Reflection: World Politics

I thoroughly enjoyed everything about the World Politics class, even the enormous amounts of reading, which were interesting and impressive enough to make up for the time consumed reading them. In my first semester out of high school, the discussion-based, largely independent format of the class was a big change, and everything I had always wished my classes were more like. The wide range of different views and theories taught in the class was nicely reflected by the variety of interests and political opinions held by the class members.

The class discussions were my favorite part of not just World Politics, but all my current classes at AU -- the setup was simple, but open to a huge range of ideas and directions to go in. Just a prompt and the beginning from the readings and Professor Jackson, and a few periodic nudges in some of the more interesting directions (because in this class there was no right or wrong direction to go in), and the students took care of their education on their own. It became so interesting to participate in the discussions that there were times that I could’ve let a class period last another hour, just so we could clean up loose ends of whatever fascinating idea we had stumbled upon. In fact, discussions were sometimes so fulfilling and interesting that I became suspicious about whether or not PTJ was subtly manipulating us into discussing a topic that he specifically thought would give us insight into World Politics, which totally destroyed my ability to trust that he had no hidden agenda whenever he brought up a subject. Sometimes the connections we made and the insights we gained seemed a little too perfect, which made me paranoid -- was international relations really so complex and intertwined a subject that mere freshman college students could have a semi-intelligent debate over it, or were we all just being fed information in a form slightly more subtle than a lecture? Either way, I learned (by doing, rather than just listening) a lot more about how international relations and global politics works than I would have in a differently-styled class.

World Politics is not just a class for those interested in IR, it helped me to understand my other classes better than I would have without it -- Comparative Politics, Law, Economics, even the essays I had to write for College Writing. If I get the chance to have another class like this one, I will most definitely take it. Anyway, this class was like a breath of fresh air, and if other college classes are similar to it, a brilliant introduction to my college experience. In high school, no matter how interesting the subject matter can be, the way the classes teach always restricts the enjoyment I could get out of the subject. World Politics made me more confident that I could in fact choose to learn and figure things out by myself and with peers, not just from experienced experts, although they do help me to remember what I’m talking about in the first place.

“When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all.”

~ Paul Simon

Reflection: The End

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i60yecA1hEU

Well, we've reached the end of our glorious mission together in World Politics.  Honestly, it's been an amazing ride, and I'd do it all over again.  With less articles though.  I was honestly amazed that I was exposed to so many different points of view in our class.  I can safely say that one of the reasons I decided to come to American was its predisposition to have liberal-leaning students.  Needless to say I was surprised when half of our class seems to lean more towards the right (you may blame that on political shifts in current affairs, but that's besides the point).  But really, would it have been better as an echo chamber?  Probably not.  I don't know how you did it, Professor Jackson, but bravo.

I was very interested in the strategic aspects of world politics, and how we can relate everything we see to life around us.  I mean, I can't even name all the times we would be arguing about something on the floor and something about realism/liberalism/constructivism would come up because it honestly did actually apply there in that situation.  The application of what we've learned is really evident in all we do, and it's important to remember that going forward.

But to be honest, this class helped affirm what I believe I want out of my college experience and what I will be doing going forward.  To be honest, I came to AU believing that SIS would be at least one of my majors here, econ being the other.  I now realize that International Relations really isn't for me.  My opinions could change later on, but I don't see SIS being in my future.  I think the times in class where we discussed economics and poverty seemed to be the most pertinent to me, and I feel that has given me reason to believe that I chose right in being an economics major.  World Politics was still an amazing class though, and everyone should experience it.

Reflection: The Crazy World of World Politics

So the semester is coming to a close and in a month I will have a completely new lineup of classes to dive into. Yet World Politics will stay by my side in the form of a research project. I’m not going to lie and say I’m thrilled about all the research I will have to do, but it will be a good test of the material we learned in class. Speaking of tests, I never imagined a college class without any conventional exams. Having class based solely on discussion and a few essays and simulations was an interesting and unique experience. While I honestly disliked this unorthodox class structure, I’m sure I learned a lot more from this class rather than a one where a professor simply lectures about world politics.

I was surprised by the sheer variety of ideas the class exposed me to. Not only did I have to mind-numbingly read sophisticated books and articles, I had to understand where my classmates were coming from too. The class discussions intrigued me as to how well people can make a coherent argument backed up by evidence. I didn’t realize how different another person could interpret a text than the way I read it. What initially shocked me was how lively and interesting the discussions were. When researching for colleges, I heard that American is a very liberal school, yet I think both sides of the political spectrum were present during discussion. This class truly tested my critical thinking skills unlike any other class. If one class had to represent AU, this World Politics class would definitely take that spot.

Sovereignty and Difference — Narrowing Down what Qualifies

Sovereignty can certainly be a tool to protect those who are “different”. While difference is not the only thing associated with sovereignty, sovereignty is essential to protect differences that are present in society, especially those of groups or cultures that are diametrically opposed to each other. However, historically, there have been several different factors that make this a viable option.

One obvious way sovereignty protects difference is the protection of minority groups from persecution. There are two ways for a minority group to protect itself -- one, change society around it to accept them, or two, form their own safe haven with rules that applied to them and borders that defined the extent of the rules. This second approach worked much better a long time ago, when minority groups usually all lived in the same geographical area and their oppression originated from an external force, but there are also variations to it, most obviously, in the definition of what constitutes a difference. One example is America, which broke off from England to become an independent sovereign state. America became sovereign because of difference, even though they weren’t a different cultural or ethnic group in the traditional sense. Even though at the time of the American revolution, Americans identified themselves as English, the colonists’ differences from other Englishmen is what caused their separation. While they didn’t have a radical cultural difference from the rest of Britain, they were treated by the British government differently than other british people, in a negative way, especially with regard to economics. Eventually, the American colonists’ differences with the British government became so great that it trumped the colonists loyalty to Britain and self-identification as British, and caused them to gain independence, and sovereignty to retain their independence from interference by the British.

An interesting parallel between Rosenblum’s book and the revolution is that in both instances, the group seeking independence was geographically grouped together and isolated from the motherland -- Earth and Britain respectively. In these situations, it’s not a lucky chance that both groups happened to be isolated and could therefore easily form a sovereign state, but they wouldn’t have developed the differences that would cause them to feel the need to form a sovereign state, had they not been separated. (While the first colonists were persecuted minorities fleeing England, this same movement of immigrants was not the one that would later push for American independence.) It was their geographical difference, in conjunction with their differences in values, that made sovereignty a plausible way of protecting differences. This ties in with the still-valid notion that a nation-state, fixed and geographical in definition, is the only truly accepted sovereign entity. Therefore, while sovereignty does indeed protect difference, it only protects a specific kind of difference, one that is partially based on geography, and cannot be a solution to the protection of all forms of difference.

Reflection on World Politics

This semester World Politics class has been a great look in to the world of International Relations. Before taking this class, I did not know much about the art of international relations and how so many things, such as identities and perspectives, affect the way countries interact with another.

It was also interesting to look at the different ways scholars look at countries' behaviors and classify these behaviors into theories, mainly realism, liberalism, constructivism and other versions of the three. Struggles for power, social and national identities, and international cooperation all can affect the way countries interact with one another, depending on which theory you look at.

Also, examining international issues and realizing that there are so many ways to look at them and interpret them depending on which IR theory you employ showed me that International Relations isn't an exact science, it's not black and white. It's an art, a game of chess, trying to predict the opponent's next move and strategizing to benefit yourself and (maybe) your allies.

Sovereignty Protecting Difference

I agree that sovereignty can be a tool in protecting those who are labeled "different." In Horizons, the space-residing humans are under attack by the regular humans because of the space-residing humans' different appearance. Establishing "a nation with the power to protect its own" can better protect and cater to the needs of the particular group, in this case the space-residing humans. With having their own sovereignty, these humans can more easily protect their needs and security. If things don't mesh (the interests of different groups) it is easier to just keep them separate.

Also, with their own sovereignty, groups can more easily target what their needs are and either implement effective policy or communicate them to other groups.

Overall, sovereignty is beneficial to groups that are "different" because it allows them to focus on their needs and protection from infringement and attack from other groups.

Reflection on North Korea

North Korea fired artillery at South Korea and claimed it was a "response" to South Korea's naval drills. Heightened tensions have frightened people into thinking that this could be the beginning of war.

I don't think this is war, but I think it is a way for North Korea to display its power and capabilities after being pushed to the back burner by sanctions. North Korea might have felt the need to assert its still existing power in the global sphere.

Also, traveling home for Thanksgiving made me think of the TSA and their new security measures. When I arrived home, my family asked me if I was "felt up" by the TSA. I told them that security wasn't any different from what I have experienced before, but I did hear about the pat downs and body scanners that the TSA was now using and people's protests about the new security measures. It is interesting to see how people support increased security to keep them safe from attacks, but once this security creeps up on their civil liberties it is no longer appealing. It creates a double standard. People want to be protected, but don't like certain protection measures implemented.

Reflection: Does North Korea have anything to be thankful for?

My Thanksgiving went pretty well, though it would have went better had the Red Sox actually made a trade or signing or something as an early Christmas present.  While this was a disappointing development (or lack thereof), I was happy to see my family again.  Although, I have to say that I was surprised that my usually up-to-date family was unusually silent on one of the more controversial and alarming issues in world affairs lately and that is the sudden escalated tension between the South Korea-United States and North Korea.  While we were passing around the rolls I was just waiting for my grandmother to say in her abrupt and loud tone about "what the hell is going on with North Korea." Perhaps my family is unconcerned with the thought of a (more) assertive North Korea, or perhaps they are much too concerned that they didn't even want to discuss the possibility of a nuclear standoff in East Asia, and possibly in the Western Hemisphere.

A best guess on my part is that my parents side with the former way of thinking.  Like it was discussed in class, I feel that North Korea is merely showing its teeth in an era where we've become accustomed to a more liberal, transparent world power apparatus that such a display of a realist method is distressing to nations and people across the world merely because it has become an antiquated technique among developed and even developing nations.  North Korea knows internally that it's going to be difficult to assert their (imagined) authority over the countries of East Asia once their "fearless leader," Kim Jong-Il passes away.  It's similar to what will certainly be a problem for Cuba once the man who is now supposedly working behind the curtains, Fidel Castro, finally kicks the bucket.  Also, as was noted in the New York Times this morning, South Korean officials and diplomats feel that after Kim Jong-Il dies, it will only be a matter of time (likely a few years) before the government collapses. China, through the new WikiLeaks story, has shown impatience with North Korea, perhaps signaling that their mutual friendship that has spanned decades may finally be coming to an end.  North Korea doesn't really have any other friends in the world; China is their last hope.  I mean, if the United States were a nation run like North Korea, and we had a dynasty family running things in our country, wouldn't it be rather destabilizing once the leader died and a transfer of power is taking place?  North Korea may not get another chance for a governmental change for years, as Kim Jong-Il's heir apparent, his son, would probably lead the country for decades to come.  The government, wanting to keep its authority over its people intact, and at risk of losing their only real ally, will attempt to

Reflection: Thanksgiving and East Asia

This Thanksgiving I was thankful that I have a family that’s there for me. Living such a long time away from home reminded me how I took a loving family for granted. Even though I’m no longer a permanent resident of my house, I didn’t feel any different. I felt exactly the same as I did in high school, just enjoying the break with family and friends. My home computer was taken over, but that’s forgivable when you got a shiny new laptop for college. Besides the good food, I missed the average conversation at the dinner table. I also missed my dog so much. It felt weird saying goodbye to my parents when I’m going to be back in just two weeks. I find it funny that people quickly change their minds as to where they want to be. When you’re at home, you wish you were at college; when you’re in college, you wish you were home.

This Thanksgiving I was thankful of my family, as well as for not living on Yeonpyeong Island. I don’t know what’s scarier, the possibility of a full scale war or living in constant fear of attacks. While I’m pretty sure North Korea doesn’t want a full-on war, I’m not optimistic that the whole situation will end on a happy note. South Korea so far hasn’t taken North Korea’s taunts strongly enough to take it to the next level, but the new President might respond differently. The reluctance of China to condemn North Korea’s actions is too bad. I don’t think it would be in China’s best interest to associate itself with such a country as North Korea. If China wants to grow into a major superpower, it would be beneficial to ally itself with countries that have good reputations. Even though I understand that China doesn’t want to look like its taking orders from the U.S. and South Korea, I think China would gain an improved record for helping tame a problematic neighbor.

Reflection: Throwing Money at the Problems of Today

The discussion in class last Tuesday focused on the allocation of resources toward global problems in our contemporary society.  If the world were to suddenly create 50 billion more dollars, without worry of inflation, what would we spend it on?  What is the most efficient way to go about using the money to solve a universal issue?

In the lecture we read/listened to, the man seemed to give credence to the theory that it would be better to use that money toward abolishing hunger in the world's developing nations, or using it to fight an epidemic like AIDS.  Certainly these are noble causes, but he seemed to brush off the threat of global warming as unimportant and irrelevant.  Perhaps hunger/poverty issues should take precedent over global warming, as no one really ever died over global warming.  However, if it is a global inheritance of this money, shouldn't the funds be used to fight an issue that affects those in Switzerland as well as those in Swaziland? I'm pretty sure bioterrorism isn't a majorly pertinent issue in those nations, but the threat of global warming doesn't know borders.

Investing in a "Manhattan Project" of the 21st century could help spark initiative in the world to pay more attention to green technology.  We could save our planet and secure our economic security for decades to come.

Poverty can't be solved, and to be honest terrorism can't theoretically be solved either.  However, global warming can only be solved in a subjective light.  We can't all agree even at this time that climate change is real, and much less whether it is man-made or merely natural.  Perhaps funding should be put aside for the advocation of global warming measures, since a great segment of the population (including an alarming number of people in our class) still believe global warming to be a false prophecy of the future.

I'll actually quote a Republican to finish this reflection.  Before he began his run to the right in order to get re-elected, Senator John McCain noted this about global warming in a debate between his Republican counterparts during the presidential campaign:

"If it's real, then we can help save ourselves from a global disaster.  If it's not, then all we've done is left our children and our grandchildren with a cleaner world."

Maybe we should just have some tax cuts?  50 billion dollars could give every person in the world about $8.15.  Pretty sweet deal.

Reflection on Columbus

Reading about Columbus in The Conquest Of America was a very thought-provoking experience. Columbus comes off in the book as a highly eccentric person at best, and a total lunatic at worst. He seems so irrational and downright deluded that it’s almost hard to hate him, because if he really was so out of his mind as to punish people for suggesting that Cuba was an island just because he wanted to have reached Asia, how could he have hoped to comprehend or draw any logical conclusions from his interactions with the native americans? While I had always known Columbus had all the closed-mindedness and religious rigidity of the times, I had never heard just how bizarre a person he was. Perhaps his exploits in the new world weren’t quite what would be expected of a typical European explorer. If another person had discovered America instead of Columbus, surely they would have had a different approach.

The question, however, becomes how different? After all, while Columbus was undoubtedly someone who would seem strange to anyone, in any time era, were his overall actions in the Americas that far from the norms of the times? While his sponsors were taken aback by his enthusiasm, and his crew noted how odd his behavior was, he ultimately did not get labeled as someone who was famed as being chronically deluded. Even modern times, with the sharp increase in acknowledging Columbus as being nothing close to a hero, usually emphasizes the quest for gold and ill treatment of the natives he recorded in his letters, not his convictions that mermaids existed. Perhaps we are viewing him from too far in hindsight, from a time when logic rather than faith was the norm, for if he had truly been considered as strange as he would today, the reputation would have followed him. We see mild versions of this even nowadays, with the flaws and eccentricities of various public figures being brushed over as not being a big deal in their lifetime, only to provoke outrage much later on. What is considered normal for a culture steadily changes over time, and it was clear that even if Columbus's actions did not represent an average European, they were not wild enough to severely damage his reputation as the great discoverer of America for many centuries.

Reflection: Native American Museum

Visiting the Native American museum was interesting to say the least. As discussed in class, there is almost no mention whatsoever of the horrible treatment of Native Americans by the “new” Americans. While going through the exhibit and not seeing any harm caused to the Native Americans, I thought the museum must have a section reserved for all the atrocities. I assumed this was the case because the museum wouldn’t want to make the whole place depressing by adding relocation and deaths after many of the tribes’ history. They might as well share the tragic stories in one big swoop. I was shocked to learn that this wasn’t the case at all. They simply left out a gigantic section of Native American history. I’m extremely surprised that Native Americans haven’t spoken up against what I see as the bending of truth. They aren’t telling the truth when they don’t tell the whole story.

To put this in perspective, Congress in 2003 authorized the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture to be built in 2015. Suppose they decide to totally emit the history of slavery. Without a doubt that would spark a major public outcry. I don’t understand why Native Americans as well as the general public aren’t outraged at the museum’s portrayal of history. I know that the passing of time comes with a “relaxing” of past tragedies. It seems that this happened such a long time ago, that it doesn’t really matter anymore. No one alive today was involved in slavery, yet I bet many people would care if museums didn’t mention it at all―even if the United States wants to keep its terrible past to a down-low. I think this is an injustice Native Americans and the country should fight to correct.

Reflection on Columbus' Motives

Was it gold or god that brought Columbus to the new world? Was it gold or god that made him treat the Indians so poorly? Columbus claimed it was god and his desire to spread the greatness of Christianity, but was it really?

One of my favorite musicians, Julian Casablancas, once said "Greed is the inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer." This can be applied to Columbus and his "holy" mission. Columbus was motivated by greed for gold and power and that was why he treated the Indians with injustice If he were really embarking on his voyage to spread Christianity I don't think he would have looked upon the Indians with superiority, but would rather treat them with compassion, like Christianity teaches.

Greed always encourages us to act unfairly toward others because we are blinded by what we desperately desire.

Redskins vs. The Many Native American Nations

The Museum of the American Indian is a much more acceptable depiction of Native Americans than the exaggerated, easily-represented, old-fashioned stereotype used to symbolize the Washington Redskins. In the pop-culture encyclopedia from which simplistic concepts like sports teams are taken, the native american is a feather-adorned, red-skinned, warpainted, weapon-wielding noble savage. Like all stereotypes, this image takes a grain of truth and treats it as though it is the whole truth. As shown by the museum exhibits we saw, native americans are a vastly complex, varied series of different nations, all of which have unique identities. The “Native American” is not a single idea, but a term that can only be used correctly when referring to all the indigenous people of the Americas.

The depiction of the Native American given by the Museum of the American Indian is one of a number of different people who are described as human beings, with the histories of any other number of world civilizations and the same modernization and variation that other cultures have today. The pop-culture depiction embraced by the Redskins strips the humanity out of native americans, reducing them to an outdated cliche that, after bombarding the population enough without opposition, begins to affect peoples’ thoughts about real Native Americans. Without a strong presence of real Native American culture to be an alternative, the cliche is sadly all the exposure some people receive to the idea of Native Americans. And when this is the only idea they have to work with, Native Americans logically seem like an idea that isn’t real, and can’t really exist in the modern world, and become in peoples’ subconscious minds an extinct concept, like crusaders or Arthurian knights.

Largely because of this, the fact that Native Americans are real people who not only live in the present and are nothing like the stereotypes depict, but are also a people who still struggle with ongoing problems left over from the European conquest, slips many peoples’ minds. This is not just a matter of cultural knowledge and sensitivity, but poses another hurdle for the problems of Native Americans. When a marginalized group, such as African Americans during various periods of history, are given attention and presented accurately, people quickly begin to figure out the injustices and problems they deal with, dismissing flawed conceptions of the group in question as they go. But when a group is pushed to the side and never gets a chance to speak, overcoming any problem becomes much harder. And because the stereotypes of Native Americans is so pervasive (and not nearly as widely derided as stereotypes of most other minorities), Native Americans not only have to make their voices heard, but have the added task of doing away with the stereotypes first. After exposure to Native American cultures, such as the exhibits of the museum, it is simple to see that it is a more acceptable depiction, because it is a more accurate depiction. Unfortunately, too few people get that kind of much-needed exposure.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

Benjamin Franklin

Is Columbus to Blame?

I think Columbus did have a bit to do with the direction of how the native people of America were treated. Columbus came to the "new world" with a slight superiority complex, thinking that "civilized" European culture is what these "uncultured" people with no religion needed.

Columbus couldn't accept that the natives had a different culture, language, and religion that served them perfectly well before the Europeans cam along. I think Columbus' treatment and view of the natives set a precedent for how others treated and viewed the Indians. Good relations in the beginning between the Europeans and the natives could have led to better ones in the future. The constant push of Christianity and European culture and values on the Indians, however, diminished the potential for cooperation, made the natives feel threatened, and caused conflict.

Blame Columbus

It is completely fair to blame Columbus for what happened after he “discovered” the Americas. Columbus essentially decided how the Native Americans were going to be treated the moment he stepped foot onto the “New World.” While he can’t be blamed for bringing diseases like smallpox to the natives, he is at fault for setting the tone for the negative treatment of Native Americans. He promised gold and slaves for the Queen of Spain, even though Queen Isabella didn’t want slaves. Had Columbus looked at the Indians as people of equal stature instead of savages to be exploited, the terms between the Europeans and the Native Americans could’ve been a lot friendlier. As the leader of the settlers who reported back on what he thought was Asia, he set the tone for future interactions between Native Americans and Europeans.

Leaders are what they are because those who listen to them follow them. Because the European crew have never met Native Americans before, they would have looked to Columbus for guidance as to how they should relate with them. While nothing is certain, if Columbus acted courteously for the good of both sides, history could be dramatically different. The treatment of these people as objects may have become the precedent for the future practice of slavery in the United States. Just like how we learned how our parents dealt with a situation we’ve never seen before, they did the same thing. Columbus could have peacefully traded goods instead of winding them up and shipping them off as slaves. Today we often blame our leaders for screwing up and causing problems. We should look at Columbus with the same eyes we do with our present leaders.

Blaming Columbus

Can we blame Columbus for what happened to the Native Americans? Surely he was no saint, and certainly had no respect for the indigenous people here, but we cannot blame him for Europe’s response to the new world. Even if Columbus had been an idealistic, altruistic adventurer who respected native people, was willing to be fair with them, and wanted to explore more than to make money, it would not have had any impact on the way the Native Americans were treated.

The culture of Europe at the time was one that combined the early renaissance values of developing new ideas, expanding fields of knowledge, and outwards-thinking expansionism; with the religion-infused, narrow-minded concepts that had been internalized and strengthened throughout the dark ages. Europeans had a great drive to become a successful, enlightened people; but were limited by the decades to centuries of a stagnant social condition, lack of attention to the evolution of schools of thought on multiple levels -- political, technological, scientific, artistic, philosophical --, crushing poverty, and religious fanaticism brought on by the massive death rates due to both the Black Plauge and the devastation that followed; that had drastically slowed the development of European society. When Europe emerged from the dark ages, they were socially not far removed from the crusades, invading and slaughtering to heroically spread the word of Christ among heathens. They were taking risks and venturing into the world with their rising power, but did not have the knowledge and development to match. In short, they were rather like uneducated enthusiasts secure in the knowledge that they knew best. It is ridiculous to think that upon discovering a new land, filled with an abundance of resources and populated by a people who seemed primitive savages to the best of their knowledge and were most certainly not Christian, Europeans would collectively decide to be respectful and diplomatic with these new people and lands, even if an important adventurer had protested.

Europeans at that time did not have the standards to measure up to that we do. They were convinced that the people they had discovered were lower than they were, and did not deserve to have their way of life respected, not when it so neatly fit their ideals about spreading the Christian and European way of life as the superior way. They were struggling to emerge into a period of renaissance, and would not have dreamed of leaving alone land and resources that were so abundant and easily taken. Perhaps if, by lucky chance, Columbus had been an unnaturally learned, experienced, and enlightened person who also had an immense amount of power; he might have been able to stall the European conquest of America slightly, or maybe inspired a school of thought that pushed for a less brutally oppressive campaign. But even so, the discovery of the new world was such a godsend, and arguments against its conquest so unsupported, that it never would have been left alone. Columbus may have done nothing to make the plight of the Native Americans easier, but he had a minimal impact on the European approach to the Americas after discovering them.

The Representation of "Indians"

Americans have become accustomed to calling Native American "Indians" because of that little mistake Columbus made. Mention of "Indians" conjures up images of dark skinned people clad with feathers and war paint.

This particular image of Indians is very "Hollywood" and "whimsical," taken advantage by the Washington Redskins to represent their football team. The superficial notion that Indians are "redskinned" and savage warriors does not do justice to the complex cultures of the various Native American tribes.

Exploitation of this stereotypical image undermines Native American as a people. Plastering the image of a so called "Indian" on football helmets, hats, flags, banners, souvenir cups along side colts, dolphins, and bears and having a "redskin" parade around as a mascot doesn't seem right.

Cultures deserve to be respected. Preserved and taught about in museums is one way to do this. What I particularly liked about the Museum of the American Indian is that it conveyed that Native American culture is not a dead one and a thing of the past, but rather a living culture that is still practiced by an array of people who are not "redskinned"and adorned with feather headdresses.

Reflection: The Shining City on the Pale Blue Dot

First of all, let's settle this now.  The woman giving the presentation on behalf of the World Bank seemed to brush off New Jersey as this cesspool of corrupted garbage.  Let me tell you something: this country would be nothing without New Jersey.  You all can live with tuberculosis?  Didn't think so.  What about living without college football?  Yeah, me neither.  New Jersey makes this country's trains run on time.  Plus, we have several bad sports teams to ridicule to make you all feel better about your own pathetic teams.  Who would be your punching bag then?  That's right.  New Jersey is just around to make all of you complacently say "hey, at least I don't live there!"  Whatever, we don't want you anyway.  

Anyway, the woman who came from the World Bank explained the priorities that the World Bank has recognized throughout its history as an international entity.  These priorities sound familiar when discussing the problems facing citizens in the United States.  Lack of shelter, lack of healthcare, lack of food, clothing, etc.

We talked about the issue of equality in class.  While I agree that that a capitalist society should run on the principles of winners and losers, the "survival of the fittest" mentality that was brought up in class is an extraordinarily primitive principle.  Yes, we at American would probably feel that it doesn't matter if we help the destitute, seeing that we are on the "top of the class" relative to them.

I'm not saying that the incomes of everyone in the country should be equal, but there needs to be equal opportunity for all.  And in that, in an ideal world, our social programs would be effective in providing people with the opportunity to better their lives.

How can we solve this, then?  The woman from the World Bank gave very daunting statistics regarding the allocation of money that developed countries have exhibited in previous fiscal years.  1.4 trillion dollars is spent, per year, on defenses.  A vast majority of that money comes from the United States.  In this country of ENORMOUS affluence, it is a disgrace that we spend seemingly unlimited amounts of money on instruments of destruction and war, while it has become damn near impossible to get a 30 day extension on unemployment benefits for those still out of work.  We need to reexamine our priorities in this country, or soon we will find our citizens dying in the streets of Kabul as well as in the streets of Washington.  

I see the argument for war, but the way I see it we should spend our money more on instruments of peace and prosperity.  Peace is better than war, because life is better than death.

Also, talking to Erin earlier in the week made me realize that it has been 14 years last week since the death of famed astronomer Carl Sagan.  His ideals regarding the fate of humanity, particularly when it comes to the exponential defense spending of developed nations, are aptly shown in his speech below regarding the photo taken of Earth by Voyager 1 in 1990, when it was 4 billion miles away from Earth:

That's here, that's home, that's us.  On it, everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.  The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, ever mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "supreme leader," every "superstar," every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there -- on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage, in a vast, cosmic, arena.  Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on he scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.  Think for a moment of the rivers of blood, spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters -- of a fraction of a dot.

Our posterings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe are challenged by this point of pale light.  Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.  In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere -- to save us from ourselves.

Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand.  It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and preserve and cherish, the only home we've ever known.  The pale blue dot. 

Reflection - World Bank

I found the presentation from the World Bank to be an excellent one, although it was unfortunate that we could not go visit the World Bank at the same time. I think the World Bank Organization is a great thing for the world to have. It is dedicated to the betterment of the world by helping out countries that are in need while also encouraging them to improve on their own by using incentives and developing infrastructure. This gives rise to wealthy states with healthy economies and stable political systems, which in turn lessen the need for the World Bank’s help and makes the world as a whole a better place to live in.

The World Bank also has careful policies to maximize its effects. Its policies regarding investment returns for the countries that give it money to fund its programs greatly incentivize the countries in questions to do everything possible to make the programs succeed. Also, higher donations mean higher amounts of discretion over spending, which gives the country that gives the most money the most power because money can be used as leverage in international politics, fostering more cooperation and providing better conditions and advantages to the countries with increased power. This helps not only the countries being helped, but the countries doing the helping, thereby increasing the amount of people helped without having to increase the amount of money spent on programs.

The Bank also has careful restrictions on the qualifications for getting money, and discretion over which organizations in a country gets the money, which decreases the likelihood of the money being eaten up by corruption and incompetence before it has an impact on the people who need it the most, as happens in general block grants. I really admire well-constructed and efficient organizations that once started are self-powered, generating wealth and stability in the world leads to more funding for the bank, which in turn generates even more wealth and stability.

I think this kind of organization is the kind that gets to the heart of the problems of inequality and hardship in the world. It is difficult to be totally altruistic when your country has limitations of its own, but it is unanimously agreed upon (by people with balanced and healthy minds, at least) that leaving poor countries in the dust is unfair. However, this conflict is often incorrectly branded as a choice between two separate paths. In reality, helping other countries helps the whole world; the world, especially now after so much globalization; has become small enough that we can view it as a closed system in which (in most cases that is -- irrational and/or fundamentalist religious states still pose a problem in this area) a weak country weakens everyone else. and a strong country strengthens everyone else.