Reflecting back on our simulation- we worked really hard on our presentations and I think it really showed. Everyone did a wonderful job educating each organization/corporation about their plan for environmental sustainability. Although a few us were a bit standoffish and asked questions attacking the morality of our companies... (lol) we learned a lot about how each organization directly affects the environment.
I represented Greenpeace and I learned a lot about their mission views. Our definition for sustainable development of “satisfying the current needs of humanity without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” aligns with their mission statement of positive actions, the protection of biodiversity, and the prevention of all forms of pollution. Since Mozambique's government already has an ecological plan for sustainable development we looked at the challenges to implement it further. I think that in the debate, our plans and values will most likely coincide with Oxfam. We both mentioned that governments need to create enabling frameworks that allow the private sector and civil society to work productively to venture into crucial areas like education, energy and infrastructure; sectors that have been previously off-limits to private investment. Oxfam and Greenpeace will most likely argue for poverty reduction, sustainable means for a developed end, and the implementation of the Green Economy Road Map. This map calls for sustainable farming, reduction of fossil fuels, and stimulation of the economy through sustainable means of employment. Mozambique has attempted to implement their plans but, despite these efforts, the Green Economy ‘Road Map’ for Mozambique presents various challenges such as: monitoring the exploitation of mineral resources; constraints of human, material, technological and financial resources for the transition; cyclical threats of drought, floods, strong winds and cyclones; population growth; the growth of the urban areas; and low levels of productivity in various sectors.
0 Comments
On p. 250, Todorov writes: "'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'" Do you agree?
I think this post speaks to nationalism and patriotism as separate entities. The first part: the man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner. This reminds me of American education in elementary/middle school. The man (government) wants those to find their country (America) sweet (innocent). It reminds me of my 8th grade Georgia Studies class that called the Civil War the war of Northern Aggression. They teach the 'raw beginners' what they want us to know so that we are patriotic. Patriotism for Americans is an important trait in the definition of claiming American identity. It reminds me that we all begin to believe that America is the land of the dreamers, full of hope and promise- until we understand the thousands of voices that have been silenced and dreams that have been discouraged and people that have been turned away and colonized and oppressed. Next, 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, in my opinion, takes a different turn than the first part of the quote. I think it signifies that everything other than the 'self' is foreign and is labelled as the 'other'. But based off of the security briefs we read earlier, I'm not sure labelling the whole world as 'other' is perfect. It fosters an idea of isolationism but on a personal scale. The other, self, etc. activity we did in class placed world powers on an international level but this quote singularizes the argument of individualism. But I don't agree. Perfection cannot be placed on someone who labels the whole world as other because they are actively separating themselves from foreign cultures, peoples, languages, traditions, etc. The separation of oneself cannot foster a perfect man because this creates an identity that belongs to no one and nothing. It is intrinsically in human nature to want to belong to something, therefore, distinguishing the self and the other so drastically is the exact opposite of perfect human nature. I was not totally sure if we had to write a reflection so here I am writing one anyway! Happy Thanksgiving break and beginning of Finals (woohoo)!
This week I did not pay attention much to the news but I noticed that Time released their poll on "Time's Person of the Year 2018". I had to write a post about that. To start with, the person or group of people selected annually for having the greatest influence on the events of the past 12 months are voted on, first, by the people. Since 1927, Time has named a person or group of people as its Person of the Year for having the greatest influence on the year’s events, either for positive change or negative. In 2017, the Person of the Year was the men and women who were “Silence Breakers” by speaking up about sexual harassment and assault throughout various industries. In 2016, then President-elect Donald Trump was selected as the Person of the Year. The Times editors have the ultimate say but top picks come from the polls. However, forget Christine Blasey Ford or Stacey Abrams because BTS, a boy band, is at the top of the list polling at 8%. Trailing close behind include the Thai Cave Divers at 7%, Moon Jae-in and 6%, Michelle Obama and Planet Earth at 5%, and so on and so forth. It is interesting to see who people vote for but is also interesting to see who people don't vote for. Trump is polling at just 2% behind Beyoncé and Taylor Swift. I would think that the President of a super power, a person who has control over international and domestic trade, economics, politics, elections, media, nations, money, etc., would have a greater influence on the past 12 months. The criteria of being Time's person of the year is rather vague- someone with a great influence- the voters have to make a decision of what kind of influence that is- good or bad? What kind of people should we vote for? Someone who dictates World Politics or the World of Music? Should we vote for a group (undocumented children) or someone as powerful as the Pope? It is interesting to see how people vote when it isn't something overtly political even though it inherently is. Since I was at a swim meet from Wednesday-Saturday, my wonderful roomie, Wyatt, filled me in on our class discussion from Thursday so here's my take on Columbus and the Conquest of America.
Todorov was very focused on the role religion plays in the ultimate defeat of the Aztecs. But I can't help but wonder what Todorov left out. There is a large claim that the Aztec religious fervor was the ultimate cause of their downfall. However, the Spaniards also pursued all actions in the name of Christ and Christianity but their actions were largely against the good Christian way. Todorov explicates how the Spaniards searched for power, wealth, and glory while manipulating God's will and teachings in describing their demolition of the Aztecs. The main difference in the way each group uses religion can help describe the way the conquest played out. The Spaniards used God's will as a way of actively spreading Christianity to other place by all means necessary. Because, obviously, here comes Machiavelli (even in religion how ironic), as long as the ends justify the means its ok right? As long as Christianity is spread and persists in the Americas, brutal conquest and bloody war is acceptable right? Contrarily, the Aztecs trusted their gods and religious beliefs so ardently that when the Spaniards came to take over, they 'accepted' defeat because it was all in God's will. Primarily, the main problem is that Todorov largely claims religion created the need to take over the Americas but, the Spaniards were not close followers of Christian values. They were on the hunt for glory, wealth, and power. Those are the motives of defeating the Aztecs- for the large returns back home and the power it would bring them. Since I will be out on Thursday because of a swim meet, here is my contribution to class:
Part 2: The Conquest "'Language has always been the companion of empire.'" (page 123) I think this quote kind of relates the blog post I just wrote about how the Spaniards defeated the Aztecs through signs. Language is the companion of the empire, when used right. Unfortunately for Montezuma, he chose silence as his weapon of destruction and lost the battle for his empire. Language proves to be the companion of the Spaniards because of their interpretation of Montezuma’s weakness. Todorov explores the conquest of the Aztec empire by the Spaniards led by Cortés. His framework that supports the Spaniards conquest of the Aztecs relies on hesitation within the Aztec leadership (Montezuma’s apparent silence), Cortés' exploitation of the natives, and the superiority and advancement of Spanish technology. Todorov attempts to find commonalities between the two groups by examining how the Aztecs and Cortez used ‘signs’. Throughout his explanation he is very careful not to label either sides method of communication as inferior or superior (Foreword), he suggests that it was the Spaniards communication methods that allowed for victory. First, the Aztecs communication with the world and god/heaven is far more important than interpersonal, interactive communication. This form of communication is also very ritualized meaning there is little spoken word and most ‘sign’s are external movements and communicative gestures. Dissimilarly, Cortés utilizes language as a tool for the manipulation of the ‘other’ whereas Columbus is a master of interpersonal communication (page 123). An entirely different problem is the fact that Montezuma thinks that Cortés is an Aztec god named Quetzalcoatl “returning to recover his kingdom” (page 117). Since the signs of the Aztecs are overwhelmingly used in religious rituals, this also shows Spaniard manipulation the Aztecs’ lack of understanding. One of the basic principles of the Spaniards ability to understand Aztec signs are the external motions that suggested the Spaniards were understood as Aztec gods. This perfectly converted the chance of Cortés’ arrival into legitimate Aztec scripture and allowed Cortés to rationalize the Aztecs’ own history. On p. 62, Todorov asks: "Did the Spaniards defeat the Indians by means of signs?" Well, did they?
Well, the Foreword specifically says "the answer to Todorov's question, 'did the Spaniards defeat the Indians by means of signs?' is clearly yes" (page xi). So I would say so but here's some more evidence. First, there is no assumption of natural linguistic inferiority on the Indians side (page 62), it is actually that the cultural worlds are less adaptable to resisting the Europeans. So, specfically, since the Aztecs had no formal script, they could not generate "signs" to communicate with the Europeans, which hindered positive relations. Additionally, the Europeans used language to communicate rather than external signs so they were able to understand the Aztecs better and more easily than the Aztecs were able to understand them. This information was then enough for Cortes and his men to turn the Aztecs' cultural expectations against them. Next, the Europeans were unable to conquer the people of India and Asia because these people could manipulate signs in almost identical ways, which then allows for communication. I also think that interpretation of signs across the European-Aztec communication barrier play a pivotal roll in the conquest of the Indians by the Spaniards. On page 70-71 Todorov describes how Montezuma refused to communicate with the Spaniards because he "shows himself literally incapable of communicating, and the text establishes a significant parallel between mute and dead." This lack of 'signs' "symbolizes defeat, since the Aztec sovereign is above all a master of speech- the social action par excellence-and since the renunciation of language is the admission of failure" (page 71). Basically, when the Spaniards first arrive Montezuma already knows because he has this huge system of spies and won't, in my opinion, dignify the Spaniards arrival with words because he is afraid of them. Montezuma, I think, believes his silence shows strength in fortification of his empire but the Spaniards view his silence as a weakness, which then contributes to their defeat of the Aztecs. And lastly, Montezuma's first message states that the Spaniards can have everything in his kingdom as long as they don't come to see him. This shows his weakness in wanting to understand their arrival and makes the Spaniards decision to conquer the Aztecs much easier. This week was extremely important in world politics. The midterms. Tuesday night was extremely long for me at least. Since Trump took office in 2016, I think we've seen a pretty large political shift in American opinion. Or maybe, we've just seen a shift in Trump's ratings, I'm not sure which is better.
So, to review, the Senate stayed red and the House turned blue. The blue wave reached pretty far across the country by turning lots of governorships blue. Also, 100 women are now in Congress, including the first Native American, gay, transgender, and Muslim congresswomen. These major wins indicate a huge shift in what America wants for their government. It is now clear, we want change. But what does this mean for Trump and his administration? Trump was very quick to put a positive spin on the results, calling them a "tremendous success" but in fact, the blue House will prove to be a very large obstacle for the Red Senate and his presidency. But, to generalize, the cultural, religious, social, and political divisions that plague American might only be deepening- as indicated by what most call our now "divided government". However, the term divided government refers to one-party control of the executive branch and a different party controlling the legislative branch. So our situation is a little bit more complicated with split control of the executive branch but same-party control of half the legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch. We've seen a lot of incredible wins across the country that will help minorities, women, and lower-income families and hopefully, the blue wave will ride with continued strength into 2020 elections. I wanted to reflect on a few things that many people are talking about. First, I finally got my absentee ballot and I voted! My first election! That was just a super exciting thing I go to do this week. Speaking of the election, in Thursday's class, we touched on the migrant caravan and what it means for national security and the election. Does the caravan pose a threat to national security or is it just a way for Trump to fire up his base leading up to the midterms?
Basically the caravan consists of thousands of Central American migrants that entered Mexico from Honduras and Guatemala last week and are still traveling towards the United States despite threats from the Mexican and US governments. They still have nearly 1,000 miles to go until they reach the US border. They're coming because they need jobs, they wish to escape hate and persecution, and they have family in the US. Just like most migrants from Central and South America, work is hard to come by, and the migrants have families to support as many are traveling with children. The US offers a place for refuge and opportunity to improve their lives and that of their families. A large majority of the migrants are from Honduras, a country with a failing and corrupt government that steals land from their people. The migrants joined the caravan because of hate and persecution in Honduras and other Central American countries. Most people have no money. Many people have given up and have decided to return home or stay in Mexico. They walk 15-20 miles a day in torn shoes, scorching weather, and torrential downpour. The migrants are also subject to constant crime and gang activity. Because of these difficult conditions, a report from the Mexican government says that the caravan has been reduced from nearly 7,000 to 3,600 contrary to caravan organizer reports, claiming their numbers are growing. After a vote, participants of the group decided to march toward Mexico's Oaxaca state instead of crossing to the eastern part of the country. From there, organizers claim, they'll travel to Mexico City. Once they arrive, the caravan hopes to demonstrate for amended immigration laws that allow migrant prosperity and economic opportunity. Right now the closest border crossing to this caravan would be between Matamoros, Mexico, and Brownsville, Texas, but heading that way is considered a more dangerous route. The group crossed into Mexico a week ago, nearly a week after the caravan formed in San Pedro Sula, Honduras. What about these people screams national security threat? My question is: how does a group of unarmed people with children pose a threat to national security? Apparently a group of now 3,600 migrants warrants a plan to deploy 5,000 troops to the caravans supposed entry point in Texas. In my opinion, this is where the Trump administration has cried 'national security' at the smallest of threats. A group of unarmed asylum seekers traveling with children for a better life does not constitute 5,000 troops at the border. At this point, they are still thousands of miles from the border and we don't even know if they will make it to the US. Additionally, Trump's Twitter rants continue to demonize the migrants as "invaders", "terrorists", and "bad people". The caravan migrants are said to be seeking asylum, which is a legal form of seeking refuge. But according to Trump's administration, our borders are closed for business. I think that the Trump administration is a threat to our national security because of the lack of compassion and constant demonization of Central/Southern American people. Central-North American political conflict is bound to arise from this difficult situation. Overall, has US security policy in the past few decades been characterized by continuity or change? Both? Some combination of the two?
Obviously as the world changes, our security and priorities must adapt to fit the current times. Historically, through these documents, we see that they do, but they don't stray far from the same themes. Starting with NSC-68 and ending with NSS 2017, I believe that the US’s security policy has followed the same themes of putting American safety first with regards to terrorism, securing our leading place in the global economy, and protecting and advancing the notion of democracy abroad while also shifting, depending on the administration and the current environment of international relations. To start with, there are overarching similarities between NSC-68 and NSS 2017 despite their rather separate time frames. Both documents use foreign fear as a means for controlling and persuading Americans to be anti-communism, anti-Russia/USSR, etc. This kind of ‘fear mongering’ strategy, as written by Sophia, is a constant political tactic to further the goals of whatever administration is in charge. Right now, the Trump administration demonizes Mexican immigrants, Middle Eastern refugees, and every other minority for being "very bad people" and "terrorists". As Arnold Wolfers writes, the foreign policy that is implemented is a reflection of national interest. He mentions that national security is an ambiguous symbol of the reflection of the people. In this current environment, I beg to differ. Basically, he writes, we are products of our environment which, regarding international security, changes constantly. I find that I cannot read about international relations without seeing the world ambiguity at least once. While we like to believe that our administration has our interest in mind considering we voted for them, Trump seems to further his views of social security regardless of majority opinion. This creates a social security that goes beyond closed borders and airport securitization. It isolates American people, which is always the object of the documents as indicated by our-"self", from the rest of the world in the respect that everyone that is not American is not safe and should not be in the country. So now, 'others', are limited to, or rather broadened to, literally the rest of the world. You can see why this is problematic. This started with the fact that Americans almost always associate Muslims with terrorism because of the 9/11 attacks. While a tragic event, America has recently seen that most terrorists are domestic (school shootings, package bombs, etc.). Also, while the Obama administration acknowledged that seeking answers to the root of terrorism with a smaller military presence abroad is a great leap towards advancing the notion of counterterrorism, the current administration has emphasized a more aggressive military existence and approach, which is very similar to Bush-era efforts of counter-terrorism due to the time of American opinion of security. It all depends on American perspective on our international relations. Right after 9/11, Americans were more in favor of closed favors and a larger military because we just witnessed the largest terrorist attack on domestic soil. This concept leads to tactics that exist in similar administrations. The tactics almost always support our lead role in the global economy, a larger military, the spread of democracy and free trade agreements, to shape a larger American leadership role on a global scale. So, to summarize, the American concept of security has changed over time, in part because of 9/11, the Cold War and development of nuclear weapons, and the growing threat to democracy abroad. On Thursday, we talked about the positive and negative aspects of celebrity activism and I learned a lot after the reading and hearing my classmates opinions.
Kim K and Her Publicist Machiavelli: first, you have a Machiavellian celebrity. Kim K is a prime example of a celebrity who wants to appear virtuous but actually isn't. The other day, on Instagram and Twitter, she posted in support of trans visibility while Kanye supports Trump and argues against social justice. Her publicist definitely read Machiavelli and took the infamous 'appear to be virtuous line' a little to seriously. She often does this to appeal to the majority of her fans but continues to support Kanye's insensitive mindset which shows her lack of virtues. However, a good example of celebrity activism starts with education. Celebrities that are educated and cite and partner with forms and organizations show they actually want to learn how to enact positive change. For example, Ashton Kutcher uses his platform in a positive way because he co-founded an organization called THORN with UN envoys, child specialists, and police forces. By combining his platform with educated professionals, he advocates for children in human trafficking circles in a way that is helpful. He draws public attention to the problem but actually partners with organizations that can help them. Since 2016, with the adaptation of new child-identification software, THORN has saved 6,000 children in trafficking circles. This is celebrity activism at it's most effective level. Additionally, to further the negative impact of celebrity activism, Wyatt summarized the problem of the negative result of celebrity activism in that, "westerns tend to come to foreign countries with a solution without understanding the problem". I agree. Westerns won't typically ask the people they are trying to help what they need them to do. They think of a solution themselves without regards to the long-term impact of their 'help'. This could be the fulfillment of their self-gratification to help others, or sheer arrogance, or assumptions without proper research. These 'solutions' are not really the answer to their problems. There are so many celebrities that travel to developing countries (mostly in Africa) to 'help the needy and civilize the poor'. But why is this a problem? Mostly because when celebrities bring aid to developing countries, they often disrupt the economy of the country they're attempting to help. By bringing vast amounts of rice to countries suffering from famine, rice farmers are now out of work. While some intentions are pure and celebrities are attempting to use their platform for good things, the outcome is not always helpful. I do want to give them credit for trying because, like Corwin said, if they didn't try to help in some sort of way, we would never learn how to help those in need. |
AuthorI'm Hannah Andress from Atlanta, GA! I am an SIS major and I am on the Women's Swim Team. I am interested in national security, policy making, and the Middle East as my country of interest! Archives
December 2018
Categories |