Political Geography

In our final class of the semester we went around the room & were asked what our future plans were & how political geography may potentially help us in our careers/life plans. It was astonishing to hear how few people had their lives together. Honestly, I think this day helped me in aspects of my life I was not expecting. Each day this semester, as my graduation date came closer (May), I felt as if I was drowning, a little more each day. I have no career planned out for myself, to be honest I feel as if my major will lead me nowhere (apparently this is the consensus from everyone at this school, even the teachers laugh when you say you're an international affairs student), and I feel ultimately lost. Not that I'm saying I'm depressed and don't see a point in school anymore. I actually love all of my classes (this is something I cannot say for my accounting major roommate) and I enjoy learning about the topics I choose, it seems so broad that I'm not completely dreading the future. But, hearing a majority of the class say that they have no idea what they plan on doing after graduation was almost a relief. Not that I'm hoping everyone feels as hopeless as I do! But it is nice to know I'm not alone. I do also think this Political Geography class has been broad enough, and made us talk & listen to each other enough that everyone will take something away from it. Thank you for a great semester!

War vs. Peace

Our final debate in class today was about whether or not war is a good or bad thing: pro vs. against. Our side had to take on the pro side of things, a difficult challenge. I think both sides can be easily contested & that is what makes this topic so difficult to discuss, but as someone said in class, also what makes it more in favor for peace. Because there are so many problems, decisions, economic factors, moral factors, etc. isn't it better to simply aim for peace and bypass the whole process? Unfortunately it does not work that way. War is a part of our past, present, & future. It is not going anywhere to matter what people speculate about the democratic peace, or hegomonic control, or any other peaceful theory. Not to take on an explicit realist perspective, but we are always on the brink of war. I don't mean this in an arms race, Cold War kind of way, but there will always be problems that we, as a planet, must confront. Religion, government, social norms, ethnicity, are just a few things that could become a "flashpoint" in the near future.
There are many obvious cons to war. If we simply choose to not go to war, lives will be saved, destruction will be nonexistent, and we can go along our merry way attempting to bring our unemployment rate down to a reasonable percentage. Unfortunately this is not always an option. Just because WE may not choose to go to war doesn't mean another state will not attempt to challenge us. Sure, we could bring in a preemptive attack, neoconservative doctrine type of thing into the mix, often the United States first choice. Or even if we don't, eventually a state will attack. In this case what are we to do? Roll over onto our backs? Of course not. Sometimes war is imperative. It is how we got to be the superpower and world leader that we are today.
Don't get me wrong, I would definitely say I'm a dove in the dove vs. hawks debate, but I do see the practicality of war and being prepared for us. We cannot predict the future, but I certainly hope we see less and less wars in the future.

Religion

According to Marx, religion and ethnicity are the two things in this world that will cause people to act irrationally. Again, as I have stated in my other blog posts, I don't think this concept can be agreed upon or denied. Nothing in our world is black and white, and I think many people look at things that way and it blocks the truth from their vision. Yes, religion is and has always been, a reasons why wars have been fought, why empires have crumbled, and why rulers have been assassinated. But I don't think the world is always going to be this way. Today, pictures are always coming to the forefront of Christians circling Muslims during their prayer merely so they can perform their practice in peace and harmony. And equally, we see many pictures of people killing in the name of their religion still today. I do realize that there is probably more proof of the latter going on in the world, but one hundred years ago we would not have even seen the harmony between religions that we can see today. I do think people are becoming more open-minded and accepting of their brethren. Particularly if their specific religion emphasized peace and harmony.
Some questions that were brought up in class: Does religion hinder or control rational thought? Is a person more likely to support/trust someone that has the same religious beliefs as them? To respond to the first question, no I don't think religion hinders rational thought. I think the way religion is taught may, though. If you grow up and are mentally conditioned to only accept what this specific person or book tells you, then yes that is a hard cycle to break and it may hinder your rationality. In other cases though, religion is left up to the individual. You're taught the dogma, yes usually from a young age still, but many people decide to take their own paths, not blindly follow the rantings of a crazy church leader or the like. It really just depends how you were raised, what your personality is like, and your past experiences. To answer the second question; personally I don't trust someone more or less depending on their religion. I'm not particularly religious at all and to be honest, unless someone is spouting Bible verses to me, I usually have no idea what someone's religious views are. I build trust on other aspects of their personality. This may be different for someone that is actually a devout Catholic or the like, I understand they probably trust one another more because they live their lives by the same "laws." But I don't think this stops them from trusting other people. Again, nothing is black and white. You always have anomalies in a group of people, both religion and non-religious so the role of religion on our lives I think is an organic and ever changing facet of our world.

Terrorism

Terrorism has many definitions and this is what partially makes this topic so difficult to talk about. The one we used in class was "violence (committed by groups) in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands." Every single government organization has their own definition for this issue though and so it is difficult to hold someone responsible for these crimes. And just to add one more level of ambiguity to the mix, there is also state sponsored terrorism. If states have full sovereignty over their population then how can we label anything as "state terrorism" or "state-sponsored terrorism". I think that the definition of sovereignty has changed somewhat over the past few decades. Instead of the right to do whatever you want to your own people with no fear of a counterattack from the rest of the world, states now have a Responsibility to Protect (R2P), something we talked about in my International Conflict class. I understand state terrorism was not a main focus of our class, but I do think it is prevalent in our society and is not labeled enough. We now see many peace enforcement missions that go into sovereign states in order to help out the underrepresented or minority. It does cause problems, yes. Such as in Rwanda. But the idea behind, once fine-tuned, is a valiant effort.
On the other hand, your average terrorists will always exist. There will never come a time when a group of people will not try to force their ideals onto people through force and fear. It's common throughout history. But I do think the way we deal with them  needs to be, almost, simplified. Why don't we treat them as though they're just regular criminals? Why do we make them into the martyrs and huge icons that we do. This merely allows for their ideology to be spread at a faster and more efficient rate. If we merely tried them on regular charges, put them into high security prisons with no hope for release, something we would do should one person attempt the attacks a terrorist organizations might, it may help bring them down to the level of a common criminal. To be honest, it does not seem as though our War on Terror is doing much to help out cause. It has only made Americans look like a bunch of prejudiced snobs that butt their nose into the business of other countries. This is, in part, one of the reasons why the 9/11 attacks happened in the first place, the Western world cannot keep to itself.

Conflict

People do not want to fight. It's as simple as that. Even if you're brought up with a mentality or necessity for fighting, as a human in the 21st century I don't think it's an integral part of our DNA anymore. I understand that at a fundamental level we are hardwired to fight for food, territory, a mate, etc. Today though, besides for the sport of it (an entirely different concept in my mind) it's just something most people don't want to involve themselves in. People adhere to the status quo, we accept the rules and norms that are before us. Yes, this is a societal role that is controlling this portion of our life, but I think people accept it because it is "civilized". I think this same mentality is extended to states and their government's. Strong powers know they have the capabilities to fight off most enemies, but they don't. Why not? Because they don't want to cause unnecessary harm or destruction. Due to the fact that we're "civilized" now we can use our minds to fight for us. Our words are just as powerful, if not more so, than our actions. So diplomacy is on the forefront of this modern era of war and conflict. Though it may be lengthier than the former, I do think this is a more appropriate way to handle any problems.
As discussed in class, the concept of a "flashpoint" does seem relevant though. People can be pushed over the edge, they can be manipulated or lied to. Oftentimes most people do not react with violence right away, & this is where these "flashpoints" come in to play. It is  a buildup of tension between two opposing sides, and then an event occurs causing the tension to boil over resulting in (usually) war. A couple examples of this are the September 11th attacks or the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand which was the catalyst for WWI.
The neoconservative doctrine is another topic covered in class, but a controversial one at that. It states that as the global hegemon it is the duty of the United States to identify any enemy states and preemptively attack. Personally, I don't think this is what we as a country need to be doing. Put bluntly, our enemies are not the rest of the world's enemies. We have one idea of what we consider evil, but other countries with different societal norms, say China, may have a different idea of what is wrong. I understand the need for not wanting to wait for our enemy to attack us on our soil, but there is way to go about handling situations like this; it needs to be taken care of case by case.

Gender

If we look at males and females on a biological level, of course there is a distinct difference. Not in just reproductive organs, but in the way our brains are wired which in turn effects almost everything else about us. On the other hand, if we look at gender simply as a social construction things are less cut and dry. If a female grows up with five brothers, of course she will probably have a tendency to be a little more rough and tumble, probably like sports, or other "typical" male things. Honestly though, I do think our societal expectations of our gender does go parallel to who we actually are at a biological level. Thousands of years ago men were still the hunters and protectors of the group, providing food and security and women were still the child raisers. Today, that idea is still apparent. Obviously different cultures portray these roles in different ways, but in the U.S. I actually think we go against those roles, on some level, more so than any other place in the world. Women don't have to stay home and have children, and it's not expected of them. Men will even take time off of their jobs to raise children while women reenter the workforce. It is okay for women to live alone and protect themselves, they don't need a man by their side to shelter them from everything. But on some innate level, I do think there are just certain things that women are hardwired to think about differently. I think women are less likely to approve of violence for the reason stated in class. Deep down we're still "child bearers" and so we're hardwired to not want to get involved in violence to protect our young. And even a woman has no child I think that concept probably still applies. This can be seen in the differences in gender for the approval of gun control laws. There is an obvious majority of men that denied the passing of gun control legislation, whereas 80% of women approved of this. That alone says a lot. Women are also more likely to be Democrats, they want equality and everyone to be cared for. This is obviously not a realistic goal, but it does go back to the way our brains work, we want our children, the children of other parents, to be taken care of and provided for.
I am not sure how I feel about the "Single Men: Menace to Society" concept we discussed. Besides the fact that I think men are more violent than women, I don't understand why these single men have a tendency to attack other people, oftentimes, for no reason. I can't pretend to know a reason for this, but it is disturbing and something I think that needs to be researched more.

Colonization

In class we discussed the different ways in which strong powers go into a country to colonize it for their benefit: you can simply integrate your people into their society & attempt to set an example to act more like you, convert your people into your culture, militarily overpower the locals and set up trade groups, contact the local leadership and attempt to set up trade groups (minus the use of guns), or basically militarily go in and begin mutilating the locals. It's understandable why states would do this; more land means more power and more resources mean more wealth. I'm not sure any large power can attest that they have never colonized a weaker state throughout history, and this is still going on today. Even if it is not a direct takeover, the influence a power can place on a state says a ton. Part of the reason the United States is so powerful (and so hated) is because our sphere of influence knows no bounds. People across the globe mimic the way Americans dress, eat, act, etc. or are dependent on our economic systems or businesses. This can be considered neocolonialism; the creation of colonial dependency using the free market capitalistic system to dominate a country economically and (as a natural progression) eventually culturally. An example used in class was the American company Nike and its massive presence in Vietnam. Nike uses Vietnam as a base for its production because of the large amount and exploitation of cheap labor, but it does help out the country too. The company boosts the economy in a way that the state government would simply not be able to do on its own; and Nike plans on being there for the long-haul, they're not going to pull out when they find a location with cheaper labor. In this way it can be seen that colonialism (of any kind) is not necessarily a bad thing. Though there are certainly more examples of the terrible ways poor countries have been treated or neglected by their colonial overlords. Thankfully today this is not the case as commonly but it's not to say it doesn't happen. It's difficult to have a 100% positive or negative reaction to colonialism, it really depends on the case and the entities involved and how they interact. I would have to say in most cases it's a negative thing, at least in the past.

The Electoral College

The United States Electoral College has a 200 year mixed history of both positive and negative critics. It is made up of 538 state electors that officially decide the outcome of the President & Vice President positions. In class we had a group debate about this topic; the pros vs. the cons, & both sides had very good points.

The Electoral College setup does have many good points to it (this is not an exhaustive list); it contributes to the cohesiveness of the country, makes minority interests prominent & encourages a two-party system which helps maintain political stability. Essentially, the College makes electing the President an easier process. There are no national recounts (usually) because of it, it helps equal out extremely close population votes in states, puts minority issues to the forefront, and with the two-party system decisions can be easily made without including multiple party issues into the mix.

Negatively, it is seen as undemocratic.The United States is a standard of democracy for the rest of the world, so it's interesting that we allow our President to be elected with potentially less than half of the popular vote in his favor. Basically, he/she can win merely 13 (larger) states votes & still be elected as President; this ignores over half the country! This means it can ignore the will of the people and legislatures can still get their way. This can be seen during the 2000 election between Bush & Gore. The people wanted Gore but the College voted for Bush & that's who became out President. Also, due to the College many people thing their vote will count less, particularly in larger states, so it stops the flow of voter turnout. Again, an undemocratic trend.

I'm not saying one way is better than the other, but I do think the system is broken in some sense. We need to revamp the electoral system in order to make it more fair and consistent with the people's will. Everyone may be idiots, so perhaps they shouldn't decide the President, but then maybe that means our education system is failing us which is an entirely different problem. Perhaps one the President should solve...?

Supranationalism

Supranationalism can be defined as "extending beyond or transcending established borders or spheres of influence held by separate nations". In a world that is globalizing rapidly, many people are wondering whether progressively closer contact between peoples is really the great thing it's made out to be. Globalization & supranationalism are certainly directly tied together, but they also intertwine economies, politics, cultures, and law. Every country/people/culture has their own idea of right & wrong, norms and beliefs, so how can we lump them all together into one giant group? In my mind it really isn't as black & white as some people try to make it out to be. Suprnanationalism organizations such as the European Union, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, etc. don't necessarily force you to abide by their rules, how can they?

We live in a world of anarchy, there is no higher authority telling each state what is right & wrong & how to punish potential wrongdoers; because of this does it not make sense that we should have some sort of international agreements? These groups are more like hall monitors rather than policemen; they have no real authority outside of their limited area, schools, and you must attend their school in order to be reprimanded. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this. The United Nations has been able to punish cruel & unjust leaders for their crimes to their own people, send in aid when people were struggling, and allow for common human rights.

Of course, every good intention usually has some flaw or backfire in it. Many people argue that further globalization is causing people to lose their "identity". I can definitely understand how grasping on to your culture can be more difficult when so many other's are being exposed to you, & some would say forced upon you. But, this can become a beautiful thing. Yes, you will have to work harder to keep your separate identity, but you will also have the chance to teach others about your lives, the different ways you live, & the different things you believe. Just a few decades ago this would not have been possible.

Now, referring back to more political matters such as economics and law, I think suprnationalist economic organizations have more downsides. In theory, they are also a great idea. In reality, & because of the volatility of the international market, it seems as though not many benefit from these major organizations. They do open trade up to more remote markets & allow for more massive movement of products and people (workers). They also tend to abuse more underdeveloped countries; they cannot afford to not be part of these global markets for they're not industrialized enough to produce their own products, so these "first world" countries cut deals that are better for themselves and really do more harm than good to poor countries.

It is difficult to say whether suprnationalism is a good or bad thing, as previously stated, it is not black & white. It will be interesting to see how to the future unfolds & the way that these organizations are being used, whether for positive growth for all or for a few that hold the upper hand

The Individual vs. Collective Society

Having been assigned to read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx & watch Les Miserables based off the book by Victor Hugo, we have had to begin thinking about which serves society better: the individual or the collective. I think both of these ideas can have positive effects stem from them; it really depends on the society in question & the time in which we're looking at.

Sure, from a distance communism seems like the perfect way to structure a society. Everyone is equal, everything is distributed evenly & all equally provide what is to be handed out. Equality is key. In a democracy today many of believe that still; the only way to be truly free is to be equal. When we begin to look at empirical evidence of Marxist ideas we see that it doesn't pan out exactly how it's promised. The actual concept just doesn't work in reality & this is a problem. This is the same conundrum for what Marx is trying to portray about the collective society; in theory it makes perfect sense, in actuality it is a failure.

Marx believes that people are innately hopeless; in order for a revolution to occur, society must lose all hope in order to rise up against those that are oppressing them. Putting myself in those shoes leaves me confused. If a people were being repressed & had no hope for the future why would they bother trying to change anything about it? You must have hope for change, good or bad, in order to want to try to affect the outcome. This is exactly what Hugo is trying to get across. We are all individuals, and as individuals we never lose hope. When we add all of these individuals together into a single society we get a revolution of hope & change. I think Hugo was definitely on the right path with this one. But who knows, those Marxists could be right in the future, but I have yet to see it come to pass.