As others have said in their blog posts, I'm also very proud of how our class went about this weeks simulation. I think we all brought up great points and had important debates that should be had by companies and organizations working to create sustainable development plans, especially in regards to economically vulnerable countries.
However, I feel like there were two specific debates that didn't quite finish and I'd like to touch on those and provide my perspective on them. The first is that private sector investments in sustainable development plans in developing nations would harm future generations. Alonso brought up this concern and while I think it's a viable concern, I think it greatly underestimates the abilities of the people in developing countries. I believe a major issue in world politics is that developing countries are left out of the conversations that have to do with their own development, a problem PTJ brought up at the end of class on Thursday. It seems that developed countries create plans that devalue the capabilities that the people in these countries have. This may not be a conscious decision, but it still instills a sense of belittlement and inferiority on the people of these countries. I think it's important that developed countries recognize the talent and intelligence that exists in these countries and realize that it may be a lack of resources and support that hinders them from implementing programs that they deem necessary, not a lack of ideas. It's important for developed and developing countries to work side by side to create plans that are appropriate for their circumstances. They have firsthand experience with these issues so why are they not part of the conversations that create plans to combat them? More specifically to Alonso's point, I think saying that investments instead of donations would hurt future generations is essentially saying that we shouldn't believe in the ability of the present generation to be able to pay back smalls loans because it's too big of a risk. Granted, I think Alonso was assuming the loans would be massive which would be difficult for new business to immediately pay back, but I'm referring to small, reasonable loans. By holding people accountable and showing them that companies hold them to the standards they would a company in the U.S., it can show them they are being taken seriously and that they are believed in. This has proved to be successful in many cases and there are many organizations who engage in micro credit lending to support small businesses in developing countries, such as the Grameen Bank. The second debate was brought up by Mimi in class and again in her blog that big companies wouldn't want to give donations to causes with no benefit to them. I can see her point and I think it's true that they don't always do it for the simple reason of it being a good thing to do, but nowadays it is common place for companies and corporations to invest in the social capital market as part of the idea of corporate social responsibility. Many companies give donations or investments to humanitarian efforts because it has become the norm. It gives them good PR a lot of the time which could be considered the benefit they are receiving. It has also been found that people are more likely to buy products from companies that invest in a cause they care about so that is another pro for companies to donate and invest in social causes. Whether it's good or bad that companies might just do this for those reasons is a complex debate, but the idea that they do is not. For further proof, just a few companies donating to social causes include Deloitte, General Electric, IBM, Zappos, Cisco, TOMS, Apple, LinkedIn, Disney, Google, BMW, Dell, IKEA, Starbucks, and many more. To close out this blog post I'd just like to say thank you to PTJ, Preston, and everyone in our cohort for making this semesters World Politics class so great. Our conversations have brought up insightful thoughts and interesting debates all while remaining respectful and friendly. I feel grateful to have learned so much from you all so far and I can't wait to keep building off of each others ideas in 206. Sources Stanford Review- Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition https://www.smartrecruiters.com/blog/top-20-corporate-social-responsibility-initiatives-for-2017/
1 Comment
I have to say I'm pretty proud of everyone who presented on Thursday! Everyone really did their research and brought up good ideas. This simulation goes perfectly with what I've been learning in my social entrepreneurship class this semester. We just did a presentation on a hypothetical partnership between an NGO we're representing and a for-profit company. This simulation made me think about the different ways in which bringing together companies with such different values and missions can be good and bad.
In my other class, we discussed how the idea of for-profit businesses getting involved in the social capital market is a new situation and them partnering with NGOs or nonprofits is even more recent. I feel like we have the misconception in this simulation that we all had to be willing to work together, but when you actually read about what makes successful inter-sectional partnerships, you'll find that's not the case. Some of the most important aspects of long-term successful partnerships include trust, communication, mutual benefit, and shared values. I find it hard to believe that companies like Green Peace or Oxfam could ever trust a company like Shell enough to create a successful partnership. While this partnership isn't really about benefitting the companies, it's more focused on sustainable development projects for Mozambique, there should still be some level of shared values and trust between organizations if they plan to work together to solve any kind of global development issue. I think it may be important for us to step back and realize this is not about our companies but it is about who can do the most sustainable, long-lasting, positive, change in a country that is full of capable people that just need a helping hand. I find that I both agree and disagree with different parts of the Todorov quote "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' (I myself, a Bulgarian living in France, borrow this quotation from Edward Said, a Palestinian living in the United States, who himself found it in Erich Auerbach, a German exiled in Turkey)." (Page 250). On the one hand, I agree with Olivia's post that ignorant pride in one's country can lead to dangerous amounts of ethnocentrism which we've seen throughout history can lead to nationalism that can be manipulated and used in negative ways. It can also just be damaging to people's ability to acknowledge the beauty and successes in other cultures which can prevent their own nation from progressing. However, I also disagree with the idea that a "perfect man" is someone who sees the whole world as a foreign country because it seems to me that someone who has no nationality would be a bit lost in their identity and could almost feel alone in the world. I don't think having pride in one's nation or multiple nations is a bad thing. That being said, I do agree with Todorov on the point that recognizing the strengths in other countries is a great thing. I think the world could make an incredible amount of progress if we all began stopped viewing countries as the "other" or "inferior" and had a healthy understanding of the things that make both our own and other countries great and not so great. It's important to note that I think it's pretty much inevitable that we would all have varying ideas of what makes one country great and another not based on our implicit biases that we've been subjected too through our own country's social constructions of our cultures and values, but the important thing is looking at a country's values through their own cultural lens and using cultural relativism instead of ethnocentrism when attempting to understand another culture.
It is not wrong to have a country in particular that you can call home, but it is damaging to not be able to be critical of ones own cultural and not allow oneself to appreciate and understand another culture because you think it's too different from your own. There is a balance between the two that I think would better represent a "perfect man" rather than Todorovs definition. After a much needed break and a week of thinking about what I'm thankful for (yes I know we should do that all the time but this week does cause you to think), anyways, I wanted to write a bit about what I'm thankful for, some relating a bit to what we've talked about in class this semester...
1) That my family and I have the privilege to always feel safe in our own homes and not have fear of being separated like so many do. 2) That my extended family is able to visit if they are able to find the time while some peoples are oceans or many countries away. 3) That my family is socio-economically stable and that they were able to manage to find a way to allow me to get such a great higher education. 4) That my family is very accepting and that I was able to grow up with strong LGBTQ+ couples that made me more accepting as well. 5) That everyone in my family is in good health and that we have the ability to get good medical care when needed. 6) That I have a home and family that I genuinely look forward to seeing and coming back to. 7) That I have supportive and kind friends both at school and at home. 8) That I have a close relationship with all my sisters and that I'm someone they can confide in. 9) That I've had the incredible opportunity to live abroad and experience other cultures. 10) At last but not least, that Duke basketball lost this week :) (let's not talk about the UNC vs. Texas game...) I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving I'm thankful for you all! At the end of class on Thursday an interesting thought was brought up about whether or not the culture of a civilization could be so based around support of a community or leader that there wouldn't be self interest. While it's evident when looking at cultural trends throughout history that culture is very much socially constructed and that we often believe that the culture we are raised in is normal and right, it seems impossible that a civilization could create a culture that has no sense of self interest.
While people in history certainly have an extreme nationalistic sense of pride for their civilizations and especially their leaders, that does not take away from the fact that humans still have a basic sense of self, have their own emotions, and have instincts that can favor the individual. It's an interesting sociological question, one that I don't really have an answer too but would love to have a conversation about specifically in the context of the Spanish conquest of the Americas. What do you all think? Was there a major lack of self interest in the ancient American civilizations that may have aided in the Spaniards ability to conquer them? Besides this question, I enjoyed speaking in the small groups on Thursday as it brought up some interesting points I had considered when reading Todorov. Alonso's outside information on different battles where the Aztecs won that were left out of the book for instance helped me to see that Todorov may have sometimes failed to give the Aztecs credit where it was due for one reason or another. Jeremy's comment on the book he read about the strengths the Europeans had also sparked an interesting conversation as its a common trend to see reasoning behind all of the Europeans success in conquering and colonizing that may be too oversimplified. It also leaves out the fact that many European "discoveries" were actually stolen from the places they colonized which is a dangerous story to be telling as it continues to strengthen the misconception that the Europeans were superior to others in so many different ways instead of acknowledging the complexity of the different situations and the fact that the Europeans did not actually create everything they claim to have to created. This narrative perpetuates the stereotypes about so many of the colonized peoples as people who were inferior to the Europeans and effectively dehumanizes them and for that reason I have to disagree with some of the points Jeremy brought up. It will be interesting to continue the conversation on Todorov tomorrow and to see if we can possibly begin to talk about the question I mentioned above. To begin answering the question of whether or not the Spaniards defeated the Indians by means of signs I feel it's important to define what signs are. In the context of Todorov's book, it seems signs are defined as the ability for communities to communicate with one another whether that be through movement, interpretation of texts, verbal communication, etc. While it's made clear in the forward that Todorov argues that, yes, that is how the Indians were defeated, after reading the first bit of his book I believe the answer is a bit more complicated.
Signs do play a major role in how the Indians were defeated, but I believe the cultural identities of the civilizations, specifically their leaders, plays a large role as well. Focusing mainly on the Aztecs and Montezuma, it is clear to see that his insecurities played a large role in the way the Aztecs were able to be defeated. Signs play a large role in his insecurities as a leader and oftentimes he was able to use signs as a scapegoat for his actions. For example, when the Spanish first arrived the Aztecs were well aware of their whereabouts because of their extensive network of spies which the Aztecs are well-known for. However, once Montezuma reached out to the Spanish to make it clear that he did not want to speak to them, he was insulted by their response. However, this response seems to mainly be because of a misinterpretation of the signs Montezuma used to communicate his message with the Spaniards. Regardless of how it was interpreted, Montezuma was so offended by their response, that he used signs such as the law created by Montezuma I saying that the king should not be seen by the public unless the situation is of great importance as a way to dodge the public's eye. (70-71) However, his lack of leadership and frankly horrific tactics for keeping signs positive for himself, caused the Aztecs to become much more vulnerable and gave the Spaniards an upper hand. (72) Along with this increasing vulnerability, the Spanish began using their highly literate communication skills, ones that were unmatched by the Indians, to gain more knowledge about them which was a shift from the Aztecs normally knowing much more than their opponents. (73) Because of these huge differences in communication capabilities it seems the Indians did use signs as a way to explain their own demise however I don't believe that means they were caused by them. Todorov makes it clear that the signs given to different Indian civilizations by the gods predicting great suffering and demise were created after the invasion of the Spanish. There is a very interesting social response to these predications as people in these civilizations internalize them and believe that they were in fact given long before the Spanish came. (74) While this did affect peoples optimism when dealing with the Spanish conquests, the rulers had to create them for some reason and it seems to be because they wanted the people to be able to mentally overcome the defeat. (74) When looking at the defeat of the Indians by the Spanish it's clear that signs do play a huge role in their demise but how the signs were implemented and why and when they were is important as well as it explains why the Indians may not have pushed back as much as they could of. I don't know if I find it compassionate or cowardly of the leaders of these civilizations to essentially manipulate the mindsets of their people into believing the gods had this plan for them, but regardless of why, it was effective in aiding the Spanish in their conquest of the new world. Sources The Conquest of America, Tzvetan Todorov In class this week we discussed the results of the midterm elections and PTJ mentioned the press conference where Trump had one of his fun little outbursts at the media specifically attacking Jim Acosta from CNN telling him that "you should let me run the country and you run CNN". This blatant disregard for the the right of free press to question our nations democratically elected leaders has gotten more and more concerning lately as Trump seems to think that the war against "fake news" should continue.
What's so frustrating to me is that he doesn't seem to care about the effects of his words. The free press is a staple of American democracy and when Trump constantly uses his authority to diminish the ethos of reporters, he doesn't seem to be straying far from propaganda used by authoritarian leaders such as Putin. After many years in office, Putin has been able to use his control of the media to effectively use propaganda to effect the way Russian's view world issues despite the fact that the Russian media often lies to its citizens. It's concerning that Trump seems to be employing similar tactics by attempting to discredit news sources such as CNN while supporting ones like FOX all the while lying constantly himself. And all the lying and manipulation is taking it's toll. After one of many of Trumps tweets attacking CNN and NBC and one where he wrote, "I just cannot state strongly enough how totally dishonest much of the Media is. Truth doesn’t matter to them, they only have their hatred & agenda. This includes fake books, which come out about me all the time, always anonymous sources, and are pure fiction. Enemy of the People!” a man named Robert D. Chain was arrested for calling in death threats to the Boston Globe. After Chain was arrested, the FBI seized 20 guns from his house. Prosectors accused Chain of calling the paper because they had made attacks against the president. This isn't an isolated incident as other news organizations have had similar calls for similar reasons. Trumps words are inciting violence against news organizations which should no longer be taken lightly. Even his staff is in on the game with Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeting a doctored video of the incident at the white house press conference in order to demonize Jim Acosta. But sure, CNN is lying. The absurdity of this presidency's attack on the free press has be talked about as the danger that is it. Sources https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trumps-attacks-on-the-news-media-are-getting-even-more-dangerous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqD5fQ6KfNs https://freedomhouse.org/report/modern-authoritarianism-press-freedom https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/415673-reporters-accuse-sarah-sanders-of-sharing-edited-video-of-acosta-aide The class discussion on Thursday brought up some really interesting perspectives. I've never really thought about the relationship between the threat of an incidence happening and the extent to which steps should be taken to prevent the threat. In my opinion, after hearing all the different perspectives in class, threats should be dealt with the most necessary precautions regardless of inconvenience.
However, I do thing public works projects in particular should try to create solutions that cause the least amount of disruption. For example, the metro situation we discussed in class where instead of redoing the metro stations, they simply added an part to the announcement that allowed blind people to know they needed to take a larger step. This is a great example of taking action to solve a problem but not causing a disruption to other commuters. But there are larger scale projects that need to be done where disruption is inevitable. For example, Annelis story about the bridge construction. While this construction does cause delays, the work must be done in order to keep the bridge in working order. Sure, those delays can be frustrating, but that work is necessary and I believe they should do that type of work regardless of the inconvenience it causes. But a tricky example of this is the story about the tunnels that Jeremy discussed. While some may say that this isn't an issue that should be dealt with now, in my perspective it is. I acknowledge that it may not be an immediate issue for commuters, but I believe the potential dangers cause it to be an issue that should be dealt with now, regardless of the annoyance it might cause commuters. Road work, metro work, bridge repairs, and other issues all can have annoying side affects, but I believe if there is a threat that can be dealt with, it should be. We all believe things won't happen to us until they do, so I believe dealing with threats now instead of later is the way to go. However, if it's possible to create solutions that don't cause disruptions, that is the best case scenario. After reviewing the notes taken on the different national security statements made by presidents throughout the past few decades along with NSC-68 and the previous class reading, I found that the U.S. has a combination of both continuity in our national security interests and changes.
I believe a main component that generally stays the same in the fact that the U.S. is aiming at supporting the people. While the meaning of that could be citizens of the U.S. or all people living here, generally, the interest is for self preservation over international aid. From Bush's administration advocating against terrorism for the protection of the American people, to Trump and his four pillars, national security seems to be mainly focused on the interests of the American people and the rights we reserve under the constitution. One way in which national security varies is in the strategies used to protect these rights and who we find ourselves protecting ourselves against. As Wolfers describes in his article, as we are living in the after math of the cold war, the concept of national interest has transformed into national security. We find ourselves more distinctly defining the "other". Nearly every time this includes the Russian's, but in nearly all of the documents read, presidents and documents addressed different types of issues and groups to protect ourselves against. From the terrorist groups Bush described to be all around the world (from Afghanistan to Columbia), to Obama addressing the issue of climate change, to NSC-68 focusing mainly on the cold war agenda, all time periods have had different priorities as the time's have changed. Yet another change comes in the forms of the objectives and strategies used to promote national security. Some leaders took a more realist approach with hard power strategies to combat national security threats, such as NSC-68's promotion of investment in the enlargement of the military, Bush in Iraq, as described in the Krebs and Lobasz article, and Trump with the concept of preserving peace through strength. While others, such as Obama promoted a more liberal, soft power agenda with emphasis on force not being a first choice option. However, it does seem that many of the national security agendas seem to all push for the spread of democracy in one way or another. They all seem to want to transform tyrannical regimes into democratic governments that support free trade as a way to achieve greater peace in the world. Whether those were their true goals or not is up for interpretation. All seem to use national security to push the America first agenda. They all aim to increase America's strength in the world and prove our dominance while also aiding other countries in converting to democratic governments that would, in turn, aid us by creating better trade markets. And some claim to want to support other people's right to democracy, the main objective to all seems to be keeping American's safe, protecting our role as a world super power, and advancing our economic interests. I believe American's national security objectives will continue to change as the world around us changes. There will continue to be new challenges arising and new people with different priorities coming to power and our national security will adapt to those changes. Sources: White board notes from class Fixing the Meaning of 9/11 Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq Ronal R. Krebs and Jennifer K. Lobasz "National Security" as an Ambiguous Symbol Arnold Wolfers The topic of celebrity activism is one I've interested in a while now. In Senegal we read many articles on the topic of volunteerism in developing countries and the actual impacts that can come from people with good intentions. While not all of these volunteer programs are supported by celebrities there are many causes supported by celebrities that have good intentions but can cause negative impacts.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it can be great for celebrities use their platform to support causes that are important to them. I believe the most impactful change comes from when people truly understand and feel a personal connection to a cause. For example, as Alyssa and Anneli talked about in class, Nick Jonas and his impact on kids during his support a diabetes campaign had a really positive impact on children with diabetes. And I agree with Cora's point that Taylor Swift encouraging young people to vote is overall a great message if it gets young people out there and participating in such an important election. But although I think that celebrities are private citizens and have the right to support what they want to support, I don't think that they should feel like they have to and I especially think that if they do, they should be very aware of how their platform will heavily influence their fans. Like I said in class, I think it comes down to the concept of "real good vs. feel good". Are you doing something because it feels good for you or because it causes real good? I think that's where celebrities make the biggest mistakes because they think that it looks good or, as Hannah said in her post, makes them look most virtuous, without really understanding an issue or an organization's mission. So if a celebrity decides to support an issue I think they should deeply understand it and what the best organization is to support that addresses that issue. Even better, I think it should be an issue they have a personal connection to. Overall I think celebrities need to be more responsible with their activism and be aware of their influence. |
AuthorMy name's Wyatt Foster and I'm from Chapel Hill North Carolina. I'm studying International Relations and French. Last year I took a gap year in Senegal which cemented my passion for international studies in particular women's reproductive health and education access. |