Blog #18: "The Prince Blog One"

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince was written in 1513, but its descriptions and directions are still prevalent in our world today. Many people believe that Machiavelli was evil. They believe that his motives were for personal gain, power, and authority. After reading through the first nine chapters of The Prince, I do not agree with this. I believe that, in his time (1469-1527), he was simply trying to improve society, as he saw it unfit. The arguments for the evil side of the debate state that his theories are more aimed towards tyranny than democracy, but during his time period, many kings and queens ruled in this way. He was simply following society’s rules, yet at the same time, trying to improve them. Also, the concept of a king or queen in this time was one of absolute power. In today’s terms, we regard them as selfish and greedy, but back then, that was what they believed they were meant to do.

Even though I believe that Machiavelli did not have evil intentions for writing The Prince, there sill are some “evil-like” points he makes in the book. One of which is contained in chapter five, where Machiavelli describes “how cities or provinces which before their acquisition have lived under their own laws are to be governed.” Machiavelli writes that “When a newly acquired State has been accustomed, as I have said, to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends” (Machiavelli 11). Machiavelli says that a method of holding a newly acquired state is to destroy it. I find this to be kind of evil, because it forces all prior cultures and traditions of the people to be thrown away. Again, this picture Machiavelli paints is not of democracy, but rather a dictatorship type of government.

While Machiavelli made many good points throughout these first nine chapters of The Prince, I found that I most believe with a point made in chapter six, where Machiavelli describes “of new princedoms which a Prince acquires with his own arms and by merit.” He writes that “For since men for the most part follow in the footsteps and imitate the actions of others, and yet are unable to adhere exactly to those paths which others have taken, or attain to the virtues of those whom they would resemble, the wise man should always follow the roads that have been trodden by the great, and imitate those who have most excelled, so that if he cannot reach their perfection, he may at least acquire something of its savour” (Machiavelli 12). I find this statement quite insightful. People we look up to should be accomplished in their respected areas, and by choosing the “best of the best,” insures that what you learn, is of the highest quality. What is the point of learning from someone who is unknowledgeable in the subject area you wish to learn? If you have the opportunity to learn from the best, it is to your advantage to do so.

Machiavelli’s beliefs are in practice today. The main purpose in the book is to show how Princes either gain or maintain control in a variety of situations. Today is no different, in regards to politics. Presidential campaigns, for example, pin one person against another in an effort to win the highest seat in our country. Through many methods, some more socially acceptable than others, politicians bash each other in hopes of convincing the people to elect themselves. Once elected, they must steer around many “sticky” situations to maintain their position. While the concepts of princedoms and democracies are certainly different, they do relate in the sense of politicians using many different ways to gain or maintain power.

Extra Credit Blog: "Slumdog Millionaire's Relation to the Nature of Man"

This past weekend, I viewed the film, Slumdog Millionaire. As I watched, my eyes were glued to the screen. I was hooked and could not look away, the movie was that good. As I was watching, I couldn’t help but realize that the movie and its main themes related directly to our study of the nature of man. The film also shed light on reality in India, showing how a few people have great wealth, but the general population is extremely poor. While the few with money and power sit idly by, millions suffer from a lack of proper necessities of life. In that sense, the movie did an excellent job at educating the rest of the world the problems they face.

The story is of a young boy’s journey from the slums of India to a better life. It is truly a “rags to riches” story, as he eventually wins one million dollars on the popular game show, “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” However, his journey to that point is the highlight of the film, and is directly related to the nature of man theme we’ve been studying this year.

When the movie first started off, the two boys, Jamal and Salim were very young. They were discovered by a man who exploited their singing abilities for his own gain. This evil man also blinded many young children with acid to improve their begging chance in the streets of Mumbai. It is true that he used the children for his own gain, but this evil was a result of his environment. The conditions around him, in the Indian environment, forced him to result to any means necessary to survive. And for this man, it was the immoral exploitation of young children. Jamal and Salim managed to escape, but unfortunately had to leave their new friend, Latika behind.

As time continued, the boys grew. They eventually returned to attempt to rescue Latika. This willingness to risk everything to save a loved one shows that even in the middle of someplace as corrupt as India is, the power of humanity still can strive. This rescue of Latika was one of the last moments that Jamal and Salim shared moral values. The two split up after Salim joined a gang and “stole” Latika away from Jamal. Jamal was crushed as a result of this, but never gave up hope for their reuniting someday. This shows again, that even in the midst of evil, good can still survive. The power of the human spirit is strong, and near impossible to destroy completely.

Jamal never gives up hope for Latika, and reunites with Salim some time later. The gang leader is wealthy, selfish, and cruel, which paints a perfect picture for the nature of humans being influenced by their surrounds. This man was able to become wealthy at the expense of many poor Indian people. Eventually, Salim realizes him mistakes, and reconnects with Jamal. Salim even helps Latika escape, and allows himself to die to ensure her escape.

The main story is that of the game show. One question away from a million, the game is stopped and scheduled to continue the next day. During the break, police arrest Jamal, and accuse him of cheating. They argue that a “Slumdog” couldn’t possibly know all the right answers, but Jamal persists in his defense of his success. Even after torture by hanging and electrocution, he will not give in to a false answer. This strength, even under intense pressure, is truly a mark of the power of the human spirit. I believe that this is innate, and all people possess this. For some, it is easily found, but for others, it is not. Regardless, Jamal persisted and as the police review the tape of the show, Jamal explains how he knew every answer.

In the end, he is allowed to continue, and correctly guesses the million dollar question’s answer. Latika, his “phone-a-friend” lifeline doesn’t know the answer, but Jamal is thrilled to communicate with her. They meet up after Jamal’s winning, and everyone breaks into song and dance, as all great films conclude.

The nature of man is prevalent in Slumdog Millionaire, which not only makes this relevant to our studies, but also a more meaningful and overall superb film to view. It definitely deserved all eight Oscars it won this year, and is one of the best films I have viewed. Thank you Slumdog Millionaire!

Blog #17: “Heart of Darkness versus Nature of Man”

First of all, the title “Heart of Darkness” is, in itself, relevant to the earlier discussion of whether the nature of man is innate or formed by his environment. The title suggests that man is evil, but doesn’t do anything as to the reason. In order to retrieve this information, one must read the book Heart of Darkness. In this book, a character named Kurtz is corrupted in the ivory trading business. Through a long, (and boring) jungle river trip, another character named Marlow, discovers that there is a mystery surrounding Kurtz. No one knows how he is able to get all the ivory that he does. As time goes on and the book continues (through describing the water for several pages), Marlow concludes that Kurtz is exploiting the natives for the ivory. Putting himself in the Congo region, forced this evil part out of him. While it is possible that it is innate, I believe his evil source to be his environment. Without the Congo, there would be no ivory, and no evil exploitation process. Kurtz transformed from a curious individual, into a man letting greed run his life. As a result, the natives suffered. The environment caused this, and is the reason for Kurtz’s evil nature.

Blog # 16: "Most Valuable Topic of Second Quarter"

The topic or concept that I found to be most valuable from the second quarter, was that of the United Nations. At the beginning of the unit, I had no idea whatsoever, of the inadequate system in place. I had always viewed the United Nations as what it was supposed to stand for, rather than what it actually did. I believe that there is corruption everywhere in the world, and is a result of greed by the few, at the expense of the many. Our government is certainly no exception to this. And, through this lesson, I learned that the United Nations isn’t either.

The movie we viewed “Broken Promises” really showed the flaws of the UN system. The required assistance to those in need is deflected by the constant debating and useless policies already in place. Because the Rwandan Genocide hadn’t crossed international borders, the UN refused to do anything other than protect the white people located there. They stood by and watched hundreds of thousands of innocent people get slaughtered, when their mission in the world is to prevent things exactly like that. When originally developed, the UN was designed to prohibit events such as a nuclear World War III, provide need to repressed populations, and work towards some level of world peace. Well, all of that is nice on paper, but in reality, corruption is at the heart of every decision made by the UN, and hardly anything comes of it.

The good news is that anything can be changed. With a new President focused on change, and a new generation inheriting a new, but dangerous world, perhaps the United Nations will receive an overhaul, and actually be accountable for the standards it once set for itself. Like I said earlier, the idea is there, all that is needed is the willpower to change.

I take from this unit the fact that in order to survive in the current and upcoming generation, the United Nations must change, or the world will not allow it to continue. This is especially true for America. With ever increasing budget cuts to help aid in this recession, anything that is not effective and vital to our successes, will be cut. And because we provide a good chunk of the UN’s funding, it will not survive without us. Also, I have learned more about international conflicts and the truth behind many of them. This has broadened my knowledge of global events, and will surely serve me in the upcoming years I will spend at college, and for the rest of my life. Personally, anything is possible. They always say “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Maybe if I have a problem with it, I should be the one to challenge it and attempt to change it. Nothing was ever accomplished in history by people merely accepting things the way they are. We, as Americans, have always stood for improving upon, and strengthening programs and events in the world. I guess only time will tell.

Blog #15: "America's Involvement in the United Nations"

After reading the packet on the United Nations and viewing the documentary, “Broken Promises,” I do believe that the concept of the UN is one that is needed in our world today. However, at its current state, the UN is unacceptable by the standards it is supposed to stand for. The largest issue we have dealt with so far is that concerning what activities dictate UN involvement, specifically genocides and genocide-like activities. In the documentary, the fact was presented that when Saddam Hussein killed 1,000s of his own people, the UN did nothing, and only when he crossed into Kuwait, did they authorize force against his strength. The UN allowed him to kill 1,000s of his own people with mustard gas, without doing a single thing. This is very upsetting to me. I believe that no matter where something happens, it is the international community’s responsibility to react and protect the innocent citizens, regardless of if country lines are crossed. At the same time, I believe it to be the international community’s duty, not the United States’ duty to do this. We are the strongest, most powerful country in the world, but there is a limit to what we can and cannot do. I believe that a better UN could accomplish this, and leave us, as the United States, to focus on the immense pile of problems we face in our own country.

The UN packet we received stated that “in the 185-member UN General Assembly, the United States, with nearly 262 million citizens, has the same vote as Palau, with a population of slightly more than 15,000. One hundred two countries, with a combined population less than that of the United States, compose a 55 percent majority, while 166 nations, which is 90 percent, have a combined gross domestic product that is less than that of the United States.” This means that the small countries can overrule the US in a vote, but the US is still stuck paying for a good deal of it. “The United States picks up a quarter of the UN tab.” This is wrong.

To answer the question of the prompt, I do not believe that the UN, in its current state, is still useful as a world peace-keeping organization. Too many flaws and greedy people are involved to make happen what the UN was originally created for. A reform, whether possible or not, is required if the UN wants to remain in our world in the upcoming fifty years. The article for the “no” side of the argument, stated that “$72.5 million in UN finds for Ethiopia were earmarked not to feed the starving but to embellish conference facilities of the UN’s Economic Commission for Africa.” This is but one example to the greed and corruption present in the UN today.

Obviously there is no “perfect” solution to the UN problem, if there was, we’d already have it in place. As I said earlier, the concept of the United Nations is good, it’s just the actual thing that doesn’t live up to expectation. Major reforms must take place to ensure that people who need help, regardless of their situation, receive it, without all the political confusion that currently exists. We are all humans, and an organization such as what the UN could be, is beneficial to the humane treatment of all.

Blog #14: N-Word Blog Two

“The best way to get rid of a problem is to hold it up to the bright light and look at all sides…” Andy Rooney of “60 Minutes” said this about Mr. Randall Kennedy’s book. I believe that after reading this book, I do agree with this statement. This certainly is a sensitive subject to many Americans, and is perhaps the largest of its type. While examining the issue brings up protests and debates, I believe it to be necessary in resolving this issue. As the quote goes, “Anything worth doing takes time and effort,” and along with that goes opening up a severely sensitive issue. I believe that this book does more than its fair share of doing just that. Countless stories of harassed employees, students, and teachers show that while it may be hard, the discussion of this topic is vital to the advancement of abolishing the evil nature behind the N-word.

In 1990, Stanford University passed a school rule that “prohibited harassment by personal vilification.” This was passed as a result of an increased number of incidents around the country dealing with whites using the N-word against blacks. While Stanford’s rule didn’t have the effect they had hoped for, due to odd wording of the rule, nevertheless it provided an example for others in the form of action against those who use the N-word violently. However, there are many debates about this topic, stemming from the violation of our freedom of speech to the classification of the N-word as a “fighting word.” Also included in the debates is perhaps the most debated question: who is allowed to use the N-word, and under what circumstances? This also asks that if blacks can use it with other blacks, how is that all that different from whites using it, in terms of social acceptance. If whites see that blacks are “ok” with using the word within their own social groups, then it gives a false reading to the whites as to what is really acceptable. In the television episode of “Boston Public” that we viewed, they addressed this debate. The white teacher wanted to explore this book and adjoining discussions with his class, but the administration told him he could not. The administrator was black, and the teacher was white, and due to racial tension issues, the white teacher was told to forget about this topic. The class was going to discuss who was able to use the word, after a confrontation between a white and black student erupted from the use of the N-word, used affectionately.

There is one thing certain in all of this confusion, and it is that the N-word sparks controversy and protest when used, no matter what the context. “The word is simply too important to ignore.”

The webpage abolishthenword.com contradicts this when it states that the use of the N-word should be limited to only historical references, and that it should be removed from everyday language. I believe that eliminating the word will not solve anything, as too many people already know and possess the knowledge to use it against others. Plus, the concept of controlling the removal of the word would be impossible.

The N-word certainly has power. It is the people who give it its power though. Just mentioning the word brings discussions and petitions from both blacks and whites, and that certainly is power. The N-word is unquestionably one of the most demeaning terms in the English language, and to most, it is taken in that context.

In closing, I believe that there is a benefit to examining the N-word, even though it brings debate whenever mentioned. Sadly, I do not believe that the intent of the word can be changed without the immense amount of work that would be educating people about the origins of the N-word and proper replacements for it. However, with the acceptance of this by my generation, I believe that slowly, over time, the violent side will diminish until the word becomes obsolete, both because people don’t care about the word itself, and because people don’t care what you are, but rather who you are. I believe that as time continues, this will happen, and that the N-word will no longer have the power that it does now.

Blog #13: "N-Word Book - Chapter One"

After reading chapter one of the N-Word book, I found the perspectives that Mr. Randall Kennedy offered to be of the same nature of my own for the most part. One in particular that I especially agreed with is found on page 41, and directly deals with this quote from Ice-Cube. “When we call each other [the N-Word] it means no harm. But if a white person uses it, it’s something different, it’s a racist word.” Kennedy then proceeds to question why it is that African-Americans are okay when they use the N-Word with each other, but not when a white person uses it. My question is if the African-American people who use the N-Word towards one another are offended when white people use it, why don’t they stop using it within themselves? All that accomplishes is spreading the wild fire that eventually reaches the whites, and says “we are okay if you use it, because we use it.” This gives whites who don’t have a lot of interaction the wrong message, that the N-Word is acceptable is society, when in reality, it is the complete opposite. I absolutely agree with Kennedy’s thinking on this argument. The whole “Be the change you want to see in the world” quote could take hold here. If the African-American population (the ones who use the N-Word with each other in a warm, comfort-type way) were to stop using the word in that way, then soon the white population would as well. It’s just that the whites are getting reinforcement for their actions from the African-Americans who use the N-Word towards one another.

Part of the confusion or chaos of the word, comes from the fact that because two different ethnic groups are using it for two different uses, it takes on two different meanings. The N-Word has been put into a variety of situations and can mean a variety of definitions. Some African-Americans use it as a comfort word, to reassure others, yet some white use it as a demeaning, ugly, evil word that it ultimately is. To eliminate it would solve all the problems associated with it, yet a practical solution cannot contain this step. Perhaps America will find a way to deal with this, but for now, it remains a certainly touchy subject.