For my last reflection, I would like to look back at the semester and think about how far I have expanded my horizons in regards to international affairs. To think I came in knowing how little I did in regards to how I feel now is baffling. I actually thought it was funny because I came in feeling like the one who knew the less, for sure. My peers had taken comparative politics classes, social justice seminars and knew way too much about countries like Slovakia, and then there was me, whose academic background relied on a world politics class in ninth grade because my school provided strictly what the curriculum required.
During my first class, I realized I needed to start keeping up with my peers’ vocabulary given that I did not know half of the technical terms they used. I would Google-search the word hegemony at least three times a week and re-read the definition until I knew I could recite it. My peers had what I thought was very peculiar vocabulary because there were no Spanish translations for more than half of the words I did not know, which made it a lot harder. I also questioned the meaning I had of a lot of the terms; I was taught that liberal had only one definition, and that was “Californians”, yet PTJ made me rethink this when I wrote liberal instead of liberalist in one of my essays; little did I know that there was a world of difference between both. I also questioned what I identified as, or with for that matter, and how big of a deal the notion of double consciousness really is. I questioned the difference between race, ethnicity and nationality many times, and felt frustrated and on the verge of a mini meltdown when people would use America to refer to the United States. I rethought and restructured what I planned my career to be many, many times and made the shifts and changes pertinent along the way. I questioned if I really was going to be able to finish the semester at all given that I had to leave and wasn’t even sure if I would be deemed “healthy enough” to come back. I struggled with keeping up, with expressing myself, with getting everyone to consider my perspective, and with finding someone to talk to about the struggles all at the same time, but I did it. I was able to finish. I made myself feel like I was at my peers’ knowledge level even though I have yet so much to learn and even attempt to comprehend. I may or may not have finished the class with the grade I wanted to originally, but I am infinitely thankful for the learning experience and reality check I have had with this class; sad it was only a semester.
0 Comments
For this week’s reflection, I would just like to say that I’m way to excited for the debate tomorrow morning (and that this is really going to be an informal reflection.) I feel like there are sooooo many scandals the different groups are dealing with that the committee would be like “Well, in order to draw a consensus, let’s spill your tea first and then try to sort out what we work together in, because…you know, we have the same views.” The questions after each group’s presentation were a definite portrayal of this.
On the one hand, I am eager to see what Emma Watson and her fashion sense are bringing to the debate. Her eco-friendly Louis Vuitton campaign raised some controversy a few years back given her, at the time, recent apparition in the UN for a completely different cause. However, on the other hand, I feel like the organizations and corporations that already have a stance in the committee are more than enough, and that adding a single person is counterproductive; I mean, we’re basically just sprinkling some celebrity advertisement in there. Furthermore, I am interested to see how the chairs will react based on the scandal-first discussion we’re having, and the way in which they will steer the conversation. I think overall, even though it is a more simplified debate given that it’s mostly organizations and corporations, the solution will come even harder because of this. Simply because we cannot establish a compromise with Mozambique due to the no actual representation of the country, and the level of mobility organizations and corporations have, we have to sort of imagine what would be best for Mozambique and just go back and forth assuming every participant knows what’s best. Stay tuned for next week’s reflection. The first man Todorov describes, i.e. the man who finds his country sweet, is an innocent man, a man who sees his country through the eyes of hope and prosper, and not for what the country really is. He describes a man who will only acknowledge the good and be blinded by this, meaning he is biased. He calls such man a “raw beginner” for he knows enough to get him through the kick-start, but not quite enough to be defined as more than a beginner. Such man has his cons, but also his pros; because he is a raw beginner, he has the opportunity to expand his knowledge and overcome such identification.
The second man Todorov quotes is a distant man, like the one I described in my last reflection post. Such man knows more than a little, so we would classify him under the “lot” category, but we cannot classify him under “identifies” for he is unquestionably distant according to his description. The man has chosen to distance himself, and it could be because of convenience. He acknowledges this and uses it to his advantage, which is why he is described as strong. He is able to learn and soak in more by identifying in such way. The man is described as to having enough malice but will not be blind sighted by biases, like the man before him would. Lastly, the third man is so similar yet so different from the previous ones. “The man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect.” This man began his journey as a raw beginner, like the first man, and then passed on to be the second man described for he had to learn to be distant and appreciate in order to become the man he is now. Now, he is able to learn without being blind sighted or biased, and will not have the dilemma of cultural appreciation because he has mastered the way to approach it. The man was all of the above and now relates to none; he has become his own by learning to be distantly identified. I would agree that this man is somewhat perfect, for this is the best approach to take on in regards to the situation explained. When you go into a foreign country, you are intrigued by all that is new, yet you are distant in order to be able to soak it all in; you are courteous yet outgoing, and trusting yet with held back because you know enough to have malice. You treat the world as your stage, and it’s the perfect combination, for the entire world is as a foreign country. In attempt to try and answer the professor’s question on whether someone can fit the four categories we discussed in class with the judgment diagrams, I immediately thought of myself and politics, but then, I realized I cannot follow the same example within the United States policies, so I thought of a much easier example: sports.
A. You know little but you still identify. The situation I am about to explain, I thought was very relatable given that it happens way more than it should. Your parents are taking you to a baseball game, or your school is participating in a lacrosse tournament, or even better, it’s Super Bowl night, and you have no idea what the sport is, and no clue whatsoever about how it is played, but you identify with a team either way. Your parents attend the game because they are huge Red Sox fans and because of this, it seems somewhat reasonable that you identify and cheer for the Red Sox too. You support your school’s team because it’s the home team, and because you are or were part of the school, you feel it is your duty to identify with the team, and if someone asks at the end, you will even say “We won!” as if you had been part of the entire game plan. You knew little to nothing about the entity you were identifying with, but you still did, because your parents did, your friends did, or it just seemed like the most logical option to do so. B. Now you still know little, but you decide to distance yourself because you are afraid to make a fool out of yourself by pretending to be the expert. You’re still attending the sports games but instead of shouting something random every time the referee whistles, you keep quiet. You refrain from making any comments about the game because you recognize you are not in the best position to do so, consequently distancing yourself to prevent someone from hearing you and wanting to engage in a full on conversation on how X player was benched because he committed a technical foul in minute 37 second 43. C. Now you love the sport, you know every single technical rule and fault there is to hold players accountable to and you have been to every single game the Red Sox played in your town. You now know a lot, so you identify. This is the most logical way to go about identifying; you know about what the entity represents, what it stands for and its history. It makes complete sense to identify yourself now. D. Lastly, now you know a lot, but you decide to distance yourself from the entities or identities because you deem it inconvenient for X or Y reason. The friends are playing in the home team, but you have friends on the visiting team too so you decide it is better to distance yourself in order avoid conflict of interest. Some people maintain themselves apolitical because of whom they work for or their stance at the given moment. Members of the royal families in Europe live by these, they must refrain themselves from supporting political parties or even candidates because of their standing in a country’s government. The sports metaphor is only one of the many that can be utilized to explain the diagrams’ reasoning; I’ve come to think of many others that go along the same line of thought. Nonetheless, this shows one of the many reasons why the identity judgment crisis between the Spaniards and the Indians turned out the way it did in a more modern and relatable way. Renowned author Paulo Coelho has written a lot about signs, but more specifically, signs from the universe. In an interview, he said, “Everything in life is an omen. There is a universal language, understood by everybody, but already forgotten”, and this made me question are even such things as “signs”, or are they merely a figment of our imagination?
Coura commented on how people can interpret the same signs in very different ways based on where they are coming from; the Indians interpreted dark clouds as an evil omen, they meant death was nearing, while for the Spaniards the dark clouds just meant it was going to rain. Along the same line of thought, desperate times call for desperate measures, leading people see signs where there are none. When the Aztecs called on the gods for signs after the Noche Triste, the gods did not answer back, which resulted in the Aztecs deeming them as silent or dead, for the rest of the people deemed this as a sign of surrendering, for the gods themselves had surrendered. Moreover, some people then saw Montezuma as the sign giver himself. Montezuma died? It was time for the Aztec empire to surrender and fall. You see this same pattern whenever people find themselves torn between two paths, without any preference for either, or just not wanting to feel guilty for their choice. For a college student, rain is a definite sign that he or she should skip class. Unsure whether you should buy a pizza or a hotdog at a game? Literally even a person tripping on a hotdog and falling will count as a sign for you. You started your morning with a flat tire? It’s already going to be a bad day; and so on and so forth. So then what if signs did cause the Aztecs’ defeat? The Spaniards thought they received a sign to go sail across the world and conquer and colonize new lands and people respectively, but they were really just looking for something to justify their materialistic desires. And of course, blame it on a sign from God, who’s going to refute that when even the priests and the Crown are in on this too? This then draws back to Coelho’s opinion on the existence of a universal language understood by everyone that has eventually passed on to be forgotten. Everything was an omen back then because of the religious priorities in civilizations and societies, but now that religion is not considered the top priority in societies, this “universal language” has been become harder to decipher. After years of hearing stories of the Old and New world encounter, and Cristobal Colón and his men’s exchange with the Taínos, I came to the conclusion that Colón and his men were racists, abusers and murderers who justified every single action with religious purposes. Nonetheless, after reading part of Todorov’s book, I have come further this conclusion; the Spaniards were also hypocrites.
The argument surged after discussing aspects of the book with Mimi, and bringing it up in the small group discussion with my peers. I argued the opposite of what Todorov did in page 9 with the saying “Despite all this, greed is not Columbus’ true motive; but he himself would prefer the rough garment of a monk.” The first chapters talk about how religious Colón was; how we would write to the pope, never set sail on Sundays (p.10), name the vessels and islands after saints, etc., but this was all a scam, and his men, the Crown, and the priests were in on it too. To this, I offer three claims, the first being a question to Colón’s definition of greed. Todorov says that Colón himself would prefer the rough garment of a monk than the golden materials he could have gotten in the islands, but if this were true, why would Colón propose his plan before numerous crowns hoping to be financially sponsored by at least one when he could have become a monk in the first place and spread Christianity throughout Spain? Greed does not necessarily have to be materialistic, which is Colón’s case. He desired recognition, and his men, the wealth. Colon’s voyage had a very large margin of error, along with entitling his men, most of whom were prisoners, to endure terrible weather conditions, interceptions to their ships, diseases, and even death while abroad. Not even the most selfless of people would have endured all of the previously mentioned to “spread Christianity.” Secondly, on page 9 Todorov argues that “The profits which ‘should be’ found there interest Columbus only secondarily: what counts are the ‘lands’ and their discovery.” By this we see that Colón’s initial stance about wanting to spread Christianity fall not to first or second, but to third or even lower place. Todorov argues that Colón values the land more than the riches, but Colón rarely stepped foot in the lands he came upon. He always stayed aboard and had his men disembark and discover, repeating this throughout all of his voyages. Was Colón really as selfless as Todorov pictures him to be? If he had been, he would have put more enthusiasm in touring the lands, getting to know the people and definitely the bare minimum effort when attempting to understand the Taíno culture and their language. Thirdly, the hypocrisy of the priest is evidenced in the last paragraph of page 56. “History, in this case transcribed by Jesuit Tovar, goes so far as to describe Montezuma, on the eye of his death, as ready to convert to Christianity; but as a final mockery, the Spanish priest, busy amassing gold, does not find the time.” Now even the priest, whose vows reflect the spread and honor of Christianity as the main goal, has prioritized wealth and riches over religion, even when it meant complying with the goal of spreading Christianity, given that it was the civilization’s leader who was willing to convert. Unusual boast, as all pose, but nonetheless, hypocritical. The question itself on whether the Spaniards defeated the Indians by a means of signs is a bit broad, yet vague, in its proposition. The Spaniards abused, exploited and massacred the Indians in all of the colonies; and that indubitably, is what accomplished what history now denominates their “defeat”, but what paved the way for this to happen, and even further, for the Indians to abide by this, were signs. On page 56, Todorov brings up the Toltecs, a Mesoamerican civilization that used to inhabit the area of central Mexico. They were excellent warriors, artists and sculptors who practiced human sacrifices and established a trade network; nonetheless, their decline was a mystery. Some propose that the civilization was burned down along with the capital, Tula, otherwise known as “The Burned Place”, which came crashing down in flames around 1150 a.D., while others propose that the nearby tribes could have gotten to them. The Aztecs, being the civilization that occupied central Mexico after the Toltecs, called themselves the successors of the civilization, firmly believing that these were to return one day to claim what was rightfully theirs. “Has this national guilt complex caused Montezuma to imagine that the Spaniards are direct descendants of the ancient Toltecs, coming to reclaim what is rightfully theirs?” Todorov questions further on in the page. He proposes such rhetorical questions precisely to withhold the idea that the Indians surrendered because the Spaniards communicated religious signs. Todorov brings up the case of Montezuma not resisting when Hernán Cortés and his men came to captivate him (p.56) and argues that even though Montezuma knew that the Spaniards were coming, he was not certain on whether he should welcome them and offer the city as a reward, or kill them at Cholula (p.55). He also quotes Durán on page 62 by saying, “They asked the gods to grant them their favors and victory against the Spaniards and their other enemies. But it must have been too late, for they had no answer from their oracles; then, they regarded the gods as mute or dead.” In other words, it is evident that the Indians believed the Spaniards were either gods or their predecessors, and would continue to do so until proved otherwise, for they had armory, huge vessels, elaborate clothing, a distinct language, and a whole list of actions in their favor. This caused the Indians to eventually abide by every action the Spaniards took, for their leader did so until the end. Nonetheless, even though signs paved the way, it did not win them the war. Todorov mentions three factors that came into play during the years of the conquest that were crucial to enable and facilitate the so-called defeat. The first factor was the one I previously mentioned, religious beliefs, which later in the book he denominates as “religious conquest.” The second factor was “Cortés’s exploitation of the internal dissensions among the various populations occupying Mexican territory.” (p.57) Todorov recounts how Cortés and his men took advantage of rival tribes in order to defeat these, and then allied himself with the Aztecs so that they would comply more easily given that the Spaniards had given them the tools to enhance their army. Further on he talks about how Cortés began targeting and dismantling the families, with the exception of pregnant women. By doing this, he achieves his first half of the defeat, or conquest, given that he got a hold of the main units composing the civilization. Finally, the third reason was biological warfare, mentioned on page 61. The Spaniards had brought smallpox along with other diseases from the Old World, which were completely new to the Indians, causing them to fall one by one due to inability to resist. These factors, although Todorov would argue that do not suffice when talking about such subject, I think summarize and justify the answer to the question in the simplest manner; the Spaniards used signs as theirs means, and warfare as their end References: -ThoughtCo. article on The Ancient Toltecs - The Book For this week’s reflection post, I’ve decided to attempt answering PTJ’s question from another perspective: What factors other than employment management can cause a country to have a high unemployment rate? How can these be solved? I brought up the case of South Africa and the wage subsidy experiment on Thursday, but the fact that minimum wage is widely recognized as the only employment approach is not the only reason why some countries have such a high unemployment rate.
A country’s demand for employment is very elastic, meaning it is very much affected by the labor supply. It depends predominantly on country productivity. A country whose importations outweigh exportations by a wide range or whose physical capital is deficient is more prone to a high unemployment rate. Along the same line, human capital, infrastructure, value of the country’s output and the quality of government also affect how productive a country can be. I see these as each of the legs on the table; if one of these aspects is deficient, the whole country seems affected, making it nearly impossible to deduct the most important. Nonetheless, it is easier to predict which one has the most impact if lost, and personally, I think capital obtains that place. Capital, meaning both human and physical, is very decisive when it comes to labor productivity given that the skills an individual brings to the workplace along with the technology available to facilitate employing the use of these skills make up the majority of the percentage needed to develop labor supply. For example, in a primitive society composed of three people -- one who specializes in food, one who specializes in shelter, and one who specializes in medicine—each one brings their knowledge and skills to the workplace and is able to produce labor by using the tools pertinent to their task, in this case either farming ground, cement and shovel, and medicinal plants, but if one of these two were to be deficient or lost, it would be much harder for an individual to produce labor. My case, however, is effective in a small society, as is the moral economy theory and the wage subsidy experiment, but in a large society, like a country’s usually is, it is much more complicated than I have proposed. In a large country, even though human and physical capital continue to be important, value of output, infrastructure and government quality outweigh the costs. What I consider most important of these three in a country’s development, and is yet the most controversial, is the value of output because even if a country has a high quality, non-corrupt and efficient government, and innovative infrastructure, the value of their exports in the market will determine the profit the country makes. If the exports aren’t valuable in the market, the country’s revenue will inevitably reflect more loss than profit, justified by the demand for the product being either very elastic or just not a necessity. Now that I have talked about all the other causes for the high unemployment rate based on the country’s productivity, I think it is safe to assume, and even more logical, assume that countries with high unemployment rates are, or should be subjects of government renovation. As a Puerto Rican, I would say, “Send them a fiscal control board!” because, you know… but, as an International Relations student, I would suggest an alternative to the current employment approach. Wage subsidies failed to produce exorbitant changes in South Africa because of a deficient human capital in the workforce. In order for wage subsidies to work on a larger scale, they would have to be followed by training courses and sponsored by inelastic companies. In other words, another approach for decreasing, and possibly eradicating, the unemployment rate in countries where it is high, would be to prioritize human and physical capital by employing education programs and having inelastic companies –which the government could act as one if it were of high quality – invest, sponsor and supply the pertinent physical capital in order to facilitate prosperity. After Thursday’s discussion, I thought and though about how security threats, although they are the most common type of threats, they are definitely not the only ones that presents a risk. Countries have economic threats such as recessions, political threats, and specially, social threats. I’d like to highlight two main points regarding social threats: incentives and normalization, in order to further my explanation of the discussion.
In regards to the first point, I think incentives, but more specifically self-interests within incentives, are a main reason why countries like the United States enact certain policies. For example, Wyatt mentioned suing and how people living in the United States sue for everything because of their materialistic desires. However, back home, even though we have been in an economic recession for the past twelve years, the counts of suing for money have decreased greatly, presenting a rise in suing for information. Puerto Rico has a very disclosed policy on information accessibility and it dates back to the Spanish colonialist era in the island (which I talked about in my blog post on “The Double Effect”.) The count for informational lawsuits has increased even more after Hurricane María, due to the high demand for details on why the government kept the resources donated to the island, where the money donated and paid in taxes went, what happened to their family members, why the power in their municipality has not been restored even a year after the hurricane, etc. In the past months executive director of the Institute of Statistics of Puerto Rico and Executive Director of Open Spaces convened to create a bill in which a new information policy was proposed, a policy in which the information regarding the death causes and resolutions of an epidemiological study conducted by the Institute of Statistics would be accessible to the public. The bill initially passed, 48-2 favoring, and people celebrated that they would finally get the answers they had asked for. Nonetheless, a week after it was enacted, the government issued a statement saying that the new information policy had to be retracted because “the information should be reserved to those making the decisions.” Why would the government do this then? Interests. The information reserved, which is apparently deemed as classified as the Vatican documents, maintains direct contact and has an inevitable effect on the voters’ choice. The majority of the deaths were due to the local government’s negligence acts against the people and they recognize that voters will shift their vote if they feel like the political party for whom they are voting is targeting them. This then creates an effect that is standing in the way of the governor and his party’s self-interest. The closed information policy, then, is its only mechanism of defense, but if you need a mechanism of defense, then you face a threat. The reading discussed the social threats of foreign brides, how they are perceived as either passive victims or materialist gold diggers in Asia-Pacific countries and how a threat such as this one is nearly impossible to eliminate. This then led me to ask myself, is anything classified as a social threat nearly impossible to eliminate? The makeshift solution to the foreign brides issue was a reverse psychology attempt involving over emphasizing the topic in order to make citizens uncomfortable by the topic, furthering prevention. The magazine advertisements shaming “fast food” marriages when talking about long lasting marriages evidences this. But, without command and control action on behalf of the government, are social threats able to be solved? The case of Puerto Rico works along the same line of thought; the government recognizes that their votes in the polls will go down once the public knows the truth about their response to hurricane María so they have to enact a policy that restrains this information, but the social threat of lack of information and its effects is still not eliminated. I guess my blog post does not really propose a solution, given that I myself cannot find the answer to the question, without command and control, how can social threats be solved? Do we just live with them and keep talking about them until they are normalized and forgotten? This then brings me to my second point: normalization. The foreign brides issue reached its peak during the beginning of this past decade, making governments even more aware and prone to talk action. Nonetheless, even though this is a major issue for the government, society does not emphasize much on this issue. According to the reading, the matchmaking companies take even more advantage of the issue and increase and expand the Bachelor-Bachelorette approach. This does not take away the fact that it was perceived as a social threat during its peak and that it sparked a period of social crisis during the time, but now that society has normalized the foreign brides issue, it is taken advantage of. This was a somewhat effective response to the issue given that it is not perceived as high a social threat as it had been previously, although “somewhat” because it has not eliminated the threat. Could, then, normalization be the solution to social threats without the need of command and control action on behalf of the government? Generally speaking, the United States’ Security Policy has remained somewhat continuous over the course of the past fifty years, with the exception of minor details. In class, we analyzed the National Security Policies of 1968, 2006, 2015 and 2017; in other words, presidents Johnson, Bush, Obama and Trump’s National Security Policy.
On the one hand, the safety objectives of all four National Security Policies are targeted towards the people of the United States and the protection of their rights, meaning that the “self” factor throughout the policies has remained relatively consistent. It is however, important that we note that the NSC-68 and the 2006 policies expanded their “self” perspectives with the addition of the world security and supporters of democracy, human dignity and free trade respectively. While on the other hand, when commenting on the “others” factor throughout the policy, it is evident that the items vary in countries of origin, political and social ideologies, method of spreading and propaganda, and purpose. An example of variation in country of origin would be the “others” from China whether it be coming to the United States as immigrants (which would also be an example of purpose) or actively posing a threat from their headquarters, as Trump’s Security Policy highlights, while an example of difference in method of spreading and propaganda would be Bush’s terrorism and nuclear network concern, which is more of a propaganda issue, and Obama’s emphasis on the spread of diseases such as Ebola. Marxism and Maoism are proposed as the “others” in Bush’s security policy, creating a barrier for thinking of distinct social and political ideologies as the enemies when discussing national security. Furthermore, there is a pattern of a recurring “other” that is seen through all policies, and that is Russia, as PTJ pointed out. During the National Security Conference of ’68, the main enemy was the Soviet Union and the main concern was protection provided during the Cold War Era, and fifty years later, the Obama and Trump security policies still mention Russia as their “others” given the threat that Russia poses in regards to cyber security and nuclear weapons. Lastly, during strategic approach analyses, I concluded that the National Security Conference of ’68 and the Trump policy have similar strategic approaches, in the same manner that the Bush policy relates to the Obama policy. Johnson’s main approach was isolation and war much like Trump’s was offensive strategy and fear. Their use of military action as their presiding option highlights the world perspective on the United States and how a nation must be willing to market their forces in order to be respected and well-reputed. Moreover, both policies propose economic strengthening and free trade markets as a means to accomplish this. On the other hand, the Bush and the Obama policies’ strategic approach rely on a more liberalist approach meaning that the promotion of a democratic regime and bipartisan cooperation is the “way to go.” Modernizing and transforming the military and security networks yet reserving their power as the last resource is profoundly focused in both policies, otherwise meaning the acquisition the “stand-by” strategy. Bush, however, emphasizes more on anticipatory action in the sense of weakening Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s forces, emptying their sources of supply, defeating the nation-state allies of these groups and dismantling any possibility of safe-haven that the groups might have in allied states, rather than proposing a full on counterattack, being understood as a follow up to the modernizing and transforming of the military and security networks. Overall, I would say that the four policies present continuity in a greater aspect than they do variability. In regards to their main objective and denominated enemy, the policies were considerately defined and rigid throughout the course of the years. The main differences are presented then, in strategic approaches. Nonetheless, something I found curious was that the oldest security policy, the NSC-68, relates the most with the most recent one which would be Trump’s policy, given that this might suggest that the United States is advancing in a somewhat retrograde and weakly targeted way…? I’ll leave that there for a possible future discussion on this opinion. |
Author's QuoteWell, if droids could think, there’d be none of us here, would there? Archives
December 2018
Categories |