I cannot believe this is the last blog reflection of the semester. So much has happened, yet so little time has elapsed. Honestly, I am going to miss posting on this blog. Although sometimes the weekly reflections were hard to elaborate, overall it was fun to share my opinion and arguments with my fellow GloSchos. As I prepare to write my final essay for the class, it is very rewarding to see the progression on my posts every week.
As to the class, it was a great experience, and managed to introduced me smoothly into the world and how it works. Through different theoretical and practical situations, such as readings, movies, simulations, I experienced new knowledge. Yet, every time we learnt something new I realized that I had more questions than answers. If I may add a final thought about the class, it should be how much it has expanded my perspective of the world. I want to thank my companions on this 15-week journey, my fellow GloSchos, for allowing me to challenge myself through their knowledgeable and profound posts. Last but not least, thank you Professor PTJ for an amazing semester, full of original and thought-provoking classes.
0 Comments
I want to address Corwin's post. More specifically, the conversation between Corwin and Mimi in the comment section.
Corwin says that: "neither other people nor ourselves can truly judge us to be a foreigner from our home country or culture." Yet, the phenomenon of othering members of their own home country has been present throughout history, in worst case scenarios leading to fatal consequences, such as ethnic cleansing. The idea of nationality and culture are constructions, which people tend to adopt subconsciously. These constructions can be altered to the point where the otherness is so great that a member of the community is excluded and considered a foreigner from their own nation. Despite the existing possibility of cultural alienation, I do not believe that Mimi's statement, "many times when that cultural identity is so tangled they have no other choice than to admit to having no cultural identity," can be accurate. Yes, there is a growing sense of globalization and an unprecedented mixture of cultural elements worldwide. People who experience different backgrounds might never feel identified as part of a single community. Regardless, it is impossible to assume that an individual can relinquish every sense of having a cultural identity. Instead, considering that they have felt as foreigners their whole life, they manifest mixed cultural elements that make them appear foreign to the country they are residing in. Take for example myself. My house is decorated both for Día de Muertos and Thanksgiving at the same time. My family, which has lived both in the US and Mexico, has adopted cultural elements from the two countries. On one hand, many of my friends in Mexico consider my celebration of Thanksgiving as an American tradition. On the other, living here in the US I can't feel completely identified with the culture. This middle ground, one that Maxim and Alycia have experimented in more impactful ways, does not mean that we have no cultural identity. Its the exact opposite, our cultural identities are stronger because we can understand different cultures as if they are our own. Todorov said: "without becoming an Indian, Cabeza de Vaca was no longer quite a Spaniard." Here is the middle ground. One where an individual retains subconscious cultural elements while not considering himself as part of only that country. Where someone can seem as an outsider, while still being able to understand the culture as his own. '''The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect' (I myself, a Bulgarian living in France, borrow this quotation from Edward Said, a Palestinian living in the United States, who himself found it in Erich Auerbach, a German exiled in Turkey)."
I didn't get to write my post on Todorov's quote, but I wanted to reflect on it. Todorov speaks about how a man perceives his country. I found very interesting that while he acknowledges the strength of a an who loves every nation, the author praises the man who has no feelings for any country. The later has the ability to look objectively at the events world-wide. Just as I had expected, going back to Mexico allowed me to look at the situation there from a different perspective. Yet, I can't say I'm able to detach myself from the feelings and look at the whole objectively. There are many mixed feelings back home; about the new president, the migrant caravan, the insecurity, etc. But one thing that sticks out is the constant creation of "Other" to blame for the problems. No one wants to take the blame (and I insert myself as part of this). Everything is someone else's fault. Hopefully in the years to come the people of Mexico will start to realize that progress can only come from a united country, and that the negative separation of the "Other" leads to hate. In about 48 hours I'll be arriving to Mexico City. Even though only a few months have passed, I feel like I've been gone for years. I am very excited to go back to the place I have called home for all my life, and for the first time, know that it is just vacations. Leaving out my family, friends and food, what I'm most excited about is how out of place I'm going to feel. I'm going to be able to look at my city from a different lens, almost as an outsider. Especially after this week's discussions on "The Other" and the Conquest.
Both Miranda's and Mimi's posts made me reflect a lot about the relation between what we are taught and the real narrative. Miranda focuses on Thanksgiving and the education she received in Massachusetts. I can agree that my experience with history education is similar, as Westernized ideology tends to be the loudest voice. There is a common trend to leave out the "uncomfortable" facts of colonization, to the point where the Spanish explorers/colonizers can be praised as heroes. The process of colonization in Mexico, just as in many other former colonies, should not be oversimplified in the history textbooks. The "simplification" of facts many times has served oppressive and classist governments to rise and further divide the people. Personally, I'm a very religious person and a practicing Catholic. Yet, I'm also aware of the way it has been manipulated to legitimize horrible actions. Mimi's post talks about the ways religion was perceived by the Aztecs and the Spanish. The influence of these perceptions has impacted Mexico's history for years. On one hand, we are a country who proudly recognizes the division of state and church, of religion and education. On the other, we are a country culturally attached to Catholicism, the after life and other spiritually focused traditions. Depending on how it is presented by the politicians, Catholicism can create an internal "Otherness" or unite the population. These manipulation on religion, bordering the suppression of the people's free-will, are also instruments that can be used by governments to control the people. What I'm trying to get to with all of these is the importance of education. And with education I'm not just referring to the one imparted by the government. People in Mexico, and all over the world, should have the resources available to objectively inform themselves. While I recognize this as an ambitious statement, there are may steps we can take to get closer to it. Being open-minded is the first one, and I'll try my best once I'm back home for the break. I want to end the post with a quote from one of my favorite filmmakers and, even though it is not deep or complicated, it depicts a reality of today's political environment. “Now more than ever we need to talk to each other, to listen to each other and understand how we see the world[...]” – Martin Scorsese This week's content was very interesting and thought provoking, to say the least. What I noticed the most is that we couldn't have decided a better time and a better city to study world politics. When the discussions about theory are able to go beyond that and get mixed with the current events (especially with this two eventful weeks for the U.S. and the world) is when I really start to understand the relevance they carry.
Embedded liberalism, at least from my perspective, is over. The world is undergoing yet another change. And every change period brings about two new things: opportunities and instability. As the tension in U.S. politics grows, threatening to divide the country over some of its most fundamental principles, other nations are undergoing the same struggle. As Elyssa mentions in her reflection, small political events, such as a municipal election, can have massive repercussions all around the world. Also, countries that used to play a big role in world politics are having to slow down their global role and instead take care of their internal problems more and more. Yet, other nations that have established a more solid internal policy and politics are reaching towards the "opportunity" side that comes with change. Some of these nations are a threat to the liberal world order that has reigned over the world for a while now. Sooner or later the U.S. has to realize that the biggest threats to a nation always come from the inside, in the form of division and hate amongst its own citizens. As a country with so much influence and power in the world stage (political, economic, military), its politics NEED to reflect that level of responsibility. If it fails to do so, soon the world will notice this and other nation will take on the mantle of world leadership. Lately we have been surrounded by news about hate, violence, conflicts, bad political decisions... The events that have been going on in the States are despicable and show the worst side of humanity. Hate killings, threats, attacks to minorities, the victory of abusers over victims... Things just seem to get worse and worse. The bad news are not only going in the U.S., but worldwide. Back home they canceled the construction of the new airport and the economy is on the verge of collapsing again due to that. Also, insecurity is the highest it has ever been for the past years and the country doesn't seem to get any closer to peace. The political system is on the ground and we have been in an internal war for more than ten years now (with more than 500,000 deaths.) No wonder I have felt challenged, mad, frustrated and overwhelmed lately. I have read multiple blog posts about my fellow GloSchos, and I realize that many are also mad or irritated at the current events.
As privileged college students, attending a high-level university with admirable professors and a program dedicated to preparing its students for the betterment of the world, the bar could not have been set higher. We have this weight on our shoulders now. All of us have the ability and desire to help the world. While we are all on parallel paths here in GloScho, they will soon separate. Each one of us is going to be thrown into a complicated professional world, with well-established institutions and organized systems. Suddenly, we are going to feel like there is no way to change it all. To fix it. All the theories we are learning, all the ideals we have, the plans, everything is going to be challenged. For some of us, it might even seem as if there is no way of getting it right. That's life and there is no other way around it. However, what I'm trying to do with this blog reflection is not to make that pressure feel bigger and mortify already very stressed out college students. Actually, my goals is directed towards making the pressure feel a little less heavy. To do that I only have one humble piece of advice: The only way to change the world is one life at a time. I know this sounds cliché and like total B.S., but it works. Trust me. We are not going to single-handed eradicate violence, poverty, hate, racism, global warming or any other problem. Recognizing that is the first step, and it is a hard pill to swallow sometimes. Yet, if we dedicate what we are learning here, plus our own personal talents, towards helping one person, soon many more will follow. For some of us it means reaching out to a certain marginalized group. For others it is about cleaning some small part of our environment or helping someone in their everyday context. That person might even be yourself somedays, and that is fine too. It doesn't matter who or how, as long as every day we work towards improving the conditions in which a person lives. If we act this way we are improving the world. If we focus our goals towards saving one life, everything else is possible too. I refuse to believe that as Global Scholars we are not special because we are. We are a select group in an already filtered group of students at AU, and we have a big responsibility: using the opportunities and talents we have to improve at least ONE life. No pressure. "The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others." -Gandhi. (Sorry for the long post, I needed to get put these thoughts out for everyone. Thank you if you made it all the way to the end. Hope all of these helps at some point in your life.) 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. 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. 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. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|