Reflection 14: A late Thanksgiving reflection

So looks like I forgot COMPLETELY about writing in my blog this weekend. Whoops, but then again I'm not the only one apparently. You can't blame me though, it was Thanksgiving after all. I was caught up marveling at how tall my cousin grew, the status of my other cousin and her boyfriend, and my parents' dilemma over a busted oven. So anyway, here we go, my Thanksgiving reflection... a week late.

I was terribly unproductive over break. I tried doing some homework, but ended up watching Say Yes to the Dress in my spare time. There was like a marathon on everyday! It was VERY distracting. Not distracting enough, however, to make me forget about my interesting family dynamics. I just seemed to cause loads of trouble right when I got home. I fell asleep in the bathroom and left the hot water running in the shower. I went to grab a pillow off the couch and spilled my mom's tea all over the magazine-laden table. My mom says I came back from college more opinionated, more stubborn, and much lazier. Then she freely told my psychiatrist how I'm the high maintenance one in the family, and how quiet its been without me in the house. Thanks a lot Mom, I love you too. At least Dad says he missed his little girl! XP

But anyways, I was really excited for Thanksgiving. It has extra importance for me especially because it starts this huge holiday triad for my family. First, there's the traditional turkey dinner at Aunt Judy's house, the big matriarch of my family. It's not quite traditional per say, since Aunt Maria brought Chinese-style duck from Chinatown and we ate more flan than apple pie. Second is Christmas at my house, which it always has to be. We held it at Uncle Johnny's one year, and everyone agreed Christmas was MUCH better at my house. It causes a lot of cooking stress for my mom, and she sometimes wishes she didn't have to entertain all these stinkin relatives, but she does it to keep us kids happy. Otherwise Uncle "Never RSVPs" Billy wouldn't even get invited. Third is Chinese New Year. Chinese New Year is a huge holiday for my family. We're not quite sure who's holding it this year, but all that matters is that I'm gettin money! I'm afraid the haul will be a little lacking this year due to the economic downturn, but I think I'll be alright as long as nobody gives me 2 dollar envelopes. That's just a waste of time. But seriously, Chinese New Year brings everybody together one last time before the summer. We can bring guests too since it's a little less formal. For example, I brought my bff Jemila, and we got to play our Chinese orchestra music for everybody. It's also the perfect holiday to test out new boyfriends. ;)

So yeah I'm gonna end my post here. It's too long already. To recap: going home for Thanksgiving break is SO awkward, but happy, and the start to a jolly holiday season. I can't wait till winter break! (Unlike my mother. jk!)

Thanksgiving Reflection

Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays because it is one of the few times my entire extended family is able to come together in one place at one time. I consider the welter of conversation and laughter that accompanies our Thanksgivings one of the greatest blessings in my life. That is why I feel like this reflection allows a powerful opportunity to reflect on our recent blog discussion- where does an event like Thanksgiving fit into the Heinlein Theory of survival?

If humans are no different than the lowest forms of life in that we are fundamentally motivated by survival, then where do all the elements that most define humanity fit in? Why do we have the ability to appreciate food, music and other forms of beauty; why is it that humans most cherish memories that deal the most with our own pleasure, rather than those which teach us lessons? Thanksgiving Day and all the satisfaction accompanies it is incongruous with Heinlein philosophy.

Back!

So I went home for Thanksgiving break this week! It's so weird how quickly I adjusted to being back home, and I have only been at school for about two hours and it already feels like I have not left.

I went into the city on Wednesday night, and it's really made me realize how much more I like DC than the city. My friends always call me crazy for not liking the city, but I personally find it dirty and some place I would never want to live. Funnily enough, I find DC to be super fun and somewhere where I could really see myself living when I'm older. I really don't know why- it could be because maybe I have been in and out of the city my whole life, but then again I have friends who can't get enough of it and go to college at NYU and Manhattan College.

I've also realized that up until my last sentence, I have unconsciously be referring to NYC as "the city." This just made me think of a story that my friend told me at breakfast this morning. He goes to school at Ithaca College and was telling me how he got into a screaming match with a girl who insisted that "the city" was Atlanta. I mean I guess it's because it's what I'm used to and is because of where I am from- I'm sure people from the suburbs of Philadelphia refer to Philly as "the city" just like I call Manhattan "the city." I just think it's funny. Could it be because we are egotistical and think that the city located near us should be called "the city?" Or just because it is easier to call it the city?

Reflecting a pie

When it comes to Turkey Day festivities mine, and most families gatherings tend to run similarly to Joe's without the mad dash to a movie theater.

There's copious amounts of food and pointed remarks about my many short comings.

There's always something about family gathering that makes sibling rivalries comeback full force even without the siblings being present. Part of it is the ease with which we revert back to our old roles. Gathering the family together makes it easy to go back to the way things used to be. Pie and turkey or roast pork are traditions just like family sniping. It's as American as apple pie

Reflection 12....YUMMMM

So it would be amazing if Sofie writes about this too, but I highly doubt she will. Wednesday, Sofie and I decided to enjoy all of the loveliness of the Tavern that we could while we wouldn't be enjoying it for five whole days. Inspired by thisiswhyyourefat.com, we concoted the most fattening meal ever from the Tavern: two pieces of pizza faced towards each other with diced chicken fingers and french fries in between...mmm mmmm! Surprisingly, this wasn't horrible.

Anyway, we were laughing because of a few of the comments that were made while we were eating it...

"This is exactly why America is the fattest country." -my friend Thomas who was visiting

"This is the essence of college food." -Sofie

These aren't exact quotes, but they're the gist of what was said because I really don't remember exactly. I thought about what Thomas said and realized some correlations with what we were talking about is class. Part of the United State's identity is that it is "the fattest country". Along with the obvious fast food culture that is part of America and the disregard for the importance of exercise, it's people like me and Sofie that ate about 2000 calories in one meal.

Then when Sofie said something about this being the essence of college food, I laughed. The sterotype is college food being like Ramen, Easy Mac, other unhealthy combinations of cheap products. Similar to the identity America has of being a fat country, the identity Sofie was referring to was the identity of typical college food. Again, we were just examples of an overarching identity. This whole experience reminded me of what we did in our ethnographys of observing things that contributed to the all-encompassing identity a place suggested. And P.S. the pizza-chicken tender-french fry sandwich was unfortunately incredibly delicious....if you're looking for a meal to cook for a fancy date I fully recommend this with 5 stars.

Question 12...Atta Boy Heinlein

So basically I know this isn't before Thursday and I already have nine blog posts; but my parents dropped me off back at school early, I really don't have anything to do, and I actually did want to answer this question but just didn't get around to it while I was with the family....so I said, why not answer an extra blog question? This is just one example of my incredibly full life...

Obviously someone can always nitpick about a certain type of community where being prepared for war is not necessary to survive, but in general Heinlein is correct when proposing this theory. In smaller communities, the police force is important. In larger communities like countries, the armed forces are important. Without these forces, all hell would break loose. In the beginning, people with morals would continue on the path they are on, but that wouldn't last long as other people began to break the once enforced laws.

Let's be like Einstein now and do a thought experiment and look at the idea of militarily preparing a community from a macro perspective and only focus on countries. Let's say all countries agreed to abandon all types of military forces on the condition that no country will use any type of violence to solve an issue. Think about it...is there anyway this would realistically work in our world? No. There's always going to be that one country that secretly keeps their armed forces and war equipment in tact in case the need to use it were to arise. In this case, other countries might keep their weapons in case one country is actually breaking the treaty to save their weapons (this sentence really isn't clear, but hopefully you get what I'm talking about). Everyone abandoning their weapons just isn't going to happen. So its absolutely vital that a country maintain a strong militaristic base so that in case the need were to arise, they would have the addequate amount of power necessary to protect themselves and maintain their community.

This thought experiment is kind of similar to why Communism really wouldn't work. If everyone gets paid the same, there's no incentive to work hard. So one person starts slacking. If other people see that this person is slacking and still getting paid the same amount, then they might as well slack off too. Pretty soon everyone is slacking off and less is getting accomplished. The parallel can be drawn between slacking off and maintaining war products and troops.

Becaues there's always the possibility that others may be prepared for war, everyone has to be prepared for war in order to ensure the continuation of their community. Maybe Heinlein wasn't right in saving that the necessity to survive always ensures that a military must always be among the highest priorities of the community, but he's certainly right the majority of the time.

The Struggle

Once again, Heinlein uses Dubois to espouse his militaristic philosophy. In this instance he attempts to ground this militarism in "a scientifically theory of morality"- that all morality boils down to the instinct to survive. Never mind that the majority of humans would reject that morality is a fallacious definition set to biological impulses- and that religious, spiritual and philosophical thought starkly contrast this statement, even if we follow Heinlein's logic he ends up incorrect.

If Heinlein is correct and humans have evolved to accept a certain code called "morality" and that our morals then constitute another construct called "society," humans should instead become more peaceful and cooperative. Hundreds of thousands of years ago, when the the negligible human population was struggling to survive, only the most cohesive groups would have survived, and they would have survived by adopting practices that encourage cohesion.

Some biologists predict that evolution should result in the eradication of charitable and self-sacrificing individuals. Why is this not the case? Because people realized that the best way to survive is through cooperation instead of force. Even if survival is all there is- I expect that a future society would have evolved even further towards this understanding- ridding the world of violent, self-destructive societies.

Reflection 13

While he makes valid, interesting points about the true meaning of citizenship and the value of democracy, Heinlein shows an alarming disconnect from real problems problems in the U.S., class, race and crime. I do not know whether Heinlein meant for Dubois to serve as an avatar for his own political leanings. However, Dubois' explanation of the need for firm discipline to control "juvenile delinquents" in reality relays a significant ignorance about American society.

In Heinlein's book, the collapse of Western democracy arrived after violent crime was so prolific citizens literally couldn't leave their homes, and only because the kids weren't subject to enough discipline. "Well golly gee, why didn't those kids' parents take more time to teach 'em discipline? Now that we have corporal punishment and public floggings to look forward to, none of us kids act like that." That's right bland, utterly one-dimensional character, beatings are required by law in Heinlein's utopia. That is why this book strays from reality into fantasy.

Especially living in DC, we have to realize that, socially and economically, we do not live on "a level playing field." When you have to work two or more jobs to support your family, you do not have the same time or energy as do middle-class workers. When you go to poor schools in the inner-city, the culture among educators is unfortunately that some types of kids are unteachable and are better abandoned to their fate. Not so in the thousands of suburban schools, public and private. Young men do not commit crimes because they are thinking about the consequences; they do not intend to get caught at all. They commit crimes out of immediate necessity, the "instinct to survive," Heinlein's basis for all morality. Kids don't join gangs because they find violence fun, they do it because a gang offers the only semblance to a real family they can find. The cycle of violence in urban America won't chance if we instill corporal punishment as a means of rehabilitation. All that will result in is a generation of black, Latino and rural poor resenting even more a government which punishes them for being poor.

Reflection - Native American History Museum

The highest level of the Native American History Museum had some of the trippiest museum exhibits I've ever been to. The glares were blinding in certain exhibits. There was this one exhibit that was behind a convex glass case. The convex glass caused there to be a hazy projection of 2 or 3 Native Americans that seemed somewhat three-dimensional. At first, we thought our eyes were playing tricks on us (hence the trippiness) but then we realized that with a museum of this scale, thought was most likely put into every dollar spent. Perhaps, the musuem builders were trying to perform the idea that the Native Americans are still part of our society today however their culture is not as strong (hence the hazy rather than the vivid projection). I remembered the presentation for the 5-year olds and what the tour guide said. He was talking about how Pueblo's shop in grocery stores and do what one would expect "regular" people to do. This could be an example as to how traditional Native American customs are becoming more hazy.

I was thinking about how this projection could be entirely accidental and I could just be attempting to explain something that isn't really seeking explanation. Even still, it caused me to think about how the Native American culutre is not only historically represented, but also represented today.

...On a side note, one thing PTJ mentioned was to think about what the circular room you first walk into represented. When i walked in I looked up and noticed the circular skylight. I immediately thought back to what I learned about Native Americans in elementary school. The teepees that the Native Americans lived in had a hole in the center so that the smoke from the campfire had somewhere to escape. Its so interesting to me how architectual aspects of a particular building representative of a culture cause one to remember certain aspects of said culture.

Reflection 13: Another 5:00am reflection...

I'm gonna make this brief since I wrote a hella' long response to the bonus question (oh how I turn to good ol Ebonics as I lose alertness). Point 1: I didn't get lost this time! Probably cuz it's hard to get lost in a four-story museum... but we're just gonna keep this as an accomplishment ok? However, I was late AGAIN. My bad. I actually got up early this time too! But, alas, this led me to choose to take a shower. This led me to be inadvertently locked out of my room, delaying my changing of clothes, which delayed my drying of hair, which made me miss the shuttle. LEGIT.

I am quite enjoying Starship Troopers. I don't read much science fiction, but I do watch it. Me likey spacey stuff (lolz). Some scifi books get too deep and confusing for my tastes. Starship Troopers is no Fahrenheit 451, which I am GLAD of. While one of my darling roommate found the opening battle scene boring and poorly written, I LOVED it. The gadgets and tactics they used were fascinatingly alien (pun intended) to me. It was like a little glimpse into a different culture for me. It revealed the personality of the main character, how his life worked, and the alien part of this whole story (the aliens, duh). It made me hungry for more. So I tore up the next couple chapters waiting for the next battle scene. I instead was met the most cliche depiction of a training camp I've ever read. I swear, I've seen the entire sequence with first meeting Sergeant Zim in a movie. The whole time reading I was thinking, "Oh come on? Really?" I've seen it so many times; the commanding officers sees his new recruits for the first time and spits in their face. Then he challenges them to fight him. He whips their asses (ah-dur!). Then a little unsuspecting Asian dude pulls out the supa-dupa kungfu and lands the commander on his ass instead. OMG I was dying!!! This was totally the scene of an old war movie! I really don't like to think Heinlein copied this cliche crap. I'm just gonna say he wrote this first before anybody else did. I see not other explanation for it except Heinlein did this on purpose to get his readers to see how similar present military to this scifi military. But if this is the case, couldn't he have done something different? SERIOUSLY.

Bonus Question: To other, or not to other? That is the bonus question...

I liked the National Museum of the American Indian. First of all because it uses the term American Indian rather than Native American, which can be confusing historically due to American Nativists. Also, when you use the word "native", it definitely has a negative connotation, as "natives" are seen as backwards peoples. It's a really new museum, and I really liked the wave-like design of the exterior. It was probably meant to signify the harmony the American Indian tribes had with the earth.

A major theme in many American Indian culture was the connection between stages of life, color, and the four seasons. One culture correlated adulthood with north and the color red, while another put adulthood in the east and the color was yellow. Symbols for death, birth, and the like changed with each nation, but there was still this theme of the cardinal directions symbolizing different stages in life, elements, and objects like corn and wheat. This way of categorizing life is certainly a tool of remembrance. It creates an order of the complicated world and made it manageable and teachable. The nuances of each culture was shown in the different ways they categorized similar things.

When it comes to othering the American Indians, I think the museum really tried its best not to create the "ooh look and the funny Indians" affect. Contrary to what my chill homie Tonks says (I was looking through other peoples blog post and I just knew I was gonna disagree with her), I didn't see the striking contrast between us versus them. On the top floor, they explored the cultures and customs of several A.I. nations (I'm getting tired of typing, sorry), which you have too if you're gonna make a flippin museum. What was good was that in each little section, they put up pictures and little bios of people alive today who were members of those tribes. The entire second(?) floor was devoted to the lives American Indians today, which I thought was really nice. This exhibit highlighted the incorporation of their culture with modern American culture. There was one display of a modern American Indian living room (idk why, seems kinda weird to me, but w/e). A museum-goer next to me said, "Damn, that looks just like a regular house!" aka it looked like a normal house. This exhibit showed that the American Indians are just like every other American, yet they haven't lost their precious culture. I think this was a great way to balance out the natural othering effect a museum creates on its own.

Making a museum in general others the American Indians. But then again, so does every other celebration of ethnicity. The Chinese New Year parades, Puerto Rican Day parades, even Gay Pride events other the individuals that partake in them. You can't avoid othering when everyday life involves the automatic classification you make in your mind of every person you see. Like Lucia says in her response to esta pregunta extra (I had to look up bonus on google translate lolz), the is "more a celebration of American Indian culture". For this reason I give the American Indian museum some props. Word.

P.S.- Having bangin food helped a bit too ;)

Reflections of Honor

One thing that surprised me about our "military service as a condition for citizenship" discussion was how many of my peers had been raised to fear the military or at least military service. I was never brought up this way. The military took my grandfather, who grew up on a farm without indoor plumbing, put him through school and got him a doctorate in oceanographic geology to lay microphones on the ocean floor. The GI bill pulled my family off the farm and gave us a better life. We have never forgotten this fact.

My grandfather didn't want my dad to go into the military. When my grandfather went in, it was to give his children a better life. The military is great at moving people from poor to middle class. By the time my father was of age, his family was middle class. The military wouldn't move him forward, wouldn't give him a better life. So my grandfather pushed him to go to college to further advance himself.

What's more the culture of the south is very pro military. This almost militant attitude has roots all the way back to reconstruction. In the early years after the civil war (the war of northern aggression) the south was an occupied country. For many years joining the military was the only way to get ahead in society. Military service held a great deal of honor and respect.

I grew up playing army men and it has definitely influenced my opinions today.

Reflection

This weekend has been pretty eventful- I attended my formal for the community service fraternity, Alpha Phi Omega, which was on a boat!, went to the Three Six Mafia concert, left the concert early to see New Moon (which was fabulous by the way), and I finally got my ears pierced! However, I want to talk about the semester as a whole so far.

Although everyone feels the same, I truly cannot believe that we have already been here for three months! Time has really flown by. Once we get back from Thanksgiving break, there's only like two weeks before we go home for Winter Break!

I'm really looking forward to next semester. Everyone has told me, "In college you'll get to pick all the classes you want! You'll have awesome classes!" Honestly, every class I'm taking this semester with the exception of two, I had to take in order to fill my requirements. And I am happy to say that I have much more options for next semester.

I have learned a bit as to what I do not want to do anymore. I came to American wanting "to change the world" with an optimistic attitude. I am completely changed in my mind now though. There are so many problems and issues with international relations, and I honestly think I would go crazy if I worked in a job where nothing really worked. That's another reason why I'm really looking forward to next semester- when I went to my advisor in a panic, we worked out a system where I will look at the different majors available here and inquire about any of the ones I show an interest in.

So, all in all, I'm so stoked for next semester!

Bonus of writing history

the pro of kicking the crap out of an entire race of people is the ability to write history books that you in a positive light. "It wasn't our fault it was Manifest Destiny!" The National Museum of the American Indian kinda calls BS on that idea. It highlights the wrongs done the American Indian people while still showing them as a persisting culture.

"We're still here" was emblazoned across the Cherokee section of "Our People"

The museum is designed to express the American Indian's side of the story. There was a focus on the tribes as individual communities as opposed to the whole as a culturally homogenous community. Artifacts were organized by tribe and each tribal area was organized so as to detail the individual tribe's fight against oppression.

At the entrances there is a big focus on community and the idea that we are all similar people. (the entrance of one exhibit is lined with video screens that show American Indians walking through as you walk through the entrance) The artifacts are organized to show the diversity of the different tribes.

Blog Question

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. breed that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

He's right.

One cannot argue that when faced with a problem, the most effective to to get what you want is through force; every nation, civilization and society (and countless individuals) has resorted to violence to achieve its goals. History is a tapestry of violence, of its utilization to build empires and protect sovereignty.

This of course is true only if one examines history as nearsightedly as possible. Acts of violence settle immediate issues; by looking at the ramifications of violence, we see that a violent past will continue to play out into the future. Heinlein offers the example of Napoleon and Wellington to prove his point.

By crushing Napoleon at Waterloo, Duke Wellington preserved British dominance and protected the European continent. However, France's defeat in the Napoleonic Wars led to the Franco-Prussian War, Germany sought vengeance for France's brutal campaign and occupancy during the time of Napoleon, and the taking of Alsace Lorraine. Enmity between the two nations would help fuel WWI, the outcome of then led to WWII, when Britain found its dominance again threatened by a new European superpower that has already conquered the rest of the continent. The cycle of violence only ended after WWII, when the U.S. and its allies decided to rebuild instead of destroy.

Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, and internal conflicts in nations like Mexico, Colombia, Nigeria, these are all proof that violent action by the government
and dissenting individuals only begets more violence. To believe that violence is the most effective way to settle conflict is to adopt the irresponsible and totally morally reprehensible belief that none of our actions have consequences.

The Best Way

The person who utters our mother's immortal words "violence is never the answer" is likely about to have their ass beat because as the quote says violence settles things. And yes, violence is always AN answer, it's usually the most satisfying answer, and most are gung ho behind it until it's turned on them. Then "violence is never the answer."

Violence is always an answer but whether or not it's the best answer is up for debate. It's certainly effective, quick, and fulfills our primitive need to exert dominance but in the long run it is the worst answer. Violence creates its own enemies. Kill a man and any moral high-ground you once held is gone. He could have raped your daughter and killed your wife but as soon as you kill him, you've made an enemy of his brother, his father, his mother, and his sons.

Look at the conflict in the Middle East. With each bomb we drop, each man we torture . . . I mean "aggressively interrogate" we turn the collateral damage, the families and friends, against us. Shock and Awe is great if you're fighting a political force like the Nazis but when your fighting people who fear you then shock and awe just validates their beliefs that you are evil and to be feared.

But history is written by the winners and often times that means the most violent. The point is what is written by violence is HISTORY. In the past it was easy for the winners of a war to write the history books. It was easier to erase the pasts of those who opposed the "strong." *cough American Indians cough*

Today things are shifting. Our world of internet and instant information sharing gives those receiving the beating a voice. Those who are violent are more likely to be held responsible for their actions. Similarly it is easier for one occurrence to become the rallying point of a cause.

If violence is no longer a viable long term option and opening a can of whop-ass only creates more problems, then what is the answer?

I wish I could say the Gandhi had the answer but that kind of "peaceful protest" only works in certain situations and it certainly doesn't work between nations. Imagine sending soldiers to hold a "sit in" to overthrow Saddam or hunting Al-Queda with a march. You can't because it's absurd.

I can't pretend to know the Best way and neither can our world leaders but I do know what doesn't work and that's a start.

The Success in Violence

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. breed that forget this basic truth have always paid fot it with their lives and freedoms." -- Starship Troopers, p. 27


There is a huge difference in settling an issue effectively and settling an issue in a way that is fair for all parties involved. It's great when these two concepts -- effectiveness and equality -- can coincide, but this is rarely the case. When an issue is solved, the more powerful party gets most all of what they want.

People have tried to solve things peacefully in the past. Keara mentioned in her blog how they talked about the faults of the United Nations for two whole classes in World Politics. During high school, I was part of the Model United Nations club where we went to a college and participated in a mock version of the Model United Nations Security Council. Though its likely a bit more intelligence and efficiency is involved in the actual United Nations, the process was highly inefficient; the only resolutions that were passed were "fluffy" resolutions that didn't really do anything because there wasn't enough material for conflict to arise. Resolutions that would actually acomplish something did not get passed because there were too many people that were trying to get their beliefs and needs met.

Let's just look at a list of the situations in the past that have been effectively solved with violence:
1. World War 2 was ended with Atomic Bomb
2. Civil War
3. State using Police as Defense
4. Removal of Indians - Trail of Tears

One of these situations using violence, the state using police as defense, seems pretty fair to most parties involved while the rest of them seem pretty pointed toward one party. Kicking Native Americans off their land and forcing them to march toward undesired lands isn't really moral, but the issue was solved. Solving the battles between the North and the South was pretty effectively solved through the Civil War; afterall, the United States is still a union. The ending of World War 2 with the Atomic Bomb was even successful use of violence; firstly it was predicted that less people would be killed using the atomic bomb than with continued invasions and secondly the atomic bombing caused the war to end abruptly. Though I'm sure there are examples of peaceful attempts to solve issues (i.e. Gandhi), using violence and the fear that accompanies it has been the single most consistantly successful strategy to solve large scale conflicts.

Violence

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. breed that forget this basic truth have always paid fot it with their lives and freedoms." -- Starship Troopers, p. 27

Some people say that violence is the last solution. Others say that it is never the answer. And others, such as Mr. Dubois, believe it is the only answer.

Okay, let's be honest. Peacekeeping is a great concept. Working issues our diplomatically, peace talks, the UN, etc. are all really great. However, how effective are these methods in reality? In my World Politics class, we spent a good two class periods discussing all of the faults with the UN. And for my Leadership Gateway class, we had a crisis simulation that was sort of similar to Model UN- there was a problem, and groups represented different countries and tried to work out the problems. And it was so annoying/hard t0 negotiate with the other groups. The teachers even had to abruptly stop the simulation because nothing was working. Although I personally do not believe that violence is always the answer, I have come to realize, especially during my first semester here, that diplomacy sounds great but does not always work.

Looking back into history, how many times have peace agreements just not worked out? Take for example the wonderful peaceful policy of "appeasement." Chamberlain and the other Western rulers whose names are escaping me right now allowed for Hitler to take control of certain areas in Europe- it was a peace treaty to allow him to satisfy (or so they thought) Hitler's desire for territory. And what was the result of this peaceful arrangement? World War II.

I feel like people are too selfish to be able to work things out peacefully. If two areas really hate each other, peace agreements will barely ever work effectively. How long have peace talks been taking place between Israel and Palestine as well as between the Greek and Turkish sections of Cyprus? Let's pretty much face it- if nothing significantly solid has happened yet, I don't see what another ten years of peace talks can do.

It is hard to say that I completely agree with this statement- I mean nobody really enjoys violence unless you are some crazy sadist. And the aftermaths of war normally cause huge tensions. I mean one of the main reasons Hitler rose to power and all that jazz was because Germany was an embarrassment after it lost in World War I. Even though there are tensions after the war, war actually "gets stuff done" much more effectively than talking. You have a much bigger impetus to become friendlier with another country if their army is completely demolishing yours. But then again there is violence that occurs during like colonization and enslaving. The Native Americans were pretty good until the white man came in and basically slaughtered a huge majority of their population. How was violence the answer then? I think I would probably support the stance that diplomacy is mostly useless (sad but true) and violence gets stuff done but ONLY when states are butting heads, a state is being a total jerk, etc. As for the times when greedy men come in and just commit acts of violence on another community, I really could not tell you that violence is that answer or that diplomacy works. It is just greed that causes them to invade and do this, and I wish I could come up with a better explanation/answer for this.

Reflection

As a number of my classmates have already reported, Ambassador Quaintain was probably our most interesting speaker yet; his unique experience was fascinating and even inspiring to listen to. Yet as a a growing number of my classmates also pointed out, the ambassador's story shared fundamental similarities with speakers like Ms. Humphreys; the course that Ambassador Quaintain ended up on was not what he elected, nor even suspected. The most common theme throughout the various presentations has been how our speakers' lives were shaped mostly by forces outside their control; this utterly contrasts one of the most common pieces of advice we routinely receive: learn now what you want to do and push yourself as far as you can go in that field.

As Joe describes it, specialization is a part of adaptation and survival; species that don't find a niche die out, companies that cannot specialize their service collapse. It seems natural that for individual careers to be successful, we too must place our chips in one area of specialization.

In past blogs, I have argued in favor of a very different mode of education, a comprehensive "cultural literacy" seems to be the most effective education system for elementary and high school students. However, college in of itself isn't a continuation of the education one received in high school; a college education inherently forces a student to select the area of greatest interest to them and pursue that area above all else.

A college education centers around the pursuit of a career, or graduate school. That is its specialization. Judging from the speakers, however, it was not specifically the college education itself which prepared them for real life; it was more the traits such as hard work and independence, which they would have garnered from college despite any one major. The ambassador answered in class that he believed the Foreign Service has changed, that it would be near impossible for someone to replicate his story and have such a comprehensive career. Perhaps careers have shifted over the years, but I do not think that life itself has become any more predictable. So while I know what area I want to study, I think that I will continue to branch out, a little, and ruminate over these questions as luxuriously as only a college freshman can.

Reflection 12: Don't let me wander off alone EVER AGAIN

Yeah, so I got lost in the Arlington Cemetery on Wednesday. I had to go to the bathroom before I headed off, and everybody went off ahead of me. I figured I could tackle Arlington on my own, but then i found out haw darn huge it was! I was in no mood for walking, but I had a project to do, so I was off. I had been wanting to visit the Kennedy graves since Ted Kennedy passed away, so I headed there first. It surprised me how minimalistic all the Kennedy graves were. They were obviously held to a great importance because there was a guard stationed there and special stone work display speeches and stuff. Anyway, after seeing that, I felt like climbing to the highest point of the cemetery. BAD IDEA. There is no direct route to anything in Arlington Cemetery; its just a bunch of confusing, meandering dirt paths. It took me much longer and much more energy than I expected to reach the Arlington House at the highest point. I was completely spent by then, partly from lack of sleep and no breakfast that morning, but I had to get down and back to school. WORST 45 MINUTES OF MY LIFE. I didn't want to go back the way I had come, because I thought it would take too long. The way I ended up taking led me to the roads cars use to access the cemetery. I followed these roads for FOREVER in the relentless cold and rain until I finally got to the gates. But these weren't the same gates I had used to get in. I ended up collapsing in the Women in the Military exhibit to muster up a little more strength. I finally got onto the sidewalk that led to the Metro, but oh my god, it felt like the LONGEST WALK OF MY LIFE. I know I sound pathetic, but I was really starting to think I'd never make it. I was cold, wet, hungry, and utterly exhausted, and the metro wasn't getting any closer! I finally did get on the metro; had a long, agonizing wait for the AU shuttle; and collapsed onto my bed with every intention of never moving ever again. I did eventually move, but that was after I had slept through my Chinese lab.

So there you have it, my journey through the cemetery. It was quite fruitless in the academic sense, for I spent most of my time there lost and confused. For the last time we take a field trip, I am NOT going around by myself. If I have to get lost, someone else is gonna have to suffer with me. "Oh Anaaaa..."

Reflection 10

I really enjoyed the speaker on Friday. From his story he seems to have lived a really interesting life and I hope I can say the same thing about myself as I get older. I did notice a common theme between him and some of the other speakers we had: what you plan isn't always where you end up. He talked about how he didn't have the usual qualifications for some of the many jobs he attained, but was fortunate and knew the right people. I don't remember what country it was, but I think there was one country he was sent to and didn't even know the language.

I could be mixing up the speakers, but I believe it was Debrah Humphries didn't plan on her job at the non-profit organization and it fell into place. However, both of these speakers gave advice for our success that differed from what they did to lead to their own success. They suggested that we develop a strong plan and the speaker Friday also said that we need to specialize in certain areas. Its interesting that people who, in my opinion, are pretty successful suggest different paths than their own to reach similar success.

P.S. If it isn't already obvious, I can't remember the name of the speaker from Friday; I'm on the top bunk and my notebook is across the room. Let's face it, that's so not happening.....so we'll just go with "speaker from Friday."

Reflecting the future

I've noticed a pattern with all our speakers.

They all stumbled onto their current careers through sheer dumb luck. Yet several of them have touted the importance of specialized education. Almost none of them went into a career that naturally fit with their major (the economist excluded).

Their messages are contradictory. "Have a plan." "Don't stick to that plan." "Find Yourself." "Don't look too long."

The only thing all of them agreed on was "Get a Job!"

Great, me and a couple million of my unemployed friends'll jump right on that.

Reflection- Arlington Cemetery

During our visit to Arlington Cemetery, one part really impacted me. I had gone in eighth grade, so the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the Kennedys’ gravesite with the eternal flame was still pretty fresh in my mind. I don’t have any family buried in Arlington, so my first trip of walking aimlessly around the different gravestones was a bit different from this past Wednesday where a few of my classmates and I were looking for a specific gravestone from a fellow Explorer’s family.

While we were searching for it, we happened to be walking in a section that was all “Iraqi Freedom” gravestones. This was the part that really upset me- some of the birth years were 1987- the same age as my sister. It was so weird to see a) the burial places of soldiers from a war still going on and b) seeing soldiers as young as twenty dying at war. I’m not sure which part disturbed me more- the fact that it had somewhere made the current Iraqi War more tangible by seeing actual gravestones or that soldiers who were my sister’s age have died fighting for their country. It made me realize that my sister and I are not kids anymore- we are old enough now to go to war and even die in it.

This Arlington Cemetery visit was truly an eye-opening experience, and I hope to go back next year for Veterans’ Day and possibly even see the memorial service this time! (Darn you, Obama!)

reflection and relaxation

When you are sick, there's a day about halfway through your illness when if you take it easy and nuke your illness with meds you could be better tomorrow. If you do anything fun however you'll be sick for another week.

I was at that point on Saturday. Saturday is the day for fun things but I knew if I went out and did anything I'd spend the next week paying for it.

Being the only person still on the floor gives you a lot of time to reflect on your week, like the themes of Antigone .

In many ways Antigone, all the Oedipus saga really, is like an illness. One action that seems relatively harmless, like a cough escalates into an unstoppable wave.

When Antigone begins Creon is in that crossroads day where you either sacrifice your social life or your health. He has the option of either allowing an honorable burial to an enemy of Thebes that would benefit his family and please the gods or attempt to unite Thebes through vilifying a common enemy even if it goes against the gods. Really it's a "screwed either way" set up.

Creon chooses the short game. By vilifying the brother who attacked Thebes he could temporarily unite the people against a common enemy but that kind of unity is short lived. In this case very short lived as Antigone goes on to disturb the peace. A better long game would have been to bury both with honors as "sons of Thebes" and say that "with this burial we put to rest the horrors of our past and through honor seek to rebuild for a stronger future." In the end uniting over building something is a better political strategy.

Creon was a bad king because he lacked an understanding of the long game.

Reflection 10

Laws only exist to protect the rights and needs of the people. Therefore, when a law deviates from these rights, people have no obligation to follow it. That is why Antigone was right to disobey her uncle and bury her brother; proper treatment of a dead relative seems to be a human right a government has no right to infringe upon. That is why we as Americans were wildly supportive of the Iranian unrest following its dubious elections, even though popular support has wavered with waning media coverage- the Iranian people resisted an autocratic ruler because his laws violated their natural rights.

At the same time, arguments exist for the rule of law when safety of the majority overrules a right of the minority. Baruch Goldstein, a follower of Meir Kahane and a former member of the armed forces, in 1994 massacred a number of Muslims in a mosque. After he was killed by mosque attendants, extreme right Jewish factions made a shrine around his grave. The Israeli government later demolished the shrine after ruling that monuments cannot be made for terrorists in the state of Israel, fearing that the shrine would attract support for extremist forces, or attract violence from Palestinians angry over the pilgrimages to the shrine. Did the Israeli mandate violate the expression rights of those who built and visited the shrine? Yes, certainly. Was the action justifies? I think that is harder to argue; it was done in name of national security, a justification which always needs to be given a skeptical glance. There are many parrelles between Antigone and this real-life event, a terrorist is celebrated after his death, and the state, citing security and stability as their motivation, deny his friends and family the right to perform his burial as they see fit.

The greatest difference between the two scenarios is of course the different government structures- Isreal is a liberal democracy while Thebes was ruled by an autocrat whose word, and prejudices, were law. Therefore, I have to think that the state of Israel better represented to will of the people, who willed for stability at the cost of an extremist faction.

Reflection -- Antigone

When trying to think about what to reflect about this week, I had some difficulties because lets just say Greek Tragedies aren't my thing. Anyways, I was thinking back to our "trial" in class and I remember I wasn't surprised that the group defending Antigone went with the insanity plea. I'm not saying it was wrong because if I was in their group I would have went with that defense too because that is what the text suggests. However, I feel like nowadays everyone uses that reason as a cop-out excuse. Though I know shows like Law and Order and CSI aren't true representations of reality, that's what I'm basing my knowledge of court cases on haha. It seems as if whenever the defense has no good evidence, insanity is their plea. This insanity plea because of current emotional conditions and incest has a little bit of validity I suppose, but people should just start taking responsibility for their actions.

Reflection

When I first read Antigone in tenth grade, I remember thinking, "Wow Creon is such a jerk. I'm totally on Team Antigone." I even recall writing an essay on why Creon is classified as a tragic hero, and my teacher commented that I was too harsh on him. Now that I am reading it in college, I have different feelings. I can't help but feeling sort of sorry for Creon. Instead of a headstrong tyrant, I see him as a man trying to gain control of his kingdom as it is about to fall apart. I feel like deep down he knows that he should not punish his niece, but he needs to keep his credibility and reputation as a forceful ruler, even if his decree was a bit unfair.

This does not mean that Antigone is all to blame. Even though she technically broke the law, can you blame her? She just wanted to give her brother a proper burial. What the defense for Antigone said in class on Friday that it was a terrible law to begin with reminded me of something that I had learned in US History. Although I cannot remember the specific details, it was something like Senate didn't like that Andrew Johnson was being too lenient in his Reconstruction policies and they made a law that Senate approval was needed if the President wanted to either remove or instate a Cabinet member. Johnson disregarded this and was impeached. He was like one vote or something like that off from being impeached, but much later the law was considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

So, if Antigone was given a fair trial, would she have been declared innocent? This play is very complex and in the gray area of who is right and wrong, that I don't think any conclusions could be drawn that specifically state that Creon is right and Antigone is wrong or vice versa. I just thought it was funny/strange that I have formed completely different opinions of the characters in just the course of three years.

Question 10

I agree that a society's management of wealth and poverty does reflect on its overall health and stability. This probably stems from my belief that, particularly in our nation, we have a degrading system of social determinism that restrains those born into poverty. Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, our country is not nealy post-racial; racism quietly penetrates the economic life of Americans in almost every area: healthcare, housing, employment. Shortly after the housing market crash, reports of areas with high concentrations of foreclosures were taken; in cities like Memphis with a high black population, investigators found that maps of foreclosed houses fall perfectly along the bounderies of black neighborhoods. Banks targeted black Americans with the riskiets loans, hoping to make quick profits. Not everyone agrees with this opinion, but it shapes my belief that the existance of poverty in our country identify deeper societal ills.

Education specialists like E.D. Hirsch, who promote a system of "cultural literacy," have come under fire from traditional liberals who like progressive, individualistic methods of teaching i.e., teaching children "how to learn" is more important than grounding them in history, culture and language. Hirsch, however, maintains that a stable education system based on basic culteral literacy for each grade level in the U.S. “Cultural literacy constitutes the only sure avenue of opportunity for disadvantaged children,” said Hirsch in this article (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_hirsch.html). The United State's education system is especially failing those from impoverished households, and a reformed education system will allow estranged populations minorities and the rural poor to better rise out of poverty, and better coalesce our nations' cultural identity as to better combat racism. My home state, Massachusetts, adopted Hirsch's model and its educational standards immediately surged; Massachusetts now leads the nation in NAEP test scores, whereas before its scores were stagnant, particularly in reading and writing.

Therefore, we can link an issure like poverty, and the distribution of wealth in our society, to social foundations like education. A failuire in our education is a severe societal ill. Our country has always been good at throwing money at problems instead of investigating their roots. Both liberal welfare systems and conservative methods of tax breaks have their problems in reducing the U.S.'s poverty, Even though I consider myself progressive, and don't usually believe that old dead white men know what is best for our modern nation, I too think that an education system better grounded in the democratic ideals proposed by Jefferson and other Founding Fathers is better for combating poverty.

Poverty

We’re so rich that we forget about our poor people; people don’t realize how poor some people are. People in the country are often focused on the unemployment numbers as a way of showing how the market is doing in today’s economy. However, these numbers are more important. These show how the US is handling its citizens. As more and more people fall below the poverty line, the US is having a hard time taking care of its citizens. This can be a sign that the US is not reaching its full potential with its interaction with citizens.

Poverty proves if a society is interacting and working together. Since these are the most important parts of society, it can be only fitting that the poverty line shows is people are indeed working together as a community. The most important thing we should bear in mind in this social arrangement is that the society on a whole must interact and know each other’s problems, and not view these problems as simple numbers telling how this weeks Dow Jones Industrial Average is going to do.

the weakest link

The old adage of a chain only being as strong as its weakest link plays directly into how a society copes with poverty or rather a working class. A strong, well cared for working class allows for a strong, well cared for class of idle rich. Just like an expensive chandelier the weight of the rich is supported and saved from imminent demise by the chain of oppressed working class.

If this working class is fed regularly on the American Dream (tales of how relentless hard work allows for social and economic mobility) then the chain will continue supporting the ever more cumbersome and gaudy chandelier but as the chandelier becomes neglectful of its support structure small cracks will form in arrangement.

Like Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution, the lower class starved of food, health care, and opportunity and burdened by the ever growing economic weight of the idle rich and . . . well like I said a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It only takes one link sloughing off the burden of its oppressors to send the whole structure crashing to the ground.

Response 10: Dealing with poverty and developing societies

The problem of wealth and poverty is a social ill. A country's state of development dictates how it deals with those issues. Established, developed nations are the ones that have time to look at their social construction and want to try and fix them. The US, UK, and other major European countries have come far enough economically that they can care for those who didn't entirely benefit from ecnomic policies. Those in the best "health" can take the time to deal with the welfare of all it's people. Unhealthy states, on the other hand, tend to focus more on the betterment of their country first.

Take China for example. China is now going through its industrial revolution and its economy is booming because of it. China wants to reach superpower status, so they ignore human rights and environmental issues within their state. This country of roughly 1 billion people has a huge amount of its citizens classified as the rural poor. China, being a developing nation, is ignoring their poor for now to continue their steamtrain towards being developed.

India too follows this trend. As seen in the recent box office hit, Slumdog Millionaire, there are many slum towns within major cities that are just ignored. The poor are grossly poorer than the poor of the United States. This is because India is still developing; they have yet to lift a majority of their people out of poverty. The more stereotypical "third world" also falls under this trend. States of this classification are just poor in general compared to other states. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, is plagued by ridiculous inflation rates and widespread poverty. This is due to its corrupt government, which is taking all the profits and manipulating the state's economy to keep the people down. This terribly unhealthy nation is defined by the lack of any action to deal with its poverty by its society.

Another way to view this litmus test to a healthy county is to examine the difference between poverty and economic inequality. In my world politics class, we're learning about how some experts believe we should focus on how inequally wealth is distributed in a country rather than poverty itself. The models given to support this were all developed or up-and-coming countries, like the US, Brazil, and China. The most developed countries, namely the US , have most of their wealth concentrated in small top percentiles of the population (i.e. top 2% in the US). The up-and-comers weren't as bad, but studies showed that the division between the rich and the poor had greatly increased as these economies of these states grew. It seems that as a society lifts itself out of "undeveloped" status, the divisions of the rich and poor inherently are created. The great divide that seems to occur is unpleasant to society, so it responds and tries to bring its poor up with the rest of the country. An undeveloped nation won't do that because there is yet to be a great enough divide in socioeconomic hierarchy in the general public. The societies most fervent and successful in their fight against poverty are only those that are truely developed nations.

Reflections of shiny objects

I must first apologize for the lateness of my reflection this week.

In my defense I spent my Sunday in a Howard County ER getting flu medication that, had I been at home would have been mine after a short visit to the doctor's office.

Sitting in an understaffed ER for roughly five hours gives one plenty of time consider the state of our health care system today.

For many of the uninsured, the ER replaces a primary care physician. In our current system the hospital is often forced to eat costs that go unpaid by those who can't afford to get sick. The elderly and uninsured are often forced to choose between medications with inflated prices or utilities payments. Recently free health care has been provided to those in some major american cities like LA by Remote Area Medical. They send Remote Area Medical to disaster sites and third world countries that barely have enough hospitals for their sick and health insurance doesn't even come into play.

Yet even those who are insured aren't being covered when they need it most. Dental isn't covered, Optometrists aren't covered, only certain hospitals are covered, only certain doctors. My mother's health insurance company tried to duck charges for the emergency caesarian section that saved both her and my little brother's lives. Apparently the anesthesia was unnecessary for the procedure.

One of the main argument against socialized medicine is that those needing vital procedures would have to wait to get them. They already are. They're waiting for their insurance companies to approve the life saving procedures that they can't afford but can't survive without. As it is our health care is controlled by the rich and vocal. All those people who stand in front of the capital with signs that say "Keep government hands off my Medicaid" while people die in ER's or drown in bills they can't pay. Only the rich can afford to stay healthy.

What kind of self respecting first-world country would have a system that put a price on health?

Reflection 10: Good god it's November...

Time has flown by so fast. I've been in college for 2 1/2 months. Some of my friends here feel like ones I've known for years. I'm used to the campus, the food, the schedule. Everything is fitting in very nicely for me. But for some strange reason on Saturday, I was the most homesick I had ever been since I arrived here on August 15th. Saturday was Halloween, a holiday grounded in the neighborhood where you live. I was upset because it was no longer the same for me. I was used to Trick-or-Treating with the same group of neighborhood homies, taking too much and running through backyards. I missed dressing up for the day before Halloween at my high school. I missed participating in the the Safe Halloween program where little kids get to Trick-or-Treat at my high school. I missed seeing my little brother in his video game character Halloween costume and opening the door for all the little kids. And I especially missed the CANDY. I wasn't swimming in mountains of free candy and Halloween just didn't feel the same!!! I was just plain sad all day on Saturday. I really didn't feel like leaving the dorm, but my homie Isaac managed to persuade me to go to Georgetown with him. I had fun looking at all the creative costumes and just being in the packed chaos of M Street. So the moral of the story is: when you lack your normal traditions, make new ones? :)

Reflection

Our class seemed generally to doubt AU's motivation for its 35 million dollar donation to WAMU. There must to be an ulterior motive, American has to be getting something out of the deal. I am sure that our school's leadership knows what it is doing; AU most certainly will benefit in some way. However, I do not believe that self-interest needs to be the force shaping AU's policy, not anyone's. Instead of maintaing that charity and civic duty are viable only because the participant may get something out of it, why not instead consider that doing acts of good inherently benefits all parties involved. Our society does not need to be "zero-sum" if people abandon the mentality that other people's gains are their losses- the rich do not need to get richer only at the cost of the poor getting poorer.

People, and entities like American University, need not lead a Ted Oster lifestyle, where the only good is what immediately benefits you. That will only lead to a reduction is what political scientist Robert Putnam calls "social capital," the important, mutually beneficial relationships forged among community members. Civic engagement does not need to decline as it has. It just takes effort, something that Americans are too eager to avoid. I hope that my school is making an effort to benefit its community and create greater social capital. I would be proud to know that the university I atend is standing as a role model for other institutions and members of all their communities.