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.
(ML) How Does THe Nation-State Work?
"In a social-political frame, one must abandon the social contract version of national societies, and turn to a version that can register the situations in which territorial allegiances are in flux, ambiguated and productive of changing sentiments towards self and other." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
A nation is an imagined community. It is limited and has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which are other nations. They are imagined as sovereign with deep, horizontal comradeship. A nation-state on the other hand is a form of political organization and ideals; an autonomous political community bound by overlapping bounds of citizenship and nationality.
The nation-state only works in the event of temporary association that different nations or identities engage in for a specific purpose. This may be simply a territorial issue or the issue of safety against outside forces.
A nation-state only works then in the event of the cooperation of all parties involved. It is like the issue of a representative government, be it parliamentary or otherwise, because the concept simply relies on the agreement of all parties involved.
In my opinion, that's such a fickle concept...
A nation is an imagined community. It is limited and has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which are other nations. They are imagined as sovereign with deep, horizontal comradeship. A nation-state on the other hand is a form of political organization and ideals; an autonomous political community bound by overlapping bounds of citizenship and nationality.
The nation-state only works in the event of temporary association that different nations or identities engage in for a specific purpose. This may be simply a territorial issue or the issue of safety against outside forces.
A nation-state only works then in the event of the cooperation of all parties involved. It is like the issue of a representative government, be it parliamentary or otherwise, because the concept simply relies on the agreement of all parties involved.
In my opinion, that's such a fickle concept...
(ML) Why Do We Obey?
Why do we obey our government?
Well, I do suppose we vote citizens into public office because we believe that by being in positions of power, they can put into action things that are for the good of the country. That, I hope, is the reason why society decides to put a few individuals into positions that have control over things like passing laws, handling the funds of the country that is taken from taxes.
So, in reciprocation, I think it's only right that we obey our government, since we put them there in the first place to do the things that they're supposed to be doing.
This reciprocation is brought about by the belief in the cause of the people in power. If you believe that the decisions made are things that are, for the most part, right and good for the majority, then it only follows that your conscience would bother you to, perhaps, sacrifice a little to obey what is asked of you, if only to improve the general situation in society.
Then, of course, there is the tendency for people to look for a sort of guide, or a leader, or even just someone to relieve them of most of the responsibility of a decision because they merely have to follow. In which case, the pull to obey isn't so much a decision than the mindlessness of being ordered around.
If the case arises though that the govenrment is "bad," then I would think that there are certain situations wherein the obligation to obey is negated.
If the public knowingly votes into office somone who has lacks proper moral values and has an essentially horrible character, then I think the obligation to obey stands. But if the case may be that the official gained office through false pretenses and hoodwinking the public, then, in a democrasy, the obligation to obey this official is nulled.
It is in this case that the obligation of the people then is to make sure that the bad government is removed from power and is, later, replaced by one that can fulfill its promises and obligations to the majority.
In the case of a good government, on the other hand, I think the obedience of the peole is deserved. If the power they have is fairly obtained and properly used, then I see verry little reason that the citizens should abdicate their leaders from their positions. If they are doing what they should be doing, I suppose they do deserve the obedience of the people so that they would be able to accomplish the goals they set out for the good of the majority. After all, those in office, like any other person, cannot change the world with only their own hands... Cooperation is essential in creating a change.
Whether or not it is right to disobey our governments, outside of these situations, I can't say. It would likely be justifiable, but as to if it is "right" would depend on the circumstances leading to the disobedience, I suppose.
Well, I do suppose we vote citizens into public office because we believe that by being in positions of power, they can put into action things that are for the good of the country. That, I hope, is the reason why society decides to put a few individuals into positions that have control over things like passing laws, handling the funds of the country that is taken from taxes.
So, in reciprocation, I think it's only right that we obey our government, since we put them there in the first place to do the things that they're supposed to be doing.
This reciprocation is brought about by the belief in the cause of the people in power. If you believe that the decisions made are things that are, for the most part, right and good for the majority, then it only follows that your conscience would bother you to, perhaps, sacrifice a little to obey what is asked of you, if only to improve the general situation in society.
Then, of course, there is the tendency for people to look for a sort of guide, or a leader, or even just someone to relieve them of most of the responsibility of a decision because they merely have to follow. In which case, the pull to obey isn't so much a decision than the mindlessness of being ordered around.
If the case arises though that the govenrment is "bad," then I would think that there are certain situations wherein the obligation to obey is negated.
If the public knowingly votes into office somone who has lacks proper moral values and has an essentially horrible character, then I think the obligation to obey stands. But if the case may be that the official gained office through false pretenses and hoodwinking the public, then, in a democrasy, the obligation to obey this official is nulled.
It is in this case that the obligation of the people then is to make sure that the bad government is removed from power and is, later, replaced by one that can fulfill its promises and obligations to the majority.
In the case of a good government, on the other hand, I think the obedience of the peole is deserved. If the power they have is fairly obtained and properly used, then I see verry little reason that the citizens should abdicate their leaders from their positions. If they are doing what they should be doing, I suppose they do deserve the obedience of the people so that they would be able to accomplish the goals they set out for the good of the majority. After all, those in office, like any other person, cannot change the world with only their own hands... Cooperation is essential in creating a change.
Whether or not it is right to disobey our governments, outside of these situations, I can't say. It would likely be justifiable, but as to if it is "right" would depend on the circumstances leading to the disobedience, I suppose.
(ML) Why Is People's Movement Restricted?
The government is meant to rule for the benefit of the people. If they are voted into office and they are doing their job, then I would think that the people have an obligation to help them do it by obeying it. Doing so, the people's movement is restricted. When the government abuses the power given to them, when they stop doing what they're meant to do, then what are they there for? The reason then why the people's movement is restricted, is simply a matter of the initiative to free themselves from the oppressive power.
What is the future of the nation-state in the age of globalization?
Well now, that's a good question. Now that boundaries are increasingly being overcome, I think the nation-state still has the responsibility to maintain the culture of the land they occupy and the people with whom they are concerned.
Even though we should begin using the upsides of globalization to better our country through the adoption of beneficial traits, we should still be able to maintain our original identity beneath all the "advancements" or else. That's what I think the role of the nation-state should be, the maintenance of a people's origin and identity.
Now, about the Philippines. How I see it, the Philippines has turned out the way it is because it was not properly equipped for democracy. The islands were already initially diverse and independent in the way they were governed. Having been colonized by the Spanish, the islands were lumped together and later on, being named as one "Philippines", robbed of the independence they already had. It's quite unfair and unjust since not all the islands were conquered for one, and for another they did not even initially have the same cultures and practices.
After the unjust colonization and combination of the people of the islands now known as the Philippines, the people were also suppressed in their "freedom" under the Americans. Where, in truth, the fight against the colonization of the Spaniards had not risen to the level which united the nation (at least those parts that were colonized), there was also a lack of solidarity. This was followed quickly by a kind of influencing towards another people's culture, the American one.
So without even being able to establish a definitive collective identity, the Filipino people were subjected to another culture, this time presented to them in an appealing manner.
Then when the Filipino people were suddenly "granted" democracy by the Americans, they weren't prepared for it anymore. The people didn't know who they were as a people. They didn't develop on their own, and were not, and are still not, used to it. That being so, we're still grasping at straws as to what to do with it.
That's what I think the reason is for the rockiness and instability of Philippine politics.
What is the future of the nation-state in the age of globalization?
Well now, that's a good question. Now that boundaries are increasingly being overcome, I think the nation-state still has the responsibility to maintain the culture of the land they occupy and the people with whom they are concerned.
Even though we should begin using the upsides of globalization to better our country through the adoption of beneficial traits, we should still be able to maintain our original identity beneath all the "advancements" or else. That's what I think the role of the nation-state should be, the maintenance of a people's origin and identity.
Now, about the Philippines. How I see it, the Philippines has turned out the way it is because it was not properly equipped for democracy. The islands were already initially diverse and independent in the way they were governed. Having been colonized by the Spanish, the islands were lumped together and later on, being named as one "Philippines", robbed of the independence they already had. It's quite unfair and unjust since not all the islands were conquered for one, and for another they did not even initially have the same cultures and practices.
After the unjust colonization and combination of the people of the islands now known as the Philippines, the people were also suppressed in their "freedom" under the Americans. Where, in truth, the fight against the colonization of the Spaniards had not risen to the level which united the nation (at least those parts that were colonized), there was also a lack of solidarity. This was followed quickly by a kind of influencing towards another people's culture, the American one.
So without even being able to establish a definitive collective identity, the Filipino people were subjected to another culture, this time presented to them in an appealing manner.
Then when the Filipino people were suddenly "granted" democracy by the Americans, they weren't prepared for it anymore. The people didn't know who they were as a people. They didn't develop on their own, and were not, and are still not, used to it. That being so, we're still grasping at straws as to what to do with it.
That's what I think the reason is for the rockiness and instability of Philippine politics.
(ML) Why Are Some People Better Off Than Others?
I didn't know that people referred to poverty as a sign of otherness. Is that really so in a country where majority of the population falls under the poverty line?
Though, frankly, from the list given in David Gordon's indicators of poverty and hunger, I don't think I could go without some of these things. It's really amazing how other people persist. If I think that I'd be living half a life without all these leisure things like music and movies, what more food, the source and nearness of safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health care, adequate shelter, privileged education, information through both media and communication, and access to services?
Another thing I had never heard of before was Giorgio Agamben's concept of zoe and bios. Zoe, apparently, is bare life where moral and political standings are disregarded for mere survival. Those who live the "bare life" or zoe are simply bodies and are excluded from the higher aims of the state except to have their lives transformed to Bios. The Bios though or those living a "qualified life" are considered as citizens (political beings).
The concept was a little bit confusing for me, because I never knew there to be such classifications for people. If you fall below the poverty line, you're not involved in the political arena? It doesn't quite make sense to me yet.
About the activity during class where we were asked to choose, if we could, in which country we would like to be born, I chose Japan or Britain. It's not that I don't like that I was born in the Philippines, but because being born into a country seems so arbitrary to me in today's world. It seems like living in a country only has to do with learning and growing up with the culture and language. Because aside from simply the experience and the accent, everything else can practically be picked up from the internet.
Though, frankly, from the list given in David Gordon's indicators of poverty and hunger, I don't think I could go without some of these things. It's really amazing how other people persist. If I think that I'd be living half a life without all these leisure things like music and movies, what more food, the source and nearness of safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health care, adequate shelter, privileged education, information through both media and communication, and access to services?
Another thing I had never heard of before was Giorgio Agamben's concept of zoe and bios. Zoe, apparently, is bare life where moral and political standings are disregarded for mere survival. Those who live the "bare life" or zoe are simply bodies and are excluded from the higher aims of the state except to have their lives transformed to Bios. The Bios though or those living a "qualified life" are considered as citizens (political beings).
The concept was a little bit confusing for me, because I never knew there to be such classifications for people. If you fall below the poverty line, you're not involved in the political arena? It doesn't quite make sense to me yet.
About the activity during class where we were asked to choose, if we could, in which country we would like to be born, I chose Japan or Britain. It's not that I don't like that I was born in the Philippines, but because being born into a country seems so arbitrary to me in today's world. It seems like living in a country only has to do with learning and growing up with the culture and language. Because aside from simply the experience and the accent, everything else can practically be picked up from the internet.
17.3.10
(ML) Internet Responsibility
I have two reactions for what I heard of the discussion for this week:
First, I find it reasonable. When you write something and publish it online, you must assume that it can be accessed by other people whether legally or illegally.
The fact that you publish means that other people can read it, so there is a certain responsibility that comes with that power. If you intend to avoid insulting or causing harm or any such effect on other people, it is important to make sure that you do not mention last names, if at all. Assuming the fact that you publish "for everyone" and not anonymously (without chance that it would be traced to you), you are responsible and should be able to answer for what you write.
Second, it kind of appalls me a bit. If somebody publishes something online and classifies it as "friends only" or "private viewing", then the website should maintain its agreement that it posed upon the creation of the account to uphold the author's privacy setting.
Had something that was posted under a specific privacy setting leaked out where they should not have been viewed, it would seem a little bit like an invasion of privacy. (Although, the reality of the internet does effectively comprimise this term.)
I think though, it should not be excusable if the information was searched for and distributed without the consent of the author/creator.
Facing reality, I suppose that every person should simply be careful of what they say, write, or do, if they do not want to risk question or objection or anything of the sort.
First, I find it reasonable. When you write something and publish it online, you must assume that it can be accessed by other people whether legally or illegally.
The fact that you publish means that other people can read it, so there is a certain responsibility that comes with that power. If you intend to avoid insulting or causing harm or any such effect on other people, it is important to make sure that you do not mention last names, if at all. Assuming the fact that you publish "for everyone" and not anonymously (without chance that it would be traced to you), you are responsible and should be able to answer for what you write.
Second, it kind of appalls me a bit. If somebody publishes something online and classifies it as "friends only" or "private viewing", then the website should maintain its agreement that it posed upon the creation of the account to uphold the author's privacy setting.
Had something that was posted under a specific privacy setting leaked out where they should not have been viewed, it would seem a little bit like an invasion of privacy. (Although, the reality of the internet does effectively comprimise this term.)
I think though, it should not be excusable if the information was searched for and distributed without the consent of the author/creator.
Facing reality, I suppose that every person should simply be careful of what they say, write, or do, if they do not want to risk question or objection or anything of the sort.
(ML) What Makes The World Dangerous?
When is conflict justifiable? It is one of the most controversial kinds of questions because it brings into question a person's right, for lack of a better word, to involve themselves in another person's life.
I think, as a rule of life, conflict can never be eliminated. As long as there remains more than one thinking being on this planet, each is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions. And, chances are, these opinions will not always, if at all, coincide.
The sheer existence of sentient beings is enough of a constant to create conflict. Now, whether this conflict is physical or otherwise is another matter.
It's difficult to qualify when conflict would be justifiable, because, at any point, one point of view could differ from another's and thus see the conflict as unjust.
But, for the short-term purpose of answering this question, I suppose conflict is justifiable when an issue really NEEDS to be resolved, and an agreement cannot be arrived upon by ANY other means.
That requirement alone would change on a case to case basis, since every person's interpretation differs.
I suppose then, we could add on the factor of the conflict, resulting in a situation that would benefit the majority, if not all, of those involved. If this factor would be considered as a reason for the conflict, I suppose then, that the conflict could be classified as justifiable. Of course, this also assumes that what would be good for the majority, would also benefit the individuals.
But if conflict is dependent on the perception of all the different people, then how could any leader hope to put an end to global conflict?
I'm afraid this question is an unanswerable one. Unfortunately, I think it might be impossible to completely eradicate conflict, just as it is impossible with poverty.
I think the best that world leaders could do would be to promote understanding between different groups and individuals. It will be damn near impossible, but I think that this alongside tolerance, if not acceptance, would be the best key to minimizing conflict.
If everyone in the world could just be made to understand that there will always be differences between people, and that each should respect another's beliefs and manners (so long as it doesn't impose on anyone else's right to decide for himself)... And that one individual's way may not necessarily be the way for everyone else, because it is not necessarily absolutely correct, then perhaps there is a chance that people would not be led into conflicts with their fellow man.
That if every person would understand COMPLETELY the concept of free will, and the right his own opinion, and the right to choose, without double standards, people might be able to live alongside one another without unnecessary conflict.
I think guiding people and helping them to understand this would be one of the best things that world leaders could do to minimize global conflict. Of course, aside from education, this also includes leading by example. (Which should be enough of a challenge for any one person -- "Practice what you preach.")
I think, as a rule of life, conflict can never be eliminated. As long as there remains more than one thinking being on this planet, each is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions. And, chances are, these opinions will not always, if at all, coincide.
The sheer existence of sentient beings is enough of a constant to create conflict. Now, whether this conflict is physical or otherwise is another matter.
It's difficult to qualify when conflict would be justifiable, because, at any point, one point of view could differ from another's and thus see the conflict as unjust.
But, for the short-term purpose of answering this question, I suppose conflict is justifiable when an issue really NEEDS to be resolved, and an agreement cannot be arrived upon by ANY other means.
That requirement alone would change on a case to case basis, since every person's interpretation differs.
I suppose then, we could add on the factor of the conflict, resulting in a situation that would benefit the majority, if not all, of those involved. If this factor would be considered as a reason for the conflict, I suppose then, that the conflict could be classified as justifiable. Of course, this also assumes that what would be good for the majority, would also benefit the individuals.
But if conflict is dependent on the perception of all the different people, then how could any leader hope to put an end to global conflict?
I'm afraid this question is an unanswerable one. Unfortunately, I think it might be impossible to completely eradicate conflict, just as it is impossible with poverty.
I think the best that world leaders could do would be to promote understanding between different groups and individuals. It will be damn near impossible, but I think that this alongside tolerance, if not acceptance, would be the best key to minimizing conflict.
If everyone in the world could just be made to understand that there will always be differences between people, and that each should respect another's beliefs and manners (so long as it doesn't impose on anyone else's right to decide for himself)... And that one individual's way may not necessarily be the way for everyone else, because it is not necessarily absolutely correct, then perhaps there is a chance that people would not be led into conflicts with their fellow man.
That if every person would understand COMPLETELY the concept of free will, and the right his own opinion, and the right to choose, without double standards, people might be able to live alongside one another without unnecessary conflict.
I think guiding people and helping them to understand this would be one of the best things that world leaders could do to minimize global conflict. Of course, aside from education, this also includes leading by example. (Which should be enough of a challenge for any one person -- "Practice what you preach.")
(ML) Why Do Some People Think They Know What Is Good For Others
Today, in class, two perspectives on human nature were presented. That of Mencius and that of Sun Tzu. Mencius thought that humans are naturally good, and acts of the opposite nature are caused by the lack of positive influence. Sun Tzu, on the other hand, thought that humans are naturally evil, and acts of goodness are intentional and thought through.
Well, how do you KNOW that man is inherently good or evil?
I think that both are present and it just depends on the individual which nature they act on.
It's just like any other decision in life. There may be two options that you have to choose from, but they both exist no matter which you choose. The fact remains, that two, perhaps opposite, options are BOTH present. And the nature of the actions of an individual are dependent on the choices and character of that person.
Person A may want and put his mind to doing something good, so he should, by all means, be able to do so. On the other hand, if it seems more appealing to him, then he may also decide to do something evil.
Sure, many people may attribute the "goodness" or "badness" of a Person A to his background, surroundings, or situation. And that may be true. But, if you really think about it, with a strong sense of character, even this should not pose as a limitation for what kind of person Person A wants to become.
My reason for this assumption? Look at all of these stories of people who come from backgrounds of poverty, of abuse, of violence, of unfortunate circumstance and turn out doing works that benefit a greater portion of humanity, even through simple inspiration. People like Nelson Mandela, Hunter "Patch" Adams, Ray Charles Robinson, Anne Frank, and even Johnny Cash and Christina Aguilera.
Then look at the people, who by all intents and purposes, grew up with a good life... privileged, with a good home, and parents who cared about them... and then turned out as criminals, as people who contribute nothing good, if anything at all, to society. And the sad fact is that many people, hardly contribute anything to society for most of their lives.
Take, for example, the sad fact that a LARGE number of people are living without access to safe drinking water. You know WHY this is so? Because so MANY people pollute every source they can find by the vast amount of waste that society produces every day and the sheer neglect of proper waste management. For a large part, THAT is why.
Humans must be liable for their own actions. This is, unfortunately, not frequently practices, and people often wind up blaming other people for the mistakes and misdemeanors that they decide to act on. The blame gets passed on to anyone from a parent to peers, to the devil himself. But I this is a gross injustice to those who receive the blame, because no one can really force you to do anything except for yourself.
Well, how do you KNOW that man is inherently good or evil?
I think that both are present and it just depends on the individual which nature they act on.
It's just like any other decision in life. There may be two options that you have to choose from, but they both exist no matter which you choose. The fact remains, that two, perhaps opposite, options are BOTH present. And the nature of the actions of an individual are dependent on the choices and character of that person.
Person A may want and put his mind to doing something good, so he should, by all means, be able to do so. On the other hand, if it seems more appealing to him, then he may also decide to do something evil.
Sure, many people may attribute the "goodness" or "badness" of a Person A to his background, surroundings, or situation. And that may be true. But, if you really think about it, with a strong sense of character, even this should not pose as a limitation for what kind of person Person A wants to become.
My reason for this assumption? Look at all of these stories of people who come from backgrounds of poverty, of abuse, of violence, of unfortunate circumstance and turn out doing works that benefit a greater portion of humanity, even through simple inspiration. People like Nelson Mandela, Hunter "Patch" Adams, Ray Charles Robinson, Anne Frank, and even Johnny Cash and Christina Aguilera.
Then look at the people, who by all intents and purposes, grew up with a good life... privileged, with a good home, and parents who cared about them... and then turned out as criminals, as people who contribute nothing good, if anything at all, to society. And the sad fact is that many people, hardly contribute anything to society for most of their lives.
Take, for example, the sad fact that a LARGE number of people are living without access to safe drinking water. You know WHY this is so? Because so MANY people pollute every source they can find by the vast amount of waste that society produces every day and the sheer neglect of proper waste management. For a large part, THAT is why.
Humans must be liable for their own actions. This is, unfortunately, not frequently practices, and people often wind up blaming other people for the mistakes and misdemeanors that they decide to act on. The blame gets passed on to anyone from a parent to peers, to the devil himself. But I this is a gross injustice to those who receive the blame, because no one can really force you to do anything except for yourself.
15.2.10
(CL) Why Is The World Divided Territorially?
"The word territory conveys the notion of an area around a place; it connotes an organization with an element of centrality, which ought to be the authority exercising sovereignty over the people occupying or using that place and the space around it." (Gottmann, Jean -- The Significance of Territory 1973)
Territory has been bounded for centuries by zones or, more in modern times, by lines. It has always been a measure of the power of a country to be able to claim a certain division of land for itself. These areas and the people that fall under them would be subject to the laws, taxes, military practices, and structuring imposed upon them by the ruling class. This ruling class, or governmental power, would have the territorial right of the practice of these things, given that the state is able to govern itself. The particular size of the state, though, is not definitive of the power that the state has. This element is more subject to strategic reason; that the territory of a state would be practically managable and securable.
After the colonialization period though, states focused more on managing land rather than claiming it, placing particular importance of the growth of its current cities and towns. This is also because with only 21% land on surface of the earth, it is considered "a scarce resource that cannot be produced, only redistributed." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
The earth has been condemned to being distributed, owned, and borded by those who have enough control to do so. It is especially in these modern times, there is a significant increase in the perception of land as an asset, or even more so, a taxable asset which can be sold, bought, or exchanged.
In any case, bounded territory is supposed to be independent under the rule of the state that resides in it. By definition, an independent state should not be subject to another, only the citizens of the given state will be subject to the laws. But the chapter in the book raised a good question, "Why should geographical location dictate citizenship, rights and responsibilities?" It is a question I have no answer to because I have asked it myself recently. I mean, especially in modern times, where globalization is very prominent, does it really matter where a person is born? Citizenship seems so very arbitrary when from wherever you are, connections, through networks, can be formed to almost any place in the world.
Regarding this, the chapter proposed two terms that I think are quite appropriate. First is deterritorialization, which means that territory is no longer fixed, and second, supra-territorialization, which means that interaction can no longer be contained by the borders of states.
"Why should a state be limited by what it can do within its boundaries but those boundaries not be open to question?" (from the chapter also)
The increasing globalization that the world is subject to calls in other people to issues within a state that could be considered as questionable for the good of the people living in there. True, that sometimes these interventions are uncalled for simply for the sheer reason that those intervening do not understand the culture that governs those they thing have questionable practices or policies. But if people outside of a state can call into question the government of a state, what's to stop them from calling into question the right of the state to still retain the same boundaries that they have?
Especially in recent years, many situations have inspired supra-national involvement and therefore supra-territorial initiatives. Things like infectious diseases (AIDS/HIV among them), poverty (in Africa and elsewhere), global climate disasters as well as natural disasters (such as Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines and the devastating earthquake in Haiti) are among these. The increasing concern that humanity seems to have for those even outside their own spaces of residence are inspiring more and more global action to relieve suffering and subsequently, interfere, whether invited or not, with the independent state.
With these, I'm finding it hard to give an answer to the question "Why is the world divided territorially" and have it be relevant and sufficient. It seems more prudent to consider the world as a whole, especially in these times where humanity has to act together to survive and resolve those difficulties that we, ourselves, have created for the planet.
So, why is the world divided territorially? Does it even matter anymore? Is it merely a matter of practice that impacts little on actual living?
Territory has been bounded for centuries by zones or, more in modern times, by lines. It has always been a measure of the power of a country to be able to claim a certain division of land for itself. These areas and the people that fall under them would be subject to the laws, taxes, military practices, and structuring imposed upon them by the ruling class. This ruling class, or governmental power, would have the territorial right of the practice of these things, given that the state is able to govern itself. The particular size of the state, though, is not definitive of the power that the state has. This element is more subject to strategic reason; that the territory of a state would be practically managable and securable.
After the colonialization period though, states focused more on managing land rather than claiming it, placing particular importance of the growth of its current cities and towns. This is also because with only 21% land on surface of the earth, it is considered "a scarce resource that cannot be produced, only redistributed." (Edkins and Zehfuss -- Global Politics: A New Introduction 2009)
The earth has been condemned to being distributed, owned, and borded by those who have enough control to do so. It is especially in these modern times, there is a significant increase in the perception of land as an asset, or even more so, a taxable asset which can be sold, bought, or exchanged.
In any case, bounded territory is supposed to be independent under the rule of the state that resides in it. By definition, an independent state should not be subject to another, only the citizens of the given state will be subject to the laws. But the chapter in the book raised a good question, "Why should geographical location dictate citizenship, rights and responsibilities?" It is a question I have no answer to because I have asked it myself recently. I mean, especially in modern times, where globalization is very prominent, does it really matter where a person is born? Citizenship seems so very arbitrary when from wherever you are, connections, through networks, can be formed to almost any place in the world.
Regarding this, the chapter proposed two terms that I think are quite appropriate. First is deterritorialization, which means that territory is no longer fixed, and second, supra-territorialization, which means that interaction can no longer be contained by the borders of states.
"Why should a state be limited by what it can do within its boundaries but those boundaries not be open to question?" (from the chapter also)
The increasing globalization that the world is subject to calls in other people to issues within a state that could be considered as questionable for the good of the people living in there. True, that sometimes these interventions are uncalled for simply for the sheer reason that those intervening do not understand the culture that governs those they thing have questionable practices or policies. But if people outside of a state can call into question the government of a state, what's to stop them from calling into question the right of the state to still retain the same boundaries that they have?
Especially in recent years, many situations have inspired supra-national involvement and therefore supra-territorial initiatives. Things like infectious diseases (AIDS/HIV among them), poverty (in Africa and elsewhere), global climate disasters as well as natural disasters (such as Typhoon Ketsana in the Philippines and the devastating earthquake in Haiti) are among these. The increasing concern that humanity seems to have for those even outside their own spaces of residence are inspiring more and more global action to relieve suffering and subsequently, interfere, whether invited or not, with the independent state.
With these, I'm finding it hard to give an answer to the question "Why is the world divided territorially" and have it be relevant and sufficient. It seems more prudent to consider the world as a whole, especially in these times where humanity has to act together to survive and resolve those difficulties that we, ourselves, have created for the planet.
So, why is the world divided territorially? Does it even matter anymore? Is it merely a matter of practice that impacts little on actual living?
1.2.10
(ML) Thinking About The World: Is Globalization Good Or Bad?
Is Globalization Good or Bad?
Well, that's really a very dependent question. It, of course, depends on your perception of what is truly part of globalization. For me, I suppose, there are two possibilities. It's either good -- if we focus on the variety we gain as well as the healthy exchange of goods as well as cultures -- or bad -- if we focus on the fact that some cultures seem to be disappearing into what is called neo-colonialism. The reason why I can still see-saw between the two is because I have not decided on a definite view of globalization. I know and have experienced far too little to be unforgiving in my answer.
But I suppose, I'd like to see globalization in a good light, given that it is about sharing cultures, rather than adapting the dominant one. It is as significant as one aspect of language. English, American English of course, is basically considered the global language, one that most could use to communicate in any part of the globe. I think that this is acceptable. I mean, that English is something that shares cultures, it helps people express things, for the most part, for other people from different countries to understand. As long as it is used in this capacity, I think it is a good thing, especially since it helps people communicate and expand their experiences and learnings. But it becomes bad when English becomes the sole language of countries that have other native languages, that they wind up disusing and invalidating their languages and, perhaps later on, cultures.
As long as I think globalization is done in the capacity that I just labelled as "good" then I think that everybody winds up winners. In the other case though, well... it remains to be seen, but there are sure to be many losers.
In what ways does a history of globalization differ from a history of the world? Are the two separate from each other?
Well, in my opinion, the two are separate. The history of the world is basically the history of the whole human race. It can be in small parts, like the history of a certain country at distinct points in time, or in rather larger parts, like the history of the World Wars.
On the other hand, the history of globalization begins much later in the Gregorian calendar because it's much later on that states were established. I suppose you could consider the time of empires and colonizations as something of connected cultures, but it wasn't so much as sharing and development as it is now, because the connectedness involved a certain wiping out of local history, culture, and language, to be replace by that of the invading and dominant force.
Is globalization a new way of looking at the world or simply another term for imperialism, colonialism, modernism, or capitalism?
In the way that I've been defining it so far, is is a new way of looking at the world. Given that the definition that I've been expressing so far is idealistic, my answer still stands in accordance to it.
Of course, realistically speaking, it could just be another term. I suppose this would be true if the definition of globalization would fall under the categorization that I had defined as "bad" earlier in this post.
Who is behind globalization? Is it really an American phenomenon?
Well, my research shows that globalization could've started as far back as the Hellenistic age, years ago. So from simply that point, it couldn't have been American.
What I found regarding the Greek culture at this time was that there was widespread trade over places in India to Athens to Spain and back. It was also, apparently, the first time the idea of "cosmopolitan culture" came into play. Fittingly so, it is from the Greek word "kosmopoltēs" or citizen of the world, the pol in it equivalent to city or state. (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/)
There is also speculation that globalization began with the trade links at the time of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, which created the Silk Road, a trade route from Western China until Rome.
At the very latest, I think that modern globalization is not simply an American phenomenon, but one that also pervades Europe, since the time of the World Wars.
How far has globalization progressed? Will it reach a "tipping point" when the world is fully globalized? If so, when?
I think what could be considered as the "tipping point" of globalization is when culture is so shared across bordered that there is nothing left to share anymore. When states are knowledgeable of and perhaps adapt part of other cultures to their own, so that different cultures co-exist similarly on each state in the world.
But for that matter, I don't think the world would ever reach the point of being fully globalized. There's just such a constant of change and persistence to change of humanity, that I don't think there will ever be a time that so many cultures could mesh so easily.
As for the present progress of globalization, I can't say I could be accurate with a guess. I suppose I could approximate perhaps a 30-40% globalization with the way that humanity is sharing and helping each other right now. But I don't think that we are anywhere past half, or close to progressing past half, simply because the human race isn't ready to go that far yet.
There's still too much that people need to learn about acceptance and letting go of the innate superiority complex that most have (where my culture is better than yours, or worse, your culture is wrong because...), before globalization can progress without being oppressive and destructive to cultures that are not as aggressive as others.
Well, that's really a very dependent question. It, of course, depends on your perception of what is truly part of globalization. For me, I suppose, there are two possibilities. It's either good -- if we focus on the variety we gain as well as the healthy exchange of goods as well as cultures -- or bad -- if we focus on the fact that some cultures seem to be disappearing into what is called neo-colonialism. The reason why I can still see-saw between the two is because I have not decided on a definite view of globalization. I know and have experienced far too little to be unforgiving in my answer.
But I suppose, I'd like to see globalization in a good light, given that it is about sharing cultures, rather than adapting the dominant one. It is as significant as one aspect of language. English, American English of course, is basically considered the global language, one that most could use to communicate in any part of the globe. I think that this is acceptable. I mean, that English is something that shares cultures, it helps people express things, for the most part, for other people from different countries to understand. As long as it is used in this capacity, I think it is a good thing, especially since it helps people communicate and expand their experiences and learnings. But it becomes bad when English becomes the sole language of countries that have other native languages, that they wind up disusing and invalidating their languages and, perhaps later on, cultures.
As long as I think globalization is done in the capacity that I just labelled as "good" then I think that everybody winds up winners. In the other case though, well... it remains to be seen, but there are sure to be many losers.
In what ways does a history of globalization differ from a history of the world? Are the two separate from each other?
Well, in my opinion, the two are separate. The history of the world is basically the history of the whole human race. It can be in small parts, like the history of a certain country at distinct points in time, or in rather larger parts, like the history of the World Wars.
On the other hand, the history of globalization begins much later in the Gregorian calendar because it's much later on that states were established. I suppose you could consider the time of empires and colonizations as something of connected cultures, but it wasn't so much as sharing and development as it is now, because the connectedness involved a certain wiping out of local history, culture, and language, to be replace by that of the invading and dominant force.
Is globalization a new way of looking at the world or simply another term for imperialism, colonialism, modernism, or capitalism?
In the way that I've been defining it so far, is is a new way of looking at the world. Given that the definition that I've been expressing so far is idealistic, my answer still stands in accordance to it.
Of course, realistically speaking, it could just be another term. I suppose this would be true if the definition of globalization would fall under the categorization that I had defined as "bad" earlier in this post.
Who is behind globalization? Is it really an American phenomenon?
Well, my research shows that globalization could've started as far back as the Hellenistic age, years ago. So from simply that point, it couldn't have been American.
What I found regarding the Greek culture at this time was that there was widespread trade over places in India to Athens to Spain and back. It was also, apparently, the first time the idea of "cosmopolitan culture" came into play. Fittingly so, it is from the Greek word "kosmopoltēs" or citizen of the world, the pol in it equivalent to city or state. (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/)
There is also speculation that globalization began with the trade links at the time of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, which created the Silk Road, a trade route from Western China until Rome.
At the very latest, I think that modern globalization is not simply an American phenomenon, but one that also pervades Europe, since the time of the World Wars.
How far has globalization progressed? Will it reach a "tipping point" when the world is fully globalized? If so, when?
I think what could be considered as the "tipping point" of globalization is when culture is so shared across bordered that there is nothing left to share anymore. When states are knowledgeable of and perhaps adapt part of other cultures to their own, so that different cultures co-exist similarly on each state in the world.
But for that matter, I don't think the world would ever reach the point of being fully globalized. There's just such a constant of change and persistence to change of humanity, that I don't think there will ever be a time that so many cultures could mesh so easily.
As for the present progress of globalization, I can't say I could be accurate with a guess. I suppose I could approximate perhaps a 30-40% globalization with the way that humanity is sharing and helping each other right now. But I don't think that we are anywhere past half, or close to progressing past half, simply because the human race isn't ready to go that far yet.
There's still too much that people need to learn about acceptance and letting go of the innate superiority complex that most have (where my culture is better than yours, or worse, your culture is wrong because...), before globalization can progress without being oppressive and destructive to cultures that are not as aggressive as others.
31.1.10
(CL) How Do We Find Out What's Going On In The World?
Okay, so there is an obvious answer to this question, especially in the global society we have today. We find out, mostly, what's going on in the world through the stories published and broadcasted through mass media, and now even through the new media called the internet.
When we become curious about what is happening somewhere across the globe, we can simply ask the question and find an answer on a website, newspaper article, radio or telecast. It really is as simple as that if the question is simply "What is happening?"
Yet there's another layer to the question. How do we know if what we find out is the truth? I'm asking this in such a way that I skip the question of whether the news is objective since I believe that there is no such thing. Objectivity is a myth because every human being is influenced by his environment, experiences, and ideals. So, then, how do we know how much of what we find out is the truth and how much is fabricated to meet the ends of those people who control these sources of information?
It's a very difficult question and can only be answered by the suggestion to be quite critical in absorbing news. We can choose to take things in at face value, but that would only give us a surface knowledge of the on-goings in the world. To search beneath that, and beyond that, is to discover events from many different perspectives.
We can find out what's going on in the world, through second and third accounts, but it is up to us to accept or reject the information that is fed to us. Our own interpretations of the world is important, not only for our acquisition of knowledge, but also for our view of the world and what should be done.
From the events and news reporting from many different examples of wars, we know that the government and military can either try to control the media or allow themselves to be checked by journalists. So media can be used as both a witness to the truth behind patriotic propaganda and as a means of manipulating the audiences.
It's even more important then, to question mediated information, and really look further than just one story to know what's going on.
------------------
I particularly liked this chapter because of its media-relatedness. And how so much of it is true (it is concurrent with media and society theory I've studied). :)
One other note was this side bar in the book (Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss):
Don McCullin, War Photographer -- became depressed about the morally ambiguous position of the war photographer: "If you are a witness to such suffering, shouldn't you try and help instead of standing back and taking pictures?"
It is similar to a story I came across last year, about Kevin Carter, a 1994 Pulitzer Prize winner for feature photography because of his photojournalism of a starving Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture. (photo and story can be seen here: http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/ultimate_in_unfair.htm)
Carter suffered depression as much as elation in his job before the emotion evoked by this winning photo led to his suicide in the same year.
When we become curious about what is happening somewhere across the globe, we can simply ask the question and find an answer on a website, newspaper article, radio or telecast. It really is as simple as that if the question is simply "What is happening?"
Yet there's another layer to the question. How do we know if what we find out is the truth? I'm asking this in such a way that I skip the question of whether the news is objective since I believe that there is no such thing. Objectivity is a myth because every human being is influenced by his environment, experiences, and ideals. So, then, how do we know how much of what we find out is the truth and how much is fabricated to meet the ends of those people who control these sources of information?
It's a very difficult question and can only be answered by the suggestion to be quite critical in absorbing news. We can choose to take things in at face value, but that would only give us a surface knowledge of the on-goings in the world. To search beneath that, and beyond that, is to discover events from many different perspectives.
We can find out what's going on in the world, through second and third accounts, but it is up to us to accept or reject the information that is fed to us. Our own interpretations of the world is important, not only for our acquisition of knowledge, but also for our view of the world and what should be done.
From the events and news reporting from many different examples of wars, we know that the government and military can either try to control the media or allow themselves to be checked by journalists. So media can be used as both a witness to the truth behind patriotic propaganda and as a means of manipulating the audiences.
It's even more important then, to question mediated information, and really look further than just one story to know what's going on.
------------------
I particularly liked this chapter because of its media-relatedness. And how so much of it is true (it is concurrent with media and society theory I've studied). :)
One other note was this side bar in the book (Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss):
Don McCullin, War Photographer -- became depressed about the morally ambiguous position of the war photographer: "If you are a witness to such suffering, shouldn't you try and help instead of standing back and taking pictures?"
It is similar to a story I came across last year, about Kevin Carter, a 1994 Pulitzer Prize winner for feature photography because of his photojournalism of a starving Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture. (photo and story can be seen here: http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/ultimate_in_unfair.htm)
Carter suffered depression as much as elation in his job before the emotion evoked by this winning photo led to his suicide in the same year.
29.1.10
(CL) How Do Religious Beliefs Affect Politics?
Attempts have been made time and again to separate religious beliefs from politics. Constitutions in several democratic countries place a heavy implication that the state should be able to work independently from the church, and vice versa, in as so much as they don't break the law.
The chapter in the book(Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)* presents a very thorough description of the word "religion," but it is, in simple terms, any system of symbols and practices established from a certain set of values that its people should ascribe, more or less strictly to.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, like that of the United States, also has this briefly and clearly stated in Article II (The Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 6. It states, and I quote, "The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable."
But also like the U.S., "religion features heavily in political discourse."* In countries like the Philippines, where there is one religion among majority of the population, it is easy for the Church to hold a significant amount of political influence on those who ascribe to the teachings of the Church.
Discourse is described as a situation where a person with authority speaks to influence another person/group's view.
In the case of the Church in the Philippine, religion does feature prominently in the workings of the state, such as in the case of the Reproductive Health Bill which the Church vehemently opposed and informed its clergy of its decision and encouraged similar stands.
Although, in scholarly recordings, it seems questionable that there are very few, if any at all, incidents reported relating religion with state-actions. It's as if they actually believed in the separation of the church and the state, yet all evidence should point otherwise.
Many people, of some religion, somewhere, are shaped by their formation in various aspects of their lives, religion included. So to say that religious belief has no weight on political decisions is naive.
Religious beliefs comes with values of a certain kind that come into play, especially when deciding on questionable (im)moral activities. It is nearly as normal and as built in to a person as their education and familial background. It isn't some sort of unfathomable force, but one which shapes the thought processes of each religious buff.
Therefore, i think religion is as influential in politics as education and personal background. The values and experiences you gain from being of a certain religion contributes to the way you think and the way you believe things should be done.
The chapter in the book(Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)* presents a very thorough description of the word "religion," but it is, in simple terms, any system of symbols and practices established from a certain set of values that its people should ascribe, more or less strictly to.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, like that of the United States, also has this briefly and clearly stated in Article II (The Declaration of Principles and State Policies), Section 6. It states, and I quote, "The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable."
But also like the U.S., "religion features heavily in political discourse."* In countries like the Philippines, where there is one religion among majority of the population, it is easy for the Church to hold a significant amount of political influence on those who ascribe to the teachings of the Church.
Discourse is described as a situation where a person with authority speaks to influence another person/group's view.
In the case of the Church in the Philippine, religion does feature prominently in the workings of the state, such as in the case of the Reproductive Health Bill which the Church vehemently opposed and informed its clergy of its decision and encouraged similar stands.
Although, in scholarly recordings, it seems questionable that there are very few, if any at all, incidents reported relating religion with state-actions. It's as if they actually believed in the separation of the church and the state, yet all evidence should point otherwise.
Many people, of some religion, somewhere, are shaped by their formation in various aspects of their lives, religion included. So to say that religious belief has no weight on political decisions is naive.
Religious beliefs comes with values of a certain kind that come into play, especially when deciding on questionable (im)moral activities. It is nearly as normal and as built in to a person as their education and familial background. It isn't some sort of unfathomable force, but one which shapes the thought processes of each religious buff.
Therefore, i think religion is as influential in politics as education and personal background. The values and experiences you gain from being of a certain religion contributes to the way you think and the way you believe things should be done.
21.1.10
(CL) Leaving Human Terms Behind for real?
Well, I was sort of right the first time around. With "Human" as having form or attribute representative of human nature. It is human nature to be individualistic, since each person has their own mind and own will, desires, needs, and others.
So, "Human terms" comes out to mean something more like an individualistic mindset, where each person thinks mainly about themselves and their own advancement, whatever is convenient for them.
Thinking in human terms has the effect of separating nature and society and thinking only of the latter, making the former merely resources and commodities that should be exploited for immediate commercial profits.
"It's a mode of existence that simply doesn't think that environment matters that much." (Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)*
What happens, then, if we leave human terms behind?
Unlike my original answer, it looks as if it could be more of a positive thing.
If we put our selfish individualism aside, we could realize the problems that are beginning to plague the world and actually do something about it. If people would look past their own interests, we could possibly spend a lot trying to prevent what we would spend SO much more trying to fix.
We, as one human race, could race to prevent, the following:
"Potential disruptions as a result of storms, cooling in Europe, droughts in agricultural regions and such things as sea level rises are what drives much of the concern about climate change."*
Without, or instead of, the shunting of responsibility and accountability to those countries with too little power to do anything about this passing along of consequences. After all, the book does also say that, "If these disruptions coincide with major warfare in the Middle East or some other source of trade disruption, the potential for human suffering will be immense."*
Pretty clear message. But wait...there's more to me.
The thing that annoys me though, about the discussion of this concept in the book is that it is still so much in human terms. Even though it questions the human individualistic mindset, it is still so limited.
One of the questions phrased goes, "Environmental justice for whom?"* For whom??? Why not for the sake of the beauty of the environment than the selfish sake of the good of mankind and mankind alone? The concern for the environment discussed in the book still revolves around human interests.
So how bout we leave human terms behind, a better effort at it, at least. There are so many artists who depict the beauty of the environment, be it natural landscapes or urban cityscapes. Wouldn't it be nice, even in this class of globalization and development, to not only consider the development of the human race but also for the planet that we live on? For its own preservation and not for fear of what will happen to us when the consequences of civilization-induced pollution finally tip the scales.
So, "Human terms" comes out to mean something more like an individualistic mindset, where each person thinks mainly about themselves and their own advancement, whatever is convenient for them.
Thinking in human terms has the effect of separating nature and society and thinking only of the latter, making the former merely resources and commodities that should be exploited for immediate commercial profits.
"It's a mode of existence that simply doesn't think that environment matters that much." (Global Politics: A New Introduction edited by Edkins and Zehfuss)*
What happens, then, if we leave human terms behind?
Unlike my original answer, it looks as if it could be more of a positive thing.
If we put our selfish individualism aside, we could realize the problems that are beginning to plague the world and actually do something about it. If people would look past their own interests, we could possibly spend a lot trying to prevent what we would spend SO much more trying to fix.
We, as one human race, could race to prevent, the following:
"Potential disruptions as a result of storms, cooling in Europe, droughts in agricultural regions and such things as sea level rises are what drives much of the concern about climate change."*
Without, or instead of, the shunting of responsibility and accountability to those countries with too little power to do anything about this passing along of consequences. After all, the book does also say that, "If these disruptions coincide with major warfare in the Middle East or some other source of trade disruption, the potential for human suffering will be immense."*
Pretty clear message. But wait...there's more to me.
The thing that annoys me though, about the discussion of this concept in the book is that it is still so much in human terms. Even though it questions the human individualistic mindset, it is still so limited.
One of the questions phrased goes, "Environmental justice for whom?"* For whom??? Why not for the sake of the beauty of the environment than the selfish sake of the good of mankind and mankind alone? The concern for the environment discussed in the book still revolves around human interests.
So how bout we leave human terms behind, a better effort at it, at least. There are so many artists who depict the beauty of the environment, be it natural landscapes or urban cityscapes. Wouldn't it be nice, even in this class of globalization and development, to not only consider the development of the human race but also for the planet that we live on? For its own preservation and not for fear of what will happen to us when the consequences of civilization-induced pollution finally tip the scales.
19.1.10
(CL) What Happens If We Don't Think In Human Terms?
I wanted to do this blog with some kind of insight on the book... any kind of insight for that matter, but I still can't find the book anywhere, so allow me to grasp at straws.
As usual, I have to go in and define a term to make it easier to answer the question.
What are "human terms?"
In all honesty, I can't think of a solid definition for the term, nor have I been able to find anything conclusive, so all I'm left with are guesses, and hopefully I'm not too far off the mark.
"Human terms"
In the effort to come up with an accurate definition, I looked up the meaning of each word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and will try to combine them into something coherent.
Human: having form or attribute representative of human nature.
Terms: A word or expression that has a precise meaning.
In this way, I'd say that "human terms" are words or phrases coined to capture a certain aspect of human nature, something intrinsic to humans that they instinctively understand the meaning even if no words could be present during the communication.
In Philosophy, I learned that it is part of a Western mindset to have a rational and logical side. The mind, which is in control there, is prone to naming and labeling things so that it is easier to compare, to evaluate, and to rationalize. Perhaps then, this is what human terms mean (since not many people achieve the more confusing Eastern mindset -- most people think on the same plain), ideas that most, if not all, humans will understand.
Bearing that in mind, what happens if we don't think in human terms?
Well, I think most prominently, the problem would be the breakdown of communication between humans. If we don't think in human terms, then it would be very difficult for others to measure and quantify whatever it is that we want to say.
Using human terms allows people to come to understandings and agreements, so if that should fall apart, I think it would hinder the ability of any two people or parties the ability to understand whatever thought that one has. Failure to communicate on a small level would only translate to the larger and larger groups of people.
Ultimately, I think things like this would hinder any kind of understanding and perhaps even development between people and, on the larger scale, between nations.
As usual, I have to go in and define a term to make it easier to answer the question.
What are "human terms?"
In all honesty, I can't think of a solid definition for the term, nor have I been able to find anything conclusive, so all I'm left with are guesses, and hopefully I'm not too far off the mark.
"Human terms"
In the effort to come up with an accurate definition, I looked up the meaning of each word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and will try to combine them into something coherent.
Human: having form or attribute representative of human nature.
Terms: A word or expression that has a precise meaning.
In this way, I'd say that "human terms" are words or phrases coined to capture a certain aspect of human nature, something intrinsic to humans that they instinctively understand the meaning even if no words could be present during the communication.
In Philosophy, I learned that it is part of a Western mindset to have a rational and logical side. The mind, which is in control there, is prone to naming and labeling things so that it is easier to compare, to evaluate, and to rationalize. Perhaps then, this is what human terms mean (since not many people achieve the more confusing Eastern mindset -- most people think on the same plain), ideas that most, if not all, humans will understand.
Bearing that in mind, what happens if we don't think in human terms?
Well, I think most prominently, the problem would be the breakdown of communication between humans. If we don't think in human terms, then it would be very difficult for others to measure and quantify whatever it is that we want to say.
Using human terms allows people to come to understandings and agreements, so if that should fall apart, I think it would hinder the ability of any two people or parties the ability to understand whatever thought that one has. Failure to communicate on a small level would only translate to the larger and larger groups of people.
Ultimately, I think things like this would hinder any kind of understanding and perhaps even development between people and, on the larger scale, between nations.
18.1.10
(ML) How Do We Begin To Think About The World?
The question is really a very vague and general subject that could go any which way.
I suppose the best way in which to start would be to think about the question in fragments... The first part being: "How do we begin to think?"
To try and explain the full psychology of how a person could think would be both futile and unnecessarily lengthy for the purpose I have in mind today, but I suppose the best I can do would be to cover what I think would be relevant in this discussion.
Basically people process experiences, things, or events through their own senses or at least by their own understanding, if they are experiencing things vicariously through the information given to them by others. "Beginning to think" is the stage after taking in information. It is the time wherein they take the information they have and store it either as pure as they can as new knowledge, or interpret through the many different dispositions and biases previously acquired.
Therefore, how we begin to think could follow this pattern: receiving information -> interpreting it according to our own perspectives -> forming our conclusions about the information. This could all just happen in seconds compared to the actual process of thinking in which the conclusions we draw are utilized in the way that we think and express opinions, and for the reasoning we use to make decisions about how to live our lives. This is how people filter information and decide where to place their interest and energy.
The second fragment of the question would be: "What is the world?"
This is, by all means, a simpler question than the first, and yet, perhaps more important in answering the question as a whole. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary presents approximately fourteen definitions for the word "world" and to not narrow down the specific meaning that we want to answer in the main question would be to trivialize answering the question at all. Personally, I think the definition best suited for this situation would be, "the system created by human society by which we comprehend both human affairs and those of the earth." It's really quite convoluted, but I simply mean to refer to the world as not just a rock, but as the place where everything happens.
Now, how do we begin to think about the world?
As one of my friends put it,
(Mangahas, 2010) :)
Where do we start, then? Well, the "world," this situation in which we find ourselves, is local as well as global. So, my suggestion would be to work from the inside out, from small scale up to the international scale. For it's in my general belief that things in the most basic units have a way of persisting even as the units become more complex, so there are usually similarities that make it easier to understand things on the global level when we know how they work in simpler units.
I suppose the best way in which to start would be to think about the question in fragments... The first part being: "How do we begin to think?"
To try and explain the full psychology of how a person could think would be both futile and unnecessarily lengthy for the purpose I have in mind today, but I suppose the best I can do would be to cover what I think would be relevant in this discussion.
Basically people process experiences, things, or events through their own senses or at least by their own understanding, if they are experiencing things vicariously through the information given to them by others. "Beginning to think" is the stage after taking in information. It is the time wherein they take the information they have and store it either as pure as they can as new knowledge, or interpret through the many different dispositions and biases previously acquired.
Therefore, how we begin to think could follow this pattern: receiving information -> interpreting it according to our own perspectives -> forming our conclusions about the information. This could all just happen in seconds compared to the actual process of thinking in which the conclusions we draw are utilized in the way that we think and express opinions, and for the reasoning we use to make decisions about how to live our lives. This is how people filter information and decide where to place their interest and energy.
The second fragment of the question would be: "What is the world?"
This is, by all means, a simpler question than the first, and yet, perhaps more important in answering the question as a whole. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary presents approximately fourteen definitions for the word "world" and to not narrow down the specific meaning that we want to answer in the main question would be to trivialize answering the question at all. Personally, I think the definition best suited for this situation would be, "the system created by human society by which we comprehend both human affairs and those of the earth." It's really quite convoluted, but I simply mean to refer to the world as not just a rock, but as the place where everything happens.
Now, how do we begin to think about the world?
As one of my friends put it,
There are two ways to view the world:
If you view the world in a pessimistic way,
You see the disasters
You see the corruption
The hopelessness
Most people are evil, they just step on others.
If you view it in a optimistic way,
The world is beautiful
If you look around you, there is life, filling to the brim
There is hope
There is always "another day" to start over.
(Mangahas, 2010) :)
Where do we start, then? Well, the "world," this situation in which we find ourselves, is local as well as global. So, my suggestion would be to work from the inside out, from small scale up to the international scale. For it's in my general belief that things in the most basic units have a way of persisting even as the units become more complex, so there are usually similarities that make it easier to understand things on the global level when we know how they work in simpler units.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)