Without Representation

As a member of the Republic of China, we are huge fans of I-Kiribati, especially after their recognition and acceptance of our newly implemented One China policy (Wikipedia). However, the first issue we had to address was the fact that we deserve to take over the dredging contract, despite what Van Oort says about their experienced dredging. One thing that one should think about before siding with such a company is the fact that they were accused of dumping illegal waste near Indonesia, which resulted in one of their dredgers being seized (Maritime Bulletin). How can one trust a company that is having their dredgers seized to successfully carry out a dredging project. Furthermore, if sustainable dredging is what we are aiming for, Van Oort the waste dumping company cannot be trusted to maintain an environmentally friendly dredging plan. Their efforts will leave Kiribati as an ongoing project and the I-Kiribati people will never have a chance to get back to their beloved land of Kiribati. As a country, we have reflected our concern and care for the I-Kiribati people China is concerned not only for the project of dredging, but also and most importantly for the safety and well-being of the I-Kiribati people who support our one China policy, which has been respected through our economic aid we’ve been providing Kiribati with (Wikipedia).

Overall, I felt that the simulation was very confusing and it was hard to get all of our ideas out with the set-up. I did enjoy hearing the creative conversation, and watching my classmates execute their gift of debate. One thing that really struck me about simulation two, was the fact that dredging was such a dominant factor in the discussion and not the people of I-Kiribati. If there were more focus on the people of Kiribati, the transformation of our policy would have been even more time consuming because of the debate that would have ensued over human rights. If an I-Kiribati representative were present, then there would be a better communication around what the I-Kiribati people really need and want from outsiders trying to help. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Kiribati_relations

https://maritimebulletin.net/2019/04/10/dutch-dredger-seized-for-alleged-waste-dumping/

Now we all know what sustainable dredging is!

This simulation could be agreed on being one word- sustainable. Sustainable in a different sense because the class was ever persistent in prolonging (or sustaining) the debate and analysis of dredging to go on for quite literally, infinity.
My group with Molly and Kiran represented the South Pacific Business Development. Between sitting in the back and not saying a word for the entire 7000-minute long conversation about dredging, many of my friends asked afterward what was up… well, here it is.
As a microfinance group, our main motives were formulated around the people and our integration plan, which unfortunately got shut down quick, thanks to EJF. We chose not to speak during the dredging debate as it was secondary to our primary focus and by mentioning our opinion, we feared our main motives would then be glossed over. We wanted to keep in line by only mentioning and speaking directly on the issues that the SPBD does and did not want dredging to appear as a primary concern of ours. Additionally, by hearing the other groups' perspectives on this issue, we were able to spend time revising our amendment in attempts to make it fit within the guidelines followed by each group. Although our amendment was not discussed long, I was glad it was able to be mentioned as it represented the SPBD and summarized our strategy document in the best way possible. It would have been interesting to see more of what the other groups thought of it and possible revisions that could have been made, however, I am glad our group was able to mention the SPBD’s main objectives, even if it only lasted 2 minutes of discussion.
Something I enjoyed most about this simulation is how authentic each group was to their motivations as a country or organization. In attempts to follow suit, the South Pacific Business Development has pre-existing work with both China and Japan, as well as an interlocking base with many institutions similar to the other groups present at the simulation. This is why our amendment was proposed with the hopes of involving all the other groups, as a microfinance project does not stand alone and needs sponsors, funding, and support from countless organizations and countries. Overall I appreciated the structure of this simulation as it felt more natural and relaxed, as opposed to the previous simulation. My only wish would be that we had more time to genuinely discuss more issues… and maybe we could have added another word!

Is there such thing as a "just" war ?

During class on Thursday, I found myself to be bothered by how the concept of just war was excluded from the conversation. I did not raise my hand to talk about it so I did not help that case, however, I got thinking. The debate of whether a just war can even exist is something so complex that a debate could last forever. It has been circulating my mind and I think I have come to some personal opinion. Going back to the general concept of perspective, I feel the determination of what contributes to a just war is dependent on who is speaking. Similar to how we couldn’t praise Montezuma for abiding by his culture while completely condemning Columbus for doing the same, with the only difference being that Montezuma became the victim and Columbus did not. In the case of war, one side may see it as a “just” experience simply because they were victorious in the fight. 

However, I do think some general qualities could be applied to a “just” war. Relating to its morality and representation of democracy. There are scenarios in which the perspective dictates whether something appears to be good or evil, however, I believe there are some situations that are objectively moral and good. For example, if the Spanish conquest of the Americas is to be considered a war, it could be considered moral from the Spaniards that felt entitled to the land. Conversely, the Indians could refer to the conquest as immoral since it was based on discrimination and developing a hierarchy. Additionally, the word “war” has violent and partisan connotations to it that adds further contradiction between both “just” and “war”. 

This is a just a couple thoughts I’ve been having, I would love to hear what some other viewpoints are on this issue of the existence of a “just” war.

"Putting His Desire to Execution": The Dehumanization of Women of the "Other" Reflection 11

Operating in the mindset of superiority, robs one of experiencing the fullness of the beauties of life. It prevents one from being able to unpack their preconceived assumptions based on idea that they themselves believe to be correct, and see things from another perspective. Superiority undervalues the true essence of the “other”. Todorov highlights the maltreatment of the indigenous women by the Spaniards. One of the quotes that really struck and disturbed me was when the European described his encounter with an Indigenous women as him putting “his desire to execution” (49). This encouraged the mindset of the European feeling like they have the right to someone else’s body because of their superiority, which leads to pure dehumanization. It also makes me think of my experience in India being apart of the”other”.

During my time in India, I quickly learned that in Indian society women from the West Indies or Africa are stereotyped negatively; which becomes a blanketed opportunity for negative generalizations against women of African descent. The negative generalization comes from the unfortunate trend of some black female students being forced to succumb to prostitution or escorting as a means for survival. It is not because they do not desire to work and make their own income, but it’s because legally in India, it is illegal for a student to work if they are not an Indian National. This puts international students in a bind, especially if they come from a low-income socioeconomic background. However, this is not the case for all black women in India, but because it is a trend, many black women are subjected to the effects of these negative assumptions. I remember sitting in my cab, heading home from my apprenticeship and having a driver ask me if he can buy sex from me, or many men just assuming that I would be willing to sleep with them because of I am black. It was a very emotionally and mentally draining experience because I was not very supported in these situations. My only defense was a strong “NO”, which history and current times has proven doesn’t suffice in particular situations. I just count myself one of the lucky ones. The maltreatment of the indigenous women during the colonization of the Americas began a trend that continues to have a ripple effect on minority women, and the dehumanization of them

The excuses you give your grandparents

In Monday's class, J. L. and A.V.M.(Initialed for sake of animosity in case of future opinionated employers hunting for issues) brought up the argument that just like for Montezuma, it can be argued that the Spaniards are victims of their culture. Just as J. L. mentioned themselves, this perspective is arguable solely depending on one's perspective. As I was leaning back in my gray mesh chair, I tried to figure out why that argument sounded so familiar. It was then that I realized this is the same strain of argument I use on my grandparents and other people of older age all the time. How many times have you heard someone tell you that so and so are too old to change their views, so why bother; let them be in peace? This is the foundational argument I use to be able to feel comfortable in maintaining a relationship with my own highly conservative grandparents.
*Disclaimer: I truly love my grandparents. I am thankful to have them in my life. They have shaped me in innumerable ways, and I will forever treasure them*
Now certain differences in opinion are perfectly reasonable. To continue with my example, I love discussions with my grandparents concerning differing opinions in politics, and I can even go so far as saying, in their essence if not the means, I agree with many of their opinions. Yet, then there are their opinions on topics including climate change, the LGBT community, and issues over immigration which I find completely offensive. If it were my peers expressing those opinions, I would be arguing with them and confidently advocating for myself. Why don't I do the same in the presence of my grandparents? Because I convince myself that I shouldn't take their opinions personally since they are just results of their age and time, and since they are just 'victims' to their 'culture' they will not change, so the only thing that will come from me arguing is ruining relationships for my family. Obviously the situation is slightly for complicated than this, but the situation brings about certain questions that I think are important to wrestle with including:
1) Is it moral to grant people excuses based on their culture/past?
2) Is there really any benefit in understanding the person's situation/culture/past behind their opinions?
3) Is it appropriate to strong arm people to "modern" day standards despite their cultural norms?
By answering these questions, I find it easier to wrestle with the class questions if we can categorize the Spaniards or Montezuma as mere victims to their circumstance.

Why Don't Animals Run the World

In class, the question was raised about how the human treatment of any being or entity that is not the same as us may be justified or not simply because we do not care to understand life from any other perspective than that of our own. About something that PTJ mentioned in terms of animals and our treatment of them, I find this discussion immensely interesting. While I am in no way comparing the treatment of Native Americans to the treatment of lab mice, I am interested in speaking a bit about what some differences and similarities may be.
The world has become run by humans. We have ruined the environment and now the preservation must be falsely generated to account for the damage done. Due to this, animals and plants have a new interdependence on humans. They were once able to survive alone and independently but now must rely on sanctuaries and research funding to maintain their species. Although Koko the gorilla was able to be taught sign language and prove more similarities these animals have to humans, they are still placed as inferior to us. Is this done because of the ignorance that humans have towards understanding the language and society of different animals, or is it because instead of understanding, humans instead force their language onto animals. When they are unable to completely adapt, they are deemed as inferior.
This relationship is interesting, and I am not sure what the answer is… as it seems like it has many different possible routes. While there are millions of ways in which humans mistreat and abuse animals for all sorts of goods and services (for no reason), I am not sure if other species of animals, no matter how advanced, will ever be considered equal to humans. Despite this, I will always be out supporting animal rights and cruelty- free world because whether one being is superior to another or not, I do not see any reason why there should be so much abuse of power and cruelty on another living thing.

More on the "Right" to Wealth

During class on Thursday, I was hoping to expand on the “right” to wealth and how quasi-states should be dealt with in foreign aid and policy. 

I think the idea of sovereignty and the “right” to wealth goes back to defining equity and equality. Ideally, economically and socially developing countries would be given the equity needed to be successful and open up the opportunities to have wealth. However, there is often times the idea that giving these countries many opportunities and funds on the basis of equality is used to justify whatever economic aid is given under the guise of colonialism. This creates a system of “equality” that is forcing these quasi states to remain dependent. This can be seen in areas like India or even East Berlin. These areas have been enveloped  by superior territories (Britain or West Berlin/Western Countries) and have therefore been forced to sacrifice much of their individual identity at the hands of this super power, as well as, are not able to develop at their own rate to reach autonomy. With the continuous “support”, a cycle of dependence is enforced on the foundation of equality, not equity. 

I find this idea very interesting as it debates with the arguments of foreign aid being colonization or not. I believe my current standing would be that foreign economic assistance through the mindset of pursuing equality, is often counterproductive for the quasi-state and resembles a system of colonization. However, when aid is provided through a basis of finding equity, there is greater opportunity to achieve autonomy and wealth individually.