Starting off my last class participation post about the simulation! I truly enjoyed the mixed emotions during the simulation as the Japanese delegation.
"We are going to dredge into the ocean".
That is literally how the Japanese delegation felt throughout the simulation, because most of the representatives wanted to discuss about Issue II. I was totally forgetting the fact that there were more representatives of institutions and organizations than the countries. Issue I, short-term goals for the refugees was not really important for those institutions. I could have noticed that earlier, and raised my hand in the very beginning of the simulation so that we could have started discussing from Issue I, which was more effective for delegations such as Japan and China. Well overall, regardless of the fact that we could only add a term, I wished the delegate of Kiribati was here along with some more countries of the pacific. (I appreciate the fact that PTJ noticed how desperate I wanted to raise my hand to move onto Issue I, and told Gabby so that Japan could speak and move on.)
"the Dream has not come true. It may be that it has no home."
When I first read this quote, the word "Dream" caught me into my eyes. Afterwards, the quote made a lot more sense. "Of course." I was telling myself in my mind, "A dream cannot have any homes, because there is no endpoint for any dreams. It continues to develop, so we are not able to achieve them."
An interesting question we did not get to answer was: Does society has dreams? Although I could not come up with an answer during class, as I was thinking about it, I think all societies have their own dreams. People, also, have a natural curiosity about dreams. However, because of the lack of resources, usually dreams have low priority within any civilized societies. As a consequence, little or no attempt is made to encourage their pursuit or to provide the necessary means to do so. While answering this question by typing out here, I was thinking about the dream of the world. I cam up with an answer of: No, the world does not have any dreams because there is not any perspective from the "world". Some may argue that the United Nations or some international institutions can be the representation of the world. However, as we have discussed in the very beginning of this World Politics class, the definitions of "world" and "international" are different. Therefore, although "world peace" might be one of the dreams in the world today, I do not think that is necessary the dream of the world.
Showing posts with label class participation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class participation. Show all posts
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Sunday, December 1, 2019
#14 Class Participation (ym)
The class on Monday was interesting. The quote picked up during class was:
"Find your country sweet is only a raw beginner. Finding each country as your own is already strong. Finding the whole world as a foreign country is perfect."
Also, we discussed about the three axes Todorov introduced; axiological level, praxeological level, and epistemic level and tried to connect with the quote above.
First of all, I would like to add my own explanation to this quote above. Maybe Todorov wrote this quote is such as concise way so the readers can easily understand. However, if people were to analyze this quote in their own ways, I can tell there will be so many different ways to describe this quote. In terms of the simple thought of this quote, I can understand the content (what he is trying to tell the readers). However, I disagree with the last sentence of his quote. I can agree with him, if he is meaning to say that if we view a world from an outside perspective objectively, then it is the ideal way. But at the same time, I felt that it is impossible to view a country from an outside perspective as a foreign country if you do not know any other countries. I just think that he needed to include some descriptions and explanations about this quote so that it would be able to avoid the confusion by the readers.
Next, when connecting this quote to the three axes, I personally do not think that it is just simple as it is. I think many readers would tie them as:
・Finding your country sweet is only a raw beginner.
→ Axiological level: good or bad
・Finding each country as your own is already strong.
→ Parxeological level: identifying self with others, imposing the image upon others
・Finding the world world as a foreign country is perfect.
→ Epistemic level: knowing others' identity and understanding the fact
Of course, I can understand and see this idea. For an example, if you take a close look at the quote, the scale of the "country" is increasing as the perspective and the way of thinking is developing. Also, as each level develops, the way people judge their values are developing in a "better" way; people are being able to understand more within a complicated complex scale.
The choice of words are the key in both this quote and the explanations of the three aces. Generally, I appreciate the word choices of Todorov, because I can understand the reason he is using the worlds for some specific definitions that those words can contain. However, at the same time, I think there are certain word choices where I feel he could have had a better decision about it.
"Find your country sweet is only a raw beginner. Finding each country as your own is already strong. Finding the whole world as a foreign country is perfect."
Also, we discussed about the three axes Todorov introduced; axiological level, praxeological level, and epistemic level and tried to connect with the quote above.
First of all, I would like to add my own explanation to this quote above. Maybe Todorov wrote this quote is such as concise way so the readers can easily understand. However, if people were to analyze this quote in their own ways, I can tell there will be so many different ways to describe this quote. In terms of the simple thought of this quote, I can understand the content (what he is trying to tell the readers). However, I disagree with the last sentence of his quote. I can agree with him, if he is meaning to say that if we view a world from an outside perspective objectively, then it is the ideal way. But at the same time, I felt that it is impossible to view a country from an outside perspective as a foreign country if you do not know any other countries. I just think that he needed to include some descriptions and explanations about this quote so that it would be able to avoid the confusion by the readers.
Next, when connecting this quote to the three axes, I personally do not think that it is just simple as it is. I think many readers would tie them as:
・Finding your country sweet is only a raw beginner.
→ Axiological level: good or bad
・Finding each country as your own is already strong.
→ Parxeological level: identifying self with others, imposing the image upon others
・Finding the world world as a foreign country is perfect.
→ Epistemic level: knowing others' identity and understanding the fact
Of course, I can understand and see this idea. For an example, if you take a close look at the quote, the scale of the "country" is increasing as the perspective and the way of thinking is developing. Also, as each level develops, the way people judge their values are developing in a "better" way; people are being able to understand more within a complicated complex scale.
The choice of words are the key in both this quote and the explanations of the three aces. Generally, I appreciate the word choices of Todorov, because I can understand the reason he is using the worlds for some specific definitions that those words can contain. However, at the same time, I think there are certain word choices where I feel he could have had a better decision about it.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
#13 Class Participation Post (ym)
In Part 3 of The Conquest of America, the most noteworthy part (for me during the discussion) was:
"La Casas loves the Indians. And is a Christian. For him, these two traits are linked: he loves the Indians precisely because he is a Christian, and he love illustrates his faith. Yet such solidarity is not a matter of course. As we have seen, precisely because he was a Christian, his perception of the Indians was poor. Can we really love someone if we know little or nothing of his identity; if we see, in place of that identity, a projection of ourselves or of our ideals? We know that such a thing is quite possible, even frequent, in personal relations; but what happens in cultural confrontations? Doesn't one culture risk trying to transform the other in its own name, and therefore risk subjugating it as well? How much is such love worth?" (168).
So shortening this long quote, the question that we really could not spend time discussing was:
Can we fully understand people and still hate him/her?, which can be interpreted as: What goals are we trying to aim to understand?
When I first read this question, I thought it was possible to hate someone even though you know everything about that person. Because hate is a kind of emotion, and it differs among people. However, as time passed and I think about this question, I started changing my mind that it might not be possible to hate someone after hearing all of their opinions and thoughts. Instead of hating that person, I think people would make a decision not to understand about the person anymore because they are walking different paths in their lives, and they do not have to interact with each other because they can choose not to.
Also, I can understand his point of religion and christianity, that he does not consider religion true for him, but it is universal and it is valid for everyone. Although I think that the power of religion in order to unify people around the world have decreased, christianity definitely had power to control people in the 1500s when the book was published. I think people are arguing that a universal value such as christianity is needed in order to treat everyone equally. Therefore, if some people do not believe in religion and christianity and do not belong within the universal value, the world cannot achieve equality. However, it brings an interesting question of whether people can be equal (at the time) with having some people being non-religious or even atheists. It was interesting how Locke's Letter of Tolerance came up during class mentioning about how atheists are unacceptable because it does not get along with their principles about equality. I cannot expand this topic since I do not know much about religion and christianity, however I strongly think that the power of religion have definitely decreased as time passes, especially because people started valuing their own personalities and their choices each person makes, and now there are different religions that are unifying different continents or areas of the world.
Going back to the quote, I still sometimes question myself with the first part of the quote. Is it not easier to love someone who has similar identities because you can understand each other well? It was interesting to read how La Casas loves the Indians because they have a different identity, and that has to do with religion and faith that makes their identity.
"La Casas loves the Indians. And is a Christian. For him, these two traits are linked: he loves the Indians precisely because he is a Christian, and he love illustrates his faith. Yet such solidarity is not a matter of course. As we have seen, precisely because he was a Christian, his perception of the Indians was poor. Can we really love someone if we know little or nothing of his identity; if we see, in place of that identity, a projection of ourselves or of our ideals? We know that such a thing is quite possible, even frequent, in personal relations; but what happens in cultural confrontations? Doesn't one culture risk trying to transform the other in its own name, and therefore risk subjugating it as well? How much is such love worth?" (168).
So shortening this long quote, the question that we really could not spend time discussing was:
Can we fully understand people and still hate him/her?, which can be interpreted as: What goals are we trying to aim to understand?
When I first read this question, I thought it was possible to hate someone even though you know everything about that person. Because hate is a kind of emotion, and it differs among people. However, as time passed and I think about this question, I started changing my mind that it might not be possible to hate someone after hearing all of their opinions and thoughts. Instead of hating that person, I think people would make a decision not to understand about the person anymore because they are walking different paths in their lives, and they do not have to interact with each other because they can choose not to.
Also, I can understand his point of religion and christianity, that he does not consider religion true for him, but it is universal and it is valid for everyone. Although I think that the power of religion in order to unify people around the world have decreased, christianity definitely had power to control people in the 1500s when the book was published. I think people are arguing that a universal value such as christianity is needed in order to treat everyone equally. Therefore, if some people do not believe in religion and christianity and do not belong within the universal value, the world cannot achieve equality. However, it brings an interesting question of whether people can be equal (at the time) with having some people being non-religious or even atheists. It was interesting how Locke's Letter of Tolerance came up during class mentioning about how atheists are unacceptable because it does not get along with their principles about equality. I cannot expand this topic since I do not know much about religion and christianity, however I strongly think that the power of religion have definitely decreased as time passes, especially because people started valuing their own personalities and their choices each person makes, and now there are different religions that are unifying different continents or areas of the world.
Going back to the quote, I still sometimes question myself with the first part of the quote. Is it not easier to love someone who has similar identities because you can understand each other well? It was interesting to read how La Casas loves the Indians because they have a different identity, and that has to do with religion and faith that makes their identity.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
#12 Class Participation Post (ym)
The quote we discussed in class on Thursday was:
"Columbus has discovered the Americas, but not the Americans" (49).
As our group has shared to class, I think Todorov means that Columbus was able to discover the land, its nature, and the existence of human beings (Indians). However, he is arguing that Columbus did not discover the new identities and cultures, because he had this selective perception towards the people who lived on the land.
Then, during the open discussion, the term "selective perception" has shifted to "ignorance" or Columbus ignoring these Indians. I was thinking to myself throughout the discussion if Columbus was acting as chosen ignorance or conscious ignorance. However, when PTJ commented to focus more on the "ignorance" part of the key term "chose ignorance", I have finally realized that Columbus is not even ignoring these human beings. This is because "ignorance" means not to recognize the value of existence of these people, but rather he did not "accept" their existence or their new identities and cultures. Also, in terms of how Columbus was "single-minded" throughout his journey, I think this was because he stick to the principle of not accepting certain things that he did not want to expect.
Also, mentioning about Ethnocentrism, I definitely agree that Columbus had this principle because he has emphasized about how human beings should be white and be pursuing Christianity throughout the first chapter of this book. I also want to touch on Egocentrism because Todorov does bring this term. When I first read this part, I could agree to what he wanted to tell the readers. However, when I looked up the definition of Egocentrism, it meant something different. The definition of Egocentrism is: "the inability to differentiate between yourself and others", which is different from what Todorov wanted to tell the readers in this context. Because he did differentiate between the white christians and the Indians.
Lastly, I want to answer to Alexandra's question of what happens if we encounter a new land today with different kinds of organisms. I partially agree with her point that we will be doing the same thing that Columbus did to the Indians; which is forcing them our language and culture in order to communicate. However, on the other hand, I feel we would act differently than how Columbus acted because of the development of modern technologies.
"Columbus has discovered the Americas, but not the Americans" (49).
As our group has shared to class, I think Todorov means that Columbus was able to discover the land, its nature, and the existence of human beings (Indians). However, he is arguing that Columbus did not discover the new identities and cultures, because he had this selective perception towards the people who lived on the land.
Then, during the open discussion, the term "selective perception" has shifted to "ignorance" or Columbus ignoring these Indians. I was thinking to myself throughout the discussion if Columbus was acting as chosen ignorance or conscious ignorance. However, when PTJ commented to focus more on the "ignorance" part of the key term "chose ignorance", I have finally realized that Columbus is not even ignoring these human beings. This is because "ignorance" means not to recognize the value of existence of these people, but rather he did not "accept" their existence or their new identities and cultures. Also, in terms of how Columbus was "single-minded" throughout his journey, I think this was because he stick to the principle of not accepting certain things that he did not want to expect.
Also, mentioning about Ethnocentrism, I definitely agree that Columbus had this principle because he has emphasized about how human beings should be white and be pursuing Christianity throughout the first chapter of this book. I also want to touch on Egocentrism because Todorov does bring this term. When I first read this part, I could agree to what he wanted to tell the readers. However, when I looked up the definition of Egocentrism, it meant something different. The definition of Egocentrism is: "the inability to differentiate between yourself and others", which is different from what Todorov wanted to tell the readers in this context. Because he did differentiate between the white christians and the Indians.
Lastly, I want to answer to Alexandra's question of what happens if we encounter a new land today with different kinds of organisms. I partially agree with her point that we will be doing the same thing that Columbus did to the Indians; which is forcing them our language and culture in order to communicate. However, on the other hand, I feel we would act differently than how Columbus acted because of the development of modern technologies.
Friday, November 8, 2019
#11 Class Participation Post (ym)
My reflection blog posts are now going to shift to this category because that is what I have been doing for the past few months! It was my first time being inside the fishbowl, and I had moments when I really wanted to speak, but I could not because of the flow of the discussion and also I was afraid if I was repeating people's points but changing it to my own words; which was not what I meant to do.
First of all, the question for the discussion: Are you wealthy?
I answered that I am not wealthy in the financial aspects. However, comparing to people within the Global Scholars Program, I might be more wealthy in terms of knowledge, experience, and perspective because I have a different background from everybody with a different perspective (I am not smart that is not the point). After finished answering the question above, I have came to a conclusion that in order to answer this question, we need the information of "what" field of wealth we are talking about and "who" we are comparing with. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that wealth can be determined by yourself, but we always need a comparison with others.
In terms of the article, I had a question when reading which was...
"The political economy inspired addition to the problem presented by the sovereignty dilemma highlights the difficulty of realizing concrete sovereignty when the wealth necessary for such expression is beyond the state's authority." (I am sorry I forgot to note the page number...) What does beyond the states's authority means in this context? I would appreciate if someone can answer this question by commenting on this post! :)
Reflecting the discussion overall, I felt it was more biased and relied on "wealthy" and the relationship between sovereignty and colonialism. If there were more time, we were definitely able to examine the effect of colonialism on developing the underdeveloped countries today. After the discussion, Shruthi mentioned about the "Past Dependency Theory", which made me think a lot. The current developing countries were colonized because of their resources, and if they were able to retain their resources, they could have developed much more as the western countries. International Development is definitely the field that I am interested for my future career, and I have realized that I was being too optimistic about this issue. Different theories and logics such as the parent-child theory which I do not agree, there are too many barriers for the developing countries in order to develop to catch up to the developed countries. Also, I agree with the logic of catch-22 in this article. When I first finished reading this article, I have realized that in order to have sovereignty, structural inequality and division of labor are necessary. Also, I cannot forget mentioning this, and y'all need to remember: A specific country in East Asia (which starts with a "C") does produce fake brand western products... but at least not in Japan...!!
First of all, the question for the discussion: Are you wealthy?
I answered that I am not wealthy in the financial aspects. However, comparing to people within the Global Scholars Program, I might be more wealthy in terms of knowledge, experience, and perspective because I have a different background from everybody with a different perspective (I am not smart that is not the point). After finished answering the question above, I have came to a conclusion that in order to answer this question, we need the information of "what" field of wealth we are talking about and "who" we are comparing with. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that wealth can be determined by yourself, but we always need a comparison with others.
In terms of the article, I had a question when reading which was...
"The political economy inspired addition to the problem presented by the sovereignty dilemma highlights the difficulty of realizing concrete sovereignty when the wealth necessary for such expression is beyond the state's authority." (I am sorry I forgot to note the page number...) What does beyond the states's authority means in this context? I would appreciate if someone can answer this question by commenting on this post! :)
Reflecting the discussion overall, I felt it was more biased and relied on "wealthy" and the relationship between sovereignty and colonialism. If there were more time, we were definitely able to examine the effect of colonialism on developing the underdeveloped countries today. After the discussion, Shruthi mentioned about the "Past Dependency Theory", which made me think a lot. The current developing countries were colonized because of their resources, and if they were able to retain their resources, they could have developed much more as the western countries. International Development is definitely the field that I am interested for my future career, and I have realized that I was being too optimistic about this issue. Different theories and logics such as the parent-child theory which I do not agree, there are too many barriers for the developing countries in order to develop to catch up to the developed countries. Also, I agree with the logic of catch-22 in this article. When I first finished reading this article, I have realized that in order to have sovereignty, structural inequality and division of labor are necessary. Also, I cannot forget mentioning this, and y'all need to remember: A specific country in East Asia (which starts with a "C") does produce fake brand western products... but at least not in Japan...!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)