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.
0 Comments
One of the greatest global challenges today is responding to China’s increasing militarization and economic imperialism world-wide. China’s relationship with imperialism is long and two-fold; in modern history it can be traced back to the Opium Wars and European Spheres of Influence, a period of time which, even today, China still views as a “Century of Humiliation”. This mindset still heavily influences China’s relationships with other countries, such as developing a defensive relationship with the US and many European countries while simultaneously engaging many African nations as fellow victims of imperialization (a mindset started with Mao Zedong who asserted that race struggle is class struggle in a bid to garner favor in Africa for Chinese economic policies).
China presents itself as a fairer and more favorable trading partner for developing nations worldwide, as evidenced in its promotion of the One Belt One Road Initiative across much of Central and South Asia, promotion of the New Maritime Silk Road in Southeast Asia, and increased trading and financing of development in Africa. In these deals, which have been criticized as predatory or debt traps by the US, China agrees to finance risky development loans that otherwise wouldn’t be approved, although often with stipulations on how much Chinese companies need to be involved during the development process, exclusive rights given to Chinese businesses, etc. The revenue gained from this creates a positive feedback loop wherein China gains more worldwide economic influence which it can use to invest in creating even more lucrative and favorable loans, trading, and development deals (see Hambantota Port or China’s Special Economic Zones in Vietnam ). This money can then be used to increase military spending and increase military presence in the South China Sea and Taiwan, among other things. Economic influence or even dependence is inextricably linked with political clout, as seen in China’s relationship with North Korea. China is North Korea’s primary trading partner and supplier of food and other supplies, and in return China has the largest influence in moderating North Korean provocations and policies. The concern right now is that as China’s economic influence grows worldwide so does its political influence, and that this economic influence could turn into economic dependencies which could turn into political puppet states. According to this article by Forbes, the New Silk Road alone could encompass a staggering “65% of the population, 75% of energy resources and 40% of GDP in the world”. This is now a world where an increasing amount of countries use Chinese RMB in business, Xi Jinping is serving for life, China has announced plans to reunify Taiwan by force if necessary, and in which key global alliances are shifting and economic and political focuses are not just on the US and Western Europe. In this time the US and many other countries need to reevaluate how we relate and engage with other countries in ways that protect personal economic and political interests, while also not regressing to the role of new imperialists. Will soft-power become more important, or military might? How can countries like the US best appeal to developing nations? Which countries should be prioritized? These are just some of the questions that need to be explored as we move into the future. |
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
|