US National Security

In the United States National Security document constructivist, liberal, and realist principles underline the policies of the United States in the field of international affairs. The United States has the identity of a democratic, free nation that respects human rights and justice. Since the United States wants to project this image around the world it sets out to influence other parts of the world with its value system. Part of United States foreign policy is to promote democracy throughout the world and assist nations in their transformation to democratic states. Furthermore the United States asserts its commitment to freedom, equality, and human rights which it tries to spread throughout the world. Not only does this further entrench the American identity but it injects American culture into various parts of the world which guards the United States against possible attacks. People who share our culture are less likely to attack us because they see us as similar to themselves. Likewise the United States vehemently opposes terrorism in the document and stresses that because we have the identity of a powerful, democratic state we have a duty to root out terrorism.

The democratization of nations across the globe serves American interests because those nations are less likely to go to war with democratic nations like our self according to liberal international relations theory. Another liberal piece of the US National Security document was that the United States seeks to engage in and encourage free markets and free trade throughout the world. Such trade is likely to diminish the level of conflict since nations that trade together often do not go to war with one another for fear of harming their own interests. Economic ties will make the United States secure by eliminating possible threats and creating allies throughout the world.

However, all of these strategies attempt to achieve a realist objective which is to provide for the security of the nation. The document emphatically states that the United States will defend itself and its allies and prevent all attacks against their security interests. It stresses that while diplomacy is the first tool of a free and democratic society such as the United States, the US will use its military strength to protect itself from its enemies should such actions become necessary. All of the constructivist and liberal policies outlined in the document are used to protect American citizens and interests around the globe. The programs asserted are all designed to keep the United States secure and while the other policy initiatives may help us achieve security, security is the ultimate goal.
Erica Peterson

Reflections on Week Seven

Week seven war fairly quiet, with our discussion on Tuesday about marginalization and our trip to the EU on Wednesday. I've really enjoyed all the discussions I've participated in with Professor Jackson outside of class, for it is one of the major things I have looked forward to in college. In other news, I came across several posts today regarding an AIM conversation that was had in class on Monday, and it seems to have caused a lot of internal strife. I read through the conversation, and couldn't really see why everyone was riled up about. It seemed like the typical AIM chat: poorly-punctuated and unfocused. I don't see how it really related to class that much. The thin that I found most surprising about the whole situation was the fact that it was causing so many problems between people in class.

It's an AIM chat, you guys. Chill. Save your energy for more positive endeavors.

This is one of the reasons I don't have AIM: it magnifies pettiness and drama, both of which I severely dislike. Every time I overhead of incidents like this, I made a choice to preserve my peace of mind!

-Gregory Proulx

Thoughts on Marginalization

Marginalization has always been a major issue within human society. Throughout history, people have been marginalized based on the color of their skin, their national and ethnic background, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religion, and a variety of other factors. Marginalization like this is wrong, because it assumes that because a person is black or Jewish or Polish or gay they have some set of innate differences that set them apart from others or make them inferior. This sort of thinking is highly flawed, as it sets up a whole series of preconceived notions about a person before you have even gotten to know them. There are certain cases of marginalization, such as against people espousing harmful views like racism and misogyny, but these are relatively limited. Although people may have different skins colors, speak a different language, or be attracted to their same sex, we are all basically the same—little specks of cosmic dust trying to find our way in the endless expanse that is the universe.

-Gregory Proulx

Reflection week 7

At first i thought it might be difficult to pick a topic for my blog this week since we only had one class; this of course was an absolutely ridiculous thought. There have definitely been some differing opinions on whether or not it was appropriate to post the aim chat from Tuesday's class, and whether or not the said chat was relevant. Whether or not it was relevant, Autumn was simply following instructions by posting. I can definitely see how the conversation could be hard to follow and never have been a big fan of chat rooms, but I do feel it was a constructive supplement to the class discussion. That being said everyone is most definitely entitled to their own opinions, and as long as they are prevented respectfully then they are received as such as well. However I would like to say that class blogs probably are not the place to vocalize whatever problems you may have with your floor mates. Whether or not you like to speak to them at all in general, I know that I personally like to address my problems in person. Since blogging seems to be the preferred method I would just like to say that if you have a problem with someone you could actually try speaking to them about it.
In other news, I really would like to suggest that everyone take advantage of all the amazing cultural events D.C. has to offer. There is always a wealth of cultures to explore and the experiences are amazing. Of course, you don't even need to leave the dorm to do this. Talk to people and learn about their home and culture, it is definitely worth it.

"real" differences

In my opinion the answer to this question is simple. A "real" difference is a fact that can be seen about a person without delving into their personality traits, morals, character etc. The following examples :"she has brown skin" , "he is a boy", "she is English", "he is catholic", are all "real" differences. If you make these observations about other people you aren't saying anything about them that is not fact. It is the assumptions that people make based on these facts that are not "real" differences. For example, if we say Johnny is Asian, that is a real difference. If we say Johnny is smart because he is Asian we are stereotyping because there is no way that we can know how smart Johnny is simply by reading a survey he filled out while applying to colleges and looking at his picture on facebook.

Reflections Week VII

Today as I was toying with the idea of doing some homework, but ultimately deciding I would go to Turkish fest and watch the sunset on the Capitol steps, I started to reflect on how many cultural experiences and opportunities each weekend in DC has held in the past few weeks. From attending festivals in Adam’s Morgan to enjoying jazz concerts and sipping Lebanese hot chocolate, or even just a night at the Ethiopian restaurant, being in the midst of a whole new city constantly confronts my mind with new thoughts and ideas on a much broader level, which encompasses so many areas of the world. Different philosophies and traditions constantly challenge my views in life to have a new depth and be influenced by a more varied set of experiences. Pursuing new stimuli and being able to grasp new opportunities in a big city has opened up a life that I consider a blessing. While some may choose to stay in a small hometown out of fear, experiencing new cultures and meeting new people has made me realize that our shared experiences, and even our mutual friends from other states (it has happened!), is an interconnection that makes the world seem much smaller than it can feel. I passed the words “Past is Prologue” en route to the Capitol, and the phrase further clarified the way I felt when moving, changing schools, and making new friends. Sometimes it might be hard to imagine life after a big transition, yet a past life is just a chapter that leads to new chapters, but still influences the way in which they will be lived, all the same.

Accurate marginalization...or unnecessary?

People are raised, educated, and exposed to a multitude of cultural environments all over the world. Therefore, there certainly are “differences” between them; this is a logical and obvious fact. However, even if a person from one cultural background recognizes another person's cultural background as different from his own, does he have the right to marginalize because he deemed it “different”? What knowledge must he have before he can appropriately marginalize or accurately distinguish another’s background, either directly in person or in discussions with others? A clear and objective consensus of the other's identity and culture, as he wishes to be known, must be made before another person has the right to make a particular distinction. Therefore, all people should be respected through a subjective reference to which they concede. When another disagrees with a particular people’s label for itself, it becomes a personal judgment, however, which does not qualify as an official marginalization because the subject may not be in agreement with such judgment.
However, are distinctions between groups of people always a necessity - do they have a purpose? There are many situations where it is entirely irrelevant and even inappropriate to make a point of noting certain differences. Often, in a politically correct argument, it is possible for a group of people to feel that a particular distinction or marginalizing remark is “derogatory.” A term is offensive if it attempts to challenge the equality of the subject based on irrelevant characterizations. However, if equality between people is presumed in a given situation (as it always should be), is there really a need to make distinctions between people? Isn’t it irrelevant unless the personal differences are of importance and should be taken into consideration because they may significantly influence the course of important events? For example, it would be wise for an American businessperson to be aware of the cultural differences before entering in negotiations with a Japanese counterpart, so as to not unwittingly offend him and risk losing an important deal. This is not to say a person should not feel free to celebrate his heritage and distinct cultural background, but rather to address situations where divisions would be unnecessary and would result in a separation of people and the building of walls, rather than bridges that would facilitate and enhance understanding.