¡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. 

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. 

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

Best Weekend!

This has nothing to do with World Politics of any sort. It was a pretty impressive weekend and I thought I'd document my events so that one day I can look back at this site and laugh at my college adventures. It is a reflection and I'm free to do what I like.

This was definitely one of the best weekends I’ve had since I started college. The best part of it all? It didn’t include a drop of alcohol or any other extraneous substances.

On Friday night, my job was hosting a concert in Tavern. I'm not sure if any of you know them, but Super Mash Bros are pretty spectacular and the fact that we (meaning AU students) didn't have to pay the typical $40 ticket to see them way just great. Its not every day you have a small concert and some individual one-on-one time with artists.

Saturday morning should be remembered as one of the most incredible experiences I will have in life and will definitely tell stories to my children and grandchildren. My snazzy business club managed to get a few “Special Guest” tickets to the Stewart+Colbert Rally, and well, we had a killer view. At one point, I was about 4 feet away from Arianna Huffington. Go Huffington Post! Afterwards, I went to Angelico's with a few friends and enjoyed a well deserved meal. Later that night, I was working an additional shift in the Info Desk and I finally watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The script that followed the movie along with the funny customs were definitely a surprise. For instance, since I was a Rocky virgin, it was traditional to place a lipstick red V on my forehead. It didn't happen. I was glad to have worked and shared a few moments experiencing the movie with some of my friends from Letts 6. I thought my night would have ended there, but out of no where an old friend showed up and took me out of DC. I must say, Maryland is a dangerous place at night. I wouldn't be able to drive around at night, theres no street lights! Somehow, we ended up in Annapolis. It was definitely a lovely night.

And then Sunday was my "catch up on sleep" day.

Can I please have more weekends like this?

Security: Learning how to address it

During periods of crisis, countries resort to wars as a manner to assure peace, security of human life and the preservation of mortality. Duane Cady claims that ‘warism’ is critical and morally justifiable and required, giving rise to a ‘just war’. Although many cannot see the necessity or even correlation between war and security, Kant states that "possessing good intent constitutes the only condition of moral activity, regardless of the consequences envisioned or caused, and regardless, or even in spite, of any self interest in the action the agent may have." Does this provide a pathway to a violent and militaristic country? I believe Kant and Cady provide countries that are evaluating whether or not it is just to pursue a war for security purposes should not consider an alternative due to fear of being unethical.

Countries venture and explore the possibilities of improving technology (not necessarily military build-up) in order to develop more efficient technologies that can focus on building up security. What is security though? Is it simply attacks from an outside group? Oxford Dictionary states that security is  “the state of being free from danger or threat,” meaning that security issues could arise within and outside the borders.

Using this, and going slightly on a tangent, I started thinking of how security problems arise in a domestic situation. For instance, many have traced the source of a rising crime rate these previous years: the recession. Individuals become desperate to make means and end up pursuing illegal activities. As a result of the economic recession, major urban areas increase in crimes and it leads to a security problem for others in the community. Does it mean that when the United States addresses security problems, it should focus on social welfare? It’s an example where different areas in society contribute to the decrease in security, but funds to address security will not be used to address these problems.

Are environmental problems considered a security threat? For one, in the long term, human lives can be negatively affected if the environment is not dealt with. Nevertheless, is a “security council” (not a direct reference to the UN) in charge of dealing with this? Or would this be handed over to an environmental committee?

The vast problems within security force societies to develop different groups/committees that focus on addressing the issues. This gives rise to specialization and being able to effectively manage the problems.

The main idea that I’m trying to get across is that society aims at:

1. Protecting Human Life

2. Establishing Peace

            Nevertheless, one must understand that different countries will interpret “peace” as either with different countries or peace within the country alone. Countries will begin to address different problems and divide it amongst different government officials. It is important to remember that war is not the only response to security problems, but if one does need to pursue it in order to accomplish its overall strategic plan, it must remember that if is genuinely using the goals as its foundation for pursuing the war, it will be morally justifiable. 

Reflection on Risk

Soooo Risk.. I never thought it could possibly get this intense. For one, my team members, head of state and diplomat, didn’t tell us what was exactly on the paper and they led us to assume for the first rounds that we were only after Ukraine, and not the surrounding territories. It kind of worries me that they assume that they could create the best method of reaching that objective without the feedback from the rest of the team. I’m guessing that’s why a large part of our group meetings never made sense.

Then there was the “government crisis” and both of the representatives died. It honestly would have been incredibly beneficial if PTJ would have announced this way earlier. Once the new government took over, the previous allies did a 180 and declared war on the red team. Oh, and our old government had only left us with 3 territories, no resources or cities, and their secret weapon had already been used. In all, once I actually got into the game, I was heading toward disaster and the game wasn’t as fun as I hoped it would have been.

Then again, you begin to wonder whether or not World Politics is actually like this. You have a select group that you assign - oh hello Congress! - who decides what to do. I mean, you put them there. They should have your interests. Same thing happened with our group. We thought Gabe and Jesse would guide our team to victory.. but that didn't work out accordingly. It makes you think whether or not countries are really in it for their lust of power and glory rather than the well being of those they represent.  Then when those select are impeached or them term ends or they somehow mysteriously die, you have those who have to pick up after them and try to guide the group/country back on track. How many times hasn't this happened in history?

Overall, Diplomatic Risk got a five star rating on my behalf, despite "my" ultimate failure in the last day of the class session.

Risk Risk Risk

I’ve previously played risk and always gotten into my “world domination” mode and never really took into consideration what it would actually be like in the real world. For one, its not that simple to bring armies into any surrounding territories and take charge. Its definitely expensive and not always beneficial. During the game, different players in the team come up with different methods in accomplishing the team’s objective. The way we evaluate whether or not to pursue their idea is by questioning whether or not we can risk any potential or current allies or even jeopardize our main source of armies (cities and resource centers). In world politics, countries have to determine whether or not it is to their self-interest to ally themselves with particular countries. Countries don’t exactly go into war automatically. Through the game Risk, I’ve started to value even further diplomacy. It makes a bit more sense why the United Nations takes so long to make decisions during an international crisis. During these moments, there are various key figures and each has a different objective and interests. In Risk, there’s only 5 teams and we’re spending so much time trying to make diplomatic agreements (which don’t always go as planned), I couldn’t possibly imagine how 1. stressful it might be and 2. complicated it could be to develop a plan that would address the majority’s wishes. Nevertheless, I’m sure diplomats would wish that the number of countries that are seen in the game and the ones in the actual world would be the same. Smaller numbers are easier to address. Then again, both situations d have hegemons that play influential roles in determining what course to take. In our version of Risk, there are members who want to acquire power in a certain area (sounds like USSR seeking a water port), others who want more alliances, and so forth. All of these players have existed at one point in history and the international community has had to deal with them. I can definitely agree that Diplomatic Risk is a good micro version of world politics, despite some of its differences to the real world. 

Risk

            I’ve honestly glad to finally see something familiar in the classroom: Risk! Well, its not exactly “class material”, but we are able to learn some basic concepts of diplomacy through it.  At first, I was a bit skeptical when I was trying to figure out how this new version of Risk worked out. After day one, I don’t like it. It has to do somewhat with the structure of the game, but I feel that overall it has to do with the members in the group. I have nothing against them personally, but I feel that they click into character, whether it is Head of State or Diplomat, but all of the negotiations and decisions are made through them. They are allowed to conceal information from the other members of the group. I’ve wondered if what they’ve told us is every true – if doing “such-and such” is actually our real goal or if that’s a lie they told us just so we won’t reveal any important information to other members unintentionally. I mean, I haven’t exactly seen the paper they were given.

            I’m quite sure that everyone else who wasn’t assigned a role may feel as if they aren’t exactly contributing. You could always “suggest” a move or strategy, but if the two main guys don’t agree, they don’t have to pursue your idea. I wonder if this is how politics actually works. Even if we petition and fight for what we believe foreign policy should be like, the people who are elected/assigned into a certain position, will listen to the public, but will ultimately base their decisions on what they believe. Is it exactly diplomatic then? Or does this ultimately make the “ideal” leader who goes with their gut instinct despite popular opinion?

            Hopefully in Tuesday’s class things change around. 

Make up Reflection: 10/2/2010

Marginalized populations are a different population to target. Nevertheless, I think a major part of this is to actually reveal to these populations that their absence actually makes a difference. Many are so focused on surviving and their daily work schedules. That’s their lives. I’m not sure if they have ever considered seeking additional aid from the government in order to solve their issues. For one, the majority of government spending is focused on major cities. In a sense, this returns back to the issue of educating the masses of the role of the government.

            I wonder if the masses play any important role that would actually affect foreign policy. For instance, in some countries (definitely not the United States), some areas are so far away from major cities that government regulations aren’t necessarily enforced. I think that giving the marginalized populations a say in policies is more aimed at reaching liberalism, but not necessarily what’s the “best for the population.”

            Could we achieve a strong foreign policy in a country without listen to marginalized populations? I think so. The importance is to have more influential groups have a say, since they have greater control over the economic sector – which a country depends on tremendously. 

Simulation Reflection

            I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the simulation. I’ve participated in forensics all throughout high school and I felt it was more structured. I definitely saw the need of having cross examination. The problem with some teams was that they were addressing comments of other teams with a different interpretation. I believe that cross-ex would have also given “the President” an idea of whether or not the team could defend their position quickly and efficiently. Nevertheless, I did enjoy seeing different groups defend their point.

            Throughout forensics, individuals would have to defend sides with a generalized position, but they would never take into consideration different groups, as the simulation did. It was definitely an eye opener when the President stated at the end that none of the groups addressed working with the current status quo and that everyone sought some degree of change. Perhaps in my mind it was always the “ideal” thing to have a drastic change, but I never saw the practicality in it. The President brought up an interesting reason for this and he stated that change would be costly. I now see that in the process of dealing with policies, one has to take into great consideration reforming policies rather than completely eliminating it.  With this in mind, I definitely have a stronger understanding of what to expect for the next simulation.

We're different.

Truth be told, there isn’t a set way to rule a country. If not, there would have been a manual out by now and everyone would have been doing it. Thing is, different countries, different cultures, different people, different societies all behave differently (hopefully you caught my drift)  and approach issues within the country in order to address the status quo.

The reason why constructivism, liberalism, and realism all exist is because people have developed different needs and the governing body had to address these needs through different means. The governing body has to assure that it has the resources to maintain its people and regulate their behavior in society in order to function as one country. Is one approach more efficient than the other? Not really. Its more about, “which one satisfies people the most and allows me, the governing body, to get the work done?”

Some countries prefer to mute its citizens and hope that their actions will ultimately lead to better results, despite the consequences and hardships society might encounter. Others believe that the best would be to listen to the people or their history to make proper choices. The latter will most definitely give you, the ruler (or government) the advantage to claim that you're only representing the people's wishes (so you won't get full blame for it.)

In the end, you're not going to apply Latin American politics in Asia. Who does that? There is such a great degree of cultural spread that both cannot be applied interchangeably. Are there overlaps? In every culture there are, but the exact similarities will be very minimum. Within these places, you will always find groups that have been excluded from sharing their opinion, and that is where cultures will cross. There will always be suppression of women and minorities.

You’re never going to get a full set on method to approach issues within a country, but it would be convenient to listen to the people and their needs. Perhaps even learn how they want you to execute their ideas. It usually helps. Simply remember that what you do in one country, you can't always do in another.

Err.. Baseball

I realized I don’t like baseball. It’s not my cup of tea. I don’t understand the logic or even the enjoyment can have of watching one person come up to bat, followed by another, and another.. its never-ending and tiresome. Honestly, its all about the individual and not the group. What’s the point of having a team then? Neverthless, I was impressed by the crowd in the game. Although the stadium wasn’t quite packed, everyone seemed united. Maybe it was because there were screens telling people when to clap or scream or chant. It made me feel more American than I have ever felt. Really. Perhaps it was George and Benjamin racing or the fact that the Nationals colors are red and white, followed by the occasional blue in the background, that I felt as if I was finally embracing the American culture I had so long heard of. I remember watching cartoons when I was younger and developing my own idea of what happened in the baseball stadium. There were peanuts! And hotdogs!

Now, is this similar to what I find at home? Err.. not really. I’ll give it you Americans, you keep your act together during the game. I would be surprised if I was at a soccer game and people didn’t end up breaking into a major fight. I know everyone can’t keep their act together (meaning Americans), but I haven’t heard of a shooting following a baseball game. Why is it so? I mean, in Honduras you know to get out of the stadium ASAP because if not, you’ll confront two major soccer gangs.

I really don’t know how to tie things in the end. Baseball isn’t my thing, but I admire the sportsmanship from both the team and their fans. I wonder though, if Honduras were to get rid of the hooliganism in regards to soccer, will it have the same impact on society? Will it mean as much? People are “hooligans” because they find that they cant find their place in society and are able to develop an identity with soccer. Will we be hurting society? It unites the country, but hurts it at the same time. 

Social Norms

For a country, its social norms are developed by the people, meaning, every country will technically have a different set of norms, yet there is a possibility of overlapping. Based on history and culture, society will create a set of norms that it deems necessary for all members to follow in order to eliminate inappropriate behavior and encourage a unified community. Normally, members who choose not to follow the established norms will find themselves facing penalties for their wrongful behavior.

One can question whether or not the people or the government are the ones who establish these norms within society. In the U.S, the belief that a social contract is upheld within its borders allows citizens to uphold their civic duty in checking the balance of power of the government and ensuring that authority does not take advantage of its position and deviate from its role. Since the state then is a representation of the people, then one can assume that a state must represent the groups that live within the country. Conduct that singles out a state or leads to the persecution (not necessary a violent one, but where the country views negatively on a group). Although, this statement varies with every state. Society is going to expect for their representatives to support the views of the majority of the population, where if there is a minority group, representatives may be required to go against these groups and install laws that affect the wellbeing of these individuals. The overall intention is to protect the majority at the stake of the minority.

Society expects for its representatives to able to accomplish their objectives, whether to improve the economy, social conditions, or foreign relations, with diplomatic measures. Nevertheless, a country is very flexible and is open to the use of war and terror, as long as the condition of the country is addressed and improved. The people are willing to waive the social norm of the belief of right of life, and enter war, to protect the future of the country.

When undergoing these steps, society expects that since it has granted its authority the leeway to surpass some social norms, that the government will report truth in their reports. When a government lies to its people, the people have the right to question and revolt against the government, because it is no longer favoring their interests.

In all, the government is able to step out of the social norms that society has established for it, as long as it maintains its role of serving the people. 

Reflection - 9/21/2010

            I’ve always heard of the State Department, but I honestly never knew what its role actually was. It surprised me that such an important part of U.S security and issues regarding foreign affairs were only minutes away from campus. I’m not sure how many others feel the same way, but when it comes to the U.S, I’m stumped. I don’t do it on purpose – its not as if I intentionally aim at being ignorant of current affairs, but I find that school tries to breeze through material and since I’m not introduced to the topic in the classroom, I have no driving force to allow me to explore other topics. What I intend to get at is that I always understood that the State Department took care of affairs.. that revolved around.. well, the state (U.S).  I  wonder how many other Americans are in my shoes – figuring out how to survive, and lack either the time or resources to be able to educate themselves on what’s going on within their country.

            On one hand, I did go to school in the U.S and I have a strong academic foundation, but at the same time, I’m not exactly the most informed. I think that were we can distinguish who is actually active and who sits in the background and lets things take their own toll.

Mr. Bame gave me a new perspective on my education. As cliché that may sound, but I felt that he shed some light on a grey area and allowed me to develop an understanding of what to do with my career. Despite the fact that I don’t intend to work at the State Department or follow a similar career path, I was fascinated with the manner that he presented himself and his working life. At one point, I was so compelled to consider a career as his. Nevertheless, I did realize that if I wanted to be satisfied in the future, I had to choose a career that would bring the best out of my passions and me. To get there though, I know that these four years I should embrace them and explore D.C fully to be able to finally have an understanding of how exactly this country works.