The Travesty That Is Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving conveniently happened to occur right after we finished Todorov’s Conquest of America. Coincidence? I think not. Therefore I’m dedicating this reflection to the irony of the unifying nature of Thanksgiving and the hypocrisy of the holiday.

Thanksgiving is the day we commemorate that wonderful day when Native Americans and pilgrims feasted together at the same table, celebrating the fruits of their labor. It is believed that this first meal was more of a harvest feast, rather than a meal of thanksgiving. This tradition only developed later on in American history, while the colonists were busy conquering the native heathens that helped them survive those first winters so many years ago. Only at this time, were they giving thanks for the good fortune that they had received. So what exactly is behind these heartwarming feelings that bring us together on this holiday? I would argue that we’re all just tired and need a break because, frankly, it can’t be that we’re celebrating the history of Thanksgiving.

Just as the Museum of the American Indian demonstrated, Thanksgiving is another portrayal of how the United States has not taken responsibility for the genocide of the Native Americans. We try to redeem ourselves with the exaggerated story of Thanksgiving, which is seen in what our youth is told about the holiday. We teach elementary school children that Thanksgiving is about how two different groups of people came together to share a meal and count their blessings together. However, history tells us that this is not entirely accurate, and also not the full story of Thanksgiving. Why is the United States still unable to confront its demons? Regardless, Thanksgiving is a nice holiday to celebrate because of the values we currently associate with it, as long as we ignore its murky history.

Turkey and North Korea

So, I was excited to go back down South and chow down on some turkey, but I get a news update from MSNBC at around 2 am saying that North Korea had fired several dozen artillery rounds at a South Korean island-based military installation. How am I supposed to feel about that? Way to ruin my Thanksgiving break mood, Kim Jung-Il. But, let us not forget that this is the 16th skirmish between the two Korean states since the truce was called at the end of the Korean War. So, what else can we assume? This is just a prime example of yet another simgle-party communist state flexing its muscles, hoping that the prosperous West is scared and impressed.

We have two possible end-results to this scenario: 1) Mr. Kim is bluffing - as usual, or 2) this time the 6 million man military of North Korea is actually going to put their words into action. If they are bluffing - which is the likely result - then the West will, of course, verbally sanction their actions; and if they are not bluffing, then me and every other adult male between 18 and 35 are going to get drafted. Who's ready for Korean War round 2? It's alright, the U.S. can take'em!

Reflection #14: I've never been so thankful

Even though my last reflection was basically a complete bashing of Thanksgiving and its practices, I did really enjoy being able to go home this weekend and see old friends and family while also reflecting on my semester this far. Of course knowing that the next two weeks are going to be filled with countless hours in the library and more money spent on caffeine than food makes me thankful for this short breath of fresh air.

Being that my parents weren’t raised in this country, they had a tendency of slightly overdoing most American holidays because they never wanted my brother and I to feel left out. While I never appreciated this gesture as a child, I thought about it a lot this weekend. For the first time, I felt like an outsider in my home. This emotion was neither good, nor bad but instead I found it to be incredibly interesting, and in some ways refreshing. I remembered what it was like to desperately crave my own freedom, and independence from my parents. Although they’ve treated me like an adult for as long as I can remember, I still wanted to leave. Coming back to the same town, buildings, rooms, and people made my newfound independence and growth so blatantly noticeable in a way that completely slid past my conscience while here in DC. I see things differently.

I’m no longer even moved by things that used to drive me crazy before, and I appreciate aspects of my life that I barely stopped to notice just three months ago. I used to get unbelievable irritated that my peers at my small private school didn’t think it was important to contribute to something that did not directly benefit themselves socially, or financially. I saw these same people this past weekend, and while some, like me, feel like a completely different person, there were those who remained completely unchanged. This didn’t irritate me in the slightest. I just accepted it, and appreciated when my close friends commented on my evident happiness. Gestures such as my parents’ desire to make Thanksgiving as “American” as possible stood out to me and made me appreciate this new kind of relationship that was quickly developing between my family and me.

Overall, I’m excited to get back to Letts 6 where we’ve all created some kind of new home and family, but I’m excited to return after finals and spend more time noticing these changes in myself, and the people around me.

I Give Thanks That I Do Not Live In Korea

When I should have been enjoying my weekend with my family, my dog, ham and stuffed mushrooms, and Roy Williams fumbling away the game for the Cowboys, I was too busy worrying about North Korea. Well, scratch that - I completely and totally enjoyed the Cowboys losing on Thursday. However, the worrying still stands. Although skirmishes between the Koreas are by no means unheard of, the magnitude of the latest incident is difficult to swallow. The results of any kind of open war between the nations would stink for everyone - we would probably have to at least think heavily about getting seriously involved.

Remember, the USA has been close with South Korea for a long time. Their economy is vital for the Western world; when the South accused North Korea of torpedoing one of their ships, the United States scrambled to its defense, even when independent reports raised many doubts about whether North Korea was actually responsible. It will be the US's job again to spring to South Korea's defense. We must, of course, keep in mind that North Korea may well be posturing; for example, a glance at North Korea's official government FAQ on its official website yields such claims as "the DPRK is a state free of homelessness, unemployment, prostitution, and starvation," as well as this beautiful exchange:

Q: Can I work in North Korea as a teacher/interpreter/(other)?
A: No.

It seems to me that any state that would claim these things would have no trouble playing chicken. The question is whether this time, North Korea is planning to back itself up.

Bonus Blog 2: Separation is best

“The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner, the man or whom each country is as his own is already strong, but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect”

I believe that Todorov is right in his statement concerning the condition of man in terms of identity. Essentially, he is arguing that the more detached a man is from one specific nation of identity, the better off he will be. Being attached to one place requires loyalty, and dependence on an external source for security, and happiness. The man who considers each country as his own is better off than the one who believes his country, and his ideals are secure and ideal because he is accepting all other nations and beliefs as his own. This is better because he is not tied down to one ideology that might fail him, or prove to be wrong in the end.

The man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is even better off than the one who accepts each as his own because in this statement attachment is a bad thing. Therefore, separation from all ideologies and countries is better than attachment.

I can’t help but think of the Bhagavad Gita when reading Todorov’s statement. The ideal mindset for a Hindu is to be separated from all worldly things in order to purify the mind and become free from the miseries that arise from material contact. I think this is why I had trouble in class today agreeing that indifference must mean only tolerance, and not acceptance. In my opinion, being indifferent towards opposing beliefs is not necessarily a bad thing. I have a hard time agreeing that those who have faith in the accuracy of their beliefs do not accept the fact that others believe in something else with the same assurance. Compared to killing each other over these beliefs, I think this a relatively happy medium. While I’d like to believe that eventually we could all reach a level of acceptance, instead of tolerance, I think it’s a step in the right direction.

The man who sees the whole world as foreign is best off because he separated from everyone, equally. The one who accepts all others as his own is tolerant of others as equals as well, but will inevitably be confused, and overwhelmed by the need to upkeep this equal acceptance. I think Todorov is getting at the idea that maybe equal tolerance is better more logical, and far more practical than equal acceptance.

Bonus Blog: Disturbing Images

Truthfully, neither the Redskins flag, nor the museum accurately represents the Native Americans. While an entire museum has a pretty substantial advantage over the one image on a flag it is still flawed because in my opinion, not telling the complete truth about a situation is really not all that different from lying about it. The flag is not accurate or acceptable because it is a mascot for a sports team. A mascot is intended to be as vicious, tough, and violent. Therefore, using the Native American with a feather headdress and angry look on his face in supposed to represent these three qualities. Depicting the Native Americans as violent and using the most stereotypical object (a feather) to categorize this group of people is definitely the least acceptable representation of the two. In fact, the name Red-Skin is not exactly entirely acceptable either and seems a lot more offensive than “Native American.”

Photo Credit: Redskins4ever.com

Reflection #13-We're celebrating what this weekend?

What a perfect time to reflect on Native Americans, their museum, and their holiday. Oh wait. It’s not their holiday. We were lied to.

My problem with the general idea towards the past treatment of Native Americans is less about the catastrophe that resulted in a complete exploitation of culture, and de-humanization of a people, but rather the lack of care that is given to the way in which we as a society remember their history, think of them today. If you don’t believe me, just look at the fact that we call them Indians. Of all the ethnic groups that people sometimes tend to geographically misplace, whether due to the mindset that it’s irrelevant, or innocent ignorance, there’s really no excuse for this one. It baffles me that this is even an issue because despite the fact that Columbus thought he was in India, I think it’s time to recognize the fact that the was in America. Therefore, saying Indian makes no sense. However, I think the word gets thrown around a lot because many people do not want to be offensive, but as someone who is a minority in both race and religion, it is not even remotely offensive to me when someone asks for clarification on something that might potentially create an awkward situation. I believe our paranoia towards being politically correct all the time has gone too far. While I understand the purpose and respect the intention, I think this obsession tries to hide our differences, while we should embrace them instead.

In my opinion, the term “Native American” is not offensive in the slightest. This confusion about what to say is purely due to this paranoia. Sure, native could imply primitive, but I think it’s safe to say it’s understood that in this case, it’s referring to the fact that they were the first “Americans.” Especially considering that was in issue for the museum that failed to recognize the hell that these people were forced to go through. Did they really agree that the word “native” would offend the Native Americans more than our failure to recognize their genocide?

While the museum actually addresses the differences between tribes relatively well, and shows the beauty and uniqueness of these cultures, it’s almost impossible to not get the “so where’s the exhibit on how we screwed them over” feeling. I couldn’t believe how they so casually glazed over what is arguably the most defining characteristic of their history. It’s not as if the museums avoid difficult historical events. The Newseum has boxes of tissues in the 9/11 exhibit, and the Holocaust has an entire museum dedicated to its memory. I can’t help but wonder if this is because we were the ones doing the killing in this case, instead of part of the heroes and victims. Although the museum feels like some kind of commemorative apology, it’s almost insulting that such as important detain is given such little importance, again proving that we as a society just don’t really care.

Finally this brings me to Thanksgiving. This is probably the biggest slap in the face to the Native Americans. We were taught that this holiday celebrates the relationship between the first settlers and natives. Is this a joke? If we actually wanted to make an attempt to prove that we care about these people, we should start with maybe not lying to generation after generation. While the intention of celebrating all we are thankful for, and actually not giving gifts for once is something we should certainly hold on to, it’s slightly disturbing that this week thousands of kids in hundreds of schools will be forced to dress up as one of the two and re-enact the opposite of what actually happened. My point is that a sugar-coated museum really doesn’t make the situation any better if we’re just going to continue being dishonest about the past.

Coming to Terms

The Museum of the American Indian simply reinforced all the issues I have with the history between the United States and Native Americans. It seems that after all these years, we are still not able to come to terms with the genocide that the United States carried out on its own land.

I do not agree with the inaccuracy and confusion that comes with the term “American Indian.” Those deciding on the name of the museum decided that “native” implies primitive, which is why it wasn’t named the Museum of the Native American. However, calling them Indian is simply inaccurate. An Indian is someone that “originates,” for lack of a better word, from India. As an Indian myself, I have had people ask me if my father wears feathers and dances around fires. Putting aside the absolute political incorrectness of this question, it demonstrates the fallacies that the term “American Indian” presents. “Native” does not have to mean primitive. For me, it simply means that they are the original descendants of the land, implying respect as opposed than anything else.

The other main issue I had with the museum was how it avoided the word “genocide.” There is no doubt that it was one, therefore why refer to it as “a wave of death” instead? The use of passive verbs demonstrates how the United States still hasn’t taken responsibility for the mass, systematic extermination of a people. In my opinion, the Museum of the American Indian was more of an insult than a tribute.

The museum should have been a commemoration to the Native American culture in light of the genocide that the United States perpetuated. It should not have clumped all Native American culture into one. And it should have dedicated some part of the museum to the genocide itself. Hopefully one day the United States will be able to come to terms with our bloody history.

The "Indian Question"

The conquest of the American Indians by the European colonists and later by the U.S. federal government is a touchy subject in the overly politically correct atmosphere of the Information Age. But, as an objective thinker, I must raise a single question: Understanding the mindset of the Western ruling class (including U.S. elites from 1776-1900) from 1400-1900, how was conquest not the most rational option from their standpoint? Of course, the decision to systematically exterminate an entire hemisphere's inhabitants is immoral by modern social standards - and is widely regarded as an act that should never have happened - but what were the ruling elite's priorities in the early Modern Era? Bullion, power, expansion, and Christian evangelism were the talk of the day. There was no "cultural conscience" or sense of political correctness... or even a basic understanding of common human rights. Yes, this statement can be deemed an apoligist's stance, but these facts cannot be ignored. It was not a common social practice in the early Modern Era to appreciate cultures other than one's own, to actively ensure the enforcement of basic human rights, or question the pursuit of national interest. The Europeans and U.S. citizens realized that the American Indians had no desire to conform to European standards of living and Christianity, and therefore they were declared an obstacle to expansion and developement of the Western hemisphere. So, in the most rational and apathetic mindset possible, extermination and forced relocation were implemented by the ruling elite to solve the "Indian Question."

A Rebuttal for Dona Marina

Ladies and gentlemen! The prosecution has made a strong case, to be sure. Yes, they have managed to clearly define Dona Marina as a defector, an informant, a traitor to her people. These accusations are based in fact. However, this trial is for the purpose of drawing Dona Marina as a traitor. No, this trial is to answer the question: was Dona Marina essential and integral in herself to the downfall of the Aztec Empire? Once we have fleshed out the true question, the answer reveals itself to be a resounding no.

Remember, Dona Marina (if we may excise the frankly offensive name that the prosecution would have you identify her as) had no choice in becoming a translator. It was translate, or die - rather, be raped and then die. Again, there were myriad Natives in the area with extensive knowledge of Aztec culture; surely another translator would be found, and the same issues wrought in the Aztec lands, with the notable difference that Dona Marina would be dead. Indeed, the Spanish would eventually have Nahuatl speakers in their party; they could have served the same role. Again, the zeal that Dona Marina would eventually take to her role identifies her as a traitor. But she was not integral - her role would have been taken on by someone anyway. Dona Marina did not bring anything special to her role.

And what of the claims by the prosecution that she did bring something extra? Merely examine the language that their evidence contains, which they base this claim around. You will see that the supposed extraordinary benefits that Dona Marina brought to the Spanish efforts - translating actions as well as words? Talking to Montezuma on her own initiative, when he was already locked in his own bedroom by Spanish soldiers? - and it is clear that any benefits were hardly tangible, let alone campaign-altering. Again, members of the jury, ask yourself: What did Dona Marina do that another would not have? What benefit did Dona Marina have that was only native to herself, and not universal? She had none - any Indian of the area could have interpreted the ways of their Aztec oppressors. If Dona Marina brought nothing individual to herself that tangibly impacted the campaign - well, the only course is to declare Dona Marina of being innocent of the charges of "being integral to the dominion of the Aztecs".

The Scale of Victory

Were the Aztecs conquered by signs? One may deem this a narrow-minded claim, but no - the Aztecs were conquered by the technological advantage of the Spanish. The Aztecs were technologically advanced for a Central and South American native civilization, but they had no beasts-of-burden, no knowledge of blackpowder musketry, modern military strategy, or understandings of modern logistics. Academically, the Aztecs were inferior to modern intellectual understanding. How were they expected to hold-up under the pressure of European colonial expansion? The statistical advantage of victory was drastically skewed in favor of the Spanish Conquistadors.

Cognitive processes and mental projections have very little influence in the short term on material advantage. Yes, of course, the traditional method of concept abstraction, that is the Aztec method of applying logic into social construction, assisted the Aztecs very little in retaliation to Spanish colonialism. This is due to the fact that over several centuries the Spanish method of concept abstraction had landed them far beyond the Aztecs technologically, at least in regards to military strategy, metallurgy, logistics, and seafaring. Nothing can mask this blatant fact.

Blog #13: What can signs do for you?

In responding to Todorov’s question as to the extent to which signs were a means by which the Spaniards conquered the Aztecs, it is important to note two possible extremes and their level of interconnectedness in order to decipher the reasons as to why his argument is true, and how signs did in fact play a key role in this situation.

Before explaining these extremes, there are assumptions that need to be understood. The first, and most obvious is the Aztec’s dependency on signs, especially during times of uncertainty. Every natural occurrence was interpreted, bad omens were taken extremely seriously, and material objects (like religious idols) help significant value because of what they symbolized. Because of this, the natives essentially believed that all events including births, wars, and deaths were pre-determined and a result of the will of the gods. They believed themselves to be helpless without a sign to determine their responsive course of action. This is where is gets complicated.

One extreme is that the Spaniards were unresponsive and unconcerned with this seemingly strange obsession, and they continued their conquest through means that they understood, such as making decisions based on communication through men and the world as a whole. Of course, the Aztecs were at a disadvantage because they had no communication with the rest of the world, nor did they really need it. If this were the case, then it is also possible that at the same time the Aztecs interpreted no sign indicating the need for rebellion. The result would be dissipated hope, and a higher chance of submission to the Spaniards. While it could be possible that these circumstances just happened to occur in favor of the Spaniards, another possibility exists on the opposite side of the spectrum.

The Spaniards also could have quickly recognized the importance of signs to the Aztecs and manipulated their system to east the difficulty in conquering them. This is a possible option as Todorov gives various examples of the observations that were made by the Spaniards about the Aztecs. This is why they chose to defame their places of worship by destroying their idols and morally victimizing these people, since they were hesitant to fight back without affirmation from the gods.

I think that these two extremes are intertwined and although the Spaniards may not have fully understood the purpose of symbolism and omens, simply coexisting with the Aztecs would have indicated the significance of these practices and beliefs. However, since this was a time of panic and uncertainty, the Aztecs spent a lot of time desperately searching for guidance, but found none. This replaced time that could have been used to plan and execute a rebellion. The lack of communication, and frequent misinterpretation of communication were also contributing factors to the way in which signs played an important role in this conquest. Todorov describes instances in which an action, or gesture signaled contrasting meanings which only fueled the fire.

While it is probably a combination of superior technology, immunity to certain diseases, experience, and miscommunication, I completely agree that the manipulation and unfortunate outcome of the interpretation of signs was a crucial factor by which the Spaniards were able to defeat the Aztecs. So far, I’ve enjoyed the book and Todorov’s interesting arguments. I’m looking forwards to seeing what’s next.

Photo Credit: theabysmal.wordpress.com

Battle of Blades, War of Words

The question of whether or not signs defeated the Indians is an interesting one. (I know that the question asks about the Aztecs, but I have not yet read that far, and will be taking license here to extrapolate to the overarching theme of Natives versus invaders). Clearly, words and symbols did not decimate the population of the Native Americans; rather, that came from Spanish steel, firearms, and pathogens (although the Natives did impart syphilis onto the Europeans for the first time, so I suppose the feeling was mutual). It doesn't stop there: the Europeans consistently used superior tactics as well. By playing Indian tribes off one another, and by veritably addicting them to European weapons, the Europeans were able to divide and conquer as competing tribes squabbled over the scarce hunting lands left, their yield exhausted by over-hunting for the purpose of procuring skins for the weapons trade. The Europeans played the game better, and had extra dice to start with; the defeat of the Indians would have been impossible had it not been for divide-and-conquer tactics (given their numerical advantage), but through better military acumen the horses and arquebuses carried the day.

However, what gave Europeans the go-ahead to destroy these people - these people who's physical strength and system of government they actually admired, who many believed to be actually lost tribes of Israel that needed to be rescued? That is a murkier question. Here, usage of words played a tremendous role in legitimizing what was brutal at best and genocide at worst. Some of this I mentioned in class: Indians did not live in "houses" or "towns", they lived in "swamps" and "wigwams" - putting the natives on a sub-European level; from the very first meeting, Europeans described native women as eager concubines. However, there's even more - Elana spoke in class about the insecurity of the Spanish empire. Well, considering that race before the late 17th century was considered quite fluid, and seeing as many thought that the "savage" Indians had once been noble Christians before being transformed by the wilderness, it is easy to imagine how unnerved settlers in the Americas felt! The prevailing sentiment was that, sooner or later, the colonists would become "Indianized" - a terrifying fate. Therefore, inflammatory language became the norm: calling all Indians "naked" and calling Indian land "naked" as well, to distinguish from the clothed English and their developed land (demeaning to the Indians); consistently referring to killing Indians as a "spritual duty", especially during times of war, to emphasis the native inferiority to Christians; MOST INTERESTINGLY (to me, at least) was the colonist's claims that they were fighting a defensive, HOLY war against Satan's forces, which, according to the definition of Pope Innocent IV, meant they could fight the Indians under no laws of war! They could treat Indians as unclean savages with impunity! Simply by having the ongoing conflict called a "holy" war as opposed to an ordinary one. If we want to jump back to pure symbols and to the Spanish: in the 1600s, Spanish friars would destroy Pueblo religious symbols and replace them with Christian ones, and would teach all Indians Castillian (or try to); this wanton destruction of Pueblo culture stunted Pueblo nationalism. And on I could go.

However, the original prompt asked about the annihilation of the Aztecs. Cortez, when he was plundering for gold, was not thinking of insecurities of race. He was not thinking about teaching the Aztecs prayers. He was thinking of destroying them. So in the individual case of Cortez's invasion - a one-shot deal - it was weapons and warhorses which defeated the Aztecs. In a broader historical context, however, it was dissemination of dehumanizing language and sentiments towards the Native Americans which mobilized a population to rise against them as one.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Although this is not entirely relevant to our class discussions on development, I wanted to reflect on the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy leader of Myanmar. She and her party, the National League for Democracy, won the 1990 elections, but were denied power by the military junta. She has been under house arrest for at least the past 15 years by the military junta as a means to undermine resistance power within Myanmar. Her release from house arrest this Saturday was a momentous occasion for anyone that considers themselves to be human rights activists.

Aung San Suu Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 and many other peace related awards throughout her life. She is a symbol for nonviolence and democracy in a country whose name itself can be synonymous with human rights violations. Despite the risk she puts herself and anyone associated with her in, she has vowed to continue to fight after her release. One of her most famous quotes goes against Machiavelli’s entire argument in The Prince. She said, “It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.” Her beliefs are not radical in any way, but given where she speaks out, her strength is incredible. She is one of my idols, and the historic day of Saturday, November 13^th 2010 could not pass without me dedicating a blog to it.

My main issue with Machiavelli is with his sentiments such as, “Relying on the people is like building on sand.” Leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi help me see a brighter future, a step towards a more harmonic system of world politics because of their reliance on ideas such as “Human beings the world over need freedom and security that they may be able to realize their full potential.” I’d rather believe in humanity because only that gives me the hope that change is possible.

Reflection #12- Use Your Head.

The World Bank presentation provided insightful information about an institution that has always interested me. In low and middle-income countries, the goal of the World Bank is to eliminate poverty, improve opportunity, and reduce social inequity, but this can be said about almost any charity organization. Instead, it was its approach to development in these nations that caught my attention. The representative explained that the World Bank focused its ideas based on the notions that countries determine their path, and that partnerships ensure greater results. I like the first idea because I’ve always been a firm believer in the effectiveness of helping someone learn how to help himself, instead of just helping him. It’s basically the “giving a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish” argument. I like the idea that the World Bank expects the money to be returned, and that the process is based on a well-organized timeline. This not only assures that the money is allocated appropriately, but also gives hope to the struggling nation by investing in its potential.

This also reminded me of the website we analyzed and discussed in class on Monday. One of the issues I had with our conversation was how much we all seemed to care about the intentions with which the money is being donated. Logically, we donate because we recognize that we cannot control the circumstances, or geographical location into which we are born. The part that becomes skewed is what comes next. Since we recognize this fact, we believe that our luck is relatively undeserved, and we have a desire to know that we did our part to somehow equalize the imbalance, even in the most microscopic way. But this is unnecessary, and ironically makes society actually seem selfish, by giving money away when really, donating is just logic. However, the media clearly exploits our emotions through countless TV commercials usually featuring an African, or Indian child in the rain next to some type of animal (usually a goat), and surrounded by small hut-like structures. Then there’s a man asking you to pay ten cents to save the children, or send them to school. There’s even a Dane Cook joke in which he talks about how it might even be more effective if instead, the commercial featured a Hulk Hogan look-alike yelling something like “Are you kidding, you can’t even pay ten cents a month for this kid to eat? You’re such a useless person, there’s probably ten cents under the couch you’re sitting on while this kid plays in the mud!”

As annoyed as people get with either the commercials themselves, or the blatantly transparent manipulation in action, the fact is that these ads are incredibly effect, or they would have stopped airing years ago. I believe that ad agencies, and charity organizations are being smart and observant of society’s progression. The internet is a much more popular medium for something which required action from the user. It’s quick and easy compared to calling the number on the screen and waiting for what seems like hours. Two key components for a successful advertisement, as we’ve been discussing in my Understanding Media class are emotional ties and personalization. This website achieves both of those elements. While guilt is still involved through specific language and pictures of small children, it allows the donators to choose how their money is specifically used. For someone who believes that education is key to elimination of poverty, there is a link to donate school supplies. The same idea is applied to water, farming, medicine, and even hope.

In my opinion, it is irrelevant why we donate. It shouldn’t matter if we just feel bad for someone else or if we genuinely are about global embitterment. When it comes to a lack of basic needs, the problems just needs to be solved quickly, regardless the emotion involved.

Where's the Line?

Over two centuries ago a document was signed, and this document was the Declaration of Independence. It was the embodiment of individualism and laissez-faire when applied to political philosophy. Discussions of the present day political spectrum do not seem to display any recollection of the values outlined in the Declaration’s opening, or the Constitution, for that matter. Simply, Americans have become detached. We have lost track of our identity, our beliefs, and our practices. When I here rhetoric being thrown around that hints at “entitlements” to wealth, education, and the like, it is rather alarming. What is a Man entitled to at birth? Where do we draw the line? Because, if we are not careful with our “duty to perfect Society” we will end up as a broken paternal state with sluggish economy and a chaotic tax-collection infrastructure. 

My question is have we not learned the side effects of big government? Were the feudal monarchies of the Middle Ages not a good example? How about the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, the Empire of Japan, the British Welfare State, the Progressive French Republic, the Greeks, the Irish, the Portuguese, the Spanish... Do any of their previous attempts at social equality show us the inevitable result? And, here we are, the once mighty, all powerful United States of America, falling right in line with the faulty socialist agenda of Europe. Big government is not effective at eliminating poverty, ignorance, or “redistributing the world’s resources.” It has been attempted - many, many times - all of which have failed.

It is due to these failures that the Individualist Movement keeps pressing onward, fighting the relentless advances of Altruism. We fight because we know the truth: socio-economic class division is inevitable, war is inevitable, poverty and ignorance will always exist. So, instead, we preserve the one true value worth fighting for - individual freedom. Because, in the end, we would all prefer to die on the terms of our consciousness, and not at the hands of a corrupt bureau... To die within the range of self-determination is the ultimate sense of liberty.

A Fine Line

A member of our sister World Politics class and I discussed today our respective classes' views on the question of a "right to education" and whether or not more scholarships and attention should be paid to the less-fortunate population. My World Politics class took a fairly liberal view on the issue, but my friend's did not - apparently, the general sentiment was that "if you didn't earn a scholarship, you shouldn't get it", and that dissenting voices were shouted down. This report surprises me, as such a dichotomy between the two classes is striking. However, my view of the subject is not so clear-cut itself.

Anyone who heard my final comment in class on Monday can be forgiven for assuming I think that I have no pity for or empathy with those who are stuck with a terrible public schooling experience which compromises their chances of higher education; after all, I did state that setting a floor for spending on primary education which ensured that enough qualified candidates to run the state machine are always on hand is all that the government should have to do. I do, in fact, believe that - if the state can run effectively, whether every single person running it comes from an expensive Catholic school or if there is an ethnic and socio-economic blend doesn't matter to me. However, just because I do not think that the staggeringly more difficult path inner-city and impoverished students need to take to personal success if a problem for the state does not mean that I think it is fair for the individual. In fact it is NOT fair, and although I am no expert, many things I have read (most vividly, for me, Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers) have demonstrated to me that people in some parts of the United States, if unable to escape private school, will never be able to contribute to society the peak of their ability due to the constraints society itself sets on them.

What to do about this? In my opinion affirmative action based on race is definitively not the answer. Yes, a system such as this certainly helps the people from primarily black inner-city schools; however, it also helps minorities who have had the same exact opportunities as whites, which is akin to a very unfair and undeserved advantage. In an America that is increasingly - if not close to perfectly - approaching parity between the races, to give the minority who goes to a private school with many other middle-to-upper class people of all stripes and the minority who goes to a rotten school the same advantage is preposterous. Again, I am no expert on economics or anything else in this field, and my suggestions are merely toss-outs. However, I think it might make more sense to take a much closer look at where people live than what color they are. Remember, even genetically identical twins who grow up in different environments will grow to look completely different from one another. Likewise, being a minority may make you more likely to be from a terrible school district; however, because all people are the same, it is where you live and go to school that impacts you. Perhaps by making quotas for relatively-high achieving students who go to worse school districts - no matter their ethnicity - will be more fair for everyone, including the state which will receive the fruits of a larger pool's labor, than making racial quotas that assume that minority applicants are in worse straits to start with.

Blog #12: Life's not fair.

Our class discussion about the fairness of the college application process is a parallel argument to the question of whether or not the economic success or failure of a state is a fair outcome. Ultimately, the answer is that it is irrelevant because fairness is too vague and subjective of a term, and regardless of whether one considers it to be fair or not, we should focus on how to uplift states who struggle in order to create a better, more efficient global structure. Theoretically, when you work hard to build a stellar college application consisting of various components, you should get into a good school. However, this is not always the case. Today, there are simply too many college applicants for schools to accept. Therefore, the best colleges are forced to cut people for reasons beyond the power of the students such as geographical location, and ethnicity. In the book “Outliers,” author Matthew Gladwell suggests that universities should instead make two separate piles of applicants: good enough, and not good enough. They should then essentially pick names out of a hat from the “good enough” pile in order to create the most balanced system of choosing its incoming freshmen. However, since that is not the case, we are taught to work around the system. College counselors tell their students to apply to many different schools including safety schools, and to manipulate their applications to make them stand out among thousands. In today’s world, it’s more about standing out instead of having a perfect application.

Like college applications, not all states have perfect applications with different components like a strong military, efficient economy, and a peaceful progressive society. Therefore, states must do what we students are taught to do and manipulate its individual strengths. This is why natural resources are incredibly important. If a state can efficiently make use out of its natural resources, then it can grow because economic success results from an increase in productivity. If a state can do something unique with its natural resources, it will stand out in the world. However, it is always possible that a certain state is unable to do this for economic or various other reasons. This is by no means “fair,” but it should not necessarily have to be fair. There is no entitlement to economic success, just as there is not entitlement to going to your first choice college. A student, or state can only strive for success.

Are We Asking the Right Question?

The main issue I have with this question is that it addresses states as if they are people. It is unfair if a person cannot achieve his or her potential if they are hindered by situational factors. The reasoning behind why this would be considered injustice, in my opinion, is that the ability to pursue happiness (in whatever form that may come in) is a natural right. For me, a natural right is the idea that each human being is entitled to certain privileges (for lack of a better synonym) because of the sole fact that they are human beings. Therefore, when a person is denied the right to pursuing their own happiness, whether that is found in education or clay making, because of factors they cannot control (such as discrimination), then they are suffering from an unfair situation. However, the question of “fairness” is completely different when the subject is a state because none of the above applies. The only reason I would consider something to be unfair to a state is if the people within the said state suffer.

With this rationality, it is unfair that certain states experience economic successes and economic failures as a result of the disparity in readiness for global competition. However, I would argue this is unfair because the people born into the less fortunate states suffer from the disparity because they are unable to fully compete in the global market because of situational factors (where they were born) that they could not control. It is not an issue for the state merely because what exactly is suffering for a state if a state is nothing but a theory, idea, or state of mind?

Therefore this brings up a new question. Instead of “Does a state have a right to wealth?” we should be asking, “Do the people within the state have a right to wealth?”

Life Isn't Fair

The great Greek philosopher Plato once stated that "a state that does not educate and train its women is like a man who only trains his right arm." Despite this sage advise, some nations (including Saudi Arabia) take great pains to not educate or train its women. As Cavington wisely noted in the post below, nations (Rwanda, Egypt) soak in foreign aid and then are unable to rise from borderline poverty; and yet the clamor for more continues to grate. However, the misfortunes and mistakes of less economically fortunate states is not the responsibility of powerful states to rectify.

I have stated opinions to this respect in this space before, and I will do so again: The United States of America is one of the luckiest nations on the planet. It was colonized by an advanced and rich nation, left to develop through salutary neglect, and had vast oceans on both sides to guard it. America's development was incredible. However, some nations were not nearly as ready to be independent was America was when they requested independence. These nations include many of those torn apart by civil and economic strife, like Algeria and Angola (yes, I always use these two examples; this just shows how often I talk about this in this space). This kind of state is the type that often asks for foreign aid; however, it is NOT America's problem. Neither is it America's problem if ANY state wants aid.

There are only two reasons for one nation to legitimately give aid to a country (which is the only thing which realistically could contribute to an imaginary "right to wealth"): if the financial well-being of any one nation is essentially important to that of the aid-giver; or if the one nation, out of the bottom of its heart, feels as though it wants to assist. To give otherwise would be a violation of a nation's realist prerogatives. It is to each country to do as what most strengthens itself, not to do what strengthens others. To decree a right to wealth, or any euphemism for the same, is to essentially remove a nation's sovereignty to do what is best for itself - and to do this is to remove what makes a nation a nation, and not a protectorate, territory, or - yes - colony. If a colony wants to declare independence, it needs to be able to be being a big boy.

A Right to a Low-Interest Loan and Quasi-Loan Forgiveness

So… now states have a “right to wealth.” First, there were “universal human rights” and now there is a “universal right to national wealth.” What does the word right imply? In short, it essentially insinuates an entitlement – that by mere existence an entity is entitled to whatever rights human society deems necessary (i.e. assuming, of course, that a common collective called “society” actually exists). According to those who promote this right to national wealth, if a nation is protected by the safety net of guaranteed liquid worth, it will be more prepared for independent sovereign statehood. But, at whose expense is this safety net capital going to be acquired? It will come directly out of the pockets of those established nations who have built themselves up on their own. Basically, what this right to national wealth is doing is establishing the framework for global theft: coercing established, post-industrial powers into spending more money that that they do not have. Now, does that sound just? Of course, it does not. Yes, it probably would marginalize and help bridge the massive gap in wealth distribution between the First World and the Developing World, but at the expense of further indebtedness, decreased national industrial outputs, and increased global tension. The negative externalities of this national entitlement initiative would drastically outweigh the positive objective goals. What idealism forgets is the value of a Dollar. Capital does not grow on trees, and it never will. Nor, will the importance or need for currency ever go away. It is a problem that we must accept and deal with, just like social marginalization and disenfranchisement. We can decrease the amount to which people suffer and are oppressed, but never will hardship disappear.

The only rational means toward a better world where everyone is free, fed, clothed, housed, and educated is through global liberal market principles: deregulation, free trade, and diversified, low-risk investment strategies. If we want to assist developing countries then allow them to borrow and lend responsibly. Do not allow Third World nations to be conned into risky, high interest loans, corrupt monetary and fiscal practices, and crack-pot investment strategies. Balancing a federal deficit should be treated like balancing a household budget. Be smart, be safe, and be diversified. If we want to help nations in need, then provide them with the means to be ambitious and profitable. Simply giving them a gift of billions from “Your friends in the West” is not going to cut it. We need to ensure that proper lending infrastructure is present, as well as a quasi-loan forgiveness safety net is upheld. They will make their payments if we push them and guide them through the process of developing their home territory.

Wealth & Poverty

I hope I’m not alone in saying that last week’s discussion on poverty and wealth made me a little uncomfortable. When we reached the point where the group was merely discussing their family’s means, I felt we had lost the point of the discussion. However besides that, there were many interesting points made that analyzed common conceptions of wealth from a different angle.

I agree with the definition we established, which identifies wealth as the ability to choose your investments. The most interesting argument supporting this definition, for me, was what Aubrey said about how we are wealthy when we have the ability to choose that lower paying job because we are not as concerned about money as opposed to someone with fewer means. The latter has no choice but to work at the high paying law firm, even if it is inconsistent with that person’s values and beliefs. This was interesting to me because this exact situation is that of “selling out.” Normally, a person that accepts the high paying job over the more fulfilling, but less monetarily satisfying is considered selfish and wealth-oriented. However, I have never stopped to think that maybe this is because they have no other choice. This is the only way to pay the bills.

Furthermore, the discussion of poverty seemed to be going in circles, but I wanted to discuss my own little anecdote on the subject. Both my paternal and maternal grandparents live in India. However, they live completely different lifestyles. My paternal grandparents live in an influential city in Kerala, where the industry is mostly academic and technology based, rather than the agricultural based area in which my maternal grandparents reside. My dad’s parents own one of the largest houses in the area, complete with working showers to dishwashing machines. They run a successful store that sells car parts, which was originally started by my great-grandfather. My mom’s parents live in a small, but comfortable home, where each shower requires boiling an enormous pail of water beforehand. They use the surrounding land as their source of means. In congruence with what we discussed on Thursday, my maternal grandparents are by far happier, and I enjoy staying with them much more. Although their conditions are not of the same caliber, they live without materialistic envy and with a pure gratitude towards life. Their greatest asset is the education they sought for each child. Now all seven are world travelers, living all over the globe from New York City to Ghana. Of my two sets of grandparents, I’m proud to be the grandchild of Anna and Joseph Maniattu because of what they have achieved with what they were given in the beginning.

Just as Frederick Douglass said, “You are not judged by the height you have risen, but from the depth you have climbed.” This rings more important for me.

Reflection #11-The Pentagon and the thread count of my sheets

The past week was probably the busiest and most stressful I’ve had since school began in August. So whether it was the escape from memorizing Macroeconomics or conjugating what felt like a hundred Spanish verbs, our visit to the Pentagon and discussion on the definition and measurable qualities of wealth felt like a breath of fresh air, and a return to the real world.

Although I wish we had been able to hear the speaker that was supposed to talk to us about the Pentagon, I still enjoyed walking around the building and seeing the various historical medals and gifts given from across the country. I was surprised by how much it looked like an airport, rather than one of, if not the most important building in DC. I would have enjoyed getting to see another part of the building where people were doing their jobs, but it makes sense that they have a section for tours that is separate from the rest of the building. The room dedicated to the victims and families of 9/11, although small, was personalized with photographs and words written by loved ones of the people who were killed on the plane and in the actual building. I also really liked the way the garden was set up to honor these people. Everything from the direction the bench was facing to the measurement of the pavement symbolizes something significant. The visit was short, but informative and now I can say I’ve been to the Pentagon.

In all honesty, the fishbowl activity was slightly frustrating, but only while sitting on the outside. It was worth it by the time it was our turn to sit on the inside because the small number of people made the conversation more personal and active. Although I think we tended to talk about our own individual situations a little too much at the beginning, I felt that the conversation was productive considering the topic was difficult. Defining something like wealth is so hard because it is so subjective. I still stand by my original opinion that wealth is the continuous ability to make certain choices depending on what we value. I think we struggled most when asked if a “poor” person in the United States is better off than a “poor” person in another country. First, it is just as difficult to define poverty because we have this mentality to believe that someone always has it worse, and someone brought up the thought that lower class people who might be presented with less choices and opportunities, still do not consider themselves to be “poor.” Ultimately, I still believe that yes it is better to be financially unstable here than somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that things will get better. However, the difference is that here there is a chance; while in other places it’s almost impossible to escape one’s initial social status.

This is America

As Mr. Gabe Fridkis and I walked out of the doors of the Pentagon, we felt it necessary to deviate from the group in search of the Memorial Garden. We walked up to one of the Pentagon Police officers and asked where the garden was, he then told us very officially to “…step back and remove your hands from your pockets.” But, as soon as we complied he put us in the right direction.

Upon arriving at the garden, we saw all the benches, symbolizing how many great Americans died in the Pentagon-Boeing 757 collision. Patriotism swelled in our chests, and after a brief moment of solemn silence we decided to head to lunch in Georgetown. After a quick trip on the Metro and a slight stroll out of the station, we found The Guard Pub and Grill.

Lounging like gentlemen in a corner, we discussed life’s petty trivial matters, but then something struck a chord in ears! We looked around the pub, recollected on the day’s events, and how magnificent things were. The two of us were swept away by the wonder, joy, and serenity of being American citizens – not that we were not already steadfast nationalists to begin with – but, the passion come upon us en masse. For the remainder of our stay at The Guard, we were simply inundated with patriotic feelings… our blood really did run red, white, and blue.

As proper, upstanding American gentlemen, the beauty and fortune in being Americans manifested in our minds. Where on this Earth can anyone else say they are truly on top of the world? Americans are at the peak of prosperity, freedom, and security. We, as citizens, are the vanguard of humanity, blessed with the many luxuries and privileges not seen to nearly two thirds of the world’s inhabitants. Why should we not be proud? Our nation has done something right in order to see such historical success, and it lies deep within our founding values. As soon as we deviate from those values – which we are well on our way toward doing – our success will wane. America cannot fail. If it does, then the other nations of the world will fail with us. All of modern civilization will take a beating. Chaos will descend everywhere, and out of the rubble and ashes will arise ignorance, tyranny, and poverty. If there is one duty assigned to every American citizen, it is to remain free, but to do this we must defend our great nation from the devastating forces that have lined up against it. The ranks of irrationality and debt are stacked deep, and they are marching towards us at all due speed. Man the walls, and fire down on the dreaded Army of Altruism; defend our blessed city upon a hill with the muskets of reason, logic, and liberty!

Almost Too Quiet

Today, I did not say a single word during the class discussion. This irked me and confused me: I certainly didn't expect to go out there and contribute nothing. Why did it happen? I'm not quite sure. I am not the world's best when it comes to economics, but that was only a small part of my reticence; more of it was simply not knowing whether what I was going to say was going to offend someone, or make me seem insensitive or a blockhead, and therefore keeping my thoughts to myself. I also liked group 1's discussion much more than group 2's - I had lots to say about the original discussion, but clammed up when it was my turn to talk. That was a terrible feeling of loss of control, and I never want to do that again.

Here's some of what I WANTED to say today (some of this, to varying degrees, was covered by others in class): Poverty and wealth are unbelievably relative, and are not actual, concrete "things" - they are concepts that with institutionalized definitions, but which cannot exist without a contrary experience. For example, here's a story: as a child, the molars on the right side of my mouth didn't touch when I closed my mouth (my jaw was uneven). This meant, of course, that I was food-chewing poor compared to other children, and this inefficiency in food consumption doubtless caused minor (very minor) physiological deficiencies. However, I thought this was completely normal for all kids - jaws just didn't close on both sides. Until a dentist informed me both sides should close, I had literally no idea I was at a deficiency.

This is obviously a small example, but the model holds true in a historical context as well. In my view, impoverishment as our society accords it exists everywhere - from the slums of a city to the mountains of Benin. This impoverishment comes from lack of opportunity, lack of basic comforts like medical care, and lack of actual cash. However, it is only when market forces begin to work on a society that true wealth begins to take shape - and brings with it a lower class. For example, Indians in the Chesapeake in the 1600s and before lived a life of communal land, hunting and sustenance farming, and trade of goods. After the European market system touched these people, however, wars started up - wars that began because there was now an idea of private property that could be purchased; wars because this new private property cut in on farming and hunting grounds, and because those with the means to buy land did so in large amounts; wars because deerskin became a prime market selling point to Europe, and so as hunting grounds were depleted fighting broke out over the land that was left; wars to collect slaves to sell, which was the most lucrative system of all. This last was particularly egregious, because in previous Indian wars, prisoners were made slaves and were the "poorest" member of society - but were eventually adopted into the tribe. Now, these same people were sold into slavery by people who were slaves themselves - slaves to the drive to find wealth and avoid poverty. These terms had never existed before, but they would never leave afterward.

Now, the market has obviously done a lot of great things, as Christian pointed out in class; it's brought technological revolutions, a swelling standard of living, etc. However, it has also brought a sense of a bourgeoisie and of an attainable upper-class, an upper-class which requires another class to be below it. In America, there are many who succeed, but also many who fail, and those who fail are painfully reminded every day of what could be. I guess what I'm saying is, I would rather be poor in America than poor almost anywhere else. But if I could find a place - which may well be hypothetical now - which has never felt the hand of the market and the class system it brings along...I'd have to give it a good look.

Irrationally Common

“We need an international institution to regulate…” “A global committee should be formed for…” These are everyday responses to common international issues. Everyone is always claiming the need for global integration, worldwide institutions, and the like. I have but one inquiry to this – why? No, but really, why? Why do academics, the political Frankenstein, and influential minds always come crying and begging to the feet of globalization? As if yet another slow, underfunded, and illegitimate global organization is the answer. Pardon my French, but there is not one damn ounce of rationale behind this incessant claim. Are there true global standards and principles, and if so, by who’s standard? Supranational social standards assume that worldwide consensuses can be reached on particular “moral” and “ethical” regulations. A “common good” never encompasses everyone. With every social, political, and economic edict or action, someone somewhere is going to get marginalized or thrown to the curb. It truly is impossible to please everyone, whether you let them be – a free, individualist society – or assist them in their every life need – the Marxist state – there is always going to be someone to complain or not receive positive effects from the current condition. So, from this we can draw three conclusions: 1) it impossible to eliminate marginalization, every action is going to affect at least someone negatively; 2) there is not a true, or calculable, common good, since marginalization is inevitable; 3) ideologies that pursue a common good have logically unreachable goals.

Not So Sup(r)a

Large, supranational governing bodies may at first glance seem to be a panacea for what ails the world. This supposition can be defended. For instance, as our speaker noted yesterday, members of the European Union never ever fight one another. An overarching supranational government would then seem to lend itself to preventing war. In addition, all the members of an EU type setup have the opportunity to take advantage of a free market in way that non-members cannot, resulting in advanced economic opportunities for all. Hey, there aren't even any wars between constituent states which would hurt the economy! It seems like a strong system, and it is. I would even say that it is in many cases a preferable form of governance.

However, it is by no mean the only viable form of governance. The good old nation-state still can stand on its own two feet. In fact, one reason that supranational governments will not always work (and hence cannot be the only viable system) is that established and powerful nation-states cannot be absorbed so easily. They will want to continue their established primacy on the world stage, and so will either seek to break off once more from the supranational group or to try and take control of it - contrary to the point of having a supranational government with multiple constituents.

One current example is the UK within the EU. Many, many people in the United Nations want the UK to pull out of the EU - there is an entire political party that has a platform revolving around it. You may have noticed our speaker's noted lack of, well, anything regarding the UK in his talk yesterday - that's because the UK is a threat to no longer be in the Union after a while. Why? Because the UK is a world power with political influence that belies its physical size, and it does not want to be subservient to some supranational voice. "We're England!", reasons the populace. It wants to do what it has always done - lead the way, not listen to rules that Estonia wants passed.

The rest of the EU should be thankful, however, the the UK is not following the leads of France or Germany. Those nations, as our speaker talked about, are blatantly making a power grab. They are ready to use the EU as a mouthpiece, an organ for their own convictions about European life. And what of the other nations in the EU? They are individually no match to these two powerhouses, and so while some of their proposals may be shot down by the the EU community at large, not all of them will be. Eventually, the EU will be dominated by French and German ideals - just as Europe would be anyway if there was no European Union.

Generally, though, smaller states get a great deal of good out of a supranational governing system like the EU. If there is no dominating voice, then all states stand to gain from the economic and safety benefits that come with a unified front. The supranational body can even stand to defend itself from a powerful nation-state. However, adding an already-established nation-state to the mix simply creates more conflict and more problems for everyone.