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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Christ House

Soooooo this week we went to Christ House. I really appreciated the foundation and everything it does to save lives, but honestly I found what we did there kind of pointless. I mean, all we did was watch a video (that is posted on there website) and hear some facts (that are posted on the website). We then took a “tour” of the building, but really we just moved up a floor and talked about different facts as we stood in one spot.

Don’t get me wrong, I completely love the organization, its just that I felt what we did there wasn’t really something that required us to actually go. I wish we went there and did some kind of volunteer work at least. I would’ve loved if we helped in the kitchens, served food, helped with custodial work, etc.

It was also kind of awkward just walking through these people’s living space talking about their lives within earshot. I tried to put myself in their shoes during the ordeal. I don’t really know if I would’ve been pleased if I was a homeless amputee sitting on a bed as groups of well-dressed private university students walked through, gawking at every injury they encountered, then quickly composing their stare. The bottom line was that this Wednesday lab could have easily been conducted in our formal lounge, with a speaker and a TV for the video. Going there felt unproductive and awkward, and I felt like we didn’t do enough.

The Boundaries of National Security

When we think of justifying actions of our government these days, what do we say? We say "This war is for protecting democracy!" and, "That act is for preserving freedom!", and so on and so forth. We almost always flaunt our fundamental Constitutional principles and rights--and their preservation--as justification for a controversial action. But what happens if we start justifying the VIOLATION of Constitutional rights for the preservation of Constitutional rights? It doesn't make much sense to me either! How can we sit here and actually buy that? How does it make sense for the government to abuse and ignore the Bill of Rights in an effort to UPHOLD them against the radical, violent terrorists across the globe that are actively trying to destroy them?

I don't know about you guys, but I don't see that much "wiggle room" around Due Process, a right every citizen is -clearly- given in the Bill of Rights. But hey, all the government has to do is bring up 9/11, preserving freedom, and suddenly Rendition seems like an AWESOME idea!! And privacy? Why do you need privacy unless you're doing something wrong!? HUH!??! I guess I should just "take one for the team" and acquiesce to the government tapping all of my mommy's conversations with Granny over in "hotspot" Syria. Sarcasm aside, yeah I do think there are boundaries when it comes to preserving national security. I am not asking for much really, just my own government to respect the Constitution it was founded upon. Is that really too much to ask for?

So yeah, maybe the terrorists out there are trying to destroy our democratic principles of freedom and liberty, but how can they when our own government is beating them to the punch?

Non-Assigned Blog

*Note, this blog is written as a response to Christian's blog:
http://internationalintellectualforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/our-future-freedom-or-handout.html

Christian defined national security as our ability to maintain our current economic, political, and military security. Excuse me for sounding ungrateful, but as our economy rests on the precipice of oblivion and the American political game has become a pathetic, corrupt excuse for a government, my last instinct would be to maintain the status quo. Our war in Afghanistan, or “Operation Enduring Freedom” as the good old boys like to call it, has certainly lived up to its name, and after over 3,000 days and countless dollars have been futilely spent to stroke our imperialistic and war-obsessed ego, we find ourselves entangled in our nation’s longest war with no clear exit strategy. But hey, who needs an exit strategy when there is profit to be made? That’s right, Christian reminded us that we need to advance corporate capitalism, and what better way to help the greedy defense corporations than to start and maintain war? OH, and Christian also recommended a “domestic political policy that pursues national unity”…how perfect! These defense contractors fund political campaigns, and then our elected officials promote international unrest to ensure the generosity of their contributors. And in order to keep their approval rating as high as their moral indecency, politicians toss around the term “national security” while waving an American flag at a rally or a town hall – and hey, some anti-Islamic zingers never hurt anyone. When in doubt, just follow the example of Rudy Giuliani: “Blah blah noun verb noun 9/11 noun verb 9/11 blah blah 9/11,” or you can go rogue and try Palin’s “Restoring America” or “I want my country back” approach. Wow, this plan is foolproof…hell, let’s invade Iran!

I do agree, however, that we are headed in the wrong direction. Our allegedly liberal president was unable to adequately reform healthcare, regulate Wall Street, or advance his “socialist agenda.” I’m still waiting for the progressive man I elected to finally act accordingly. So calm down, Margaret Thatcher, this ain’t socialist Europe. Granny isn’t going to be terminated by a death panel, your taxes aren’t going to skyrocket, and the rich will continue to get richer while the poor wait for the day that American greed subsides. A REAL stimulus must be implemented, forcing aggregate demand to increase. A reverse income tax you propose? HAH! Turn off Glenn Beck, and open your economics book. I’ll excuse your incorrect statement that our defense spending is less than 1% of US GDP and simply inform you that the percentage you were searching for is in fact closer to 5. But wait! Cutting the defense budget is a clear political no-no – for then you would be branded an unpatriotic progressive who wants to see our soldiers massacred as they enter the battlefield, rusty musket in hand!

We ARE in fact on the precipice of a slippery slope, and if you happen to stumble upon this Marxist blood you have alluded to, please let me know.

A Reflection upon a Reflection of a Reflection of a Reflection

*Note, this is a relfection to Toby's reflection of Sarah's reflection upon Christian's reflection. This is Toby's reflection:
http://bro-eignpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflection-9-reflection-on-sarahs.html


Toby,

It appears you have dissed, or attempted to at least, my gurl. Though your viewpoints seem to whip back and forth as much as Willow Smith's hair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKLymvwD2U&ob=av2n), I feel it is my duty to defend Sarah's honor and pinpoint some issues I found within your reflection.

I disagree with most on your points about international organizations. You say "I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations", which puzzles me, Toby. If we consider this situation with the understanding that the United States is the global hegemon, and that they do in fact care about their global standing, image, and status, how is commitment to international organizations even a question? Many countries, though often reluctantly, look to the United States as a global leader and role model. Therefore, it is in the United States' best interests to be extremely active and committed in any genuine international entity. Not only to continue to set a precedent as a benevolent global superpower, but to secure it. If the United States wavers in international activity, who is to say another global superpower might take the lead in an international arena? Sure these are just "what ifs", but these are risks that can easily be avoided by active United States leadership and commitment within international organizations.

Also, you seem to have a lot of issues with international law, even stating "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon". Toby, I couldn't even imagine a world without international law. In this age of interdependence international law is of the utmost importance. Do you not recognize the need for regulations on an international scale especially in dealing with wars? International law is the only way to hold a state accountable for atrocities such as massacring civillians, bombing schools, and destroying hospitals. Basically, the world would be a hot mess without international laws and regulations.

You specifically cite the Law of the Sea Treaty, stating: "Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent". How is this possibly a bad thing!? Just recently Israel was condemned on an international scale for its raid on aid flotillas approaching Gaza on international waters. In their raid on these unarmed boats with nothing but humanitarian workers and basic aid, IDF soldiers killed 9 activists. Could you imagine what would have happened if this treaty didn't exist? The entire controversy surrounding this issue is whether or not the soldiers had the right to board the ships and attack the peace activists. If international regulations hadn't stated what a state's power was in international waters, what would have followed after the raid? Laws like the Sea Treaty set standards for how a state should act in different oceanic bodies and specifically addresses the illegality for a state to attack on international waters. Thanks to international laws like the Sea Treaty, non-state organizations can hold a state accountable for breaking global standards, especially within the realm of human rights violations.

Also, you say "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon", and quite frankly I don't see how that is possible. When someone says "Constitutional principles", what do you think of? Personally, I think of freedom, liberty, democracy, justice, all that good stuff. I really don't see how international organizations framing what should be considered a war crime or an illegal human rights violation threatens these principles. If an international regulation is set forth to impede human sex trafficking on a global scale, I hardly see how this threatens to undermine our Constitutional principles. But now of course you will say "of course THAT wouldn't undermine our Constitutional principles, but something else could! You never know!", which I can respect, since my example was merely that, an example. Which is why I go back to my initial point that our dedication and presence in international entities is of the utmost importance. If you feel that international laws may threaten United States Constitutional principles, shouldn't that be a reason for the United States to secure an active role within international bodies to ensure our Constitutional principles are not tarnished?

Sorry Toby, but I feel like the "family business" might need a bailout.

Risky Business!

As the diplomat for the black team, I don’t really deal with the dynamics of the actual board game aspect of Risk. I’ve never played the game before, and to be honest I still don’t really understand how to play the dang thing. As for Risk relating to world politics, I definitely can see some overlap and some blaring differences from my position as diplomat. I think the biggest difference between the two is the fact that in UCWP Risk we separate diplomacy and actual action. In world politics, obviously, nations juggle with both diplomacy and domestic affairs simultaneously. In class, this separation is much more efficient than having to do both at once; I couldn’t imagine the chaos that would ensue if we had to do both at the same time. Conversely, the chaos that would ensue if world politics was formatted similarly would be exponentially more destructive.

Also, a big difference from my diplomatic perspective is that in diplomatic Risk there is a clear winner, and all teams are trying very hard to fulfill their objective and win. In world politics, there is no single winner. Nations can interact with each other and have overlapping objectives and both win together. The game we play in class is a lot more cutthroat. Also, since in the realm of world politics more than one state can “win”, objectives aren’t so secret, and therefore aren’t to the detriment of the state if another state finds out about them. In class, many people had stolen/borrowed other teams’ papers that had the objective and secret power which is an incredible advantage. Once the objectives were no longer secret, diplomats now used their knowledge of what it took for the other nation to win to sabotage plans and crank up any kind of agreement, since they knew the key to victory. In world politics, most nations make their objectives pretty clear in most cases, if not just to keep citizens informed of actions of their nations.

UCWP Risk, while an interesting and entertaining board game that perhaps is most relative to world politics compared to other games, is still just a game. While some concepts may be shared, the fundamentals of the game differ greatly from the realm of world politics.

SAAALOMEEEEE

Salome was… interesting. I had never been to an opera before and, to be honest, I didn’t really know what to expect. Even though we had endured the opera workshop, I didn’t think it had really prepared me for what I saw. After the workshop, I was expecting a provocative, outlandish, wild performance; the antithesis of a typical “grandfather’s opera”. However, I didn’t find the opera any stranger or more outlandish than a typical Shakespeare performance. Though the plot was quite peculiar, I didn’t see anything that was really “R” rated. I thought the opera was artistically pleasing, however the repeating trends of the dialogue were kind of annoying. It was frustrating knowing exactly what was going to happen/KEEP happening and just seeing the characters string out conversations for-ev-er.

My favorite part was one of the few scenes that didn’t include this repetitive dialogue, the dancing scene. Though it was extremely creepy in context, the colors and choreography were outstanding. I absolutely loved the shift in background colors that highlighted different emotions that were conveyed through the dance. On that note, the background colors and their shifts to represent the emotional climate was probably the most interesting part of the entire opera. Overall, I enjoyed the experience and I am thankful I went. Plus, I got a great new facebook profile picture!

Minor Simulation Reflection

If there is one major concept that I learned from the simulation this week it's that in world politics there is never one clear answer. It is never black and white, and making decisions is pretty darn tough. The domestic content rules simulation made this especially clear for me because, at first, I vehemently opposed the position I was forced to research, defend, and present. Throughout my academic career, simulations and debates similar to the one we engaged in were set up a little differently; almost always, the students could choose themselves which side/group they wanted to follow. At first, I was less than ecstatic, to say the least, about my "GM" appointment. I knew that as GM we would obviously not be supporting the tariff, something that I, personally, supported. Throughout the research however, I was actually swayed by a couple anti-tariff points. Especially after seeing the entire class's presentations, I was thoroughly conflicted about my new opinions about the domestic content rules. I am actually really thankful I was assigned the position I didn't want to take, because in the process my mind, though quite forcibly, was opened to so many differing viewpoints on the matter.

This simulation helped me realize that issues, especially in world politics, that I thought I had such a firm understanding of are so much more complex. For example, during the simulation there was one concept that I thought I had a set position on: "outsourcing." For as long as I can remember, I always thought "outsourcing = bad". What some groups called "outsourcing" was to others a "global exchange of ideas". I used to think, as many Americans did, that outsourcing was purely awful for the country and lead to job loss and economic problems. In reality, economic interdependence and trade are in fact mutually beneficial exchanges (thanks Prof Broder!). Also, the groups that were anti-tariff made valid points about the efficiency that a global exchange of resources allowed. While it is often so easy to brand a world politics concern as immediately good or bad, it is almost always so much more complex than what can be seen from the surface level, as proved by the minor simulation.

When Does it Become Okay?

During our last class, an interesting question was brought up: When does it become okay, or acceptable, for a suppressed people to turn to violence? My answer was it is the state in power who dictates the image of those who rebel against oppression. Looking back through history, it seems that it does not become globally acceptable for the oppressed to fight back until they win. During the time in which they turn to violence, they are regarded as violent, rebellious terrorists. For example, take a look at the birth of our own country. During the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the colonists who rejected the British Kingdom's legitimacy and fought back were obviously considered violent traitors by the state of Britain. It was not until America seized its independence that the image of the revolutionaries drastically changed. After claiming their independence, and thus establishing their legitimacy, the revolutionaries were regarded as heroes. Had they not claimed their victory, would those colonists not just be viewed as pesky rebels who turned to violence and treason?

The same is true today, but to a more extreme extent. Now, through the influence of the media, the dominant or oppressive state can take advantage of their global influence to make any form of rebellion to their suppression appear any way they want. Those in control use their legitimacy as an excuse for immediately defaming any kind of violent protest to suppression as terrorism. The world in contemporary conditions, so sensitive to the thought of "terrorism", easily sympathizes with the legitimate state, further delegitimizing the body of rebels. However, if the repressed body does achieve sovereignty, or whatever their goal is, their win is an immediate symbol of legitimacy which leads to majority approval for their violent revolt. It is seen as something that was necessary in a time injustice and oppression.

It is almost too confusing to absorb: you have to win to win approval. Now the question is, how long are we going to let these standards cloud our judgement of an oppressed people?

Oh, the French....

As an American, it was very difficult to understand France’s approach to immigration and French identity. Hearing the diplomat say things like “It’s okay to study another language, as long as you also speak French,” was a huge shock since generally any reference to a “national language” is seen as politically incorrect in the United States. The diplomat highlighted the fact that it was always “French first”. He went into detail explaining that even if you are not ethnically French, to be a proper French citizen you must call yourself “French” over your country of origin, birth, or nationality. This was very strange to me because growing up in the U.S. I became accustomed to answering the typical “What are you?” or “Where are you from?” questions by saying either Arab, Syria, or Arab-American, respectively. In the U.S., people of other ethnicities typically identify themselves first with their country of origin usually paired with “American” (African-American, Arab-American, Latin-American). I could tell by the perplexed looks on everyone else’s faces that they were pretty shocked and confused too.
Additionally, the stance on Arabic/North-African Muslim immigration particularly disturbed me since it was a little personal. Sure, they can claim that the ban on the Niqab and Burka was to assimilate women of all ethnicities to engage with each other and to promote fairness and equality to oppressed Muslim women, but many would agree that this was simply a move to discourage and impede immigration from that demographic. Criticism for French immigration policies is nothing new, and I fear this ban may lead to more controversial policies intended to prevent Arabic/Islamic culture to mesh into the national French identity, such as a ban on the Hijab.
France’s unique national identity, and their stance on its preservation, seems to dim out other cultures in an attempt to maintain their own. While this approach to national identity is not unique France, it is strange to see an extremely democratized, western state take such measures.

Normal... But Only If They Say So

If Obama were to announce tomorrow morning that women would no longer be allowed to drive in the United States, I suspect that it would not just be Republicans painting Hitler mustaches on the President’s face. Yet to the 27 million residents of Saudi Arabia, such a law has become an acceptable piece of infallible legislation. While we may deem Hugo Chavez an out of control socialist and label Khamenei as a crazy old man, these leaders are not in fact crying out for psychiatric care, but rather exercising their power within a delicate range they have found to be acceptable within their territories. Supreme leaders are not stupid, but rather sly creatures with heightened political instincts that allow them to test the extent of their power. There are undoubtedly social norms and expectations within each nation, but rather than limit the power of a government, these unofficial codes are most commonly set by the nation’s administration. The United States was formed as a representative democracy, thus leading our population to feel entitled to certain rights as American citizens; however, the people of Nigeria have come to accept the corruption and human rights violations that exist under the Jonathan regime. Why? Because this is all they know, and all Nigeria has ever shown them. Consider the Islamic Republic of Iran: Prior to 1979, the Shah ran a somewhat democratic operation under the watchful eye of the United States. Once Khomeini entered and seized control, democracy was thrown out of Iran, and this charismatic leader warped societal norms and crippled previous expectations. The West can mock the Ayatollah all it wants, but his cunning disposition and manipulative powers cannot be denied.

Unfortunately, this manipulation often goes unnoticed. I never like to assume, but I would consider it a fair assumption to state that American citizens feel as though they are entitled to a certain level of privacy, and that it is a societal norm to not have the government meddling in your personal affairs. Yet In recent US history, the PATRIOT Act of the Bush (or shall I say Cheney) Administration seems to have trampled that assumption. Perhaps these cunning leaders, with their use of fear tactics and hot button phrases like “national security,” manipulated society’s expectations to advance an agenda…all within the established and tested delicate range. After all, even Bush wasn’t dumb enough to take away a woman’s right to motor vehicles. They are well aware of just how far they can push our norms.

Yet sometimes leaders go to far. Green movements arise in a not so stable Iran, and history has shown us the ramifications of a leader acting outside of the acceptable range of power abuse. For the Che has spoken, and “against brute force and injustice, the people will have the last word – that of victory.”

Reflection 4

One very important point was brought up during the last class discussion on liberalism and the advantages and disadvantages to an uninformed/misinformed vote: "stupid people are a demographic too", as it was so eloquently phrased. This really sank in for me. I was so focused on the causes and effects of misinformed/uninformed voters that I forgot to think about the actual voter. The fact is that in a democratic government every citizen, of age, should be represented fairly. This means that every single group of people should have a voice in the political process.

So who cares about the impact of an uninformed vote or not voting at all, the process of voting is better for a liberal society simply because a ballot is casted and a demographic's opinion is represented. Whether the effect on the country is positive or negative is up for much dispute, but the effect on the theoretical principles of democracy are quite clear: all people should have their voices heard in a democratic state.

I think more and more people started to realize just how significant a vote was when Professor Jackson mentioned poll taxes and literacy tests. Immediately, people recognized the fact that no election should ever be restricted to entire demographics, and as it was aforementioned, misinformed/uninformed voters classify as a demographic, so fairly, it could be stated that since all demographics should be represented in a liberal state, an uninformed/misinformed vote is better than no vote at all.

Reflection 3

In reading The Prince, this week, one of the prevalent motifs really stood out to me. The message that Machiavelli seemed to push was that the image of being something is more important than actually being something. Specifically, he claimed appearing “virtuous” is more important than actually being a “virtuous” leader. I started to apply this notion in other parts of life, specifically in academia. After reading Lost in the Meritocracy I saw a similar theme: in contemporary academic culture, often times appearing to be intelligent is actually more important and more respected than actually being well versed and educated on an item. The article described that the students who didn’t actually read assigned literature, but simply criticized broad, overarching traits of the genre were the ones who were awarded most. I found a lot of truth in this. Often times you see students who participate in discussions to simply tear apart a book with criticisms, rather than brandish knowledge through deep discussions on specific examples or lines from a given reading. Often times the loud, outspoken students who skimmed, if anything, the assigned literature seemed more intelligent than perhaps the quiet student who took diligent notes and read various analyses in addition to the reading. Since the quiet student didn’t boast their opinions aloud, does that mean that the outspoken student should be considered smarter?

Provoked by both of these readings, I began to think: is the perception really more important than the reality? After musing this concept, I came to the conclusion that there are two answers to this question, at least in my opinion. I found that on a personal scale of importance, reality is construed as more important. Obviously, on a personal level, the image you uphold, whether it represents your reality or not, cannot be more important than your actuality. However, in relation to the rest of the world, how you are perceived is more important. People don’t always have time to discover the depths of an individual’s nature or personality, so perceptions and first impressions are of the utmost importance. If you put on a façade that you are a man of wisdom and virtue, will be treated as such. Moreover, if you act in a rude manner, whether you are a genuinely benevolent person or not, you will be perceived and treated based upon the traits you openly possess. I see this exemplified by the fact that naturally, we judge people based upon the traits they outwardly convey, rather than those at the bottom of their heart, no matter which is stronger feeling. Though this seems to be a reoccurring trend in human nature, I am not sure whether I am comfortable with it or not.

Sorry Machi, Things Have Changed

Morals aside, Machiavelli offered some pretty sound advice to the average ruler back in the day. However, times have drastically changed and it simply wouldn’t be possible to execute the same ruthless techniques for acquiring power. In this age of growing globalization and interdepedence, it is almost impossible for a ruling elite to make a decision without being overlooked by another ruling body. Whether it’s the US or the UN, if a ruling elite tries to implement the same cold-hearted approach towards gaining or maintaining power they inevitably will face opposition.

In the era that Machiavelli spoke of, ruling elites could get away with unchecked brutality towards those that they governed. No other state would stand up if a ruler decided to decimate an entire village that was rebelling against oppression. Often times, the destruction would be so swift that word of the attack would hardly spread past the principality’s borders. Now, not only do human rights activists, international NGOs, and global super powers like the US heavily regulate "moral standards" for most countries, but virtually all infractions or suspicions are under heavy supervision through extremely advanced intelligence agencies. Also, any cases of gross human rights violations to acquire power usually immediately make headlines on a global level. Darfur ring any bells? Unlike in Machiavelli’s time, crushing an entire group of people doesn’t simply get overlooked and forgotten. The influence of the media, a factor that didn’t exist in his time, greatly impairs Machiavelli’s advice, especially in a world where various organizations and states act as “global policemen”.

But the question arises, what about the US? Are they not a global power many believe cannot be checked by any other state? Can’t they easily get away with following Machiavelli’s advice? The answer to this is simple. The United States simply cannot follow Machiavelli’s advice because it does not pertain to the US. Machiavelli clearly establishes that his advice in no way, shape, or form should be applied to the dynamics of a republic of any sort. He makes it clear that his advice can only successfully guide ruling elites of principalities. Though, it can still be argued that international organizations or other global superpowers would try to thwart any immense human rights violations if the US did in fact follow a Machiavellian approach to gaining power. So in reality, a ruling elite could very well follow Machiavelli’s advice in contemporary conditions, but, fortunately, they won’t get far.