Modern American Cinema 3: Die Another Decade

The Nigerian film industry, as we discussed in class, seems to reflect in some way the national identity of Nigeria. There is an emphasis on storytelling, fast paced dialogue, and religion/cultist rituals. In the discussion afterwards, we tried to determine whether or not the US film industry still reflects our own national identity. 

If you asked me to list words that define the stereotypical American identity (and let’s assume that you do) I would tell you that the American identity consists of rugged individualism, underdog stories, perseverance, innovation, and optimism. American Cinema is chocked full of all of the above (especially underdog stories). What, if any of those ideals continue to make it to the silver screen?

It is disingenuous to characterize American Cinema as explosion after explosion, or crude joke after crude joke. Its true: Transformers has a distinctly American feel. The American military plays a crucial role in all of the movies, and to say that there are explosions and fight scenes would be an incredible understatement. In the end, the bad guys (whoever they are) lose, the guy gets the girl, the buff and attractive American Special Ops forces nod knowingly and look off into the distance, uniforms torn and faces smudged from a hard days work shooting alien robots. It is an American movie in every sense of the word.

Where then, does The Social Network fit into the American film industry? The movie, a profile of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, is almost completely driven by its  characters and dialogue. There are no CGI explosions, only a strong story and a powerful script. The rapid fire delivery of lines create a tense, unrelenting drive to the film. At the end of the movie, we are forced to admire the tenacious Zuckerberg, who essentially singlehandedly changed the way that much of the world interacts. His innovation and know-how has pushed him straight to the top of the socio-economic pyramid, past social and class obstacles-- a true underdog story. And though everything seems to be going poorly for Mark in the second half of the movie, the movie ends on a lonely yet hopeful note. It is an American movie in every sense of the word.

America is too diverse and globalized a nation to have a clear cut “American” style of movie. Unlike the Nigerian film industry, which pretty much focuses on dramatic dialogue driven releases, the American film industry produces the widest array of genres, sub genres, and movies that are somewhere in between. In a society as diverse as America, there are markets for just about every type of movie. And through major studio distribution, there are markets overseas and around the world for just about every type of movie.

Yet even though the American Film Industry is marketing their product not just for Americans but for a global audience, the themes and stories remain rooted in American storytelling. The fact that they resonate with a wider audience is a bonus. The under dog story; perseverance and hard work-- these are themes that every culture values. I would argue that commercialism and CGI explosions do not change the core stories and ideas that are at the heart of the bulk of American Cinema. Transformers and The Social Network may seem diametrically opposed. They may be at opposite ends of the critical spectrum. At a glance they may seem to have nothing in common. Yet at their core they are distinctly American films-- I could not ever imagine either film being made in Bollywood or Nollywood. The stories they tell, the themes they address, they are American to the core. You may have to search a little harder, but American Cinema still reflects the very best (and in some cases) the worst that America has to offer.

A Wealth of Sustainability

20 miles from downtown Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, a city has literally risen out of the desert. It is a city meant to be the standard bearer for sustainable and environmentally conscious living, as well as a PR coup for the U.A.E.. Masdar is a staggering $20,000,000,000 monument to the ideals of “green” living: it has a 54 acre field of photovoltaic solar panels. wind towers to keep temperatures cool at street level, and the architects have even done away with the car-- transportation is managed by underground tunnels of electric pod-like vehicles. 

Everything that the lead designer, Norman Foster, has constructed was designed with a purpose. The aforementioned wind towers are hollow, bringing the desert winds down to street level. Narrow streets (built that way to lower the amount of sunlight) are placed at an angle to the sun’s east-west trajectory, creating maximum shade and funneling the wind tunnel’s outdoor “air conditioning” efficiently. Foster’s team estimates that these designs can lower the temperature at street level by 30-60 degrees. The city will need a quarter of the power that a similar sized community requires (all of the power will be supplied by sustainable energy sources) while its water needs (always a crucial concern on the Arabian Peninsula) will be 60% lower. All of the water will be supplied by a solar powered desalinification plant.

Masdar itself is built above the desert floor. Raising the city 23 feet off the desert floor allows the city (and the wind towers) to catch desert breezes. It also allows a transport network to honeycomb beneath the city. Foster and his team designed driverless GPS controlled electric cars that can transport passengers anywhere they need to go in the city. Groves of trees have been planted in the areas around the city, to help prevent sand and dust storms. Solar panels coat the rooftops, a light rail line connects Masdar to Abu Dhabi (in fact, there are no cars allowed in the city at all; garages are outside the raised plateau of Masdar City). Apart from residential and commercial sections of the city, the neighborhoods are dotted with sustainable energy foundations, labs, and think tanks.

Images of Masdar conjure images of a sustainable energy enthusiast’s Disneyland; Foster himself made the comparison, saying, “Disneyland is attractive because all the service is below ground,” he said. “We do the same here — it is literally a walled city. Traditional cars are stopped at the edges.” In his enthusiasm, Foster lets slip a major flaw with this utopian project: It is a walled city. 

Masdar City proper (the actual raised city) covers only 2.3 square miles. While Foster claims that it has nothing to do with social elitism, it is hard not to notice the gated nature that the city projects. Masdar can house only 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses. It is designed to be a hub for clean tech and renewable resource firms, and the people who work for them. Much of the city is earmarked for these sustainable energy companies and their employees, leaving even less room for the average working family. Foster has created the ultimate gated community: one where you can’t even intrude by driving through. 

The frustrating thing about Masdar is that the design is so meticulously perfect, with each feature flowing into and interacting with another (for example the wind towers funneling their cool breezes into carefully angled narrow streets) that it really is an achievement of sustainable architecture. The city, much like our SIS building, was built with a zero carbon footprint. Unfortunately, most of the world will never see it; this is a city built by rich environmentalists for rich environmentalists. 

Moving on from the flaws of Masdar itself, we run into even more damning problems when considering what impact it may have on creating more sustainable cities. Zero Carbon footprints are an enormous financial commitment; can the developing world make that commitment while trying to house hundreds of thousands, not fifty thousand? Can they do away with cars like Foster so ambitiously did? Can any nation besides the very wealthiest even begin to tackle a “sustainable city?” And can any people besides the very wealthiest even begin to look at living there? 

There are glaring flaws to Masdar City, but the architectural and technological prowess used to construct it have not gone unnoticed. Foster has provided an admittedly innovative example of what a sustainable city can look like. He gave us an answer to the bane of city planners (cars, and more specifically where to put them and how to get them from Point A to Point B), even if that answer resulted in a walled off community. I would expect to see techniques and ideas that Foster implemented in Masdar to be used in future sustainable cities and environmentally friendly building designs. Masdar’s renewable energy focus can even help retrofit existing cities. The trash incinerator outside of Masdar, for example, harnesses the hot air rising from the incineration process to generate extra power for the city. A bastardization process is likely, as various architects and city planners use different features of Masdar’s design to upgrade and improve their own cities.

The one truly hopeful result that comes out of the Masdar project is scattered across the shady streets of the city. As renewable and sustainable technology companies, labs, and think tanks move in, we are going to see a veritable constellation of renewable energy talent and thinkers concentrated within the walls of Masdar. The city will host the headquarters of the International Renewable Energy Agency and the M.I.T. sponsored Masdar Institute of Science and Technology. Having so many specialists living in one enclave will yield great benefits. The next breakthrough in building materials, or solar panels, or some other form of sustainable energy may come from the walled off confines of Masdar City. There is a chance that Masdar can help make other cities like itself cheaper and easier to build.  Maybe Masdar City will be the first in a wave of sustainable cities and architecture, a rough prototype that will be improved upon. Until that revolution happens, the issues that Masdar tackles and the causes it stands as an example to will have little impact on the creation of a sustainable cities. Until we can find a way to make the technology used in Masdar available for all, most of the world will remain walled off from Foster’s utopian vision.

Between Fighting the Last War and Fighting a New One

Let’s start off this blog post with an example: During World War I, British and French analysts noticed that the German army was shrinking the size of its regiments on the Western Front, creating smaller groups of soldiers. The Allies took this as evidence that the Germans were losing and that the British and French were winning; their training taught them that the number of regiments and battalions were the most important indication of fighting strength. If the Germans were downsizing their Regiments, then they must have simply being trying to hide their weakness.

In reality, the Germans had made a leap in analyzing warfare. What was more important was the amount of firepower each group of soldiers had. Each of the smaller companies that they fielded were equipped with more machine guns, more artillery, and more firepower available than any of their counterparts on the other side of no man’s land. Those small companies were more deadly than any other armed force in history. The British and French were “fighting the last war,” which means that they were ignoring leaps in technology and tactics and were instead focusing on what was successful and important in the last major European War. The United States, and other major military powers, have run into a similar problem that the Allies did in 1915: we are using outdated classifications and techniques to fight wars where those measurements and tactics are no longer needed.

Joshua Goldstein is right when he tells us that the major armies of the world are no longer fighting. The age of two countries declaring war and then deploying hundreds of tanks and hundreds of thousands of soldiers against each other is likely extinct. The closest any nation has come to this since World War II was the Gulf War, which, with the  extreme lack of parity between the coalition forces and Iraq, was scarcely even a war at all. 

The problem is that the United States military is built to fight precisely this kind of extinct war. For all of our technological advancements, our concept of warfare is still tanks rolling across a border, of boots on the ground engaging another nation with its own tanks and its own boots. The US Armed Forces is still very very good at this type of warfare-- one need only look at the rapid defeats of the Iraqi army in both Gulf Wars to see that the United States can outclass virtually any other nation’s military.

Issues arise, however, when the US military is forced to engage combatants that aren’t a nation. We’ve been at war in Afghanistan for over ten years; operations are finally drawing down in Iraq after eight years of fighting. We’ve been fighting in the Middle East longer than we fought Nazi Germany. Why is it that the most powerful armed force in history is having difficulty defeating groups of non state militants?

The United States (and the militaries of most states) are having difficulty waging effective wars because they are applying solutions of symmetrical warfare to the problems of asymmetrical war. States don’t have the tools to fight a loosely organized militant resistance group.

Just like the German Soldiers in World War I, the ability to apply deadly force has been personalized further. One suicide bomber can kill 30 or 40 people with a home made bomb made out of nails and fertilizer. The ability for a single person to kill has never been easier. Combatants don’t need a tank to destroy an American vehicle; now they can plant a mine or a makeshift bomb on the side of the road, detonate it while a convoy passes by, and then shuffle away. There are no divisions to engage or positions to capture, no enemy formations to direct our tanks at. 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been an especially painful learning experience for the United States military. I think we are finally beginning to change our expectations and our strategies to reflect the shifting face of war. In the past years we’ve refocused our resources on special forces and intelligence. Our endgame in Afghanistan is no longer about defeating the Taliban’s foot soldiers but finding and capturing or killing their leaders. Drone Warfare has been steadily increasing the pressure on the Taliban over the past 4 years, wreaking havoc on their chain of command. Our military is evolving to a force that can fight both symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare. The increased importance of C.I.A. was apparent when the then Secretary of Defence General David Petraeus and the Director of the C.I.A. Leon Panetta swapped positions. One of the main rationales for the position change was that Leon Panetta could bring his expertise from the C.I.A. and implement it in the U.S. Armed Forces as a whole. 

When the United States entered Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, we were every bit as misguided as the British and French generals who flat out ignored that artillery, not individual soldiers, had become the key weapons of war. The shift that the American military has encountered over the past decade is an even more radical one, a shift from the massive wars of the 19th and 20th centuries to the smaller, but just as dangerous conflicts of the 21st century. The United States is trying to equip itself with the tools to deal with 21st century warfare, but we need to hurry up.  The US has been fighting “the last war” since the 1940’s; and we have some catching up to do.

WTO. Race to poverty.

Recently there are a lot of discussions about the WTO, its enlarging and members. Especially the role and effectiveness of the organization discussed. This topic is also relevant in my country due to current process of joining. So I decided to analyze it.

The World Trade Organization was founded in 1995 with the aim of liberalization of international trade and regulation of trade and political relation between members. The WTO is successor of temporary organization the GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), and includes agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Service (GATS), TRIMS (the agreement on Investments), Agreement on Subsidies and etc. The basic ideology is the theory of “free trade”. (wto.org)

Currently the WTO is responsible for developing and implementing new trade agreements and also monitor compliance of agreements by all members. The WTO is not part of the United Nations and do not obey the laws of the UN, it is states’ responsibility. But in general it should have positive effect on economies, but in fact, the opposite happens.

Even that the WTO slogan says: “WTO eliminate the poverty”, poverty in the countries who joined the WTO has increased according to UNCTAD reports. (UNCTAD) The share of developing countries in the world trade system has not grown and even fell in some cases despite the promises before entering the organization. For example, underdeveloped countries’ share has decreased. (UNCTAD Report 2002)

The WTO keeps repeating that the only way to develop the economy and industry is “to be open” to the world market in the partnership with the IMF and the World Bank. (Schott) (Schott) However, this ideology of “free market” hides the fact that industrialization in the countries, that are considered developed and rich today, was conducted by the model of protectionism and a state played the important role in trade, investment and subsidies. Even the successes of industrialization in the Asian countries аs Malaysia, Singapore and China, occurred not because of “free market” but because of the strong role of the state and government. In contrast, Asian countries that opened their markets to foreign capitals, got in an economic crisis.

The WTO right is above the national laws and provides the only possible path of the economy. WTO members are obliged to liberalize, privatize, deregulate ( to open access to TNCs and banks) sphere of its economy (Bourgeois). A state that has acceded to the WTO cannot just change its policy аs a sovereign state anymore. To change conditions is only possible tree years after entry to the organization with compensation to partners who have losses.

The WTO has its own court – Dispute Settlement Body. With the help of this body the WTO may force national governments to abolish federal and regional laws. For example, when the EU banned the import of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) on its territory, the US appealed to the court to protect interests of American corporations. The EU had to pay huge penalties and soon the EU gave up, allowing to import GMOs, but with labeling. (Bourgeois)

The rules of the WTO are not equal for al countries. Thus the WTO does not allow periphery countries to protect their industries by customs duties, but the countries in the “center” continue to pay. The US imposed quotas on steel to protect American steelmaking concerns from foreign competition. Аs far, the WTO exists and functions not in the interests of the members, but in interests of transnational companies which mostly belong to the United States and Britain, who have their unfair advantage because of the unlimited emission of money. (Irwin) So, WTO members in fact give the control over their economy to whom, who has more money – de jure to the transnational companies, - de facto to the US and the UK. (Ehlermann)

That for I do not see benefits for Russian Federation to enter the WTO, it is difficult to believe that it would positively affect social-economic wealth of the country., especially now, when we cannot offer anything for sale, except oil and gas that we already sell cheap enough and we do not want to buy what we can produce on our territory а Ukrainian example shows by buying vegetables from Europe. And the main point against is lost of sovereignty because a member decision-making ability will be limited. (news)

Works Cited
Bourgeois, Jacques. "The European Court of Justice and the WTO: Problems and Challenges." (2001): 71-125.
Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter. "Decision-Making in the World Trade Organization Is the Consensus Practice of the World Trade Organization Adequate for Making, Revising and Implementing Rules on International Trade? ." Journal of International Economic Law (2005).
Irwin, Douglas. "Causing Problems? The WTO Review of Causation and Injury Attribution in U.S. Section 201 Cases." The National Bureau of Economic Research (2003).
news, BBC. "Profile: World Trade Organization." 2011 September 2011.
Schott, Jeffrey. "Decision Making in the WTO." The WTO after Seattle (n.d.).
UNCTAD. "UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT." International Trade and Commodities. Activity Report 2010
ustr.gov. Office of the United States Trade Representative. 5 December 2011.
Wolff, Alan. "Problems with WTO Dispute Settlement." AEI Conference: American Sovereignty: Issues for the New Administration and the New Decade (n.d.): 417-427.
wto.org. Official website of the Wirld Trade Organization. 5 December 2011.

Free to believe (extra credit)

Not far from our campus, there is church I usually go to, the St. Nicholas Cathedral. It is also a seat of Metropolitan of All America, Archbishop Jonah (the head of Orthodox church in the US and Canada). Today he was talking about Human Rights and Religious Freedom Reception at the US Capitol he attended last week. The main topic was about the short documentary movie “Apostle of Love, Hope and Reconciliation” about Patriarch Bartholomew and process of getting religious freedom, but it made me think why states, who do not have “official” religion pay that much attention on different religious group.

The Reception followed the Conference of bishops. And everything would fine, but at the end bishops urged the government and the US Congress to protect religious freedom in the world.

It is not a secret that NATO and the USA seek to play the main role in the world, making decisions on military strikes against those countries that are not pleasing to Washington. The deaths of thousands of people in Yugoslavia, Libya and Iraq, the suffering of billions are not taking in account Criminal prosecution in some countries of follower of some exotic doctrine, the specific crime accident can cause more indignations in the US that bombings of local terrorists. This is despite the fact that in the United States about 98% of citizens consider themselves as religious people, for whom compassion and kindness should be on the first place and protect rights of freedom of conscience in foreign policy. Thus, in November 1998, Congress passed an International Religious Freedom Act and President Clinton said during signing that protection of religious freedom abroad is a central element of US foreign policy

The idea of protecting religious freedom is closely linked to the cultural and philosophical tradition of the United States, which considers American history as unique. This idea is also an important component of the modern "civil religion" of the US, bringing together a multi-faith American society and created a higher legitimacy of public institutions in the country. The ideas of its own election and exceptional views of Americans are akin to the people of Israel (the Bible) about the chosen people. As Jews, Americans are deeply religious, but religion is oriented to the more earthly ideal, is closely linked to solving social and political problems.

For Americans, the truth is more important to implement in real life than in the word. If the Fathers of the Church of paramount importance attached to the development of theology, against heresies, the Founding Fathers of the United States initially laid the foundations of confessional pluralism. American society and the state were built under religious banners, but the ideals of Christianity are understood differently. The most important religious principle asserts the political and civil freedom, which were demanded by the settlers.

American democracy is tolerant to any ideological attitudes, the basis of its foundations - the freedom to choose any ideological orientations. It is no accident that in the U.S. Christianity has become a "market" in which all the sects tend to offer their products and profitably sell it to any buyer.

Assuming that the United States is center of the universe, a model for imitation it has left its stamp on foreign policy ideology and practice of the United States. On the one hand, the idea of the "American mission" explaining that America acted as the bearer of humane, cosmopolitan, democratic values, and her role was supposed to be a moral example for the rest of the world. On the other - the concept of "American exceptionalism" became the basis for active intervention in the course of world events. In this perspective, “missianism” often gets the militaristic coloration. The brightest example - the U.S. military operation with other NATO in Yugoslavia.

The doctrine of "American exceptionalism" and "global missianism" is a source of creative inspiration for legislators and policy makers because it allows US to find new arguments to justify the interference in the internal affairs of other countries, where there are armed conflicts on ethnic and religious grounds, and provides new reason to suggest American model of society and the state-church relations. One example of this - 40 bills that were considered during the 105th session of Congress were connected to issues of religious freedom, persecution for religious beliefs and relations with the countries where, according to the U.S. Administration, violated the principles of freedom of religion. Thus, during the discussion of the draft of the law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations" in 1997 the United States has adopted five bills relating to Russia to China - 24 bills, Hong Kong – 4, Turkey – 2, Germany - 1, Indonesia - 1, Cuba - 1. The main reason for so bright a negative reaction was that the law significantly limited the field of foreign missionaries, and it did not suit the "democratic" United States. In essence, they rallied to the defense of freedom of conscience not only of citizens of the different countries, but their interests.

In justifying the requirement of termination of financial aid to Russia from the United States in connection with the adoption of the Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", M. McConnell, Senator said: "We should use it (foreign aid) to promote American values and American interests”. Statement by the President of the United States at the time of signing "the International Religious Freedom," that "religious freedom - the central element of U.S. foreign policy" runs counter to the international instruments, is an attempt to assume the role of a magistrate who is authorized to "punish or pardon ".


Thus, the concept of a "mission" and "American exceptionalism" not only became the ideological sources of the act "On International Religious Freedom," but also found it practical expression, despite the fact that the U.S. has no national law on freedom of religion. International Religious Freedom Act is a convenient cover, which allows the U.S. to "oblige for all mankind", expanding its sphere of influence by giving itself the right to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign states

However, the act shows that the religious factor in the state and nature of the interaction of religion and society, state power, nations, played a prominent role in politics.

Works Cited
International Religious Freedom Act 1998. Full text
"Authorizing Legislation & Amendments: International Religious Freedom Act of United States Commision on International Religious Freedom
"Bishops urge Congress, Obama to give higher priority to religious freedom." Catholic Worls News
Chang, Patricia M. Y. "A Foreign Policy for Foreign Religions." Foreign Policy In Focus 11 October 2007.
Orthodox Church in America. .
State, US Department of. "Diplomacy in Action. Religious Freedom."
Tomassini, Jason. "Catholic bishops say religious freedom waning." Reuters 14 November 2011.

The Huge Country of Africa

     Flashback: Highschool
     Of all the high school memories I managed to acquire throughout four years, I can never seem to forget one in particular. As I sat, bored and uninterested, in my 12th grade Honors Government class, I watched as our overly peppy teacher energetically asked the class a few basic questions that, much to the class's surprise, were trick questions with the same answer. At this point in the year, my senioritis had already taken over. So I watched as my under-educated classmates failed epically at these very basic questions. No matter the circumstance, my teacher just insisted on directing her questions to one person in our class (who for the sake of professionalism will be regarded to as "Classmate"). This one person offered me more entertainment than any other throughout senior year. How this person ever made it to graduation, no one will ever know. But it was poor Classmate that the teacher called on repeatedly that day.

     Teacher: "Who knows which continent has the second largest land mass?... Classmate?"
     Classmate: "Uh.... America?"
     Teacher: "Hmmm...You're close. Which continent has the second largest population?...
                     Classmate?"
     Classmate: "Uh... China?"
     Teacher: " Ok. Last question. Which continent has the most native languages?... Classmate?"
     Classmate: "Oh, that's easy. America!"

     I watched in dismay as this dialogue grew more and more surprising. However, none of Classmate's ignorant remarks were as devastating as the final response when the teacher explained the real answers.

     Teacher: "Those were all good answers, Sarah, but the correct answer to all of those questions is... Africa!"
     Classmate: "Wait... I thought you asked for a CONTINENT... not a COUNTRY."

     There truly is no better time to use the term "SMH". I sat there, in the very back row, wondering how in the world a person managed to make it to their senior year of high school thinking that China and "America" were both continents and that Africa was all one giant country. But, as I began to ask around, I learned that this last misconception is actually a very common one. I was surprised to learn how many people often mistook Africa for a country. Even if they don't actually think it is one country, they seem to have this perception that it is, indeed, one identity. This led me to do some research of my own. I found that I, too, was guilty of grouping the entire continent together into the overused, cookie-cutter word of "Africa". For example, I often found myself saying things like, "I want to visit Africa one day" or "I have been researching Africa lately". I saw this as a huge problem that needed to be addressed. After all, how often do you hear people say "I want to visit North America one day" or "I have been researching Asia lately"? It is not as common because such phrases are seen as too vague and general. The same should be true for Africa, as it is not one combined continent, but fifty-three distinctly unique countries and islands.

     There are several common misconceptions about the continent of Africa that many people may or may not know. In fact, according to Phil, a nationally acclaimed blogger for philintheblank.net, one of the most common things people don't know is that there are approximately 1,500 languages spoken in Africa, including languages like Arabic, Amharic, Greek, French, Afrikaans, Swahili, Spanish, English, Sudanese, Somali, and Portuguese. Obviously, this does not even put a dent in the list of native languages, as there are hundreds of tribal dialects spoken all over the continent. So, naturally, this takes me back to yet another conversation with my affluent classmate.

     Classmate: "Why does our school only offer Spanish? I really want to learn something different... like African!"

     Once again, I shook my head at this lack of knowledge. It was devastating because Africa is a continent worth learning about. It is a continent with so much rich diversity, and the fact that it is home to the most native languages fascinated me even more. With such an astounding number of languages. this makes Africa the most culturally diverse continent on the Earth. Since it is made up of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of tribal groups, the customs and lifestyles vary not only from country to country, but also from village to village.

     Another thing people don't often realize is that Africa is HUGE! I am ashamed to admit that I was not fully aware of the size of this great continent until I began to do research. My research took me to a visualization on one of my favorite websites. An image on informationisbeautiful.net shows the continent of Africa with countries within it to show the actual size. The makers of the visualization were able to fit Spain, France, Germany, Italy, all of Eastern Europe, India, Japan, the UK, the United States, and China within the land mass of Africa. Additionally, according to philintheblank, there is more arable land in Africa than anywhere else in the world right now. This is one of the many reasons why so many foreign governments are taking advantage of the ease at which they can acquire African land to grow food for their own population. In fact, according to Peter Guest, a former British United Nations diplomat who travelled to Africa on many occasions, if Africa could somehow utilize all of its land mass to its advantage, it would have one of the largest economies in the world. However, until Africa obtains the resources to reach its potential, other countries will continue to overtake the continent little by little.

     This is one of the increasing problems with our misconceptions of Africa. These overly broad generalizations pose a threat to International Relations. The more and more Africa gets shoved into a cookie-cutter image of jungles, tribal chants, and wild animals, the more and more we disregard the tremendous potential that lies within it. And the more this happens, the easier it is for more powerful countries (i.e. China, France, Britain, and the U.S.) to move in and take over. It is obvious to see the loss of identity this will impose on the entire continent. Each and every country within Africa is divided not only by a common border, but also by language, culture, traditions, and lifestyles. If these countries are all of a sudden occupied by foreign governments, Africa will eventually lose all of its cultural identity and, soon, turn into the solid, unified mass of land that we already view it as. This goes back to one of our first topics in World Politics. Identity is one of the most imperative aspects of development. It is impossible for us to bunch all of the African countries together because they each have their own identity. The problem is that this identity is often disregarded and forgotten. Instead of studying the United States's relations with Africa, we could heighten our success in the region if we paid closer attention to the United States's relations with Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, etc. The way the United States approaches our relations with Africa is so different from the way we approach our relations with states like China or Israel. Perhaps this is because the United States goes into our relations with Africa with the preconceived notion that the entire continent is in desperate need of our help. I believe that most people view Africa in a very demeaning way. This only spells out problems for our relationship.

     As long as our mindset that Africa is somehow "less of a continent" than Asia, North America, or Europe, the countries in this region will never be more successful. And, as long as the dependence on more economically successful nations grows, Africa will never be able to stand on its own as the second largest continent on Earth. It is imperative for international relations that the countries of Africa retain their identity, increase their sustainability, and continue to develop. More importantly, it is imperative that we increase our knowledge and rid ourselves of this misconception that Africa is just own big, huge country.

Works Cited:           Greenspun, Phil. "9 Things You May or May Not Know About Africa". philintheblank blog. Feb 27 2011. web.  <http://philintheblank.net/2011/02/9-things-you-may-or-may-not-know-about-africa/>           Krause, Kai. "The True Size of Africa". Information is Beautiful. Oct 14 2010. web.  <http://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-true-size-of-africa/>           Guest, Peter. "Spelling Out Growth". The Wall Street Journal. Sept 19 2011. web.  <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576544482314677402.html>

Celebrando las Raíces (Extra Credit)

Rachael Hilderbrand

Professor Craig

World Politics

12-3-2011

Celebrando las Raíces

An event celebrating the different nationalities in Washington D.C. was held this past Wednesday, November 30^th, at the National Museum of the American Indian. The event titled: “Celebrando los Raíces, Creando Comunidad: An Evening of Music and Bilingual Poetry”, was sponsored by the Smithsonian Latino Center and was free to the public; it celebrated the Hispanic Community through the Arts. The goal of the event was to bring together the English and Spanish language but through an expression of Hispanic culture, poetry and music. Over nine native Spanish-speaking poets attended the event and presented their own poetry. Each poet read their poem first in Spanish, and then read the translation of the poem in English so that everyone could enjoy their work as well as understand it. After each poem, a small Latin American band played a song in Spanish that had a similar meaning to the poem.

The poets were not all representing one specific Spanish speaking country; instead they were a representation of many different countries and cultures. Poets from Spain, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico and many other places presented an important part of their lives through their poetry. There was even a poet, Consuelo Hernández, who came from Colombia and is now a Professor at American University. Although each poet came from a different region, the meaning behind his or her poetry was very similar. Struggle was a reoccurring theme in many of the poems. The struggles of everyday life, such as poverty; the struggles of inequalities in our society; the struggles of adapting to new lifestyles; or even the struggle of finding who you are as an individual or who you want to be in your future was a common theme. Poets expressed their struggles and their success to overcome these difficulties. One poet, Quique Avilés, expressed how he often is confused with his own identity because his tongue is parted in two languages, two cultures, and two lifestyles. Quique Avilés showed us that two completely different things can come together to be one; he showed that the Latin Community in D.C. should not be separated but rather incorporated into the lifestyle of D.C.

I noticed in Quique Avilés poem titled, “Mi lengua esta partida en dos” that the translations from English to Spanish often times take out the true meaning of the poem. His poem was not the only one to have this setback; most of the poets faced this difficulty in their translations. Yes, the translation follows what he is saying word for word, but the meaning behind what he is saying is lost. His emotion found in the Spanish text is lost when the poem is translated to English. One who reads the English translation instead of the original poem in Spanish will be able to pick up on the general significance of the poem, but the emotion, passion and individualism of the poem is lost. I believe that the same would be true if someone was to translate an English poem into Spanish, you would be able to see the meaning of the poem but what is driving the poem to have such emotion is lost in translation.

Although the event was predominately focused on Latin American culture, the issues expressed through the poems and songs were universal. Whether you spoke Spanish or English, the event was insightful and relatable. The Smithsonian Latino Center did a very good job of taking two languages and cultures and bringing them together into one place to celebrate our similarities and differences through this bilingual event.