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.
1 Comment
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. Should Locke's notion of tolerance be extended to members of the Flat Earth Society? Why, or why not?
As long as they do not intend to establish authority over the rest who think the Earth is round, then they should be tolerated. As John Locke said about atheists, "yet if they do not tend to establish Domination over others[...]there can be no Reason why they should not be tolerated. " However, if the Flat Earth Society (F.E.S) acts in manners that are a threat to the Civil Order they should not be tolerated. That's a possible explanation as to why they are not getting hired in universities and state government's divisions. They should be allowed to believe in whatever they want without government interference, yet this doesn't mean they are to be accepted into society's structure. While this argument may seem contradicting in today's context, it is important to examine it in Locke's context (17th century Europe). In very simple terms, Locke's tolerance refers as to not starting a war, a persecution, or any other violent action against a certain group. It does not mean welcoming and accepting them into society. That's why, even if the tolerance is extended to the members of the F.E.S., it is most likely that they won't get hired. As expressed at the beginning of this post, they are to be tolerated as long as they do not seek domination over the groups that disagree with them. However, putting them in positions of authority over geographic matters would certainly propose an advantage to a group who presents a risk towards the notions of Civil order and Tolerance. Therefore, the fact that members of the Flat Earth Society are not being hired in certain Geography-related jobs should not be considered relevant to John Locke and his notion of tolerance. Does "The Prince" from Machiavelli still apply to today's politics?
That question was very debated throughout the class, and I find it very interesting and relevant to the topic at hand. The realism expressed by Machiavelli clearly determines the limitations of power and how it should be managed. He takes into consideration human nature and human tendencies to explain political behaviors. "The Prince" could be dismissed as irrelevant or out of date for many reasons. One of them is that the political situation in the world has changed since the Renaissance. Machiavelli writes the book as advice for Lorenzo d'Medic who was a single ruler with dictatorial power over a principality. Today's political power in Westernized countries, theoretically, is ruled by democracy. Yet, "The Prince" relevance comes not from its views on principalities or physical fortresses, but from the human tendencies exposed. I believe that human nature does not change. These could be exemplified by comparing situations explained throughout the book with historical and current accounts. Update: While doing some searching I read an article from George Mason University's journal that expresses similar views to mines. It goes deeper into the ideas I exposed here. I have the pdf if anyone is curious about it just leave a comment with your email and I'll send it to you. Have a good week everyone! I don't intend to write a review about "The Prince" right now, and will leave that to the blog post for next week. Today I just want to share my experience while reading the book. The first time I read it I had too much caffeine and too little sleep in my system to fully comprehend it. The second time around left me with the desire to go through it again. I'm still trying to finish the third round, but other pending assignments have made it hard to finish.
The copy of "The Prince" which I obtained is in horrible conditions (if anyone doesn't want theirs anymore and it is in favorable conditions I'll buy it for a reasonable price) and has "annotations" all over it. These annotations from the previous owner, who circled almost every instance where the word "men" was employed, were very distracting, annoying and sometimes triggering. At first I just ignored the previous annotations, crossing them off and writing my own instead. Later I started reading some of them, and my initial reaction was a dislike towards the previous owner's thoughts. Where I agreed, there was a note from him disagreeing. Where I came up to a certain conclusion, he wrote something completely opposite from me. In short, his way of thinking is the opposite of mine and at first it bothered me not being able to read the book without some notes, which I didn't agree with, distracting me. Now I'm grateful for the annotations on my copy of "The Prince" because they are a reminder that the "truth" has many perspectives. Points of view differ, and ideas crash, especially around topics such as the ones mentioned by Machiavelli. I like to think of my copy of "The Prince" as a representation of what AU means to me. An opportunity, not just to learn what a Professor or expert has to say on a topic, but to form my own point of view, listen to others who might not agree and challenge my own ideas. What is the most unrealistic element of the game?
While this game has many elements that could be considered unrealistic, I want to focus on the cultural aspect. In the classroom we all speak the same language and come from similar backgrounds (considering our geographical location). In real life, languages and culture around the world are extremely different, and some clash with others and make relations more complicated. Communication during the game, wether it is between state leaders or diplomats, its simplified and very direct. The resolutions and agreements can be reached in a surprisingly short time and without translation or clash of world views. These does not reflect real life conversations between states. I do not think this is a problem that we should worry about because there is no way of "fixing it". Yet, it is important to notice it and keep it in mind. World Politics and International Relations are topics deeply tied with culture. The more we understand other cultures, through language and other forms of immersion, the better chance of reaching agreements and solving international conflicts. Immersion can be between states, regions, countries, continents. It is necessary for us, who focus on the international stage, to understand cultural differences and learn from them and about them. Personally, I love immersing myself in foreign cultures and trying to understand them with an open mind. By doing these, many aspects of their traditions, history and current political inclinations become more clear. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|