Reflection-Week 14

Because I was very focused on Thanksgiving this week, I can’t remember much of what was discussed Monday. Therefore, my post is related to family and friends, because they are what I am most thankful for this holiday season.
The semester is quickly drawing to a close. While it may not seem very close, the fact that finals start next week has many of us stressed but excited for finishing our first semester. I certainly can’t wait for Christmas because I feel the past two times I have been home haven’t allowed to fully get everything done. It’s always hard coming back to somewhere so far away from family and friends and try to concentrate and get your work done.
Recently, I have understood the value of my family. While they are annoying, loud, and friendly like any good southern family, they manage to make my day with simple little jokes, home cooked meals, and trips around Houston. My mom, with her stoic demeanor overseeing our family like a guiding light. My step-dad with his wacky personality and love for all things weird. And my sister, the lazy teenager (yes, she’s 16 years old and probably the only person I can think of who’s excuse for not getting her drivers license was “I wanted to sleep”), who is one of the most intelligent people I know, but has the least amount of common sense.
Then there are my friends. I can’t just describe my friends. They make me laugh and that’s all that matters to me. They’re there for when I’m up and they’re for me when I’m down. They’re so close to me, they’re practically my family.
Though college has been quite the experience, I think that I’m ready for a more prolonged break. Something to really let me clear my head and get to relax with my friends, to see how we really are doing, and to get to enjoy my family. Coming back today was really hard because, to quote a line from Modern Family, “it may hurt right now, but that's how you know it was a relationship worth having.”

Reflection Week 14

The initial thought that came in to my mind when I heard of North Korea's attack on South Korean island was the idea that I may be drafted to serve in the military should there be a war between the two Koreas. As a male citizen of South Korea, I was required to serve in military for 2 years, but the country also had the right to draft me if a war broke out. Despite many Korean public opinion that we should go to war with North Korea, it is really quite unlikely that a full scale war would break out. However, it is also true that there is an increased tension in East Asia, which cannot be ignored, because despite being a small region, it is also one of the most unstable region of all.

There has always been tension in East Asia, although it seemed to have been abating due to increased diplomatic relationship between North Korea and other countries. However, a torpedo attack on South Korean battleship which was connected to North Korea and also the artillery fire on the island recently, it seems that the diplomatic relationship was breaking down and a power contest between nations seem to have been developing. As a realist, North Korea has played its card by revealing its new uranium enrichment facilities and also by attacking North Korea. However, it seems that the US and South Korea are not doing anything particular in retaliation except for carrying out a joint military training near North Korea. This training to me is simply a demonstration of the military might that North Korea would have to fight if there is a war, and I think it is the best realist approach possible as for now. Hardcore realists would argue that we must retaliate in a military fashion and show that we are no pushovers; however, in a world that increasingly emphasizes peace and cooperation, such action is likely to draw much criticism. Instead, by demonstrating the power, US and South Korea is showing that if North Korea decides to act in a rash manner then they would be met with a strong resistance, thereby reducing the risk of future attacks.

However, except the demonstration nothing much has been done, which is really worrying if we reflect on world history. Germany prior to World War 2 acted in a similar fashion; they built up there military and threatened surrounding nations. The world police at the time, which were France and Britain, maintained an appeasement strategy through which they allowed Germany to do what it wanted, and it ultimately led to World War 2. I fear the same might be happening with North Korea; they are doing what they want, such as enriching uranium and attacking South Korea, but nothing definite has been done to keep them in line, which may possibly promote further actions from North Korea. However, as mentioned above, there is nothing much that can be done in a hardcore fashion. This poses a serious dilemma for US and South Korea, because nothing extreme can be done and we are in a weird position where whatever actions we take will have serious, and most likely, very significant, impact on the current situation.

All in all, North Korea has played its two strongest cards, and South Korea and US does not have anything as strong to counter it. In the current situation, it seems that North Korea may have a strong initiative over South Korea and US; however, it would also be interesting to see what their reaction would be to the card US and South Korea has played recently, which is the joint military training in which the military might has been demonstrated for North Koreans to see.

Reflection week 14

Last Tuesday, I watched the film Favela Rising, which tells the story of Anderson Sa, a former drug runner in the favelas (slums) of Rio de Janeiro. Anderson turned his life around and became the face of a new movement in Brazil that began in the most feared slum within Rio—AfroReggae. The group has grown immensely since its inception, and now promotes various types of education such as dance, sports, and percussion classes aimed at keeping the youth away from gangs and drug trafficking within the slums.
The goal of ‘Grupo Cultural AfroReggae’ (GCAR) is to encourage children to engage in music as a means of community instead of becoming involved in the dangerous gang culture ingrained within the favelas. After the implementation of GCAR programs, the number of those in gangs in Anderson’s original slum has dropped to less than 30 from in the hundreds, and GCAR currently operates over 65 projects. Anderson initially turned from his former life of crime and violence to one promoting peace after what is known as ‘the massacre’ where 21 innocent civilians were killed by police forces and his brother was killed. He began to question his life, and strove to find a way to help end the incessant violence and combat the child soldiers the drug gangs employed.
Today, there has been an influx of stories in the news regarding the recent conflicts between gangs in the slums and the Brazilian police, attempting to show the world they have control of the favelas in time for the Olympics. The police brutality that has occurred in the past week has left over 50 people dead, and although police claim they have taken control of the desired favelas, shooting continues and the drug dealers will carry on rebelling against the police.
I agree with the Amnesty International report stating that the police are being too aggressive in this situation. Keeping in mind the constant conflict between the favelas and police, and the favela’s assumption that all police are corrupt, violent, and inefficient, any confrontation between the two will be charged with historical animosity and prejudice. I believe the police, if they wish to reduce violence, should follow the example set by GCAR and Anderson, promoting alternative forms of involvement to keep youth away from the gangs. The issue must be addressed at the roots, and the continuous violence may temporarily result in a police victory, it most likely just encourages others to join the gangs as revenge for the innocents killed. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5_DnxeEkts 

http://www.favelarising.com/

http://www.afroreggae.org.br/

South Korea Attacked

The bombing of South Korea by North Korea shook the stability international community this Tuesday morning. An attack on the South's Yeongyeong island was the fiercest attack by the North since the days of the Korean War. Since that conflict was never truly settled with a peace treaty, the two neighbors have continued battling on a smaller scale. However, with North Korea bombing South Korea on a disputed island territory, the two nations are feared to be closer to a new war.

The attack of South Korea is disconcerting because it shows an example of a realist mentality of dominance and struggle for power. A realist worldview would conclude that no other actor stands between the state and its ability to control its capability to govern the global system. While the ruling power in North Korea demonstrates only a minor portion of a realist state mentality, this ruling power emphasizes the concerns that many critics of realism have, namely that realists tend to disregard the ethical principles and social costs that these policies could impose. The most popular explanation for North Korea's bombing is the country's next leader- Kim Jong II has already determined that his son, Kim Jong-un, will take over the nation when he dies. Therefore, the "Young General" is said to be making a name for himself.

The country already made headlines last weekend when they revealed a brand-new nuclear facility that can enrich uranium. Clearly the North is concerned with showing the world that they are stronger than ever, and that it will stay strong when Kim Jong II passes on.

In reaction to the attack, President Obama declared that the world needs to come together to form an international community to pressure North Korea to prevent future attacks. The agreement with countries to protect and defend South Korea shows the strength countries have to protect each other if they form a community of support against an outside force. However, as shown with the relationship between North and South Korea, the absence of war does not mean peace, as is shown by the decades-long hostilities between the two countries. Only a “strong hand from someplace,” as General Douglass MacArthur will be able to settle the grievances—perceived and imagined—of the peoples of these two nations.

Native American Museum Reaction Reflection Week 13

"But their history can be exemplary for us because it permits us to reflect upon ourselves, to discover resemblances as well as differences: once again self-knowledge develops through knowledge of the Other" (254) I admired Todorov’s epilogue in Conquest of America as it showed his ability to speak in a variety of forms for communication.The quote above is significant as it provides a cautionary tale of what happens if we lose communication, as the Europeans did, and do not discover the external Other. Because Europeans have, in Todorov’s opinion, largely succeeded in their 350 year effort to assimilate the Other he implies that Europeans have failed to understand the Other, and thus, have fallen short in acquiring self-knowledge.

During our visit to the Museum of the American Indian, I felt that the museum left out the “Other” as Todorov describes. I was surprised at the large number of exhibits that were on the current culture and representation of Native Americans today. For historical exhibits I saw a number of pieces of artwork that reminded me, as we discussed in class, of an art museum more than a historical museum about Native American culture.

What concerned me the most about the museum was that it subtly showed the forced assimilation of the Native American Culture to modern society. In his book, Todorov showed how the Europeans displayed “remarkable qualities of flexibility and improvisation,” -- characteristics that allowed them to be more effective in imposing their ways of life on others (Todorov 247‐8). They were so successful, Todorov argues, that in the centuries following the initial encounter between Europeans and American Indians , Europeans were able to gradually assimilate the Other. While I do not argue against the Native Americans today assimilating to modern society by choice; it has been disturbing however for me to see them take their cultural traditions, such as food for example, and modernize them in way that is severally detrimental to their health.

In a study administered by the American Diabetes Association, Native American diets and food practices have possibly changed more than any other ethnic group in the United States, and with this change a substantial loss in culture has been created. Although the current diet of Native Americans may vary by tribe, and by personal traits such as age (e.g., young versus old), it resembles that of the U.S. Caucasian population; however, it is poorer in quality than that of the general U.S. population. A recent study found that only 10 percent of Native Americans have a healthful diet, while 90 percent have a poor quality that needs improvement. Looking around at the museum I could see the change in culture of the Native Americans to a more modern style of living as the exhibits became more and more recent. I especially was shocked regarding the final exhibit on the first floor of the “Up Where We Belong: Native Musicians in Popular Culture” demonstration. I interpreted the museum as structuring the exhibits in such a way that by the end it was hard to distinguish Native American culture from modern society today.

A very small portion of the museum shows the Native Americans’ forced removal from homelands, forced assimilation, and the genocide of their population which they experienced.

While the museum was certainly not a bad experience, it was not what I had expected to see. A possible change I would add to the museum is the acceptance of the mistakes of the past made by the settlers and the retributions that have been made (or should be made) to dissolve hurt, neglect, and tension of the past. America must first begin to take new initiatives to admit the mistakes in our treatment of the Native American population in the past. A task, I feel society today has yet to accomplish.

Reflection-Week 13

There really isn’t much to say about Week 13. I spent most of the week looking forward to going home for Thanksgiving, so most of the time was spent getting ready for that. Oh, I can’t forget Harry Potter. It was probably one of the single most eventful things I have done this semester.
Our discussion/trial of La Malinche this week was probably the highlight of my week. While I wish that I had been at the Museum of the Native American longer than I was, I did not have much time to spend there. The exhibits on the fourth floor were more artistic than scientific, as we discussed in class. The sheer beauty of the gold, silver and precious stones impressed me beyond belief. The film about the beauty of the Native American people impressed me. Though it was a tad vague, it was very emphatic on the point that the American Indians are sovereign and maintain their sovereignty in all aspects of their daily life.
This sovereignty does not affect many people in their daily lives. However, on a mission trip in sixth grade I got to experience this first hand. My friends and I took at 24-hour bus ride to Shiprock, New Mexico located in the Navajo Nation. The beauty of the landscape was breathtaking in itself, but what really impressed me was that the American Indian community is not portrayed the same in the media as it really exists. Americans simply see the world of the American Indian as a static existence, something that is stuck in time and not moving forward. The reality is that the Navajos, and their other counterparts, are in fact modernized and living in the 21st century. They enjoy the conveniences’ of new automobiles, highways, and all of the luxuries of a regular home. But the culture and the depth of their experience made the trip so much more. The history and stories they told about their people and the land they lived on are much more colorful and significant than any story I’ve ever heard about the Anglo Americans.
All I can say is, I’m ready for Thanksgiving. I need a break.

Reflection Week 13

Wednesday's lab visit to the National Museum of the American Indian was fascinating in that it almost seemed to glorify the American Indian history and culture. However, the interesting thing was how violence was downplayed when portraying the history of American Indians. Perhaps it is the issue of guilt and responsibility that Caucasians have towards American Indnans these day as it was mentioned during class discussion, or perhaps it is simply undesirable to portray much violence that is really behind all the history. However, the interesting thing, in conjunction with Todorov's reading, that stood out to me was how "weak" these people were.

Perhaps weak is not a word that clearly depicts the meaning I wish to articulate, but it is the best word available from my limited brain. What I mean to say is that, after all, they were conquered, and by they, I refer to American Indians and Meso-Americans in Todorov's book. Whatever the culture may have been, and whatever the situation may have been, these people have been conquered and subdued, their sovereignty violated and taken over, and their autonomy taken away. Despite continuous portrayal as empires and tribes, the Native Americans (which includes both American Indians and Meso-Americans) were an entity, just like state, and it was the ruling entity, such as the emperor's role, to protect its people. However, they utterly failed at that and the fact that America is not a nation led by American Indian proves the entire thing. Todorov argues that it was the different understanding of sign and communication that led to the initial conquest of America, and perhaps he implicitly argues that the Spanish may have been brutal with their manipulation of signs and consequent subjugation; however, the important thing is that something that destroying one's country must be fought against regardless of whether they are god or not. This is exactly what the Montezuma failed to do, and to be very brutal, the conquest of Meso-America can only be attributed to the failure of Montezuma.

What about the American Indians? They did put up some fight against European settlers, and I believe that was the right action to take in order to protect themselves; however, once again they were subjugated by the colonists. On the debate of who is to be blamed, there is no one to blame for the subjugation but the subjugated themselves. They fought for their own rights and lost, and the only reason is that they lacked the capacity to put up a real fight.

Thus, it seems that the entire conquest and settling of America is a true depiction of international relations; power is all. If we do not have power, you will be subjugated. If you cannot protect yourself, then there is no one who is going to help you. Perhaps people will object to this hardcore realist notion by saying that the time has changed, and no one is likely to march into another country and begin claiming it as their own land; however, the core idea of power struggle has not changed. Maybe we are not going to take over the "weak" states, but more powerful nations will continually exercise their power to limit others ability to challenge their power. Thus, in the past or in the present, nothing has changed in regards to different entities interaction with each other; everything is about power.

Reflection week 13

This week, I’ve decided to reflect on my going to the midnight premiere of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, as I was sick and missed class Thursday. While this may sound like an unusual topic to connect to international relations, Harry Potter does relate to our class discussions, although perhaps not to our previous week.

Within the movie, the Death Eaters can be easily equated to what are terrorists today. They thrive on others fear, spreading panic throughout the wizarding community. The Death Eaters banded together through a common loathing of another ‘race’ of people, with a leader to intimidate and coerce them all into compliance, becoming more and more radical as time goes on. The Death Eaters are not permitted to leave Voldemort’s service, for fear of their own death as well as harm to their loved ones. The Death Eaters operate through chaos, and some of their notoriety comes from the fact that no one knows when they will strike, or how to prevent it. The Death Eaters remain loyal to their leader at all costs, some out of genuine fidelity, others out of fear. But the fact remains that they flock to Voldemort to do his bidding, regardless of the time, place, or request.

A direct comparison can be drawn to, for example, the Taliban. Members of the Taliban are at first drawn to it due to their hatred of those of a different religion or nationality. They remain in the Taliban after indoctrination with a fear that their families will be harmed if they attempt to disband. The Taliban’s Osama Bin Laden acts as Lord Voldemort in that he has absolute control of the Taliban, dictates their movements, and has control over their livelihood. The Taliban functions through their terrorist mentality, striking without warning and without mercy.

Therefore, by analyzing the Death Eater’s mentality, many parallels can be drawn to today’s Taliban, and the ‘mudbloods’ and other enemies of The Dark Lord can be seen as non-Muslims, or those enemies of the current Taliban.

           

Bonus Blog

         The answer to this question is, on the surface, obvious. Of course Indians are better represented in the National Museum of the American Indian than on a flag for a sports team. NMAI presents Native American culture with political correctness, tact, and respect. Their website focuses on the anthropological nature of the artifacts and collections on display at the museum, and the proper recognition/portrayal of Native Americans through video and photography. Everything about NMAI screams discretion. Conversely, the portrayal of Native Americans seen in sports mascots is exactly the opposite of NMAI. It embraces a war-like mentality, depicting Native Americans painted for battle with the stereotypical hostile expressions and garb for war. Lately, there has been a push for political correctness within the realm of mascots. For example, the mascot of Knox College was previously Old Siwash, but in 1993 it was changed to the Prairie Fire, after a controversy brought up about the old name. Siwash comes from the language of Chinook Indians, and was a derogatory term referring to the native people by the settlers.

            Playing the devils advocate, however, the correct portrayal of Native Americans can be reversed. NMAI, while being politically correct, completely neglects to emphasize the struggles between the settlers and the Indians. There isn’t a mention of the countless unnecessary deaths perpetuated by the “white man”. The problem is, NMAI is politically correct on both sides on the issue, not wishing to offend descendants of either the Indians or of the settlers. The mascots, however, portray the Indians as fighters, not attempting to cover up their violent history with placidity and artifacts.

http://www.americanindian.si.edu/index.cfm 

By means of sign...

There are several propositions out there that describes how the Spaniards actually conquered America; some scholars say it was the technological superiority and guns, while some say it was the European disease that they brought with them to America. However, Todorov provides an interesting alternative analysis that leads him to believe that the main force behind the Spanish conquest was the use of signs.

Todorov in the part concerning Montezuma and signs shows that the Spaniards, and in large, European, communication was focused on relationship between humans, while the Indians in America was more concerned with the relationship between men and the world. He provides several examples that proves how the Aztecs have interpreted the signs and formulated their opinion around their beliefs, which has allowed them to be exploited by the Spaniards. Thus, Todorov makes a strong case that the signs have actually played a huge role in Spanish conquest. In further reading, Todorov provides examples of the usage of signs by Cortes to help in his conquest, although I cannot really provide any summaries, because i have not yet reached that part. However, in general, it seems that Todorov's argument provides some kind of underlying reason behind the fall of the Aztec which can be attributed to different usage of signs by the two sides.

I certainly agree with Todorov's argument that the different cultural interpretation of signs have been a powerful force behind the Spanish conquest. However, one thing that I quite do not understand in Todorov's argument is whether he believed the Spanish actually exploited this difference in understanding of these signs for their own benefit, or whether they somehow proceeded with their own thought and somehow ended up with actions that to modern eyes are seen as "conquest by means of signs." There is a significant difference between the two; the former shows that the Spanish actually understood the Aztecs and used their knowledge of these differences to their advantage, as Columbus did with the eclipse story, and the latter shows that they didn't realize the difference and simply proceeded the way they thought was right, which then somehow ended up being an excellent usage of the difference, albeit unintentionally.

Perhaps I have not yet reached Todorov's explanation to this question of intentionality. However, it would be very important to distinguish this aspect behind the argument that the conquest was achieved "by means of signs" because it would show whether one needs to be aware of the differences in order to make full use out of it, or whether clash and exploitation due to difference is inevitable between two different cultures that have two different ways of interpreting signs, regardless of any other factors. However, in general I agree with Todorov's answer that yes, the signs have played a huge role in the conquest, but as mentioned before, the intentionality of these actions must also be examined so that we may actually learn from history.

The Role of Signs for the Indians, and Consequently, the Spanish

             When Todorov poses the question “did the Spanish defeat the Indians by means of signs”, there arise multiple interpretations of the answer. I believe Todorov takes the affirmative in response to his own question, stating that a significant contribution to the conquest of the Indians was Indian’s strong belief in signs.

            This belief stems primarily from fervent religious following by the Indians—at birth, infants are taken to have their fortune divined, and the results of such conjecture are taken literally. Therefore, although the predictions may not have been realistic to begin with, the fact that the Indians take it to be the truth dictates that their lives will consequently fall into the foretold path. If you believe strongly enough that something will happen to you, or that your life will cumulate in a particular fashion, chances are, you will subconsciously cause the events or things to occur. Thus, the Indians thought their lives to be preordained, and that they had little (if any) free will. This aspect of the Indian character made their conquest far simpler. They saw this conquest merely as another aspect of their life they were powerless to control, dictated by the gods. If there was no sign sent to the Indians to drive out and attempt to rebel against the Spaniards, it must be destiny that the Spaniards came and conquered.

            Another aspect of the advantage of signs for the Spaniards is that Indians relied on the natural world to draw influence and counsel. Spaniards, on the contrary, relied on communications from man to man, as stated on page 69. This difference of communication meant that the Indians and Spaniards searched for signs and guidance in two completely separate, and sometimes contradictory, places. If, for example, an Indian saw the lunar eclipse, they would assume its relevance, and treat it as a sign to interpret to whatever situation was at hand. Spaniards would realize the eclipse was not an earth-shattering event, confer with their fellow Europeans, and perhaps enjoy watching the Indians become terrified at the event.

            While these are just two specific examples of sign interpretation’s benefit for the Spanish (perhaps even unbeknownst to them), the overall result of the Indian’s reliance on signs and the arcane resulted in their defeat. A defeat that was most likely seen as merely another event in life, a product of fate’s plan.

Todorov’s Question Expanded

In analyzing Todorov’s question as to whether the Spaniards defeated the Indians by “signs”, the reader notes that he emphasizes the importance of the different methods of communication between these two cultures. At the beginning of the text, Todorov brought up the example of Columbus having laid some of the background for the Spanish conquest of the Americas which often involved the different perceptions of language.

Columbus's acts were a part of the formal, tradition of conquest that had already been in place in the Spanish empire. The Spanish presence in America got its authority from language acts--this included taking possession of an object and naming it; and it justified its domination to Columbus by the fact that the Native Americans did not have any religion, and were new to this method of conversion. I argue, however, that the Indians through their oral tradition were able to maintain much of their collective knowledge-- even to this day.

Just as the name “America” was foreign at that time (as was the term “Indian”), the use of the word Indian was utilized by the Spanish to name all the people on this new island. The Spaniards continued to ignore the natives’ own beliefs and customs about how they identify with one another. The trend of naming people or things is an example we have today of a strong Spanish bias in our history books because the Europeans, for the majority, were a large portion of the people writing about these historical encounters. History is recorded as seen by their European world view.

Another factor which resulted in the Spaniards “defeating” the Indians was the fact that the Spanish were not adept at writing and communicating about Indian history because they were not familiar with the culture enough to know what to talk about, what was important, or how to organize this information. The Spanish were in control of the means of printing, which gave them the ability to control which histories could be presented to the world. However, this does not mean that the Spanish history replaced the Indians’ actual historical events, rather the Spanish shaped how the Indians and their history were perceived to the world as seen through the eyes of their European culture.

Despite the dominance of a European viewpoint in historical references for several years, the true Indian traditions and history were still able to be preserved. This was due largely to the oral communication of traditions thanks to the Indians’ knowledge of history, sciences, religion, and culture which had been preserved for centuries because of their own form of communication. It was not that the Indians lacked a writing system, as the Spaniards believed; it was that their writing system was just culturally different from the form to which the Europeans were accustomed. Both the Maya and the Aztec empire, for example, at the time of the Spanish conquest used functional writing systems as well as scientific knowledge to serve administrative purposes. Even thought the Spanish were successful to a certain extent in defeating the Indians’ vision of the history of the conquest of their people, one true belief still arguably remains the same. That is that even though the Spaniards defeated the Indians through their dominance in governance over the newly discovered territory, the Spaniards did not succeed in erasing the memories of the indigenous people which were maintained though a strong oral tradition which is still alive today.

Sources: The Conquest of America, by Tzvetan Todorov (University of Oklahoma Press, 1999),

Reflection Week 12

Thursday's class discussion with focus on what it means to give, and aspects related to it, such as altruism and inherent selfishness behind the act of giving was difficult to participate in due to the fact that it was difficult to relate to world politics, and also to relate to my preferred school of thought, realism. When I first learned of realism through the Professor Jackson's podcast, it was mentioned that it is a theory, and doesn't serve to explain everything. I particularly noticed that with such focus on power on a state level, it would be difficult to apply realism in sub-state levels, such as society and individuals. However, it seems that individual motivation behind giving could also be seen in a state level in regards to development, and also realism.

During the World Bank presentation on Wednesday, one particular aspect of it that stuck out was how it differentiated itself from IMF in that it only provides financial support to developing countries, and basically projected the image of an instrument through which developed countries could provide aid, which is a strikingly similar image to those websites we saw on Thursday, where people could simply offer money to give to the "needy." However, it was mentioned in class that sometimes giving is closely related to a selfish motivation. Our discussion revolved around the issue of whether people give just for the sake of giving, or whether people give because they want that fulfillment that they did something to address some of the pressing issues in this world, or whether it is done to promote self-image. Aside from this issue, when we talk about "selfishness," people envision a being that is totally unaware of others and simply cares about self. Therefore, it seems paradoxical that in order for people to be selfish in trying to achieve their goal, they must act in an unselfish way. This is apparent in some of the human motivation behind giving; however, same applies to the state level.

In this continuously globalizing world, it is difficult for states to remain isolated and bluntly selfish, yet all states are selfish in regards to their interest, because or else, it is easy to be pushed around by other states, and no state wants to be pushed around. Therefore, the tactic that is employed is under the guise of altruism, but there are always a selfish motivation behind it, and World Bank is perfect at serving these self-interest. In a world, where war is very unlikely, contest for power is centered on how "good" a state is; how much they can help weaker states and how a state can be a good guy that is better than the other state. The interesting aspect on a state level is that this seems the only viable reason why states would be altruistic. Pure altruism is unlikely, because there are more domestic issues in every state that could do with more funding and attention, and it would be irrational to divert resources to give aid in order to achieve nothing. Giving for the sake of fulfilling one's satisfaction seems also unlikely due to the fact that a state does not seek inner satisfaction that doesn't have any positive results for the state in general. What this leaves us with is that states project altruistic image to achieve something, which is usually in the form of social projection and power.

With this analysis of seemingly altruistic motivation behind foreign aids and participation in institutions such as the World Bank, it seems that these institutions are simply instruments to serve the states, rather than an authoritative entity on its own. This lines up with realism and I believe that what these institutions do, and what they claim to do, cannot be taken at a face value. The World Bank presentation projected the image that it is an institution that serves the purpose of helping the "poor." However, what they do cannot be done without the support of all the states; after all, majority of the funding comes from the states. What this leaves us is the fact that despite what these institutions do, they are simply an intermediary instrument that does not have much authority on its own, and the seeming authority they have are only derived from its constituents the states.

Therefore, I would refute any idea that states are becoming less important actors and that institutions are more important. Furthermore, one thing I would also like to mention is that for the states, altruistic actions only serve selfish motivations. However, on an individual level, there are so many possibilities, because every single individual is different. It is unwise to generalize that everyone has a selfish motivation behind giving, or that everyone is altruistic. Thus, the motivation behind giving that is observed amongst states is part of diverse motivation behind giving individually, and the only viable motivation for states to give is to attain more power through better social image.

Reflection Week 12

I really enjoyed the World Bank presentation on Wednesday as it was able to contribute to our class discussion on structural inequality and the development of countries. During our class discussion the question of why the United States or the World Bank chooses to allocate money to developing countries was touched upon in our discussion. Several ideas were suggested that it is our duty with the United States as the global hegemony and world power to provide aid to struggling countries to boost our international presence and power in the world. While aid is very important to developing countries or countries that have faced a natural disaster, the United States and institutions like the World Bank should establish guidelines to teach the countries how to use the economic aid most efficiently before they receive it. It is very important countries who receive aid are taught how to best allocate the money so that they can prevent their country from falling into a financial trap of being continually dependent upon outside help. An example of this method that we briefly discussed in class is the use of microcredit to provide small loans given to poor people to help them start or expand businesses.

According to the Microcredit Summit Campaign, the idea of micro finance was started in the 1970’s by Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladesh economist, who thought by giving those people that were too poor to establish businesses credit, it would help give them encouragement to improve their lives. Borrowers of microcredit have the opportunity to use the funds they receive to start small businesses, trade activities, or any area of expertise they can specialize in to make a profit and provide for their family.

Many large financial institutions, such as commercial banks, typically look down upon lending money to the lower class because the amount of money they want to borrow is too small or they struggle to pay off their loan.

What makes microcredit unique is that if an individual to whom the money was lent cannot pay back the loan, a group of people (related to the individual person) is required to be arranged before the loan is funded who guaranties that they will pay back the loan if the person cannot. According to the report, in Bangladesh alone, 90% of microcredit borrowers are women. With a large portion of the borrowers (not just in Bangladesh) but worldwide being women, these women have the opportunity to raise themselves to new positions of financial autonomy because of their ability to be fiscally responsible for their loans, ensure repayment of the money, and maintain and develop a savings account for future investment.

Microcredit is just an example of similar methods which international organizations, like the World Bank or countries as powerful as the United States, should view as models to help develop an aid program that provides a form of a monetary loan to assist the developing countries in financial stability for their future.

Thus, in reference to the question of why should economically powerful countries or other agencies lend money to developing countries, it is my opinion that because people today believe in the human right for individuals to have the opportunity to create a standard healthy and safe living condition for all people, this could be achieved most efficiently by improving their economic and social conditions. However, arguably what is more important is creating a sustainable development that meets the needs of struggling countries without creating a dependency of aid for future generations.

Currently, there are 6.7 million people alive in the world today and 1.2 billion live in developed countries. The other 5.5 billion live in developing countries where many people can barely survive day today on less than $1. When reflecting on the World Bank presentation and our class discussions, it should be noted that developing countries do not just affect themselves, but will inevitably damage other neighboring countries in the future either through trade, disease, or crime. The world population is severely disadvantaged and struggling, and it is our responsibility and prudent opportunity as advanced societies to assist them in breaking out of their economic and social barriers for the benefit of the entire world.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0107/050.html

Reflection-Week 12

It was unseasonably hot in DC. While I like to start my reflection for the week generally discussing the topic of the week, I must comment on the unseasonable and moody weather we experienced. After a week of 50s, it climbed back up to 65. Needless to say I was disappointed in the changes because it was too cold for shorts in the morning but too hot for jeans in the afternoon, and I come from the moodiest climate in the country, the South.
Our discussion this week on poverty left me a bit confused. While I applaud the efforts of the many organizations around the world that are attempting to alleviate the problem of poverty, I think that aid organizations can only do so much. One of the most important shifts, I feel, that needs to occur among the aid organizations is an increased focus on helping people become self-sustaining.
The Oxfam group is one of the organizations that seem to do this the best. They believe in “capacity building” or helping people become self-sufficient so that they could maintain and improve their individual standard of living over the course of time instead of relying on handouts from wealthier countries. One of the largest problems, I feel, is the handouts that wealthy, developed countries give to poorer countries. This only fuels the negative cycle that is the world of poverty today. In an attempt to alleviate this poverty, shouldn’t people be more concerned about rehabilitating the poverty-stricken.
The work of Oxfam Australia has greatly improved the quality of life in Mozambique, among other places. Oxfam’s efforts in this region have helped provide the infrastructure to improve the legal rights of women. In 2003, after more than 10 years of Oxfam support, the Mozambican parliament passed legislature increasing the legal marriage age to 18 (up from 14) and granting women equal property rights after a year of marriage. The significance of this is that women are now able to function more equally in society, increasing the potential output of the country.
We discussed the importance of this at the World Bank lab as well, specifically the lack of clean water around the world. The presenter talked a lot about the Millennium Development Goals and how many of them had been reached but one of the goals that is still far from being completed was the eradication of simple disease like diarrhea. While it seems like a large amount to one person, if a village of 10,000 all pitched in a single US dollar (while it may seem to be a significant amount of money to them, if they pitch in any amount they are more inclined to be intrinsically attached to it and continue to use it) a well could be built locally. This convenience allows young children to stop walking a 3 hour round trip to the local well or river (that may be contaminated) to fetch water. The extra time allowed here means that children have more time to attend school and learn to be more productive members of society.
While nothing is perfect when it comes to fixing the world, I feel there is a lot that still needs to be done. Many people are spread too thin when it comes to their own goals in “helping the world”, but as people manage to diversify their stock portfolios I think it’s important that there be a diversification of the way people look at saving the world, a large majority of the world’s problems could be massively reduced and people could become more self-sufficient at the same time. The self-sufficiency would then allow these people to focus on new problems, and that’s all we’re going to see in the future. So it really becomes an evolutionary cycle and all we need to do is evolve.

Reflection week 12

Thursday in class, our discussion swiftly turned from the prioritization of funds and resources for world issues towards the ineffectual and convoluted nature of altruism. This issue is one I have been personally wrestling with for some time, and I was excited to hear others opinions and see where the discussion ended up.

My church back home has been affiliated with Heifer International for as long as I can remember. Each year, the kids I taught for Sunday school would make/bake food and other things church members would purchase, and proceeds went towards buying animals for Heifer Project. Countless years, we’ve even raised $5,000, enough to send an entire “ark” to struggling countries—two each of nearly 20 kinds of animals. I’ve been involved with this process for over 10 years now, whether as a child in Sunday school or a teacher. When I was younger, I was so excited that we were sending animals to these countries where people had less than I did. We were shown videos of children in families who received the gift of cows or other animals. If given a cow, for example, the families were able to use the milk to make cheese, and could either keep the food and milk from the cow, or sell it to make some profit. The families agreed in advance to donate offspring from their new animal(s) to other families in need nearby, thus perpetuating the gift. Essentially, from the gift of one animal, a family gains sustenance, income, and the gift is passed on and on to other families, waterfalling the benefits to an entire village.

In theory, it sounds like a perfect system. Eventually though, I began to develop mistrust in the system. What if people were lactose intolerant, what if they don’t have electricity to store the dairy products, what if the animals are stolen or die, what if the people Heifer International professes to help, do no have an enhanced quality of life because of our donations? As well as these practical questions, the motivation behind donations also intrigued me. When we donate to a cause, give money to a homeless person, or return our excess change to the cashier, why do we do it? It could be easily argued that when people do these supposedly “selfless acts”, they are in actuality acting selfishly. When we are philanthropic, the result is that ‘warm fuzzy feeling’, and generally, a lessening of guilt for having more than others, or something of the sort. So do we truly donate to Heifer International, for example, because of a genuine interest in improving the lives of the impoverished? Or do we do so in order to keep up with our fellow do-gooders; make a good impression on our congregation; assuage the guilt our respective wealth’s provide; ensure that we’ve done our good deed for the day, week, month; impress others with our apparent selflessness; or just feel better about ourselves.

While it would be nice to think that the animals from Heifer automatically give families a better life and more opportunities, and all good deeds are done out of the goodness of peoples’ hearts, this is simply a naïve assumption. Although I was at first disgusted with my apparent pessimism, I see it now as a realistic view of how the world works. Every action has a specific motivation, and things do not always work out perfectly. The fact is, we honestly have no control over these occurrences. With the line of work I’m planning to go into through a degree in International studies and an aspiration to work for an NGO, I knew I had to somehow reconcile my admittedly cynical outlook on altruism, or undoubtedly experience cognitive dissonance.

The conclusion I came to, which I suppose was supported by our discussion Thursday, is that although motivations for donation and charitable actions may not be pure, the end result of these actions is really all that matters. Maybe not every donation from Heifer International works out perfectly, but I need to have trust that the organization does everything in their power to ensure a positive outcome from their work. Children receiving a chance at education through money made selling cheese at the market don’t care at all if the person responsible for their schooling was Sally who gave to Heifer International purely to teach her neighbor Patty a lesson after hearing how great it was that Patty’s husband made enough money to donate some.

I suppose the end result of my internal battle about altruism is reconciliation. While I realize that individuals may have impure or selfish motivations, I’ve discovered that doesn’t necessarily matter. I’ll continue giving my spare change to homeless people, donating to Heifer, and volunteering—regardless of whether or not I’m truly making a difference, or if I’m really only doing it to feel better about myself. We desperately need people to give in today’s world, whether it’s truly from their hearts or from their heads.

Fairness of Economic Success or Failure of States

I do believe that Inayatullah’s argument is valid when he said that all nation states will not be equal when it comes to the distribution of economic wealth. No matter how much aid one country is able to provide to another, that amount of money will never be enough to have the distribution of economic wealth be globally equal. In order to be economically stable, a country must allocate its resources efficiently and be able to stand economically strong without the continued assistance of other countries. As we discussed in class, at the beginning of the 20th century human rights had not been as a significant issue in international politics as it is today. In fact, during the last twenty years, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 157 states have ratified their stance on human rights in areas such as economic, social, and cultural rights of people. If Inayatullah’s argument it is also important to take into account the different perspectives theorists would hold towards the “human right of wealth” . A realist for example would view the right to wealth much differently than perhaps a society such as the United States would view the “rights” of people today.

A realist would disagree that states would even have the freedom of human rights. Realist thinking would assume that international policy outcomes are solely determined by the distribution of power capabilities among the states. A state that is able to become materially stronger would achieve economic wealth. The inequality of economic of success amongst states is unavoidable.

However, I feel the truth behind Inayatullah's argument is when he describes the self-determination and dignity that comes from the independence of the sovereign states having their own right to wealth. In addressing the struggle to achieve economic wealth of third world countries he claims that there is nothing much the international society as a whole can do for these struggling countries. In the end it is up to the each country itself to create its own wealth. The states that have liberated themselves from the ground up have “their own right to wealth”.

Even though wealth should be taken into a consideration as a right that will be unequal in other areas of the developing world, this does not pertain to all human rights. The human rights issue deserves attention in world politics today because it has become a dominant frame work for many political struggles within and across national boundaries.

Its alternative logic is based on individual well-being which slowly transforms the state-centric view of international relations to the claim that violations of rights are a shared global concern.

It is my hope that rather than allowing ourselves to be constrained to the debates over which theorist perspective is correct, we should take the human rights argument into greater consideration. If the world were to ever function competitively as a global economic power, we first need to use whatever resources of justice, equality, and in some cases financial assistance, to help us better explain and continue to resolve the cause of economic repression in the world.

Sources

Inayatullah Naeem, State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pgs. 50-80. Fair use determination for Fall 2010.

Under the circumstances provided...

Under the circumstance that states are unequally prepared for global economic competition as explained by Inayatullah, the economic outcomes and achievements states make may not seem to be a fair outcome, because some states have been exploited and their history has placed severe restriction on the state's economy that is then reflected by its marginalized status in the current global economic order. However, the important aspect to wonder in this discussion is whether the exploitation that affects the current economic outcomes of states were fair or not.

The past that affects the current economic condition of a state the most usually, if not always, has taken the form of exploitation and colonization. This acts have transformed other state's economy to suit the needs of the home country, and these acts have cost the colonized and the exploited a lot of resource, and consequentially, its economy. Because of this manipulation of a state's economy by another state, these acts can be used to argue that due to these factors, the current economic conditions of the previous colonies are unequal, and thus the competition is unfair. However, the point that needs to be raised is that how did these people come to be colonized? Obviously, they have been either of their own will or against their own will, became subject to another nation. Whether it was through coercion or through peaceful means, the colonized have lost their sovereignty due to their lack of power and capabilities. Let us take the example of a state; Korea, my home country, has once been Japan's colony and suffered terribly under their rule, but there is no-one to blame other than ourselves for not having enough power to ensure our own autonomy and sovereignty. This applies to various countries that suffer from economic disadvantage due to their past; they have failed to maintain their own sovereignty and to provide national security, which is one of the most important job of a state.

My line of reasoning sounds very cruel in that bluntly put, I basically believe that the situation is fair, because these states have only themselves to blame for putting themselves into such positions in the past. Of course, this argument may sound horrendous to some people, and I can also see that this kind of "blame the victim" argument is usually criticized severely. However, we must realize that the blame certainly lies in the victim itself, because of their lack of precaution. Thus, the economic inequality in the global order today that some may claim to be unfair should be considered fair in that these unequal footing has been brought on by the states themselves, and thus, the majority blame cannot be placed on the conquerors, which leads to the conclusion that because the unequal economic footing due to history is partly the state's own fault, they cannot claim it to be unfair.

Unequal Preparedness for Competition and Success or Failure

Some states are absolutely unequally prepared for global economic competition. There are some that are able to survive in global competition by mixing aspects such an externally focused trade system and the encouragement of a growing economy domestically. However, fairness within the system is relative. Also, the amount of wealth in our world is fixed, and thus a hierarchy forms. The combination of a hierarchy and farness provides an interesting arument about the success or failure of these states.
A country’s preparedness can be measured fairly well by examining the health of its economy. While any country and it’s expansion is subject to the natural business cycle, developed countries have been able to balance the improvement of technology, the flow of labor, human capital, natural resources and physical capital to boost their productivity. This delicate balance is defined in economics as the production function. In countries that are undeveloped or steadily developing, this production function grows at a different rate because of the natural inequality that exists around the world. Different regions have different levels of natural resources, different approaches to education, and different forms of physical capital. The improvements in any of the factors of the production are relative to the abilities of a country’s preparedness. For instance, any country is limited in its ability to produce by the amount of natural resources it possesses. While some anomalies exist (Japan), the majority of countries are limited in their ability to be economic competitors today because the natural resources they may possess are not significant aspects of the economic market in which we live. In addition, countries that are unable to provide sufficient human capital cannot continue their growth. Human capital, or the knowledge and skills that workers acquire through education, training, and experience, is one of the most important aspects of being prepared for global economic competition because the skills acquired are necessary to contribute to society. Naturally though, countries are all unequally prepared because of their global location, but the fairness of this inequality is relative.
What is fair? We are taught that life just isn’t fair when we are children because we can’t get what we want. Do countries feel the same way when they are unable to achieve the goals they have set for themselves economically? Frankly, I think that fairness has no place in the economic realm. A large reason for this is that the amount of wealth in the global economy is fixed. While it may not seem fair to many countries, a hierarchy forms around the amount of wealth. Countries with large pools of natural resources are able to maintain their economic position by securing a large portion of this wealth in their gross domestic products and thus are front-runners in the global economy. More on this later though. Countries didn’t get to look on a map and choose their location based on where the most resources were. However, everyone is stuck with what they have. Unfortunately, many developing countries, such as many African nations, with vast diamond and mineral deposits are squandering their potential to utilize these resources to their advantage and simply throw it away. So is it fair that they have these resources but waste them? Who is to say? The United States has plenty of resources that it wastes, and plenty of people complain that it is unfair that we are so wealthy. So why aren’t we complaining about the fact these underdeveloped countries are squandering what they have been given? It wouldn’t be fair of us because we have so much.
Back to the natural resources argument for a second. As we know, change is one of the only constants in the world that we live in, so consider this situation for a second. What would happen if we priced out drinking water on the commodity market the same as we do crude oil? If climate change in fact is going to change our world into a place with chronic drought and failing crops, clean water will be come the most precious commodity in the world and prices will soar. Thus, nations who have relied on their crude oil deposits to compete in the global economy will no longer be needed in the economy because people are too worried about acquiring the basic fluid for their daily lives. The hierarchy would switch dramatically and countries such as Canada, with vast amounts of fresh drinking water, have the potential to be front-runners in a global economy.
So because of the constant change the world experiences, it is nearly impossible to judge the success or failure of a state based on a scale of fairness. We may be able to say one day that having lots of oil and being very wealthy off of that oil is fair and thus the nation is successful. However, the next day when oil is obsolete and people are driving around in lithium powered cars, the country that has the largest deposits of lithium (which today is Bolivia, which olds 50%-70% of the world’s reserves of lithium) will become of the largest successes on the economic stage. So preparedness will always be unequal, because the needs of the future are constantly changing.

Reflection 11: Wealth and Poverty

Wealth and poverty are two concepts that I have been trying to fully understand my entire life. Questions as what does it mean to be rich? Who are the poor? What role does the price of a college education really have when it comes to benefiting students for our futures?

In the area where I grew up in California it was the general consensus that after graduation teenagers should attend either a four year university or (what has now more prevalent) a two year community college. I soon learned after doing research on schools that the costs are shocking. It especially bothered me that in our society today college has become something that is required. Not only is it difficult for many students to be able to decide what they want to the study , but the task of financing is even a greater burden. How (with these preconceived beliefs) is it possible for people who choose not to attend a college to ever be “successful” in life? The term “successful” when implied in today’s world can mean a number of things, but is more and more commonly generally associated with monetary success.

The question raised in class was why do most of us choose to attend a school such as American University where the high cost of private education can put us as students (or in some cases our parents) into a significant financial debt? Personally, the answer I have heard many students say is they choose this path for the opportunities associated with a city as well known as Washington D.C. Unlike the fancy cars, large houses, or expensive clothes, an education is priceless. No one can ever take away someone’s education. It will always be their own asset won by their efforts, and it is their job to make of it what they wish.

Taking a look at the makeup of Washington D.C., the gap between the “rich” and “poor” is some of the most divided in any city within the United States. According to a report released by the Institute for Economic Development, the poverty rate in the District rose from 16.9 percent in 2008 to a staggering 18.9 percent in 2009. That means some 106,500 people were living below the federal poverty line ($21,800 for a family of four in 2009). It also puts D.C. among the very poorest states in the nation, surpassed only by Mississippi, when compared to 2008 data. When one considers that this is our nation’s capitol, these numbers of those affected by poverty everyday are shocking.

It is a possibility that the large demographic of poverty stricken individuals has to do with the level of education and knowledge they were able to receive. Without the opportunity for a full K-12 education, it is only hurting these people in the long run when they have to locate jobs to pay for things like shelter, clothes, or food that other people in society, i.e. the rich or middle class, have worked for and invested hours into in order to provide for their families

In D.C. particularly, homelessness and poverty resulted from a complex set of circumstances which make it difficult for certain people to obtain food, shelter, and other basic needs. Only a concerted effort to ensure jobs that pay a living wage, adequate support for those who cannot work, affordable housing, and access to health care will bring a significant reduction to homelessness and poverty.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Povertyrates/PovListpct.asp?Longname=States&ST=US&SF=2A

Reflection-Week 11

I fondly refer to the past week as “The Week from Hell”. While it may have been business as usual for my floor mates, my professors decided that it would be the perfect week to spring an exam, an oral presentation, and a paper all in the same day. Thus, with my already hectic schedule I had to find time to include review sessions for my exam, office hour visits for my exam, and preparation for my oral presentation. It was nice to be able to have the luxury to take a week off from a blog post, it freed up some time for me.
Our discussion of wealth on Thursday was quite interesting to me. It is no secret that the majority of our world lives in conditions considered at or below the poverty line. In fact, the World Bank recently increased the poverty wage to $1.25 a day, increasing the number considered living in poverty to 1.4 billion people around the world with the majority of these people living in Southeast Asia. In response to the accusations that the United States isn’t doing enough to respond, I moderately agree. Problems like poverty do, and continue to exist all around the world. Instead of focusing on how to help these people in the short-term, I think the focus should be on the long-term. Simply sending money and aid will only make these countries more and more dependent on the wealth that our country has worked so hard to achieve. I do feel the United States should do more to actively engage and help out the poverty stricken around the world, but it simply cannot happen by simply donating money and food to those who experience poverty. Never has the proverb “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime” been truer. We, as a wealthy nation, need to be the teachers, not the givers.
At the outset, it must be acknowledged that the argument between wealth and poverty should not be the existence of them, but the gap between them. The wealthy and the poor is a hierarchy in our society that cannot be deconstructed. It human instinct to divide itself into categories, and it will only continue in the future. A gap will always exist, narrowing the gap can aid in this, but there will always be something there that keeps a separation between the two. Political persuasions aside, I think that the invisible hand as described by Adam Smith is and will continue to be the driving force in our economic system. To me it means that the wealth of a nation will continue to rely upon the free will of people, and it is up to the people to actively pursue their own self-interests to benefit themselves. While this may seem to continue the world order in which we live, we must spend time and money currently on overcoming other major issues. Right now, the world has so much on its plate, we need to focus on some key issues and get those done first.
On a lighter note, the Pentagon was a very interesting and cool thing to do. It was a very standard overview of the headquarters of the Department of Defense. The coolest part was probably the Honor Guard tour guide who walked backwards the entire time, while delivering a speech, and did not look backwards the entire time. Having that opportunity really makes living in this city worth it. It was the highlight of my “Week from Hell”

Reflection Week 11

Thursday's fish bowl discussion was something I never did or heard before, and it was definitely an interesting way to do it, although at times, it was frustrating when I was outside and couldn't really comment on a topic I really wanted to talk about a topic. Besides that new experience, as we move into our new topic of wealth and poverty, it seemed that the term "wealth" did not have a concrete meaning that everyone could agree on.

I totally agree that wealth is something that cannot be defined easily. Something that one considers "wealth" may not be wealth to another person. For example, someone would consider his family part of his wealth, while some may argue that it is not, because he would consider wealth as something else, such as his friends and social connections. The definition of wealth is certainly a subjective one as we can see from the example and the class discussion; however, one thing that is extremely interesting from the discussion we had on Thursday, and at the same time could potentially be a "definition" of wealth is that it is something that one holds as important in their life. Also, it seemed that we were going in the direction in which we are seeing wealth as a "social construct," and seemed to hint at the fact that wealth is defined by what the society thinks, and this is also compatible with the suggested definition above. Growing number of people hold one common thing dear and that naturally becomes definition of wealth as constructed by society. However, the traditional definition of wealth has been centered around the concept of money and economy; you are wealthy if you have a big house, or if you have a nice car, and it generally reflects the material condition of something. Therefore, I think that something that one considers wealth that is not material is simply a metaphorical usage of the wealth, and for the sake of discussion, as well as for the proper usage of the word wealth, I think that thinking about wealth as the material condition, and more specifically, thinking about wealth as money, is more relevant that simply concluding that wealth is a social construct that one can define for one's own self.

It was suggested during the discussion about wealth that wealth consists of opportunities and freedom to choose; people make different choice; what to buy and what to do. During the discussion, I briefly asked what happens if one didn't capitalize on that opportunity, which I think didn't really get to the point that I wanted to make, which is the seeming confusion between wealth and signs of wealth. As we discussed what opportunities meant, I was continually struck by the notion that was mentioned before; what one considers important is wealth. However, I would refute that with the idea mentioned near the end of the above paragraph. If I follow this definition, then what does it imply for the notion of opportunities? I would say that true wealth is the financial or material capability of an individual to obtain "stuffs." This then implies that the opportunities and freedom to choose are either means of obtaining this material capability, or are simply a "showcase" of these capabilities. You have a gigantic house, which shows that you have the money; however, it doesn't necessarily equate to the owner's ability to buy stuff (unless, of course, if he chooses to directly trade the house for another good, oh lets say, a banana).

In the general flow of the society today, wealth has become increasingly subjective and a broad term that could cover almost everything. However, I believe that it is a very simple concept of financial capability. I would probably shape my comments around this idea, and I believe it is a concept that not most people would adhere to according to the discussion in class, and I hope I could certainly make some points from another perspective on wealth as the discussion progresses/

Reflection week 11

When attempting to define wealth in Thursday’s class, I found it interesting the difficulty we had in cementing a definition. When the question “are you wealthy” was broached, everyone immediately was silent, and I could tell this wasn’t a question many were comfortable answering. The unique thing about wealth, especially in America, is that everyone strives for wealth, yet when asked about it, no one wishes to admit to having extreme wealth. When we got around to attempting to determine a concrete definition for the term, there were many discrepancies.

While wealth certainly refers to monetary gains, it also incorporates resources and abilities. I thought the point made about the choices you have was important. Those with enough money are able to choose and decide to do something that others without the privilege of money would not be able to do. For example, those with a large amount of debt out of college go for the higher-paying jobs, while those without the burden of debt are able to choose a post-college job that fulfills their dreams or is convenient. This capacity to actually make this decision is an important aspect of wealth.

Another view of wealth is that it is not necessarily always based off of liquid assets (cash). Someone may be seen as wealthy by most everyone, but have the majority of their wealth tied up in investments, stocks, property, or businesses.

Professor Jackson brought up the idea of the transference of wealth. Is wealth viewed the same across cultures and countries or does the definition change? I think that after a certain point (the Bill Gates or Oprah level) wealth is wealth, no matter where you are or who you are with. On the other hand, there are people considered wealthy in their country, but would be living below the poverty line in other places—like DC for example.

The bottom line is that wealth, as well as poverty, are two very subjective terms. When we attempt to define the terms, we run into discrepancies in opinion. I don’t think we will ever really come up with a definitive characterization for wealth, but it seems that most people seem to recognize wealth when they see it. This recognition of wealth only becomes an issue when individuals make assumptions—whether true or not—about those they stereotype based on their wealth or lack thereof.

Globalization = Supernational Integration?

It is true that there is a economic globalization in process today and that issues that are brought to light no longer simply affect one group of people. However, despite this globalization which one may argue is homogenizing different groups, it doesn't necessarily imply the need to re-order world politics into some form of supernational integration, because of conflicting self interests of the states.

A from of supernational integration, such as EU, may seem necessary in light of the current trend of globalization, where cultural and economic boundaries are being taken down. However, despite this homogenization, the nation-states still maintain their uniqueness due to its historical and cultural heritage. Constructivist may argue that people's identity, along with state identity, can be molded and that history is "malleable," and it seems that they are right when we consider globalization. State identities have changed, such as from a debtor nation to a creditor nation, and from a rising immigrant hub to the status of a world leader. However, what these changing identities have not changed is one's loyalty to the country, other wise known as patriotism or nationalism. Therefore, as far as we can foresee, it is safe to assume that states, with its patriotic citizens, will exist until the citizens' perception of their "mother-" or "father-"land have been completed altered. At this point, a constructivist could argue that globalization is slowly homogenizing people and there will come a point when people will abandon nationalism to come under one supernationally integrated political form. However, at that point, I could argue that it is no longer a supernational integration, because it is not integrating different nations, but that it is another form of a national state. Therefore, changing identities doesn't necessarily lead to the inevitable supernational form of political order.

So, if a nation-state form is kept, then why is a form of supernational integration not the only viable political order? Because after all, nation-states are self-interested entities. Whether you follow the liberal argument or realist argument, the fundamental idea is the same; the idea of a self-interested state. Of course, there are differences, such as liberals arguing that cooperation arises accidentally while pursuing self-interest, while realists argue that because of self-interest, the world is dangerous. In a supernational entity formed of these kinds of states, decision making process is bound to be slow, whether it is due to states seeking mutual benefits, or trying to check each other's intentions. Because decision making process is slow, some of the little detailed issues that are specific to each nation may not be addressed by such supernational entity, which makes supernational entities an optional means to achieve a states ends, and not the necessary one. Therefore, not only is supernational entities an option, but it could prove to be a burdensome option that achieves some goals at the cost of some issues being ignored.

The Necessity of the EU

Today, the state of the world is such that cooperation between nations is a requirement for sustaining global health. It can be argued that each of the three IR theories have elements of agreement with this strategy.

From the realist point of view, working with other nations is in a country’s self-interest. Collaborating and having positive relations with a multitude of other countries achieves self-preservation by the country. Employing partnerships increases safety, as countries that work together are unlikely to fight. The specific benefits of the EU for countries far outweigh the costs, and realists would argue this is partially why countries have stayed involved. Smaller countries gain a broader and more powerful international persona, as well as protection from other EU countries should anything happen.

Liberals advocating mutual benefits would see supranational integration as a means for collaboration between countries positively impacting each of the participants. In the EU, countries have the benefits of a common currency, common social policies, and common international policy. Also, each country is protected by the number of other European countries that form the EU.

Constructivists, of course, see the EU as a necessary adaptation to the world we live in today. In the cold war era, for example, this kind of supranational integration was not needed—there were distinct divides between nations (such as the US and Russia), which worked well for each nation involved. Now however, if there were such a divide, the nations would not be benefited by establishing and perpetuating this conflict.