Last class the conversation revolved around celebrities and activism. I wasn't feeling very well during that morning, but I tried to pay attention as much as I could to write a good reflection post. Before the reading and Thursday's class, I had never paid that much attention to the relation between celebrities and world politics. Personally, I'm not a fan of having celebrity "role models" or "idols," considering that I don't know them personally (and really don't care about them). Regardless of these, many people do go as far as imitating the actions and style of top trending celebrities.
Famous people know that the trends they create, wether they are for a good cause, for more publicity or for money, have a direct impact on today's culture. What this means is that they have the ability to move masses towards a unified purpose, at least for a short period of time. Then, why should it matter if celebrities promoting activism are passionate or not about the topic? I'll rather have some famous "instagramer" talking about prevention for climate change or human trafficking than doing a stupid #challenge that revolves around the web with no purpose behind it. While both actions may have the same effect to the celebrity, expanding his follower base and wealth, the one inciting activism can change at least one life. Through "un-passionate" activism from celebrities, at least ONE passionate individual can be motivated to solve a local or global challenge. And if I have learned something from my short years of social work, is that service is about changing one life at a time.
0 Comments
How should the U.S. define the domestic content of automobiles, and why? The debate on what should the U.S. do about domestic content rules is one that varies depending on the scope. What is the goal? Long term economic revenue for the country, job demand increase, political leverage... Every objective changes not just the position, but the format of the conversation around it too.
For example, the post by Mimi, one that I enjoyed a lot, takes a position on the debate setting "a healthy and functioning diplomatic world" as the goal. With that goal in mind the arguments proposed are effective and even logical. But hat if the problem depends on the opinion of the every-day citizen? Then the arguments proposed by Mimi wouldn't be as relevant as other, more locally appealing, arguments such as the ones exposed by Blake. Blake's argument provides very good and logical points too, yet the aim is set at bringing Michigan some improvement rather than seeking world peace. I doubt some proposed home-runs would seem interesting to the Barcelona (Spain's best soccer team, and there is no debate or different scope possible here). What I mean by all of this is that sometimes, in order to win the game, it is necessary to understand what game is being played. Politics and policy stick very closely to this rule, especially in democratic societies where elected representatives need the vote of the people. Because while loosening the domestic content rules might bring economic progress and eventual world peace, it might not help you win the election in today's (which is prone to change soon) electoral environment. Machiavelli wouldn't be very happy with that decision... Liberal theory might have different opinions, and the debate goes on without something as "the best solution" ever coming into existence. First of all, I can't believe that October is almost over and the cold weather is already here (yes below the 60s is already cold for me). Getting that off my mind, I want to join the conversation of this week by answering to Vicky's reflection. I solely agree with the opinion that humankind has no business mingling space while the Earth is still full of problems to solve AND amazing places to explore (I can never stop thinking, especially after watching Pacific Rim, about how deep and scary our oceans really are). What really made me reflect while reading the post was this sentence: "Humankind doesn’t deserve a fresh start in the cosmos nor is it our right to colonize and claim ownership of what is not ours."
What at first looked to me as a simple and logical statement, eventually made me have double-thoughts about Earth and all of us here. Is it our right to live on Earth and claim pieces of land for ourselves? Or is it just a matter of our ability to do it? Do we, as humans, dominate Earth above all other living things simply because we can? If then we had the possibility to do the same on Mars or other far away places, should we focus on what "we deserve" or on what "we can do"? I'm sorry if the questions are very lame and confusing, but I am too. Big shoutout to Vicky for posting such a deep and interesting post, it really made me question "realities" about human existence in the Earth and the Universe. On another topic, I'll be glad to listen to different opinions about the caravan from central America migrating through Mexico towards the U.S., as I have very strong opinions (due to situations back home related to this) about the matter and would like to open up to other views. Leave some comments about the topic please!!! There's a new show out in Netflix called "Made in Mexico." I first heard about this reality show during a Latinx meeting, and it was highly criticized as falsely representing Latin American values and culture. I looked it up later, and from the synopsis and the trailer considered the idea a great one. The show is about the lives of social elites from Mexico City, a group I don't consider myself a part of, yet have many friends who fit right in. I think that the purpose of this show, drawing from the trailer and the synopsis, is about representing how absurd the lives of this people can be. It is also about giving insight to the social class that leads Mexico in trends. I think that this show can be tied to my last blog post, referring to the "double consciousness" and how in Mexico it has a more socio-economic aspect.
As of right now I'm watching episode 1. So far there has been nothing that is surprising or new for me. However, I feel that many people who are not from Mexico will be very surprise to realize that there is a different aspect to our country than the general narrative. It is important to have this types of shows, regardless of how ridiculous the stories and characters might be, to show the rest of world the different points of view, or "consciousness" that a country has. How specific in applicability is this concept? Do other groups experience the same, or at least a similar, sort of of "double consciousness," either in the United States or elsewhere? Is Du Bois' concept helpful for an understanding of other societies and other experiences, beyond the United States?
While I don't have a lot of experience on the topic of racial divisions in the United States, I know that the racial division in Mexico is not as visible as in America. The division in Mexico can be seen more clearly at the socio-economic level, rather than the racial one. Yet, these two are tied together in what could be considered the consequences of Spanish colonization. Descendants from the Spanish usually held high offices and had the economic power while native populations and mixtures between natives and whites used to be in the lower spheres of social influence and economic wealth. Although this link between socio-economic and racial division can still be seen in Mexico today, the narrative of "double consciousness" is not as applicable throughout the history of my country. Different civil wars and social movements have presented fluctuating relations between socio-economic classes and ideologies, but there has never been a mayor fracture due to a racial divide. Sometimes the rulers were of native descent, many other times they were of Spaniard tradition, yet this was never a crucial stand-point for most of their actions. I do not consider myself an expert on Mexican history, but I do consider the following statement to be true: a big factor to explain the absence of a racial divide in Mexico, compared to the United States, is due to the fact that there was no systematic oppression of a specific race. In other words, there was no slavery. I am not saying that there are no profound divisions in Mexican culture. Oppression targeted at ethnic and racial groups happened throughout my country's history, but most of the times it was attributed to socio-economic status or education rather than race. The consequences of these historic events can be seen in our modern politics, were the everyday people, "el pueblo", feels oppressed by a ruling elite that controls every economical and social sphere in the country. So there is a "double consciousness" in Mexico, yet it is difficult to attribute it to a single race or group, as labels have been fluctuating more throughout Mexican history. On a side note, I found interesting that Vicky, who is Latin American too but not Mexican, also mentioned how the double consciousness "does not exist as harshly as it does for African Americans in the United States." What her comment helped me realize is that the situation in Mexico resonates in other Latin American countries too. This tells me that Spanish colonial rule, in some sort of way, managed to merge the European and native cultures, and that the almost complete lack of native slavery affected how these societies merged. Maybe some possibles solutions to the racial divide in the United States can be drawn from the history and culture of its latin American neighbors. I also want to thank Sophia for using my commentaries on her blog! I'll be happy to answer comments and questions about the post, as I enjoyed very much writing about this. I found very interesting the idea that Corwin presented in his last reflection. During class we had briefly touched on this too. Practice always ends up being more complicated, less black and white, than the actual theory.
During class every theory seems to be different from the other, sometimes even the opposite, yet in the real world stage, theories overlap. Sometimes it is even impossible to prove that you are following one theory without the influence of others. Just like the example used by Corwin, where the line between realism and constructivism get blurry, and it is hard to say which single theory is being applied. While the statement that practice always plays out different than theory is pretty obvious, it raises many intriguing questions. How much does theory influence the behavior on the world stage? Is the theory an attempt to understand human nature, or is the theory influencing what we call human nature? Theory vs Practice is always an interesting topic because it sheds light in how predictably unpredictable humans can be, especially on the world stage. I want to focus this week's reflection on the movie we watched this week, District 9. This movie, which I enjoy a lost every time, is an almost satirical representation of how things work in our world. It takes on topics such as refugees in a foreign country, forced relocation, private and economic interests in the world politics, etc.
The first time I watched District 9 I was ten or eleven years old and clearly I couldn't pick up the references to the real-world problems. I re-watched it many times, the most recent occasion some months before coming to AU. I always considered this a good sci-fi movie, one of the best. Yet, I never stopped to consider this movie as relevant as it is to the conversation on International Relations and government bureaucracy. Watching it with this focus was really an eye-opener. One of my favorite aspects is the ending, which leaves the rest of the story up to our imagination. I like to think that this movie works as a prequel to all of the other alien invasion movies, Christopher Johnson comes back with an invading army and takes on the xenophobic humans who have been discriminating his species for 20 years. Some fans of this movie would disagree this is a good prediction, considering the portrayal of the character's motivations as strictly selfish throughout the movie. Regardless of this controversy, I consider this movie a masterpiece and an awesome satire of real world problems in the international scale. 9/10. Would highly recommend. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|