Reflection #15: The End is Only the Beginning...

Oh World Politics… It really hasn’t hit me yet that this class is really over. I think that I’ve learned a lot this semester and I know that I’ve grown not only because of the class but also because of the people in the class. I truly believe that being in an academic environment with all of you has made me a better student and person.

I have always talked about schoolwork and classes with my friends and being in this UC has really allowed me to continue to do that. I feel that I usually do my best thinking and learning outside of the classroom and without being put in an environment where I live with all of you, I wouldn’t have been able to do this. Hearing all of your varying opinions has helped to make me into a more open thinker as well as a more critical thinker, and for this, I thank each and every one of you. You have all made me into a better student, one who thinks more deeply about the issues and really validates their claims. You have all been a positive force in my academic life whether we agreed every time or whether we disagreed.

I also know that being part of this type of learning environment has helped make me into a better person. Like I said above, you all have challenged me and helped me grow. The biggest change I have seen in myself, due to the constant push from those with differing opinions and ideas, is my increased willingness to see, understand and acknowledge the other side of the argument. I have always been stubborn and passionate and with those two characteristics, I’ve often found myself simply arguing unproductively with those who disagree with me. Because of you all, I’ve grown to be a more understanding person who, while not giving up her views and beliefs, has come to see that there are two sides to every discussion.

So, World Politics UC, thank you for always challenging me, always pushing me and making me into a better student and person for it. It doesn’t really end here, and I’m happy for that. So, please keep challenging me, please keep pushing me and please continue to make me into a better person than I was the day before. Thank you all.

Reflection #14: Giving Thanks

Ok, so having been away from American for a good five days, I realized something. I’m happy that I go to American. I know that this sounds cheesy, and I’ll be the first to admit that it is, but it’s also really true.

As I was flying home, I realized that I was actually pretty sad that I was leaving American. As a small child, I always dreamed of going to a college that was academically challenging and filled with people who I could relate to and have discussions with about my passions. I’m happy to say, that as my plane headed for Minnesota left the ground this Thanksgiving break, it hit me that I had found that exact place at American. I have a large group of people around me who are active citizens in this changing world and who are more than happy to discuss their positions on issues with you. This is a beautiful thing, it allows for learning and exchange of ideas outside of the classroom and sometimes that’s where the most learning actually occurs. However, what American means to me didn’t fully sink in until I talked with a few of my friends over the break.

Upon talking with a few of my friends about their college experiences thus far, I again was struck by how happy I am that I found American. A few of my friends are having a really awful time at their perspective colleges and simply feel that they chose the wrong institution. They don’t feel that they’re leaning as much as they could be, they don’t relate to other students and for some it’s that they simply don’t feel they work well at their school. I sat quietly as those few friends bonded over their misfortune. I had nothing to add to the discussion, I love the place I decided to go to college.

I guess it was fitting that I had this whole epiphany over Thanksgiving break. I realized that I’m thankful for my parents helping to send me to American and, more than anything else, I’m thankful that I found American and all the people that come with it.

Extra Blog #1: Redskins vs. Fighting Irish

I’d just like to start this extra blog by saying that seeing those Redskins flags in the foreground of the Museum of the American Indian was a little uncanny. Back to the point, I think that it’s clear simply by the name of the football team, the Redskins, that that this particular representation is definitely less acceptable than that representation as seen in the Museum of the American Indian.

The Museum of the American Indian is a more acceptable representation of the American Indian population because the very population that is being represented helped to create it. This is in sharp contrast to the names given to sports teams that invoke American Indian names or images. The American Indian population had some say as to what went into the museum that represents them on the Mall, this is the biggest reason that I feel the Museum is a better representation of “Indians”.

However, I do see an aspect of this that relates back to what we talked about in class briefly, the need to be sensitive because of a feeling of guilt. Think for a moment of all the sports teams that use other cultural or racial groups for example, the Fighting Irish. I’ve never heard of anyone take offense at the use of this as a name for a sports team (if you have please let me know). I think that many people take issue with the use of the Redskins or the Fighting Sioux for team names because we do have a sense of guilt because of the calculated annihilation that our fore fathers carried out against this specific group of people.

In the end I do take issue with the use of the name the Redskins or the Fighting Sioux. I feel that it can be a misrepresentation of a group of people as a whole. The term “redskin” in and of itself reeks of negative racial undertones and the Sioux, as a nation, were never extraordinarily violent. My qualms lie in this, the purely inaccurate representation that these team names take on and emphasize.

Reflection #13: Fritz Scholder

Fritz Scholder once vowed that he would never paint the Indian. Today, Scholder is seen as one of the greatest American Indian painters ever. His use of American Indians as subject matter combined with his abstract expressionism has created a completely new and different way for individuals to view Native American art. No longer do people think of the knickknack dream catchers or the feathery headdresses when they think of Native American art, Fritz Scholder was one of the first artists to induce this change.

Fritz Scholder, born a quarter Native American, lived in a none-Indian environment growing up. His father was the product of the United States Government’s attempt to assimilate the Native American population through the abuse of the use boarding school system set up to distance youth from their traditional culture. Upon growing up, Scholder moved to Arizona where he taught at an art institute for Native Americans. While teaching there, he changed his views on how he felt about painting traditional Native American subjects. Scholder would never paint in the “traditional” manner, and this became his biggest claim to fame. He took a totally different approach to all things Native American.

Upon seeing Scholder’s work, people usually either like it or they hate it. He knew this and that was part of why he loved his work. Scholder didn’t care what emotion his work evoked, as long as the onlooker felt something. When looking at Scholder’s work, it’s clear he’s accomplished this goal. It’s hard not to feel. Many of his paintings expose the real issues that Native American’s face today from alcoholism to sovereignty to self-identity issues.

I had never heard of Fritz Scholder before I saw an exhibit of his in the Museum of the Native American a few years ago. Upon entering the exhibit, I fell in love with his work. The very way in which he captures his subjects was so appealing to me. I stood for, as my family later told me, way to long just staring at his work. The colors captured me, the use of abstraction was entrancing and the emotional qualities of his paintings were astounding. I was moved by the way he expressed himself and the issues that Native American people continue to face. When I returned to the Museum of the Native American for the first time since that day, I was devastated that the exhibit, which had been showing in the museum for years, wasn’t there. Scholder was an amazing paint, but he was also more than that. He was an influential figure in the movement away from thinking of Native Americans, as well as their art, in a certain way. He took what everyone thought of Native Americans and turned it on it's head, as if to say, 'You thought you knew who we were. You've always thought that, but we define ourselves'. There is beauty in this and respect should be paid to him. Keep this in mind if ever you have the opportunity to see Scholder’s work. Keep in mind that he helped change the world one painting at a time. He knew not everyone would like, but he simply wanted everyone to see what he considered the truth. So, when you finally see his work in person, don't be afraid of the emotion, even if you hate it, know that that’s exactly what Scholder would have wanted; he would have wanted you to feel.

*Biographical information from http://americanindian.si.edu/exhibitions/scholder/biography.html *

Blog #12: Cross Cultural Mishap

Obviously there were many reasons why the Spaniards were inevitably successful in their domination over the Aztecs: technological advantage, immunity to illnesses they brought over, desire to obtain their riches. Todorov brings up an interesting point when suggesting that another way the Spaniards dominated the Aztecs was “by means of signs”. There are a two different ways one could immediately interpret this statement. One, the Spaniards manipulated the Aztecs trust in signs to their advantage. Two, the Spaniards were aided in their conquest, unbeknownst to them, because of the Aztecs use of signs. Both interpretations could also have worked in tandem to produce another contributing factor in the Spaniards victory over the Aztecs.

As far as the first interpretation, it is fair to say that the Spaniards did manipulate the Aztecs trust in signs to their advantage. The Aztec culture embraces the use of signs as part of their everyday life and how to live. A key part of this was their specific type of religious faith. The Aztecs had idols set up for religious purposes and as a tool of manipulation, the Spaniards desecrated it, “Cortés tells the story: “The most important of these idols and the ones in which they have most faith I had taken from their places and thrown down the steps… I had images of Our Lady and of other saints put there” (60). Clearly, from this short description, there is no denying that the Spaniards did use the Aztecs faith and trust in signs and symbols to help destroy them.

It is also fair to say that the Spaniards unknowingly were aided by the Aztecs use of signs. The Aztec culture embraces the use of signs and looking to the past to predict the future. With the arrival of a completely new group of people, the Spaniards, the Aztecs didn’t know what to do. “We see how reluctant Montezuma is to admit that an entirely new event can occur, and that what the ancestors have not already known might come to pass” (86). As Todorov states, this lack of knowing what to do on Montezuma’s part is a key component of lack of engagement with the Spaniards. This in turn lead to the Spaniards assuming that either Montezuma is a terrible leader who refuses to acknowledge them or he is a proud leader who is utilizing his silence as a tool. Either way, Montezuma’s lack of engagement with the Spaniards was a negative in the end.

Overall however, I think that what really helped allow the Spaniards to conquer the Aztecs was the simple lack of cross-cultural understanding. The two groups were so completely different, from communicating in different fashions to having totally different calendars. Without the effort put forth to understand one anther, while I do understand that wasn’t the Spaniards main goal upon arriving in the Americas, disastrous events arose. These massive differences in culture allowed the Spaniards to easily regard the Aztecs as a different form of human, something perhaps less than human. Upon dehumanizing a group, it becomes easier to destroy their towns, homes, families and lives. We see this time and time again and it only continues. Perhaps hostile take over is really the new way of saying conquest...

Reflection #12: Aid and Advertising

During our last class period, we looked at organizations that attempt to aid developing nations. One thing that came up in discussion a lot was how the marketing was set up. There was a lot of hating going on about the marketing strategies that these organizations use. For example, one of the things you could choose to donate to was giving hope to young girls in the developing world. People took issue with this one, I think, because how do you put a monetary value on giving hope? This is a fair question. But I think that as far as how it was advertised, it made sense. It appealed to our emotional side, making us want to click the donate button, thus providing services for these young girls. I think that what people need to look at if they have issues with the way the marketing and advertisement of these things are put together is why it’s put together like this. The marketing and advertisement industry is designed around getting us to buy into products. We, the consumer, dictate how marketing and advertising is set up, we’re the ones who drive the industry. So I think that what people need to focus on is why these sites are set up like this and what that says about us as people. If we don’t like the way things are advertised, we don’t buy them. We have the power to change these things.

People also had issues with the question of whether these sites are actually going to help those individuals in the developing world. I think that clearly, these organizations do help. If you provide someone with a goat or cow, not only do they have an animal that they could slaughter, but they also have an animal that can help provide for them economically. You can sell the milk or cheese, thus allowing the individual to increase their income and increase the nations economy.

My biggest issue with organizations that do things like this is that there’s a lack of education for the person who’s doing the donating. They understand that these people they’re giving their money to need help, but not necessarily why they need help or what events contributed to their current state. Some organizations do better than others when it comes to educating their consumers and I think that more groups need to place an emphasis on education. Getting people involved in the bigger issues will help us solve them.

Blog #10: Economic Equality and Educational Equality

During class, the question of nations having equal opportunities in the global economic arena and the question of equal education in the United States played off each other in an interesting manner. While they are, in fact, two very different situations, the discussion allowed the class to see how they were more similar than one would have originally suspected. Just as not all students in America get the same basic education, thus hindering them in their futures, not all nations have had the same economic backgrounds. I feel that the inequality between the economic preparedness of nations, especially those whose economies have been dilapidated due to the effects of colonization is unfair, just as those student’s who attend the underfunded schools are affected by that injustice.

Following the metaphor of American public schools to the global economy, those nations that have survived colonization and those students who have survived underfunded public schools have faced large challenges and assistance to those countries and students is just. The after effects of colonization can be clearly seen today. The disparity that runs rampant in many countries that were colonized is largely due to the lack of continuous economic growth. In order to help equalize the economic potential of these types of nations, a few things would have to come together simultaneously. Global funds would need to be reallocated to the nations who face the greatest economic strife, just as funds need to be reallocated towards those schools that are most underfunded. Said funds would, of course, need to be monitored and kept out of the hands of the corrupt. The funds would ideally go towards services that would help restore the nations economy such as the development of trade schools for men and women, the development of manufacturing facilities inside of the country and general education for all. An emphasis needs to be placed on people of the nation buying and utilizing those resources that the nation itself possesses. Why mine your own tantalum (mineral used in cell phones) only to export it to Europe, China or the U.S. to have it sold back to you in the form of a cell phone? Why not produce your own cell phones with your own minerals thus allowing for much more of the profit to remain in the country and increase overall economic strength. This can be tied back into the metaphor of American public schools by stating that if you provide better funding to schools, the students will receive a better education allowing them to move higher up on the economic totem pole. This will statistically allow them to contribute more to the school system through taxation because they’ll be more likely to get a better job, house etc. This will then allow for the funding of schools to increase.

Inequality isn’t a good thing in schools and it’s not a great thing in the economic world either. Yes, there may be pros that could be argued, but, as I stated before, I like what Paul Wellstone said, “We all do better when we all do better.”

Reflection # 11: Wealthy in Spirit

I have always sworn to myself that I won’t ever care about money, that I will always do what makes me happy above what will make me money. I have always promised myself that I will not settle and become stuck in some job that I hate simply because it allows me to feel comfortable and financially stable. I realize that this makes me sound crazy to some people, stupid to others and to the select few it makes me sound spoiled.

For most people the goal in life is to be happy. But the break down between people begins when you ask them how they’ll achieve this happiness. Many people will equate their happiness to money or what they can accumulate: a nice house, that Aston Martin they’ve always dreamed of or sending their children to college. There’s nothing wrong this I guess, I just don’t think that you can buy total happiness. To me, the goal in life is to be happy, just like what everyone else wants. But how I’ll achieve this isn’t by how much money I’ll have or acquiring things, it’ll be by doing what I love and knowing that it’s about the doing that makes me happy, not the pay check that comes every two weeks. If you’ve ever worked at a job you love, you’ll know it because when that pay check comes in the mail, you’ll look at it and think, ‘this is nice I guess, but I would keep going back even if they said they didn’t have the resources to pay me anymore, I love it that much’. It's about being wealthy in spirit.

Recently I’ve been thinking about why I have this as my goal. I’d like to think it’s simply because I’m a strong willed person who doesn’t believe that money makes you happy, and that is part of it, but there’s more than that. My parents are definitely not the Rockefellers, but we’re “doing ok”. And I think this is a big part of why I have this mentality. I’ve always been told I should do what makes me happy and I’ve also always been given opportunities. This has allowed me to become a dreamer, to truly believe that I don’t need to be well off or have lots of money to be happy. Maybe this makes me spoiled, maybe it makes me crazy, but one thing is for sure, it makes just a little different than most.

Blog #9: SUPERnational!

I would agree with our prompt for this week, due to massive universal challenges that affect thousands of people across the globe, it is necessary to come together under some kind of supernational integrated group.

Think for a moment of tackling the issue of global warming, or any other global issue, if you are a country the size of Iceland, Bhutan or Togo. Perhaps you could have an impact on what you do domestically but domestic reform, especially if you are a small nation, means that it’s hard for you to have a large impact. Just as Dr. Jacob Burksti stated during our presentation on Monday about the EU, smaller countries have a hard time being heard or standing alone in the presence of larger nations. This is one of the key reasons that it is important to acknowledge the benefits of a constructivist / supernational approach.

The economic status of the globe can be categorized similarly to the issue of global warming. As seen in the present conditions of global economics, we’re all linked. As one large nations economy falters, other countries economies are directly affected. Allowing for economic supernational integration may allow nations to help limit this trend and ease the economic depression felt by those countries that are smaller. Just as global warming is an issue that small countries may not be contributing to as quickly as larger nations, the global economy is similar. As Zimbabwe’s economy has continued to spiral downward due to massive inflation, the United State’s economy has remained largely unaffected by it. But it’s fair to say that small nations felt the effect of the United State’s economic downturn. Allowing for supernational integration could perhaps help us to regulate our economies so that the little guy isn’t always the one getting stepped on.

Overall the utilization of supernatial integration could do a lot for the betterment of the globe.

Reflection #10: Fear is Powerful

Franklin Roosevelt once said in his famous inauguration speech, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If only the past administration had taken this approach when dealing with the country after 9/11. Instead I feel that the fear that was present in the country was used for the benefit of the administration. That is not to say that the Bush administration was encouraging the citizens of the United States to be scared, but simply that the administration did utilize the fear and then the cohesion in the country to further their own agenda. For example, I feel that it would have been far less likely for the Patriot Act to have been passed if the country didn’t feel so afraid and feel as though it had to close ranks.

Something that was brought up in class along the lines of looking like a unified country struck me. The comment was that the reason the United States government entered a phase of agreement and cohesion was because we didn’t want external groups (be they countries or terror cells) to see us as weak, divided or frantic. This to me is the truth, but a sad truth. It’s sad because the beauty of our government structure is that we get to disagree and then come together to produce something that hopefully pleases everyone. If people are afraid to disagree, it opens the door to very one-sided decisions because there is no questioning voice to look at the potential flaws. I think that this was a big reason why there seemed to be so few checks to the Bush administrations balancing act. People were afraid and wanted everyone else to think that we, the U.S., were all right. Of course we weren’t all right, but allowing the fear to take over is exactly what Roosevelt is warning against in his quote. We should be worried and cautious about what we do when the fear hits because it’s a slippery slope.

Blog #8: We need to talk...

There are so many things that threaten global peace and security: rogue nations with nuclear capabilities, disease, wide spread poverty among many other things. However, I would argue that one of the biggest issues that threatens global peace and security is the lack of faith in negotiation and dialogue between nations.

I feel that the lack of negotiation and dialogue between nations, especially those nations who may be on the verge of conflict, is a major threat to global peace and security because if negotiation is not utilized as a first option, we’re throwing away one of our most useful tools. It is not a stretch to say that most nations are not in favor of conflict. Conflict interferes with economic growth, social norms and usually creates stress on political systems. If we abandon negotiation and dialogue between nations, it seems we are throwing ourselves to the mercy of conflict. This would threaten global stability, security and peace all for that exact reason, we’re allowing ourselves to see conflict as a first response to issues if we abandon negotiation. This leads to the over use of preemptive strikes and warfare, thus directly threatening global peace and security. This can be broken down so a six year old understands the basic principles. If someone says or does something you don’t like, you don’t go over and punch them in the face. You talk to them about why you’re upset and try to resolve the conflict without resorting to violence. This allows for a much better turn out because both sides have had their say and will hopefully come to a consensus on the issue and no one has to be hurt or get in trouble for hurting someone else. The same principles apply to global negotiation and dialogue between nations who are at odds with one another.

The issue of lack of dialogue and negotiation is a threat because it directly relates to the possible danger or damage a nation might find themselves facing. Without discussion and negotiation about issues, more nations would find themselves involved in conflict jeopardizing not only their nation peace and security but also the global peace and security. We are all intertwined in this globalized world; we must realize that our actions affect one another. Because conflict does strain nation’s economy, social wellbeing, and political systems, the embrace of negotiations and dialogue between nations would be advantageous to the world as a whole and allow for global peace and security to reign.

Reflection #9: Reflection on a Reflection: McCarthy Much?

*Note this reflection is in regards to Cavington’s reflection found here (<-- it's a link)

Dear Sir:

While your reflection is interesting, I have to disagree with most of it. First off, I would like to address your comment on preemptive engagement, “[The U.S. needs to pursue] a defense policy that utilizes “preemptive engagement” of international threats”. I am curious as to how you think this would, in the long run, benefit the United States. Due to the fact that we are currently involved in two wars, with number of dollars spent on them in the trillions, it is hard for me to understand why you would feel that starting wars preemptively would be advantageous for the United States. From where I stand, starting more wars would only increase the U.S.’s debt and place more strain on our economy. I also think that we need to go back fifty years, as American’s we used to pride ourselves on being the country that did not start wars but ended them. We may have provoked wars, but we never actually started one until the George W. Bush’s terms as president. Because of the fact that we did engage in a preemptive war by invading Iraq, our international image was tarnished. Why would we continue to perpetuate this negative image of ourselves on the international level? The final comment on this portion of your post is the idea of how the overall American population would feel about utilizing this strategy. Do you feel that the general public would be for or against the continuation of war waging by the United States? Personally, after ten years of continual war, I’m ready for it to be over and so is the majority of America. I would also argue that we’ll soon face a post-Vietnam type of status where America will be very hesitant to engage in conflict again due to our involvement in two prolonged wars.

In regards to your comment on the need to increase defense spending I say to you, go to the public schools in any major metropolitan area, not the schools that are in the ritzy part of town, the schools that are in the “ghettos”. Look those struggling students who have text books from the ‘80s, no music programs, far to large class sizes and limited access to learning tools like online databases in the eye and tell them that we should continue to cut educational funding while increasing funding for fighting wars they have no connection to and may be completely unnecessary. Because we all know that when you increase funding to one thing, another things funding gets cut, I fear that, as it has happened in the past, funding for education would be cut. Money that is spent on increasing our military could easily go to education and the betterment of our nation through those means, peaceful means. Through an increase in education we, as a nation will benefit economically, socially as well as politically, why not utilize that knowledge for our benefit.

Finally, I reject your conclusion that by participating in international organizations like the United Nations, the United States would be losing any real freedoms except the freedom to wage war as we wish and in general be the nation that pushes other nations around. I find myself wondering what exactly you feel America would be losing by being a willing participant in international organizations that, if given enough backing by global powers like the U.S., would be better able to do what they were created to do. As opposed to pushing against institutions like the United Nations, I feel that it would be most advantageous to help them flourish and grow. I would also like to reject your insinuation that by becoming a member of international institutions we’ll suddenly become communist: “Take your pick right now, for we are on the precipice of a slippery slope, covered in the deep red hue of Marx’ blood.” By what means would the cooperation between the United States and the rest of the world in the forum of an international institution lead to communism in the United States. I hate to say it sir, but here you simply sound like McCarthy and we all know how history looks at him now…

In closing, I would like you, sir, to reflect on your reflection and see where these notions are coming from. Just as McCarthy spread fear, you do the same thing; your words are imbued with fear and threats. Scaring people into thinking or doing things is never advantageous and will inevitably come back to bite you in the ass. So, my dear sir, think on those words and I look forward to your response and what I’m sure will become a continuous thread of comments.

Sincerely,

Sarah Casey

Blog #7: Oh winning...

We may not all be able to agree on what winning would look like in global politics and one thing is certain, you are going to get a different answer about what winning is from everyone you meet. To me, winning on a global level is quite simply a peaceful world. While some would argue that this is not only an unrealistic goal but it also fails to address the actual issue of winning, I would argue that it’s the perfect version of winning because when one’s nation is not at war it allows for the prosperity of other components of their nation.

By creating a peaceful globe, all nations would win because it would allow for the reallocation of resources to benefit different aspects of nation. Think for a moment, the total cost of America’s current wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. The running total of those two wars comes to just over $1,000,000,000,000 and is continuing to grow with every passing second. If the United States had remained out of those conflicts, those $1,000,000,000,000 could have gone to education, job creation, health care, infrastructure, welfare and/or numerous other things. If those $1,000,000,000,000 had gone only to education think of how many children could attend college, think of how many more educated people would be contributing to this world. While this is not truly why I believe we should do this, think of all of those educated people that would then add to our GDP, higher levels of education lead to higher earnings, which leads to more consumption allowing our economy to grow. Or think if we put even half of that money into green technology. We would no longer need to talk about oil like it were a drug we need to wean ourselves of off, green technologies would have abolished that kind of talk. Again, while this isn’t why I think winning through peace is important, think of how much stronger of a competitor the United States could be against other economic powers if we had invested that money wisely either in ourselves or in other means. Another added bonus of avoiding conflict is the added stability to a nation, thus allowing for a nation to grow and prosper.

The short and long of it for me is that, in the words of one Paul Wellstone, “We all do better when we all do better.” If the globe is at peace, more nations will have more money to redirect into other, more advantageous avenues like education, green technology, health care or many others. Winning doesn’t have to mean global domination; it can be the idea of a peaceful world and the added benefits that ensue from that.

Reflection #8: Risk + Opera = Risera?

This week in class, we’ve had the wonderful opportunity to play a modified version of Risk. Because Risk is an awesome game, I wasn’t sure that there’d be a better way to play than just classic Risk, but I was proven wrong. I think that the modifications that PTJ made change the game a lot, but in a way that makes it better for what we’re studying. Regular Risk is a game pretty much based on power. The goal is to acquire as much territory as you can, build up the biggest army you can and then take over the world. Regular Risk is pretty much the board game version of a realist mentality: don’t trust anyone, obtain as much power as possible and always having a sovereign nation (territory) is the most important thing otherwise you’re dead. With the PTJ adjustments to this classic game, it allowed for more IR theories to be applicable than only realism. At least one group’s goal is to make alliances, which makes one think they have more of a constructivist mentality when approaching the game. I’m not 100% sure what other groups goals are, but I’m sure that we’ll find out and see how different IR theories are apparent in their objectives and moves in the game. I love Risk and I have really enjoyed modified Risk!

Another fun thing we did this week was attend Salome at the Kennedy Center. While I wasn’t the biggest fan of the opera, I think that the issue was that I didn’t like Salome, not that I don’t like opera. I felt that because the opera was so short, there was little character development which made the connection I felt to the characters nil. I think that if we, the audience, had had more time with the characters we would have felt more when Narraboth killed himself or when Jochanaan gets decapitated. While the opera wasn’t quite my cup of tea, I did really enjoy visiting the Kennedy Center. The building is beautiful and has a great location right along the river. I especially loved the great hall with all of the hanging flags. Even though I didn’t love Salome, I refuse to give up on opera just yet!

Reflection #7: Simulation

This week’s simulation was an interesting exercise. One of the parts I found most captivating to think back on was the way our group dynamic functioned. Working in groups is difficult no matter who you are or who you’re working with. So when you’re thrown together with a group of people you’ve only known for a few months and you’re all still figuring out each other’s academic strengths things get a little challenging. I feel like on this fundamental level, this week brought me back to when we were learning how to work with others for the first time. I needed to remember to be patient, to listen, to speak up and to facilitate. Being someone who tends to dislike group work, I always find myself in need of reminders on these small points. Oh group work…

The actual simulation was also very interesting! I thought that everyone got really into their side of the argument even if it didn’t align with their personal beliefs. Another thing that I noticed was that some of the comments and arguments made tended to take a more personal attack tone as opposed to attacking the position being argued. I chalked this up to the fact that we all know each other pretty well and feel comfortable enough to do that even if the simulation wasn’t the right place to do it. The thing that I struggled with most throughout the whole process of preparing and presenting was that, as the consumer group, we really could have taken either side, so deciding which path to take was very difficult. I think that the group, collectively, chose the one we thought would have the greatest impact although, correct me if I’m wrong group makes, none of us really associated personally with the side we chose. Over all I thought that everyone argued there points very well and very convincingly. I think that the major simulation should be fun and probably less stressful! *fingers crossed*

Reflection #6: Status Quo

With this week's extensive discussion of margins and those people who find themselves in the margin the idea of status quo and those benefiting from the state of existing affairs should also have arisen.

All throughout history there have been those people who, as seen in the picture to the right, have lived in a world where they are the status quo. The people dancing in the picture only seem to notice the marginal people below them once they start to break through into the world above. In class discussion, the notion that only when marginal groups become disruptive to the status quo should they be paid attention to arose. This is both a sad truth and something that we should find scary. As American’s we talk a great deal about being the “melting pot” and a place where all different groups of people can come and find peace, acceptance and equality. However, often times these new groups of people are view as the “other” and pushed out to the margin, from African-Americans to the feminists, the “others” have been rejected. Rejected until they made a fuss that is. Upon the “others” standing up for themselves, different observers reacted differently, some joined the marginal people to fight and others pushed harder against them. The status quo usually occupied the position of pushing against change. And this is how change has happened, those being oppressed express their resentment and the status quo reacts in a manner that usually tries to subdue the situation, to keep things homeostatic.

One of the reasons I find this type of evolution of change sad is because it seems to promote the idea of integration versus the idea of acceptance. The status quo, and those in it, strive to preserve the current state of existence. With that idea combined with an upheaval from the “other”, the status quo attempts to keep the “others” in the place they occupied before or pushes to make the “others” like themselves. This leaves little room for acceptance of the “other” and promotes the idea of integration, ‘become like me or stay in the margin’. I want to live in a world where this type of change is no longer the norm. I think that this trend could be broken if those in the status quo, using the picture to the right as a metaphor, looked below their dancing floor to see how the ”others” live. If ignorance weren’t bliss, I think that we would live in a much more accepting world. Currently I feel it’s too easy to live in your own world if you’re in the status quo, and ignore the issues that plague those around you. Maybe if we all took a look below the dance floor, we’d be better for it.

Blog #6: ALIEN ATTACK... or Not...

When first thinking about my response to this week’s blog post, I immediately wanted to take the stance that it would be frivolous to assign someone to be the maybe ambassador to the aliens that are maybe going to be contacting us maybe in the future. There were just to many maybes for me to think that this was a good idea. However, then I started to think about District 9. The aliens are people too…or are they? I think that the question of preparing for extraterrestrial contact is an interesting one because it raises issues of the rights aliens may be guaranteed upon contact.

As seen in the film District 9 there are issues surrounding how to treat extraterrestrials if we ever come into contact with them. In the film a large alien spacecraft hovers above Johannesburg, South Africa and, after time, the humans go to explore the spacecraft and find a race of aliens in need of help. While I’m not arguing that we’re likely to experience anything like District 9 in the near future, the film does bring up the issue of “human” rights. Due to the fact that the aliens aren’t human, some individuals feel that they belong in the same class as cows or pigs. However, it is clear that the aliens in District 9 are intelligent life forms; they have a language, a power structure, a type of culture, family structures and self-awareness. So the question becomes where is the line draw between human rights and the rights of all living creatures?

If only for this question, spurred on by District 9, I find myself rethinking my original view. Not only would it probably be smart to have a contingency plan for how to deal with extraterrestrials who may be aggressive upon contact, it may also be smart to have a contingency plan for how to approach them if we find ourselves in a District 9 situation. Having an ambassador for extraterrestrial contact affairs may not be the worst thing. This post would be the ultimate exercise in cross-cultural communications and it would be challenging work that wouldn’t have defined expectations or any previous experiences to work off of or from. The main issue that I find myself struggling with still is that creating this post would seem frivolous until we actually came into contact with aliens and then it would seem like the best idea we’d ever had! So perhaps, creating a plan as to how to tackle the issue of extraterrestrial life forms contacting us is a good idea but creating a United Nations post reserved for it is a bit extreme.

Reflection #5: Constructivism

Of all of the political theories that we have studied in World Politics, I found that I related the most and best to Constructivism. The part that I really connected to was the idea of altercasting, treating others the way you want to be treated. I think that this idea is idea can be used in a really positive way. I feel like if all nations really took this idea to heart and acted with respect and openness to other nations, we’d be living in a better world. Yes, I realize how starry eyed I sound, but I’d like to believe we live in a world where the most powerful individuals (presidents, prime ministers, kings etc.) can approach situations positively.

I also really connected with the idea that Wednt presented about not being forced into the Hobbesian view of humans. I felt that Wednt took a stance that made the human race seem more real and hopeful. The idea that we’re not all predestined to have “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” lives was refreshing and more realistic. I feel that the constant reevaluation that Constructivism allows gives this theory a more pragmatic feel. Overall, the Constructivist viewpoint is the first IR theory that we’ve looked at that I’ve felt a connection with. Perhaps I’ve connected with it most because it does allow me to be just a little starry eyed…

Reflection #4: Voting

Reading blog posts from both World Politics groups really got me thinking about the way in which our nations holds elections. I think that one of the most frustrating things that I started to think about was the idea that our elections are set up in a way that doesn't really support voting. Think about it, the government has yet to make Election Day a national holiday. Now for a moment, think of the number of people who are not able to get to the polling station because they have work for the majority of time the polls are open. Or how about the person who doesn’t have the means to get to the polling station which is located all the way across town because they’re taking care of their child. There are dozens of cases like these that create a situation where an individual is unable to vote. It may not be that these people are ignorant or don’t care about exercising their right to vote, perhaps the real issue is that they simply can’t. I really think that if we wanted to improve the voter turn out, we should make Election Day a national holiday so that all people have equal opportunity to vote.

Another issue that was brought up was the issue of lack of education when it comes to voting. I think that something that’s worth trying when it comes to remedying this issue is the idea that local media should increase their coverage of what’s actually going on in the state/city politically. It seems that now the local media talks mostly about crime, large issue politics and puff pieces. I think that a greater emphasis should be placed on not only the large issues in politics but also on the smaller issues so that come election time voters are more educated not only about the candidates but about the issues that they’re taking a stance on.

Overall, there are many issues with the voting system in the United States but I really believe that if we wanted the way voting takes place in America to be equal, we could make it so. The real issue is whether we want to or not.

Blog #4

As someone who’s grown up in a society that promotes, arguably above all else, the importance of democracy and a representative government, it’s extremely hard to say that I would want to live in a society that doesn’t hold elections.

I think that the type of government we have and the fact that we, as citizens, have the right to influence who represents us in government is amazing. This, in essence, is the beauty of a democracy. I think something that should really be noted about voting rights is the fact that not everyone had them originally. We all know there was a time when only land owning men could vote, then only white men, then all men and the progression continued. I think that actually voting is the best way to say thank you to all those people who struggled and fought to earn the voting rights that we see today. Personally, Alice Paul is the one individual that I always think of when it comes to voting. She, along with many other brave women, struggled against social norms and faced incarceration to ensure that women in America had the right to vote. I feel that voting is almost something we should all feel obliged to do if only because so many people gave up so much for us so that we could be part of our government.

I really couldn’t see myself living in a society where voting wasn’t the way the people who represent you were put into positions of power. I can see how there could be arguments for a type of government where voting doesn’t occur like the idea that the nation wouldn’t have to be divided down party lines if there were no parties. Or the notion that the nation would be more stable because there would simply be one ruler or group of rulers thus eliminating the segmented type of policies we sometimes see in the United States. But for me, it really comes down to the fact that I really feel it’s best if we all have a say in our government because in the end, they’re the ones who are representing us on the global stage. And if we are the ones who elected them, we’re also held accountable for the actions they take thus ensuring that at least some of the population remains focused on both domestic and international issues and how we as a nation are perceived.