Everyone take a break from finals and come see my boyfriend's band play at Leonardos. They are opening for Akil from Jurassic 5. Check em out www.rejnband.com, or on myspace, the link is on the side bar!
Congrats to all those graduating!
Keep it real yooo
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Terrorism on Campus?
This is going too far. Trying to charge a drug dealing delinquint for terrorism? Is this remiscent of the McCarthy era to anyone else?
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/04/25/News/Meth-Gun.Found.In.Students.Home-2879511.shtml
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/04/25/News/Meth-Gun.Found.In.Students.Home-2879511.shtml
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Shortcomings of Realism in a Global Era
When the Dog Bites, When the Bee Stings:
The Shortcomings of Realism in a Global Era
Most people have a conception of world politics akin to a game of chess—power, strategy and stability in a system of uncertainty. Each move is made based on rational choice, maximizing gains and minimizing loss. This is the realist paradigm— prevalent since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1478 when the “state” was born. While the realist paradigm is able to explain some events in global affairs, it fails to explain them all. This lens lacks depth in analysis hence providing a superficial explanation for events, which leads to ineffective foreign policy. This production of superficial analysis of global issues and ineffective policy prescriptions is evident in the emergence of non-state actors and the importance of symbols and emotions in ethnic conflict. In considering the shortcomings of realist thought, I will discuss contemporary theories that consider the challenges of contemporary issues.
The philosophy in question manifests in the key works by the fathers of realism, including, Thucydides and Machiavelli. Thucydides, a Greek historian, analyzes war between the Athenians and Spartans in, The History of the Peloponnesian War, as a war fought to acquire power. In the “Melian Dialogue,” a portion of the book dedicated to the discourse between the Melians and Athenians, Thucydides writes, “since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Thucydides argues that wars are fought over power. If an army is capable of winning a war, then they will fight it. Over millennia later, Niccolo Machiavelli similarly advocates the inherency of evil in man and the role of power seeking actors play in causing war. In his work, The Prince, Machiavelli advises that the objective of a prince is to obtain and maintain power. To do so, the prince must be dedicated to the art of war and must understand and accept that violent means may be necessary to maintain stability and power. Hence, realism is rooted in a philosophy that man is inherently evil and conflict is caused by the need to obtain or maintain power for security.
Although there are several strands of realism elaborating on different aspects of the theory, several core assumptions exist that define a realist. Realist theory is rooted in a philosophy that contends that man is inherently evil, initiated by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Man yearns for power, and conflict is caused by gaining or maintaining power. The nature of the system is anarchic, meaning no central source of governance exists. Sovereign states are the principal actors, and each state is rational and acts in their own national interest for their national security. Relations between states lay in their power, which can be defined through military, economic or moral terms.
Now in the past, the state has been the key actor in international relations. States waged war on each other; weak states succumbed to more powerful ones; power was defined as military might. However, today non-state actors have emerged. One must keep in mind that a theory is only a lens in which one sees the world. While a certain shade may highlight power as the cause for war, others may reveal different causes for war that were previously hidden from the eye. For example, realist theory cannot fully explain the emergence of terrorism. Realist theory views the outbreak of war as the result of a security dilemma. If a nation-state feels as though it is threatened then it will raise the power of its military. The aggressor responds in a similar fashion. War is won by the most military powerful nation-state. Yet this theory is inadequate when trying to understand issues that transgress nation-state boundaries. Terrorism, for example is a non-state actor. Therefore applying a theory meant for state actors to a non state actor is illogical.
Moreover, realist theory fails to explain the outbreak of ethnic war as described by Stuart J. Kaufman in his recent book, Modern Hatreds: Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Kaufman explains that myths, ethnic fears and the opportunity to mobilize are the preconditions for ethnic war. Nations do not go to war simply to maintain power or because they can, but because myths are propagated or symbols are manipulated to mobilize the mass or instigate the elites to cause war. The cover of Kaufman’s book provides an excellent example of elite-led violence. Croatian leader, Franco Tudjman, kisses a Croatian flag that once symbolized Nazi-fascist Ustashe terror. This image flared ethnic hatred between the Serbs and the Croats and instigated a war that erupted in the region. Symbolic politics rather than realist theory explain the emergence of ethnic war in the former Yugoslav. In this case, a military power struggle is unable to explain the violence and resulting ethnic war. Thus, realist theory is crippled.
Failed Policy
The real need for a departure from realist thought is evident in the foreign policy that is developed based on the realist lens. While analysis can be skewed by a single lens, it is only analysis. But foreign policy is developed out of this analysis. And that is where the real danger lies. Incorrect analysis will create inefficient policy, policy that may even worsen a situation than ameliorate it.
For example, the United States suffered from an attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In response, the United States increased defense spending, recruited troops and declared war against countries that were “against us.” As I write this, the U.S. is still engaged in unpopular military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. How could it be that the most advanced use of force the world has ever seen cannot squander the efforts of a relatively small number of individuals in a military battle? Perhaps the military is ill equipped for the intimidation of non-state actors. The continued conflict is a result of the inability of realism in applying to non-state actors.
Hard power
Hard power is generally associated with command power. Command power is “the ability to change what others do” and it “can rest on coercion or inducement.” Typically, hard power methods include using force, sanctions, payments and bribes. The current administration’s handling of the War on Terrorism, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, are prime examples of fighting terrorism through using hard power methods.
Soft Power
The term “soft power” was coined by Joseph S. Nye in the late 1980’s. The definition of soft power requires more explanation than hard power as it is less direct and a newer term. However, the term must be understood entirely in order to the power of the solutions described later in this paper.
Soft power tends to be associated with co-optive power rather than command power. Co-optive power is the ability to shape what others want” and it “can rest on the attractiveness of one’s culture and values or the ability to manipulate the agenda of political choices in a manner that makes others fail to express some preferences because they seem to be too unrealistic.” Instead of using coercion to get what you want, soft power explores attraction instead. Soft power is an “attractive power,” that “gets others to want the outcomes you want” and “rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others.” There are three main sources of soft power for a country: “Culture (in places where it is attractive to others), political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).” By projecting attractive culture, political values and foreign policies, one can maximize their soft power.
The drawbacks of hard power and the benefits of soft power
“If you live near a swamp that is home to thousands of mosquitoes carrying malaria, you can kill the mosquitoes but more will come carrying the same disease. The only real solution is to deal with the swamp, the incubator of the disease.”
Using hard power methods to fight terrorism may seem effective immediately but in the long run, it fails to fight terrorism and in some instances could even breed new terrorists. Examining our nations past hard power approaches to foreign affairs can help us to understand the drawbacks of using hard power methods to fight terrorism. For example, “The four week war in Iraq in the spring of 2003 was a dazzling display of Americas hard military power that removed the tyrant, but it did not resolve our vulnerability to terrorism.” Although the war in Iraq was a military success, it failed to prevent any further terrorist attacks. In fact, “regime change or the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will not, by itself bring peace. Others would replace Sadam in due course of time.” Hard power simply fights the current terrorists but does nothing to prevent the growth of future terrorists.
Furthermore, deterrence policies, such as current policies for the War on Terrorism do the exact opposite than what the goal of the policy was. “Terrorists are locked into their organizations even more and see no alternatives but to stay on.” It causes terrorists to continue to be terrorists, since they provide no options for them. Using hard power does not give terrorists reasons to change yet instead “creates substantial additional economic costs, increases vulnerability to terrorist acts, and strengthens terrorist’s cohesiveness and influence.” Once more, using hard power tactics against terrorism adds fuel to the fire instead of water.
Nye describes in an excerpt from Soft Power why soft power is effective and could better be used than hard power to hinder terrorism growth.
“When countries make their power legitimate in the eyes of others, they encounter less resistance to their wishes. If a country’s culture and ideology are attractive, others more willingly follow. If a country can shape international rules that are consistent with its interests and values, its actions will more likely appear legitimate in the eyes of others. If it uses institutions and follows rules that encourage other countries to channel or limit their activities in ways it prefers, it will not need as many costly carrots and sticks.”
Therefore, the international community must utilize soft power to fight terrorism. By using an attractive force rather than a coercive one to stop terrorists from organizing and acting, terrorism will be fought at the root instead of the tree. When individuals are attracted to Western culture and politics, they will not have a need to fight against them. These individuals living in nations where terrorist cells organize and operate, need incentives that are more attractive than those terrorists provide in order to not join the movement.
Although wars have been fought since man has been on earth should not prevent man from flirting with the idea that peace is possible. Pessimists argue that the status quo is never changing. To them I suggest they pick up a history book. Peace is possible, but as Gandhi said, nonviolence is a tool for the strong, not the weak.
A realization that realist policy blinds the eye from seeing reasons behind conflict must be obtained for all intellectuals in the field. Those who study global issues must push the limits of the field, step over the boundaries of the status quo, and continue to test and invent new theories. At the same time, intellectuals must realize that the system is creating venues for violence to erupt. Therefore to end this violence, the injustice must be revealed. In most cases, the cause for violence is one that is manipulated by the media or by power hungry elites. Like an onion, layers of fallacies must be peeled off in order to discover the core cause of the eruption of violence to be a system of injustice, and non violent social revolution is the only means to rectify the system.
The Shortcomings of Realism in a Global Era
Most people have a conception of world politics akin to a game of chess—power, strategy and stability in a system of uncertainty. Each move is made based on rational choice, maximizing gains and minimizing loss. This is the realist paradigm— prevalent since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1478 when the “state” was born. While the realist paradigm is able to explain some events in global affairs, it fails to explain them all. This lens lacks depth in analysis hence providing a superficial explanation for events, which leads to ineffective foreign policy. This production of superficial analysis of global issues and ineffective policy prescriptions is evident in the emergence of non-state actors and the importance of symbols and emotions in ethnic conflict. In considering the shortcomings of realist thought, I will discuss contemporary theories that consider the challenges of contemporary issues.
The philosophy in question manifests in the key works by the fathers of realism, including, Thucydides and Machiavelli. Thucydides, a Greek historian, analyzes war between the Athenians and Spartans in, The History of the Peloponnesian War, as a war fought to acquire power. In the “Melian Dialogue,” a portion of the book dedicated to the discourse between the Melians and Athenians, Thucydides writes, “since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Thucydides argues that wars are fought over power. If an army is capable of winning a war, then they will fight it. Over millennia later, Niccolo Machiavelli similarly advocates the inherency of evil in man and the role of power seeking actors play in causing war. In his work, The Prince, Machiavelli advises that the objective of a prince is to obtain and maintain power. To do so, the prince must be dedicated to the art of war and must understand and accept that violent means may be necessary to maintain stability and power. Hence, realism is rooted in a philosophy that man is inherently evil and conflict is caused by the need to obtain or maintain power for security.
Although there are several strands of realism elaborating on different aspects of the theory, several core assumptions exist that define a realist. Realist theory is rooted in a philosophy that contends that man is inherently evil, initiated by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Man yearns for power, and conflict is caused by gaining or maintaining power. The nature of the system is anarchic, meaning no central source of governance exists. Sovereign states are the principal actors, and each state is rational and acts in their own national interest for their national security. Relations between states lay in their power, which can be defined through military, economic or moral terms.
Now in the past, the state has been the key actor in international relations. States waged war on each other; weak states succumbed to more powerful ones; power was defined as military might. However, today non-state actors have emerged. One must keep in mind that a theory is only a lens in which one sees the world. While a certain shade may highlight power as the cause for war, others may reveal different causes for war that were previously hidden from the eye. For example, realist theory cannot fully explain the emergence of terrorism. Realist theory views the outbreak of war as the result of a security dilemma. If a nation-state feels as though it is threatened then it will raise the power of its military. The aggressor responds in a similar fashion. War is won by the most military powerful nation-state. Yet this theory is inadequate when trying to understand issues that transgress nation-state boundaries. Terrorism, for example is a non-state actor. Therefore applying a theory meant for state actors to a non state actor is illogical.
Moreover, realist theory fails to explain the outbreak of ethnic war as described by Stuart J. Kaufman in his recent book, Modern Hatreds: Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Kaufman explains that myths, ethnic fears and the opportunity to mobilize are the preconditions for ethnic war. Nations do not go to war simply to maintain power or because they can, but because myths are propagated or symbols are manipulated to mobilize the mass or instigate the elites to cause war. The cover of Kaufman’s book provides an excellent example of elite-led violence. Croatian leader, Franco Tudjman, kisses a Croatian flag that once symbolized Nazi-fascist Ustashe terror. This image flared ethnic hatred between the Serbs and the Croats and instigated a war that erupted in the region. Symbolic politics rather than realist theory explain the emergence of ethnic war in the former Yugoslav. In this case, a military power struggle is unable to explain the violence and resulting ethnic war. Thus, realist theory is crippled.
Failed Policy
The real need for a departure from realist thought is evident in the foreign policy that is developed based on the realist lens. While analysis can be skewed by a single lens, it is only analysis. But foreign policy is developed out of this analysis. And that is where the real danger lies. Incorrect analysis will create inefficient policy, policy that may even worsen a situation than ameliorate it.
For example, the United States suffered from an attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. In response, the United States increased defense spending, recruited troops and declared war against countries that were “against us.” As I write this, the U.S. is still engaged in unpopular military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. How could it be that the most advanced use of force the world has ever seen cannot squander the efforts of a relatively small number of individuals in a military battle? Perhaps the military is ill equipped for the intimidation of non-state actors. The continued conflict is a result of the inability of realism in applying to non-state actors.
Hard power
Hard power is generally associated with command power. Command power is “the ability to change what others do” and it “can rest on coercion or inducement.” Typically, hard power methods include using force, sanctions, payments and bribes. The current administration’s handling of the War on Terrorism, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, are prime examples of fighting terrorism through using hard power methods.
Soft Power
The term “soft power” was coined by Joseph S. Nye in the late 1980’s. The definition of soft power requires more explanation than hard power as it is less direct and a newer term. However, the term must be understood entirely in order to the power of the solutions described later in this paper.
Soft power tends to be associated with co-optive power rather than command power. Co-optive power is the ability to shape what others want” and it “can rest on the attractiveness of one’s culture and values or the ability to manipulate the agenda of political choices in a manner that makes others fail to express some preferences because they seem to be too unrealistic.” Instead of using coercion to get what you want, soft power explores attraction instead. Soft power is an “attractive power,” that “gets others to want the outcomes you want” and “rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others.” There are three main sources of soft power for a country: “Culture (in places where it is attractive to others), political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).” By projecting attractive culture, political values and foreign policies, one can maximize their soft power.
The drawbacks of hard power and the benefits of soft power
“If you live near a swamp that is home to thousands of mosquitoes carrying malaria, you can kill the mosquitoes but more will come carrying the same disease. The only real solution is to deal with the swamp, the incubator of the disease.”
Using hard power methods to fight terrorism may seem effective immediately but in the long run, it fails to fight terrorism and in some instances could even breed new terrorists. Examining our nations past hard power approaches to foreign affairs can help us to understand the drawbacks of using hard power methods to fight terrorism. For example, “The four week war in Iraq in the spring of 2003 was a dazzling display of Americas hard military power that removed the tyrant, but it did not resolve our vulnerability to terrorism.” Although the war in Iraq was a military success, it failed to prevent any further terrorist attacks. In fact, “regime change or the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will not, by itself bring peace. Others would replace Sadam in due course of time.” Hard power simply fights the current terrorists but does nothing to prevent the growth of future terrorists.
Furthermore, deterrence policies, such as current policies for the War on Terrorism do the exact opposite than what the goal of the policy was. “Terrorists are locked into their organizations even more and see no alternatives but to stay on.” It causes terrorists to continue to be terrorists, since they provide no options for them. Using hard power does not give terrorists reasons to change yet instead “creates substantial additional economic costs, increases vulnerability to terrorist acts, and strengthens terrorist’s cohesiveness and influence.” Once more, using hard power tactics against terrorism adds fuel to the fire instead of water.
Nye describes in an excerpt from Soft Power why soft power is effective and could better be used than hard power to hinder terrorism growth.
“When countries make their power legitimate in the eyes of others, they encounter less resistance to their wishes. If a country’s culture and ideology are attractive, others more willingly follow. If a country can shape international rules that are consistent with its interests and values, its actions will more likely appear legitimate in the eyes of others. If it uses institutions and follows rules that encourage other countries to channel or limit their activities in ways it prefers, it will not need as many costly carrots and sticks.”
Therefore, the international community must utilize soft power to fight terrorism. By using an attractive force rather than a coercive one to stop terrorists from organizing and acting, terrorism will be fought at the root instead of the tree. When individuals are attracted to Western culture and politics, they will not have a need to fight against them. These individuals living in nations where terrorist cells organize and operate, need incentives that are more attractive than those terrorists provide in order to not join the movement.
Although wars have been fought since man has been on earth should not prevent man from flirting with the idea that peace is possible. Pessimists argue that the status quo is never changing. To them I suggest they pick up a history book. Peace is possible, but as Gandhi said, nonviolence is a tool for the strong, not the weak.
A realization that realist policy blinds the eye from seeing reasons behind conflict must be obtained for all intellectuals in the field. Those who study global issues must push the limits of the field, step over the boundaries of the status quo, and continue to test and invent new theories. At the same time, intellectuals must realize that the system is creating venues for violence to erupt. Therefore to end this violence, the injustice must be revealed. In most cases, the cause for violence is one that is manipulated by the media or by power hungry elites. Like an onion, layers of fallacies must be peeled off in order to discover the core cause of the eruption of violence to be a system of injustice, and non violent social revolution is the only means to rectify the system.
Virginia Tech: Pointing Fingers
A week ago I read stargirl's post on the Virginia Tech shootings. She criticized the school, specifically, for their "poor decision making on the part of administration officials" during the shootings that took place on campus. She mainly focused on the lack of immediate school shut down and notification by email rather than emergency alerts.
Seconds after the tragedy occurred, fingers began pointing, criticism began flying, and public statements of apologies began flooding the media.
The assailant's sister, Ms Cho Sun-Kyun addressed the public in a statement, apologizing for her "brother's unspeakable actions." "It is a terrible tragedy for all of us," she said.
The president ofSouth Korea
So many people are apologizing on behalf of Cho’s murder rampage. But it was neither his parents who committed the crime, nor his sister. The school did not tell Cho to murder 30 of his peers and faculty, nor did the gun, nor didSouth Korea
Cho killed all those people because of an apparent mental illness. Individuals who display signs of mental health problems are generally viewed as “weirdos” in society. Take Cho: He was a loner who displayed deep grievances against his peers and signs of mental illness in his writing class. I guarantee you Cho was dismissed as a weirdo; ignored by society; fallen into the cracks.
And what was the result of this? His illness festered. His anger grew, until it became an uncontrollable monster that lashed out with a vengeance packed in 9 mm hand gun.
Seconds after the tragedy occurred, fingers began pointing, criticism began flying, and public statements of apologies began flooding the media.
The assailant's sister, Ms Cho Sun-Kyun addressed the public in a statement, apologizing for her "brother's unspeakable actions." "It is a terrible tragedy for all of us," she said.
The president of
So many people are apologizing on behalf of Cho’s murder rampage. But it was neither his parents who committed the crime, nor his sister. The school did not tell Cho to murder 30 of his peers and faculty, nor did the gun, nor did
Cho killed all those people because of an apparent mental illness. Individuals who display signs of mental health problems are generally viewed as “weirdos” in society. Take Cho: He was a loner who displayed deep grievances against his peers and signs of mental illness in his writing class. I guarantee you Cho was dismissed as a weirdo; ignored by society; fallen into the cracks.
And what was the result of this? His illness festered. His anger grew, until it became an uncontrollable monster that lashed out with a vengeance packed in 9 mm hand gun.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Cho-hammad? Islam: the new scapegoat
When I first heard of the Virginia Tech shootings, one of my responses was, “please God may the shooter not be a Muslim.” It would only add to the growing Islamophobia and anti-Islamism. The shooter turned out to be Cho Seung-hui, a Korean emigrant of 15 years.
Despite his heritage, Americans are questioning whether or not Cho was a Muslim and thus a terrorist due to a tattoo on his arm reading: Ishmael X.
Could it be that Cho, as an English major simply read the first page of Moby Dick? Or could it be he read the plethora of poetry alluding to Ishmael?
Or maybe he committed his crime for the reasons he himself claimed -- a vendetta against the "rich kids," the snobs etc.
The fact that this debate is even being brought up in the media and the blogosphere reveals the growing Islamophobia, anti-Islamism and ignorance towards Islam. Muslims today are scapegoats for anything bad that happens in the world. Sound familiar? Same thing happened to the Jews in the years leading up to WWII. Poor economy...the Jews, violence in the streets...the Jews, deteriorating moral fabric of society...the Jews. That was 50 years ago. Today, replace Jews with Muslims. Tomorrow, who knows whom it will be next.
Despite his heritage, Americans are questioning whether or not Cho was a Muslim and thus a terrorist due to a tattoo on his arm reading: Ishmael X.
Could it be that Cho, as an English major simply read the first page of Moby Dick? Or could it be he read the plethora of poetry alluding to Ishmael?
Or maybe he committed his crime for the reasons he himself claimed -- a vendetta against the "rich kids," the snobs etc.
The fact that this debate is even being brought up in the media and the blogosphere reveals the growing Islamophobia, anti-Islamism and ignorance towards Islam. Muslims today are scapegoats for anything bad that happens in the world. Sound familiar? Same thing happened to the Jews in the years leading up to WWII. Poor economy...the Jews, violence in the streets...the Jews, deteriorating moral fabric of society...the Jews. That was 50 years ago. Today, replace Jews with Muslims. Tomorrow, who knows whom it will be next.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Fighting Violence by Sitting In
Protests are a nuisance, often disrupting traffic, waking people from their drunken slumbers, and rarely achieving their immediate goals. But they do achieve a very important one: They raise awareness about violence in the world and offer a nonviolent solution.
On Tuesday April 10th two lawyers, immediately followed by 13 students carrying rations for three days, walked into the reception room of President Steven B Sample of the University of Southern California’s office. Prevented from going any further, the students put their stuff down and began to chant, “USC, sweat-free.” The students refused to leave until President Sample signed on to either the Designated Supplier Program or the Workers Rights Consortium, independent factory monitoring agencies.
The DSP and WRC ensure that factories give the people working there basic human rights such as living wages, reasonable hours, a harassment-free environment, breaks during the day, and perhaps most important, the right to unionize. Currently, USC is signed on to the FLA, the Fair Labor Association. However, this organization is a self-policing organization. That means the people on the FLA board are the same people who run the companies that the FLA monitors. That is the definition of a conflict of interest.
After six hours the protesters did not win their campaign. The vice president of student affairs, Michael Jackson, threatened all twelve students, (one was lost because an officer refused to let her return after a bathroom break had been negotiated) with immediate suspension.
Although the protesters did not achieve their goals, they did raise awareness of violence against women and children and provided a non-violent solution. Over 100 supporters rallied around the building, chanting, beating drums, calling for President Sample to “prove his creed” and not give in to “corporate greed.” Students who were onlookers became participants. Participants became hopeful, full of energy, believers in civil disobedience.
The gathering grew. The Los Angeles Police Department came to be sure no violence would break out. As the spectacle grew, a modest sit-in became news worthy. The student’s cell phones rang; the press was on the other end.
The next day the protest headlined the Daily Trojan. The story was picked up by the LA Times, Daily News, CBS, Associated Press and several other publications and including many blogs. Students, faculty, parents, universities, unionized factories in China and Indonesia flooded the administration with phone calls urging President Sample to adopt the DSP.
That is the success of civil disobedience. With a relatively minor infraction, only a few students managed to have their voices heard by hundreds of thousands of people. If only a few more were inspired, it could spark another protest, and so on, and awareness spreads without the use of violence.
Others argue that non-violent protest does not amount to any change. The only change, they say, is the hassle the protestors create for other students for that day. To those who argue that students should not have broken school rules, I say look up the meaning of civil disobedience. Look at the history of civil disobedience. African Americans did not achieve equal rights laws in even a matter of years. They are citizens of this country and it took decades and countless demonstrations. Still they face structural discrimination not more then a mile from the protest.
Eventually achieving labor rights for the third world may be he ultimate goal, but it cannot be achieved by one sweeping move. This protest, as I said, may be the inspiration for future demonstrations, and perhaps after years of building awareness, things will change. It requires great foresight, and great sacrifice.
Gandhi writes, “Violence is a tool for the weak, nonviolence a tool for the strong.” Violence isn’t always overt. It isn’t always guns pointed at people, bullets flying, and buildings being bombed.
I tell you this story because these students recognized that there is structural violence. Violence embedded in the structure of the global capitalist economy, yet masked by popular trends. Subjecting women to harassment is violence. Forcing children to sew clothes in lieu of education (so colleges can slap their logo on them and sell to their students) is violence.
And here we have students who could have taken the easy way out. They could wear the sweatshirts to fit in during football games or because they were on sale and looked cute or cool. But instead, these students chose the road less traveled; embarking on a journey to stand up for basic human rights and for women’s rights; standing up to their university.
On Tuesday April 10th two lawyers, immediately followed by 13 students carrying rations for three days, walked into the reception room of President Steven B Sample of the University of Southern California’s office. Prevented from going any further, the students put their stuff down and began to chant, “USC, sweat-free.” The students refused to leave until President Sample signed on to either the Designated Supplier Program or the Workers Rights Consortium, independent factory monitoring agencies.
The DSP and WRC ensure that factories give the people working there basic human rights such as living wages, reasonable hours, a harassment-free environment, breaks during the day, and perhaps most important, the right to unionize. Currently, USC is signed on to the FLA, the Fair Labor Association. However, this organization is a self-policing organization. That means the people on the FLA board are the same people who run the companies that the FLA monitors. That is the definition of a conflict of interest.
After six hours the protesters did not win their campaign. The vice president of student affairs, Michael Jackson, threatened all twelve students, (one was lost because an officer refused to let her return after a bathroom break had been negotiated) with immediate suspension.
Although the protesters did not achieve their goals, they did raise awareness of violence against women and children and provided a non-violent solution. Over 100 supporters rallied around the building, chanting, beating drums, calling for President Sample to “prove his creed” and not give in to “corporate greed.” Students who were onlookers became participants. Participants became hopeful, full of energy, believers in civil disobedience.
The gathering grew. The Los Angeles Police Department came to be sure no violence would break out. As the spectacle grew, a modest sit-in became news worthy. The student’s cell phones rang; the press was on the other end.
The next day the protest headlined the Daily Trojan. The story was picked up by the LA Times, Daily News, CBS, Associated Press and several other publications and including many blogs. Students, faculty, parents, universities, unionized factories in China and Indonesia flooded the administration with phone calls urging President Sample to adopt the DSP.
That is the success of civil disobedience. With a relatively minor infraction, only a few students managed to have their voices heard by hundreds of thousands of people. If only a few more were inspired, it could spark another protest, and so on, and awareness spreads without the use of violence.
Others argue that non-violent protest does not amount to any change. The only change, they say, is the hassle the protestors create for other students for that day. To those who argue that students should not have broken school rules, I say look up the meaning of civil disobedience. Look at the history of civil disobedience. African Americans did not achieve equal rights laws in even a matter of years. They are citizens of this country and it took decades and countless demonstrations. Still they face structural discrimination not more then a mile from the protest.
Eventually achieving labor rights for the third world may be he ultimate goal, but it cannot be achieved by one sweeping move. This protest, as I said, may be the inspiration for future demonstrations, and perhaps after years of building awareness, things will change. It requires great foresight, and great sacrifice.
Gandhi writes, “Violence is a tool for the weak, nonviolence a tool for the strong.” Violence isn’t always overt. It isn’t always guns pointed at people, bullets flying, and buildings being bombed.
I tell you this story because these students recognized that there is structural violence. Violence embedded in the structure of the global capitalist economy, yet masked by popular trends. Subjecting women to harassment is violence. Forcing children to sew clothes in lieu of education (so colleges can slap their logo on them and sell to their students) is violence.
And here we have students who could have taken the easy way out. They could wear the sweatshirts to fit in during football games or because they were on sale and looked cute or cool. But instead, these students chose the road less traveled; embarking on a journey to stand up for basic human rights and for women’s rights; standing up to their university.
The Public Intellectual
After reading an article from the Nation, The Future of the Public Intellectual, we debated the concept of the public intellectual in class. The debate made me question whether or not public intellectuals exist and if they do, how long they will continue to exist?
Now here is what I think: Intellectuals exist. Knowledge is available by the click of mouse. There are many people out there who are educated. They have studied through universities, or read on their own time. Yet they are not always in the public. Case in point: professors. John Donatich, in the article, also makes the point that “scholars and thinkers have retreated to the academy.”
Now there are also public figures that are not intellectuals. Take public figure Fukuyama who regularly contradicts himself in arguments. Samuel P. Huntington argues that Islam is the root of conflict in the post Cold War era: a blatantly racist, ethnocentric and prejudice theory.
And how does one discern between simply a public figure and an intellectual. Well, one would consult an intellectual, yet if the intellectual were not a public figure how would one know he or she is an intellectual. And if the figure were in the public eye, how would one know he or she is an intellectual?
Specifically, when a politician argues against an academic for having “extreme” views, which should the public follow? And if the public follows the politician, and a particular view becomes mainstream, does it become true? Does the academic’s view indeed become something “extreme”?
The circular logic makes me dizzy. If wordsmiths can validate any point, then it seems the public intellectual is already dead. How does one come to any conclusions when knowledge itself is subject to bias?
Now here is what I think: Intellectuals exist. Knowledge is available by the click of mouse. There are many people out there who are educated. They have studied through universities, or read on their own time. Yet they are not always in the public. Case in point: professors. John Donatich, in the article, also makes the point that “scholars and thinkers have retreated to the academy.”
Now there are also public figures that are not intellectuals. Take public figure Fukuyama who regularly contradicts himself in arguments. Samuel P. Huntington argues that Islam is the root of conflict in the post Cold War era: a blatantly racist, ethnocentric and prejudice theory.
And how does one discern between simply a public figure and an intellectual. Well, one would consult an intellectual, yet if the intellectual were not a public figure how would one know he or she is an intellectual. And if the figure were in the public eye, how would one know he or she is an intellectual?
Specifically, when a politician argues against an academic for having “extreme” views, which should the public follow? And if the public follows the politician, and a particular view becomes mainstream, does it become true? Does the academic’s view indeed become something “extreme”?
The circular logic makes me dizzy. If wordsmiths can validate any point, then it seems the public intellectual is already dead. How does one come to any conclusions when knowledge itself is subject to bias?
Art on the Wall of Hate
I really wanted to share these because many people in the United States have this view of the Palestinians as brainwashed Islamic fundamentalists. They inhumanely attack Israeli's by blowing themselves up. Atleast that is the image you get in the media. But there is a lot more to life in Palestine then Islamic fundamentalism and suicide bombings. There is art, music, film. There is life in Palestine and I think people tend to forget that, or never realize it in the first place.
Another reason I wanted to share these photos, is to show how Palestinians are fighting nonviolently against the occupation. These paintings are commentary on life in Palestine under occupation. Take the painting of the girl grasping a bundle of balloons that are raising her off her feet. I interpret this image to be a symbol of imagination. The wall is suffocating for Palestinian society, but with a little imagination symbolized in this image of girl floating away with her balloons (an image I know I have once imagined myself) a door is open, providing a breath of fresh air for the men, the women, the children who walk by it every day.
Painting is a form of nonviolent resistance. It is active, not passive. And it is difficult. Any artist will tell you that. It is easier to succumb to violence, but to have the courage to stand up against oppression with a paint brush, not knowing if you will fail or succeed is more frightening to me then jumping out of a plane from 18,000 feet in the air.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Olmert denies Right of Return
Of course Olmert denies Palestinians the right of return.What's one more broken international law to the list? Let’s see here. Continued illegal occupation of territories seized in during 1967 war…check. Use of excessive force in occupied territories…check. Constructing a "security fence" on Palestinian territory…check. Deliberately targeting civilians in Amy Goodman Interview with Sami Rasouli
What is really going in Iraq?
When it comes to Iraq everyone has an opinion. But it angers me because many times I see people arguing that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq to provide security amidst the civil war, or that U.S. troops should stay to train Iraqi forces to stabilize their own country. I always hear people thinking what they think is best but rarely do I hear people referring to what the Iraqi's want. Hell, I actually do not want to hear what anyone thinks should be the U.S. policy in Iraq except for Iraqi's themselves.
Who are we to step on to foreign soil, beat their people to a pulp, then ask, what should we do now? But what about Saddam Hussein, is not life better in Iraq without him? William Blum spoke on campus and had a great analogy, I'll paraphrase. Imagine a patient goes to a doctor with a knee problem and the doctor amputates his knee and then says, but hey, you don't have knee problem anymore!
Get the hell out of there. That is what the Iraqi's want. According to a World Public Opinion poll, 70% of Iraqi's want U.S. troops to withdraw within six months. Whatever happened to popular sovereignty? Popular sovereignty doesn't exist in the face of the American Empire, we seek only “democracy.”
When it comes to Iraq everyone has an opinion. But it angers me because many times I see people arguing that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq to provide security amidst the civil war, or that U.S. troops should stay to train Iraqi forces to stabilize their own country. I always hear people thinking what they think is best but rarely do I hear people referring to what the Iraqi's want. Hell, I actually do not want to hear what anyone thinks should be the U.S. policy in Iraq except for Iraqi's themselves.
Who are we to step on to foreign soil, beat their people to a pulp, then ask, what should we do now? But what about Saddam Hussein, is not life better in Iraq without him? William Blum spoke on campus and had a great analogy, I'll paraphrase. Imagine a patient goes to a doctor with a knee problem and the doctor amputates his knee and then says, but hey, you don't have knee problem anymore!
Get the hell out of there. That is what the Iraqi's want. According to a World Public Opinion poll, 70% of Iraqi's want U.S. troops to withdraw within six months. Whatever happened to popular sovereignty? Popular sovereignty doesn't exist in the face of the American Empire, we seek only “democracy.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)