UC World Politics Reflection

Wow! What a semester!!! I can honestly say by the end of it that the UC is my favorite part of American University. In my few short months here, I have met some of the funniest, kindest, and craziest people that I know will be great friends for my following years at AU. I made the decision to sign up for UC the same day I decided I would attend. I actually submitted my essay for UCWP the first day we were allowed to. Looking back, I don't know what I would've done had I not gotten my first choice! It's crazy to even fathom what my first semester would've been like without the floor-mates I have grown to love. The social side of UC is only one facet however, because I loved the class just as much as the floor! If someone told me that I could, as a freshman, take a discussion style classe with exciting projects, simulations, speakers, trips, and Risk games I would have NEVER believed it. I had really high expectations for the class and PTJ and I was still blown away. Thank you soooo much to the wonderful PA's, Headmaster PTJ, and all of my floor-mates!

Ah, it seems that once again, just like my UCWP class, my blog isn't long enough :)

¡Salud!

The semester has finally come to a close and how do I feel? Is there is a sense of accomplishment? Or perhaps dissatisfaction? I feel neither. For my final blog, I want to explore my thoughts in my first language.

Uno entra en este mundo con el deseo de encender la llama de su alma y encontrar el susurro de sus deseos. Algunos encuentran su motivación el en mundo y se dedican a encontrar su paz en los cuentos de otros mientras algunos buscan entre paginas para calmar su sed. Entender estos modos de pensar es difícil ya que estas personas nunca van a estar en el mismo lugar al mismo tiempo – excepto en un lugar académico. Cada quien quiere compartir su pensar, es lo mas natural del ser humano. La evolución nos ha dado el poder de cambiar el motivo de nuestro tiempo en la tierra. Ya no solo es dejar nuestra genes, pero sino nuestros pensamientos.

Mi clase de política se distingue de cualquier otra clase que yo he tenido la fortuna de participar en. Donde uno va encontrar un ambiente donde puede soltar su fuente de pensamientos? Claro, la idea al inició fue un poco raro ya que esto no se encuentra fuera de la aula. Aunque mis temores me hayan detenido en compartir, siento que aprendí tanto de mis compañeros. Uno se va enamorando de la manera de pensar del otro. Así fue. Siempre tuve el deseo de que alguien me sorprendiera y causara que yo dude mis creencias.

Eran mi Unamuno << mi fuente de duda >>. A veces, sentía me estaba en la casa de Bernarda Alba y Borges me daba la mano. Pero Rulfo, << una combinación de el profesor y el tiempo >> me quito sus manos y pude escuchar sin preocupaciones.

Les agradezco desde lo mas profundo de mi ser. Se que varios no van a poder entender este blog, pero mi cariño para todos permanecerá.

Un semestre terminado, pero una vida de amistades y experiencias. 


---
English Translation 
Note: It probably won't sound as great as it does in Spanish.


One enters this world with the desire to light the fire in their soul and find the whisper of our wishes. Some find their motivation in the world and find peace in the history of others, while some satisfy their thirst in pages (meaning books). Being able to understand these ways of thinking is at times very difficult since these persons are never in the same place at the same tim - except in an academic place. Everyone wants to share their thoughts, it is only human nature. Evolution has given us the ability to change out motive for being on earth. Its not just about leaving our genes, but our thoughts as well. 

My politics distinguishes itself from other courses that I have taken. Where can you find a place to let go of your stream of thoughts? Of course, it was fairly strange having a discussion based class, where other courses are strictly lecture. Although my fears prevented me from sharing much, I learned so much from my classmates. One starts to find beauty in others' way of thinking. Thats what happened. I always hoped that someone could surprise me and make me doubt my beliefs.

[I then start to reference my favorite Latin American authors]

They were my Unamuno (1). At times I felt as if I was in the house of Bernarda Alba (2) while Borges (3) gave me his hand. But Rulfo (4) moved his hands off my ears and let me listen and I wasn't worried. 

I thank you all. I know many can't understand this blog, but just know that I care about you all.

The semester is over, but we remain with a lifetime of friendships and experiences. 

(1) Unamuno wrote Saint Emmanuel the Good, Martyr, where a priest doubts the existence of God. I am referring to the beginning of the semester where all the different ideas people shared went against my own, and I started to doubt whether or not what I believed was even valid. 

(2) La Casa De Bernarda Alba is a play that exposes a family of young women who are being forced to marry into higher classes by their mother, despite their interest in marrying their true love. This reference pertains to moments where I wasn't sure if I was supposed to accept these new ideas and ways of thinking, or if I should stick to my original beliefs.

(3) Borges is a Argentine writer who is best known for his work, El Sur (The South). The protagonist in the story undergoes a voyage where he starts to recognize his true identity. In World Politics, I have learned that I don't I have to accept everything, but I can grow from others' ideas. I have a better understanding of who I am and what I represent.

(4) Rulfo wrote No Oyes Ladrar Los Perros which is a story of a father who is carrying his son on his shoulders and tells his son to guide him towards the sound of the dogs, which would lead them to a near by town. Throughout the story, the son has his hands on his fathers years and the father guides himself based on what his son points towards. At the end of the story, the father pushes off the hands of his son and realizes that the dogs had been barking the whole time, yet his son never told him. | My upbringing in a different country has always dictated what I believe in and what I find important. Nevertheless, I realized that at times my culture did restrain me from respecting different ideas and it added to my ignorance. Through World Politics, I have been able to let go and feel comfortable with my beliefs and those of others. 

FINAL BLOG

I disagree with the statement: "The only way to keep them [the space-residing humans, who are phenotypically different even though they are genetically the same] safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own."

I think that a state that represents "different" people is only highlighting the problems and making them worse. For example, if I were to form a coalition of girls (v. the boys) of letts 6 war would definitely ensue. Why? Because we've highlighted our differences. Each "nation" will want to hold power over the other, so war is inevitable. (It occurs to me that this is a realist arguement).

Also, people naturally like to be with those who are similar. Conversely, people can find easy reasons to dislike the opposition. Rivalry.

It can also be inherently gathered that by deciding to make your own nation, you view the different nation as less worthy/desirable (otherwise you would be a part of it). And that is reason enough for the other side to dislike you. (This is a constructivist argument).

While I'm on a roll with the realist/constructivist arguements, a liberal would actually agree with this statement and say, "hey, maybe they can work together!Just because they're different states doesn't mean that the phenotypically different humans can't work in orbit and help the people down below!" And that is probably a correct assumption, except that there would stil be underlying hatreds of the 'different'.

The Mayan Woman

Typically, when one opens a novel or work of any sort, there is a dedicatory towards a group or individual who impacted the author and provided inspiration while writing. It demonstrates that Todorov took into great consideration the story of different groups and assessing how identity may impact the course of history. The Mayan woman represents a suppressed group that could only share her story with her people. Nevertheless, one could argue, that perhaps Mayan women were unable to pass down their history due to the tremendous amount of deaths that occurred during the Age of Exploration.

In addition, the image of a Mayan woman is fairly unique as it is not used greatly by historians. Many can easily identify a film, novel, or photograph associated with other genocides, such as the ones in Rwanda and Germany, nevertheless, the indigenous genocide during the late 15^th and early 16^th century has no image. This image further extends to history within the United States and in Latin America. In the U.S classroom, many become aware of the horrendous behavior of conquistadors until their later years of secondary education, while in Latin America, there is little emphasis on this time period and a greater focus during its highlights.

My point is that Todorov aims at shedding light a group that underwent such drastic changes in a short period of time without any say. It is essential to maintain this image in order to value human life no matter the point in history or group it affected.  Just as this Mayan woman may have given Todorov a way of perceiving the time period in his work, History guides many in this world and we learn from it everyday. 

Blog question 13

Well, while I see where the logic supports "The only way to keep them [the space-residing humans, who are phenotypically different even though they are genetically the same] safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own.", I firmly disagree with this statement. I feel that separation merely HIGHLIGHTS differences and exacerbates underlying tensions. Unification creates a sense of physical commonness, which in my opinion would be beneficial in protecting those who are different. As soon as they are separated based on differences, the unification is gone and it is much easier to hate all of those who are different since they are all clumped together. Also, separating "them" from us would create the image that there is something wrong with them, which would perhaps persuade even those that did not have a problem with "them" to dislike them.

Not only that, but as Elle mentioned in her blog, this kind of separation easily highlights another problem inherit with separation: Rivalry. As soon as groups are separated, differences and highlighted and people naturally turn to competitiveness. If we turn to realism, the separation of those who are different into a sovereign body will only create more conflict in an effort to hold the most power. Not only that, but the differences that first lead to this separation will probably exacerbate the conflict due to underlying hatreds. In my opinion, integration into society will protect "them". While in the short-term it will cause a lot of conflict, it is the only viable long-term solution.

Soveriegnty and Difference

How does one protect difference? As to the idea that sovereignty protects difference I believe that this is mostly correct. Throughout history groups of people, especially minorities have been weak and easily exploited if they were diffused in a country. To gain support and a voice they had to band together into groups. These groups were stronger than just a bunch of individuals trying to protect themselves.

Now I think its really difficult to label someone as "different" to begin with, but I guess if you go along the line of diversity, than all groups have their advocacy groups. Blacks have the NAACP for instance. Should all these groups be sovereign unto themselves? No, definitely not. We would have way too many separate entities and trouble governing them all. Ideally if you can integrate everyone as much as possible under a single identity, that is the best answer. We all have different backgrounds in America, but we are all Americans.

But to purely answer the question of sovereignty protecting differences, I still think that it does. A success story could be Israel. They have a very tight-knit strong country of people that have been seen as "different" for one reason or another through history. Granted, they have many troubles with those who still disagree with their way of life, land they hold, etc... but comparatively they are doing much better than ever before. We should try to avoid separating into groups based on our differences, because it will undoubtedly create animosity towards others based on material wealth, power, and other things that groups may hold over others.

Bottom Line: Integration of multiple differences under a single identity is desirable, but sovereignty does in fact protect difference which may explain why groups like the Palestinians desire a state of their own.

Final Reflection

Whoa. Well, kinda. While I always have the feeling "I've learned something" by the end of each semester (in college as well as high school), it's a different kind of "whoa". So much has changed from almost 4 months ago (August 14, anyone?): new "home", different relationship with parents, new friends, the decision of how much effort to devote to keeping old friends, new classes, new city. It's been great, though everyone hit a really bad rut right before thanksgiving break. I'm not sure how we'll handle the transitions to and from winter break. Still, it's an overall good "whoa".

On Friday, I went to talk to Erin to brainstorm for the final paper. As I was leaving with friends, we were discussing how different the expectations are in college. We would suggest basic topics like water wars, globalization, the treatment of women in the middle east, and Erin would put a theoretical spin on it. It was interesting, and my brain didn't hurt TOO much after trying to understand the example theses (pl of thesis?) she gave us. My friends and I agreed that we weren't in high school anymore. No one in high school would ever dream about having an essay THAT specific.

I can also understand snippets of conversations between Chinese people on the shuttle. Mind. Blown.

Reflection: First Semester

So its finally over. My first semester of college certainly was not what I expected. Between ROTC and my course load, I was pretty darn busy, but I must say I learned a lot. Specifically my understanding of World Politics became broadened to include much more than I had thought it would. My teachers in high school had always had a very limited view of on world politics that didn't really extend beyond the major theories. Now it feels like everything I learn is somewhat interconnected.

Things in my Macroeconomics class came up in world politics, and things in world politics came up in my Views from the Third World Class. Things from all these classes were constantly coming up and relating to one another. That's when I felt I was really learning something. I guess the next logical question to ask would be what can I do with this new knowledge? Well, I think I'll be able to better develop a comprehensive way of thinking about the globe. If I learned anything its that anything is possible. While I maintain many of the convictions I had coming in, they have actually been strengthened in some cases by the information I have gleaned. Also in some cases my views have been altered. Most of all I think the UC was a good experience that helped us to interact in a microcosm of the world with all of our different backgrounds, identities, etc... and we all got along. There is hope for the world after all.

Reflection: North Korea

The situation in North Korea worries me. Now that I think about it, I 'm surprised the issue didn't come to a head sooner. It was only a matter of time with a regime so oppressive and oriented against our interests. Not only do they represent an obstacle to our interest of peace in east Asia, but a legitimate threat to our ally South Korea. With one EMP blast or surface nuclear explosion South Korea would be catastrophically damaged. I believe the war would most definitely be won by the US who is legally binded to assist South Korea in a war, but it would be costly. It would be unlike any war we've experienced since Vietnam. There would be much more casualties and I'm not sure that's something anyone is ready for. For me personally if need be, I could possibly be pulled out of school to be deployed. This is unlikely in all but the most desperate of times and seeing as our troop strength is stretched at the moment it suddenly doesn't seem so far fetched.

Despite all this, a line in the sand must be drawn, Enough is enough. How long can we let this go on. We aren't appeasing them by any means, but there have been no consequences for the North Koreans' actions. They are escalating things. First it was a torpedo attack, and now an outright artillery strike. What is next? While I think it would be unfortunate, there will come a time when we will have to make a decision as to deal with their oppressive regime straight out of Orson Well's 1984 upfront, or to accept them as a constant threat and allow them to gain confidence to the point they do something really terrible with weapons of mass destruction.

I like how Jaime pointed out how we seem to have avoided North Korea (http://letts6.blogspot.com/2010/11/north-korea-reflection.html) and while I disagree that it has to do with the resources the country has, I do think it odd that we have had such a negligent posture in recent years towards the most oppressive, violent, secretive, regime on this earth. Why have we chosen to ignore it? Much of it probably has to do with the media focus, but also I think Americans simply forget if not reminded about certain aspects of the world, because we get so caught up in our own lives and problems. Some thing's gotta give and I wonder if this is the breaking point. I expect we will find out in the coming days.

Reflection...not really thinking backwards though...

This isn't so much a reflection, as a brain dump of ideas for next semester's project that was brainstormed with Erin.

First of all, as much as I love research projects, I am definitely taking the opportunity to do "field research" in the form of community service.

The first of three ideas (and my least favorite) is concerning women around the world. For our service part, we could visit battered womens shelters and explore the treatment of women in the United States (lower pay, "housewife", educated/working women vs. soccer moms). The international aspect would probably be focused in the Middle East and the treatment of women there.

The second idea concerns water. As we all know, the Potomac is pretty dirty and for the community aspect we can participate in the clean up programs. Dirty. Shudder. We can compare the relative abundance of water in the north east to the lack of water in the west and how people in the developed world expect it. We can also compare uses of tap water around the world. And then there are water wars.

The final idea, and my favorite, is about the governments treatment of the mentally ill. We can volunteer at St. Elizabeth's and read foucault to understand the United State's treatment of the mentally ill and the public's perceptions. In international terms, we can explore how it is taboo in many other cultures and the side effects of trying to ignore mental illness. See: China.

Columbus

All this Columbus talk has really got me thinking of the first time I learned about Columbus. La India, La Niña, y la Santa Maria. Does that ring a bell? At that point in my life, I never thought Columbus would ignite an era of genocide. It really makes me wonder whether or not it was beneficial to be censored from historical truth.  In the Latin American classroom, children are taught to praise Columbus for his accomplishments and the “positive things” he did for Latin America. What?! I mean, there is Spanish blood in almost every individual in Latin America, but we’re mostly descendants of indigenous people – yet we’re not taught to dislike to the Spanish for killing off our ancestors. Now, I wonder how did people learn about Columbus in the United States. Its almost the same story, but I think a better example would be the concept of Thanksgiving (if we are doing an American application). Is Thanksgiving just this?

Learning history at a younger age depended so greatly on interpreting images. We assumed that what was in front of us was the truth and that images couldn’t lie. Then we go to higher courses and figure out things aren't exactly how we pictured it. I remember being in my 8^th grade US history course and reading Lies My Teacher Told Me. So Columbus didn’t discover America? Who would’ve known?

North Korea Reflection

Scanning facebook statuses at 12:35am on a Sunday night/Monday morning I was pretty startled when I started seeing people claiming the world was coming to an end. Sifting through the melodramatic claims I was able to understand that North Korea had apparently just shelled South Korea. Well, crap. This isn't good. After reading more breaking news stories on the situation, I decided to read up on North Korea. After a 45 minute National Geographic documentary on the so-called "Hermit Kingdom" and 30+ of the State Department Human Rights report on North Korea I was pretty taken aback. I would venture to say the North Korea commits some of the most purposefully executed human rights violations of any established state in the world. Political prisoners--and all of their extended family (including children), who also get punished for one family members "crime"--face some of the worst punishments for the rest of their life for something as simple as playing a video game other than tetris (the only legal video game in North Korea). In the camps infantcide and forced abortions, hanging by wrists, compulsory standing and sitting for weeks on end, and confinement in small rooms where one may not sit, lay, or stand are some of the most basic atrocities.


After all this research, I began to think.... Why don't we hear more about the US planning to invade North Korea? Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would be a good idea, but afterall, why did we invade Iraq? Sadda's regime was awful to its citizens and WMD's (that we never found), right? Well North Korea actually DOES have WMDS, a LOT. In fact, North Korea is pouring more money than ever into their Nuclear weapons facilities. Not only that, but North Korea is under a more oppressive and easily more anti-American regime than Iraq was, and arguably much more than Iran. Well, then again, North Korea isn't all that oil-laden, so I guess I can see the disinterest.

Native American Museum

As people in my world politics section will know, I really dislike the Native American Museum. I won't even grant it the luxury of having "history" be in the name. Not only do I hate the way it is laid out, I hate the whole purpose (or lack of) the museum. I will acknowledge that the cafeteria is pretty awesome.

I hate that it's a waste of space on the National Mall. It's a cool looking building, but the museum is divided into two halves: one is the museum, the other is the large, cylindrical atrium. It's cool, but why does it have to take up the same amount of space as the actual museum part? Could the makers not find enough on the Native Americans to fill up the museum? Also, the actual exhibits are a colossal waste of space. There are two common ways to lay out the artifacts: either you cram a whole bunch of random things into a glass case with little tags, or you put one artifact in a huge case and spread them out. The spread out method is ok and probably more visually appealing, but is only really ok if the museum is huge. the native american museum isn't. This seems petty but it bothers me so much because there is so much interesting history and art of the native americans that wasn't even remotely covered in the museum. Throughout the exhibits I would come across something that reminded me of other things they didn't cover. Like the trail of tears, the mounds of the mid west indians, the seven nations of the Iroquois, etc.

Oh, and can i comment on how on the fourth floor, the glass cases that drew people in were those full of gold jewely or guns? Cool. Guns. Now what were they used for? What is the importance of guns in the history of native americans? Why wasn't this explained? How can it be called a history museum if the curators simply display an artifact and then don't explain its' relevance in history?

Also, the individual tribes were lumped together as if "Native Americans" are just one people. They aren't. They're all very individual. Whey didn't the curators have an exhibit for each tribe highlighting their differences, and simultaneously their similarities?

The overwhelming feeling I got going through this museum (and get every time I walk in) is that the curators were clearly avoiding mentioning the atrocities committed by the Europeans, and later the Americans. In fact, I commented to Giuliana as soon as I walked in, "I don't really like this museum." At that time I didn't really understand why it bothered me so much (I've been to many many many many museums and haven't had any qualms with any of them), but this time I finally figured out why I get that twinge of annoyance.

Ok, so the United States wouldn't want to put a museum on the national mall that highlights our country's mistakes. Then why didn't they put the museum somewhere else? I still think the United States needs to make some sort of apology to the native americans. A museum that tries to show the history and culture of the natives that was partly ruined by the Europeans and Americans is a good idea--but the problem needs to be acknowledged. In conjunction with the good.

Native Americans

I haven’t been to many museums, except a few here in Washington DC including The Holocaust Museum and The Museum of Natural History. When I went to the American Indian Museum, I didn’t come out with the same feeling. Of course, I understand that the emotions that the  the Holocaust Museum evoke weren't going to be the same as the American Indian Museum, but I felt as if I was cheated out on quality.

Honestly, it felt as if I pulled out my brother’s fourth grade social studies text book and walked through it. It was completely censored and it covered an incredible amount of general information about different American tribes, but was that a proper way to compensate for the high degree of censorship? Another problem with that museum is that you get the feeling that most of your tax dollars went to the construction of the building rather than the content that was present. I'm not going to argue that the architecture wasn't appealing, but it really didn't add to the quality of the museum. From outside, you imagine (by the size of the building), that the exhibits are going to be incredibly big and spectacular. It was slightly frustrating when I realized that  that out of the four floors, only 2 were the actual museum and everything else was either food or merchandise. 

Did my understanding of the American Indian change? I’m sorry to say, but no, it didn’t. I think that’s the problem with the museum. An individual should walk into the museum and come out knowing something new. I mean, it was nice walking through the museum and seeing different artifacts, but I don’t think I grasped something wholesome about Native Americans. I definitely think a big part of it has to deal with the fact that the museum lacks history of Natives throughout time. Although this may involve many serious exhibits, I believe people would have walked out the museum with a greater appreciation and respect for Natives. Overall, if I would have to rate the museum, it would be a 2/5.

Reflection: Objectivity Vs. Subjectivity

In class on Friday I made mention to the idea of the explorers who discovered the Americas as victims of human subjectivity and I would like to expand upon it here.

I think that as we established in class, Columbus, Cortes, and the others were products of European society. They had strong feelings of religion, pride in their newly formed sovereign state, and a hunger for knowledge/wealth. Columbus was undoubtedly a very pious person and whatever his motivations his justification for the way he treated the Natives he came across was a mixture of all of this European ideology at the time. I don't believe he deliberately decided to treat them as objects rather than people, but that given his paradigm on the world, it worked for him to do so. Because he had preconceived ideas it was more difficult to think beyond those first impressions and even more so because of the depth of his belief in the European/christian values. Cortes had a more objective view in that he tried to learn more about them and see things from all different angles to include the side of the natives, but he wasn't objective in that he took part in the process and still used all the information gleaned for his own ends. It is beyond the scope of my blog to determine whether he was simply an evil person who decided to manipulate the knowledge to his own ends fully knowing the wrong he was doing, but what is more probable is that he had a justification for what he was doing as well. It probably had to do with what Todorov said as being the accumulation of wealth leading to a rich lifestyle in terms of material wealth as well as spiritual health.

We all have justifications for the things we do and the opinions we take. This is something I struggle with personally because complete objectivity is held as this enlightened, wise, state where complete understanding is gained of all sides and issues. I as an American having grown up here with specific values, with certain values, etc... would like to believe that my views and my country's actions are just and correct. By believing this I have lost my objectivity. However, as I was speaking with PTJ I realized that just because you have certain opinions and values associated with your identity does not mean that you can't be somewhat objective. This poses the question: Is complete objectivity a good thing if it means inaction? I think given that separating oneself from their own opinions and framework of looking at the world seems like a physical impossibility it is better to have an educated and well rounded framework to shape your opinion around. Basically first you must do the research and then form an opinion. Doing the opposite, you risk running into the problems of Columbus and others. Furthermore, even when you have a well rounded viewpoint, you must have the humanity and understanding to react in a responsible manner unlike what Cortes did.

Would Things Have Changed?

Oh, Columbus…Where to begin? So the first question is whether it is fair to blame Columbus for what transpired after the discovery of the Americas. Quite frankly, no it is not. While Columbus was kind of an ass in dealing with the native population, it is not like anyone else would have been better. Columbus was a man driven by religion, power, and—partially--greed. Many men in power shared these characteristics at the time. In retrospect, the way Columbus dealt with the native population was quite horrible, but during that era, it wasn’t considered nearly as horrible. The majority of people would have looked at the natives as savages and acted similarly, if not worse, than good Ol’ Columbus had.

However, the second question is much different. If Columbus had acted differently, things would have drastically changed. Had Columbus acted in accordance with more contemporary standards in dealing with native populations, the future of the Americas would be immeasurable different. The most significant factor in the way Columbus treated the natives derived from his perspective of them; Columbus saw the indigenous as less than human—almost as animals. Had Columbus viewed the natives as humans, their treatment would have been completely different. Whether to say it would have been better or worse is impossible. For all we know, the Spanish could have been more threatened by a civil entity’s existence on the land and crushed them more ruthlessly than before. However, if Columbus had initially seen the American-Indians as human beings, it is unquestionable to say things would not have been the same.

Columbus is to be blamed

Columbus really is to blame for how the native Americans were treated. As the leader of the first group that encountered the natives, Columbus set the stage for how the natives would be treated in the future. After someone has already established something routine (such as an opinion of the natives and a way of treating them), people tend to follow it unless they encounter a problem. Clearly, no other explorers encountered a problem with treating the natives less than humanely.

Columbus never tried to understand any of the natives customs. He refused to believe that they had their own language, and instead modified their words into spanish sounding ones. He interpreted their meanings completely wrong. Because of this, he believed that the natives were stupid. How many explorers in the coming years tried to point out that the natives weren't stupid and actually quite advanced? Not many.

Columbus also saw the natives as not owning their own property. He refused to even accept the already given names for islands and renamed them himself. He had no respect for their land. He also moved onto these islands and claimed them for his own (slash for the crown). Other explorers noted that Columbus never encountered too much trouble with this and acted in the same manner.

Columbus is NOT the source of the problem

Can we honestly blame Christopher Columbus for everything that occurred in the America's after his landing in Hispaniola? Its ridiculous. There was Cortes in the Aztec empire and Cortes in the Incan empire. There is no denying that Cortes and Pizarro had heard stories of Columbus's voyages in the New World and it may have have motivated them to pursue their voyages, but Columbus isn't responsible for what these two men decided to do in the New World. For instance, many of us may look up to X politician, but if X politician is ever impeached, we will not blame X politician for any failure we may have in our political career. I'm not denying that Christopher Columbus influenced others, but he shouldn't hold direct responsibility for it. I honestly think that the massacres that occurred in the Americas had greatly to do with what was popular at the time: earn recognition. At this time, human rights were not a main issue and conquest of different peoples led many to achieve higher status in society.

(Note: I'm about to enter into a related, yet not so related rant)

Todorov emphasizes in work, “The Conquest of America”, that Columbus valued the spread of Christianity and it was one of his main drives. Nevertheless, one could only wonder if Columbus was an actual Christian or even interested in Christian values when we read Bartolome de Las Casas' works. His works illustrate the abuses Columbus put the indigenous peoples under, which led to dehumanization of the Indians, their enslavement, and eventually the killing of millions. De Las Casas demonstrates that Columbus may have initially began his voyage with interest in Christianizing the indigenous, but until De Las Casas sends his reports to Charles V, there is no real Christianization in the Americas. It is until Charles V states that the indigenous are entitled to rights is when Columbus and his followers actually begin to “spread” Christianity.

(Rant over)

Was Columbus really responsible for what Cortes and Pizarro decided to do? It was the European-spirit-of-conquest! At this moment in history, “diplomacy” wasn't exactly the way people expanded their empire or gained riches. We can't deny that what these three men ended up doing is right and each are to be blamed for what they did – no doubt about it, but lets not blame Columbus for what the whole world ended up doing at the end. I honestly think that if Columbus had acted in a different way, someone else who might have gone to X location in the world would have done the same.

Summary:

Columbus, Cortes, nor Pizarro should be praised for what happened in the Americas.

Columbus shouldn't be blamed for what Cortes or Pizarro or any explorers ended up doing later on.

Can We Blame Columbus?

This was actually a very difficult question to answer and I actually am still really stumped on this issue. I mean, how can we blame one man for the response of a continent to the new world? I guess in one respect we could blame him because he set the precedent for what to expect from the natives and the land itself, whether it was their "savageness" or the vast riches of the new world. Honestly however, I find this to be a fallacy and I think the reason that the subsequent brutal conquest of the Americas was due more to the European identity as a whole and its reaction to the other as Todorov points out in his book.

I think that the European attitude at the time reflected the struggle to come out of the middle ages. It was one that was deeply entrenched in religion that came from years of catholic expansion and the subsequent crusades. Europeans felt they had to expand their religion to come to enlightenment and escape the dark ages of their past. The renaissance was evidence of the beginning of their enlightenment. When Columbus and others came across Native Americans they saw something completely alien and foreign to them. They saw people living in a primitive state. After observation that they did not follow a "Christan religion" (they actually thought they had no religion) the Europeans determined that due to this lack of religion that they were in a state much like Europe had been after the fall of Rome. A state of barbarism, lacking sophistication, education, and civilization itself. I think this solidified their belief of the superiority and justice of their cause. How could they not, having nothing else to measure against?

Essentially while Columbus certainly embodied the European ideals of the time, he was in a class of his own in terms of really being an idealist. His crusading attitude was not felt among all those back in Europe, so I believe his descriptions of the new world did not form people's attitudes, but rather provoked their curiosity to find out for themselves. When more explorers found similar things, I think because of the societal and political structure of Europe at the time, they ended up coming up with a view as themselves and their religion as superior and almost a moral imperative to expand. This is not to say that greed for wealth did not play into it, but I think what I have described in this blog points out the cause for the aggressive pillaging of the Americas and the treatment of the new world in an objective, scientific, and project-like manner.

Final Status Issues Week

This last week, Students for Justice in Palestice (SJP) kicked off the beginning of our Final Status issues week with a presentation by Joseph Dana, a member of "Anarchists Against the Wall". Joseph Dana, an Israeli-American Jewish late-twenty-something, spends most of his time in Israel protesting what many call the "apartheid wall". Just for background info, the wall running deep through the West Bank under the pretext of security has been widely regarded as merely a ploy for a future annexation territory in a two-state solution framework. Rather than the wall running on the logical line, the green line that separates Israel proper from the West Bank, the wall runs ruthlessly through the occupied territories, even barring villages from water supplies, farmland, and even at times splitting the entire village in half. While the argument that Israel needs a security wall is quite viable, the location of the wall leads to skepticism. Not only does the wall create so much conflict by splitting entire villages in half, but the wall itself in some areas is not even built on militaristically strategic positions, such as on the low ground with the high ground on the West Bank side of the wall. Well, the MORE West Bank side of the wall. So Joe Dana came to talk to us about his involvement in the "Anarchists Against the Wall" organization. AAW is an Israeli organization composed of Israeli citizens standing up against the injustice in the region. As Israeli and often American citizens, these people have an immunity to the unjust tactics the IDF uses to squelch nonviolent protest. Dana and his fellow AAW friends went to local nonviolent demonstrations against the apartheid wall and stood in the front lines, forming a barrier around their Palestinian friends. As Israelis and Americans, the IDF is less likely to shoot tear gas shells or rubber coated bullets into the crowd. I asked how the AAW got their name, since I didn't see how the organization was in any way anarchistic. Apparently the various demonstrators against the wall usually took different names all the time, from "Feminists Against the Wall", to "Jews Against the Wall", until one day with "Anarchists Against the Wall" they got the most media attention and decided to stick to the name.

However, one thing about the amazing presentation was disappointing: the turnout. The turnout for the speaker was about 12 people. Many people I have spoken with this issue about always claim they aren't educated enough on the issue to take a stance, or they simply buy into the "both sides have done wrong" "neutral" approach to the conflict. So why is it that more people don't come? We advertised not only all over the campus, but also in Today@AU. This presentation would have been a perfect introduction to the injustice in the region since it was by an Israeli Jew, obliterating any claims of anti-semitism or anti-Israel in disputing the unfairness of Israel. For the rest of this week, SJP will be continuing with our Obstacles to Peace: Final Status Issues week events: Tuesday at 8:30 in the Batelle-Thompson Atrium an Ice Cream Social with FTSA, Wednesday at 6:00pm in the Batelle Atrium a presentation by Americans for Peace Now, and on Thursday at the same time and place, the International Solidarity Movement will be joining us. I encourage all students here to empower themselves and learn the truth about an ongoing illegal and unjust occupation. I echo the words of Che Guevara: "If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine."

The World Bank

It's odd that after finally coming to American University, I am losing sight of why I came here. My dreams and passions have been drowned out amid the new location, new workload, new friends, and new life. Even in the one place where I can really make my dreams happen.

I like college, but college writing reminds me of high school English, Chinese is surprisingly and depressingly easy (or at least easier than i thought), I (literally) sleep through macro because the teacher goes over the exact same thing I read/learned in high school (sorry Broder), and world politics is nice, but more of a political theory debate than GOING OUT AND DOING SOMETHING related to what I pined for in high school.

I've been talking with some friends, and we agree that college has become...boring. The level of stress (from school, not outside sources) just isn't keeping us engaged. I've lost my drive. I like AU, I want to be at AU, but what's college without a dream?

Anyway, the World Bank presentation this Wednesday was the closest thing to re-sparking my drive. International Development. Yes. What can we do to help development? What is the WB doing? What can't it do? What is the progress? I actually paid attention to this presentation (not that I'm say I don't ALWAYS try to pay attention because they're all really cool experiences and I believe you can learn from everything).

I definitely want to work at the World Bank someday. I just wish there was more I could do now to help keep me motivated. Internships are pretty much out for freshmen, not to mention time consuming and take over time that could be used for working and helping to pay back student loans. Even classes are hard to get (the one that I REALLY want to take is only offered during the Wednesday labs. it's about upstart businesses in developing countries, a dead-on hit for what really interests me). I had to tell myself that I could try to take that class "next year". But WHY does it always have to be "next year"? In my senior year of high school it was "next year". My schedule for next semester is about as dismal as this semester's. And i even got a lot of gen eds out of the way with APs.

But enough of the tirade: the World Bank and the millennium development goals are an excellent connection to tomorrow's discussion about efficiency. How do you work towards these goals? The world bank already admitted that you can't just attack education. You also have to work towards fixing nutrition and women's empowerment or education will never really get fixed. This isn't efficient. So how do you work towards attaining the millennium development goals efficiently? I think it has to come from some form of economic expansion. The countries need funds to provide public works (like water, roads), the construction of which will give jobs to citizens who need money to buy food and keep themselves healthy (HELLO FISCAL POLICY). But if only the world was that simple...why hasn't this worked? I would like to experiment with small entrepreneurship in developing countries because i think it is the lack of industry in these countries that really prevents them from growing.

Reflection: Security from the Soldier's Standpoint

While everyone was in World Politics class on Friday I found myself wandering around in the woods looking for a little panel taped to a tree on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. My weekend from 3:30 a.m. Friday Morning to 12:00 noon on Sunday consisted of various Army land navigation, squad tactical operations, and forward operating base operations. Besides the 56 hours of no sleep, the frigid temperatures that a South Florida boy like me has no experience with, and the hunger after eating crackers and cheese spread out of an MRE as a meal, I still found myself relating my experiences to the greater picture of security.

On Friday we basically conducted land navigation exercises all day. In the late afternoon we divided up into our squads and fire teams for the combat operations. During this time we basically went over all the basic tactics that one would expect and that we've been learning all year. Afterwards we conducted land navigation in the pitch black woods. Let's put it this way, you can see about five meters in front of you and you are looking for a tiny placard that designates what you hope is your point on a tree, and you got to do it the old fashioned way with a compass, protractor, and a bit of math. I found it very interesting how much focus is still put on the old fashioned methods when we have all the advanced GPS technology and it made me glad that the military is not becoming completely reliant on that technology. When we got back we were taught classes on Forward Operating Base operations. This is where things got interesting. There was of course a focus on things such as manning checkpoints, doing surveillance, detaining and questioning prisoners, etc... but there was a huge focus on dealing with non-conventional threats. We were taught how to react to things such as vehicle borne IEDs, suicide bombers, belligerent indigenous peoples, hit and run tactics, and trickery. There was such a great emphasis on how to best deal with civilians that we come across, media in the field, etc... Also we were taught about culturally sensitive issues such as the fact that certain hand movements are recognized in different ways (Never give a thumbs up signal to an Arab person, trust me on that). Also there was talk of how to deal with the language barrier and things like the fact that in Iraq and Afghanistan it is perfectly fine for any male to be walking around with an Ak-47. It is part of their culture and in some cases, their constitution. Again and Again I heard the words, "treat these people as if they were your family members. Be forceful, but remember that they are people and you can't just shoot them, no matter how annoying they are unless they pose a direct threat." This was comforting to hear when you consider that this is really what we need to be cognisant of in today's wars.

Saturday came around and the no sleep factor was starting to affect judgment etc... but I was able to play the part of a terrorist hiding in a bunker for most of the day. It was interesting because the threat to the squads I was attacking didn't end when the shooting stopped. I often was told to pretend I had a grenade or an IED planted underneath my body and that it would blow up if they didn't check me and deal with it. It is really a tough situation sometimes and many times the only way you know that there is an IED is if someone sets it off and in a manner of speaking, "takes one for the team." After ten hours of this we moved to the most interesting part of the whole thing which was putting into practice the things we learned the night before about the FOB operations and conducting them. The "fog of war" as it were, really set in as all sorts of native people came to the gate, some cooperative, some not, some looking for help or work, some looking to kill us. It was very difficult to maintain a respectful and "nice" disposition towards them when you couldn't be sure if they had a bomb under their shirt or a gun hidden in their belt which happened a couple of times. You have to operate to where you trust no one. Due to this it is hard for the native population to feel all warm and fuzzy towards you, although I learned that sharing skittles and M'n Ms goes a long way. You have to be forceful if people just insist in hanging around or trying to get in and this can appear rude and unfair to the local people as well. However its really for our safety and their safety if the escalation of force is maintained. Shout, Shove, Show, Shoot is how it goes for an armed civilian and shout, shove, show, detain, is how it goes for unarmed civilians. Of course this is all dependent on the situation and someone who is unarmed may actually be wearing a bomb vest and you aren't going to want to go anywhere near them, but the truth is there is no way of really knowing sometimes. You have to be violent and forceful to maintain security and sometimes that rubs people the wrong way.

As I rode the bus back from the base after 56 hours of all this I found myself thinking that we talk a lot about theories and concepts of how things should be done, but so often it does not translate to the real world. People are constantly saying how we should do this or that in terms of dealing with situations like I described before, but so often these ideas go to crap when confronted with the real deal and circumstances change so fast. Is there a perfect solution? I don't know. Are we working towards one in the right direction? Yes, I think the military has made a significant shift in the right direction when it comes to today's changing battlefield. Things will always be changing we will always have to adapt and improvise to keep up and maintain our security. I think we should just try and remember the practicality of many of the theories and strategies that we talk about because many times it can make the situation worse. An example is when we decided we would try a more trusting and "friendlier" attitude towards Afghan locals and so we didn't search their women or even their men if they were our supposed allies. They brought a man in with a suicide vest into a Forward Operating Base much like the one I was in this weekend and he blew himself up killing several CIA operatives and a couple of contractors. The consequences of failure on these issues is much to great to be taking chances on things like this. People never like being told what to do. Soldiers in Afghanistan are viewed by the locals like Police are in the United States. People tend not to like them because they enforce the laws that people sometimes like to break. It comes from perspective. Just because people don't like being told what to do doesn't mean they shouldn't do whats right and follow the laws and customs that our soldiers or police are upholding.

Our right to education

Last class really got me thinking of whether or not education was a need or if it was a right. Could it be both? Or did it have to be one or the other.  I started to think about this further when Sam brought up the very famous quote from our Declaration of Independence, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To an extent, we can all acknowledge that this derives from the Social Contract. We give up our unlimited freedom in order to live in a community which helps us allocate resources, create a sense of security, and in the process of it all, we gain civil liberties.  Is one of those civil liberties education? I mean, in order to maintain a properly functioning community it is necessary to have an educated mass? Isn’t that how we achieve liberalism? We cannot rely on those who were luckily placed into wealthier families to have a better education and expect them to guide our country propely. Once we recognized that for our community to function we must have an education population, it necessary for the government to create means for people who are less economically capable to attend the same schools. Nevertheless, I do not believe that these financial aids should be solely in the form of grants. When one has an economic commitment to their education (signing off for a loan) its forces the individual to strive more for their education. I’m not arguing that students who are being assisted financially by their parents don’t value their education, but there is a lesser degree of feeling fully committed as a student who opts for loans. Regardless, in a community such as the United States, education should not be seen as a need. For it to be classified as a need, an individual would have to depend on it for survival purposes. Although one can argue that an education can increasing survival rates (as it allows people to have more money), people can live without an education. Nevertheless, since we do live in a community influenced by the Social Contract, I find it implict to recognize education as a right and that is necessary for the government to provide means for every individual to be educated. 

The Voices We Don't Hear

Tickner really impressed me with a lot of what she had to say, especially her thoughts about those voices we don't hear. This was in reference to those who do finish as victors in history, and they remain unheard and ignored. This reminded me a lot of the week we spent talking about the "marginalized voices". I remember that week the blog question was something about the justification of violence from a marginalized, suppressed people. I wrote my blog about precisely what Tickner was speaking about. Those who have power and claim victory have the enormous power to be able to dictate how any event in history is portrayed. Those who are victorious can make the voices of marginalized people almost completely hushed or distorted to fit the image they see fit. Tickner spoke of the importance of stories to convey some of what those who can't be heard want to say. I completely agree with Tickner on this point, and this reminded me of another similar point. It is easy to look back in the past and say "oh the victor writes history!" but when looking directly at the present it is much more difficult to analyze something.

For instance, I feel that on certain issues those with power and influence are generating what THEY want people to see, hear, and believe. I feel that those in power can distort and control the media to produce only what THEY wish to be seen. It is the same as looking in the past, except it is much more difficult to try and conceptualize in present times. This is why stories, and similarly social media is so important. Social media is in my opinion the most trustable since it is so widespread, accessible, and often times pure footage or pictures of the truth. Social media is the voice and stories of the marginalized and oppressed, free from the corruption and bias of a media that is merely a puppet of those who are influential and in power.

Alternative Perspectives

From since I can remember, I have always been taught to be aware of bias. An easy way to avoid bias is to diversify your sources; so of course gaining an additional perspective is important for truly understanding history.

In fact, when I entered middle school I began to really love my history class because we learned not only what was happening in Europe during the middle ages, but what was going on in Africa and the Middle East and how they all eventually worked with each other beginning the Renaissance. No longer was history a flat, one dimensional plot. It was a web. I could see Europe from the Middle East's and China's far away perspectives, not just Europe from a European perspective.

I do think it is important to find different perspectives of history, but I think there's so many that knowing ALL perspectives is an unattainable ideal. Each different perspective adds to ones knowledge of the world's history, but the effect of each small story is negligible in the whole scheme of things.

Also, in the end we just take the basics and add our own perspectives anyway. I had a class where we read nothing but primary "alternative perspectives" sources for half a year and I can't say they really impacted my view of history. A small few, like the historical but fictitious "the kite runner" really impacted my view of Afghanistan.

History

Finally someone understood. Its honestly hard for people to perceive the world after they have been pounded with history from a certain country. Of course theres going to be a degree of historical distortion. Nevertheless, I must say that not all educators fall for pro U.S history. When we bring new stories to history, that typically aren't the ones expected (ie, like the ones in history looks), we give the audience a greater understanding of history. As we get older, teachers begin to stress the importance of primary documents and they venture into these alternatives in hopes of giving students a better understanding. Is it worth it? Of course, there are benefits for students to develop pride of their country, which can be done through History, but it is better for them to have an objective stance as it allows them to explore the views of different groups in the same historical context.

In addition, most of us tend to rely on foreign news sources, such as BBC. This action is a representation of our acknowledgement that U.S media may influence and be partially bias - in favor of the U.S. As citizens, it is to our convenience to have a proper understanding of the issue in order to develop stronger approaches.

Our perception of history can also be changed if we study a subject from the perspective of a marginalized or uncommon group. There are certain times in history where we have generally followed U.S or European countries and their actions, but never have we considered looking at the situation from a bystander. In addition, there are groups that were incredibly affected and played a major role in events, but historians don't focus on their voice.

Viewing history from different areas is incredibly essential, the only problem that may come into play is whether or not the reader intends on being objective or more well rounded. An objective story would be the hardest the achieve.

Alternative stories and Alternative views

At first I wasn't real thrilled to listen to the talk by Professor Tickner, but it actually got me thinking about a lot of things. It got me thinking about the history that we frame our theories around and what the effects would be if we shifted to looking at it from a different perspective. Would we be better off or at least learn something from looking at all the opinions and views? I think so.

"History is written by the victor," said Captain Price in Modern Warfare 2. Professor Tickner said the same today. This has great implications for what we view as being successful and right vs. failure and wrong. As she said, there were many peoples who were colonized that ended up as statistics and objects. This made me think of when I studied Greece and Rome. We learned about all their glorious and extensive conquests over territory. The people of those territories were described as being slaves and servants to those who moved into these new territories. There was only a brief paragraph about it and it was framed as if the slaves actually helped development of those empires, sort of justifying it. We tend to ignore those enslaved and uphold Rome as the pinnacle of state power. This may or may not be the right way of looking at it but we must consider as Tickner said, the voices that we don't hear or else we are apt to make the same mistakes again as we so often do. That is why I think people say history repeats itself.

Reflection on Security

I really had never thought much of how the economy and security issues correlated. My first years growing up were always surrounded with fear of going outside after 7, always removing jewelry before leaving the household, never wearing any well known brand clothing article, and of course, no electronics. It was just natural. I always thought that this is how the world lived. It was definitely a culture shocked when I started school in the U.S and I realized that it was okay to share and that I could be open with people. I look back now and realize that the reason why I lived in fear during my childhood was because of the economic condition of my country. People needed a way to survive, and I guess that meant they had to take my things. Is this a national security problem when it’s become part of society? I’m pretty sure when people go to travel agencies and say “I want to go to Latin America!”, they’re going to give you a run off of what to expect and I’m pretty sure hooliganism, gangs, and violence will be somewhere on their list. Now, is it the economy’s fault that the country is like this? Or is it a combination of a bunch of different factors? Is the economy possibly one of main factors?  Living in the U.S these past years has given me a different perspective in how society could be ran and that problems with local security could be countered. I walk outside in DC with my cellphone, my laptop, cash, my credit cards, my camera – like its no big deal. I treasure that so much about this country. I think for someone doubt security within the U.S, they might have to reconsider and spend a week in a developing country outside tourist areas. We taken advantage and don't consider what the United States has provided us with. Overall, this country makes me feel safe. No doubt about it.

Ugh, Really?

So this weeks reflection is unfortunately not on the brightest note. I was inspired to write this after hearing a remark I never expected to hear at this University. Here's how it started:
So this Saturday night an AU student and I were having a pretty heated international affairs debate. I know, hoowwww typical for AU students to argue politics on a Saturday night, right? Anyway, so this student, we'll call him Billy, and I started getting really into it and out of no where Billy got extremely frustrated and said: "Ughhh I am about to punch you in the face!" Obviously, Billy wasn't serious, but I still decided to be a little more snarky than I should have in my response, which was: "Oh how typical, the narrow minded always turn to violence", to which he responded "Oh yeah? Well have you ever met an open-minded Iraqi then?".
....
.....
......
Seriously? I would have never expected something like this from an AU student. So basically, there are A LOT of problems with political correctness to this statement. We will start with the obvious. It is no secret that I am of Syrian descent and Muslim, so it can be easily drawn that this statement was a racist remark, associating me (assumedly based on my ethnicity and religion) with violent Iraqi terrorists. I said this to Billy, who immediately started backtracking and said his statement had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with race or religion and was NOT a personal attack on me.
...
...
......
How does that make any sense? If, after Billy threatened me with violence, a white person had responded with my "narrow- minded turn to violence" remark, would Billy's "have you ever met an open-minded Iraqi?" question even made sense? Obviously, the response was targeting my Arab ethnicity.

BUT FINE!!! Let's say that somehow Billy would have randomly made this remark to any person who called him narrow-minded, regardless of race. His remark is still COMPLETELY out of line and racist. He basically just made a statement calling all Iraqis violent radicals. His "rhetorical question" posed a question in retaliation to mine making a blatant connection to Iraqis and violence. Wow. After I shared this information with Billy, he just got angry, flustered, accused me of falsely painting him as a bigot, and that was the end of that. I am really disappointed that at such a political school I encountered something I thought I left behind back home in rural Pennsylvania. Thanks, Billy.

Reflection #jafdfjkldagha

I found it strangely difficult to get engaged in the class discussions about national/economic security.

Or really I shouldn’t generalize national security—I mean terrorism.

I’ve always been very apathetic about terrorism. 9/11 does provoke a emotional response, but I don’t really concern myself with thinking about what ELSE the government should be doing to protect us. By living, we accept some level of risk. Terrorists put bombs up their butts, vending machines fall on people, small children crawl into pedophiles’ vans looking for candy. Or to use an example from class: cars crash.
The government should be doing SOMETHING to protect us from all of these, but at some point both policy makers and citizens need to accept a level of insecurity. Metal detectors, check. Bag searching, check. Security cameras, check. Etc, etc, etc. Be on the lookout for a terrorist but that list of security measures has to stop somewhere.
Of course, all of those measures are defensive towards terrorism. I don’t have a problem with the government attacking terrorism, but terrorism is tricky in that there’s no state/organization to target. Instead of victoriously beating back terrorism, I see the United States weakly scrambling to find the elusive terrorists. Terrorists are not a nation that can be beaten down with a conventional army and then restructured with a treaty. Terrorists are born from an idea; Ideas can’t be stifled.

I don’t think it’s possible to effectively confront terrorism. It’s like a disease: it ALL has to be stamped out or it will just jump back again. The United States shouldn’t frivol away its resources and world-wide image on an impossible task.

So why do I think that Americans shouldn’t live in fear? Because by submitting to the fear, you are very easy prey to manipulation. As a politician, fear is a good tool to use, and as a citizen I think we need to be aware of that. Being aware of the threat of terrorism is good, but ‘aware’ and ‘fear’ do not work together. By being fearful you lose a level of sanity.

Reflection: Natl. Security

I think I'll take this time to just add some points that I didn't really get to elaborate on in class. The first is more or less about knowledge and perception of security, the second being why terrorist attacks provoke such strong responses from us, and the third being are we secure today?

1) The feeling of security that one has is directly related to the knowledge of the threats that a person has. Most people live in a blissful ignorance of most threats and you see this in how people really have not changed the way they live their life. They still use the subway, go to malls, and fly on planes. They have no knowledge of impending threats. On the other hand, the president of the United States or the station chief in Pakistan for the CIA has much more knowledge of the threats that face us and the possibility of attack. Therefore the measures they take to protect us may feel unnecessary and even ridiculous to the average citizen, but to those that have received intel indicating an increased threat level, the measures are very necessary. A personal example would be that my sister wanted to go to a party in a certain part of town. My father, a police officer, said no. She complained and he said it was a bad part of town and she said she never knew of anything bad happening to her friends that lived there. My dad said that there was plenty that had happened that she didn't know about. My sister did not have the knowledge of this intel and thought the protective measures were ridiculous. My father having arrested multiple people from this area in the last week for rape, assault, and battery knew better.

2) The next thing I will discuss is why terrorist attacks provoke such a strong response from us. I believe it is all about control and the fact that it is in external threat with intent to murder civilians. Al Qaeda has declared that it wishes Americans to die. Since we are all citizens this is a threat to us all. There is a feeling that there are actually people out there that want to kill us just because of our identity. That is very personal. When 9/11 happened there was such hatred and malcontent in these attacks that it became very personal. Also as opposed to many things such as car accidents, etc... those that die in these attacks had no control over it. In cases like car accidents it is assumed that people had some choice not to speed or not to go around the corner that fast, etc... Also that fact that it is an external threat seems particularly distressing to us. We have accepted to a certain extent that crime occurs in poor areas and we feel we can handle our own. But when it is a transnational movement, it seems like in invasion upon our identity and values.

3) Are we secure today? I think we are pretty secure today in that there is no immediate danger to most of our lives and livelihood. However people who are poor or in dire straits are not secure because their livelihood is threatened. Since the majority is doing well, the consensus becomes that we are mostly secure. I do think there is a thin line separating us from being secure and being in chaos. All it would take would be for the frequency of attacks to be as often as in Pakistan of Israel. We are not accustomed to living in hardship so there will be chaos. People will desperately try to maintain their way of life. In the end I believe the precautions and protections we are taking to preserve our way of life is worth it. Why should we concede to the terrorists and become used to a way of life that we accept terrorism as inevitable and the threat constant. We must always strive to have a better life or we will stop improving and go backwards in progress.

Does having troops in Afghanistan make us more secure?

(I apologize to Row in advance--or anyone else that is of a similar mindset, and advise them to read no further. actually, no one should read further. I am incredibly cynical and opinionated)

I don't think having troops in Afghanistan makes us more secure. If anything, I think it makes us less secure. Not that I think that, as an average American citizen, I need to worry about my security.

First of all, I don't think that having troops in Afghanistan makes us more secure because I don't think the U.S. has accomplished anything in Afghanistan (ok, maybe a little bit, but not enough for anyone to feel comfortable enough to hop on a plane and take a family vacation in Kabul). The United States is trying to build a strong democratic government in Afghanistan, but we really haven't made any progress. Instead of having "nice" democratic government OF AFGHANISTAN where the citizens aren't oppressed by the Taliban, the Afghanis have a "nice" democratic government OF THE UNITED STATES prodding the citizens with their guns. If I was them, I would hate the U.S. The U.S. hasn't accomplished its mission to make the Middle East more stable. Sure, if the democratic government in Afghanistan was to succeed, then further U.S. stabilization of the Middle East (countering terrorism, spreading nuclear non-proliferation) would run smoother.

Second, I think having troops in Afghanistan makes us (slightly) less secure because the U.S. is pushing democracy, where maybe democracy just won’t work out. Islam and democracy haven’t seen a good balance yet, even in Saudi Arabia. When democracy moves in, the hegemony of U.S. culture moves in and overpowers Islam. When Islam is around, the leaders fight the U.S. culture hegemony proactively and build up hate (spawning terrorism). Osama bin Laden snowballed his hate for the U.S. into terrorism because of the changes he saw in Saudi Arabia. IN NO WAY AM I JUSTIFYING TERRORISM, but the underlying motives were rational: the U.S.’s culture was a threat to the existence of Islam, and terrorism is a defense mechanism to prevent the youth from turning to the dark side. The U.S. is potentially fueling this fire by meddling where people don’t want us. Some do, but some crazy radicals called terrorists do not. Historically, we know that Afghanis don’t like people messing in their backyard. And they’re very good at keeping them out. How easy of an argument would it be for the terrorists to say, “hey, that U.S. is meddling with us, We can’t let them! Protect our sovereignty. They want to destroy our religion.”

Thirdly, I don’t think that, as an average citizen, we need to worry about security because I think that living with fear is the worst way to live. Other people (aka the military, DoD, State Department, CIA, and every other government agency) are working to keep me safe so that I don’t HAVE TO worry, and they’re doing a great job of it. I’m not taking them for granted, but nor do I think I need to worry about terrorism every time I step on a plane or question the possibility of asbestos in the dorm room vents (oooh now have I gotten you paranoid??). If you wanted to, you could notice that that person on the metro has a suitcase that would be perfect to put a bomb in. Do I want to live in fear? No.

At the rally this weekend this really really really really creepy guy pushed through the crowd near me with a grocery bag and a suitcase. He proceeded to put his belongings down and turn, facing the opposite direction of everyone else. He stood silently and unmoving for about 5 minutes. His eyes were glossy and he looked like he’d been living in a crypt. After awhile a person behind me said, “Hey, we should ask that creep what’s in his bag.”

All I could think was that that was a very stupid comment. For one second, the possibility that it was a bomb or other weapon went through my mind, but I decided I didn’t care enough to let it bother me. Other people in the crowd, however, shuffled him away and I later saw him escorted by a security guard. In eluding to terrorism, the commenter behind me had helped the terrorists by spreading fear.
It’s just like what our teachers taught us in elementary school: the bullies can’t bother you if you don’t let them.
Stop worrying about terrorism, and the terrorists won’t have anything left to feed on.

Security and Afghanistan?

I can’t say I feel particularly safer with presence in Afghanistan, but then again, I don’t know how I’d feel without it. I think it all has to do with your relationship with the military and Afghanistan. It’s a very abstract concept. For instance, how can you value something if you don’t actually see it? Unless people can get a proper understanding of what’s going on in Afghanistan and what the immediate threat the country poses, no one can fully feel safer. Part of it has to do with geographic distance. There is no direct communication with Afghanistan and the American people. We assume we need it based on the media and politicians.

Despite how controversial this war is, I feel safer knowing that we have troops in Afghanistan? Why? It shows my country has some interest in national security and their not consuming tax dollars on their personal expenses. I'm not sure how many people have lived oversees, but crime rates in America are nothing alike. No one can even say that its a lack of funds - officials just use it all for themselves. What happens to national security? In the U.S, I wake up every day knowing I won't get mugged if I simply walk out of my home. I don't have to think twice and say, "Wow, my cell phone is in my pocket. Let me take it back home." We don't fear getting onto public transportation and fearing that someone will pull a gun or knife out. In other countries, fear is part of every day life. Thats why I live here in the U.S. I understand that people may have different views on how to effectively work out national security policies, but knowing that something is going on to secure my well being is relieving.

The problem with my opinion is that I am one, just like many others, who don’t know what’s going on the front. Is the military abusing its power? Are we actually in Afghanistan for national security purposes or is this for some another? Despite all of the doubts that may arise, I’d like to have some military initiative to promote security during an international conflict. I rather live in doubt in whether being in Afghanistan is the proper choice, than live in fear every day. 

Does US Troops in Afghanistan Make us Safer?

I feel like this blog question was made for me. I have been waiting for a question such as this for a long time and you'll have to excuse me if this drags on but I feel this question is one that will determine the fate of the United States in the future as well as the world.

Since the question is "Does having US troops in Afghanistan make us safer?" I will not go into the details that got us there too much. Also I will ignore the human rights implications of leaving and the duties and responsibilities that a nation such as the US have to our people and the people of other nations when we decide to intervene. I will just focus on staying or leaving Afghanistan and its effect on security. The facts are that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Qaeda who was sheltered in Afghanistan by the Taliban. When asked to hand over those responsible the Taliban refused. The only step left to bring the planners and their supporters to justice was to use military force because of the network that they possessed in the region. Now, with this as a backdrop I will explain how keeping troops there is especially important for our safety. There are two main reasons for this:

1) Forgetting the past and focusing on the current moment the Taliban have made a renewed effort using bases in Pakistan to reclaim lost territory and incite the population to become an insurgency against the US. In tactical terms we are on the offense militarily while the Taliban who have made various offensives in the region are still in the grand scheme of things on defense. Since we are in their backyard attacking them, they do not have the time or the stability necessary to plan attacks on our homeland. If we were to switch to defense and move out of Afghanistan we would hand them back a safe haven with which Al Qaeda could move back in, get on the offense, and attack us on our turf. By keeping them busy with defense and disrupting their networks they can not plan and attack us in any organized fashion. These are the basics of attack and defense in military terms. This is why giving out time lines is a horrible and self-destructive tactic. For one, you give the troops fighting in the region the impression that no matter what their struggles, victories, and defeats, that we will leave at this date. It hurts morale greatly. Also, if you are the Taliban or Al Qaeda a timeline gives away the intent of your enemy. If I was a Taliban leader I would tell my troops to lay low until a year or two after the timeline passes giving time for the US to believe they have succeeded and pullout. Once they are gone I would have my troops activated, move into the population centers, take over, and punish those who cooperated with the US, consolidating my power.

2) Perhaps the most important reason we should stay committed and not give up on Afghanistan in our image and its relation to our security. As I discussed in an earlier blog it started with Vietnam. We started a war and didn't finish it. Not because it was not winnable, but we lost the will to fight. After the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia Clinton pulled out having started something and not finishing it. We again lost the will to fight. Osama seeing this began to see a pattern of weakness in US foreign affairs. He tried to provoke us with the Khobar towers, the African embassies, and the USS Cole attacks. We did next to nothing to punish Al Qaeda for these acts of war upon us. 9/11. Finally we woke up and did something about it. Nine years later the public has gone back to normal life and forgotten about much of what was going on in Afghanistan until recently. Bin Laden has succeeded in drawing us into war. He believes us weak and that we will run in defeat at the first sign of death and destruction. Now that we are engaged in this struggle how we react now will tell everything about our image. Are we going to validate him and his tactics by allowing him to succeed with our retreat from the battleground of our time? Afghanistan is a war of ideals. Will terrorism, radicalism, brutality, and evil, (yes I'm going to use that word because I believe that people who kill, maim, and torture innocent civilians are in fact evil) be allowed to prevail or will the US and the coalition that supports us with righteous views of human decency, fairness, and equality triumph? The outcome will determine if the the US keeps its status as a hegemony or not. If we are able to win in Afghanistan and on the war on terror we will show the world we are able to adapt to changing conditions and triumph in the diffused, globalized world. If we can not win and we give up, we admit that we can not effectively protect our interests and bring to justice those who wish to do us harm in today's world. This will open us up to new attacks from various terrorist organizations who will not believe our commitment to causes and terrorism will be used again and again against the US and our allies because they have seen it work before. Rogue states like Iran and North Korea will not believe we have the capability to impact them for doing things against that which the U.N. desires.

The World will end up losing the "World's policeman." Think of the effect of this on the world. If there were no police what would happen? Can we expect everyone to behave and work together without an authority? I don't think so. The world will become much more dangerous for everyone including the United States. Isolationism in our history has failed for a reason. It doesn't protect you from foreign threats and if we are focused on security we need to realize this more than ever.

Bottom Line: Don't leave Afghanistan!