Pics - NFS Bake Sale

Not-For-Sale club bake sale. Sometime in mid-March.

This was definitely a success, especially since we had less than 10 people working on it - baking and selling.

And I think I remember we burnt a couple of batches of cookies because we were just talking about random stuff and then... we forgot about the oven. Lol.

Note for future bake sales: cookies sell faster than cupcakes. And cupcakes sell faster if we bring the cupcakes to the people.

RE#12: WW24 - Accelerating Global Interaction, Since 1945

"I think every Barbie doll is more harmful than an American missile" - Rahimi, page 723.

A very provocative statement, said by an Iranian toy seller regarding his view on the Barbie doll. It's interesting to hear the perspective of people from the other side of the world. Barbie has become a staple in American culture and more importantly, a symbol of the American idea of beauty. The Iranians' creation of Sara and Dara, dolls who "help each other solve problems, have loving parents who guide them, and dress modestly", shows how much they value human dignity and self-respect as opposed to the values Americans display in our "precious Barbie" - the revealing clothes, the high heels, and her "close association with her longtime unmarried companian, Ken". Growing up with Barbie myself, I did remember thinking at that time that Barbie was perfect - she had the perfect hair, face, body, clothes, but it was never more to me than just a thought, an idea. She definitely has, though, the power to control more than just thoughts as millions of girls, in extreme cases, look up to her and try more and more to achieve that level of perfection. Especially since she's been introduced to us since we were little, she has all these years to influence us. Looking at it in that perspective, maybe I won't get my kids a Barbie - Sara and Dara sound pretty awesome right now.

The introduction brings up the point that Barbie and Sara/Dara are manufactured in the same country, probably in neighboring factories. It's funny that they are willing to produce things for 2 different countries that have such great opposing views and who also don't like each other very much.

Furthermore, with this reglobalization, a prominent characteristic of this 'era' is the increasing number and degree of wars. The way I explain it to myself is this: once you get to know your neighbors, arguments and fights ensue because you realize that, well, you don't like them very much. Some people may say that the course to peace is through knowing and understanding, but at the same time, that new knowledge you obtain by getting to know them can reveal a WHOLE bunch of things you didn't want to know - things that can compromise your respect or like or trust in them. Perhaps that is one of the main reasons that isolationism works so well. You're in your own world, I'm in my own world, and no one bothers us. But it's a lonely world when you're living in it by yourself.

I like how the book describes the United States as running an "informal empire". An informal empire, in this case, is one who exerts a great amount of influence over other countries, and where other countries make accommodations to meet the needs and demands of the "ruling" country, while each country under the "rule" still has complete control over their people/government. There's no physical takeover or annexation or colonization involved. That's a nice way to sum up the political/economic system of America. And I don't think it's a bad thing. It's a nice balance between getting what you need/want without superimposing upon others your own religious beliefs or killing their people and taking their land. Would this have been possible to do back in the day, during the British/Dutch colonization era? I'm guessing not since this informal American empire works on the foundation that the first globalization built - the spread of English, the technological/economic/political advancement of each country, and just the overall global development has grown about 10000%.

I'm writing this as I read, so I'll be BACK TO EDIT!
Blog edited @ 11:34 PM

RE#11: DGP 15 - Religious Fundamentalism

Religion causes war. I said this in a previous blog, that its ironic how religion is centered around what is holy, pure, and sacred, but yet they are linked to warfare and large-scale deaths. And now I know the terminology for this phenomena, or at least how the book describes it: religious fundamentalism. A strict adherence to traditional, religion-based thought. I can identify with some of their arguments - that perhaps a more God-centered community would foster a peaceful, righteous way of living. But in that view, how/who would decide what the "righteous" way is? Then at the same time, I would not 100% swear off modernity - technology, a degree of secularism, and the desire for improvement/advancement is not completely sinful and evil. Is it really possible for an entire country to live without these modern values and things in this century?

It's pretty unbelievable how radical people can get that they'd resort to violence, and how many different reasons they use to justify it. I believe though that some people just have a genuine concern for mankind, for those who don't believe the same things they do, and they genuinely don't want them to go to hell, or whatever punishment awaits those who are "lost" or unbelievers. But no matter what the reason is, I firmly believe that violence is definitely NOT the answer - it does no one good, it hurts/destroys/kills, and I just don't understand their logic.

And the most ridiculous thing is this: how are we supposed to deal with these 5000 religions? We can't just tell them "hush, play nicely guys, you wouldn't want your mom to see you doing that, would you?". These people are not children, and they each have their own beliefs that they strongly, strongly hold on to. Will there ever be a world where these 5000 religious coexist peacefully? It's not fun to live in fear everyday - fear of terrorist attacks or global threats, and even on a smaller scale, fear of persecution from friends and families, all because of your religion.

Reading Osama's interview was particularly interesting. The interviewer asked him whether his "target" of Americans referred to specific Americans, or the American military, or the Americans in Saudi Arabia. And his answer was: "...America has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. [...] Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children?" Meaning that his "target" is ALL Americans - military, women, children, grandparents, my American pets... That's frightening. Actually, to say "that's frightening" is an understatement. But what I got from this interview was a new perspective - I never heard the other side of this story, straight from the source himself. The media only told us to believe that "Osama is bad, he's a terrorist, he's wrong, we're right". Seeing the story from his side makes me think differently - he has a purpose, a goal, and a reason for doing these things, a reason based on his religion. If the tables were turned, what would we, the Americans, want to do to them to set this "right"?

I seem to be asking a lot of questions in this blog.

And I know this TERRIBLE but after all my years of history classes and even a couple of religion classes, I still have the hardest time keeping track of which countries are which religions and which religions have a beef with which religions. Jewish, Islam, Hindu, Muslim. Just last week after reading the chapter on India, I finally know that India is Hindu and Pakistan is Muslim. Now I just need to get the rest of the countries and religions matched.

RE#10: WW23 - Independence/Development of the Global South

Nelson Mandela. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mahatma Ghandi. Amazing people with incredible character, determination, and vision. The introduction to this chapter speaks about Nelson Mandela's struggles towards achieving equality in South Africa. What's awesome is that he not only fought against white domination, but also black domination. He didn't want one to solely rule the other, but for both to rule and live side by side. This reminds me of a quote about friendship: "Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend." Strange time to bring up this up, but it popped in my head just now as I was writing this response.

Back to Mr. Mandela. 27 years in prison, hard labor at a stone quarry, floor for a bed, bucket for a toilet, write/receive only 1 letter every 6 months - only a brief glimpse of the hell he had to endure to ensure a positive future for his people. And his punishments are totally ridiculous - 1 visitor a year for 36 minutes?! Whaaat. How did they even arrive at those numbers. I'd like to know the logic behind torturing someone like this because of his plea for equality. It wasn't like he was gonna blow their heads off or physically threatening them. This deprivation of basic human rights is preposterous. I just can't believe how much Nelson Mandela and all the other greats sacrificed and suffered for what they believe in, so much that they were willing to give up their life. The power of the human spirit, especially his human spirit, is crazy amazing. And just like Hitler, all it takes is one person to start a revolution.

If the Europeans didn't dominate the world and forcefully impose their views upon the natives, there wouldn't be this need for freedom wars and intense human sufferings for the sake of liberation. But then again, they planted the seed of industrialization and advancement into the entire world, and where would we all really be without that?

Jumping ahead to the section on "Experiments in Political Order", one of the arguments as to why democracy was initially rejected in Africa: "Others suggested that Africa's traditional culture, based on communal rather than individualistic values and concerned to achieve consensus rather than majority rule, was not compatible with the competitiveness of party politics." - pg 707. That's an interesting point, that one's natural culture affects and facilitates what economic and political system works best for them.

The chart on page 712-713 consumed most of time; countries from every continent are stacked up against each other in the areas of population growth, income, adult literacy, and life expectancy. My judgement about success definitely varies depending on which measure I use. Population growth would leave Russia in last place at a -1% rate and Saudi Arabia the winner at a 2.8%. The US and Japan blows everyone else away with their income of $41,000-37,000, while Africa barely makes $400. Literacy rates are pretty surprising as well. Russia has a literacy of 99%, which would assume that their adult population are well educated and well trained for high paying jobs that can secure a positive future for the country, yet their income-per-capita is only $3000, compared to US/Japan who also have a 99% literacy but with a $40000 income-per-capita. It's the communism, huh. It's no surprise that Japan has the highest life expectancy of 78/85 years, a few years higher than US's 75/80. The Japanese mastered the art of tea-making, which is one of their secrets to a long, healthy life. Also, their religion and culture seems to foster a much healthier life than as well.

RE#9: WW22 - Rise/Fall of World Communism

I'm not gonna lie - I've put off blogging about this chapter for a while because it's, well, about communism. Not the most exciting topic when you try to read about it and teach it to yourself. The class discussions, however, brought some life into the idea, especially when we talked about how countries who didn't take the appropriate "steps" (feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism) to a communistic economy and society failed. It was interesting to view Marx's theory through this perspective, that countries who skip capitalism aren't successful because their people haven't developed a class consciousness that develops through a capitalist economy.

Since America is currently capitalist, and with Obama's new healthcare plan that definitely acts as a transition into a more socialist economy, it seems we are on the right track. Should we decide to turn communist, Marx would be supportive because we have correctly progressed into that system. But there is no way that America would turn completely communist. We are too individualist - freedom and liberty are values that cannot be compromised in a country like America. I think our "utopia" lies halfway between capitalism and socialism - capitasocialism.

Back to the reading. The section on Communist Feminism was pretty interesting. Women of the 2010's, in America especially, have come a long way from the traditional days. The great thing about the WWI was how beneficial it was in terms of the liberation of women. I guess it takes a world war for the world to realize how capable women really are. Hmm... :) Things like the end of concubines, permission of women to remarry, and allowed maternity leave for workers - it's sad that there was once a time when women were deprived of these basic human rights.

One of my friends constantly makes it a point that whoever she marries MUST let her keep her maiden name as her last name instead of taking her husband's surname. And I don't blame her - her last name is verrry unique. And it is allowable/legal for women to do that - I guess she owes that to Communist Feminism and WWI. I'll be sure to tell her that tomorrow when I see her.

RE#8: WW21 - Collapse/Recovery of Europe

I've read over and over again how the Europeans successfully conquered this country and that country, but it wasn't until we did the map activity on Monday that I visually saw how dominant they were on a global scale: they literally took over the entire world, marking each continent with some European ideal or belief. That left me wondering - if I were the most dominant and powerful country in the world (particularly the British and the French) and I've just finished dominating all the other countries in the world, what do I do now? The sensible answer would be to just... leave everything be. I'd be content with my achievements and work on my own country's happiness and success. I guess that wasn't a viable option for the Europeans back in the day, since they obviously chose to further perturb neighboring nations with their territorial, political, and economic greed. And like the analogy used in class, a full house facilitates angry siblings, especially if all the siblings are power hungry monsters who aren't willing to share their toys.

A positive thing came out of World War I - female involvement. Since all the men were gone fighting the war, women were left with the responsibility to carry on their work. Women even had the opportunity to rebel and shake up tradition, with their new social opportunities, new fashion styles, and taking part in voting. It's hard to say that without the war and this shift in perspective and lifestyle, that women would not still be stuck in the household and reduced to childbearing/housecleaning machines.

I particularly enjoyed reading the section of World War II. Not because I enjoy or encourage the suffering and pain of the war, but because of how close this war hits to home. Literally. WW2 officially started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. And Pearl Harbor is literally my backyard, specifically the backyard of my high school. Every morning of my junior/senior year, I would park my car in the back parking lot and take the scenic walking route on my way to homeroom. I would take a few minutes to just stare into the harbor, with all the navy ships and the shouts and noise from the workers. While it may seem like just a bunch of old, rusting ships to the rest of my classmates, I always stare at that harbor in awe - knowing that 60 years ago, all hell broke loose on these very waters and grounds. Within a few minutes, bombs exploded, fires ensued, soldiers died for our freedom. Such epic history lay right before me. It's such a shame that the kids my age don't appreciate things like that.

By the way, the identity of Russia always confused me. Are they part of Europe or part of Asia? They way I see it, they seem much more closer to the Europeans in terms of physical features, cultural practices, and phonetics of their language. This is similar to the question I raised in an earlier blog about whether the Philippines is part of Asia or considered a Pacific Island. The dictionary describes Russia as "part of Northern Asia and eastern Europe", but I think they should officially list it as a European nation. Plus it would save the dictionary printers a few words, and therefore save ink, and therefore save money. And super therefore, the govt can use that extra money to fix the residence halls on this campus. Hey, positive thinking :) But really, I don't understand what the big deal is, or perhaps there was/is some major tension between Russia with both Asia and Europe that they don't want to fully associate themselves with either one.

RE#7: WW20 - Colonial Encounters

As I continue reading these chapters, I realize more and more what horrible things Europeans have done in the past. Not to be an anti or racist, it's just the way the history book explains it in reference to their colonialization/industrial/trade acts - when you read page after page of how Europeans brought diseases killing 90% of native populations, introduced alcohol and killer machinery whose smoke contributes greatly to the depleting ozone layer problem we have today, and their (somewhat selfish?) desire for political, territorial, religious conquest resulted in massacres, wars, drastic demographic changes ... it's hard NOT to say that the Europeans back then have, well, behaved horribly. Lol.

"Every soul was either shot or bayoneted... We burned all the huts and razed the banana plantations to the ground."- 1902, British soldier in East Africa.

This quote from page 594 prompted those thoughts up above. Especially with the Industrial Revolution added to the mix and the creation of guns, firepower, and weapons of mass destruction, the use of force and threats with these kinds of military tools against the innocent natives generate such dreadful images in my head. The picture I drew up while reading the 1902 quote was even more devastating. The natives live so humbly, their huts and their plantations are literally all they have. What kind of human being could have the heart (or lack of) to do those kinds of things to entire villages, communities, countries?

It is explained that the motives of the Europeans consists of many things, such as the need for resources, trading routes, and even a genuine belief that natives are in dire need of God, and some form of structure and law. But really, who are they to say "No, your ways are wrong and yes, our ways are right, so convert"? With the use of force and through introducing all those diseases, they've killed off most of the native peoples like in Australia and New Zealand (p. 592). Colonization and advancement is, of course, a beneficial thing and the Europeans may have argued that what they are doing will immensely benefit the natives - it's for the greater good. But how are the new Europeans ways supposed to help the greater good if the greater good is dead and gone? Furthermore, they've caused a severe disruption of cultural practices that have peacefully and successfully fostered and governed individual lands for centuries.

It makes me wonder though: would these lands be better off without European influence and colonization? It's hard to argue against such things though, since our adaptation to those ways and the luxuries we are used to as a product of them are so ingrained in our everyday lives that it is impossible to think of a life without it. Colonization, in our eyes now, was and is necessary to sustain the comfortable life we live now.

The conversion of certain African/Asian states to European colonization differed in each case, but a successful one was in the case of Ethiopia and Siam who could avoid complete European takeover through their strong diplomatic and negotiating skills.  Also in the Mughal Empire territories where the people had nothing and there was an "absence of any overall sense of cultural or political unity" (p. 592), it seems right and even necessary for outside European powers to colonize it. It's the stable, rightfully governed, peaceful states that should be left alone, or at least consist of peaceful negotiations that don't include killing off most of its native population.

The global world would be pretty boring if each country had the same European culture, government, and people.