This week has been rather traumatizing for me for multiple reasons. First, the Kavanaugh hearing. I am upset. I'm going to rant really fast and then I'll explain why this relates to world politics. First, my heart is with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and her family. The United States is supposed to champion human and civil rights. Women's rights, I am sure, falls under these categories. But we are still waiting the inevitable confirmation of Kavanaugh. I am most concerned with the morality (or lack thereof) that plagues the American people and who we elected to put in power. How can we nominate and confirm someone who is said to be a leader in women empowerment and women's rights but is actually the exact opposite? SO Machiavelli, am I right! Appear to be virtuous but lack all of the moral standings NECESSARY to sit on the highest court in the land, classic Machiavelli; Trump definitely took this page out of The Prince. But, more importantly, what message does this send to developing, ally countries with beginnings of human rights activism and programs? I used to think of America as a leader in human and civil rights, but now, after this hearing and seeing how our elected politicians are behaving, I am rightfully and deeply afraid for the women and minority populations of this country. As a global hegemony, other countries look to us for inspiration and proper governmental affairs. What example are we setting? This is not ok. Soon, our allies will begin to withdraw from international peacekeeping groups, human rights organizations, and civil rights groups. With this confirmation, our entire international network of civility and practicing humanity will crumble.
But, even more importantly, what message does this send survivors of sexual assault and abuse? What are we telling the people of our country that have suffered so so so deeply for something that wasn't even their fault? How can we expect abusers to act differently when there is one in power? I cannot even begin to explain how afraid I am of the turn of events our politics have taken. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Where is the justice system when we elect a corrupt power holder? How do we ensure domestic tranquility when civil unrest has erupted across the nation regarding something that shouldn't be happening in the first place? We the People is now We the People in Power.
1 Comment
Should Locke's notion of tolerance be extended to members of the Flat Earth Society? Why, or why not?
Locke's notion of toleration centers on governmental (magistrates) religious toleration and separation from church and state. The Flat Earth Society's theory is obvious: the Earth is flat. What do they base their theory on? I honestly couldn't tell you trying to navigate their website but I have concluded that they believe the earth is flat because when we walk on land its flat. It makes sense if we were living before modern technology that can take satellite pictures from space. Anyways, Locke also supports religious freedom as long as said religions do not encourage power of another leader, take away power from the magistrate, or encourage atheism. Therefore, I believe his toleration could be extended to the Flat Earth Society. Locke argues that civil unrest results from conflicts caused by the government’s effort to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their existence. If we apply Locke's theory to groups and organizations in general, aka factions, then we must apply toleration as well. Imagine the Flat Earth Society is a religion, I believe this theory can apply to all groups regardless of religious affiliation, it only relies on group philosophy. For example, if the government were to control the social justice movements (i.e. equal rights, civil rights, etc.), a loud and very large public opposition coupled with civil disobedience would plague the government. Obviously, social rights groups are not the same as religious groups, but I believe the same theory still applies.Their general makeup is still the same, they are a group of individuals gathering to support something they believe passionately in. Additionally, Locke’s theory was made for his time, which was the beginning of civil unrest and differing opinions. When applying his theory of toleration to current time we must consider the extenuating situations. Also, according to Locke, civil unrest will erupt if we try to prevent their existence and proliferation. Basically, "Flat Earthers" should not be allowed to teach in universities because their platform is not based on scientific research. But if we try to prevent them from practicing their inaccuracies, civil unrest will erupt and we would also be infringing on their unalienable rights (to put it into today's context). In conclusion, toleration is necessary, inclusion is not. This week marks a month of classes (give or take a few days)!! WOO! I have joined the Her Campus online magazine and my first article got published. This week I wrote about Stacey Abrams and her 'unlikely rise' to power in Georgia. I would like to relate this to Machiavelli's very famous quote "it is better to be feared than loved". While I agree that a healthy fear should be instilled in the governed, Stacey Abrams is nothing but loved. Her opponents obviously fear her ideas of government support programs and marijuana decriminalization but her supporters love her. If elected, Abrams would be the first African American, female Governor in the history of the United States. Having a black woman in power could change the lives of African Americans and women alike across the state. Not only would this monumental election prove being loved is also a way to govern, historically oppressed populations would be empowered everywhere. Since Georgia has a long-standing history of oppression against the black community across the state, having Abrams as Governor could empower and give legitimacy to the Black Lives Matter movement and end police brutality and crimes against black residents indefinitely.
Machiavelli's transcendent political perspectives can be applied to politics today to a certain extent. When applying his method of correct politics, we must consider his context. The Prince was written about autocratic regimes, not republic politics. Therefore, some his viewpoints are irrelevant in today's political atmosphere. Additionally, his idea regarding the use of cruelty to further political gain and keep the public at bay cannot be applied to government in the United States. Why? Because we live in a 'democracy' so the people in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches work for us. Furthermore, enacting cruelty on the people that voted them into office would not only destroy their political career but wreak havoc onto American society. It is hard, in a democracy, to insight fear because the public can easily revolt and bring down those in power. However, now we must look into Trump's administration. Democrats and Republicans alike are afraid of his every move, including those high in his senior administration officials. I wrote about the anonymous op-ed in the New York Times two weeks ago, but this op-ed shows how Trump's every move could be potentially dangerous for Americans and the world itself. This also disproved Machiavelli's theory of "it is better to be feared than loved". The whole world fears his childish and rash actions and his administration has a disapproval rate comparable to Nixon after the Watergate scandal. I suppose it depends where in the world you apply Machiavelli's theory. In a republic, it doesn't apply, but in a dictatorship, for example where he was living, it does. In a dictatorship or monarchy, those in power do not have to please their people (to a certain extent) because they were not elected to be there. They do not have to appeal to the people because they assume power through sheer militaristic force or nepotism. This brings us full circle to Abram's campaign. She is loved because she is different and will change American lives for the good of the republic. She doesn't have to be feared to make a difference, she just has to relate to a broad audience and appeal to their emotions. And finally, her election would be monumental because of her unparalleled dedication to improving the lives of Georgians. My reflection this week is going to focus on another class I'm taking called Immigrant America. I chose to I think the content I learn is extremely applicable to World Politics and foreign affairs.
This week my class read a few scholarly pieces about how immigrants decide to settle and how they adjust to "American Life". To start with, the Microeconomic Theory of migration states that individuals migrate due to a careful cost/benefit calculation that leads them to believe that will have a positive net return in the country they plan to migrate to. In other words, the economic benefits (industry pull) outweigh the risk of migrating. Now based on this theory, migration happens until expected earnings have been internationally equalized, therefore there will be no need for the movement of human capital. To relate this reflection to world politics, this theory begs the question, how can different countries control this type of immigration? Government will then have to involve themselves in economics. To control immigration, the government will have to implement policies that affect expected earnings. But how do we balance the supply and demand of human capital when it is fluctuating, constantly, around the world? Additionally, our class looked at D.C.'s immigrant population, specifically how immigrants integrate throughout the city based on a host of factors. Immigration is characterized by industry and chain/networking migrations. Industry tends to be one of the main pull factors, based on the microeconomic and macroeconomic theories, because individuals leave their homes to pursue economic opportunity due to lack of human capital and high demand for cheap labor. Since industry pulls migrants to a particular area, networking and chain migration pulls migrants to a specific neighborhood. The large co-ethnic populations can create large ethnic enclaves that closely mirror their home country. For example: places like Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Havana etc. are considered a home away from home for immigrants but for locals, these places are known as a good place for food and shopping. Native born populations can help support these ethnic enclaves through the flow of money. Shopping and food-hunting in these enclaves helps support ethnic culture and local business as well. Additionally, we looked at where immigrant settle at the local level as a result of industry and chain migration. The local level is defined as a neighborhood in an urban center. Immigrants tend to settle in urban centers because industry is clustered in large cities. There are obviously ethnic enclaves which I already touched on but then we move into de facto segregation. This is residential segregation by choice. Immigrants tend to live somewhere with familiarity so they don't immigrant and cluster in foreign-born neighborhoods. However, when immigrants settle in predominantly native-born suburbs or neighborhoods, place stratification occurs. This is when the native-born people move out of the suburbs due to high immigrant residential populations. This brings us back full circle to de facto segregation. Immigration is a very complex issue that entails the movement of individuals and families based on different influencing factors which almost always lead to personal belief in a positive net return. Whether that net return entails freedom from persecution, tyrannical government, and low economic status, immigration will happen nonetheless. Source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/metropolitan-washington-a-new-immigrant-gateway-2/ Week 3 Blog Post: To ponder as you scheme and strategize your next move in Diplomatic Risk: what, in your view, is the most unrealistic element of this game? Is it a problem that it is unrealistic? While this game draws many parallels to real world international affairs and diplomacy, there are many aspects of the game that are unrealistic. To start with, the unrealistic aspects aren't a problem as long as all of the players remember this is a game meant to model larger aspects of diplomacy but not the specificities. Since our game of risk has 'nations' spread across the globe, it is harder to say the board accurately depicts countries in the world today. Most modern countries are confined to one compact area and don't have to worry about protecting borders across the globe; only the ones in their region. Additionally, each nation only has three power positions whereas in modern countries there are hundreds of governmental positions that yield power. This makes negotiations and global issues much harder to discuss and come to a consensus. The theoretical diplomacy that we are learning is essential to understanding different perspectives of foreign relations and unique leadership roles. I personally understand the point of this game to accurately depict diplomacy on a large scale; not on the lower levels. So for example, I would not expect to learn about the specificities of declaring war in different countries, for different governments have different methods and conjunctions of doing so but it is very easy for us to declare war. I also find the research and development grid very interesting because the first to reach the highest level has a monopoly on winning war for two rounds. To my understanding, this exhibits an extremely important advantage to the developed countries involved in war. Modern countries that are technologically advanced have a stronger arm in the 'arms race' the world participates in. I also think that it is important that we all know who is the most advanced in research and development because if one nation believes another nation to be poor and underdeveloped and they go to war, they will be unpleasantly surprised to know they are technologically advanced and might retreat/reconsider their options. This is very different to the modern day arms race. Modern countries might employ spies to gather information regarding other country's nuclear power since the level of research and development is not common knowledge. Furthermore, I would say the most unrealistic element of this game is the World Council 'diplomacy' contributed by each diplomat from their respective nation. Our diplomatic talks don't involve the safety of our population (specifically), population relations, or social issues. We only discuss our allies, our enemies, and the order of turns. While, important and necessary to the game, it does not draw a strong parallel to modern day politics and diplomacy. This game exhibits world politics very closely but has major flaws regarding the actuality of modern day politics. I enjoy the disputes and peacekeeping objectives and find this game very intriguing and a great learning experience despite it's flaws. This week we only had one class due to the Labor Day holiday (and much to my dismay) we did not get the opportunity to discuss the anonymous op-ed published in the New York Times. But before I get into the political instability that plagues our country I am going to discuss our game of Diplomatic Risk and how it very much applies to our current governmental affairs.
I am on the blue team. The blue team is the all powerful hegemony that controls the most land and has the most money. While all the power and riches are exciting, it comes with a drawback: how do we obtain our land and monetary objectives while keeping peace with other team colors? Peacekeeping at our level is difficult because we do not know the objectives of other world powers and if they would like to ally or start a war. I could not imagine peacekeeping with larger world powers in the actual diplomatic arena because of the diverse goals, wants, and secrets. Diplomatic Risk is a very fitting name if applying it to modern politics and foreign affairs. I could compare the blue world hegemony to the United States as they draw many similarities. Both are economic centers of cash flow, both are 'peacekeeping' nations, and both need to draw on the power of allies in order to achieve objectives and keep peace. However, in our current political state in the United States, I would say we are far from a world power like the blue nation. Our country might have political standing in foreign countries now, we won't when other countries consider the ramifications of this piece. The anonymous op-ed published in the New York Times happens to outline every single flaw our leader possesses and criticizes his judgement, leadership skills, and ability to make decisions. This piece shows other world leaders, allies, and enemies that American is not capable of electing a competent leader which then hurts our chances of diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts abroad. How can other countries trust our administration if the American people and government officials don't? While I do admire the bravery and efforts of this 'senior administration official', I cannot help but wonder what prompted this piece and what he/she has to gain from still working in Donald Trumps' administration? I, like everyone else, have a host of questions. Why the anonymity? This person still might have something to gain from working in the administration or are they purely concerned how Trump's rash actions might affect the world? What prompted the publishing of this piece? Why now? Is this a last ditch effort to get us to vote Democratic in the primaries so we control the house? Is this person just trying to engage or enrage the public? What was this person's ultimate goal? What happens when the source is revealed? What happens to them? Are they protected by the First Amendment? Is the New York Times protected as well? Is this putting the public at risk? Is this compromising national security by telling the world that our leader is an incompetent child unable to make reasonable decisions regarding the fabric of our nation? In conclusion, I am skeptical of the motives of the author but nonetheless I am glad government officials recognize Trump's inability to lead and are working to thwart his decisions. While this piece sheds light in the darkest corners of our current administration, we are still in the dark regarding it's affect on the rest of the world. This week marks my first week of college classes and activities and I feel overwhelmed but in the best way. I'm learning a lot about myself and the seemingly never ending world of knowledge I am surrounded with. In regards to classes, World Politics is by far one of my favorite. It does not feel like a traditional 'listen to lecture, take notes, study, take exam'- which is AMAZING because it actually feels like I'm learning something useful. Instead of 'teaching to the test' it feels very discussion and opinion based which is helpful considering we live in DC. As for my reflection, writing about Awiti and our process on deciding the discussion seemed appropriate so here it goes!
We started class deciding how to discuss the book we all read. At first, we were all confused as to why it took us so long to decide until we realized there are so many ways to format a discussion that ran parallel with political and international relations. After 45 minutes of deliberate and interesting debate, we settled on a seminar discussion approach and finally got into analysis of the book. Contrary to a lot of opinions, I loved the writing of the book and the fictional approach the author took when writing of immortality and spirits. The spirituality of the dead slaves added the tradition of African folklore and a story telling element that elevated the writing from facts to a story people would want to read. Slavery and the African diaspora is extremely important and pertinent in explaining black poverty, crime, and drug use in today's society because of the racial bias and economic impoverishment that the slave trade and segregation left for African Americans. This is why we must educate ourselves in black history. Awiti's central role in the book was relevant in connecting all of the stories of the slaves to the overall themes of racism, hatred, and revenge. The different stories and perspectives gave the reader a 360 view of slavery in the south. This great tragedy cannot be lost in history and this book is perfect in telling all of the accounts of brutality and violence against the slaves. While Awiti wants revenge for the decades of injustices against her family and kin, others want to find peace in society. This was one of the main struggles of slavery and segregation, in my opinion, because society is lucky African Americans wanted equality and not revenge. Awiti represents the resentful and angry of the oppressed, while justified, was not satisfactory and did not bring peace to anyone- including herself. This book can definitely be applied to the constant struggle of those still affected by racial injustices today in that peace and justice are not being served. Overall, I am very excited about this class and what we are to learn in the future. I am very excited to play Diplomatic Risk on Thursday and for the rest of class! |
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 |