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'.

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...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jon Stewart Rally

The Rally had to be the highlight of 90% of American University student's weekend. Many of us woke up earlier than 1 pm on a Saturday morning; still others woke up before the metro even started. Some crazies even camped out. Unfortunately, I don't think it was worth the hype.

Now I can say I was within 200 ft of Cat Stevens, Ozzy Ozbourne and of course Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, but there wasn't much 'rally' to the Rally to Restore Sanity. It was more of a performance.

OK maybe getting 150,000 people to do the cheek pop at the same time was pretty cool.

The real 'rally' began at the last 30 minutes when Jon Stewart donned his suit and Colbert...dragged up his own podium and self-puppet. The debate was over being rational when it comes to viewing news. Learn bias. Notice it and understand its falsity. Don't necessarily believe some radical newscaster's false connection between Muslims=Terrorists. Here is part of Jon Stewart's closing speech:

"There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats, but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and tea partiers, or real bigots and Juan Williams and Rich Sanchez is an insult -- not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put forth the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish between terrorists and Muslims makes us less safe, not more."

It's a great message and it's very funnily stated (which is typical of Stewart) but it's also a message that most of the audience has heard before. If anything, it was just a reminder.

Still, to get this same message one doesn't have to camp out a 3 am in 40 degree weather and stay standing for another 12 hours--one just has to watch 3 minutes of Glenn Beck.

So was the rally worth it?

When does the government take national security too far?

It is generally agreed that the main goal of the government is to protect its citizens. However, does government sometimes use this responsibility irresponsibly?

There have been a few situations in United States history when the United States has taken the matter of securing the public too far. One was during World War II, when FDR banished thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps. The United States forced these Japanese American citizens into camps for "protection" of the people, preemptively striking out espionage. But these people were citizens. No background checks went into choosing who would go into these camps. While racial profiling hasn't existed to such extremes in the United States since, it does still exist. Take, for example, the selecting of Muslim/Arab looking people in airports for "random" security checks.

Also, during the Bush administration, Homeland Security was established and soon enacted some "security" measures like wire tapping and sifting through the average citizen's library records. This is taking the sake of national security past the boundaries of what is acceptable--violating the Bill of Rights and personal property.

In addition, when looking at the 2010 national security document, there were a lot of not-quite-related-to-DEFENSE-OF-THE-COUNTRY points. Obama had points about combating poverty and climate change, among other things. While they are problems, they are not external forces that we can militarily protect ourselves against. The national security plan should only contain MILITARY operations. Things that you would expect the Department of Defense, National Security Agency, and Central Intelligence Agency to get involved with (among others like the FBI and maybe State Department). Can you imagine the DoD meddling with poverty? No. Climate change? maybe, but the focus would be on spotting nukes using satellite technology and designing drones.

Obama's security document is too comprehensive. In his attempt to protect the Untied States, he's stretching his resources too thin. Obama should instead focus his "security" on one or two plans of action. Maybe this is why Obama is having trouble in his first term: he's trying to please everyone.

Cheer is like Realism. What? A joint Reflection by Kate and Elle

This Sunday, while rolling out the mats for cheerleading practice and complaining about the annoying imbalance of power on the cheer squad (because this week they get to hang their seniority over our heads) we realized that hazing and "spirit" activities are an assertion of realist-like policies.

American's cheerleading squad has inadvertently utilized IR theories in creating their Rookie Week (or the less insane, cheerleading form of rush). In addition to a few other "-isms" we remember from AP European History, realism and constructivism are used to lead to (Kate's) eventual goal of liberalism (Elle doesn't think cheerleaders will ever cooperate), as well as extreme nationalism. Although cheerleading is by no means the same as the global political stage, we can use the "vets" and the "rookies" in this case as our two "states."

The eventual goal of the AU cheerleading squad is an orderly team which works together seamlessly. It would seem that a liberal approach would lead to more friendly cooperation and "happy" success. However, the vets are using realism and constructivism to reach this end.

The vets have a hegemony over the world of cheerleading. In layman's terms: seniority rules. It's a unipolar world - the rookies are nowhere near close to equal in power with the vets in such an extreme power imbalance. The vets want to maintain their power - losing it would cause them to be unable to control this week. Even though the goal is liberalism, they need to keep their power this week so it stays in their control and they can in effect bring about the team unity aspect on their own time schedule. Instead of using cooperation and encouraging mutual respect, they're using force. This force includes declaring events mandatory to attend and using constant text messages to keep in contact. They also use the team running concept (the team has to run if you fail to comply to their rules, and you have to sit out and watch them suffer) as an apparent consequence. If you don't know a cheer when confronted by a vet (a battle, per say), the rest of the team runs while you watch. The final example of force is that of almost bribery - if the rookies do well, the vets will give them candy, little gifts, etc. In return, if you don't follow the rules of rookie week (wearing pig tails with ribbons every day... anyone?), you get punished (mostly just the vets disappointment and dislike for you if you don't follow their orders). They're able to effectively use this self-interested strategy by tearing down the rookies to further increase and maintain their power.

Then how did they even get all of this power? Through the history (at least during their time) of the American cheerleading squad, the identity of the vets has developed and strengthened through tradition. The most common phrase heard this week from the vets is "we had to do this and it was so much worse!" The vets have changed from their usual (mostly) friendly attitudes to rather demanding and unpleasant because that’s what vets did in the past. They saw this change themselves as freshman and feel the need to carry on the history. The rookies were told that this is what past rookies have done, especially because the vets have lived through it. They have to deal with whatever standards are set because it's the identity assigned to them. This is an endless cycle unless one group is able to change their identity.

Instead of bullying the rookies into submission to build a coherent team, reaching out with a cooperative, liberal approach would lead to greater success. The underlying goal of the traditional rookie week is to prepare the rookies for the following week's basketball expositions. The rookies need to know the basics of cheers and where to be during games, as well as have the proper attitude (towards the team and the "job" of the team). The realist approach that is the traditional method for the cheer squad and greek life ("hazing"-lite), only works if those being "hazed" want the close bonds of the team/organization more than they dislike the sporadic time commitments (3 hours of scavenger hunts on the national mall, early morning breakfast with the team) and unusual dress codes (pigtails? uniforms? make-up? "if you don't look like a child prostitute you're not wearing enough make-up"). Constructivism also fails here because the "rite-of-passage" rookie week relies on the fact that the rookies accept the identity of the rookie. Which we don't. Instead, liberalism should be utilized so that everyone has an enjoyable week. Team bonding, for instance, at a mutually agreed upon time throughout the week. Fun activities--not 'we're going to leave this week intentionally ambiguous' so that you're stressed about not only school and the massive amounts of time you have to donate to cheer anyway, but also the "hazing" that you will be warned of only hours before. Eventual goal (all groups working together, forming alliances, etc.) The "rookies" and the "vets" are interdependent on each other for success on the mat. The team cannot be successful unless each group has at least a working relationship with them

The ends are admirable and necessary to the growth and strength of a team. However, the means to achieving this lead something to be desired. Much of this lies in the hands of the dynamic rookie group. Will they change their own identity this year and stage a revolution by doing as they wish? Or next year will they no longer demand insignificant things of the rookies? Will the tradition continue? Only time will tell.

Reflection

Well, this week was a whirlwind.

Preparing a video in 48 hours was...interesting. As the group of four, you would think it would be easier to get everyone together for meetings--but it wasn't. I did learn that iMovie is really easy to work with. And that Jesse strangely and awesomely fits the Sierra Club 70s mold (or say the word "tariffs"). In the end though, even if it was a lot of work and stress for a couple of days, the simulation was a much better learning experience/midterm than a traditional test. Defending points of views that aren't your own is a great life skill, especially for many of the UC World Politics kids who want to be diplomats and work for the US government.

While I wasn't thrilled that I was part of the group representing the Sierra Club, it was a learning opportunity. I'm not exactly a tree hugger.

Still, I'm not sure how I'm going to like a MAJOR simulation. The minor one was pretty time consuming and stressful as it were.

On a side note, 4 am fire alarms. aren't. cool.

Reflection....

This week we talked about the marginalized, or the section of a country that doesn't always get it's opinions represented or heard. Over the course of our discussion, I came to the conclusion that it's best if policy makers are aware of the marginalized and their "underground" movements which inevitably do have an impact on the country. Policy makers shouldn't go out of their way to exclusively track the opinions and livelihoods of the marginalized because then they'll be forgetting about the opinions of the majority.

Especially considering examples like the "Moral Underground" illustrated, where sometimes the marginalized choose not to speak out (and become de-marginalized). Sometimes people choose to stay under the legal and political radar because becoming transparent would hurt what they're doing. Specifically getting into legal trouble. For example, the shop owners that help out their employees who are struggling supporting a family on minimum wage by giving them extra wages or merchandise "off the books".

Conversely, it was pointed out that sometimes the marginalized really want their voice to be heard and occasionally resort to violence. The Civil Rights movement is a good example, as well as the revolutionary and civil war.

Whether or not the marginalized are vocal or not, policy makers should note their existence as growing ideologies. Sometimes they can become powerful, and it's better not to let them take you by surprise.

Juggling Act

Just because one theory out of realism, constructivism, and liberalism may be "right" does not mean that the others are wrong. Even if they are incompatible.

The reason for this is because, while you may hold to your one opinion, other countries may hold to a different one. Whether or not the other country's chosen theory is "right", they will follow it and therefore shape the world according to their theory. No matter if they would gain more from following the "right" theory. It would be your folly to be so naive as to ignore the fact that not everyone follows your philosophy and that they will make decisions that affect you, whether or not you like it. Countries must be mindful of other philosophies to be proactive (find the "fox" in you, to channel Machiavelli). Then you could protect yourself from any negative externalities. However, if you choose not to acknowledge that other countries follow different philosophies you will be hurting yourself--possibly lowering yourself to their level or even lower. And then by acknowledging these other philosophies you are legitimating them--which is why they aren't necessarily "wrong".

My logic doesn't just apply to these three theories either. It's more of a philosophy-in-general thing.

Identity from the Outside in

Which came first, the chicken, or the egg? As with people, nations tend to form their identity based on what others think of them. It would seem appropriate for a country's citizens to form their own identity from shared characteristics (language and other commonalities like money), but I find that it's the opinions of outsiders who really form the identies.

For example, the United States didn't label itself the economic powerhouse of the 20th century. It kind of just 'happened' and then when other countries started looking up to the United States after WWI for guidance and military power, the United States stepped up to it's new role as a global power. Since then, Americans have clung to that identity.

Nor did the United States send out Americans back in the 1800s to tell outsiders that the Untied States was the "land of opportunity". No, that came from the outside in as well.

At the French Embassy, it was also obvious that the French were clinging to their own idea of themselves through their language. They're doing this because in recent years, individual European countries are blurred into the whole of the European Union. Everyone wants an identity of their own, and the French have been used to being considered a leader in Europe so they won't let their above-average identity get mixed in with the rest.

Another bit of French identity--wine and cheese--would also not be a major part of their identity if not pointed out by others. It was not the French who determined that their wine and cheese was better than anyone else's. Someone on the outside has to point out that their wine and cheese was superior to their own before the French could legitimate this as an identifying character.

Another Reflection....

Over the course of our class discussion about whether or not uninformed voters should, in fact, vote, i changed my mind. A lot.

At first, I thought that whether or not an uninformed voter should vote was dependent on where they got their information from. The point of a vote, to me, was to carry out a demographic as a representation of what the country needed most. Getting their information from the media was the only worry I had, because of it's power to sway people from the position they should be given their socioeconomic situation. For example: you don't want the media swaying a family on welfare for a politician who's in favor of very expensive green energy facilities in their area because that would raise their taxes or take away from social programs they need.

Now, I don't really think it matters whether or not people vote uninformed. For one, a liberal society only fulfills it's ideal if everyone votes. Which people don't do anyway in the United States. That, and the fact that politicians are generally fickle and don't always adhere to their platform. Take, for example, Obama. Maybe McCain would've ended up fulfilling the platform goals of Obama. And then to address my worry about the media having an inordinate amount of sway over voters: in a liberal society the media is free, and therefore any worries about one political party having an unfair sway over voters is needless. They do have influence, but who's to say that the democrats have convinced 5 would-be republicans, and the republicans have equally convinced 5 would-be democrats? Another point that was brought up was whether or not a liberal society should educate their citizens. I think, in an ideal liberal society this should happen, but because China owns the United States there are better places to put our money. Especially considering that we are not in a state of anarchy. Our liberal society filled with 54% of voters who actually care (uninformed or not) is plodding along quite well. So does it matter if they vote or not?

On a side note, there are liberal(ish) societies that have elections democratically. Not necessarily free (or uncorrupted), but elections nonetheless. In these societies, it definitely is better that people vote--uninformed or not. At least they should be informed enough to know the non-corrupt candidate and vote for them.

To Vote, or not to Vote. It's hit or miss.

I do not think that it matters whether an uninformed voter votes or not. Not because I'm apathetic, but because both have evils that balance each other out. Also, because there is probably an equal number of uninformed voters who vote, and who don't vote at all (assuming that those who are informed vote).

If an uninformed voter chooses to vote, there are a few issues. The first is who he chooses. Does he choose randomly, or does he pick someone who they have heard name-dropped, but know nothing about? Assuming that most people don't want to waste their time standing in lines to vote if they're merely going to play eenie-meenie-miney-mo, we can also assume that, if an uninformed voter votes, they'll vote for someone they've heard name-dropped.

The name-dropping is the worrisome part, specifically because media comes into the mix. The beauty of liberalism is that every socioeconomic group is represented. However, this is easily corrupted when the media provides the name-dropping that would normally be ok if it came from friends or family (because they're in the same socioeconomic status and represent similar interests to the uninformed voter). Political campaign commercials can easily sway an uninformed voter without actually saying anything about their campaign, simply because they know the name of the candidate. The uninformed voter may also know one or two trivial facts about the candidate, which they use to legitimize their vote.

If media wasn't in the mix, then uninformed voters being "informed" by friends and family would be sufficient to carry out the balance of socioeconomic interests.

Summed up, an uninformed voter who votes could either be helping or hurting their own cause, depending on where they heard of the candidate they voted for: friends/family or the media.

On the other hand, an uninformed voter who doesn't vote is simply not representing himself. He's not hurting his cause (voting for the party that has a platform that would adversely affect him), but he's also not helping. Apathy could be ok if he instead would have voted for someone name-dropped by the media, but then apathy in large quantities (as in more than 50% of the population) is hurting the system as a whole.

It's really a hit or miss for an uninformed voter. He could:
--Help his socioeconomic group (by voting for a name-dropped candidate from family/friends)
--Hurt his socioeconomic group (by voting for a name-dropped candidate from the media)
--Do nothing by not voting

9/11 x9

This Saturday marked the 9th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 plane crashes. Over the past few years I have been educated with more information than I was provided when I was 9 years old, but at the same time my mentality hasn't changed. In a bad way.

I still remember what I was doing at the exact moment I learned of the event: I was reading a comic at my desk before school had officially started. "Class, something really bad just happened for America," my teacher carefully circumvented the issue, "Some parents may come to pick their kids up, but there's no need to worry. Everything will be OK."

As soon as I got home, my parents didn't educated me much further into the event besides the knowledge that 2 planes had hit important buildings in New York City. I didn't know why, and it didn't occur to me that many people had just died. Watching TV, I could see that this was something BIG for America. The words 'terrorism', 'Osama bin Laden', and 'Afghanistan' became new words in my vocabulary. But still, no one told me what had happened. Why it had happened. Who did it. What was going to happen next?

From the beginning, my mindset towards the 9/11 attacks was more apathetic than average. While now I understand the implications and events of that day, I still don't think I have the reflection and remorse that I should. Even on the subject of terrorism, I have adopted the mindset of 'making a subject a big deal as an individual makes it a big deal for everyone'. I choose (unfortunately) to push it to the back of my mind.

In the jumble of it all, an interesting point was brought to my attention concerning the way that America chooses to recognize this memorial. Instead of remembering the people who died in the crash, the media throws in references to terrorism, national security, and Islamic extremism. While all of these are relevant to the 9/11/01 event, the references seem to contaminate the memorial.

There's a Green Arrow in the Lounge Pointing Up?

At the Newseum, I was intrigued to see the pattern of the headlines concerning Hurricane Katrina. At the time of the hurricane in 2005 I didn’t follow current events that closely. Of course, I knew of Katrina and the problems, but I hadn’t actually looked at the papers. Therefore, the pattern of the headlines was especially intriguing. On the first day (before the hurricane) smiling faces were on the headlines about people wondering if they should pack up and go inland—a flippant attitude towards hurricanes; for the next three days into the hurricane, headlines screamed “CHAOS”. It was the fourth day that interested me, because the headlines finally made references towards fixing the housing issue, rescuing stranded families, and the government funding emergency aid. It was shocking to me, to see that the government took so long to respond to the problem.
Our other mandated exhibit, September 11, was also interesting but for a different reason. The video on the camera crews showed the footage that I never got to see as an 11-year-old. Film containing the emotion of the reporter; film showing the collapse of the trade towers; film screaming with the sound of the second plane as it swoops overhead and into the building. This wasn’t pictures, this was real. There was a reason the footage we saw in the Newseum wasn’t on national television.