Final Reflections

Sadly, we have come to our final week of classes, along with our last reflection post. I'll try to keep this final reflection short so that I don't get too nostalgic. Honestly, I feel torn between a sense of excitement or sadness. While I am happy to have almost completed the semester, I am going to miss having PTJ as our teacher. Teachers like him are the reason I came to American and why I'm even more excited to continue on my education in SIS. Having intellectual conversations about foreign policy and the theories behind them is all good and dandy. However, learning from a professor who can give substantive knowledge while also guiding your experience as a student on a personal level is of the most important to me. I will admit I was hesitant about World Politics before the semester started because I had gone to preview day and seen PTJ give a sample lecture. My whole life, I've only taken classes where teachers talk at you but never really engage with you. Learning to me was writing down whatever the Powerpoint or the teacher had said, but not really questioning or analyzing it further. Now, having taken World Politics for the past 14 weeks, I can whole-heartedly say that PTJ has changed my perspective on learning as a whole. I know genuinely recognize the advantages that can be gained from class debates or "fishbowls." Not to be overdramatic or anything, but there were moments when doing my World Politics homework that I had an epiphany. During the Subotic article, I finally felt like I had found the place where I supposed to be. I honestly have no clue why that piece resonated with me so much, but I'm glad that it did. Some of the pieces that we read were extremely well written and insightful but not all of them had the same emotional impact. Maybe this was the reason they impacted me so much, but nevertheless, I'm grateful for everything that we discussed within the past 15 weeks. That even includes Todorov, although at certain moments in The Conquest of America he dragged the point out. I'm grateful that this World Politics class was my introduction to the International Relations world and is now the basis on which I will further build my education and later career. While I'm sad to leave the environment that PTJ has created for us, I think its important to recognize that it isn't really the end. Just because we won't be in his class anymore doesn't mean that we can't discuss Disney or Star Wars anymore. I for one will be needing a full debrief on his thoughts on the Rise of Skywalker at the beginning of the Spring 2020 semester. With that said, I'm looking forward to our "final". Diplomatic Risk was by far one of the most chaotic classes we've had and I'm very much looking forward to seeing what happens next Thursday. Until then, I'll just work on our final essay and continue to look back over the past 14 weeks with happiness and a tiny bit of nostalgia.

Reflection #14

This week (aka Monday and Tuesday) has been a whirlwind, and it has only just begun. Trying to finish all of my homework before the break starts is incredibly stressful, but I know that it will be worth it in the end. Putting in all my time and effort in now will prevent any further stress buildup in the week following Thanksgiving. Finishing Todorov this week will ensure a much more peaceful break than if we had continued reading during this time. Although we have to prepare for the second simulation, my team has already met and gathered our thoughts on our strategic plan. Now the only thing left to do before the day of the simulation is to finalize any last-minute ideas and come up with possible counterarguments for the other teams. With that being said, there is not a lot to reflect on for this past "week". Our final discussion on Todorov was interesting but quite technical in the actual content. As PTJ said, the discussion could've gone on for another hour or so to truly unpack all of the material presented to us in Part Four of Conquest of America. I've mentioned in some of my previous blog posts that Todorov's writing is made much clearer to me when I am able to gauge my classmates' reactions to it and their own understandings of the content. Monday's class was a great example of that in that I might've viewed the quote at hand differently from those in my group. A lot of what I took away from the discussion was an inherent need to separate the actual character and their individual actions from their legacy or motivations. A lot of what was said revolved around these ideas, especially with the introduction of the three-axis. The praxeological and epistemic level made the most sense to me in terms of understanding the opposing forces of familiarity and the other. An entire conversation surrounding these two ideas could have composed another class session entirely, but that is just not the way the world works sadly.

Although I enjoy our time together in World Politics, I am so excited to be off for the next several days. Sadly though, I won't be returning to the great state of Texas but rather the garden state. My sister, cunning as she is, proposed that I spend the Thanksgiving break with her because she missed me so much. Later on, I found out that she is moving on Black Friday and needing help, so my mom offered my assistance without my knowledge. Come Friday, I will be moving boxes and furniture rather than shopping the sales or breaking out of my turkey coma. While I'm excited to see my sister now more than twice a year, I'll admit I will miss the traditional trip to my aunt and uncle's house with my mom and my other sister. Traditions break all the time, but I didn't expect this one to break so soon. I guess that is part of learning to be independent and growing up which is essential to the college experience. At least now I can guilt my sister into taking me to see Frozen 2 while I'm staying with her in New Jersey.

Reflection #13

Discussions we've held on The Conquest of America and Todorov's overall argument have been quite hard to grasp, in my opinion. The baseline information is easy to comprehend. In other words, the Spaniards decimated the culture and population of the New World. But, going beyond these factual statements, it is much harder to understand the motivations behind these actions and their eventual justifications. I understand that Todorov is trying to steer us, "the reader" into agreeing with his ideas on the matter. However, digging into the text and finding these moments, I have found it to be particularly hard. Part of this problem might be found in the writing style of the era, which drastically contrasts from what we read on an everyday basis today. Historical texts and arguments take more effort than a typical story of fiction. They require that you pay attention to the background and context of each situation and how each figure approaches instances of conflict. Specifically, within The Conquest of America, I think it difficult to distinguish between the character themselves and their actions from their legacy that has been passed down. Columbus "discovered" the New World. I say discover loosely because the word takes on many different connotations. While Columbus might have been the first European to open up new land to colonization, he didn't discover it in the context of understanding the natives culturally. I could go off on a tangent about this idea alone, but I think I'll save it for our discussions of Part Four.

Overall, I think it is imperative to learn how to comprehend writing similar to Todorov. It takes more time and effort in general to grasp the concepts he lays out in his writing. Along with this, I think it would be imperative for us to conclude our discussions on Todorov on Monday by going into his final argument. His writing prompts us to take sides on the matter of Spanish colonization and discussing that idea further (especially with the dichotomies we brought up in class such as superiority/inferiority or self/other) would really help with individual assessments. I know that for myself, these discussions have helped further my critical thinking skills. Along with this, the way in which we conduct our discussions really help clarify these ideas discussed in Todorov's writing. Hearing from one other and each person's perspectives often make our conversations more engaging and helpful in the long term. This semester has flown by and I can't believe we are almost at Thanksgiving break. While I'm excited about the break I'm just a bit saddened that I will be helping my sister move her things in New Jersey instead of returning home for food and relaxation. Overall, the thought of the holiday season is quite exciting but before we can get there we still have a few weeks of stressfully preparing for finals before we can truly relax.

Blog Post Week 13

On page, 62 Todorov poses the question, "Did the Spaniards defeat the Indians by means of signs?" Based on the textual evidence presented within The Conquest of America, I would argue that while signs played the most significant role in their defeat. Aztec reliance on omens and signs creates a gap in action as Todorov states, "The Aztecs cannot conceive and do not understand the total war of assimilation the Spanish are waging against them; for them, war must be ended by a treaty establishing the amount of tribute to be paid the victor by the vanquished. Before winning the battle, the Spaniards had already won the decisive victory, which consisted in imposing their own type of war; their superiority was henceforth no longer in question" (Todorov ). The inability to adapt to the shifting pattern of communication and war due to the importance of signs leads to their downfall. Part of this relies on their heightened spirituality surrounding omens and prophecies. As each empire constructed their prediction of invaders, they inherently de-sensitized themselves to their own destruction. Not to say that any of the Spaniard's actions were through their fault, but rather that the Aztec's unwillingness or inability to adapt to left them handicapped to any form of invasion.

The Aztec tradition remained static and eventually played into the hands of Spaniard advances. In a way, their dedication to cultural traditions betrays them in the end. While many of their traditions are meant to project a heightened sense of power, such as their battle cries or the extravagant armor of leaders, they emphasize their vulnerability. Having never fought against forces as supported and capable as the Spaniards, the Aztec had no procedure set in place for times of crisis. Because of this, there are no other options available to them other than following past precedent. Todorov highlights this reliance by stating, "They are the only ones to act in this situation; the Aztecs seek only to maintain the status quo, they are content to react. That it should be the Spaniards who have crossed the oceans to find the Indians and not the converse, already heralds the result of the encounter; the Aztecs no longer have no further expansionist designs in the Americas" (Todorov 110). Aztec tradition, acted out by Montezuma, became insignificant when facing Spanish goals of expansion. History often teaches us that within the context of the pre-colonial era, there existed a mentality of "conquer or be conquered." Following this line of thought, the Aztec's lack of ambition in fighting the Spaniards created an environment in which they lost the battle before it even began.

Signs also played a crucial role in the defeat of Aztec culture with the manipulation of religious values on Cortes's part. Participating in Aztec religious functions shows a deep understanding and manipulation of signs on the Spaniard's side.  The exploitation of religious myth opened the door to Spanish domination with the already established belief of Quezacoatl's return to the empire. Todorov uses this example of exploitation to further his argument that signs were the deciding factor in Aztec defeat by stating, "This is because the legend's functioning is profitable on every level: Cortes can thus claim a legitimacy among the Indians; further, he affords them a means of rationalizing their own history: otherwise his coming would have no meaning, and we can suppose that their resistance to it would have been much more worse" (Todorov 119). This use of religious manipulation further plays into the idea that signs affected Aztec's unwillingness to take a harsher stance on Spaniard advances. While it is essential to acknowledge that many factors played a role in the destruction of Native culture in North America, the manipulation of Aztec signs by the Spaniards played the most significant part. The Aztecs were not only victims of European expansionist ambitions but also of their own culture. The inability to create adaptable courses of action and lines of communication ultimately led to the domination of European within the New World. Cultural stagnation played hand in hand with Cortes's ability to play into Montezuma's idealizations created an environment vulnerable to invasion.

Week #12 Reflection

If I am going, to be honest, I have no clue how to reflect on this past week. The work session for Simulation 2 was a much-needed easement into the week. Only having to meet up with the group and discuss our possible strategies within the means of our country was quite nice. I really enjoyed the relaxed environment that we found ourselves in, especially with the long reading of The Conquest of America. While the introduction and the first part of the book were enjoyable to read, Todorov quite enjoys dragging out his point at times. The style of writing aside I found Todorov’s perspective on Columbus quite interesting. Going through two different systems of education while growing up there were two constantly shifting ideas on Columbus. In Catholic school, Columbus was treated like a great hero who was the sole founder of the modern world. In public school, I was taught for the first time about Columbus’s brutality and the essential opening of the Americas to European nationality. Todorov’s perspective on the matter took bits and pieces from each viewpoint and presented Columbus and his inherent motivations in ways I had never before considered. Of course, I grew up learning about the 3 G’s: God, gold, and glory, but I hadn’t ever considered Columbus’s motivation for Spanish patronage in the context of the crusades. I especially liked the discussion we had in class on Thursday. The discussion on the discovery and chosen ignorance was quite eye-opening and many good points were brought up. Obviously, we still have two more days to discuss the rest of the book, but I’m excited to see how these specific points evolve over the next week. 

With that being said, this week threw me off. Part of that might have been that I came back midday Sunday from home and didn’t really have any time to prep for the week ahead. Part of it might’ve been that I don’t have to follow the schedule of a blog post, comment, and reflection as in past weeks. Although I will still post, for extra credit purposes, of course, falling off schedule really throws off my mental time management and schedule. This whole week I fell prone to serious procrastination. I kept pushing off assignments because I was too tired or wanted to watch some of my old favorites on Disney +. Of course, this took priority over many assignments because how could it not with every Star Wars, Disney, and Marvel movies. I realize I’m going off on a tangent, but it honestly is the most productive thing I have accomplished this week. I found movies from my childhood that I haven’t watched in years like Pollyanna, Swiss Family Robinson, and Bedknobs and Broomsticks. If I’m going to be completely honest I will probably spend the majority of my weekend catching up on my old VHS favorites and I could not be more excited! There can be a lot of lessons learned not only from Todorov but also from Star Wars movies which I believe go hand in hand with international relations debates. 

A Little Early to the Party

My reflection post for this week is entirely unconventional. First of all, I'm writing my reflection instead of a substantive blog post on economic growth because I’ve already hit the 9 post rules. Second, I will be posting it on Monday instead of the usual Thursday schedule. I would like to think I am just following in the quirky footsteps of my fellow cohort member, Holt, but in reality, I am just missing the rest of this week's discussion in class. Being that I will not be present for the second half of our class time this week, I will focus entirely on the events that transpired in class today. Overall, there was a general disconnect between the audience (our class) and the article's content. Educational standards vary greatly across the country, and different states prioritize certain subjects. Some of this disconnect can also be attributed to the difference in public vs. private school curriculums. From what I witnessed and heard, many of my cohort members had never taken an economics course before and were not able to connect terms from the reading. This could be a lesson in itself, how different states prioritize economics in the classroom, but I won't go into that now. 

While some were daunted by the economic terminology that dominated the conversation, others, including myself, struggled to define growth accurately. Ideas of growth could even be related to our discussion on the malleability of security and how the defining characteristics of the word evolve over time. The disconnect for many of our cohort hindered these further discussions on neoclassical, neoliberal, or multi-dimensional growth because economics is such a complex subject. If you don’t know the baseline vocabulary, economics can become one of the most difficult academic fields. Having the “5-minute” background discussion was entirely helpful to our eventual discussions. While I like the overall structure of classroom discussions, I really do think that lecturing can be useful in teaching ideas like those posed in the Allan reading. I grew up with the lecture style taught in every class, in addition to my dad lecturing about the complex relations between Russia and the Us or the rise of Tito in the Balkans to my sisters and me almost every night. Some habits die hard though, as I learn to love class discussions more, I still love having lecture-based classes (because in reality, I’m not an expert here). 

I’ve already addressed some of this absence in previous reflection posts, but I would just like to restate that sometimes events in our lives are entirely out of our control and that we can do nothing but go with the flow. With that being said though, I get to enjoy some time with my family and dog and I could not be more excited! Although American is an exciting place to go to school and DC is amazing in itself, nothing can replace home-cooked meals, sleeping in my queen-sized bed, and not having to share a shower with 20+ other girls. While I have to go home for a not so positive issue, I’m ecstatic to see my mom, my sister, my dog Shiner, and my friends who I so dearly miss. Although this sounds all fun, I will definitely ensure that I make time for my World Politics assignments, especially starting The Conquest for America so that I don’t fall behind while I am back in the great state of Texas!!!

Reflection (Week 10)

Reflecting on this past week is much harder for me than it would be for the last weeks of class. Personal issues that came up over the weekend threw me for a loop and have, for the most part, taken over my focus during the course. It was a lot harder this week to focus on the readings and truly connect with them enough to make concrete opinions on the topics at hand. I could tell that I was not operating at my full capacity this week, and it affected how I felt about my performance in discussions and the class overall. The security documents and the Mueller piece were interesting enough to hold my attention during my readings. However, I could not connect with the Hsia piece, which, for the most part, maybe because I didn't like the writing style. At first, I didn't understand how these two articles were related to the context of insecurity. After on conversations in class on Thursday, I now understand the connection a little better and can appreciate them for what they are. 

In reality, though, there's not much I can do about the situation at hand in my personal life, but to accept it as it is and to move on with my life. I would say that I will try harder next week, but I think being absent for half of the course in the upcoming week will hinder that goal. If I could avoid missing any of our World Politics classes I would, but sometimes life just throws curveballs at you and you can't save yourself from them. With that being said, I'm going to try my very best to remain caught up on class discussions even in my absence and come back after my trip home motivated more than ever before. 

Obviously, I have to address the Halloween aspect of our class on Thursday in this reflection post or else it would be too somber. Seeing everyone in their costumes was the highlight of my day, besides the candy PTJ so graciously provided. I did not end up wearing a costume, for which I regret just a little bit, because again, this weekend threw every plan off course. Maybe next year I'll be able to pull off the Sandy from Grease costume or maybe even Rey from Star Wars to commemorate the end of the trilogy. With that hope for a better next year, I'd like to finish off my reflection post for the week by wishing everyone a safe and happy Halloween!!

The Malleability of Security

National security is primarily the boogeyman of domestic and foreign policy-making. Say those two words, and policymakers can adopt any measure they see fit. National security has always remained at the forefront of US political discussions, especially with the evolution of threats within our world today. As addressed in NSC-68, national security involved the re-establishment of democratic institutions and the eradication of Soviet influence from the satellite states. From 1947-1991, the US's primary concern for safety was the threat of Soviet influence and the procurement of nuclear weapons. Concerned with maintaining superpower status, the US focused on building up intelligence communities and strengthening the country's weapons programs. National security within the context of the Cold War took on a different meaning than it ever had before. With the passing of the National Security Act of 1947, the federal government was able to expand its powers further into policing the public sector. The establishment of the CIA broadened the authority of national security initiatives as it became the first civilian intelligence-gathering agency. Individual rights to privacy were first threatened by this act made in the name of national security. In doing so, the US government started down the slippery slope of security measures.

 "National security" can take on different meanings for every era of history. Initially, it meant the securement of our physical borders as a means of establishing sovereignty. In today's age, it completely diverges from that primary definition, in that it is now used to justify the reduction of civilian privacy and the destabilization of regions, such as the Middle East. With each decade, and subsequently, each administration, there are different threats to expunge. In the 1980s, it was the threat of the Soviet Union; in the early 2000s, it was the threat of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Now in the late 2010s, it is the threat of ISIS and homegrown terrorists such as those who perpetrated the Orlando and Las Vegas shootings. Despite the ever-growing threats of domestic terrorism within the US, many governmental institutions are reluctant to classify these threats as acts of terrorism because they don't fit within the stereotype with which we have defined it. National security has grown to encompass numerous issues within the past two decades but has ultimately failed to recognize the more realistic threats to our democratic society. Most of the measures made in the name of "national security" have been made in response to terrorist attacks, namely those that transpired on 9/11. While 9/11 was an attack of horrific proportions, there has not been nearly as many attacks in the past two decades, or number or of destruction, to justify the expansion of surveillance. The term "national security" has become so malleable in our political and social institutions that it has become the main deciding factor in domestic and foreign policy. With the transition of political power every four years in the United States, different issues come to the forefront of our political and economic goals. For a Republican administration such that of Donald Trump, national security issues might involve reducing ISIS gains in the Middle East or China's growing political power in the international community. A more liberal administration would probably add topics of climate change or foreign influence in federal elections to their list of national security issues.  In this context, I understand what Wolfers meant in that national security often loses sight of its true meaning when applied to a broad spectrum of topics. However, national security is applicable to the protection of a nation-state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which any of these issues above could be categorized.

Reflection #9

To begin this reflection, I would like to say that not having a blog post this week was a Godsend. There were two fewer things to add to my checklist, and I could focus solely on my papers for other classes. While this was beneficial, I felt like I was thrown off by the lack of blog posts. Usually, I keep a pretty tight schedule when it comes to completing our blogging requirements every week, and not having to complete them created a lot of confusion on my part. 

Simulation Week, on the other hand, was quite the event. Tensions ran high and everyone came prepared to destroy the other teams' arguments. Day 1 of the simulation was more civil because we only presented, and most of us, except for maybe 1 or 2 teams, didn't leave enough time to ask the hard-hitting questions. Every presentation was well put together, but my teammates and I made it a point to note down controversial parts of opponents' proposals or their "ethical" process for decisionmaking. We wanted to have sharp points against their main arguments such as, "How ethical can Lockheed Martin be after dropping bombs on a busload full of children?" or "How will Shell prevent any further degradation of the Nigerian environment?". 

Adding the extra day for rebuttals was crucial as I was able to prepare more for my speech. I didn't necessarily know how to prepare since we had covered possible oppositional questions in our first presentation. We addressed the costs of these programs and why we believed US military intervention would have been more detrimental to the Nigerian people. After discussing the issue further with my teammates, we decided to focus on the humanitarian aid part of our proposal and partnering with other NGOs such as the Human Rights Watch and the Initiative for Global Development. Tensions ran extremely high on this second day of the simulation as the room primarily split into two camps of thought. One side was compromised of the realist groups whose primary purpose revolved around the military intervention. Triple Canopy, Lockheed Martin, and Shell formed a partnership based security purposes. While we, the IRC, were against their mode of intervention, there were some points with which I agreed. Obviously, I couldn't argue for the use of military intervention, being an NGO, I had to place myself in the shoes of a liberal humanitarian aid organization. I tend to lean towards realist arguments during our discussions, so having to think within a liberal mindset was quite hard. Being able to argue both sides of an issue is essential and I think this simulation was a good example of that. We were placed into groups that challenged us and made us think more critically about the methods of intervention. I know I've learned greatly from those two days of class and I would really love to complete another during the remainder of our time this semester, if at all possible. The simulation really broke up the normal pattern of reading and then discussion and I really needed that break at this point of the academic season. 

Reflection #8

While this week's set of classes was impressive, content-wise, I feel that the looming deadline of our paper overshadowed them. Not to say that I didn't feel engaged with our readings, because I thought they greatly expanded on our previous knowledge of international relations. W.E.B. DuBois's piece set the tone of discussion for the week and prompted an in-depth conversation of what it means to be on the margins of society. Within this outer rim of social power, we discussed the existence of double-conscious often felt by groups who cannot advocate for themselves. Hearing how our very own Global Scholars have been affected by these social constructs gave our conversations more meaning. Class on Thursday expanded on these experiences as we discussed the problems of hierarchies, whether they are based on gender, race, social class, etc. No matter the classification of these hierarchies, I believe they will always exist due to human nature's fickleness. Already in our readings of Hamilton and Adams, we talked about the evilness that exists within human behavior. Humans will always act in the name of self-preservation and greed, which often leads to the oppression of other ethnic or national groups. It's an extremely pessimistic view of the world, but at least it does not rely on idealistic hopes. We have seen time and time again that humans will always tear one another down to achieve the end game. Even if morality can be used to police human interaction, evil will always come back and wreak more havoc than ever before. Social crises bring out the worst in human beings, which we can see in the aftermath of the Great Depression in Germany, the Syrian Refugee Crisis, and now the nationalization of countries such as England, Germany, Poland, etc. As much as I hate to admit it, hierarchies of power will always exist and will dominate the political power of those at the center and the margins. 

While these were some fantastic conversations to be had, I felt that many of us (myself included) were quite distracted by our concurrent midterms and analytical essay. I know that we should at eight weeks into the semester be more used to the college workload, but there is always room for anxiety and stress. Since we have conducted most of our course work through class discussions and blog posts, there hasn't been much to quantify into a numerical grade truly. Going to office hours to help clarify some of these issues was extremely helpful, and extending the deadline to 5 pm was a godsend. I know we all want to impress with our first analytical essay, but we should all make sure (myself included) that we do not let it stress us out too much.  

Blog Post #8

Karl Deutsch's idea that power is the capacity not to have to learn immediately reminds me of realism and how the theory applies to society. The ability not to have to learn inherently speaks to a large state that wields authority without being mindful of its consequences. I can think of numerous examples of this ideal in the past month or so when applied to Trump and the current positions the United States has taken on. With that in mind, I think it would be useful to dissect this idea of 'not thinking.' Large states, such as the United States, often act without heeding the advice of its people and its allies abroad. A perfect example of this phenomenon would be Trump's call upon Ukraine to investigate former Vice-President and current Presidential candidate Joe Biden. Not only did Trump's call to action dismantle our sovereignty in international communities, but it also weakened our authority in handling domestic matters. This issue serves as a response to Deutsch's idea of power in that influential figures or states will act without any forethought and preemptively weaken the country. Trump's capacity to 'not have to learn' has ruled throughout his entire time in office and relegated American politics to base-line assumptions in regard to international and domestic issues. Realism speaks to the attitude of accepting situations at face value and preparing to deal with the actions that follow. The US at this moment in time, sadly, embodies these principles as politicians feel that they can go on as before, without having to modify their positions on current issues. Gun control, abortion, immigration policy, you name it, are ignored or attacked by the current administration and subsequent representation within Congress. Those in power are unwilling to redress political precedent to keep up with the demands of the people. With political polarization at an all-time high, politicians maintain their seats of power, without actually meeting the needs of the time. This sense of control that politicians currently hold creates an environment of 'not having to learn.' Seats of power are seldom held accountable when it comes to social injustice, and realism would suggest that this will only continue as a natural part of human behavior. Those at the 'centre' are never held accountable because they can maintain an oppressive stance over those in the margins and others who oppose them. 

Especially in times of W.E.B. DuBois, seats of power were not held accountable for their actions, because they effectively held control over the margins. The centuries dedicated to the global slave trade and the later system of Jim Crow were ultimately dominated by those who had the capacity to 'not to have to learn.' White men were able to create an entire economy based upon a system of brutality and human trafficking, while at the same time basing race relations on horrific stereotypes. Their power over millions of slaves allowed them to build an empire without having to deal with the moral ramifications. Slavery and eventual segregation were created due to the willful ignorance many white men had towards the treatment of other humans and an up-right refusal to modify this treatment. The double-consciousness of identity that many African-Americans faced from the 1600s even to now was forcibly placed upon them by those at the centre.  W.E.B. DuBois discusses in Of Our Spiritual Savings, this double-consciousness that defines African-American society, "this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging, he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost." Based on this quote and our reading of the Enloe article, I would argue that those who are at the margins of society are put at more of a disadvantage when they have to confront these opposing identities within society. Not only did they have to endure the brutality of slavery, but they had to mold their personality to fit within the norms of the time. Emotional trauma often takes individual decades to heal, let alone an entire community. This double-conscious fits within the framework of Deutsch's definition of power because it establishes the idea that those in power do not have the capacity or will to learn about those on the bottom rungs. The minute complexities within African-American communities alone often reinforce this idea that those in power do not need to learn about them. 

Reflection #7

This week of classes took a turn that I wasn't and probably would have never expected. For the first time since I have been here in DC, I was hit with an astounding realization of sincere gratitude. While doing our readings this week, I had an "aha" moment where I felt like I was where I belonged. The entire college admissions process was challenging for me, and I often questioned whether or not I belonged here at American. Before I even came for move-in, I developed a severe case of imposter syndrome and thought that I wouldn't be able to keep up intellectually with my peers. But, this week, something changed. I have no clue what it was. Maybe it was the stress of midterms that altered my mindset. Perhaps it was reminiscing on high school memories. Maybe it was the fantastic speech Susan Rice gave on Saturday, but whatever it was, I'm grateful for it. While doing the readings for World Politics and my seminar, I realized I was finally studying in fields that intrigued me. Had I gone to another school, say the University of Arkansas or UC-Boulder, International Studies would have been regarded as a blow-off major. I would not have received the education that I am now, and I recognize that fact wholeheartedly. Since I am a student at American University now, I can take Arabic and learn about constructivism to my heart's content. Beginning the week, I thought I would be miserable due to the aforementioned, midterms, but now I realize I'm lucky to get to take them at all. 

Along with this, the Subotic piece quickly became the favorite that I've read during our seven weeks here. Most of that probably has to do with the fact that I have previous knowledge of the Balkan war of the 1990s. My AP Biology teacher in high school was a Bosnian refugee who often told us about her war-torn childhood. This past summer, I chose as part of my senior trip to travel to Sarajevo and was able to meet up with my teacher. My mother, my teacher, and I went on a 'Times of Misfortune' tour and were able to grasp just how terrible the war was and how its effects are shown throughout the country. Walking throughout the city, you see street memorials to the victims of Srebenica, bullet holes in the buildings, and crumbling Serbian barracks that were blown up. Hearing my teacher talk about playing tag with her brother on Sniper's Alley and eating old Vietnam War rations was an extremely emotional experience. Maybe that is why the Subotic piece resonated with me so much. While reading through the article the first time, I had to stop on multiple occasions because of how angry I was. Angry that justice isn't attainable due to different meanings of truth and reconciliation. I now have a better understanding of the constructivist principles that explain these behaviors, but that does not make them any less saddening. When discussing the Subotic article during office hours, I was told how my entire demeanor changed when I first began talking about the issues involved in the article. Had PTJ never said anything, I probably would have chalked it up to me just being interested in constructivism. Browsing potential thematic areas in the past, I completely disregarded Justice, Ethics, and Human Rights, but now I'm not so sure. I want to look into the area further now and who knows, maybe in the future it'll be my primary area. But for now, I think I will focus on our classes and paper for next week and continue this journey of learning and realization.

Blog Post #7

The theory of constructivism, as presented to us by Shotter, is inherently naive and idealistic. Constructivism, as a whole, relies on set precedence and believes in established social norms. Constructivism relies on the belief that actors in the international community will adhere to rules set by the international community. Although based on social theory, constructivism within Shotter's argument has numerous blind spots when it comes to human nature. This idea is shown in"an essential part of them being free individuals in modern society, is them being able to justify their actions to others when required to do so- they need a capacity to be able to articulate 'good reasons' for their conduct" (Shotter 162). I hate to keep bringing it up, but while reading this section of the reading, I couldn't stop thinking about The Athenian Thesis.  Both texts discuss the motivations behind human nature and how they can be influenced. As presented in The Athenian Thesis, there is no divine power waiting in the afterlife to reward those who act morally correct.

Going along with this idea, members of society have nothing but social norms holding them in place. While we have to consider the impact of laws and the consequences of breaking these laws, societal standards hold significant influence over individual behavior. Anarchy often results from this lack of authority over their respective actions. The constructivist view of anarchy as a blank slate offers itself up to this contradictory cycle of human interaction. Members of society will always act in their self-interest and disregard the repercussions of their actions. This idea directly opposes that which Shotter proposed in his reading, and challenges the firm belief in social theory regarding participants in international discussions. Precedence alone can not be a sufficient justification for human conduct. States can not be held to the standards of yesterday when so much has changed within world politics. Treaties can not be ratified just because they have yielded positive results in the past. Alliances are not static, but ever-changing.  The international community is continually evolving, and to hold it to a set structure of beliefs is inherently naive. I would, again, like to repeat that I am just forming my initial thoughts on constructivism, and I could be entirely wrong in my argument here.  My introduction to constructivism through the Shotter reading led me to believe that it can lean towards a utopian mindset due to its reliance on convenience.

Reflection #6

If I am going to be truly honest, this week started incredibly slow for me. Having already read The Federalist Papers for the past three years of my education, I was bored and ready for some new material to discuss in World Politics. Madison and Hamilton, while having many insightful points about governance and the essence of humanity, can get boring after the fifth or sixth read. That being said, the people who you discuss these readings can change your entire perspective on the matter. Every discussion we have had this year has been intellectually stimulating and has often forced me to change my perspective on specific issues. I will also say the structure of this class has challenged my own opinions on class frameworks and what works best for me. At first, I was scared about having intimate discussions in class because I am used to the lecture and take notes format within education. Many of my previous courses revolved primarily around copying everything the teacher had said down and using that information to form my own opinion. After several weeks of these discussions, I now know that our back and forth discussions have helped me more than other teaching styles. 

Redefining Madison and Hamilton's work to fit within the framework of politics and social media today, opened new veins of debate that I had never considered before. Political discussions of the 1700s never acknowledged the existence of civil rights outside the simplicity of life, liberty, and property. With the era consisting of systematic racism and sexism, the rights of others were not considered when discussing the future of the nation — compared to today, where anyone can speak openly with the representatives on social media and create political dialogues that include all minorities. Madison and Hamilton, while trying to promote their viewpoint, came from a very realist perspective on government. Defining realism became central to our discussions on Thursday, and I felt that reading The Federalist Papers was essential to understand the article thoroughly. A realist would argue that a state cares about its place in the global balance of power and will only act if their authoritative claims are threatened. States act in their self-interest and often only care about individual needs when public pressure is put on them (often through social media).  Liberalists, however, would argue that states should protect the rights of every individual and look after their interests rather than the whole. NGOs serve as good examples of liberalist theory in action because they often advocate for the protection of the individual and are more inclined to act within a human trafficking framework.  NGOs act according to their morals, while states usually function according to their economic status and need to maintain their dominance.  While I don't agree with the morality of these decisions, I ultimately believe realism is more applicable to human trafficking and international relations in general. Liberalism assumes that humans are more willing to help protect the rights of others, while in reality (as Madison and Hamilton mentioned), humans are inherently greedy and evil. There is no reward for being a morally right individual (Athenian Thesis coming back into play), so why would world leaders act any differently? I could go even further on realism vs. liberalism in the context of world politics, but I think I will leave it at that. 

  

Blog Post #6

Many of the points made in Federalist Papers #10 and 51 remain applicable to our modern system of government with only minor changes made in name and standards. In Madison and Hamilton's day, the conversation of governance was only accessible to white males. This lack of inclusion within the sphere of politics prevented any form of discussion on privilege, race, and gender to come to fruition. During their time, civil liberties were a question of federal vs. state rights, not of minority rights, immigration reform, or the abolishment of slavery and later segregation. 

Social media has brought more complex issues to the forefront of our discussions in daily life and politics. Contributing to these critical conversations has become more commonplace with the advancement of social media. Apps such as Twitter and Reddit allow individuals to advocate for their beliefs and often debate with those of differing opinions. Social media enables individuals from all racial, sexual, and socioeconomic backgrounds to voice their opinions. In terms of political engagement, social media has created a more intimate relationship between politicians and their constituents. Updates are given in real-time, allowing politicians to publicize their work and more often in today's political climate, come to odds with those they don't agree with. This instant connection to political figures and ideas often offers authority figures the opportunity to manipulate mass numbers of people within seconds. Trump, for example, can whip his fanbase into a frenzy a minute after something critical is said of him on CNN or MSNBC. These deceptive qualities of social media often play to the corrupt system that is warned against in the Federalist Papers. Madison and Hamilton argued the necessity of checks and balances to ensure a legitimate government, as they recognized that man is inherently greedy and corrupt. This system they advocated for hundreds of years ago remains intact today, but the growth of social media has more often damaged it then helped it. A lot of my argument stems from political issues of the past three years as a particular administration has taken full advantage of social media to push policy. Trump's use of Twitter often breaks the boundaries set by the checks and balances system. His tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has consisted of using social media to pressure fellow Republicans to fall in with the party line. Polarization of partisan politics (or factions) has become commonplace, and the corruption so advocated against in the Federalist Papers is the new norm. For example, during the Kavanaugh hearings, Trump made use of his social media platform and power over delegates to ensure that popular opinion remained on his side. Using social media to manipulate the balance of power in politics is one of Trump's main tactics, as he knows how to appeal to his voter base. Public perception within social media is a significant determinant in today's political climate. In doing so, Trump is able to further his agenda through this now corrupt system and place a frankly disgusting candidate on the Supreme Court roster. 

Obviously, Madison and Hamilton could not have predicted or accounted for the rise of technology and the later creation of social media. They were raised in the age of newspapers and bar debates being the main form of political and social discussions. Participation required that you be a white male, and any other individual's opinion was disregarded. When discussing the applicability of the Federalist Papers today, it is essential to bring into the context with which it was written. During that time, African Americans were considered a piece of property, and women were primarily relegated to housemaids. In today's society,  members of minority groups can voice their opinion and work to better our political systems. The federalist papers are, for the most part, applicable to today's society, but would need to be re-evaluated in the context of factionalism. Factions still exist today, but they do not follow the same rules of early American history. While they follow the polarization pattern set by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, they are based on entirely different sets of issues and participants. 

Week #5 Reflection

I have genuinely enjoyed the discussions we've had in the past week. Although I need to work on my public speaking skills more, I felt that I was able to add valuable points to each conversation and learn from my peers. As each week progresses, I slowly become more confident in my ability to work through the problems presented to us and find the contradictions or agreements in our readings. Despite loving playing Diplomatic Risk, this past week of classes has been my favorite. When discussing our texts, it is interesting to see how they have aged throughout the centuries and their applicability to situations that their authors could have never predicted. 

During both classes this week, we were able to tie these political theories to real-life issues and discuss frameworks in which they could be solved. While I missed out on the climate strike because of my homework load, it still made for an exciting blog post.  Climate change, having no obvious solution, was a bit tricky to consider from a realist perspective because of the lack of initiative on politicians' side. With the way our government is operating currently, realism has taken the forefront of the discussion on combatting climate change.  It is quite disheartening to admit that our world is dying due to our actions, and know that nothing short of a miracle could save it. 

This week's readings have allowed me to reflect on my own actions when considering Kelanic's argument.  The Petroleum Paradox and the discussion on climate change brought up what we value the most. Whether that be access to clean water, oil, natural resources, etc., every human imposes their footprint upon the environment based upon their priorities. The climate strike and the blog post regarding it made me reflect on how I have impacted my surroundings and furthered environmental problems. I often buy from fast-fashion brands who don't implement sustainable practices, nor do I recycle as much as I should. But acknowledging my mistakes and attempting to rectify them is all a part of positive change. I know that corporations, polluting on a global scale, play a more substantial role in the creation of climate change. However, I still believe that everyone should remain accountable for their actions. If the government isn't capable or willing to combat climate change, it is up to us to right their wrongs. Realistically, we cannot achieve as much as we could with the support of the government, but every bit of support helps. Although our discussions surrounding John Locke focused on the separation of political and religious spheres in his Letter on Toleration, I feel that his point on Magistrates applies to our current state. Politicians (or Magistrates) who refuse to address the issue of climate change put the safety and well-being of the public into jeopardy. Instead of advocating for more reform and preserving the environment, they put our futures at risk and invalidate our rights to life, liberty, and property. 

Blog Post #5

Our discussion on realism in class today lends itself to the proposed question on climate strikes and their effectiveness. One of the topics brought up in our discussion questioned the continual trade of oil or natural resources between China and the US despite their strained relations. I immediately thought about the minute details that could explain this confusing set of policies and how it could apply to discussions surrounding climate change. While US and China relations are strained, private corporations within these countries are not bound by the same rules as those of the state. CEOs are not motivated by patriotism, but by selling to the highest bidder. Nationality does not always equal loyalty, especially when seen in the context of the Petroleum Paradox. While British and French companies owned 70% of the Romanian oil production market, Germany was still able to buy large amounts of oil to reduce their petroleum deficit. Parallel to this idea, CEOs are not bound by a state authority or by international treaties to protect the environment. Like those previously mentioned, they are not motivated by nationalism or a love for the planet, but by making the highest profit. Realists would understand that companies who contribute to industrial waste and pollution are too preoccupied with the potential wealth at their hands to implement any sustainable practices in production and waste management. Along with this, many corporate leaders are well above the age of impact and will face little to no effects of climate change. If they will not be hurt, why should they shell out their fortune to help billions of strangers? Realism recognizes the unlikely probability that CEOs will ever act out of the kindness of their heart and choose the morally correct option.

Regulations often come with high fees and overhauling much of the production system, which major companies can not afford, leading to further pollution. Countries like China, in particular face significant challenges to environmental growth as orders from high officials are rarely if ever implemented on a regional level. Developing countries with weakened centralized governments often regress in terms of sustainability as corporations can bribe local officials. Deep-seated corruption and a lack of trust in the fair application of environmental law are significant obstacles that stand in the way of environmentalism. 

When discussing how realists would react to the speech Greta Thunberg gave at the UN and the climate strikes of the past weekend, I believe they would see it as ineffective and useless. Realism itself is inherently pessimistic as it requires the acceptance of the circumstances at hand and being able to deal with it accordingly. As we have seen in the past year alone, strikes have done little to force any effective change within the US on matters of sexual assault, gun violence, racism, etc. Radical change has been absent in our current political discussions, so why would it change now? I seriously want to re-state the fact that most of the time I am an extreme optimist, but when it comes to climate change, we’re screwed. Major overhauls in the industry have yet to been made, and honestly, the time for these actions is long past. Even if we had time to scrape together a plan that could potentially save us, our government is too consumed by chaos to be able to focus on this issue alone. Divisions within the US’s political sphere have shut down any legislative attempts to reduce our carbon footprint. Those who see world affairs from a realist perspective would see Greta Thunberg’s speech at the United Nations as a desperate appeal that will lead nowhere. Even if the US government could come together to form a comprehensive plan to combat climate change, there would still need to be unilateral support from hundreds of other countries. Realism reflects the constant state of conflict that exists within world politics, where states act purely out of self-preservation rather than to abide by ethical norms. This idea of realism would suggest that this unanimous support is nearly impossible to accomplish as every country has objectives that might contradict another’s. 

Reflection #4

During class this week, I have contradicted myself more times than I can count, but maybe this is due to the contradictions presented within Machiavelli's assumptions. My position constantly wavered due to the fantastic points made by my classmates on both sides of the issue. Initially being deadset on the idea that Machiavelli was correct, I went into the debate ready to defend Machiavelli's policies but not the skewed morals that they represented.  While in the discussion, my teammates brought the potential for bias within The Prince. Being written primarily as a job application, Machiavelli caters his policies to the Medici family and their interests. In doing so, Machiavelli is vulnerable to opposition. In my blog post for this week, I addressed some of this opposition regarding Machiavelli's position on generosity. While I still believe that Machiavelli did not account for the consequences of his policies, I now maintain that he is still relevant in today's world of politics. Yes, I know now that this statement completely contradicts that of my blog post and my comment. However, I believe that it is better to be able to redefine your idea of correctness in action and morality rather than remain stagnant. If I did not acknowledge some of the points my classmates made in our discussions today, I would be willfully ignorant.

Thinking should never be stagnant but dynamic and should always cast doubt on previously held assumptions. In realizing that some of my justifications could potentially be wrong, I was able to further my understanding of Machiavelli. Believing that I would look indecisive in front of my classmates, I honestly struggled with changing my opinion on Machiavelli and his ideas. Having said that now, I am back at my original statement, that Machiavelli is still relevant today and applies to modern-day political debates. Machiavelli's generality was purposeful in that it allowed The Prince to serve as a manual in discussions several centuries later. While mercenaries and fortresses may no longer exist in name, they have been replaced by modern-day facets such as private military contractors and protected borders. Monarchies of Machiavelli's era may no longer rule, but constitutional monarchies still serve as political figureheads and hold significant influence in conjunction with heads of state. Many of the arguments against the relevancy of Machiavelli in modern political affairs stem from the idea that Machiavelli only dealt with issues of the 14th century. Machiavelli could not have predicted how incredibly complicated world affairs would become in the centuries after his death. The 20th and 21st centuries alone have introduced new issues of sovereignty, immigration, and nationalism that our current politicians can not solve themselves. Institutions such as the European Union or NATO would have been impossible to predict during Machiavelli's time, yet they often operate under the guise of his ideas. The political framework of today is vastly different than that of Machiavelli's time, but still, uphold some of the essential parts of his work. Politicians always act in the fox-like manner that Machiavelli described and attempt keeping the populace in an ever-changing state of fear or love. 

Machiavelli's Motivations

At the beginning of class today, I believed that Machiavelli was correct in his theories about states and how they should be governed. However, many issues with Machiavelli were raised in class today that now prevent me from further subscribing to the belief that he was correct without acknowledging his missteps.  Overall I believe that Machiavelli was correct, but his generalizations and hypocrisy ultimately undermine his points about a ruler's power. 

To begin with, Machiavelli's authority on the subject is taken over by his inherent bias towards the Medicis. In seeking a job within their administration, Machiavelli offers up his half-baked ideas on state relations in an attempt to increase his status. By endlessly praising their past endeavors, Machiavelli opens himself up to criticism just to gain a higher position in civil government. Machiavelli attempts to justify this appeal by restating his years of research that reassert his authority on the matter at hand. Despite his years of experience in the political atmosphere of the 1500s, Machiavelli's manual is often vague and doesn't offer up any helpful advice. Machiavelli bases his policies on events of the past but never addresses the social, political, and economic circumstances that played into their eventual fruition. While Machiavelli argues that he remains vague to ensure that each situation is dealt with correctly, many of his proposed ideas directly conflict with his previous positions. One main example of this conflict is found in chapter sixteen when Machiavelli discusses how generosity can be used to improve the reputation of those in power. Machiavelli states, "Consequently, a ruler who pursues a reputation for generosity will always end up wasting his resources; and he will be obliged in the end, if he wants to preserve his reputation, to impose crushing taxes upon the people" (Machiavelli 49). Directly addressing the opposition to a controversial policy, Machiavelli acknowledges the complications of one's increased generosity. Dispursing a ruler's wealth can initially bring great approval by the populace, but overreach will ultimately damage the public's perspective of the state hierarchy. However, within the next page, Machiavelli directly contradicts his argument by stating that no expense should be spared at the hands of other's wealth. Machiavelli negates his previous argument by stating, "Squandering other people's money does not do your reputation any harm, quite the reverse" (Machiavelli 50). In this one contradiction, Machiavelli reveals numerous flaws within his knowledge of politics. Squandering the money of other states may benefit the populace for a short period, but that state wouldn't just willingly give up their resources without something in exchange. Machiavelli's idealistic tendencies are quite apparent as he discusses this "sneaky" trick of government. Idealistically, Machiavelli believes in wasting the money of those who states are presumably allied with, without acknowledging the consequences of these actions. Spending without care often leads to a great amount of debt, whether that be in the use of armed forces, currency, or in a worst-case scenario forfeiting territory through armed conflict. Machiavelli's confidence in his policies ultimately blinds him to the reality of world affairs and the constant state of transition within state relations. Sanctions are often placed on those who don't follow through with the stated policies of the international community, and Machiavelli's policies ignore basic principles that we learn at a very young age. Political exchanges operate on a basis of mutual benefit and without a return of generosity, this use of foreign wealth could ultimately lead to damaged relations and the possibility of war. 

While I believe that Machiavelli had a knowledgeable background in politics, he generally dealt with them on a local level and is not entirely credible when discussing matters of state. Machiavelli's central arguments are somewhat correct, but his advice on populace opinion and foreign states completely undermines his advice on how rulers should govern. Having listened to the criticisms of the other team and looked deeper into his points, I will admit that my original belief was flawed. While Machiavelli was and still is heralded as one of the first great political theorists, it should still be said that his policies become questionable when applied to modern today issues such as immigration reform, sovereignty, and human rights. That being said, I still believe that he is somewhat correct in his assumptions about world affairs, but it truly pains me to admit this with how morally wrong it all is. 

Reflection #3

This past week in Diplomatic Risk I’ve felt many mixed emotions, sometimes wanting to sabotage my own team after endless arguments and heated conversations over the acquisition of enemy territory. Non-aggression pacts were broken, wars declared, and superpowers brought to the forefront of the game. At the beginning of the week, I was deadset on winning the game for the hegemon and taking over the board entirely. While the red team might have had a few disagreements, we were all willing to do whatever was necessary to ensure our victory. The Public was prepared to pay for countless troops and our Head of State was confident in his strategy. This came before the declaration of war by the Black team and the sanctions that were placed on our territories. Essentially penniless and useless, our team broke down and our Public decided to exercise their superpower and declare civil war. In doing so, the Public split the team, took half the territory and currency, and left the former hegemon in ruins. The objective of the original hegemon was to retain power over the Australian territories and to get the World Council to agree to fortify airlifts. Having been chosen by the Public to leave the former hegemon and join the Yellow Team, this objective no longer applied to me and my loyalty shifted. Our new objective as the Yellow Team was to amass 150 units of currency which seemed nearly impossible with the rate the rounds were commencing at. Accumulation of currency being our main objective, my teammate and I decided to cede our territories in South America for outrageous prices in an attempt to salvage our losses and potentially win the game. 

As we all know now, the Black and Green team won with a tie, so obviously, my teammate and I did not meet our new objective. But with that said, I’m not bitter about our loss. We tried our best and in the end, we were beaten by a better team. I will say, however, that for the amount of chaos thrown our way on the final day of battle, we adapted well. We might have made a few enemies (*cough cough* the Red Team) but we managed to keep level headed and create more diplomatic relationships with the other members of the board. Besides our currency objective, my teammate and I agreed on remaining peaceful and minding our business until the end of the final round. Our strategy was to lie low and if anything, offer up our territory for sale, as we only wanted to make money, not declare war and end up having to pay a war tax in the end. With that said, my teammate and I didn’t win but at least we were debt-free and had several territories with either a city or a resource.

All of that aside, Diplomatic Risk was a great base to implement our previous readings in. The "One World, Rival Theories" article was essential in preparing for the game and provided more strategies than I had thought of before. Personally, I followed the realist perspective of accepting the situation at hand and dealing with it with the resources given. The tactics of my fellow Diplomats at the World Council meetings especially forced me to reconcile with this theory as I was the lone state against three others who were ready and able to take us down at any moment. Including the Athenian Thesis, this week for our blog post further emphasized this realist perspective as I had to deal with how skewed the balance of power truly was in our World Council. I was outvoted at the beginning of each round and had to face an alliance between our opposing states. There was no fairness or "justice" involved in the decision-making process of Diplomatic Risk furthering my idea of the Athenian Thesis being put into practice in real-life political communities. This past week of classes has been very insightful for myself and I can't wait for more discussions on these theories next week with the start of The Prince.