Personally, I don't think conflict can ever be fully eliminated. As long as people have different opinions (which I don't think can EVER change) then there will continue to be some kind of conflict in the world.
Now there are important points enumerated in the book (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009), namely: each conflict is situated in a unique political, social, and historical setting. Thus the nature of a conflict can only be understood if one knows the context of its environment. "Violence and hatered do not appear without a reason. They emerge as a result of specific grievances and historical struggles."
Now, that being said, moving beyond conflicts is more difficult done than said. This is because it has to do with the healing of injustices done under the pretense of colonization, and other such engagements.
I'm sorry to say that, in my opinion, the ability of humanity at large to move beyond conflict, has a very pessimistic outlook. There are just some wounds so deep that they are unlikely to ever truly heal. ....Perhaps with some time and a lot of collective effort, we can move closer to putting conflict, or at least the disposition to creating or engaging in conflict, behind us as a people.
10.4.10
(CL) Do Colonialism and Slavery Belong to The Past?
Colonialism is defined as "direct political control of a people by a foreign state ... which thus implies a degree of foreign command and political control whether or not settlers are present." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
I think colonialism should belong to the past, especially with the present capitalization on the independence and freedom of states. But with that definition, the Philippines seems to still currently be living in the past. There is, after all, such a thing as neo-colonialism.
We are a people continually controlled by a colonial mentality that began as far back as the Spanish colonial period and was completely emphasized by the American period of "preparation for independence." By the way that the Americans of that period practically painted themselves in gold, they were able to instill in the Filipino people a mentality so subjected to the public opinion in America.
This is not only in the Philippines. Countries are still emulating colonialism, in the way that they claim to be intervening for the other country's "good" and then they expect some sort of compensation for it, whether it simply be in the patronization of their goods.
The same is true for slavery. It may have been legally abolished but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still happen under the government's nose.
Slavery, although not quite phrased in the same way, still exists in human trafficking, some OFW cases, and pay order brides.
The last is the one that confounds me the most, because I don't understand how any person can subject herself to a future with somebody overseas who she doesn't even know. But the fact remains that they do it for the financial security that can be offered by it, regardless of the work that comes with it. Then there's those certain Overseas Filipino Workers cases where some experience "employment" without pay, without food, with abuse, both physical and sexual.
And the first is still existent simply in the prevalence of the events for the cause such as the MTV EXIT concert, where they advocate against human trafficking of children and people who don't know any better at the time of their consent to being sent to another place.
I even had a personal encounter with someone who was trafficked. During an outreach program in Luneta park, we came across a woman who had been "recruited" by someone who went to their province to work in Manila. When she was brought to the house, she worked and worked and for some reason, unknown to her, was not getting paid. She didn't realize it for some time, but she had been sold to her "employer." With no money, and no way out, the only thing she was left to do was run away and live on the streets of Manila, hoping to God to earn enough money to go back home to her province.
Colonialism and slavery SHOULD belong to the past... They shouldn't have belonged anywhere at all... But unfortunately they did exist and still do prevail in less privileged societies just trying to provide a means to live.
I think colonialism should belong to the past, especially with the present capitalization on the independence and freedom of states. But with that definition, the Philippines seems to still currently be living in the past. There is, after all, such a thing as neo-colonialism.
We are a people continually controlled by a colonial mentality that began as far back as the Spanish colonial period and was completely emphasized by the American period of "preparation for independence." By the way that the Americans of that period practically painted themselves in gold, they were able to instill in the Filipino people a mentality so subjected to the public opinion in America.
This is not only in the Philippines. Countries are still emulating colonialism, in the way that they claim to be intervening for the other country's "good" and then they expect some sort of compensation for it, whether it simply be in the patronization of their goods.
The same is true for slavery. It may have been legally abolished but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still happen under the government's nose.
Slavery, although not quite phrased in the same way, still exists in human trafficking, some OFW cases, and pay order brides.
The last is the one that confounds me the most, because I don't understand how any person can subject herself to a future with somebody overseas who she doesn't even know. But the fact remains that they do it for the financial security that can be offered by it, regardless of the work that comes with it. Then there's those certain Overseas Filipino Workers cases where some experience "employment" without pay, without food, with abuse, both physical and sexual.
And the first is still existent simply in the prevalence of the events for the cause such as the MTV EXIT concert, where they advocate against human trafficking of children and people who don't know any better at the time of their consent to being sent to another place.
I even had a personal encounter with someone who was trafficked. During an outreach program in Luneta park, we came across a woman who had been "recruited" by someone who went to their province to work in Manila. When she was brought to the house, she worked and worked and for some reason, unknown to her, was not getting paid. She didn't realize it for some time, but she had been sold to her "employer." With no money, and no way out, the only thing she was left to do was run away and live on the streets of Manila, hoping to God to earn enough money to go back home to her province.
Colonialism and slavery SHOULD belong to the past... They shouldn't have belonged anywhere at all... But unfortunately they did exist and still do prevail in less privileged societies just trying to provide a means to live.
(CL) How Is The World Organized Economically?
"Economics is the study of production and distribution of goods and wealth." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009) According to the book, this also has to do with the following:
> The role of states in creating capitalist markets;
> How technologies matter;
> How work is organized; and,
> Whose work is valued.
The Economic standpoint of a nation seems to lie on the type of government it has and how the people respond top it.
Naturally, the scarce goods and wealth are distributed to the developed nations because they are who have the means to purchase it.
There is and always has been economic inequality among nations ever since colonial times and such. There always has been in the general consensus a difference between people of different race, age, and gender, and such affects the economy of a nation. After that, the fact remains that a country that produces much and earns much have the power to purchase more and produce more.
The world is organized into the way that each nation produces a national income, which is affected by the resources available to them. This in turn is affected by the income and power they have to purchase these resources. In some countries, they retain the rights to consume their own resources, but less developed countries that are subject to what they can get from countries that can help them and more disposed to sell their resources and, like the Philippines, are left with the left-overs of their resources.
It is a cycle that almost confines countries to their economic status except in very few circumstances, such as Singapore's rise to developed and China's continuing climb.
> The role of states in creating capitalist markets;
> How technologies matter;
> How work is organized; and,
> Whose work is valued.
The Economic standpoint of a nation seems to lie on the type of government it has and how the people respond top it.
Naturally, the scarce goods and wealth are distributed to the developed nations because they are who have the means to purchase it.
There is and always has been economic inequality among nations ever since colonial times and such. There always has been in the general consensus a difference between people of different race, age, and gender, and such affects the economy of a nation. After that, the fact remains that a country that produces much and earns much have the power to purchase more and produce more.
The world is organized into the way that each nation produces a national income, which is affected by the resources available to them. This in turn is affected by the income and power they have to purchase these resources. In some countries, they retain the rights to consume their own resources, but less developed countries that are subject to what they can get from countries that can help them and more disposed to sell their resources and, like the Philippines, are left with the left-overs of their resources.
It is a cycle that almost confines countries to their economic status except in very few circumstances, such as Singapore's rise to developed and China's continuing climb.
(CL) How Can We End Poverty?
That seems like such an abstract concept.
Eradicating poverty is such a complex thing to do that it seems virtually impossible. Sure, there have been attempts with many programs that seem so promising. But it is far too broad in reach to find a simple solution for.
One thing that prevents this is the treatment of the poor as without dignity or as if they have no personhood. It is an unfair kind of treatment, but it is realistically, what happens frequently in the world today. Those who do have money look with disdain on the people who are unfortunate enough to not be able to take a bath and look properly fed and be properly dressed. The disgust that seeps off them in waves prevents them from lending out a hand to help, because there's such a distance between them, that sometimes, they don't want to breach for fear of something...perhaps the distrust, as poverty is later associated with crime.
Locally, when political candidates like the presidentiables this 2010 promise to eliminate poverty, I am loathe to believe them. It is not as simple as many proclaim it to be. Poverty cannot be eliminated by one person's principles, integrity, or experience with it. Ending poverty is going to take a lot more than just words. It's going to need a very long-term action plan that many do not have. I wish they did, but most seem intent on just using it as a platform to rocket themselves into position with no promise to results.
EDIT:
Ending poverty seems like such a hopeless cause, but all it needs is the active participation and brainstorming of humanity as a whole.
I just came across one of the campaigns that seek to take steps in easing the difficulty experienced by the less fortunate. Albeit being in the United Kingdom, I think this is quite a sensible kind of campaign.
from http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/how-it-works/
click for full view
I think it's something that makes sense, even here in the Philippines. Because it seems that those who escape taxes more here in the country are the rich, which really tilts the table even more in their favor. It perpetuates the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" thing that we continuously experience here.
Eradicating poverty is such a complex thing to do that it seems virtually impossible. Sure, there have been attempts with many programs that seem so promising. But it is far too broad in reach to find a simple solution for.
One thing that prevents this is the treatment of the poor as without dignity or as if they have no personhood. It is an unfair kind of treatment, but it is realistically, what happens frequently in the world today. Those who do have money look with disdain on the people who are unfortunate enough to not be able to take a bath and look properly fed and be properly dressed. The disgust that seeps off them in waves prevents them from lending out a hand to help, because there's such a distance between them, that sometimes, they don't want to breach for fear of something...perhaps the distrust, as poverty is later associated with crime.
Locally, when political candidates like the presidentiables this 2010 promise to eliminate poverty, I am loathe to believe them. It is not as simple as many proclaim it to be. Poverty cannot be eliminated by one person's principles, integrity, or experience with it. Ending poverty is going to take a lot more than just words. It's going to need a very long-term action plan that many do not have. I wish they did, but most seem intent on just using it as a platform to rocket themselves into position with no promise to results.
EDIT:
Ending poverty seems like such a hopeless cause, but all it needs is the active participation and brainstorming of humanity as a whole.
I just came across one of the campaigns that seek to take steps in easing the difficulty experienced by the less fortunate. Albeit being in the United Kingdom, I think this is quite a sensible kind of campaign.
The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on banks, hedge funds and other finance institutions that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad.
It can start as low as 0.005 per cent – and average 0.05 per cent . But when levied on the billions of pounds sloshing round the global finance system every day through transactions such as foreign exchange, derivatives trading and share deals, it can raise hundreds of billions of pounds every year.
And while international agreement is best, it can start right now, right here in the UK.
That can help stop cuts in crucial public services in the UK, and aid the fight against global poverty and climate change.
from http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/how-it-works/
click for full view
I think it's something that makes sense, even here in the Philippines. Because it seems that those who escape taxes more here in the country are the rich, which really tilts the table even more in their favor. It perpetuates the "rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" thing that we continuously experience here.
(CL) Why Does Politics Turn To Violence?
As defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary online, Politics is "the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy." And anything that comes with being able to influence has power.
Politics turns to violence because politics has to do with power. The power to influence the outcome of events, the opinions of people, and a whole lot more. Then there is also the submission to that power by those without it.
When something involves power, there is also the struggle for this power between parties. That's when the violence comes in, because you have to, usually, use force to obtain power. Not always, but that is frequently the case. So, when dealing with politics, then there is already a high chance for violence.
Then if you take into account the animalistic qualities of the human being, ones that are predisposed to violence, then there is quite a large opportunity for it to rear its ugly head.
An example of which can be seen in the Milgram Experiement, which was mentioned in the book (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009), which sought to measure man's willingness to use torture on another human being with the excuse of "following orders." As a human being, we are equipped with self-control, but the fact remains that underneath that, there is something that needs to be controlled. Naturally, many of the men, involved in the experiment were quite liberal with the electric shock that needed to be used, especially when their excuse of being ordered (i.e. the authority figure) was in the room.
Then there's also the instinct of self-preservation, since we are after all, selfish creatures. In which case, the line is "It was either him or me." That one line is the source of so much violence and conflict around the globe. When people are seeking for their own benefit, they tend to disregard the harm inflicted to others, and violence is usually considered.
All these and additional reasons that I haven't mentioned are cases of violence and many involves the struggle for power, seen frequently in politics.
Politics turns to violence because politics has to do with power. The power to influence the outcome of events, the opinions of people, and a whole lot more. Then there is also the submission to that power by those without it.
When something involves power, there is also the struggle for this power between parties. That's when the violence comes in, because you have to, usually, use force to obtain power. Not always, but that is frequently the case. So, when dealing with politics, then there is already a high chance for violence.
Then if you take into account the animalistic qualities of the human being, ones that are predisposed to violence, then there is quite a large opportunity for it to rear its ugly head.
An example of which can be seen in the Milgram Experiement, which was mentioned in the book (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009), which sought to measure man's willingness to use torture on another human being with the excuse of "following orders." As a human being, we are equipped with self-control, but the fact remains that underneath that, there is something that needs to be controlled. Naturally, many of the men, involved in the experiment were quite liberal with the electric shock that needed to be used, especially when their excuse of being ordered (i.e. the authority figure) was in the room.
Then there's also the instinct of self-preservation, since we are after all, selfish creatures. In which case, the line is "It was either him or me." That one line is the source of so much violence and conflict around the globe. When people are seeking for their own benefit, they tend to disregard the harm inflicted to others, and violence is usually considered.
All these and additional reasons that I haven't mentioned are cases of violence and many involves the struggle for power, seen frequently in politics.
(CL) What Can We Do To Stop People From Harming Others?
"The idea that force should be used to relieve the suffering of others predates the 1990s" (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009) And I think anyone who believes that idea should predate the 90s too.
That force could resolve suffering is an equation that can't be resolved. How anyone could believe that is beyond me. It really doesn't add up.
"Christian Europe had the self-appointed civilizing mission to those outside the faith." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
Even to this day, the United Nation Charter sanctions force in "necessary interventions" in developing countries whose individuals are at risk of harm.
Yes, quite. The keyword being "self-appointed."
I think the concept is completely absurd. If you look at the individual occurrences from one point of view, you would think that it makes sense when you are on the benefiting end of the deal. Realistically speaking, the action one country can take is limited if they always have to consider the collective good of humanity.
But an effective way of stopping people from harming others? I don't think that really should involve force at all. What is that saying? Enmity breeds enmity. I mean, if someone should force anyone through violent means not to harm anyone, they are essentially, harming that other party. It's such a paradox that I can't suspend disbelief for it.
And then there's a fact that some countries do this as they see fit, to help "free" other, less fortunate countries, from suffering. But as they see fit may not be the whole picture. They may think that they are helping, when in fact they could only be making it worse. And I think the audacity with coming that you say you know what's best for someone else is pure bullshit. How can you possibly assume that you know what's best for someone else, when you possibly don't see the entire situation? Essentially, that's my stand on the use of force to "relieve" suffering. More likely it simply makes people relive suffering.
As to what we can do to stop harm... Then I guess the only answer is to come at it from more peaceful means. It might seem less effective and more time consuming, but I think that's the non-paradoxical way to do it.
EDIT:
Just wanted to add a quotation.
“Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.”
— John Lennon
That force could resolve suffering is an equation that can't be resolved. How anyone could believe that is beyond me. It really doesn't add up.
"Christian Europe had the self-appointed civilizing mission to those outside the faith." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
Even to this day, the United Nation Charter sanctions force in "necessary interventions" in developing countries whose individuals are at risk of harm.
Yes, quite. The keyword being "self-appointed."
I think the concept is completely absurd. If you look at the individual occurrences from one point of view, you would think that it makes sense when you are on the benefiting end of the deal. Realistically speaking, the action one country can take is limited if they always have to consider the collective good of humanity.
But an effective way of stopping people from harming others? I don't think that really should involve force at all. What is that saying? Enmity breeds enmity. I mean, if someone should force anyone through violent means not to harm anyone, they are essentially, harming that other party. It's such a paradox that I can't suspend disbelief for it.
And then there's a fact that some countries do this as they see fit, to help "free" other, less fortunate countries, from suffering. But as they see fit may not be the whole picture. They may think that they are helping, when in fact they could only be making it worse. And I think the audacity with coming that you say you know what's best for someone else is pure bullshit. How can you possibly assume that you know what's best for someone else, when you possibly don't see the entire situation? Essentially, that's my stand on the use of force to "relieve" suffering. More likely it simply makes people relive suffering.
As to what we can do to stop harm... Then I guess the only answer is to come at it from more peaceful means. It might seem less effective and more time consuming, but I think that's the non-paradoxical way to do it.
EDIT:
Just wanted to add a quotation.
“Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.”
— John Lennon
23.3.10
(ML) Who Do We Think We Are?
"Identity politics is inspired by the interests of, and intended to benefit, a particular group with a shared identity." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
I scoff at the idea that Identity politics is comforting as it promises security and meaning. I think identities will always be changeable and, thus always pulled into question. It is just as unstable as small-scale social groupings, like those cliques in American high schools and barkadas in Filipino schools.
Identity politics then can only exist as long as people still feel like identifying themselves with a certain group that although may be intrinsically different, suspend these differences for the comfort and safety of a larger pack. But the fact remains, that in some way, they are quite irrevocably different.
"The illusion that people possess a single, fixed identity results in a culture of political correctness and a focus on personal conduct, rather than revolutionary change."(Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
That a person's racial, religious, sexual, or class identity defines a person's (political) views is such a Western concept. It is not necessarily true. Sure, these may have a large bearing on people's decisions and opinions, especially when they are unaware of the implications of being boxed in by a label. But a person can always rise above labels.
We are whoever we consent to be at a certain moment in time. Philosophy accepts the fact that this can change from its initial state in event of some kind of life-changing experience. It may be a simple realization (which may not necessarily be simple) or a "faith"-shattering experience. But identity, whatever it may be can change. So an existence based on labels is not very reliable at all, and identities cannot, much less, be defined by a few words.
I scoff at the idea that Identity politics is comforting as it promises security and meaning. I think identities will always be changeable and, thus always pulled into question. It is just as unstable as small-scale social groupings, like those cliques in American high schools and barkadas in Filipino schools.
Identity politics then can only exist as long as people still feel like identifying themselves with a certain group that although may be intrinsically different, suspend these differences for the comfort and safety of a larger pack. But the fact remains, that in some way, they are quite irrevocably different.
"The illusion that people possess a single, fixed identity results in a culture of political correctness and a focus on personal conduct, rather than revolutionary change."(Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
That a person's racial, religious, sexual, or class identity defines a person's (political) views is such a Western concept. It is not necessarily true. Sure, these may have a large bearing on people's decisions and opinions, especially when they are unaware of the implications of being boxed in by a label. But a person can always rise above labels.
We are whoever we consent to be at a certain moment in time. Philosophy accepts the fact that this can change from its initial state in event of some kind of life-changing experience. It may be a simple realization (which may not necessarily be simple) or a "faith"-shattering experience. But identity, whatever it may be can change. So an existence based on labels is not very reliable at all, and identities cannot, much less, be defined by a few words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)