Now we’ve just finished the fifth week of classes and are quickly heading into midterms. As such, I think it’s a good time to reflect on how the course is going up to now. So far, I really enjoy this class and the discussion-based approach. As I’ve discussed with Olivia, our cohort has a very broad range of interests, backgrounds, and approaches regarding politics, international relations, history, and culture. Thus when we all come together for class we have a wealth of knowledge to pull from, resulting in unique and lively discussions. I’m always so impressed with how passionate my classmates are, and listening to them talk about subjects that they’re particularly interested in or knowledgeable about motivates me to read more and become a more informed person.
My own interests and background is strongly rooted in East Asian culture, history, and politics, and this semester I’m taking two other classes about international studies: 21st Century Silk Road and Chinese Politics. As a result, a lot of my contributions to class are centered around Chinese examples. While I do really enjoy discussing China, moving forward, I want to do more personal reading about other parts of the world such as Europe and Africa. This would allow me to compare and contrast (and thus more fully understand) China and the U.S.’s political systems and philosophies within a more holistic world context. I want to learn more about past political systems and philosophies and how they interact to create the various ideologies and understandings we have today. I also want to learn more about economics and better understand how wealth affects power and political systems. Sometimes in class I feel behind because I lack the same in-depth understanding on certain topics as other classmates, and this makes me nervous to speak because I feel like I can’t contribute at the same level. I hope that as I read and listen more I’ll be able to really form my own independent and educated opinions. I’ve also taken a couple classes on racism and income inequality in America, and this, as well as my status as an immigrant woman of color, definitely colors the way that I analyze texts and situations for this class. In our recent readings of Machiavelli and Locke especially we’ve specifically explored “societal ideas” about what the purpose of society and government is, who has power and who doesn’t, who benefits in society and who is sacrificed, and defining what is acceptable in society and what is not. From my experiences living with several marginalized identities and through previous courses taken, I think it’s incredibly important to always be critical. Who is really included when politicians or philosophers use the words “we”, “the people”, “society”, etc.? Who is not included? How does this further promote existing inequalities? How do these historic philosophical inequalities affect lived-in inequality now? What is “truth” (especially regarding morality), how do we define it, and how do we decide how to define it? In class I really like to take advantage of the diversity and pose these questions and maybe get people to think about things that are normally taken for granted. I also think that the first discussion we had about Awiti when we spent over half the class period discussing how we should discuss Awiti, set a really great tone for promoting constant question and discussion of things that seem obvious. All in all, I’m really enjoying this class and I look forward to continued growth throughout the rest of the semester!
0 Comments
This week of SIS 105 marked the completion of a full month of college classes, and I alternatively feel as if I’ve been here for a long time, but also no time at all. For class we read Machiavelli's The Prince, a book which I had some background knowledge of but had never really delved into deeply. I found our class discussion on Friday to be especially interesting as it centered on Machiavelli’s central argument that “the greater good” is most important above all else.
I think everyone could easily agree that we should always strive to help the most people possible in the country become the best possible etc. etc., but the question remains of how we define who “the greater good” is. In the past in Western society, “the greater good” was thought of as white property-holding men, justifying such things as slavery and preventing women from voting. Given this, it is imperative that we think critically about how we define the greater good, who is included, whose interests are prioritized, and why; specifically how various aspects of privilege (ie race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, etc.) shape those definitions. Or conversely, who are we most willing to sacrifice for “the greater good”? Furthermore, is “greater good” defined by power or population? An example used in class was that the Three Gorges Dam in China was a justified decision because 1.5 million displaced people pales in comparison to the billion or so in China. This would imply that population is most important in determining “greater good”. However, it was also suggested in our discussion and in The Prince that “the greater good” is synonymous with keeping the currently ruling government in power. Again, how do various privileges intersect to create and define the ruling class that we want to keep in power? I also wondered, what would Machiavelli say about peasant revolutions? These overthrow the previous systems of power, but potentially help “the greater good”; in these cases which side would Machiavelli approve of? This idea of sacrifice for the greater good is an especially important topic for me because my life is itself a direct product of China’s infamous One Child Policy. By the Chinese government’s estimate, this policy prevented some 450 million births and allowed for better distribution of resources, continued job opportunities, and continued rapid economic growth. If we think of this from a purely Machiavellian, “logical” standpoint, having the One Child Policy was justified. However the human cost included millions of forced abortions, a highly imbalanced gender ratio (both at birth and otherwise), and between 50 and 90 million “missing women” in China-- baby girls that were sex-selectively aborted and simply never born, baby girls who became victims of infanticide, baby girls whose births were never reported and who have to live their entire lives without access to any government resources, and baby girls like me who were abandoned in market places and in front of orphanages. All of us were considered collateral, necessary sacrifices for the greater good of the country, yet we had no say in these policies because we have no ruling power. How can our suffering be quantified, and who will take responsibility? Public policy and politics are inherently about people, and the policies that we put in place directly affect the lives of everyone in both big and small ways. To unilaterally ignore the humanistic side of policy in favor of a nebulous “greater good” puts us into an extremely dangerous position of creating policy without critical and holistic thinking. Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 15: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussions of imaginary rules and talk about practical realities." What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him?
One of the main concepts expressed in Machiavelli’s The Prince is the idea of virtù, which Machiavelli takes to mean possessing “those qualities that lead to success” (505) in any given situation. Acts of virtù may not at face value appear to be kind, but they ensure in the long run that the country and its people will maintain order and prosperity in the long run, and that stability for Machiavelli is virtuous. The initial quote in this blog is preceded Machiavelli’s assertion that:
If one were to follow all rules, guidelines, and precedents to a T, this would inevitably lead to failure at some point or another, something that Machiavelli absolutely cannot stand. Instead, Machiavelli would argue that disregarding rules, even his own, would be the best if they would lead to success. This seems like circular logic, and perhaps that is the magic of Machiavelli in that even when you disagree with him you cannot escape his same train of thought. For myself, I agree with Machiavelli’s sentiment philosophically, however I don’t think that it can be unilaterally applied today. I too believe that success for a country and its citizens is of utmost importance, however who defines what success is? Who can say what sacrifices are “worth it” for success or not? In our present-day democracy, is order still the measure of success? How do values like personal freedom factor into ideas of success? I don’t think there are easy answers to these questions, and we no longer live in the monarchal “one-party system” of Machiavelli’s Italy. Now in the US we have a large multi-party system that represents the interests of many different factions and schools of thought, and there is no longer a single virtuous man to “seize his chances and will recognize what needs to be done” (505). Then, looking at the practical realities of today, I would argue that is best not to follow Machiavelli's rules. *"Page numbers" are Kindle locations **Bullet point quote is due to Weebly's inability to indent paragraphs So, another week has gone by in SIS 105, with us successfully (?) completing our game of Diplomatic Risk. I say successfully with hesitancy because based on the rules of the game and the conditions for victory, none of the teams officially won. Black had to end the game with all teams at peace; we ended with Red and Yellow at war against Green and Brown. Brown needed to capture nine territories; despite a successful campaign winning Red’s territories in Africa and Yellow’s territories in Europe, Brown was not able to take Indonesia from Red, leaving Brown one territory away from victory. Yellow was looking to completely eradicate Brown, however they ended up reduced to only a single island territory in the Southeast Pacific. Green was also looking to conquer more territory, however their efforts against Yellow in Europe came at a high cost, and despite initially overtaking the Chinese city, Red was able to stage a Guerilla Warfare, reclaim the territory, and annihilate the Green forces there. This greatly reduced the attacking power of Green, and ultimately Green were unsuccessful in gaining a significant amount of new territory. Red meanwhile had a game-long goal of reclaiming Ukraine and its six surrounding territories, however due to constant onslaught from Green and Brown (and minimal support from a weakened Yellow), Red was forced to play a mainly defensive game, losing territory in Africa but consolidating forces around China and Indonesia. In the end Red was unable to reclaim Ukraine, however their final defensive victory in Indonesia prevented Brown from reaching their victory condition. Blue also aimed to conquer Ukraine, however instead of actively participating in the war they continued to be self-proclaimed “gentle giants” and gave Brown a loan of 20 monies to conquer Ukraine for them. Ultimately however, Green retained control of Ukraine, so even this strategy was unsuccessful.
Overall, Brown was very successful in their war campaign, starting with victories in Africa and then moving through newly-conquered territories and allied Green territory to sweep up through Yellow’s European territories, through Asia and down to the Pacific. It was a clever strategy, however it was technically illegal. Military movement through allied territory (also known as “airlifting”) requires the agreement of the World Council, however no such agreement was ever made. Had they waited for the Council meeting, given Red’s sanction, Brown most likely would have received clearance for air lifts, however they would have had to wait for the next turn. Given the time constraints of our class period, there wouldn’t have been time for that next turn and Brown would have been completely unable to implement their strategy. Overall I really enjoyed playing Diplomatic Risk. I liked having to strategize with my team and analyzing cost-benefits of various alliances. I also really liked working with other teams and creating various agreements. Diplomacy is a lot about communicating and developing relationships between countries, however this is dependent on strong interpersonal communication skills between individual diplomats. It was fun practicing diplomatic skills through our game, and like in actual diplomacy there were frustrations, there were changes in relationships status, and there were misunderstandings. As Diplomats we had to work with our own teams as well as other teams in order to come to agreements. It was a bit stressful at the end when Red was involved in so many wars at the same time and sanctioned (thus able to buy only two reinforcing units per turn), however I think the Redpublic handled itself well, and at the very least was able to endure enough that Brown couldn’t win. Given that none of the victory conditions were met, nobody officially won the game, although I think for many of us, we all believed that this was the most realistic outcome. The real world is not static, and there are always new problems arising which necessitate solutions and continued diplomacy. Even if one country has a victory in one instant, it does not mean that victory will last forever; looking at history, all empires had to fall at some point, and then were replaced by new systems in a perpetual cycle of rise and fall. In this system, I don’t think there are any true “winners” or “losers”, and I think our gameplay really demonstrated that. Countries will always have their own agendas which they chase after, but even if they achieve that agenda there will always be new agendas to keep up with an ever-changing world. I look forward to playing Risk again at the end of the semester and seeing if our gameplay style is any different, and how my reflection at that point will sound like. 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?
In my opinion, the most unrealistic part of Diplomatic Risk is the objective cards. While I enjoy the set-up and understand their value in creating certain simulations of real-world scenarios, I feel like while playing these cards hampers the development of authentic relationships between countries. Countries do have their own agendas and motivations which may not always be clear to other countries, and events such as military coups very realistically cause international reorganization of alliances, however some of the changes written on the cards seemed completely arbitrary and inconsistent with the preceding turns. For example, on the cards Brown Team has to side with Green. Yellow, despite just undergoing an armed conflict with Brown, is still willing to ally with Green and support their decision in the UN Council Meeting. Perhaps Green and Yellow share similar geographic or economic interests that Red is not privy to, however given the timing and the tightness of the alliance, it all feels very rushed and thus artificial. In the real world, schisms and armed conflicts on that level can lead to strained relations even decades later, such as between the People’s Republic of China and Republic of China. Brown and Yellow did not mutually or amicably split, and thus it is unlikely that all the countries in the world would immediately recognize and assume diplomatic relationships with both. Furthermore, given that “recognition of a new State of Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold”, Brown’s ability to immediately assume a dominant role in the UN seems unlikely. More likely, especially directly following the split, would be split recognition of a “correct” state and potentially gradual acceptance of both states as independent which would lead to two separate UN seats. Going back to China and Taiwan, the two adopted separate governments since 1949, however only one location at a time has ever held a seat in the UN. Our version of Diplomatic Risk, much like international relations, relies heavily on human interaction and human connection, however in having the objective cards I feel like you take out the human feel of the game. Why bother fostering alliances with other countries when a deux ex machina card could obliterate all that work anyway? I like the idea of cards and I enjoy where the first cards started the game, however I think the second cards are more of an unnecessary and unrealistic impediment. So, Week 2 is over already, although given that we didn’t have Monday class due to Labor Day, it really doesn’t feel like almost the third week already. Thus far I’m really enjoying this class and the more intimate cohort-feel of it, as well as the blended online aspects. It reminds me of a bit of an online ancient civilizations class I took in middle school, in that we have weekly blog postings and discussions and that we use games to simulate the real world and concepts learned in class.
I’d never played Risk before Thursday, but I am a big fan of the PC game Civilization (the game we played in my online class). It’s a turn-based strategy game where one tries to create a civilization and can win through several different scenarios (conquest, culture, science, etc.). It’s interesting comparing Risk to Civilization in how each of the games weight different metrics of success for an empire. The Risk that we’re playing in class definitely focuses more heavily on the interplay between wealth and conquest, whereas Civilization focuses more on developing infrastructure and culture through science. As we continue through the semester I’ll be interested to see which of these games more accurately models real-world international operations. More than in online games, I like the added human aspect of Risk. After all, international relations are country to country, but countries are made up of people, so really international relations are just human interactions on a much bigger stage. However, they still rely on clear communication skills, patience, and cooperation among other things. It’s fun working with the Treasurer and Head of State on my team as we plan the best course of strategy given our current situation and goals for the country, and I enjoy bargaining with the other countries as the “Redpublic’s” Diplomat. I would say I’ve taken a very active role in strategizing for my country, and I’m excited to see how it all plays out tomorrow. This week I really wanted to comment on a Sophia's blog post on Awiti and letting go, however it's come to my attention that for some reason my comment wasn't showing up. Thus for the time being I'll post my comment here with a link to the original post. My comment is at follows:
Hi Sophia, I really enjoyed reading your blog post here! I really agree wth your assertion that Awiti's pain is immeasurable and justified, but that violence will never bring her the peace she desires. I also really appreciated how in the first paragraph you discussed your own family history and acknowledged that perhaps full assessment of Awiti's pain is not possible for those who were not victims of the slave trade. One thing that really intrigued me about your post was by your frequent use of "we" in the second paragraph, for example, "we must come together as a country- and the world- in admitting our mistakes", "we need to fight for equality", etc. Who is this "we" you are referring to? Who should be responsible for starting this dialogue about culpability in the slave trade? Should black people be the ones leading the conversation? White people? How should Native Americans be involved in this dialogue? Should immigrants between 1865 and now also take responsibility for the actions done during slavery? Again, really great post and I look forward to discussing with you more! No matter the destruction that ensues, I have learned no amount of vengeance can replace what I lost. There is no reparation great enough to substitute for what was stolen. Is there truly a cost for an altered destiny? There is nothing that can overturn the curse of a nation that was once blessed.
I agree with Awiti’s final sentiments here. Unspeakable harm and trauma was enacted upon Awiti, other Africans stolen from their homes, and all of their descendants, and our society continues to discriminate against and brutalize these people today, from racism in political rhetoric to continued acts of police brutality. Millions of lives were irreversibly altered and hurt by the actions and policies of the past, and that is fact that America, a country whose prosperity and progress came at the expense of black slaves, will always have to contend with. Racism was both a cause and effect of slavery, and as long as racist beliefs and systems (including white privilege) endure in this country, there are people profiting off of the vestiges of slavery and of the suffering of Awiti and other descendants of slaves, preventing us as a society from finding peace. I am a Chinese adoptee, and although my story in no way compares to the trauma that African slaves in the US endured, I often find myself asking similar questions as Awiti. I don’t know my ethnicity, where my family came from, or the language of my ancestors, and my ending up in the US was a direct result of national and international policies, and potentially even baby-buying. I have lived an extremely fortunate and happy life in the US for which I am forever grateful, however all international adoptions inherently begin with a loss of family and a loss of culture. Growing up I always wondered if my life was truly my life, or an inadvertent twist of fate (perhaps even a mistake). At times I was resentful or angry of being stolen away from what I perceived as my real destiny in China. Who could I have been? What would my life have been like? However, contrary to Awiti, I believe that ‘replacing’, ‘substituting’, or ‘overturning’ what was already done are all completely different and unrelated to truly finding peace. Awiti, like myself and everyone else, is entitled to her feelings and her hurt, but ultimately not even she can change what has already happened. As long as she focuses only on the past, she can never be satisfied or at peace because the past will never change. Moreover, by focusing on the past, Awiti only deepens her own trauma and brings others new hurt. The past shapes who we (as individuals, as a society, as a country) are and how we view the world, but it does not control who we will be in the future. We must all live and contend with the present, and we have the power to change now; by rectifying the remains of slavery that live on in our current society we can make sure that history never repeats itself and that Awiti's pain is not inflicted on a new generation. In this way we can create a better present and a better world for our descendants, hopefully proving to Awiti and other restless souls that we as a society will be okay, and that they can move on to the next phase in peace, without worrying about us. This is not an easy path and there are no clear-cut answer for how we should go about enacting this change, however it is the only option that provides any possibility of sustained success. SIS 105 has officially started, and thus far the semester is going smoothly. On Monday we went over the syllabus, class formatting, and class expectations for the semester, and then on Thursday we had a two-part class discussion. The discussion’s original stated purpose was to discuss The Truth About Awiti, however we ended up spending over half of class discussing the best way to frame said discussion and how we should decide how to decide how to discuss the book. I really enjoyed this activity as a way to represent international relations and politics, and to remind us that we must always think critically without taking things for granted. There are a lot of people willing to accept things at face value-- “That’s just how things are”, “Well, the law is the law and you just have to follow it”-- as a way to remain apathetic and maintain the status quo, however it’s that type of thinking that prevents society from achieving progress. (For example, it was legal for much of US history to own slaves, however that doesn’t mean that it was ever right.) As American citizens, it’s our right and responsibility to be critical of the government and society, to ask why things are the way they are, who is benefiting, who is not benefiting, and to find out how we can improve.
Regarding the book discussion, one point that I wanted to bring up but didn’t have time for was about the character depiction of Awiti. Awiti was a mixed-race woman and was always described as stunningly gorgeous and very sexual. While reading, I wondered what the significance of Awiti’s beauty was. Why did the author choose to make Awiti beautiful and what did it add to the story? I also wondered what the significance of Awiti being mixed-race was. Would the story have been fundamentally different if Awiti were simply black? Furthermore was Awiti beautiful because she was mixed-race, and if so is that a statement on society, or on the author’s own ideals of beauty based on colorism? Regardless, the focus on Awiti’s skin tone felt very excessive, to the point of constituting exoticism and fetishization. In chapter two alone, a fifteen page spread, there were six separate descriptions of Awiti’s brown skin. Throughout the book there were also many instances of Awiti’s skin color being described with food, for example: “Honey brown skin and long dark hair. Beautiful” (186), “I was kissing honey, her skin so golden brown and fragrant” (217) , and “Her skin reminded me of toffee candies, and I was tempted to reach out and stroke her, to see if she was sticky” (234). The constant comparisons to food were uncomfortable as they presented Awiti as a product to be consumed, directly because of her skin tone. This again brings up the question: for what reason were these descriptions chosen? I was not especially active in class this week, nor do I feel as if I made any especially profound contributions to discussion, however I did really try to be an active listener and really consider what my classmates were saying and why they would have those opinions. I think my biggest contribution was being the first person to openly criticize The Truth About Awiti and open the floor to less “positive” discourse. Overall it was a pretty good first week, and as the semester continues I look forward to taking a more active role in class and listening to more lively discussion. |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|