Reflection #15

A thought struck me during our last class when we were compiling a list of developmental regulations. Instead of this simulation taking place at a school like American University, where international politics holds a heavy emphasis, what if it took place instead at a ‘hippy’ school or a naval academy? How might the order of importance differ? In relation to the environmental category, would environmental regulations be at the top of the list at a school like Hampshire (a small, one would say hippy, school in Massachusetts) rather than here? Because of the differences in individuals at each school, it is only natural that each list would be different. In some terms, I feel that this can be translated to a global scale where each college would be like each nation. Like the fact that there are hundreds of colleges specializing in different fields, there are hundreds of nations with emphases on different aspects of humanity.

This observation reinforces the idea that there can never be one set list of development regulations to be used globally. There are just too many types of people with different cultures and precepts. How can one set list satisfy millions of people in varied countries? Like the simulation, we saw that policies pertaining to Japan are much more advanced and different from those in Venezuela. That is why I believe that there should be a vague base guideline for development (i.e. involving environmental regulations, liberalization of federal direct investment…) but the main details should be left up to the nation. In an ideal world, the government would be wise and moral enough to avoid corruption and view the state from a rational perspective. Since it’s not, one must go to Plan B, which ultimately involves manipulation of guidelines and invariably ends in chaos.

I think this is a problem that is plaguing our world and international relations. States have not yet found a set of regulations that satisfy each sector for we can see the harm that is being done. Collapsing economies (Ireland), abused environments (internationally) and prevalent corruption (Venezuela) are prime examples of failures. Hopefully at some point these segments will mesh in a positive way in order to create balanced lists. When this is accomplished, I can guarantee a global sigh of relief.

Thanks Giving

Thanksgiving. Thanks giving. So in theory, we should thank and be grateful for what we have and then give back? But do we actually do that? I remember in middle school learning about the pilgrims and how grateful they were for the Indian’s help. Because of their generosity, they gave back to the land and their fellow neighbors. But when we fast-forward a couple hundred years I notice a difference. Thanksgiving has changed so much and I wonder if this mark has gone unnoticed. For one, the hullabaloo of the holiday has become a tradition, a day that is expected to occur. A turkey is killed and stuffed with bread and it’s assumed that this animal will be available. When the whole family is gathered around the table, a brief thanks is given for the family that was able to come in and a warm smile is sent to every member for their health and happiness. The “thanks” is taken care of but where’s the “giving?” Or was the “giving” not even meant to be incorporated in the title?

Because we are comforted by the thought that there will always be enough turkeys and airplanes to feed and transport many, we feel entitled to sit back and relax. We know these are constants and we recognize that we can take these for granted. But what if, say next year, turkeys become extinct and millions of families switch to Tofurkey instead? Would we recognize all those years that we took our comforts for granted? It’s never too late to start giving and it’s best to start now for we never know when things might change. Most importantly, this notion of giving and receiving is something that should not only be applicable to one time annually. As a moral citizen, I feel that it’s everyone’s responsibility to keep this in mind year round. Whether it be volunteering at a homeless shelter or committing smaller acts of kindness, these actions add up. I hope it’s not too late for the world to start giving back for what they’ve received.

Reflection #13

An interesting concept that was brought up in the podcast and in our readings is the idea of language. I’m not only referring to communication but the notion that our thoughts are limited to our vocabulary. There are theories that we can’t even begin to comprehend because we do not have a word for them. It’s not necessarily because we do not have the intellectual capabilities, but because we don’t have the means to describe them.

This came to mind during class today. What Cortes did (in my mind), of annihilating the Aztecs and other indigenous tribes, was inhumane and immoral. At the same time, the culture he came from had not established the concept and the word for genocide. In Cortes’s mind, what he was doing was accomplishing his mission, and if it involved killing humans, so be it. Other examples of words that were not yet developed but still had implications in everyday life are: acting ‘humanely,’ ‘humanitarian’ and ‘conquest.’ Since none of us experienced the culture of the 15th century, we are not privy to the mindset. Perhaps the notions of just and unjust killing were really there? Was Cortes capable of differentiating between these two types of killing, or was death solely an overarching concept?

As our world evolved over time, obviously new takes to an idea expanded as well. For example, take law. What started off as a king writing out a list of laws on a scroll has turned into a complex court system with international law, the UN, allies, treaties and much more. But what is interesting is despite these differences, the underlying idea is still there. Cortes recognized the need to work with La Malinche and Montezuma, though the phrase, ‘I need to make allies and treaties’ did not go through his mind. There were some forms of diplomacy back then (though not as complicated as today) which he chose not to use in order to peacefully accomplish his mission. The narrower language that Cortes was born into limited him, but he was still human. Vocabulary has changed, but human instincts haven’t. Murder has never been something societies’ readily promote. That is why I believe it is hard to defend Cortes for his actions because regardless of the archaic language and concepts, he is still human with human senses.

Todorov and Signs

Todorov takes an interesting approach to the quote, “Did the Spaniards defeat the Indians by means of signs?” Since the word ‘sign’ is ambiguous, it holds many forms of interpretations. Todorov continues to expand on this idea by proposing some options: signs in the form of religious emblems, through communication, through divination, astronomy etc. Because the natives on the Americas were so intuned to nature and the gods, a small bump would cause a shift. In other words, the arrival of the Spaniards was so out of the ordinary that the alignments of the stars were different as well as other forms of divinity. He writes, “Every event the least bit out of the ordinary , departing from the established order, will be interpreted as the herald of another event, generally an unlucky one, still to come (‘which implies that nothing in this world happens randomly’) (64). The indigenous quickly picked up on these occurrences and responded to them. Because they spent more time on this, then building up an army, they were materially less advantaged. The Spaniards were the opposite, and instead, spent time building an army and a navy. Todorov asserts that by utilizing these techniques, the Indians backed away (in some regards), superstitiously.

Though he makes a strong argument, I still feel there are some loopholes. The indigenous acknowledged the signs, but they had options as to how they would respond. They have enough knowledge of the land to stage surprise attacks and undermine the Europeans. They could be sly and fight back. But sadly, the Spaniards were stronger and carried with them unstoppable diseases. As we can see, the Indians were defeated because the odds were against them.

Despite this missing link, it’s important not to undermine the theology of the Indians. Due to the era and the mindset of Columbus in 15th century Spain, he was not able to fully appreciate their culture. Because of this, he inevitably missed the ‘signs’. This references another questions brought up in class, “What is the ‘it’ we are accusing Columbus of?’ I believe there are many, but in regards to the signs, I think the ‘it’ is his ignorance. He is ignorant of their mindset and their perspectives. Yes, he comes from a society that isn’t aware of other cultures or religions. But he does and can see their “perplexed and doubtful” faces when he lands; and it doesn’t take a genius to understand that he should have stopped and think rationally. He doesn’t, and that is when things fall apart. Perhaps I am an optimist, but if he had approached the natives more reasonably and equally, the signs might have been different. Would the Indians have lost then if the signs were different?

Reflection #12

“Though we may have different skin colors, our blood is the same,” Eve, the Congolese refugee who recently visited AU, emphasized. Despite our physical, ethnic and religious differences, we are so similar. Eve continued to explain how everyone feels the same hunger pains and the need for water. No one prefers to live in a refugee camp over a comfortable house. Most importantly, no one wants to in danger. We are so fortunate to live in an environment where we don’t have to constantly question our safety. Instead, we sit back in our chairs with the newspaper and read about families elsewhere who are ravaged by war and rebel groups. And our way of showing sympathy is to click the mouse on the link to “help build a well!” and enter our credit card number. I don’t know about you, but that frustrates me. It further adds to our ignorance and how much of life we take for granted.

So what can we do instead of obtaining a moment’s worth of warmth by spending $35 on an impoverished village? For one, we can take action. It’s vital that we start with the grassroots problems and work up. As mentioned in class, the main problem is the lack of education prevalent in these areas. Whole families don’t have the knowledge on how to fight back and better their situation. Even worse are the women who don’t have the voice to shout out against violations done to them. There are thousands, if not millions, of raped women who don’t have the strength and courage. Should this be ignored? I believe a stronger emphasis should be put on promoting education for families and most importantly children. No matter how cheesy it may sound, children are the voice of the future. If they are left uneducated, how can we expect them to make informed decisions?

A person who I look up to and would love to meet one day is a man named Greg Mortison. If you have ever read the book, Three Cups of Tea, you will see what I mean. This was a man who saw the injustice Pakistani and Afghani villages experienced by not having schools and how they were being manipulated by the local governments. With his own money, he went over and successfully constructed numerous schools in the regions. Why don’t we have more people like him? He recognized, like Eve, that we do have the same blood; and as global citizens, we must act upon that. It is time that more of us get up and advocate for what is right.

The Most Unfair "Monolpoly" Game

To step back for a second, it’s important to note that there was no “god” that allotted each nation its wealth, power, capacity, autonomy and strength to rule. There wasn’t any mastermind who drew out the world’s borders and calculated the GDP of each. Rather, these factors were determined as time moved on. As wars, depressions, surpluses and trade impacted the globe today, each nation utilized its monetary capacities in different means. For example, Costa Rica chose not to support an army while America opted for a state-of-the-art army. North Korea chose to participate in nuclear arms proliferation while other smaller nations abstained.

In reference back to the “god,” who can we blame for such unbalance? Can we blame the money gods or the military gods? Rather, we are blaming centuries of individuals who helped shape the expenditures and characteristics of each state. These individuals were in control of the state’s decisions in determining their economic position. Thus, decisions that were either made (or sadly implemented) on nations help determine their wealth today. In certain circumstances it may seem unfair that the DRC would lose to China in a competition. But world politics is not a monopoly game where each player gets exactly two $500 bills at the start of the game. We live in a world today where a whole continent starts off the game with $1 while the globe’s super power starts off with more.

I feel conflicted by this question. Part of me wants to be a pragmatist and say, “my argument above supports my position that it’s ‘fair’ because this is how the world is today. But deep down, I know it’s not fair. It’s unjust that the world was carved up this way. What karma made the US such a strong nation while Burma was cast aside? Is it fair that Africa lost the competition? It seems like a lost cause, because we do not have control other sovereign nations. It is up to each individual state to better the problem. When these states are run by corrupt governments, the problem becomes deeper. If we can advocate more for just democracies and ‘power to the people,’ then the public would elect fair officials. Hopefully, these representatives would be selfless enough to spend the nation’s wealth to better the economy rather than bettering themselves. Yet realistically, it is near impossible for one individual to fix the problems of his/her predecessors. As long as the problem is recognized and the people have a say, hopefully states will become more ‘equally’ wealth.

Reflection #11

I was a little perturbed after Thursday’s class. When the initial question was posed, “what is wealth” we immediately jumped to monetary gains and material wealth. Yet ‘wealth’ is an ambiguous word that encompasses more than just that. One can have a wealth of spirituality, of goodness of kindness and many more. Most importantly, they can be dirt poor while wealthy as can be.

I’m not trying to be the ‘kumbaya’ type by bringing to light these examples of happiness and good heartedness. Merely, I am pointing out that wealth is more than money. It’s a shame that in our world today, a person’s prosperity is measured monetarily. Whether we admit it or not, one of our first judgments upon meeting a new person is the way they dress, where they come from and how they act which invariably leads to their social status. Our world has progressed in such a way where it is difficult to judge a person’s wealth based off of their actions instead of capital. There are various ethnic tribes around the world who do not have much money. Instead, they measure a person’s wealth and status based off of how much they contribute to the community through other means, through charity and kindness. One who does this is attributed to being “rich” in spirit and is regarded well.

I wish, for our sakes, that we could be a bit more like these tribes. If we become less materialistic and money-based, I think we would be able to appreciate what we have more and understand the hardships of those who aren’t as ‘wealthy.’

Supernational Integration

After decades of various forms of globalization, whether through soccer, TV or arguably Facebook, we have reached a point where we have become mixed together. No longer are Americans exclusively Americans and Chinese solely Chinese. Instead, we have become an interacting mass. Rather than becoming more and more dispersed, we have become progressively more one. This said, in order to achieve organization, we can no longer rely on organization individually. It has become a joint, or supernational, process.

To take a modern day example, look at the EU and the development of the Euro as a means to integrate Europe. With the Euro, individual states who adopted this new monetary form lost their unique versions of currency. But with that came a more united Europe, a more globalized Europe. Nations were able to compare on broader levels, and thus reconstruct their identity. The social decisions that the EU made to enforce the Euro shaped the nations’ identities rather than the natural flow of politics. This form of ‘supernational integration’ was more of a liberalist approach for it was focused more on the greater good as opposed to the survival of each state.

From this, it is only natural that the integration would take place on an international scale. It would be impossible to mix internationally on national terms. This is not to say that we are limited to realist or liberalist actions. It can be a mixture of both. Supernational integration could take the form of a military invasion or diplomatic meetings. It’s an ambiguous term that is left in the hands of each nation. Depending on the nation’s identity, each would respond differently. For example, there’s a higher chance Afghanistan would opt for a hard power tactic as opposed to Norway who would leave their military be and opt for soft power. Thus, depending on the nation, each response would be different.

Reflection #10, A Close Call

Despite all of our discussions centering around the “what ifs” of terrorist attacks, we never really mentioned the effects of what happens after one actually occurs. Did all of our pent up worry and fear go to good use? Now what should we do? Yes, we have 9/11 as a prime example, but it is one that, probably, not many of us have personal relations to. Yet from my own experience, I can say that in certain instances, terrorist attacks come as oddly straight-forward. This seems like a strange statement to make, but upon nearly missing a terrorist attack by less than a mile and less than five minutes, I responded oddly calmly and rationally. I didn’t freak out as expected and run in the opposite direction. Rather, I seemed to stand still and think straight, despite the chaos. Being with a larger group of friends in a foreign country, we knew it was best to leave the scene. It was surreal how composed we were.

What came to mind after the event was all the time I had spent mulling over the concept of why and how a terrorist attack could take place after 9/11. What spurs such actions? After such an event happens, how should we as a nation and an individual react? I think, partially from my response, that it is important we respond calmly and collectively. To immediately spring up in hatred and whip out nuclear arsenals is a rash and naïve response. Rather, we should contemplate the motives for such actions and work from the bottom. For example, if an attack is stimulated by hatred towards the US occupying Afghanistan, wouldn’t it be best to negotiate around that? If we found ways to compromise with the Afghanis and in return they talk with local terrorist organizations, maybe the rates would go down. I would presume that the intensity of the attacks would go up if we ignore the grassroots issues and our own actions.

Hello, World

Many would scoff at my claim, saying there are far worse threats than the environment. What harm does driving a car and spraying pesticides really have on our safety? But in reality, our ever-worsening environment is hurting our livelihood. The way we treat our surroundings does not stop at the thinning of the ozone layer. Rather, it is a domino effect, something a military or the Pentagon cannot control. It is in our hands, which is a already threat.

What I mean by ‘threat’ is a scenario that is in our control that we ignore. Too many citizens hear and read about the harm we are causing but say, “Ehh, what harm could one more individual cause?” When millions say that, there is an obvious downfall. Too few citizens are willing to step up and take action, for it involves motivation. Millions opt for the car over their bikes and watch farmers spray chemicals into our water sources. Too many are too lazy to step up and make a difference. In reference to the domino effect, the trees, plants and animals are affected, which hinder their safety as well. More animals and plant species are threatened which in turn threaten the survival of the ecosystem. Common everyday products that we take for granted might be gone in years to come because their ingredients have disappeared.

When we allow the release of synthetic chemicals and gasses, it is our way of saying we have too little time to preserve our world. There isn’t enough time to treat the land and the animals fairly for we are too busy producing weapons for war. We have too little time to realize we are harming the health of the nation because millions are eating chemical-induced food. How is this not a threat to our well being?

To play devil’s advocate, one may question, “how does this affect our national security and is this really a threat?” Yes, it may not be as ‘primary’ as bombs or terrorism, but it slowly creeps up on us and when it attacks, it is hard to fight back. How can we fight thinning oxygen levels and a massive change in our environment when deforestation takes over? We won’t have any resources to take from and nothing to build a foundation. We are stuck. When this hits, those who think the environment is secondary will reconsider their prior assumptions.

Reflection #9

What really is security? And how can a nation ever really attain complete security? After reading Obama’s security plan and NSC 68, I found it interesting to reflect on the US’s progression of what it means to secure the nation. In the 1950’s, it was easy to say the national threat was physical and could be combated by a physical army. Yet, as mentioned in class, today’s threats are not so tangible and attackable. We are entering into an era where we must secure our nation on a more psychological level.

The media, in all of its dimensions, has succeeded in frightening the populace of terrorism in many ways: through the paper, the Internet, the TV etc…. An average American hears about terrorism through these media and can only conceptualize this idea in one way. It is only natural for a citizen to fear terrorism when they hear and see the end results of the crimes. Yet what America is lacking is the understanding of why terrorism happens. In order to be safe, we must understand. Why is there a need for terrorism and what spurs their actions? If we could recognize the root of the problem, wouldn’t we be able to attack it better? When solving any problem, ranging from a dispute with a friend to an international issue, it’s always best to figure out the ‘why.’

Security is not all about armies and guns; it’s mental as well, an aspect that should not be undermined. This is the sort of threat that creeps up behind us and attacks without warning and without our preparation. It’s important that we implement an understanding of the problem to secure the nation.

Reflection #8

This past week was quite different from our usual discussion based classes. Walking in on Monday, I was filled with curiosity as to how this game would play out and how each and every student could play a role in the game. I was anxious to see how we could incorporate what we were learning into a board game and how the teams would work together. Yet, there was one catch. I feel I didn’t do as much as I wished to. I understand that there is a need for one secretary and diplomat, but then there’s the rest of the team trying to contribute, but really idly standing by. Not having played either of the two primary roles, I felt that I could not get as into the game as I wished to. That is not to say that my team’s secretary and diplomat did a great job, because they did. In fact, they did an excellent job of foreseeing moves and strategically planning. Rather, I feel that the game could have played out in a more inclusive way.

A solution is that it is mandatory for the roles to switch throughout the days of the game. For one half of the class, two of the team members act as the secretary and diplomat. During the other half, the roles switch to two others. This way, all team members must be on their feet and attentive at all times. The same procedure would follow during the next class as well. In this sense, the game would be more inclusive and less geared towards those only playing an ‘official’ role.

Besides that one glitch, I felt the game was quite interesting and exciting. It was a great change in pace and a fun way to learn. I think it was a success, and hopefully another class will be devoted to a game like this in the future.

Reflection #7

During the presentations, I found myself torn. How can I, both an American and one who is aware of the environment vote and inevitably shun one side? In the simulation, I noticed that those who argued pro-tax were primarily focused on jobs, the American populace, and the American market. On the other hand, those who opposed the taxes argued heavily in favor of the environment and the prices of the cars. Both sides had their rights and both sides had their wrongs. What it really boils down to is the president choosing between the American populace and the international environment. By actively engaging in a simulation as such, I really realized how tough a decision this is to lie on the shoulder’s of an individual. Though our faux-president was by no means pressured by his nation and the international world, I could still he was slightly anxious. No matter which route he chose, one side would hate him.This simulation in turn made me reflect on the role of the president as a whole. Yes, it is ingrained in us to know that the presidency is a busy and hectic job. But what we are neglected to be explicitly taught is how morality is so intertwined in the job as well. Does the president dare go against his nation and add to the unemployment rate? Or does he stay strong to his people but continue to hurt the ozone levels? What is the moral decision? This is something I give the presidents credit – their ability to deal with these situations.

Reflection #6

Thursday’s class discussion ended on many notes, one of which proposed that terrorist organizations, which are not sovereign states, are causing nations to become increasingly afraid. I left class thinking about this, and am still trying to grapple with what this means. Because these international organizations are becoming so powerful, nations like America, France and many others are beginning to keep a closer eye on them and fear for their own safety. The fact that this is actually happens should force us to reconsider our ideas about IR theories. We argue and try to compromise with groups like Al-Qaida as if they were a part of the UN. It is arguable that these groups are in fact stronger and more sly then a given nation’s army, for have we seen the powerhouses of the world taking down Al-Qaida?

With this in mind, another question comes to light, if there really is a current international transition of power. Back in the 1900’s, a terrorist group was not much of a threat, and barely made an impact in comparison to the armies of Germany, France, England and the United States. It was all about the physical weapons and the physical tanks that could battle each other. A measure of power was calculated in how many soldiers were in the army and how powerful a nation’s machine guns were. Now, it is more than that. Power, war and threats are slowly becoming less physical and more cyber and psychological. Because Al-Qaida is able to instill this deep rooted fear in the government of France without possessing a physical army should raise a flag. Yes, terrorist groups do have weapons and their form of soldiers but much less so than a nation. The fact that these groups fight on a sly basis and come in unexpected ways really does make us think about where the power has gone to today. If we are beginning to be more afraid of a non-sovereign state than a sovereign state, things have definitely changed since the 1900’s. It is time to take into account these changes and adjust accordingly.

An Extraterrestrial Visit!

If the UN were to sit naively back and assume that there is no need for preparation for an extraterrestrial visit, then we are in deep trouble. Yes, the media has created a Hollywood image of an “alien:” tall and scaly with oblong shaped eyes and a sphere head. Furthermore, we never take them seriously or expect the ‘human’ to destroy them. Yet, it is paramount that we escape this mindset and realize that there are other beings out in other universes other than humans. It is not completely impossible that a visit from them will happen, and thus we should be prepared. The article, “United Nations to Appoint Alien Ambassador?” raises some ideas of what might happen if we were to come in contact with other species than ourselves. To begin with, Mazlan Othman, a Malaysian astrophysicist, will become the link between the head alien communicator and the UN (or really, planet Earth). To bring to light our class discussion last Thursday, we will have a solution as to who should be the first person the head alien should contact. If we were not to appoint someone, then there would be immediate chaos as to what should be done. Questions of whether or not to blockade off the city will be pre-decided and considering that it is the United Nations, the world would know if a situation like this should occur. For example, a spaceship lands and there is confusion as to if we should hide and protect the president or have him prepared to speak as the planet Earth representative. With an ambassador, that problem is already solved.

The mere act of anointing someone to this position shows that we are not ignorant to other “international relations.” Even if, “they might not be the friendly cosmic neighbors that we have been looking for,” we at least recognize they do exist. And who’s to say that that might prevent an attack because these creatures see we are trying to understand them? Another benefit is that this paves the road for the future. Future generations will look back and see what steps we have taken to provide communication between numerous universes. The UN can’t help but only build upon it as technology and contact increases.

Thus, it may seem rudimentary from a surface level to support a UN official to research an event that might never take place. Yet, despite this, the fact that we are going through with it carries a greater weight. It’s like preparing for a test that might not happen: it’s better to be safe, than sorry.

(As a side note, I would like to point out that our planet Earth representative is not a Caucasian, northerner, Christian male but a Southeast Asian woman.)

Reflection #5

Later, after Thursday’s class, a group of us were sitting around and we inevitably got onto the topic of our class discussion: how would and should we react if a spacecraft landed in front of the White House? We began by reviewing what was discussed and how probable each course of action might be. But as the conversation evolved, we got onto the topic of our planet Earth in comparison to the rest of the universe. Our world is so minute in relation to the rest of the galaxies and planets that it really puts the concepts of international relations into perspective. What if, we speculated, these ET’s come from a universe where these theories of international relations are much grander, broader and have a greater impact? If you think about it, world politics on planet Earth is essentially the interactions between microscopic organisms on blotches of land (This is not to say that the theories of IR are unimportant here; I am merely putting our physical planet into perspective). How would we look and how would these visitors react if we were to mobilize our forces but then at once see that what they have to combat us is proportionally greater? It really puts things into perspective for me to think that our interactions are drastically different from that elsewhere. Furthermore, it is mind-boggling to contemplate what other theories of interaction are being implicated elsewhere. What other communication capabilities are being used? It seems that we have so much more to learn and reflect than what we originally thought was the case.

Gagatopia

Smack dab in the middle of the most chaotic region of the world would be a bizarrely shaped area of land. Politically, this mass of land named “Gagatopia” would be a Constructivist state, while philosophically it would be Exceptionalist. In other words, Gagatopia’s norms and identities would be constantly shifting which would result in a nationwide feeling of supremacy. It’s not a mystery that Lady Gaga is quite comfortable with herself. She is not afraid of the image she’s creating for herself and the effects she is having on young girls worldwide. What’s not to say that this outlook could not be used statewide? Bright makeup and meat dresses would become the norm; and the citizens of Gagatopia would inevitably scrunch their noses at the blandly dressed foreigners. Furthermore, as mentioned in the podcast, “stability is not presumed,” so it takes work to create a homeostasis. Because of this, Gagatopia would invariable experience an era of complete chaos and incrementally find ways to balance out the culture.

The state identity would, from a Constructivist’s perspective, be constantly shifting. Because Lady Gaga herself is so outlandish and extreme, her precepts would impact the populace. Freedom of dress, speech and actions would be full fledged. Since the norm would be bubble dresses, it would not be unusual for a politician to show up in similar attire to an international convention. As discussed in class, there are certain characteristics we associate with someone who shows up in a bikini to class. One student mentioned it might be an opportunity to flaunt her body which detracts from the studies. Many mentioned it was overall inappropriate for a classroom setting. Despite this, Gagatopia would promote this dress code. Brilliant male and female politicians would trapeze into conference rooms scandalously clad. A high school senior would show up for an interview wearing rainbow colored makeup. Because this is the norm, a Constructivist would say, “There is nothing wrong with this. This is our state identity.”

Consequentially, the citizens of Gagatopia would realize how different they are from the outside world. Some might feel at unease while the majority would confidentially fluff their hair and pride themselves on their appearances. This application of exceptionalism, in that “a state is exceptional and does not need to conform” to the status quo would be prevalent. For example, a typical Gagatopian would presume, “since our state promotes bikinis in classrooms, we have every right to wear bikinis at international conventions.” Slight arrogance and complete freedom of expression would reign. Yet as time goes on, Gagatopia will no doubt create stability through their cultural identity. Like any fad and any famous pop singer, the times change and a new star begins to shine. When this occurs, finally Gagatopia will settle down.

Reflection #4

During our discussion last Thursday, I left the classroom pondering Professor Jackson’s statement of the world being divided into an “us” group and a “them” group. There’s America as the ‘advanced’ nation who, in essence, paves the road to success for the “them” countries. We see ourselves as the first modern nation to utilize democracy and make it work while the others stagger on in hopes of becoming like us. We have the largest and most powerful military and have bases all around the world to keep an eye on the farthest corners of the world. Yet, despite all of this, I feel it’s important to point out the irony that we really aren’t the “us” but in actuality, a part of “them.” To begin with, to say one is a pure American is a debatable statement. We are all foreigners on this land (except for the Native Americans) and our society is as mix of preexisting cultures and beliefs. Is there really anything original in America that has not been previously implemented? The Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Muslim, Jewish and Christian immigrants have all lent their flavors and spices to our land. This is not necessarily a bad thing at all. In fact, it could be quite useful in international relations. But, because this is the case, it is important for us to realize where we stand culturally. Furthermore, I wish we would realize how degrading and in a sense, racist, we are in perceiving the world from an “us” “them” perspective. A recent example of this was illuminated to me upon my close friend’s return from Burma. She spent half a year in Burma and Nepal as a devout Buddhist nun. Like her Burmese sisters, she shaved her head and meditated for hours upon hours. But despite all of this, the people around her were still slightly hesitant. They were so used to the facade of superiority the US is so commonly associated with that it stunted her. Typically, not many Americans are found at this reserved monastery in the mountains. Because she, an American, was there, the natives instantly felt a sense of unease. I am quite sure in stating this was not due to the fact that she was just any foreigner, but in fact, an American. Most of us, whether we realize it or not, carry around a set of expectations and implications.Therefore, I hope for America’s sake that we stop elevating ourselves, whether explicitly or implicitly, and understand that there is no such thing as a ‘superior’ nation, culturally.

The Need for a Little More "Umph"

Instead of answering this question by simply saying that, “yes we should have elections” as opposed to obliterating them due to lack of national pride, I looked at this problem from a different angle. Yes, there are ways in which Democratic elections “de-politicize” the people but what good would come about it we were to rid our society of them? To answer this question another way, it is possible to amend the ways we handle our elections in the US. It is commonplace in America for an everyday citizen to absentmindedly sit down in front of the computer and do a quick research about a candidate that moderately appeals to him/her. Come election day, this individual would mutter about having to get up extra early, go to the polling station, vote, and then promptly forget about the whole ordeal. Simultaneously, half way around the world Africans, Iraqis, Thai, Afghans and many others are taking to the street in rage over the absence of their right to choose. They are denied this privilege we consider ‘basic’ and because of this, their societies are instilled with more forms of passion and interest in politics.
These differences should raise a red flag for us. This doesn’t mean we need to go out and murder our neighbor because s/he has a different political affiliation. Rather, maybe we’ve taken our right to vote for granted. Here, we know that despite our gender, race or nationality we can elect a candidate we feel is best. So why is it that (as a whole) we don’t exhibit such passion as other nations do? During the last election, I felt like a citizen of one of those countries who had so much to say and so much to do, but could not legally vote. I remember feeling so balled up with political energy, yet had no way of channeling it.
The way I looked at America as a whole and the way a Thai might look at America’s general political involvement were probably similar on some levels. Our nation today has already laid down the groundwork for a democratic society. Generations of us are so used to living in a free world that we can’t compare to other states that are in the process of wanting and creating a democracy. For example, in March of 2010, thousands took to the streets in Thailand to protest the supposedly Democratic government. There were no elections and the general consensus was to dissolve the Thai parliament. As swarms upon swarms of protesters joined the ever-growing crowd, a term called “Cruel April” went into effect to describe the deaths and the casualties inflicted on the people. An average person would be more astounded by the gory deaths then by the denial of a fair vote.
Because we are allowed a democratic election, we invariably take it for granted. There is an element of patriotism of taking to the streets (preferably nonviolently) and really believing in a certain candidate. It is in our greater interest to perhaps show more national pride than we have in the past.

Reflection #3

After visiting the Newseum and viewing all the coverage taken by American journalists, I began to wonder about other nations that don’t have freedom of the press. We take for granted this tenet of our life, that we are capable of knowing anything and everything. We know about the Stimulus Package and our debt of trillions of dollars. Essentially, governmental decisions both nationally and internationally are not a mystery to us. Yet as we watch the TV and read the papers, it seems that we are still getting a one-dimensional perspective despite all these freedoms. We hear from the American perspective about the war in Iraq and about relations between Israel and her neighboring countries. What we lack is a different perspective.
One of the times I was in Israel, I met with a Druze man from the Galil region. The Druze people are a unique group of individuals who practice an offshoot of Islam and live primarily in northern Israel, Syria, Lebanon and a few other countries. This man sat a small group of us down and explained his perspective on the current situation on the Middle East. I was so used to reading the Israeli News and listening to the American radios explain the situation that I neglected to incorporate a third dimension. He described to us his heritage and his passion for this narrow strip of land that means so much to so many different sorts of people. I realized just to what extent our media in America lacks this perspective.
I do give credit to a few select media programs who seek to accomplish just this (NPR), but on the whole, our news systems are devoid of this. We are not being completely truthful to the general public by presenting them with the American perspective. When children grow up only watching NBC and Fox News, they obtain a narrow outlook. Rather, it is in their greater interest to be given a wider array of news and then let them base their decision. This goes back to the news corporations. If major TV channels and the like present the public with perspectives similar to what the Druze man shared with me, we would be living in a much more open-minded culture.