The Impacts of Political Geography

So, when I first started this class, back in January, I didn't know much about global politics. To be Honest, I got my news from the E channel. Pathetic yes, but true. I was more concerned about how fat Kim Kardashian was getting with her unexpected pregnancy than what is going on in the rest of the world. OK, so I have a BBC app on my phone (which i rarely use)....but that is about as connected to the news as I get. I always used the excuse of "It's so gruesome and depressing, why would I want to watch the news? and even if I did, its totally biased". Well as truthful as that is, it is always important to be informed as to what is going on in the world.
The premises of political geography is to shed light on human interaction of spatially uneven outcomes of political processes and the ways in which political processes are themselves affected by spatial structures. This includes the inter-relationship between a nation state and its citizens, local and national elections, war and conflict, terrorism, historical and religious regions, religion, colonialism, hegemonic global roles and border impacts. The god father of Political Geography is Halford Mackinder. Mackinder developed his theory of the geographical pivot of history, which states that the world will be divided into a heartland consisting of eastern Europe, a world island made up of Eurasia and Africa, peripheral islands and the new world. His theory said that whoever controlled the heartland, controlled the world. Territorial arrangement and its correlating political forces, along with its interaction with other groups or countries is what defines their socioeconomic status. Mackinder believed this was eastern Europe, the global hegemon. little did Mackinder know that the big bad wolf, America, was about to dominate.

All in all, I learned alooooot in this class and this is probably the best and most interesting class I have ever taken at Florida State. Seriously. I not only learned alot about global politics and how geography affects countries, but as well as how I personally view America versus the rest of the world, along with my political positioning and how i incorporate my moral values. I now watch the news as well.....which shocks my mom haha.

War and Conflict

Most people don't want to go to war. War is messy, devastating and expensive. War exists due to built up tensions between feuding nations, and eventually an event will happen that pushes the envelope too far. this is known as "the flashpoint". This event is what shifts the public's opinion and justifies the regime to respond with violence against the group responsible for their actions. Flashpoints change global perspectives. Neo-conservatives argue that the "enemy is out there, and as the global hegemon, it is our duty to identify them and surpress any other violent acts that may ensue". This means foreign wars, NEVER in our homeland, preemptive actions before attacks ensue, especially on American soil and war is inevitable....unless we, the hegemon, do something first. American are not one to "react", we carefully calculate our actions with force, scare tactics and out smarting the enemy before they even have time to blink.
The typical, and realistic side of war is that it encourages violence, which produces mass amounts of deaths on both fighting sides. However, not all is bad in times of war. Many believe that war stimulates the economy, builds national pride, decreases over population, gaining of territory or ending oppression in dictatorial states.
It is much easier to make a con's list of coarse. this includes but is not limited to: seperation of loved ones, death, destabalizing a country, destruction of cities/farms/property/etc, economic struggle, genocide, cultural cleansing, colonization, terrorism, expensive, nuclear weapons, disease, etc. The list can go on and on.
I believe, as much as I hate to say this, that war is not only inevitable but a way for a nation state to gain or regain independence, democracy and or over throw its government. NO ONE likes death (unless your a sick F***) but it is apart of every day life, as sad and tragic as that is.

Now something that was mentioned in class that caught my attention was the picture that the group "Annonymous" posted of Kim Jung Un that went viral in North Korea. Oh man, where do I start? First off....WTF. Yes...we get it. Its funny...but that was insanely inappropriate and childish. As an American, I truly felt embarrassed looking at that picture. Why are we poking at a country that already hates us and is clearly insane/starving/helpless? WHY?! This group "Annonymous" is acting like an American bully who sits behind a computer gorging on sticky buns and redbulls (who probably has never even traveled outside the U.S.), toying around with pictures all day long, with nothing better to do, instead of working, while I am working and probably paying taxes out the butt so they can sit there on the computer all day and fool around. must be nice....assholes. Don't you have anything better to do? I mean seriously. Damn liberals are always complaining how we should be "helping the weak, feeding the needy, medicare and food stamps for everyone, etc", well then how about actually helping the most poverish, oppressed and starving nation in the world?!?! Your poking fun at a "Oh grande, amazing, superb, chosen one, elite, awesome leader" and a small group of elites, while the rest of the country is extremely oppressed and people are dying every second.
I just think it was incredibly in appropriate and alarming that American citizens would go so far as to make a ridiculous photo like that. Shame on you, who ever you are. What message were you trying to send? Because all you did was light a fire under Un's ass to act upon terrorizing the U.S. (well...I mean I don't know if he will get very far, his attempts have been pathetic thus far...but still).

YOU DON'T TOY WITH A TODDLER WHO JUST GOT A SHINY NEW GUN.

terrorism

I was sitting in my 6th grade natural science class, in Coral Springs FL, when 3 soliders walked in and took the teacher aside. My classmates and I were all curious what was going on as the look of shock and fear spread across our teachers face. My teacher walked over to the television and turned it on to the news, something that was very out of the ordinary. Usually turning the on T.V. meant a lazy movie day when our teacher didn't feel like preaching to a roudy class of 11-12 year old kids. Something was different today; We were all uneasy. As our teacher turned to the news, thick clouds of smoke, screaming people, soliders and firefighters filled the T.V. It looked like a battle scene from a movie. We sat quietly, but none of us understood what was going on. I slowly raised my hand to break the silence. "Whats going on Ms. Dover?", she slowly and carefully replied that the Untied States was under attack. Fear and terror quickly crept in all of our young minds. I began to think what "under attack meant" and why were there soliders? Am I in danger? Where are my parents? What about my little brother? Am I safe here at school?

Thousands of questions ran through my head, yet I still was unsure how to comprehend everything that was going on. About an hour after the attack, a solider escorted me to the front of the school, where my mom, and several other panicked parents were picking up their kids. 

The car ride home was silent. Even my 8 year old brother, who is normally irritating and always doing something buggy was quiet. Once upon arrival at our house, my dad was already sitting in front of the television, motioning us to sit down with him. We all, as a family, sat there in silence and watched as they replayed the twin towers crumble to shambles, while millions of New York civilians ran around like chicken with their heads cut off. Some people were on cell phones with their loved ones, other helping firefighters, but most in just shear panic, staggering to any safe place they could find. The worst of the scenes was watching people jump from the twin towers. Complete and utter hopelessness ran through their lifeless bodies as they pummeled down to the ground to meet their fate.

I will never forget September 11th 2001. It was a day when I learned the meaning of fear. This type of fear is not what I was accustom to; Like when my dad would jump out of the closet and scare me, or a spider on the floor, or a scary movie, or halloween tricks, or fear of jumping from a high tree or even fear of punishment when I did something bad. No this fear was different. This fear was something even my parents couldn't hide. 

Instilling fear within a population or group is the premise of what terrorism is. Terrorism is a systematic and tactical organized group or individual which use violence through criminal acts as a means of coercion. These violent acts are usually politically, religiously or ideologically driven to deliberately target and victimize non-combatant civilians, oftening leading to many deaths and eventually war. Terrorists provoke fear in hopes of establishing symbolic terrorism to oppress a nation or group to gain media attention in order to influence a short or long term goal for maximum economic damage and psycological affect. 

Basically, they are radical assholes. 

Whether you believe it or not, terrorism works. there have been many many forms of terrorism; bus bombings, ruining villages, sending threats of nuclear weapons, military force such as kent university or killing a global leader. The point of 9/11 was to send a message of hatred. Welllll.....we got it and then did something about it. It worked because it provoked a war. Besides the war, we still feel the effects of it today; Such as the airport, with its intense and tight security, phone tapping, american flags are EVERYWHERE!, cultural impacts, economic devastation, fear, racism against anyone who even looks middle eastern (racial profiling), islamic awareness, radicals are acknowledged and known, military dependency, strengthened border protections, the global hegemon is challenged and the world was nervous, I mean the list can go on and on.  The point is... we have all tightened our belts and acknowledged terrorism. AND THATS THE POINT OF TERRORISM, TO MAKE A STATEMENT. However, the U.S. as the global hegemony, shut that shit down real quick. Our resilience was quick and our efforts to terminate terrorism was a success (kinda). 

role of the U.S. in the world

America is a special country. the success of the U.S. has been cemented by the foundations of our founding father who set forth an experiment in self government and declared independence for all. the U.S. declares equality and liberty for all human under the rule of law, cherished by the people, for the people. does this mean that the U.S. holds a special seat with the rest of the world? do american values affect the rest of the world? or do these values make people hate us even more with our western ways?

today i believe our role, thus far, has been to defend the american constitution with the common interest of protecting the people along with seeking peaceful relations with other countries. i believe america feels they have to uphold a sense of morality, social justice and promote economic growth with other countries (even though sometimes we suck at it ourselves). america's goal is to advance as much as possible and oppress other countries from surpassing us (another great american characteristic).

one subject, that is touchy for me, is womens rights. we had a brief yet intense debate among the class. womens rights within the united states is no where close to where it needs to be, however it is the leading country in the world that advocates womens independence. without the advancement and complete liberation of women, we can not expect to advance to our fullest potential. the argument said in class was "women who decide to dismiss furthur education and jump into starting a family, becoming a housewife, how do americans look at those women? how are those women viewed in our society?" although i am all for the right to choose your own destiny, i can help but feel there is a lack of knowledege with these women. if only our women and young daughter were furthur informed on the possibilities of their capabilities, i believe we would see an amazing increase in womens independence.

by dissecting the gender inequalities, men's patriarchy and the mysogynistic views that oppress women in this nation is to open our eyes to the social stratification and internal colonization that has been pinning women down for centuries. Americans have constructed womens identities around an image of what a typical women is like. these gender roles not only affect women but men as well. gender construction is formed on the basis of the roles in which you play in society, which in turn is our individual roles, or commonly known as our "identities". these gender roles assigned to women  throughout history  have been re-written by men and has set the tone for the underlying bigotry within this country, which is apparent and pumped into our everyday lives. this is to keep a patriarchal status quo to belittle womens abilities and maintain an attitude, behavior and intolerance towards women. this irrational fear is nothing more than than hypocritical justification and realization of social hierarchies and privledges bestowed upon men, by men. by defaulting men we are able to hide, protect and displace accountability.when men suffer, women suffer. i like to call it the internal war of testosteron. just as it is difficult for men to question their foundations on which their fragile egos lye, it is even more infuriating when a women challenges it. our society has set up and reward and punishment system through peers, media and social institutions to question what is "appropriate".

my point is if we keep on conditioning women and deny the information available to women that there is much more to a women than her womb, we can then start to make great advances and possibly solve world problems.  :)


ok could go on and on.....but i wont.

colonialism

colonialism is the expansion, establishment and maintenance of a nations soverneighty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor and markets. the term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizers have superior ways of industrialized practices than those of the locals. advocates of colonialism argue that colonial rule benefits the colonized by developing the economic and political infrastructures necessary for moderization and democracy. colonialsm also creates a protective, big brother, saftey net for smaller countries and allowing dependency for incapable countries. there are many forms of colonialism:
settlers colonialism- involving large scale immigration, often motivated by religous, political or economic reasons.
exploitation colonialism- involving fewer colonists and focuses on acess to resources for export, typically the metropole. this includes trading posts as well as larger colonies where colonists would constitute much of the political and economic administration, but would rely on indigineous resources for labor and material. prior to the end of the slave trade and widespread abolition, when indigenous labor was unavailable, slaves were often imported to the americas, first by the spanish empire and later by the dutch, french and british.
plantation colonies- considered expolitation and powers would either utilize different territories depending on various social and economic factors as well as climate and geographic conditions.
surrogate colonialism- involves settlement project supported by colonial powers, in which most of the settlers do not come from the mainstream of the ruling power.
internal colonialism- the notion of uneven structural power between a nation state. the source of exploitation comes from within the state.

the benefits of colonialsm include:
gain of natural resources
western medicine
education
infrastructure
political participation
religous freedoms
accelerated nation building
exploration of land
revenue
trading
safety
creating new job
better agricultural methods

NO COLONIALSM MEANS NO INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION. WHATS GOOD FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS WHAT MATTERS, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.

the cons of colonialsm are obvious and tragic:
human trafficking
exploitation of peoples, land and resources
its time consuming and expensive
slavery
brings on disease
cultural cleansing

the truth is, anytime there is major revolutionary change, people are filtered out. people die, contract disease, etc. however the foundation that the colonists are buling are ones that will solidify a better life for your children and those to come many years after. colonialism is also an investment. you reap what you sow. global economic benefit happens when investment in capital occurs, often involving not so pretty stuff, such as slavery. colonialism is also at its own pace. only through time can a nation grow. those being colonized usually arent even aware of the resources available to them, thus going to waste. western modernization is able to educate and capitalize on these precious resources. colonialism doesnt just benefit the colonizers but the colonized as well. colonialism allows for developing countries to set forth a democracy and implement practices of advanced thinking and doing.

examples of successful colonialism is so apparent today. look at the united states. america gained advance modernization piece by piece over time. the urge for expansion-although at the expense of others, such as the native americans- is in the history of the united states itself.

although the notion of colonialism is unpopular, there is no deny without it, there would be no expansion or development crucial to our way of life right now. it is unnatural for humans not to be curious and explore.

to say that colonialism has no benefit is undermining the bigger picture itself.

electoral college

ok..........so I hate the electoral college. VOTING IN AMERICA SHOULD BE ABOUT THE PEOPLES VOTE!!! omg what a hard concept to grasp?!?!
The electoral college is a bunch of old white guys, who sit around and pick who will be president and vice president, "taking in consideration of the popular vote". These final decision makers are elected by popular vote state-by-state. There are 538 electors. The electoral college has been around since 1787, an outdated process that needs to change. It was originally set forth to equalize the need of opposing views of direct democracy versus Representative democracy.
In 1969, our country came the closest it ever has to abolishing the electoral college because they were upset of the turn out with Nixon versus Humphrey. The popular vote was never the basis for choosing a president, rather to make the people feel they are apart of a government in which they have say in. This only discourages the people from participation and voting turnout. The electoral college disfranchises all groups of people and diminishes all incentives to part take in the most patriotic duty we are able to be apart of every four years. There is also the disadvantage for any third party that is not of the main republican or democratic party, even if an independent has ideas that appease to the majority of Americans. Although it does promote stability with our current two-party system and isolates election problems. The electoral college is overly and excessively complicated as well, and it doesn't need to be. LET THE PEOPLE CHOOSE: one person, one vote (those that should vote, which you can read about in my other blog labeled "who should vote").

who should be allowed to vote?

Who should vote in the United States? Well….frankly, not many. As it stands today, everyone can vote, unless you are incarcerated, which you then forefitted your rights when you committed a crime under the laws of the United States. In 1920, women were granted the rights to vote during women’s suffrage act and shortly after in 1965 African Americans could vote as well. The 15^th amendment is an act that prohibits states from imposing any voting qualifications or prerequisites to vote, or standard, practice or procedure. In simple terms no one is denied a vote, regardless of color, gender, sexuality, etc.

Personally, I think voting should be regulated. The vote should be restricted to only those who pay taxes and a standardized test that shows a minimum capability of knowledge about the candidates running, which is a huge majority of the people in the United States anyways. Many would argue that all men are created equal, which is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I believe everyone is BORN equal, however not everyone earns equality. Everyone SHOULD be treated with respect and dignity but not everyone deserve equally as much as someone who works their tail off versus the person who commits crimes or exempts themselves from paying taxes. There should be no voting rights for those who freeride. Simple as that. If a person is dependent on welfare (this is excluding those who truly cannot work) and I am a working citizen, why is my vote just as important as someone who is jobless and I pay my taxes to fund their mundane lifestyle? I vote because I refuse to let this country become a socialistic pit hole. Your banking on the pure merit of people’s judgement. What happens when uneducated people vote? We let the rot and stupidity spread? Or what about the superficial aspects? Just because someone is young, better looking, a different race or excellent speech skills does not make that person a fit president! What does the candidate favor? What policies does he advocate? What is his background like? His upbringing? How many people in this country truly know what is going on? Or rather how many people actually voted for a candidate solely based on great campaign advertisement? Is there a correlation between voters economic class and which party they follow? Absolutely.  So does that mean they just need a good face to put there? Your vote should be based on how you live, and how the president’s policies will affect you and your finances. You don’t vote based on what’s emotionally appealing or pleasant sounding and this notion of sympathy towards excluding people from voting is also just your emotional appeal. I think there should be a simple citizens qualification test to demonstrate a basic knowledge of skills of the candidates that are running, and that of their manifestos of their hopeful terms. It shouldn’t be complicated and none of your rights would be sacrificed, only time. This in turn would hopefully weed out the ill-informed and truly focus on a politically based campaign. Some might be concerned that this may discourage many from voting at all, but if you truly cared about your vote and your future finances why wouldn’t you? Voting is more than just a personal expression, it is your engagement in this countries political processes. If one cannot be so bothered as to get off the couch and make an effort for their democracy, do they really deserve a say in my life as well? Hell no. Voting is a privilege that should be earned, not granted.

With this being said, there is nothing morally wrong with being ignorant about politics. Seriously. You don’t HAVE to vote. No one is going to penalize you for abstaining. In fact I congratulate those who don’t vote because they felt uninformed. I am a victim of miss information as well. I did not vote locally or about any new and upcoming policies because I did not educate or read up on them. I will not vote on something I don’t know about. Wearing an “I Voted” sticker does not make you a good citizen of this country but rather participant in a grand tradition of democracy. That’s why people vote. They have an intrinsic motive to vote even though it takes time and gas. The want for a better democracy is the individualistic incentive. If this holds true, your voting because you care about your lifestyle and economic status, not the washable shirt with a sticker on it. Voting does not make you an American. In no way shape or form does voting hold a self-worth. Therefore, don’t vote, just to vote. Voting is an investment in your future. Educate yourself and responsibly vote.