Contributors

Monday, November 29, 2010

Reflection - Week Fourteen

Well, not too much happened this week to report.  Other than the issue in Korea.

Scary stuff, that.  I really feel for the people, the innocent civilians stuck in the crossfire.  What motivates a person to rule a country like North Korea?  Moreover, I'm kinda concerned about the international response.  It's so... noncommittal! Especially with Japan.  Also, how can North Korea accuse South Korea of using civilian shields?!  The whole mess is shocking and horrifying, and the affected people are in my prayers as we head into a new week to see what is in store for us.

Reflection: Week Fourteen

Thanksgiving break was supposed to be my oasis; my refuge from nights reading over international development policy, questioning justice systems, and conjugating obscure verbs in foreign languages. In high school, I spent most of my time wishing I could be out of my small town and in the nation’s capital with the politicos and coffee shop revolutionaries. Towards the end of November, all I wanted was family football games, my sad excuse for a car, and some apple pie.

Nevertheless, I somehow found myself in a rather contentious political debate or “discussion” over the Thanksgiving table with my uncle. The debate was sparked when my uncle learned about my intentions to study abroad in Istanbul. He then proceeded to inform my family around him of the militant Islamic movement taking over secular Turkey. According to him, this corresponded to the Muslim plan to re-populate rapidly and take over the Earth. As I was starting to eat my apple pie, I winced in my seat. No politics. I promised myself, no politics. I just wanted to enjoy my apple pie. However, as the assertions of “truth” became grander and grander, I was unable to stop myself from intervening. This launched me into an hour discussion over Islam, Judeo-Christian prophecies, and Zionism.

As my uncle and I debated events in the Middle East, our perceptions of reality and ways of thinking collided. There was no way for me to convince him of the facts when his world surrounded the literal interpretation of the Bible. My facts meant nothing to him, just as the literal translation of the biblical prophesies did not merit truth in my eyes. As I edged away from the conversation, recognizing that nothing could be gained, I smiled at the irony of the discussion. It seems cross-cultural encounters, similar to the conflict between the colonizers and the Native Americans, can be found at the dinner table on a Thanksgiving holiday centuries later.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Which is a better representation?



This is kinda funny.  Seeing this picture, with the Redskins flag and the museum in the background, reminds me that America has not really remembered all that much about what we did to the native Americans.  The "Redskins" name itself is kind of offensive.  I would say it's time for America to wake up, but people have been saying that for years and it hasn't done any good thus far.

I loved the museum's design.  Seeing the different native American houses outside and having the art all over was very cool and paid a much better tribute to the culture.  Sports teams such as the Indians or the Redskins just ring offensive to me.  This has been a topic of debate for years and I think it will probably just continue.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Reflection - Week Thirteen

While I also saw Harry Potter over the weekend, it is not the movie that most impacted the way I think about international relations this weekend.  I know I'm about a year behind everyone on this one, but I just saw Avatar last night for the first time.  What an appropriate movie to see while we are discussing the discovery of America and the treatment of the native peoples in class!  The movie was horribly sad and pointed out some serious concerns about the environment and the treatment of the "other."

My biggest concern after watching Avatar is the way the native peoples are treated wherever the others go. We seem to think we can just take everything from them and kill them off like they aren't even human.  In the movie, their connection to nature is substantial and beautiful, but the military men don't care.  They plow through to get whatever mineral they want and have no care for what could be someone else's home. In the process, they kill many people and succeed in destroying their home.  Why does the world do this?  Why must it always be about us and never about them (unless it's beneficial to us)?  Why is the world so realist?

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Reflection: Week Thirteen

WARNING: Spoiler Alert and Harry Potter geek out.

In light of the premiere of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, I wanted to dedicate my weekly reflection to exploring the Harry Potter series and the politics of the marginalized. Growing up with the Harry Potter series, I never recognized the moral lessons and political commentary that could be drawn from the characters and plot of J.K. Rowling’s fantasy creation. Like the books of the wonderful Dr. Seuss, the Harry Potter series informed my moral and ethical development as a child without conscious recognition. This Tuesday, I attended Professor Jackson’s lecture on politics and popular culture, which prompted me to explore this idea further.

In the film representation and the book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pays specific attention to the vindication of two characters, Hermione and Dobby the House Elf. As Professor Jackson mentioned in the lecture on Tuesday, Hermione serves as a powerful symbol for meritocracy. As a “mud blood” (both wizard and muggle), Hermione was not born with the skill or family history that set most wizards up for success. However, her work ethic, perseverance, and intelligence allow her to become a brilliant wizard. Her true value is revealed in the last book when she plays a key role in finding the horcruxes and is recognized by Bellatrix Lestrange as a formidable threat. In this way, Hermione is an exceptionally strong female character that moves the plot by demonstrating the power of success through merit. Hermione’s successes are vindication for all the feminists out there that lament the limited female archetypes expressed in literature and society today.

The second powerful representative for the marginalized in the Harry Potter series is Dobby the House Elf. Dobby the House Elf plays a crucial role in the last book when he sacrifices his life to save Harry, Ron and Hermione from Lord Voldemort. In the last film, Dobby gets his moment of vindication when he exercises his newly granted freedom to refuse the orders of the Death Eaters and save his friends. Through this, Dobby saves specifically Hermione’s life before he dies from a spell cast by Bellatrix Lestrange. In this way, the lives of Dobby and Hermione become forever intertwined.

Hermione’s political advocacy on behalf of the marginalized House Elves eventually leads to her career in the Ministry of Magic. This relationship between two characters with their own oppression struggles poignantly demonstrates the power of the marginalized collectively. This concept is simply one of thousands of ethical and political concepts explored in the enduring magical world of J.K. Rowling’s brilliant conception.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Week 13 Reflection

This reflection is on the question of if Montezuma really had a choice to make some sort of move against the Spaniards. When I first thought about and answered this question I realized my response was based on my bias. I am so used to thinking that a person always has a choice to do something or at least try to do something. Now when I look back at the question and try to put myself in Montezuma’s shoes, I realize that they believed so much that everything in their lives was predicted because they believed that everything that happens has happened before.

If Montezuma really did have a choice then I think he would have forced the Spaniards to leave. He had many chances but was so confused because the Spanish coming back never happened before and he started to think that it was the Toltec people. The thing is that “he knew” that there was a reason for the Spaniard arrival and was getting frustrated that no one foresaw it coming.

The way I tried to relate to Montezuma was thinking about how at one point everyone knew the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Then we knew the Earth was round, but still, the center of the universe. Then finally we found out and still believe today that the sun is the center of the solar system and we know this through scientific fact. Right now we know the universe goes on forever, what happens when we find an end?

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Signs helped the Spanish conquest

Todorov asked a very interesting question regarding the Spanish victory over the natives. "Did the Spanish defeat the Indians by means of signs?" The Spanish did have superior firepower and armor being guns, cannons, metal body armor and horses. What they also had on their side (in their minds) was g-d and a feeling of superiority The Spanish knew they had the upper hand when it came to military technology but they also knew that they were severely out numbered, Montezuma had many opportunities to defeat the conquistadors but didn't. The Spanish used the fact that the Aztecs based decision making and their future off of what soothsayers had to say, along with their faith and/or loyalty to the Kingdom of Spain to do whatever possible to conquer the Indians.

Trying to communicate with the Indians had been a problem since Columbus first arrived in the Caribbean when the locals referred to themselves as the "Cariba" meaning people of the Caribbean, Columbus heard "Caniba" which means people of the Khan. This little misunderstanding made Columbus think he was in Asia rather than the new world. Cortes also experienced a misunderstanding with the Montezuma, leader of the Aztec people. When they met on the shore Montezuma refused to speak and showed this by putting his hand over his mouth and bowing his head. The Spaniards saw this as a gesture of surrender. The Spanish probably figured this isn't surprising we know we're better than them, even though on the inside they were really scared.

In conclusion, my answer to Todorovs question is "Yes, yes signs helped the Spanish defeat the Indians." What I think helped them the most was their advanced technology that the Indians had never seen and their overall more worldly knowledge. My favorite example of how the Spanish demonstrated the superiority over the Indians was when they threatened the Indians that they would take the moon.

Did the Spaniards conquer the Aztecs “by means of signs”?

In The Conquest of America, Todorov introduces an interesting evaluation of the historical encounter between the Spaniards and Aztecs as a clash of signs. Instead of emphasizing the advantage of hard power capability or “firearms and horses”, Todorov directs attention to the advantage of manipulating communication. By providing a thorough analysis of signs and interpretation in Aztec and Spanish culture, Todorov is effective in unearthing the true clash of realities that lies beneath the surface of the “cultural iceberg” as I mentioned in class on Monday.

Todorov proves this notion of “victory by signs” through a historical exposé on how the Spaniards learned to manipulate certain beliefs in Aztec culture to their advantage. At the beginning, the encounter was a messy entanglement of misinterpretation of signs. For example, Montezuma lowering head in front of Cortes symbolized refusal to speak for the Aztec community but was interpreted as surrender by the Spaniards. However, as the encounters progressed, Cortes and the Spaniards learned to use the Aztec’s blind faith in omens and soothsayers to deliver fated results and validate their God-like status. This manipulation also relates to a larger clash of realities presented by divergent views on cosmic order.

The complicating factor Todorov introduces in this confrontation analysis is the two entirely different realities constructed by the determinist Aztec believers and the free will individualist Spaniards. Aztecs believed that constant communication with the land and the gods validated a determinist perspective on life. On Hola Olaam! Elana mention in her blog post on this question “because the natives on the Americas were so in tune with nature and the gods, a small bump would cause a shift.” To pick up on what she was alluding to, the Spaniards in many ways got the upper hand simply by means of philosophical view of life. The obsessive desire to create one’s own destiny drove the Spaniards in their conquest while submission to the determined cosmic world made the Aztecs complacent and easy targets for Spanish manipulability.

Todorov points to conscious manipulation of signs and a motivating philosophical view on life as two distinct Spanish advantages outside the typical weapons and power calculation. With a clear account of this historical encounter, Todorov makes a compelling case for the importance of signs, identity, philosophy, etc. in confrontation between two political and/or cultural entities. I look forward to seeing this constructivist notion played out through out the rest of the book!

Signs?

In the book, Todorov makes the argument (at least in my opinion) that the conquistadors used signs to communicate with the Indians.  Whether they did so intentionally or unintentionally is what still confuses me.

I believe the signs used by the conquistadors were unintentional.  They did not mean to put themselves in a position where they would be seen as gods or anything of that nature.  While it did work to their advantage, it wasn't the entire truth of what the Indians believed of them.  They also seemed to believe that these people were stealing their land and enslaving them purposelessly.  In this light, they are seen as beasts, maybe even uncivilized people.  I think the double label put on the conquistadors made the idea of them using signs quite confusing and lends to a great confusion.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Reflection Week 12:

This week when we were talking about global development and poverty, organizations like "worldfund" and "world vision" came up quite a bit. In my opinion they were receiving some unfair criticism for their advertising techniques and how much money really goes to what you think it’s going to.

We discussed how their advertisement techniques were to make you feel guilty if you didn't donate and better about yourself if you did. We also talked about how in every picture on these websites there was a happy child. Even though sending them a goat or school supplies won't change their life, it's a start. The ASPCA does the same thing, in every one of their commercials there are sad, abused, caged, homeless animals, how can you not want to give them a loving home. This technique worked for my family and now we have our awesome dog Sally. This technique is the best option they’ve got

I also heard that the best way to make a difference is to go to where this poverty and development is and help hands on. I agree this is the best way, but most people can't drop everything and go. People have families and jobs to worry about as well. For most people the only way to help is to send money and/or goods. When it comes to the question “how can I be sure my money goes to a useful cause?” You usually have to do your own research on that because each organization varies. For example I provided a link that says how much of your money World Vision donates. The percentage that doesn’t go is used to keep their organization running.

In conclusion these organizations are needed and do serve a purpose. What I think we really need to focus on is building infrastructure and giving interest free or very low interest loans so that these people can start their own businesses. I never really discussed this topic before I came to AU, would you agree with my proposal?

http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/sponsor/for-sponsors-donation-integrity

Reflection - Week Twelve

The conversations during World Politics about poverty and what should be done were interesting.  It's hard to imagine being in a world where you would be content with a loaf of bread, let alone what we all ask for.  "Rich" and "Poor" are such different statements depending on where you are.  I encountered an interesting instance of this this weekend.

Ari and I had a plan yesterday: go to the Holocaust Museum, then go see I Never Saw Another Butterfly.  After that, we'd watch a movie, maybe Schindler's List or something.  It sounded like a good plan, but that's not how it happened.  Instead we met another couple in the museum named Leslie and Ari and spent the day with them.  We learned how our school and life experiences were different and similar.  Towards the end of the day, we walked with them to Union Station to catch their train.  As Leslie and I were waiting in line for the drinking fountain after a lot of walking, the man in front of us looked up from taking his drink.

"Are you waiting for this?" he asked.  "You're rich, why don't you go in there somewhere and buy a beverage?" he turned back to the fountain muttering something about rich people.

Being a loud mouth, I responded "actually, I'm in college.  I'm pretty poor."  But even as I said it, I wondered how true it was.  I'm sitting here in a beautiful brand new building that cost a lot of money, paying a lot of money to be here, and I can still feed myself and clothe myself and keep a roof over my head.  Could this man?  I don't know.  I know many people in this world can't though.

Do we have an obligation to feel guilty in these kinds of situations, where our seeming wealth is pointed out for us?  I do.  I feel we should feel guilty to a point where we have to help people.  Luxuries in life, as Fr. Augustine mentioned in his homily in mass this morning, are fleeting; we can't take them with us when we go.  But we can prevent others from suffering by simply helping them, donating clothes, food, shelter, etc. to help them live a better life.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Reflection: Week Twelve

The lab with the World Bank, class discussion on Thursday, and a research project in cross-cultural communication this week have forced me to really grapple with the concept of the “post-colonial world.” In political discussions, we talk a lot about “post” societies (post-9/11 society, post-Enlightenment society, etc.). However, there is simply no other comparable event that has truly re-structured the world like colonialism. The more I read post-colonial theorists and even alternative feminist theorists like Ann Tickner, I become convinced that the justice of the current international economic system is ironically enslaved to our past. If we want to make up for the mistakes of the Western World, we have a responsibility to encourage an alternative narrative of empowerment for developing regions of the world.

In our major simulation coming up, we will be debating international development policy. In reality, this ethical obligation or “Western guilt” in many ways provides the crux of institutions like the World Bank. It will be interesting to see how each party in the simulation (European Union, Venezuela, McDonalds, etc.) will reject or address this undeniable force present in all international development negotiations.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Is it fair? What do we do?

I don't think the success or failure of a state under rough circumstances is a fair outcome.  The people living there work just as hard as (probably harder than) those states who are well off.  The governments become corrupt under the pressure, putting the people in even worse a scenario than they started off with.  It isn't fair to those people who are simply trying to live.


The biggest problem with this assertion is how we are going to solve it.  The problem with that is that humans are, by nature, pretty selfish.  Large companies and countries won't help out unless there is an incentive for them.  In the ideal world, there would be debt forgiveness for these countries and help for their development.  This world, however, is not ideal.  I think we can still give money to these countries but we have to provide a proper incentive.  This can come from tax breaks for large corporations to donate money and resources to these countries.  Together, the rest of the world can help develop these countries and give them a fair advantage to compete globally.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Teach a man to fish: and get that MONEY

States are unequally prepared for global economic competition and it is not fair. A solution for this unfairness is if the developed nations of the world who see a country struggling to develop and their people are suffering for it then we should teach them to fish. Look at America and how we developed as a nation. We were born from one of the most powerful empires of all time. We didn’t come into existence by ourselves either; we had a lot of help, if it wasn’t for the rest of Europe especially the French who knows if we would have won our war of independence. When we were born we were the only country on our side of the planet, we had a giant ocean to the east protecting us from the armies or Europe and another giant ocean to the west along with a huge expanse of land. Also after two relatively short wars we have had two friendly neighbors to the North and South. We were able to develop so fast and easily compared to other countries in the world because of these conditions. We never had to devote as much to our military for defense until WWII but we were already industrialized and had been experiencing economic success and failure.

The countries history must also be taken into account when judging the fairness. Earlier I talked about how America was able to develop and succeed much easier compared to a lot of other countries because of the circumstances. Look at countries that are post-colonial. I know there are countries like America, India, and Hong Kong that have been very successful since their former colonial rulers left and either granted them independence or was forced to. Look at Africa, European countries controlled almost the whole continent at one time and except for a select few most countries there aren’t doing well. They have been left with many problems like diseases and political corruption. To be fair to the former colonial rulers some of these colonies were asking for independence when they weren’t ready for it like Algeria, Angola Haiti. Look where they’re at now.

It isn’t fair that some countries are better prepared for global economic success than others. Countries that are successful like the United States and most of Europe should try and help these countries that aren’t as well off. Giving them money hasn’t worked out, their governments have horded the money and aide. A better solution like I stated above would be to teach them how to fish. By helping develop their industries, education systems, agriculture and infrastructure. If we give them some fish they’ll eat for a day, if we teach them how to fish they’ll eat for a lifetime. Also if we teach them how to fish they will buy fishing equipment driving the world economy. Eventually their economy will come full turn when they sell the fish and buy steak.

It isn’t fair that some countries are better suited for global economics and development. As more privileged nations we should help them with their development and economies. Money in the form of short term aide is fine, but money without industry, education, agriculture, infrastructure of the tools to make them is not good. Nothing will come of that country.

Is the economic success or failure of a state a fair outcome?

In examining the justice of a state’s economic success or failure, the microcosm of personal economic success or failure is an important starting point. While there is always the possibility of climbing the social ladder with some hard work and intelligence, the average citizen’s economic fate is determined by their family and environment. Human agency is often no match for lack of resources and forms of oppression. In many ways, the individuals that manage to stumble upon wealth or work their way up the labor chain are very much the exception, not the rule. And yet we often point at these exceptions and exclaim, “See! They did it, you should too.” The next step in that logic is then “If you are still poor, then you must have done something wrong.”

When applying this pathology to world politics, the individual “social ladder” becomes the process of international economic development. When we see emerging economic actors like India, we often point to their success and use them as shining examples of eventual economic justice for the developing world. In the article, “Inayatullah's argument about states having a right to wealth is predicated on the claim that states are unequally prepared for global economic competition.” The unequal preparation comes from two major factors that coincide with an individual’s lack of resources and contact with oppression. Considering the importance of natural resources and exports, a nation’s economic status is largely dependant on their ability to create industries like tourism if they lack natural industries. Because lack of natural resources is geographical, this nation’s economic status is in no way fair. More relevant to justice, however, is the link between colonialism and poverty. After all, economic stratification, illiteracy rates, and lack of industry can all be connected to the effects of European agents who colonized and exploited resources in a certain region. During the first Industrial Revolution, the major European actors actively suppressed industrialization in other parts of the world in fear of more competition. These colonized nations’ economic statuses are in no way fair.

Given that human agency, such as the exploitation of other’s resources, plays a large role in determining future economic success; recognition of the Western world’s responsibility to the developing world is key. However, recognition must be followed by action. Micro-financing and granting debt-relief are both important actions that need to be given more consideration for the creation of more economically just international system. As the Western world becomes more educated about the consequences of our actions in the past, we can become more conscious of the actions that need to be taken to ensure economic justice in the future.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Reflection: Week Eleven

In our fishbowl discussion on Thursday, I mused about the connection between wealth and the do-gooder lifestyle. This is a concept I have struggled with personally for a long time now. On the one hand, I have always held a certain amount of hostility towards wealth because of corruption and materialism. After all, it was Jesus that said, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” But on the other hand, it is precisely my family’s wealth that has allowed me to get a great private education and send me to American University to prepare me for public service. It is precisely my family’s wealth that will allow me to graduate debt-free and work for a poorly paying non-profit or public defense office. It is precisely my family’s wealth that allows me to buy pricey organic vegetarian food and eco-friendly merchandise. In other words, it is my wealth that allows me to pursue the do-gooder lifestyle and live my ideals.

This paradox has made me consider that it could be possible to foster this do-gooder lifestyle within the upper and middle classes in America. You can see this already with the hipster culture that is alive and well on AU campus. Hipsters, myself included, are often rather wealthy kids that shop at Whole Foods, relish in being cultured, wear eco-friendly clothing, etc. Is it possible that our generation will be able to better integrate wealth and this do-gooder lifestyle? I certainly hope that making causes like environmentalism and vegetarianism “cool” will go a long way in producing a more morally conscious upper middle class.

As with many concepts, this trend can be applied to the macro context of American politics. As our nation continues to be among the wealthiest countries in the world, we need to make sure we are using our wealth to tackle the social justice issues that are pervasive in society abroad and at home. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” I try to live my life according to this notion and I can only hope my country does too.

Reflection Week 11:

Thursday’s discussion made me wonder what it means to be wealthy. The definition of wealth is varies from person to person, but we all seemed to agree that being wealthy meant having the opportunity to succeed and the choice to by the coach bag rather than the knock off. We also talked about how the poorest person in America is much better off than poor people in most other countries, some people didn’t agree with that.

Wealth is more than just money, it is an education. In America we may not have the best public school systems but our colleges are the best in the world. Although it is hard and it takes a lot of work which will make it hard for preoccupied people like single moms or parents working two jobs to keep food on the table, it can be done. Colleges are constantly giving out grants, scholarships and loans like it’s their job. Both sides of wealth whether it is monetary or knowledge side of it can be related to the economy. Obviously if the economy isn’t doing well people aren’t going to have as much money as if it was doing good the same goes for knowledge. Sure people can still go to college on grants, scholarships and loans but the schools are feeling the money crunch as well.

If you lose job it’s not just tough luck anymore. There are 46 to 79 weeks of unemployment benefits available in all states and soup kitchens for people who just can’t pull the money together for food anymore. There is another solution… communism, but that didn’t go over well.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Reflection - Week Eleven

Am I wealthy?

That word can have so many meanings.  On one level, wealth can mean money and opportunities it presents.  Money can also mean a couple of different things: gross income, net income, dollar value on your house, etc.  How much you owe.  In that concept, I am not too wealthy in the slightest.  But I am wealthy in other ways.

Wealth can also mean what you know.  Random facts, arguments of logic, how to do something useful (or not so useful) to society.  If one were to measure wealth in these terms, I would be slightly more wealthy.  I think even those who are impoverished can be wealthy if we measure in these terms and not the first.  Anyone can.

Finally, we might associate wealth with life experience and life lessons.  In that way, I think all of us are wealthy, especially people who have been through a lot of hardships.  The unfortunate thing is that wealth won't get one the other ways to be wealthy alone, nor will the other ways do the same with this.  This form of wealth is merely in the mind.  While it helps the impoverished deal with their situation, it doesn't do much else for them.  I think we must not simply discard this enormous wealth, however.  We must listen to these people tell their hard stories and help them.  "It's a learning experience" cannot be used as an excuse unless we make it better after the lesson is learned.  That, my friends, is progress.