Alternative Perspectives

Is there an inherent value to analyses of world politics from alternative perspectives? Ann Tickner argued that we need alternative foundational stories about global politics; what is the value of such stories, if there is value to such stories?

Although it is always a good idea to try to see from different perspectives to get a better idea of the whole picture, like Tickner suggests doing, it is impossible to analyze world politics from every alternative perspective. There's simply too many of them. To focus on every so called marginalized group in the world, to look at it from the different perspectives and points of view of all of those as well, would be more trouble than what you would get out of it. Therefore, you need to choose what alternative perspectives you wish to focus on while observing world politics. But how can you choose that? It makes more sense to observe it from the most relevant perspectives to the problem.

Still, I don’t see as drastic a need for alternative foundational stories as Tickner thinks are necessary. Yeah, sure, it’s important to hear about how women were brushed over throughout the course of world (although she focused on European) history, how it was entrenched in the societal structures of the day. However, maybe I’m slightly old fashioned, but I’ve always believe in the idea “to the victor belongs the spoils.” Those with power in history have written the foundational stories that we base world politics on today, mostly because that’s what has worked. This could be considered short sighted, but sometimes alternative stories just aren’t as important as the facts that we have all learned. For example, to reference Tickner’s talk, maybe the reason that witch burning isn’t a key focus of foundation stories was because it wasn’t and isn’t as important to world politics as other issues going on around the same time, such as the development of colonies in North America (although it was a major societal issue). Maybe sometimes it is less of alternative perspectives being ignored and more that they just aren't always as important to the view of global politics.

The Best Part of History

Stories are vital in understanding history. I mean there's only so much one can gain from reading the facts--or alleged facts--in textbooks. As I reflect upon my many years of history classes, I think that I learned the most through the stories of others. One of my favorite books is comprised of stories of women from different eras in American history. It provided the perspective of the people who witnessed important events in America. Although the actual events are important to learn because history repeats itself, I feel that social dynamics are equally important and help us understand the changes in the social norm and the development of today's society. Wars, politics and other major events in a sense determine the how people see each other, whether they be from the same or different countries and, in turn, these social dynamics affect world politics. Hearing and reading stories from history help us understand why things are the way they are today.

Yet another reflection

This past week, we've been discussing security, whether it be financial security or military security. My last post I basically summed up all my thoughts on defense security. In class Friday, we mentioned financial security and if/how that affects one's happiness. Are people dependent on financial security for happiness? I argue that wealth and happiness do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Having graduated from a private high school located in one of the richest parts of Houston, I have studied amongst some of the most well-off kids in the area, many of them were more than financially secure but they were still seeking happiness, in other words, having money didn't fuel their happiness, though it may have sponsored their quest for happiness. Some of my peers were financially secure and were rather content with their lives, just as some of my peers who weren't as financially secure were happy because they had a good family life and great friends. Yes, being financially secure has myriad of benefits, but it does not guarantee happiness. Some argue that the pursuit of happiness trumps the pursuit of financial security. I mean if you only live one life, wouldn't you want to enjoy every second of it, rather than have the years fly by working in an office instead of making memories with the ones you love? Wow, I almost sound like a hippie. To me, the purpose of earning money is to afford the bare necessities and make enough money to survive in the rat race. If one gets caught up in the race and forgets to take a water break, one will find that he's lost sight of his primary goal...Financial security is important, but how much should one be willing to sacrifice in order to achieve it?

Reflective Post: Week 11

I have never felt more proud to be American than I did this Wednesday at The Pentagon. Walking through the halls of that fortress built to protect our way of life my veins were pumping red white and blue. Luckily there was no Army recruitment center by the exit because I'm pretty sure I would have enlisted on the spot and shipped off to Afghanistan to die for our country.

After the tour was over, instead of dashing back to campus like everyone else, me and Mr. Christian T. R. Cavender had a leisurely stroll around the majestic building, were asked to "step back and take your hands out of your pockets" by a assault rifle wielding Pentagon security officer (I was honored), and ended up at the our-door 9/11 memorial. The memorial was breathtaking and wandering between the benches of the fallen, I realized just how amazing this country is and how unequivocally lucky we are to live here. So many have given their lives to make our lives the way they are today and we can never let them be forgotten.

So the moral of this blog post is a solemn homage to those who died, willingly or unknowingly, for the freedoms we enjoy.

זיכרונו לברכה

Zikhrono livrakha

May their memories be a blessing.

Reflection: Economic Securityy

In class, we spent a lot of time discussing economic security, which, I think for many people, is more to the forefront of their attention than national security issues. Not to say which is more important (because I think they deserve relatively similar amounts of attention), but economic security is something that we deal with every day – from big decisions, like paying for college, which can change the financial structure of a family, to just daily budget allowances. I think it something we can all relate to the most because it is what frequently dominates the media (especially where I live, where the economy the sole focus in every political debate and campaign ad) and dinner table conversations.

I guess, personally, my focus politically tends to be on the economy and I found the question of how are we economically secure to be very interesting. Clearly, security really depends on the individual person in all cases, not just how secure you feel, but in real dollars and cents how economically stable your situation is. However, we spent most of the time talking about the government promoting economic security through their employee workforce, for example. Maybe this is the market lover in me, but I thought that skipping over the security in the private sector was sort of an oversight. The question about economic security should reside similarly in economic recovery and job providing companies in the private sector. Maybe the question shouldn’t have been so much debating the effects Christie has had on government work forces, but what the government has done to stimulate the private sector and its effects on economic security for the individuals. Maybe my view on it stems from the fact that both of my parents are employed in the private sector (although my mom does work for Bank of America and is very defensive of the bank paying back their bailout, but that’s beside the point). Do we feel more stable, as a whole, as individuals, etc. as a result of decisions that our state and local governments have made for the private sector? Clearly, much of my approach to the question of economic security stems from my faith in the private sector to boost the economy when given freer reign to make decisions, which naturally makes me more inclined to focus first on the private sector when determining my own, and the country's, economic stability. I guess if I see the private sector is economically on the rise (small business confidence is up, jobs are hiring, consumer spending, etc.), I tend to see my own situation and the situation of others to be more secure.

Additionally, although this is pretty random, it’s impossible to generalize the economic security of the entire country because people have such varied situations, especially in comparison to national security, where, although some people live in more dangerous hot spots for attacks, natural disasters, etc., it is slightly easier to generalize the security.

P.S.

And thanks to Scott, who reminded me about the glory that was November 2, 2010, I had to add something else in...

Especially for Vikings Fan Sam, Row, and Alex.

Obviously symbolic of the Republican bloodbath in the House and domination for the governors' races as well. Except in Maryland, where the red didn't manage to spread.

We'll see what happens in 2012, but I'm enjoying this for now.

To Make This Very Clear

Just because we are attending this university does not mean we are rich. The assumptions made during class this week concerning the students financial security were presumptuous, and from some that I heard talking about them, hurtful. There are ways going to college can create financial insecurity even if one can manage to make up the difference between financial aid and tuition. For instance, this year is the last that my parents can help me pay to go to American. If I need any  help after this, it will mean either transferring to a cheaper college, taking out loans under my own name (I've been building up credit just in case), or asking my parents for help, thus sentencing one of my siblings down the road to state or community college. Others I know went through hell and high water to get here, and will be battling the odds to stay every year.

I'm not saying the generalization that we are all reasonably financially secure is not a logical one. Just that assuming that is the case for everyone is an over-generalization.

Death with Frosted Tips: A Zoological Look at Afghanistan

No, having troops in Afghanistan does not make me feel any safer. In fact it makes me feel less safe. Let me put it into terms everyone can relate to: this is a honey badger...

Look up "Awwwwww" in a Webster dictionary. There are no words, just this picture

It is the epitome of cuteness and amiability. Seriously, look at that thing. I want to wrap it up in a blanket, name it General Fuzzers and raise it as my own child, dress it up in people clothes, instill it with a solid moral foundation, send it to respectable private school, the works. But if you anger the honey badger it goes from a happy ball of fuzz and sneezes to this...

Death with frosted tips

What was once a sugar coated morsel of downy adorability is now a bona fide killing machine, the Terminators of nature. Honey badgers are universally accepted as one of the most badass animals somewhere between a wolverine and a tyrannosaurus rex. By all appearances they have no fear instinct and go around killing incredibly venomous snakes for their mid-afternoon snack. If you have three minutes and a high tolerance for animal violence watch this clip. I never thought I'd pity a snake before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c81bcjyfn6U&feature=player_embedded

But back to the topic at hand: Afghanistan. Afghanistan is like a honey badger, its harmless unless provoked. Granted Afghanistan is neither as cute nor as deadly as a single honey badger, but the analogy still stands. If you know something will erupt into a deadly rage when prodded, keep your hands to yourself.

Found stamped to a "Welcome to Afghanistan" sign