically secure, as well as how economic security fits in with national security. There was one point that someone (I don't remember who) made during class that I'd like to discuss. They said that a person who was just making enough to make ends meet but pretty much has no chance to of losing their job or something would be and feel more financially secure than someone who is making a lot of money but has a higher chance of losing it. To some degree, that makes sense, but I don't think it's true. First of all, a person making a lot of money, even if that money was not stable, would at least be able to do pretty well while they had that money, and also have the ability to save up money in case something does go wrong. On the other hand, someone who is making just enough to make ends meet would not be able to save, and because of that probably feel much less financially secure than someone in the other category. Even though logically, the person who reliably makes just enough is more financially secure, it doesn't mean that they feel that way. In my experience, the more money you have to spare, the more financially secure you feel, even if your situation could easily change. 


I really don't like thinking about money. Unless I'm getting my paycheck, in which case thinking about it makes me happy. But I hate how much it affects everything we do and everything we are. And I really hate when people take it for granted that they'll always be wealthy, or if not wealthy, at least never have financial problems. Here on the northwest side of DC, you don't see how much of a difference there is in the distribution of wealth. You don't see the homeless here, you don't see the people who struggle to get by on minimum wage. You don't see the families of 8 crammed into tiny 2-bedroom apartments. And while in some ways, it's more pleasant to not see these things, I kind of wish that I still did see them on a regular basis. Here I feel so far removed from the real world. Back at home, I would be constantly reminded that there were people worse off than me, but here I start feeling like I'm at the bottom of the economic ladder because I have to work 2 jobs just to buy enough clothes and to pay my mom back for the little bit of tuition she could afford. It's hard here to see that I'm actually doing better than a lot of people in this country. I wish I could see it more often. I don't like forgetting about reality. 


Also, Erin shared this on Facebook, but I'm reposting it here because I thought it was kind of relevant to my post. 

Afghanistan

Does the fact that the United States has troops deployed in Afghanistan at the present time make you more or less secure?
I don't know a lot about the subject. But if you define security broadly, as, for example, in the 2010 National Security Strategy, then I would say that having troops in Afghanistan makes us less secure than otherwise - for one main reason. If the definition of national security includes having a prosperous (or at least reasonable) economy, then the war in Afghanistan is hurting us rather than helping to keep our country secure. Our maintained presence there is pouring a lot of money into defense, when that money could be better spent improving the economy. I understand the reasons we are at war, but I think that we've been there too long. Are we really still protecting ourselves by being there? (I guess that's the question I'm supposed to be answering...) I don't really think so. In the narrow sense of national security, I do actually feel safer knowing that there are troops there. Maybe it's because of the fear that spread post-9/11, but knowing that there are soldiers there, and that our presence could be, in some way, scaring terrorists from attacking again, makes me feel safer. 
That being said, I think we need to get out of there. Until we leave, we can't be certain that it's helping us in terms of physical security. In terms of economic security, it is definitely not helping us. I would feel much more financially secure if I knew that there wasn't a good percent of the budget being poured into defense. If we withdraw from Afghanistan, and then we get attacked again, then maybe I'll believe it was a good thing to be there. But as it is, I would prefer if this war would end. 

Good weekend

I'm not sure how much more awesome this weekend could have been. The rally was amazing. It would have been really good if they hadn't brought out the musicians they did. Really though, I don't think there will ever be another time when that group of people will all be together for the same cause. Cat Stevens (okay fine, Yusuf Islam,) Ozzie Osbourne, Kid Rock, Sheryl Crow, John Legend, the Mythbusters, and everyone else there made it worth going, even if you don't like John Stewart or Steven Colbert (do people like that exist?).
There were a lot of great signs too. I won't bother putting up pictures of them, as I'm sure most of you saw the good ones, but here's the one that Alyssa, Fiona, Colin, and I made.
It reads: "I didn't have time to think of a catchy slogan because I was too busy becoming an educated voter."

Pretty much everyone I know on the east coast came to the rally, although I didn't see any of them in the crowd. It didn't help that no one's phones were working. I did get to briefly see my twin sister and my friend from Pittsburgh, though, which was nice.

It's also halloween weekend, which usually makes everything better. Going to class in costume on Friday was fun, although by far the best part was when Scott walked in as PTJ. Our batman characters in class were probably the best dressed otherwise. And although I got no sleep the night before the rally, it was worth it for our batman movie marathon. And I went to the Rocky Horror Picture Show yesterday, which may have been the strangest thing I've ever seen, but it was fun.

Today is actual halloween, and I'm hoping that it will be as good as (or better than) this weekend has already been. I'm not sure how possible that is with the amount of work I have left to do, but if there's one thing I learned this weekend, it's that sleep is just a little bit overrated. We'll see what happens.

Family

After many hours (I kid you not) of intense negotiations, a plan was created and executed that wiped Red completely off the board. It was a very good turn of events for every other team, mine included, although I am not at all happy that the divine power of PTJ has caused the plague to spread into my group's territory. The plague is also dangerously close to both Yellow and Black as well, so I hope that some form of agreement can be reached in order to contain it.

On a different subject, it's parents' weekend. Now that it's Sunday, parents are finally leaving. It was nice getting to see people's parents and compare them to their children ("there's no way those are his real parents, they're so normal"), and Scott baked a lot of food for them, including cookies, scones, and pumpkin pie. It was really nice and completely unnecessary. I don't really understand why he keeps being so nice to all of us. Not that I'm complaining, or anything. But seriously Scott, at least let me wash the dishes for you. 

Parents' weekend for me was really more like "mom-and- mom's friend-and-uncles-and-aunt-and-cousins-and-second-cousins-and-other-family-I've-never-met weekend." Apparently I have long-lost relatives in Bethesda, so I went up there for a really expensive dinner last night. So that was decent. I also found out today that my sister was in DC this weekend and didn't tell me. Which was stupid. But I actually woke up before noon today! Exciting news. I have a lot of work to do now, though, since I haven't done anything all weekend. So I'm going to start doing that....

Risk. Politics. Life.

What I like about Diplomatic Risk as opposed to regular Risk is that, like in real life, it is NOT everyone's goal to dominate the entire world and destroy everyone else. Instead, each group has their own specific goal, that may or may not involve war, and may or may not come into conflict with certain other groups' goals. It is far more realistic that way - and makes alliances more possible and more trustworthy than in normal Risk. Every group has their own goals, and working toward those goals is working toward their own self-interest. Self-interest does not necessarily mean conquering a lot of territory.
The game is much more fast-paced than in real life, obviously. Alliances are not so quickly made and broken, war not usually so suddenly declared, and it's highly unlikely that a plague would not be able to be contained to one continent (unless of course, the plague is actually zombies like we've been saying all along). The secret powers that each group has is also kind of unrealistic. Those powers get really extreme, and unlike in real life, there's no chance of them failing. Also, another large difference between the game and real life, is that the groups that were formed had no previous loyalty to their group or color. That probably made it easier to cross nationalistic boundaries and form alliances.
I don't know how much communication is an issue in real life, but I've definitely observed communications failures between the diplomats and heads of state - whether it's the diplomats not carefully studying the board before making decisions, or the heads of state deciding to do something other than what the group agreed on. I'm guessing that there's more accountability in real life, and there is also more time to formulate and clarify any plans.

Of Operas and Risk

This past week was interesting, to say the least. Although going to the opera was not a new experience for me, it was very different in several ways. It was the first one I've seen in the US, the first one I've seen with surtitles, and the first one I've seen in a language that I actually understand (which was a really good thing, since I was sitting in the back row and apparently need stronger contacts - I couldn't read the words). It was fun though, if that's the right word. As everyone was getting ready, I wondered why we bother to get dressed up. For most of the time, everyone is sitting down in a dark room. No one's looking at anything but the stage. As much as I hate dressing up though, I realized that if no one did, it would be a completely different experience. Sure, there's no practical reason to wear anything other than jeans and a t-shirt, but doing so adds to the sophistication of it all. It's actually really necessary.

Playing Risk on Tuesday was amazing. Although there were some communication issues between the diplomats and the heads of state, it was really fun. Normal risk is fun. Diplomatic risk is awesome. It was so awesome that I continued negotiations with a few groups for about an hour after class had finished. Of course, this being just a game, everyone's willing to take more risks in terms of alliances and agreements, making the game move even further away from realism. I really enjoyed it, and can't wait to find out how the game continues on Tuesday.

Reflection, week... what is this? 7? 8? I don't even know anymore

I wasn't there for the end of the simulation because I had to go to class. I heard that basically, the pro-tariff groups won, because none of our arguments were strong enough, so the policy wasn't changed.
I guess we could all have used a little improvement, but overall I thought every group did a good job (for what I was there for, anyway). Everyone's videos, at least, were awesome. And I'm really proud of mine because I've never used imovie before, but it turned out pretty good.



And now that that's done, we have this essay due on Wednesday. Yayy..... not really. But I've gotten a lot done already, which is good. It's also a short essay, which is good. And this week was good, which is good. Hopefully the weekend will continue to be good, even though I have 3 midterms next week. My sleep schedule is completely off at this point.... but hey, staying up until 4 am every day isn't necessarily bad.
So. This is the most informal post I've written so far, but I figure that's okay because we had no class this week, a simulation, and we have an essay due next week. I'll be turning in a lot of work.
And now to finish that essay....

I Got The Power

In class today, I was handed the red lightsaber.

At first I didn't want it. I felt like by having it I was supposed to fulfill some sort of PTJ role, which I was definitely not prepared enough to do. Even when I had something to say at the beginning, I didn't because I felt like it wouldn't be intelligent enough to match my role as holder of the red-lightsaber-of-authority. After a while, though, I said a few things, and I started to enjoy the power that I had. I felt like because I had the power to say what I wanted when I wanted, it mattered more.
I also felt like it was sort of my responsibility to make sure Fiona got to talk occasionally, so when I realized that she had been raising her hand for a while without getting to speak, I started glancing over every now and then so that if she wasn't getting a chance to talk enough I could call on her.

I never really felt like I was marginalized in class - when I don't talk, it's because I either don't have anything to say, or because I don't want to say it because I don't like talking in class and someone else would probably say it better. But when I was handed the authority to say what I wanted when I wanted, suddenly my opinions seemed more legitimate to me, and I felt like I had the right to say them. I wonder if it is similar for marginalized populations - maybe they don't always feel like they want to say something, but when their opinions matter, then they might realize that they do have legitimate opinions. I mean, I'm sure its not that way in a lot of cases, but that might be a factor contributing to the silence of some groups of people.

Also, about the point that Elle brought up about the people in The Moral Underground, I believe that if a group of people has the option to speak up and try to change their situation, they should do so, even if it would make things worse in the short term. Because if it makes things better in the long term, that's a better option than doing nothing at all.

Accurate Perspectives

If one perspective is accurate, does it necessarily mean the others are wrong?
Tough question.

There are always different ways of looking at things. Just because one way is right, does not necessarily mean that all the other ways are wrong. If one person looks at a wall and calls the color "white," and another looks at the same wall and calls the color "eggshell," is one of them wrong? No. They just have different perspectives on the same thing. It doesn't mean that one of them is wrong. With something like perspectives on Bretton Woods, however, it gets a little more complicated. In cases like that, I do believe that different opinions can be either more or less accurate - and most likely, none of them are completely true. Of the perspectives we discussed, none of them really fit together. It just isn't really possible for all of them to be right at the same time. In many ways, they contradict each other. There is not any certain way to tell which one is right. That being said, in order for one to be right and the others to be wrong, there would have to be some sort of absolute truth. In my view of the world, there isn't an absolute Truth. At least not when it comes to ideas - it can be true that here in Washington DC, at midnight the sun is always down. It is dark. That is true, and that can't change. But when it comes to an idea, a theory, something that isn't completely concrete, I don't think there can be a true and false. No black and white.

But again, as I said before, I do believe that something can be more accurate than something else (although when it comes to Bretton Woods, I have no idea what perspective I believe is most accurate). It doesn't really make sense that if something can be more accurate, there wouldn't be a completely accurate, but this is a ridiculous question that really isn't possible to answer correctly. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, if one answer to this question is accurate, does it necessarily mean that all the others are wrong? Think about it.

Reflections on Our National Identity

This video is really similar to the ones we saw in class. In theory, it’s supposed to display America’s national identity. Well, and advertise our country, of course. It shows a lot of what we supposedly pride ourselves on and consider uniquely ours - diversity, wonders of the world such as the grand canyon and the golden gate bridge, the endless rolling fields of grass that I feel like I’ve never actually seen, bears, and all that good stuff. I have to wonder though, is that really our identity? What we are generally proud of is usually not those things that can be displayed in promotional videos. Things like democracy and freedom. I mean, I get that the video is just advertising. But still. I feel like fields of grass is not necessarily what we should show. Especially because Europe has so much more of that than we do. 

And also, this video makes me wonder, why do refer to ourselves as “American”? Like, we’re from the U.S. America is more than that, and yet this video features lots of people saying “I am America” (which, on a side note, just reminds me of Stephen Colbert’s book "I am America and So Can You"). When we say “American” we mean “from the United States”. As if the rest of America just doesn’t count. Even the website that’s shown at the end of the video is “america.gov,” yet it links to a site exclusively about the U.S. government. 

In my experience, our national identity is very different from that of other countries. We seem to have a superiority complex that goes way beyond nationalism and patriotism. Maybe I'm wrong, but I definitely see that in us. We fell like we have an obligation to be the best, the most powerful, the protectors of the free world. We feel superior - I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing though.

What States Shouldn't Do

There really is no limit on what states can or can not do. If a state decides to invade another country and take control of the government by force, they can. If a state wants to massacre everyone within the state that disagrees with the political regime, they can. Just like how PTJ can start swearing at us in class if we say something he doesn't agree with. It may not be completely illegal, but that doesn't make it right.

I feel like there are some rules that most countries abide by, even if they could get away with breaking them. For instance, democratic countries don't interfere with each other's government - at least, there's no situation like Iraq, where one democratic country invades another and attempts to change their government. Democratic countries recognize each other as legitimate governments, and in that way they are somewhat allies. For the most part, countries follow the unspoken ethical rules that we all somehow believe in: don't massacre people. Avoid killing civilians in war. Hostages, if taken, are traded in fairly for that state's demands.

But just because most states follow these behavioral norms does not mean that all of them do, or that they by any means can't. There really is no "can't" in international relations - if a country has the power to do something and get away with it, then they can. And, if it improves their position in any way, they ought to. I'm not trying to condone morally wrong behavior, but if a state has the power to do what it wants, why shouldn't it?

State Department and Voting

This week we went to the State Department, and talked about liberalism and the issue of uninformed voting. I really our visit to the state department. After listening to the discussion with David Bame and looking at the papers in the folder that we got, I realized that there was a lot more to the department than I had previously thought. There are the diplomats, the environmental workers, a branch for arms control, for narcotics enforcement, for civil rights, and many more areas that I hadn’t really thought about. After hearing about everything, I think I would really like an internship there at some point - not this year, but maybe next year, or junior year. And it’s definitely a bonus that many of their internships are paid. 

I would reflect on our discussion from Friday, but I feel like there’s nothing more I could add that hasn’t already been said. I still stand by what I said in my post - that it is better to vote uninformed than not at all, assuming that “uninformed” does not mean completely clueless. It goes without saying that completely clueless people should not vote, and I think that most people if not everyone in the class agreed. 

All things considered, last week was a good week. I hope that this week will be equally as interesting. 

Is an uninformed vote better than no vote? Yes. With exceptions.

My problem with questions like these is that I can so easily see both sides of the issue that I have a really hard time deciding what I think. However, after some thought on this question, I believe that in a democracy, any vote is better than no vote - no matter how informed that vote is. 

First of all, “uninformed” is a subjective term. What one person might consider uninformed, another person might consider a perfectly reasonable amount to know before voting. There is only so much that anyone can know about a candidate, and many people don’t have access to all of that information. Many people won’t know a candidate’s stance on specific issues, but they don’t necessarily need to. This is why political parties exist - so that a candidate can align his or herself with a party that most accurately describes their views, and then make that affiliation known so that voters do not need to do extensive research on candidates before knowing which one they agree with most. In this way, the minimum voters must know is what party they themselves are aligned with. Then they can vote along those party lines. 

Second, this country was built on the principles of democracy, one of those principles being that everyone has a say in the government. True, it did not start that way, but for many decades now, every adult citizen has the right to vote. Therefore no one should feel excluded from voting just because they are not as informed as most voters about the candidates. 

That being said, I don’t believe that we should make people vote if they have no interest in politics. Only people who actually care about the state and future of the nation should cast a ballot. I guess what I’m trying to say is that an uninformed vote is better than no vote, if and only if the voter knows his or her position on politics and the candidates. I do not believe that people should vote completely blindly, as that would not be an accurate representation of what citizens in this country want. 

Reality of Realism

I enjoyed Friday's discussion on realism, and while some people don't see the merits of that theory, I sympathize and almost agree with realists on the subject of international relations. True, realism does not cover every international issue - terrorism, humanitarian efforts, and many others - it is only a theory, after all. But there's something about the cold logic of it that I find appealing. Yes, it is pessimistic, but that does not make it wrong. Aspects to realism, such as the idea that you cannot rely on any other state, make sense. It's realistic - at least, in some contexts, it definitely is wise.

I also thought the spy museum this week was really awesome. I guess I find that sort of thing to be interesting - disguises, stealth, danger, national security and so on. I liked how the last thing you see in the museum before the gift shop was the room with the video on cyber security and "weapons of mass disruption" as they called it. It was like they were trying to scare you, make you realize that you're defenseless, and that the government's security efforts are all that is protecting you. You can't trust anyone else.