Reflection #15: My Last Thoughts

As I think back to last spring as I was sitting at my kitchen table browsing through the University College application and the options for the various topics that were available, my casual attitude towards these decisions starts to scare me. I thought it would be fun because my friend Mark Buente’s sister was in a UC and said she loved it, and since I was planning on being an International Studies major, it just made sense to make World Politics my first choice. If only I knew this decision would turn out to be one of the best, and more important ones that I’ve ever made. I can honestly say my best memories of the first semester, whether experiences or friendships were all a result of this program.

Our weekly trips embody my thrill for being in DC. I’ve only been here a few months and I’ve been to some of the most important places in the country. I came here because I wanted to be surrounded by people who were capable of living for something bigger than themselves, and I wanted to be in a place where important decisions were being made by some of the brightest minds of our generation, although this desire probably has to do with my frustration with living in a small town when I clearly do not share the same values of religiously keeping up with everything that is the SEC, or having my life goal be to end up back in Knoxville with a husband, two kids, and an SUV. My point is not to hate on where I come from, in fact I love visiting, but to rather emphasize how refreshing it’s been to be surrounded by students who care about the same things I care about and who understand the importance of being a global citizen.

Our class discussions have opened my mind to different beliefs, while also challenging my own. I now have strong opinions on topics such as security, development, and IR schools of thought. Things I never even thought about before. I love being in a class where people are so passionate about their opinions that they are genuinely interested, rather than dismissive, to hear why others do not agree. I think a lot of this growth has to do with the set up of our class, and the insight that Gunperi and Erin are always willing to offer.

Lastly, I have no idea how I’ve gone eighteen years without these people. I think it can best be exemplified by the horrifying moment mid way through the year when Dayna, Katrina, and I thought that we had to be de-tripled since rooms were opening up for freshmen. I thought living in a dorm would be the hardest thing I’ve ever dealt with, and now I’d rather not have any space to move, than even think about not living with them. There are very few people we’ve met who don’t comment on the fact that Letts 6 never does anything without each other. It’s incredibly rare for a group of people with such strong personalities to bond the way that we have. As dysfunctional as we may be, these people have become my family and there’s nothing that could have possibly made my first semester of college any better than it’s been.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Reflection #10: Crazy People Everywhere

DC was flooded with political enthusiasts this weekend for the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Showing up with ATV’s Body Politic at 6 AM to do some reporting actually ended up being completely worth it because we ended up being first row for the whole show. While doing interviews, I met many visitors who had driven from various places including Minnesota, Ohio, and even California. The political puns and more serious messages were ubiquitous on the thousands of signs being proudly displayed by the young and old. The most popular response I received when asking some of the interviewees what this rally meant to them, was the fact that politics has just gotten out of control. We are unable to get anything accomplished because politicians are too busy trying to promote party agendas. Our country is in chaos because everyone is freaking out, when actually, things are relatively okay. Often times our leaders, citizens, and especially the media tend to exaggerate certain topics in order to manipulate fears. Although there is no doubt that we are in a crucial point in history and we are dealing with serious issues such as a war, economic troubles, and domestic disputes, we tend to forget that compared to most of the global population, we’re doing fine and should probably consider calming down for a hot second. Hence, my interpretation of the name of the rally: Should we put things into perspective and use logic to stop being ridiculous or should we actually be even more afraid of this downward spiral?

The message behind the rally was extremely relevant to our conversation in Thursday’s class about terrorism. The attacks of September 11^th were horrific and affected the lives of so many people. However, as discussed in the Threat Exaggeration article, when we put it into perspective, was it really worth a war, discrimination towards an entire culture, and such hyped up fear? Maybe we should have quietly stepped up our security without making such a scene or furthering a political agenda. The sane road would include worrying less about dying on a plane crash into a tall building, and more about not letting the media and certain stereotypes affect how we view the world and live our lives. We should take a traumatic event and use it to unify ourselves, instead of assume a state of paranoia. In my opinion, if I die today, then I die today. While we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to live recklessly, eventually one day that phrase will be true. Why live everyday in fear that it’s the last?

On a lighter, and less cheese-tastic note, the rally actually was a blast even though it was freezing. Also, Halloween with Letts 6 will be a weekend we’ll never forget…except that one girl who got a concussion.

Blog #10: Threats

In my opinion, a threat is constituted as a harmful act that has the potential to create chaos and jeopardize a certain harmonious pattern of living. However, this definition could mean a multitude of different things to different nations, and certainly to different individuals. A global threat is much more general and inclusive than a national threat because just as nations have different opinions of what constitutes a threat, nations also have different priorities, strengths, and shortcomings. These could be anything from resources, to capabilities and depend on the economic and ethnic makeup of its citizens. Therefore, I believe the greatest threat to global peace and security is our lack of co-operation due to our lack of communication.

I think that our lack of communication is generally an umbrella for many other issues that could also threaten global order. For example, as states earlier, nations have varying capabilities and even certain advantages because of geographic location, and schools of thought. In an ideal world, we would utilize these abilities in order to solve climate, poverty, and resource-based problems or at least we could begin to try and solve these problems. Unfortunately, nations do not communicate effectively. Thus, if we were to collectively experience some sort of disaster, which required immediate action, we would lack an effective means of communication. Sure, each nation has its own procedures, but it is perplexing as to why we have never had a system inclusive of multiple nations I began to really think about this issue when Sarah brought up the possibility of having a “global phone tree.” I actually think this idea would be useful and effective. Although international organizations allow for global communication, it is not their primary goal. The lack of global communication is such a threat to the world because it could aid in virtually any specific type of crisis, and it is a vulnerable aspect of our global order.

Reflection #9: To Each, His Own

World Politics this week was much more active and opinionated than usual because we got to talk about our first major topic that applied to our current situation. In my opinion, the most educational, and genuinely interesting aspect of national security was comparing the NSE-68 document from the cold war era, and Obama’s national security policy. To me, the differences seem far more extensive than just the transition from emphasis on the use of hard power to soft power as a means of protecting our people and ideals. It is also a clear representation of the progression of priorities and even social norms to the American people as a whole.

The NSE-68 document supported the idea of defeating the enemy through our most effective means; this is a reflection of the paranoia that was emphasized by the media mostly, but still remained a concern in the average American household. Although part of the strategy was to maintain ties with our allies, these nations were in fact extremely similar to our own. The “us” was more exclusive, and the “them” was more specific. Contrastingly, Obama’s strategy addresses our need to build our image as a more co-operative nation, while still influencing others to understand why they too would benefit from our democratic system.The emergence of political correctness affects the values and therefore the priorities of American society today. The average American child is taught to value equality, while paranoia towards “them” is often exploited by the media and criticized by the average citizen. Today, our concerns are more collective, but at a hegemonic level. Obama says in the current document that “We want a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.” This is represented through society by the encouragement, and rewarding of those who act as the “bigger person,” and set an example in the hope that others will follow.

While paranoia absolutely still exists, it is renamed “Islamaphobia,” and it is considered more socially unacceptable to call someone a terrorist than it would have been to call someone a communist. Obama emphasizes that we should instead, step back and consider the future of our citizens and ask, “Is there a better way to solve this problem, and also benefit the world as a whole.”

Ultimately, the goal of being permanently “secure” is obscure and ever changing, as observed through these documents. While American national security has always been centered around protection of our people, ideals, and the maintenance of hegemonic influence, the means by which we go bout achieving this security is constantly being explored and in some ways this change in inevitable because global society is also constantly changing. Technology, and the average person’s ability to communicate with such a vast array of global society have caused our methods to also change. Having deadly weapons, while necessary, does not simply solve the problem anymore, and chances are, we will have to change these methods again as the world continues to progress.

Blog #9: Epic Fail.

Contrary to the game of RISK, which involves an obvious, aerial view of the game-board (the world), paying for a war by simply giving up one of your troops, and rolling dice to determine who gets a certain territory, in the real world it’s actually impossible to win because every nation has its own goals, and the playing field is far from even.

However, if winning were an actual possibility it would mean that a nation exerted, and maintained social and political influence on all other nations through international institutions and effective communication. This influence would not necessarily be caused by military to economic dominance, but these could play a key factor in becoming the “winner.” Having a strong influence through global institutions would mean maintaining control of organization such as the United Nations and International Monetary Fund. Although having control of all these institutions, and having overwhelming influence sounds slightly like implementing a dictator onto the rest of the world, this is untrue because all nations would continue to function independently, with their own governments and domestic institutions. Of course, power and a prosperous economic position are ideal in case others begin to disregard this nation’s influence, this would hopefully be avoidable through effective and frequent communication with those being influenced, especially “second place winners.”

While dominating international organizations, maintaining a forceful army, and a flawless economic system are unlikely, they are still tangible goals. However, convincing human beings that one specific school of thought absolute, right way is much more inconceivable: people always disagree. Sure, it might be achievable for a moment, but the true power (and winning) lies in maintenance of these tangible goals, plus indisputable influence. Unlike RISK, there is no “final round.” In fact, the winner of our game was able to make certain moves, and make certain sacrifices because they knew that after this round, the game was over and it would no longer matter what happened to most of their armies and territories. This situation is not applicable to real life, therefore true winning does in fact mean maintaining one’s power for an infinite amount of time.

In our global society, perhaps it is a good thing that it is so impossible to actually win. Progress comes from change in ideas and without this change, and conflict the world would be stagnant, granted there would probably be less fighting and it would be a serious plus to be a part of the winning team, but we would also lose the exchange of ideas, a key factor in progress on an international level.

Reflection #8: Mid-Terms Aren't That Bad, At Least I'm not Salome...

Remember at orientation when they told us that come mid-October we were going to go from anxious, newly independent, obsessed with our new friends to stressed out, sickly, nervous wrecks? That was not a joke. That might be a little bit of an exaggeration but with the exception of still being obsessed with the sixth floor of Letts, everyone definitely revealed a different side of themselves these past couple weeks in the midst of mid-terms, the changing weather, and lack of sleep. That’s why our recent game of Risk, and the trip to the Kennedy Center were two incredibly refreshing events that I think we all needed.

Risk was interesting because for one, I’ve never played before and two, I tend to get competitive and enjoy activities like this one. One of my favorite aspects was the “special power” that each diplomat and head of state had that no one else knew about because it represented a sense of constructivism in terms of shifting the way that each state reacted to each individual state. The resemblance to the set up of modern states could also be seen through the power struggle that has continued throughout the past three classes, and also the hesitancy in making bold, yet strategic moves. Or in other words, risk. I was excited to visit the Kennedy Center for the first time to see my very first Opera. However, Salome was not what I was expecting at all. While I thought it was interesting and the talent of the singers was overwhelming, I felt that the story line was a little slow and the dialogue slightly repetitive. I still appreciated the melodrama and couldn’t help but think, “at least I’m not this girl.”

Reflection #7: Simulation

The simulation, although slightly hectic due to technical difficulties, went well and all groups seemed well informed, and prepared. The videos were impressive, and I was slightly worried that Gunperri misinterpreted one of the scenes in our video. Scott was portraying an angry autoworker, and we had asked him to curse in order to make a point that the situation was extremely frustrating for the average worker, like himself. We did edit the sound so that the word was muted, but because everyone seemed to think it was funny I was afraid that it might have given off the impression that we were trying to be funny when we actually trying to make a very serious point. Other than that, I was pleased with the way our group presented itself. My hope was that we would have the opportunity to debate with the other groups a little more, but we ran out of time pretty quickly. The “president” had some very interesting and thoughtful questions for each group, but unfortunately he ended up voting for the other side. Overall, I enjoyed working on this simulation and I hope that the major simulation goes just as well.

Reflection #6: Voices Under the Radar

This week has been the most interesting in regards to world politics, that I’ve had thus far. Our assignments touched on fascinating topics, such as the importance of culture, that are at times overlooked in the context of global politics. As PTJ mentioned in class, many people have the belief that since marginalized groups are smaller, and uneducated about policies, and worldly topics why would we study them? Shouldn’t we be studying the larger, powerful states?

This belief speaks directly towards the ideas and assumptions of state-centralism. If IR theories assume that states are unchanging, and that the actions of states only should be recognized, then yes, these marginalized people are dispensable. This can be justified by arguing that someone must always be at the bottom of the pyramid, so why try to change our system now? Also, social movements that do not directly affect the relationships between states themselves are similarly unimportant. However, this seems extremely naïve considering the countless examples of the power of the people causing serious problems for those who happened to be in charge, and serious changes to our global systems. Three examples of this are the revolution of Americans from the British, the Indians being led by Gandhi completely sans violence, and the more violent catalyst of indigenous rebellion by Che Guevara. These examples are relevant because the behaviors of these people are under the radar, and throughout history the suppressed have discovered various forms of rebellion that are still going on today. The difference is, the threats are growing increasingly dangerous and power struggles are more obvious. As demonstrated by the cyber-terrorism exhibit at the Spy Museum, these threats are less about traditional combat and more about the destruction of the things we depend on the most. If the state is supposedly more powerful, and significant than the people, then why are attacks shifting away from the military, and towards that which would cause chaos among the people?

State-centrism combined with our current global situation makes IR theories seem almost counter-productive. By not adapting to the times, we are being ignorant towards the future of our global systems. In fact, the state centric theory has a difficult time answering many questions about this future. Therefore not paying a sufficient amount of attention to these groups and movements is a crucial mistake, especially when the stakes are so high.

Blog #6: Alien Ambassador

A constructivist’s approach to a UN alien ambassador would be cautious, but open-minded. A constructivist would emphasize the importance of being patient and understanding the policies and intentions of these beings before making a decision on how to treat them, and what course of action to take. An important factor in the relations between our world and that of the aliens, from a constructivist’s point of view, is the hope that they will recognize our efforts in attempting to work with them. This ambassador would accomplish the task by listening and working with them to ensure that whether through trade, or simple coexistance, these relations would be beneficial for everyone involved.

A slightly different viewpoint about an appointment of an ambassador to the aliens would be from a realist’s perspective because the ideals of realism are not as focused of the importance of international institutions, and an ever-changing global structure. The values of realism are more invested in the safety of individual nations, and therefore the citizens of those nations. A realist would suggest military input, and would attempt to develop some sort of agreement with the aliens to ensure that our safety would never be at risk. Personal gain, after safety, is the most important factor that would be of significance in this situation. The realist would then search for some natural resource or form of technology that could be gained from this outside life. Contrary to the constructivist’s beliefs, the realist believes that the global structure is generally unchanging, and the introduction of a new life could shift our balance therefore, is it crucial for nation states to protect their own self-interests and security, even if the alien life is relatively harmless, and diplomatic.

Reflection #5

At the beginning of our class discussion on Thursday, the challenge of dealing with a giant alien spaceship seemed off topic from the one which we had read the night before: constructivism. However, upon reflective on this topic tonight, the concept of having to adapt our ideals to completely new situation, that could either hurt or help us, constructivism completely applies. We would have to re-evaluate our current take on foreign policy, and we would have to decide on how we wanted to be perceived by this new group of beings. Constructivists believe in constant change and open endings. In our class discussion, we came to a consensus that the main fear of the situation arose from the fact that the future relations between our country, and even globe, and whatever is inside of the spaceship are undecided, and open ended.

Constructivism also applies to the way we would treat this situation within our own country. We debated over whether or not a media blackout was necessary, or if we should evacuate the Washington D.C. area. The constructivist theory is centered on the concept of adapting oneself to the current situation, and reacting to different people in different ways based on preconceived social norms and instincts. Another question that produced a wide range of answers was whether or not we should make the first interaction once the ship landed. And if so, who should it be? A constructivist will not say that since our further relationship with these aliens is based on how they initially react to our primary action. Therefore, we reached the conclusion that maybe we should send Obama, or Hillary Clinton out first. However, the problem then shifts to concern for our safety. Is it more important to protect our leaders, or to make a welcoming first impression? I was pleased with the conclusion we developed by the end of class: we should be prepared with our military on defense mode, but we should not make assumptions because their situation is, again, like a constructivist would claim, open ended.

Blog #5: Gaga's Nation

“I want to liberate them, I want to free them of their fears and make them feel that they can create their own space in the world"- Lady Gaga

If Lady Gaga were a state, the state would be seen in the eyes of the rest of the world as controversial and have its own set of norms, unique to those that are followed by all other nations. It would be a democracy that closely resembles the United States. Lady Gaga herself is the self-proclaimed embodiment for all that is misunderstood. For this reason, this state would be criticized by most other societies for its acceptance, and even encouragement of practices that are considered taboo in other parts of the globe such as feminism, transexuality, and freedom of speech. Even now in all of her ubiquity, she is cast off as that singer who dresses outlandishly and dedicates all her awards to the gays. This is because more often than not, the general public makes the mistake of taking Gaga at face value. While she may seem like she is doing it all for the attention, all of Lady Gaga’s outfits and behavior are a strategic plan to make a very specific statement. Gaga’s nation would be created in an act of rebellion because Gaga and her “monsters” would be criticized and not taken seriously by a previous empire or other form of government. She would then create a land that would be known for hundreds years to come as a place where people could come with nothing, and through shear determination achieve everything. This is what Gaga truly stands for, despite the freak façade that often overshadows her words.

Reflection #4

I thought that this week’s visit to the state department was incredibly relevant to our class discussion about democracy comparatively to the other trips we’ve taken. I really enjoyed what David Bame had to say about foreign policy and his experiences at the State Department. The way he respected our questions and remained interested in our thoughts made it hard to believe that he has spent so much time in the Middle East and was in the actual operation center on September 11^th 2001. In our class discussion the next day, we began to discuss whether or not it is right for the United States, or any other country for that matter, to enforce democracy.

To me, the phrase “enforcing democracy” seems slightly oxymoronic. Someone in class mentioned that democracy isn’t really democracy unless it is a product of the nation’s own citizen. I believe that democracy might not be for every single country for a variety of different reasons. For example, in many collectivist societies, harmony of the people and government along with preservation of culture and traditions are considered far more significant than individuality and competitive progression. In cases like this, a foreigner invading said nation would be seen as a threat to all that is valued by these people as opposed to the way we tend to view these situations. Interestingly enough, the State Department has different opinion on the matter. According to their website, “When historians write about [our] foreign policy…they will identify the growth of democracy as one of the United States’ greatest legacies.” While I have no problem with this statement, the page fails to go into detail about the means by which this is done. The page is filled with phrases like “prosperity for the new world,” and the U.S. will “establish vibrant democracies in [other] countries.” The colorful language provides a nationalistic feel, but I still can’t help but get an undertone of “the ends justify the means” type of attitude. Overall, I think this is a topic that will always be used to criticize our government, but truthfully after visiting the Defense Intelligence Agency, and learning that there are in fact many decisions being made that are deliberately kept from U.S. citizens, the sad but true fact is that many of us would rather believe that democracy is a perfect system instead of questioning the foundation and beliefs of our country.