Kay so I know we turned in our blog reports...

But just in case PTJ is perusing these in his grading or in the event Erin gets nostalgic, allow me to share with you what I got out of our gift swap. Well, first I should probably announce that like 15 of us got together and decided to do like a white elephant style gift swap and that it was an awesome evening that culminated in drawing on the windows to the lounge with dry erase markers (Roland's gift) to create targets for the Nerf gun (Kate's gift), but that even though Colin got a bunch of Play Dough, I still think what I got was the funniest, based entirely on it's address.

And here's why. 

Adieu, blog and bloggers. Although it is entirely possible- probable, perhaps- that I will return to post something or other, I feel this is a suitable departure post. It's been fun. 

Jim Rome and Professor Jackson?

While at work today, I was watching Jim Rome (sports talk show host, has a show on ESPN, etc) and realized that he looks identical to Professor Jackson.

The Final Reflection

This is it. The close. The conclusion. The end. If you don't mind I'll save my tears, but I will miss world politics. I'll miss the discussions that varied in levels of intensity depending on how awake I was in that particular class, I'll miss our little field trips (it was like hanging on to that one last piece of my preliminary education), I'll miss PTJ's Yankees tie (although maybe that's more just me missing baseball season, no offense PTJ, it's a very nice tie), and I''l even miss these blog posts because although I complained a lot about them, I had fun with them too. As you can probably tell (see zombies reflection for reference).

To make my blog funny? Probably more than I used...

Do I understand every little intricacy of world politics now? No. Do I even understand many more than I did going into this semester? Probably not. But what I did learn is how to shape and make arguments in the field of world politics and that is more valuable than anything else I learned this semester.

Pictured above: How I felt after most world politics classes

I would like to finish this the way every rapper since 2 Pac has finished all their albums, with some thanks you's. Thank you to PTJ for letting me come talk to you after class most weeks about completely unrelated subjects, mostly Star Wars, BSG and baseball. Thanks to Erin for never telling at me for return your emails late without fail. Thanks to anyone who actually read this blog and especially to anyone who laughed at it. And thanks to my classmates who put up with my abrasive style of debating and still haven't made any attempts on my life for it....that I know of.

OK, I'm out

A Final Reflection

I am so ill. Much like PTJ teaching class while under the influence of sudafed, I am writing this under significant influence of germs, drugs, sniffles and nyquil. Unsurprisingly, I am not alone. The whole of Letts 6 South seems to have caught this contagen (which was this time not propagated by my roommates boyfriend) and it is both rather unhelpful concerning finals and also rather putting a damper on the holiday mood here.

even our carols aren't quite right...

For instance, the gift swap we organized is supposed to happen on Wednesday, but most people have been too sick to go get anything as a gift. Even I, one of the three original organizers, had to lecture myself for a while on the importance of timeliness before I could pry myself out of bed to go get a present. Although we were originally expecting a wide array of gifts to show up- from the comical to the useless to the cute to the useful- I have to wonder if this mild epidemic won't skew people's priorities.

Of course, it will be fun regardless. Now we all just have to get there.

Spam Part Two- Having the Power to Protect the People

Obviously, by the end of Horizons, you must agree that at least in this way of thinking about things, sovereignty successfully protects difference. (Although I was a bit bothered by the ending, it tasted slightly of zoo-ish spectacle watching.) Whether this applies to the rest of the world, I suppose, is another matter.

As an aside, my opinions on Horizons; Goodness gracious sentence fragments! The plot was interesting, the twists were pretty well developed, but good God, the writing was atrocious. It reminded me vaguely of Twilight- person who is not a writer has an idea, and not a terrible one, but writes it totally horribly. No offence, Professor. (Or Mary Rosenblum.)

So the Spamming Begins

What a deliciously juicy question. Why DOES Todorov dedicate The Conquest of America to "the memory of a Mayan woman devoured by dogs"? Why bother dedicating such a book to anyone?

I think, based on the attitude Todorov takes to nearly every character mention in his book, we can assume that he was a man of people and ideas more than a man of things and thoughts. The way he thoughtfully explains (while still sort of condescending towards) Columbus' obsession with nature and ignorance of human interaction clearly illuminates both his own occupation with the human element and his need to tell the story as truthfully to his characters, well, character as he can. I feel as though Todorov would think that the lesser of the two most frequent evils of historical accounts, one being inaccurate facts of people's actions and the other being inaccurate portrayal of people's character, would easily be the first.

So that he wants his readers to keep in mind the human element as they begin his readings is completely unsurprising. Reminding us that the numbers lost from the Native American population were not in fact merely numbers, but were people, individuals, men, children and obviously women, provides potency to his work that may have been lost in the sauce otherwise.

Simulations: WWF and Labor Unions

Through both simulations this year, I think I was put in a… unique position, defending the interests of both the labor unions and the Word Wildlife Fund, two group that tend to focus on issues that aren’t exactly primarily on my radar. Although there was quite a bit of whining on my part (with Scott mostly, who was “stuck” with GM and McDonald’s), I am again glad that I was given the challenge that I was. I have reflected in a similar way before, when I talked about how interesting (and crucial) it is to look at things from another perspective and how I was pleased to be given that opportunity. At the very least, it allows you to see the holes in your own argument and better strengthen it.

For the WWF, my family again got a good laugh – over Thanksgiving Break, I read my original statement to present to the World Bank. Just a few key lines from it here…

“While reviewing the guidelines proposed, it is clear that something crucial, something that affects all of humanity equally, was left out: the environment. We cannot focus on just short term development problems, but must keep in mind the long term effects that ignoring the environment will have on us and on our children. The environment provided the nutrients that fed our forefathers, the resources that we use to manufacture our products, and will continue to house and provide for our future generations. To ensure its survival, we are must create sustainable energy sources and protecting the natural resources and habitats of developing nations and all nations around the world.”

What really got them was me talking passionately about the “shining example” that the Obama administration has been setting with their fiscal dedication to the environment, as well as how we should really increased regulations and ignore the deficit in pursuit of environmental preservation.

I’m not going to lie, as a business major, it was a great chance to see the unions from the perspective of the laborer, which could be very helpful in the future, if I wind up working from the businesses’ perspective in a unionized industry (be equivalent of Christie to the teacher’s union). With the WWF, I admittedly exaggerate my apparent dislike of the environment. I know it’s important, but it’s not on the top of my priority list because honestly, it doesn’t really affect my life the same way that say, higher taxes will, mostly because the environment is such a long term effect kind of perspective (“I’ll be dead before we have to worry about the most awful effects of global warming!”).

The biggest difference between the two simulation groups is really just that – labor unions are looking more at the current economic and business environment and can really rely on pity emotions (Kitty video anyone?), whereas the WWF has the challenge of forcing others to recognize the long term impact of their actions. Yeah, it might help McDonald’s now to wreck some rainforests to put in new buildings, but there’s something greater there that we need to focus on. I think it was important for me to have to see things long term through this project because I tend to focus so much on the short term (which reminds me of the bio-terrorism and global warming class discussion).

It’s easy to get the so what question, which Gabe pointed out – why is the environment important in an economic conference? Looking at developed nations, where industrialization and service industries take precedent and are already established, when protecting natural resources really isn’t as crucial to maintaining a strong economy, it doesn’t seem as important. With developing nations, many of their economies are tied closely to their environments because they rely heavily on natural resources, some on tourism, etc. There’s a greater need for them to protect these (which, is a major positive in the end for the environment. If developing nations are keeping it in mind and developed nations have the money to focus on the environment, then the environment might avoid getting overlooked the way it did in the past during major periods of industrialization, promoting a habit of protecting the environment).

I would still argue, even after taking the WWF’s side, it is one thing if they want to be involved in the World Bank conference, but the amendment we proposed should be last (and we should have put it last to get it to pass. Alas, I’m not quite Eric Cantor or Steny Hoyer at playing the role of whip to get the votes). It should be kept in mind, but can’t be the focus of the conference (although I loved the other Washington Consensus amendments).

Last thing – this simulation was much more fun than the first one simply because it required more under the table deal making. I spent the entire time on my computer and talking to each group, trying to strike deals. Unfortunately, my biggest mistake was not focusing on policy because I was too big on getting the votes needed. Still, it was a great experience to figure out what deals to cut to get the votes needed and knowing what compromises you need to make. Originally, we were planning on introducing a very tough environmental bill and then offering our compromise later (the long term solution plan that instituted gradually increasing standards over a 20 year period, with higher standards put in for developed countries). Still was definitely a great bill from every group represented except maybe McDonald’s (although their presentation was all about how much they sweat [Alex Hochman] the environment).

I’d like to apologize for any grafs that don’t make very much sense, as I’m watching the highly overrated and lucky, Rex Ryan-screwing-over-Baltimore led Jets vs. the apparently worst statistical defense in the league in the Pats MNF game at the same time. Definitely a potential playoff matchup in the likely divisional round of Ravens-Pats-Jets-Steelers epicness.

Primarily Cats and Dogs

Separation as a concept has a tainted history in America. It immediately brings to mind memories of segregation all too fresh in our national memory. But despite this gag-reflex of revulsion from the word separation, sometimes it's not a bad thing. In fact, it is very often a very good thing. Lets be totally honest, it's better if some things and some people are just kept apart, some things should just never be together because when they are the results are horrific.

You brought this upon yourself, America. Now you must live with what you have done

If you need any more proof as to the necessity of separation (which you really shouldn't, I mean come on guys, Cats and Dogs. If you're still not convinced you obviously haven't seen it, and its sequel), look at the conflict between the State of Israel and a conglomeration of terrorist organization that claim loyalty to an ancient tract of land called "Palestine." The root of the bloody conflict that rages to this day there is that neither side will just leave. Anyone who has ever run away from a fight can tell you that, the easiest way to have peace is just to leave.

So to make a short ramble even shorter, when Rosenblum says

"The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own."

I can only agree. Sometimes it's for the best of everyone for one party to just stop causing problems and leave.

I've got a sneaking suspicion... --love-- world politics actually is all around

So Friday night, Row, Kate, Bree, Scott and I watched Love Actually. There's a scene in the movie where the U.S. President meets with the Prime Minister of England and ends up making moves on the Prime Minister's love interest right before the press conference. Hugh Grant, the Prime Minister, saw what he was doing and didn't approve. This is how the press conference proceeded:

Press Conference Reporter: Mr. President, has it been a good visit?

The President: Very satisfactory indeed. We got what we came for, and our special relationship is still very special.

Press Conference Reporter: Prime Minister?

Prime Minister: I love that word "relationship." Covers all manner of sins, doesn't it? I fear that this has become a bad relationship; a relationship based on the President taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to, erm... Britain. We may be a small country, but we're a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter. David Beckham's right foot. David Beckham's left foot, come to that. And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that.

After seeing this scene, Rowland and I were contemplating the effect this speech would have in world politics if it were real life. How would the U.S. public and English public react to this? Most likely the U.S. would take this poorly and the American media would portray the British as the new enemy and half of the British population would consider the Prime Minister as a dumb...butt and the other half would probably praise the prime minister for finally standing up to the U.S. The last lines, "I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that" makes me think that there may be an impending war against England and the U.S., whether it be a real war or a cold war, either way, knowing the United States' media, the Prime Minister's words wouldn't be taken well.

When I first saw this movie, I cheered for the British, like everyone else in the movie, however, this time when I watched the movie, I couldn't help but be frustrated with the Prime Minister for practically severing US/UK relations in such a public manner. Although it wouldn't have the same effect on the plot of the movie, Hugh Grant should have worked out his differences with Billy Bob Thornton, the U.S. president, in private without the media so that the issue wouldn't be that of world politics, but rather that Billy Bob Thornton understand that Hugh Grant called dibs on the chick and that its not ok to me a womanizing politician.

So, the real point of this post is that Love Actually is one of my favorite movies of all time and, thanks to World Politics, now I have a compulsive need to question the political implications of the goings on in chick flicks.

Simulation Stressors

GAAAAAAAAAAH.

Okay, sorry. Professor Jackson, I respectfully understand your need to create work over your holidays in order to avoid your extended family. It is a rational thought process for an adult with few other ways to garner such an out. However, I feel the need to assert that firstly, you are perpetuating America's growing tendency to fall into the vices of over-working, over-stressing, and over-ambitiousness, and secondly, that a vast majority of us students had many other ways to get out of too-intense time with our families, such as needing to cook, or wanting to visit with friends, neighbors or teachers. I would also like to bemoan the fact that nobody I know at home owns a mac, and yet everybody in the world seems to here. It made it extraneously difficult to turn in my portion of our video in a fashion that was compatible to all software differences. I was rather nervous about getting it to play all-together. And what foreshadowing! We had to present it on my laptop because it wouldn't play on Erin's... Oh the stress that accompanies our lovely new technologies!

On a more positive note, I think I've found a proposition that suits China's interests as well as being generally welcomed by at least a majority of groups in our class. It was an idea I was toying with before class, but that listening to everyone's presentations reinforced. I'll talk it over with my group soon, and hopefully you will all hear (and support!) it on Friday, when we continue these shenanigans!

Wikilinkss and Free Speech

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112802395.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead

With further release of classified State Department information (although nothing particularly astonishing, according to the article), the question again arises of the role of the free press in a society. Should the government be able to regulate the news industry? Should they have the ability to stop stories from being published? Where is the First Amendment line drawn?

For years (and even still now), I wanted to be a journalist, covering national politics for the Washington Post, especially after taking journalism courses in high school. Unrealistic dreams aside, these ambitions and working on my high school newspaper gave me a unique perspective of the role of the journalist and how crucial it is. I find myself an ardent supporter of a free press, to recognize the responsibility that journalists have as crucial to maintaining a free society, by getting people informed and better able to make decisions.

As much as I promote privatization and good business techniques to make a profit, I think the news industry is one that needs to realize what they're doing is actually a cause bigger than just making smart business decisions. They are informing a state, a nation, a world and their actions can cause extreme security problem. Therefore, the journalists and news organizations themselves must recognize that they have to make a distinction between what is news and what is a threat to security. I always think of Bob Woodward's books when I think of this, how he always makes a point to mention that he and his editor confronted higher ups and asked them why the story should not be published. If they offered a compelling reason as to why not to publish the story because it threatened national security, the Post wouldn't. Plain and simple. Still, it is all about the decision and in the Bill of Rights, we put this in the hands of the people to make this choice. It’s a civil liberty that is ingrained in our society and is crucial to our society. Both the government and any news organization reporting information need to confront one another – provide a check and balance in determining what information is safe to report and what shouldn’t be.

Simulations

So, this past week... what really happened in terms of me experiencing world politics? Ah, that simulation. So I guess the major difference between the two simulations we've done was that in the minor simulation, it was really obvious what each group was doing and their stance on the issue. Also, the issue that we were arguing was clear. In this simulation, it took us about 4 meetings to actually understand what we were doing. Also, in this project, I finally got to do sound and video editing, which was a flashback to senior year for me. Elle and I did a lot of the script and retrieving pictures while the other group members worked on contributing facts and finalizing The Gambia's stance on the issues we were supposed to focus on. During Thanksgiving break, my friend did the voice over and I edited the sound clip such that time was reduced, his pitch was lowered (so that he wouldn't sound like a chipmunk after the clip was sped up), and the words he tripped over were taken out. Although making the video and sound clips took a total of a day and half to make and edit, I found it to be more fun being an active leader in the group than just doing my assigned role like in the last simulation. I had less going on in other classes during this simulation, while during the minor simulation, I had a lab practical and midterms. After making this video, I think that I want to incorporate a video in my project next semester.

Thanksgiving Reflection

Here is a list of fun things that happened over my Thanksgiving break; I slept 14 hours a day, I nearly ate myself into a diabetic coma, I bought a bunch of things I don't really need at reduced yet still astronomical prices, and I developed a nice case of bronchitis. Some of these things were more enjoyable than others, you can guess which ones are which.

What I feel like

Getting back to school I was smacked square in the face with a bludgeoning of work, including my world politics major simulation. It hurt. By in the way of my gladiatorial ancestors (my ancestors weren't actually gladiators but wouldn't it be cool if they were?), I rolled with the hit and came up fighting like a champion.

See the family resemblance?

From the moment the doors of Letts hall closed behind me, I was thinking like a Chinese banker, quite a change in mindset I assure you. My world was dominated by interest rates and loan caps, all in Yuan of course. I still haven't quite put that behind me yet so don't be surprised if I answer any questions directed my way with Chinese interest rate liberalization graphs.

This is what I think like

Pre-Turkey Day Ponderings

A lot of people have been home to see their families before this. They've come back dangling hopes for a change of family dynamic, regaling with tales of parents who have moved on; parents with new concerns; new families that don't really need them; who regard them as adults. After so much Todorov, I can't help but think of the young collection of colonies who declared their independence by first moving away and then signing the declaration of independence, and I assumed that moving away and turning 18 would be enough to assert my independence from my family. It was not. And as I hear all these tales of separation from my peers' personal Britain's, I can't help but wonder, if I'm not the colonies in this story, what part am I playing? It seems unfair that I could be as minor a character as a "discoverer" of America in my own story, sent out by my father(land) to explore new territories... and then to return, and report, but to still be the same poor civilian I was when I departed. I suppose I could be an altogether unmentioned territory, such as colonized India, and I'll just have to wait a few hundred years to claim similar prizes as my peers. I suppose I'll just have to finish reading to discover exactly where, or if, I fit in the grand scheme of Todorov-ian history.

Global Warming and Bio-terrorism

While attempting to figure out what to reflect on this week (because honestly, this weekend has been so full of homework and projects, I can barely think straight, especially with the fact that break is in two days), I wound up looking back to class on Tuesday and looking at very vague references I wrote down to things that I apparently wanted to say. To do so, it involved shifting through a bunch of notes Row and VFS had decided to write in my OneNote about the plausibility of building a moon colony instead of protecting the environment now (or, what amounts to how awesome they think space travel is and how NASA should get lots more money to make pointless trips to space. But I digress).

There are actually a few random points I wanted to make. While looking back at the pro-con list we had gone through about how we should face global warming… or global climate change, I think the contrast between long term and short term perspectives are fascinating. I tend to look short term – what is best for my interests right now, which explains why I support focusing on current economic problems in contrast with long term issues that may or may not affect me in the future. It’s not that I don’t see the value in trying to at least mitigate environmental changes (I do think we have a right and responsibility to change what we perceive as the threats of nature if possible. We can’t just sit back and let it happen), but I don’t think it should be the key focus. If we devote a little bit of time, energy, and funds to long term projects, “it will get done,” as Scott says frequently. However, we need to focus most of our energy on solving short term issues so they don’t become problems in the long term. Fix the economy, get money back in people’s pockets, allow them to invest and spend (especially in private R&D for something like alternative energy sources or space travel), and the long term issues will have a much better chance of being solved.

The other note that I had made was about why I would support stopping bioterrorism over a focus on global warming. Again, it was the idea of short term security over long term. I also believe it is much easier to predict what humans will do then what nature will – we have a better chance (especially with the intelligence community that the United States has) of predicting a terrorist attack to happen and prevent it than we do knowing when some natural disaster will occur. Or, it’s more plausible that we can find out one rather than the other. It’s also about priorities – we can’t solve everything. I think that’s clear. We need to eliminate the most pressing and immediate threat first and foremost with our most strength. However, that isn’t saying that we can’t also simultaneously work to solve other problems. It’s about realizing that we can’t bite off more than we can chew, and I think it’s pretty clear that the United States has a tendency to overreach (trying to help half the world solve their problems, attempting to spread democracy into Iraq, etc.). We need to prioritize to more effectively solve problems.

Reflective Post: Week 13

I didn't like the American Indian museum. Not for high minded moral reasons like the objectification of a people, I just thought it was boring. Sorry, I'm shallow like that. Ever since I was a little kid I had an almost overwhelming distain for most thing Native American related. I have no problem with the people, I just think that looking at mud huts and sinew-bound spears interspersed with an occasional cave painting isn't my idea of a good time. There are so very many captivating histories of so many fascinating cultures, I have no inclination whatsoever to study the Native Americans.

Which one would you rather study? Honestly...

Unfortunately, we sent the majority of the week in early colonial so, I have to admit, I spent most of the week in silence. I knew classes like this would come, where I could not and would not want to participate, but I can't say I enjoyed it.

In Addition...

Holy guacamole Erin, congratulations on this picture. I can't think of a way it could be more ironic.

Okay so as much as football uses stereotypes in their symbols (I believe, Vikings-Fan-Sam, that I recently fondant-painted a face sort of like this but of a stereotype of a viking instead of a Native American onto a cake for you...) the placement of these flags is both sad and hysterical. After all of that discussion about "survivance" in the museum, I can't help but think this is not what they were imagining when they wrote about re-making and pushing for continuation of their culture. Of course the more acceptable version of Native Americans is portrayed within the museum, as a representation of a society and a culture. But I might venture to say that the more accepted version of Native Americans by present day American society is full of stereotypes such as the one above, and we need only a Halloween store to see that exemplified. You would have a lot of difficulty finding a, say, Puritan costume, but there are "Indian" costumes galore with various stereotypical portrayals included. 

Some Enchanted Evening

In our discussion Friday, Alyssa brought up the idea that Columbus was the prince from Enchanted. So I did a little research and re-watched Enchanted to recall all those nuances that make Prince Edward and Christopher Columbus resemble each other.

I think the first similarity that struck me was that just as Columbus was unwilling to accept that the New World had different customs than Europe, Prince Edward refused to understand that New York City was different from the Kingdom of Andalasia. Everywhere he went, he acted as arrogantly as he did in Andalasia, the difference being that in Andalasia custom allowed him to act like that while in New York City, no one cared who he thought he was. Demanding the attention of others and dressing in renaissance clothes whilst doing so, only irritated the New Yorkers.

This isn't normal/acceptable behavior...

Similarly, Columbus refused to admit that he had landed on an island instead of the mainland (Todorov 21-22). He also did not realize that he had not landed in or near India. Columbus failed to accept the cultural norms of the natives. He had the "incapacity to perceive the other's human identity--i.e., to recognize him both as equal and as different. The first, spontaneous reaction with regard to the stranger is to imagine him as inferior, since he is different from us: this is not even a man, or if he is one, an inferior barbarian; if he does not speak our language, it is because he speaks none at all, cannot speak, as Columbus still believed" (Todorov 76). Essentially, that because the natives he came across did not have consistant traditions, Columbus found it easier to dismiss them as inferior than to try to understand them. Which brings me to my second point.

How did Prince Edward miss ALL of Pip's clues that would lead Prince Edward to Gizelle? That was so thick-headed of him. I mean why would Pip be complementing Prince Edward when they're on the search for the prince's "one true love?"

Seriously!?

Prince Edward's inability to recognize and adapt to Pip's inability to speak in the alternate world almost cost him his true love. Similarly, Columbus' inability to adapt to the New World's natives cost him good relations with the natives and set a horrible trend that following explorers and settlers continued to practice.

"Columbus's failure to recognize the diversity of languages permits him, when he confronts a foreign tongue, only two possible, and complementary, forms of behavior: to acknowledge it as a language but to refuse to believe it is different; or to acknowledge its difference but to refuse to admit it is a language" (Todorov 30).

Had Columbus treated the natives better and made a greater attempt to understand their culture, maybe the Spaniards who went to the New World after Columbus would have treated the natives better, allowing for better relations, like the type France had with the natives.

Finally, Columbus was controlled by the Queen of Spain just as Prince Edward was controlled by Queen Narissa. Queen Narissa didn't want lose her crown. Currently, Prince Edward is the only one who stands in her way from ruling Andalasia. Queen Isabella used Columbus to discover new trading routes and methods for expansion of the Spanish empire, while Columbus was intending to ask the Kind and Queen "that they might determine to spend the revenues possibly accruing to them from the Indies for the conquest of Jerusalem; and it is indeed this thing which [Columbus has] asked of them" (Todorov 11). Neither of them realized how they were being manipulated by their respective Queens until it was too late. Actually...Prince Edward ended up marrying his real true love and living happily ever after...but Columbus explorations resulted in the genocide of a diverse, prosperous culture.

Although there are myriad of differences between Prince Edward and Columbus, such as Prince Edward believed that his true love would be made to finish their duet and I'm pretty sure that Columbus did not believe that, or rather, Todorov does not imply that he did, these few similarities are significant enough to get one to think, are we Columbus? I mean, deep down, do we still maintain the same mentality of the Europeans who conquered the Americas?

...and just because every fairy tale needs a perfect ending...

The Spoils of Genocide

Call me a terrible (really, go for. You won't be the first and you certainly won't be the last) but I firmly believe that what happened to the Native Americans was inevitable. Societies are always killing each other off and the ones that can not keep up technologically or socially will always die out. So was what Columbus did wrong? Sure, of course it was. But would I have happened with or without a man named Christopher Columbus, three awesome ships named the Nina, Pina and the Santa Maria, and juice historical rumors of a forbidden love affair between him and the queen? Definitely. And think of it this way, at least he had a totally sweet name. Imagine if America had been discovered by some guy named Edwin Finklestein.

Edwin Finklestein: Unacceptable

Moral of the story is that morals are relative within the larger spectrum of societies. Societies behave much more like animals than people and in the animal world the strong survive and the weak are food. So happy early Thanksgiving and lets go feast on our spoils.

Columbus: Innocent Bimbo or Cunning Killer?

Columbus is not innocent. He was desperate, prideful, and strapped for cash, and is directly responsible for the maltreatment of a number of Native Americans. However, we cannot blame him for all that followed him. It was presumptuous and prideful to declare himself "discoverer" of the Americas, especially since he was obviously after Leif Erikson and potentially countless other explorers, but it was not this "discovery" that led to the massacres and unfair treatment of the Native Americans. It was a combination of factors including a lack of geographical knowledge of the time, the societal and colonial views of Europe, and the religious and priorital views of the elite societies of Europe. The ignorance and apparent racism of the time were obvious factors as well.

The only way I could've seen the interaction resulting in less suffering and diaspora is if he hadn't "discovered" the Americas for a number of centuries. It would have set back our intellectual standings and impaired the geography and map-making of the time, but if the Europeans had arrived at a time not so focused on "fixing" everyone and colonizing and converting the world, then perhaps things could have gone differently, but I, for one, cannot blame Columbus for doing his job, badly. (On a related but contrary note, however, I do not think we should celebrate Columbus Day. Just because we refuse to blame him doesn't mean we should celebrate him.)

Columbus and the Treatment of the Native Population

2. Is it fair to blame Columbus for what happened after he "discovered" the Americas? Did something about how he acted, and inter-acted with the native population, set things off on a course that could have been avoided if he had acted differently?

Blaming Columbus is short sighted; he can’t be considered responsible for the treatment of the natives in the Americas. He set a bad precedent, clearly, by treating the natives as inferior, although any other explorer or settler could have reversed the pattern. Bringing back that idea to Europe of how the natives were not equal to the Europeans continued that viewpoint, but it is not Columbus’ fault that other people insisted on following his example.

I think Row made an excellent point in his blog about European identity being the reason that the natives were treated in a negative way. The Europeans, at the time, were an advanced culture, especially in their eyes, causing them to look down on anything they didn’t understand or didn’t seem equal (specifically encouraged through their religious beliefs and more advanced exploration technology and weaponry). With the Americans seemingly less developed, Europeans felt an obligation to force their beliefs to Christianize and modernize the natives. I would think it would have happened anyway; Columbus was simply an outpost of this identity superiority that the Europeans were ready to instill into others.

However, more specifically, looking at Spanish rule during that time gives a better idea of why Columbus, and by extent later explorers, acted the way that they did. The Spanish had a tendency (especially in comparison to the French, who established strong relationships with northern natives with the fur trade) to eliminate entire native cultures. Even if you look at the Spanish at home, with the Inquisition going on at the same time as the exploration of the Americas, those not considered equal in to the Spanish (see natives in America, Moors actually in Spain), were systematically eliminated. That mindset was carried over to the Americas, not just as a fancy or idealistic view of Columbus, but as a societal pattern at the time in Europe and in Spain itself.

1. Which representation of "Indians" here is more acceptable?

Clearly, the museum is more acceptable in a representation of Indians. It tells the real stories of the Native Americans, their history and culture, and everything they’ve suffered through, as well as what they’ve done, especially in modern times, to preserve their identities as individual, sovereign tribes in the United States. Besides, Redskins is a derogatory term in reference to Native Americans, making the team name probably one of the least acceptable ways to phrase it.

Additionally, after viewing the rich history of Native Americans, it’s clear that the Redskins don’t properly represent them. Yes, they’re 4-3 and beat Green Bay (slightly overrated this year, although honestly they’re in the NFC. Bit of a joke compared to the AFC), Philly (when Kolb started most of the game), Cowboys (Definition of a joke even after decimating the Giants, probably the best team in the NFC [at least they will be come playoff time, although Atlanta might be right now. I don’t have faith in Matty Ice even after his ridiculous game against the Ravens] Sorry Tom), and Chicago (who is not as good as their record appears and will get crushed in the playoffs if they manage to sneak in), but still. I think it makes sense that the more acceptable way to look at Native Americans is through the museum, not through the semi stereotypes represented by the name of the Redskins.

The Jury Is In, He's Found NOT Guilty

Columbus should not be blamed for the results of discovering the "new world." His goals were 1. to find a faster way to trade with China and 2. earn some money and change his luck. He didn't carry small pox to the Americas or settle in the Americas and start the conflict with the natives. He shouldn't be held responsible for other people's greed. He discovered the new world while trying to do his job. Other explorers, on the other hand, explicitly ventured to the new world with the intension of exploiting and settling.

As Todorov said in Conquest of America, "Columbus's courage is admirable (and has been admired time over); Vasco da Gama and Magellan may have undertaken more difficult voyages, but they knew where they were going. For all his assurance, Columbus could not be certain that the Abyss--and therefore his fall into it--did not lie on the other side of the ocean; or again, that this westward voyage was not the descent of a long downward slope (since we are at the earth's summit), which it would afterwards be impossible to reascend; in short, that his return was at all likely" (Todorov 5-8).

Columbus' journeys were acts of courage not acts of destruction. If it weren't for Columbus, we probably wouldn't have settled in the Americas as soon as we did, however I do think that the general events were inevitable. To summarize, Columbus is not to blame and the events were most likely inevitable.

REFLECTING ON NEW BLOG INFO

Hey guys! More new blogging news. I added the tag function (it's in the upper right hand corner, see?). You'll notice that Kate and Dhea have bundles of posts in their parentheses, and Gabe and I only have one each. This is because Kate and Dhea have been dutifully tagging themselves for a while now, and they were automatically added to the Labels list, whereas I had to insert tags for Gabe and myself in order to get us on the roster. Anyway, all you really need to know is this- continue to Label yourself in your posts, (by writing your name, preferably the same way every time, in the Labels: __________ box above and to the right of the Publish Post button), and at some point you may want to go through and check that you've labeled yourself going all the way back to August.

Label away!
Fiona

Living Life

In class Friday, we discussed the concept of necessities. What do we need verses what we want. Do we need food in order to get an education or an education to get food? What is our primary objective in life?

I think that our primary objective in life is to live, enjoy one's experiences and make the most of the opportunities presented and seek out more opportunities. In order to achieve this goal, one must be alive and therefore find a means to obtain food. Most food is acquired by trading money and the conventional method to earn money is to get an education and then get a job that pays well. When you have the education that provides the credentials for a job that provides money so that you can get food, you have the necessities so you can enjoy life's opportunities. That's the main goal, anyway, right? ...at least for me it is...

Reflection: Presidents and the Question of Fairness

The question we asked over and over again in class Friday ("Is this fair?"), is quite possibly the most frustrating to debate. It brings me back to senior year philosophy, where we spoke in circles about random abstracts that were impossible to determine for sure, and, even if we were able to determine it, had little practical value. The question of fairness always reminds me of talk with no action - you don't come up with a plan, you just think that something is unfair and should be changed. But what's even to determine what is fair? What someone has a right to? Is it fair for everyone to have something, even if they don't work for it? (Personally, I would say no to that question, you need to put forth effort to actually deserve anything in life. But I digress).

Not to be super pessimistic, but it's impossible to give every person in this world equal opportunities. Is it fair? I'd say it depends on the person and their situation, if they’re working towards bettering their lives, but are struggling or if they're sitting around living on other people without trying at all.

Maybe with these kind of questions I've always thought that we should just accept, in this situation, that life isn’t fair. We should stop debating what is and what wouldn't be. Just accept it, move on, and try to spend more time coming up with a plan for giving people what you think that they need, regardless of if it is fair or not.

On a completely different vein, a few days ago, after Erin gave Scott and I the idea, Scott, Tom, and I sorted all of the presidents into Hogwarts Houses. Maybe it was because we didn’t want to finish stat, or maybe it was in honor of the movie coming out this Thursday, but…

1. Washington - G

2. Adams R

3. Jefferson R

4. Madison H

5. Monroe G

6. Q Adams R

7. Jackson S

8. Van Buren H

9. Henry Harrison H

10. Tyler H

11. Polk Dumbledore

12. Taylor G (because of war badassness)

13. Fillmore H

14. Pierce S

15. Buchannan S

16. Lincoln G

17. Johnson S

18. Grant S

19. Hayes S

20. Garfield H

21. Arthur H

22. Cleveland H

23. Harrison H

24. McKinley G-H

25. Roosevelt G

26. Taft R

27. Wilson R

28. Harding H

29. Coolidge H

30. Hoover R

31. FDR G

32. Truman G

33. Eisenhower G

34. JFK R

35. LBJ G

36. Nixon S

37. Ford H

38. Carter R

39. Reagan G

40. HW Bush G

41. Clinton R

42. Bush G - H (but time will tell more so. Although it should be noted that Row came in around this point and was pretty adamant about Gryffindor)

43. Obama

So basically, while going through, there was honestly little debate. What's slightly shocking, however, is how many presidents are in Hufflepuff. You can argue, for many of these men, they could fit into multiple houses, or are slightly in between. However, with so many of them, there was no debate - we just said Hufflepuff and moved on. Going off of what we did, that Hufflepuff was basically the incompetent House, that's very scary that so many presidents in our history can just be overlooked. For others, we used their accomplishments before and after the presidency to place them accordingly. It's a great history lesson, going back to remember the major reforms of each presidency, but 33 percent of your presidents being in that category? Not a good sign. Of course, much of this is up to interpretation, but with three relatively different ends of the political spectrums agreeing on this list, it can be thought of as pretty unbiased. Additionally, it’s interesting to note how few Hufflepuffs we determined that there were in the 20th century. Take these for what they're worth (probably very little), but I think it raises a lot of interesting debates (I can see Reagan and Bush being hotly contested ones, as well as some of the Slytherins right before and after Lincoln)

P.S. Polk is Dumbledore because he set three goals for office and accomplished them all. Completely underrated president.

And finally, I need to thank Sam for introducing me to possibly the greatest commercial of all time, which apparently came out a long time ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o

The Alternative Perspective One

This question reminds me of an exercise we have done a few times in my College Writing class. In said exercise each member of the class is given an academic field and we have to look at whatever article/book we are discussing from the perspective of that discipline. The objective of this is to make us see what we're learning in a different light and it works surprisingly well. Moral of the story? Looking at anything from alternative perspectives is always beneficial no matter what you're examining.

World politics is no exception. In fact in many cases alternative perspectives are even more important in world politics than other fields. Why, you ask? So much with the questions...

But in all seriousness, no matter how hard we all try, everyone has an inherent bias when it comes to world politics (some more pronounced than others) whether that's simply a bias towards the country of our origin or residence or something more. Due to this it is crucial to step back from our own partialities and reanalyze the issues that get us all so worked up from a different perspective.