Author Biography: Jakup Krasniqi is the current president of Kosovo. He attended the University of Pristina. At the time he wrote this document, he was the speaker of Parliament but was elected president by the Parliament in 2010 when the president at that time, Fatmir Sejdiu resigned. This author may have bias based upon his nationalism for Kosovo. This document is declaring independence from another country. In some cases this newly declared country may not be wanted or accepted by other countries, but Krasniqi is a nationalist who is pushing for this divide, therefore adding bias that will appeal to the people that he is ruling.
Context: This document was written in 2008 while declaring independence from Serbia. Some countries do not recognize Kosovo as a state. In the 1990s there was a war between Serbia and Kosovo which could only be ended by military intervention. This produces political bias within the article showing that the state wishes to regain its connections with Serbia.
Summary: This document declares independence for Kosovo from Serbia. It recognizes that this state will be formed around their people and following guidelines set by the United Nations and other organizations to further develop in the Eurasian continent. They declare that their society is a democracy and that they are a sovereign state. They declare to welcome people in order to gain "peace, prosperity, and stability." They wish to be a part of the European Union rather than a part of Asia. Finally, they wish to tie bonds with Serbia by teaching their people to reconcile for their actions.
Key quotation: "We shall cooperate fully with these presences to ensure Kosovo's future peace, prosperity, and stability."
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
PDP4 Magna Carta
Author(s) Info and Background: The Magna Carta (The Great Charter) was written in the year 1215 by King John of England, King John’s Barons and Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was the highest ranking catholic church official in England. The document was written for the purpose of bringing peace to the state as compromises between the unpopular King John and his loyalists and the rebel barons. The document was meant to enforce the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. However, the document did little to stem the violence as the two sides fell back on their agreements and promise and continued to feud. Eventually two years later, following a full out war between the two sides, and the demise of King John, the new heir to the throne re-introduced the charter as part of the final peace agreement but removed the more radical sections that had played a part in the documents initial failure.
Document’s Purpose: While the two are very different documents, the American Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta share some similarities when it comes to the purpose of the documents. Like the DOI, the Magna Carta also was used a vessel to carry the grievances of the people to the high rulers and also was used to legitimize some of those demands. However, the Magna Carta was not a statement of secession and independence like the American Document, nor was it a constitution as is commonly believed. The document itself is list of 37 laws which were to be instated. It is preceded by a preamble containing the documents purpose and succeeded by a statement which seeks to the nullify the document if certain situations were too arise. The document is then notarized by the signatures of those present during the proceedings.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
PDP4: The Prince
Author Bio: Niccolo Machiavelli worked as a political officer for the Medici family in Florence. He lived in a time where all aspects of life were looked at with a realist point of view. Italy at the time was divided into several competitive nations, so his article is written with the bias from Florence compared to surrounding Italian nations. When he speaks of the term "faith", he is talking about keeping promises, and he believes that not following the faith is equivalent to that.
Date/Context: Machiavelli wrote this article in 1513 from Florence, Italy. The history of relations throughout a nation at that time was through the ruler. The prince played a vital role in the layout of the state. It was his job to be ideally both loved and feared, and his decisions are what impacted the country so greatly. The history of the article is composed of princes winning over their citizens through compassion and honesty, mainly by learning to trust others, but also gaining power over knowing the personalities that make up the nation. The prince was the political commander of the state, and he made decisions that influenced the people. It was his job to win over the country so that his announcements will follow through. This article connects to our understanding of european culture because it shows the type of government rulings they choose to follow, and how those rulers attempt to really take control of their land and govern the people.
Summary: Princes must be able to carry themselves in such a manner that he follows the means of intellectual truth and expresses themselves as the royalty that they are. They are expected to follow the criteria of being a prince and decide for themselves to be a "nice" or "evil" prince. If a prince chooses to be compassionate, he must follow his initial plan, disregarding situations within his people because the focus on smaller instances can lead to a large amount of corruption within the country. The same rules follow for if he decides to be cruel and ruthless. He must follow the standards that have been set for him once he has chosen a path, and continue to support the country. It is ideal to be both feared and loved as a prince. However, it is certainly difficult and most men of royalty tend to pick a side. Machiavelli argues that it is safer to be feared than loved, because of most men's rough personality. However, if the prince chooses to be feared instead, he must avoid hatred at all costs. Machiavelli also writes that several princes in the past have succeeded more based off of their cleverness compared to sincerity. For princes, it is necessary to understand the two types of forces, dealing with man and beast, knowing the people of the country and what tactics work best to help with future success. In essence, it is important to understand compassion, but also know the basics of a ruthless ruler. He must understand that not all men are good, and often he must repel against his faith and humanity to make decisions. He is braking promises as a prince, and Machiavelli believes that that is the time where he must analyze and separate the good from the evil.
Key Quotation: "It is useful to seem compassionate, faithful, humane, honest, religious- and to be so, but to stay so constructed in your spirit that if it is necessary not be these things, you are able and know how to become the contrary."
Date/Context: Machiavelli wrote this article in 1513 from Florence, Italy. The history of relations throughout a nation at that time was through the ruler. The prince played a vital role in the layout of the state. It was his job to be ideally both loved and feared, and his decisions are what impacted the country so greatly. The history of the article is composed of princes winning over their citizens through compassion and honesty, mainly by learning to trust others, but also gaining power over knowing the personalities that make up the nation. The prince was the political commander of the state, and he made decisions that influenced the people. It was his job to win over the country so that his announcements will follow through. This article connects to our understanding of european culture because it shows the type of government rulings they choose to follow, and how those rulers attempt to really take control of their land and govern the people.
Summary: Princes must be able to carry themselves in such a manner that he follows the means of intellectual truth and expresses themselves as the royalty that they are. They are expected to follow the criteria of being a prince and decide for themselves to be a "nice" or "evil" prince. If a prince chooses to be compassionate, he must follow his initial plan, disregarding situations within his people because the focus on smaller instances can lead to a large amount of corruption within the country. The same rules follow for if he decides to be cruel and ruthless. He must follow the standards that have been set for him once he has chosen a path, and continue to support the country. It is ideal to be both feared and loved as a prince. However, it is certainly difficult and most men of royalty tend to pick a side. Machiavelli argues that it is safer to be feared than loved, because of most men's rough personality. However, if the prince chooses to be feared instead, he must avoid hatred at all costs. Machiavelli also writes that several princes in the past have succeeded more based off of their cleverness compared to sincerity. For princes, it is necessary to understand the two types of forces, dealing with man and beast, knowing the people of the country and what tactics work best to help with future success. In essence, it is important to understand compassion, but also know the basics of a ruthless ruler. He must understand that not all men are good, and often he must repel against his faith and humanity to make decisions. He is braking promises as a prince, and Machiavelli believes that that is the time where he must analyze and separate the good from the evil.
Key Quotation: "It is useful to seem compassionate, faithful, humane, honest, religious- and to be so, but to stay so constructed in your spirit that if it is necessary not be these things, you are able and know how to become the contrary."
PDP4- Communist Manifesto
PDP4 - Communist Manifesto
Author Bio: The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and edited by Friedrich Engels. Marx tends to be biased towards the working class and the upper class. He favors and justifies the lower classes, while he strongly condemns the upper class. This can be attributed to Marx being born during the Industrial Revolution in Germany. Marx observed the poor working conditions for the masses and saw workers being oppressed by factory owners. This allowed Marx to develop a bias towards the bourgeoisie. Likewise, Engels was also horrified at the working conditions of the poor which contributed to the bias against the upper class. Overall, it seems that Marx is not a particularly reliable source. His writing appears to be dominated by drawing conclusions and generalizations that are not supported by fact. For example, in the Communist Manifesto there are no statistics, data, or specific evidence to justify what he is identifying as a problem in society is actually an issue. This is not to say that both men were uneducated. In fact, they both had extensive secondary education making them qualified philosophers. Marx studied under G.W.F. Hegel, a philosopher, who states that history is a process to make the earth aware of itself. Marx’s views were influenced by this as he believed that as man became more conscious of himself, the material world blocked him from himself.Date/Context: The Communist Manifesto was written to state the philosophy of the Communist League in 1848. The document is a reflection of the social, political, and economical hardships that Europe was facing prior to 1850. In other words, the document was written to help the impoverished lower classes during the industrial revolution achieve a better life. The philosophical ideas presented in the Communist Manifesto had a lasting effect on society. The ideas influenced radicals to apply Marxist ideas and socialism in their own countries. For example, Vladimir Lenin of Russia applied Marx’s ideas to the Soviet Union, making it communist. This followed Marx calling for a powerful elite to implement communism in their own country.
Summary: The document begins by establishing the relationship between the bourgeois and proletarians. Marx states that all throughout history there has been a class of oppressors and oppressed. The heart of the passage is when Marx states the Communist goal to abolish private property. He explains that property is controlled by the bourgeoisie and represents a social power. Private property merely creates capital that exploits the worker. The theory is by removing private property this will eliminate people oppressing others through property. Next, Marx refutes that women are merely a implement of production and that communism introduces the community of women. Following, Marx discredits that the belief that the communists are trying to get rid of nationality and countries. He believes that there is no nation to take from the workingmen and that communism only creates a unified world market. Lastly, the passage concludes by saying that the Communist revolution is extremely radical and can only be accomplished through the use of force.
Key Quotation: “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: abolition of private property.”
PDP4: Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789
Title: PDP of Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789
Author Biography: n/a: As this is a legal document written by the people of France and an author is not provided.
Date/Context: This article was written in 1789, the year the French Revolution began. The French Revolution began as a series of mobs in Paris due to the new tax that the king had instated, which in turn caused people to panic and for the crops to fail and a shortage of food to occur. A National Assembly was called, which created the document that is the topic of this article analysis.
Summary: The article states that it was created by representatives of the French population, which have come together to declare the rights of all citizens of France. These rights are that all men are born equal, and are equal in the eyes of the law as well. Punishments are not excessive for the crime and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Freedom of speech and religious views are considered sacred rights of men, and citizens are allowed to have a say in political matters.
Analysis: The rights in the article seem similar to the rights of American people. I believe that the French citizens were probably happy with the rights determined by the National Assembly. However, as this article was written in the year that the French Revolution began, some of these rights were probably not followed, as a revolution would have meant chaos and order of law would have been impossible. Also, a revolution would have meant unrest with the government, and possibly a corrupt government. That being said, at the time I believe that these rights were a good addition to political aspect of France.
Quotation: "The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly...have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties"
Author Biography: n/a: As this is a legal document written by the people of France and an author is not provided.
Date/Context: This article was written in 1789, the year the French Revolution began. The French Revolution began as a series of mobs in Paris due to the new tax that the king had instated, which in turn caused people to panic and for the crops to fail and a shortage of food to occur. A National Assembly was called, which created the document that is the topic of this article analysis.
Summary: The article states that it was created by representatives of the French population, which have come together to declare the rights of all citizens of France. These rights are that all men are born equal, and are equal in the eyes of the law as well. Punishments are not excessive for the crime and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Freedom of speech and religious views are considered sacred rights of men, and citizens are allowed to have a say in political matters.
Analysis: The rights in the article seem similar to the rights of American people. I believe that the French citizens were probably happy with the rights determined by the National Assembly. However, as this article was written in the year that the French Revolution began, some of these rights were probably not followed, as a revolution would have meant chaos and order of law would have been impossible. Also, a revolution would have meant unrest with the government, and possibly a corrupt government. That being said, at the time I believe that these rights were a good addition to political aspect of France.
Quotation: "The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly...have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties"
Monday, March 28, 2016
PDP4: “The Wealth of Nations” (excerpts)
Title: PDP of “The Wealth of Nations” (excerpts)
Author Biography:
Adam Smith, the author of “The Wealth of Nations” was a social philosopher who enjoyed writing about the political economy, especially capitalism. The “bible of capitalism” is what Smith claims to be the first political economy. Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations” to express his opinions on wealth not only being about silver and gold, but lands and its productivity. Smith wrote this before the Industrial Revolution and claimed that capitalist economies are more beneficial for society. Overall, Smith’s book was influential and continues to be despite his death at the age of 67.
Date/Context:
“The Wealth of Nations” was written in 1776, and this was before the Industrial Revolution. This is important to know because Smith’s book talks about ways to improve the economy and manufacturers, and the Industrial Revolution was when all the businesses started to take off and create mass production. “The Wealth of Nations” was based upon the role of government in an economy and Britain’s debate over the fact.
Summary:
Adam Smith writes that one of the most efficient and beneficial improvements that could be made to the manufacturing industry would be the division of labor. Smith supplies a great example in his book, but ultimately it says that it is better for multiple workers to contribute to the creation of one product than it is for one worker to create a single product. Overtime, more products would be made if all the workers collaborated and work together. He goes on to explain how this process would exchange the power of the workers. The power depends on the market because with a small market “no person… [will] dedicate himself entirely to one employment.” The division of labor changes how people view wealth because the employees now depend on other employees to bring in money. Smith continues to describe the commodities made by those employees and how their demand in markets change constantly. The issue than come with which business will appeal to more consumers, and the answer would be the business that sells the product for less. Competition amongst businesses continues until the demand for the product decreases and then the businesses go back to selling the product for the same price, roughly. In addition, Smith claims that wealth is not about the silver and gold quantity, but the amount of productive land that can create more commerce. Smith ends the excerpts with stating that countries should buy products from foreign place if it is cheaper than making in locally. Overall, Smith makes his capitalism claim based on reasons and opinions that can be appealing or disagreeable.
Quotation:
“The greatest improvement in the productive power of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.”Thursday, March 17, 2016
SJS 3: The Middle East's Spreading Morass
Source: Norton, Augustus Richard. "The Middle East's Spreading Morass." Current History:
A Journal of Contemporary World Affairs 114.776 (2015): 355-60. Print.
Author Credentials: A member of the Middle East Studies Association, the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Political Science Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the co-founder of the Conference Group on the Middle East and the Boston Forum on the Middle East, Boston University's Augustus Richard Norton is a professor of both Anthropology and International Relations. At at Oxford University, Norton is also a Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies and a Visiting Professor in Politics of the Middle East. Norton has nearly 30 years of research experience in the Middle East, including his sojourns in Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Currently, his research interests include inter-sectarian relations in the Middle East, strategies of political reform and opposition in authoritarian states, and reformist Muslim thought. Also, Norton headed a widely-cited three-year project in the 1990s that examined state-society relations in the Middle East and the question of civil society in the region. In essence, these key experiences and titles give Augustus Norton then credibility and qualification to write this article, "The Middle East's Spreading Morass", though his bias is with the Western view of the Middle East.
Summary: Augustus Norton's article "The Middle East's Spreading Morass" examines the turmoil and disorder that characterizes, in part, the contemporary Middle East. The article begins by stating a few common explanations for the disarray, before defining the geo-political contestants in the Middle Eastern conflicts as Iran, and its allies, versus Saudi Arabia, who has allies as well. It then details some recent developments, such as the Iranian nuclear deal with the United States, and various military aid that the United States and other countries have given the Arab states. This Iranian deal complicates the uprisings, the Iraq war, and the rise of ISIS, which are all fundamentally related. To start, the article launches into detailing the groups and the effects of the support from foreign countries in the Syrian civil war. One perception that it explains, for example, is that the war is very sectarian, due to the Shi'ite support of the regime, as the regime is heavily controlled by Shi'ites but the majority of Syria is Sunni. The effects of Iranian support for the Syrian government are also very important. Next, the Vienna talks of late October and November 2015 were described, and these talks were significantly different in that Russia is more obvious in supporting the Syrian government, and Iran is allowed to participate. The humanitarian situation involving the Syrian internally displaced persons and the refugees is also briefly described. The article then begins its examination of ISIS, and explains its influence and the involvement of other countries. Following this, Iraq is scrutinized, and the political and economic developments are described, such as the influence of ISIS and low oil prices. Next, the Saudi interventions in Bahrain and Yemen are examined, with the histories and political aspects prevalent in the descriptions. The problem with the Palestinians is addressed also, and this section debates whether Palestine will become a state, and what that would look like. Lastly, the article wraps up with a recap of the Iran and Saudi Arabia competition and the Saudi influence in other countries, and Norton uncovers the unfortunate truth, that "governance in the region is often weak and corrupt." In sum, the conflicts in the Middle East are many, they have deep effects and influences in the region, and they will continue unless the people are better served by their governments.
Analysis: Augustus Norton's article "The Middle East's Spreading Morass" has a very strong argument: the lack of proper governance will cause the Middle Eastern conflicts to continue and fester. This argument is well-supported by an incredible amount of recent evidence, including an analysis of the Syrian civil war, an explanation of the Vienna talks, an examination of ISIS, a scrutinization of Iraq, a description of the Saudi interventions in Bahrain and Yemen, and a debate over a possible Palestinian state. These different topics each have political aspects, which are explained as well. Norton distinguishes between fact and opinion by using specific details for facts, and often introducing opinion with a question about the subject, or a particular part of the subject. Lastly, Norton is a very reliable source, due to his experiences in the Middle East, his academic credentials, and his involvement in many associations concerning the Middle East and foreign relations.
A Journal of Contemporary World Affairs 114.776 (2015): 355-60. Print.
Author Credentials: A member of the Middle East Studies Association, the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Political Science Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the co-founder of the Conference Group on the Middle East and the Boston Forum on the Middle East, Boston University's Augustus Richard Norton is a professor of both Anthropology and International Relations. At at Oxford University, Norton is also a Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies and a Visiting Professor in Politics of the Middle East. Norton has nearly 30 years of research experience in the Middle East, including his sojourns in Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Currently, his research interests include inter-sectarian relations in the Middle East, strategies of political reform and opposition in authoritarian states, and reformist Muslim thought. Also, Norton headed a widely-cited three-year project in the 1990s that examined state-society relations in the Middle East and the question of civil society in the region. In essence, these key experiences and titles give Augustus Norton then credibility and qualification to write this article, "The Middle East's Spreading Morass", though his bias is with the Western view of the Middle East.
Summary: Augustus Norton's article "The Middle East's Spreading Morass" examines the turmoil and disorder that characterizes, in part, the contemporary Middle East. The article begins by stating a few common explanations for the disarray, before defining the geo-political contestants in the Middle Eastern conflicts as Iran, and its allies, versus Saudi Arabia, who has allies as well. It then details some recent developments, such as the Iranian nuclear deal with the United States, and various military aid that the United States and other countries have given the Arab states. This Iranian deal complicates the uprisings, the Iraq war, and the rise of ISIS, which are all fundamentally related. To start, the article launches into detailing the groups and the effects of the support from foreign countries in the Syrian civil war. One perception that it explains, for example, is that the war is very sectarian, due to the Shi'ite support of the regime, as the regime is heavily controlled by Shi'ites but the majority of Syria is Sunni. The effects of Iranian support for the Syrian government are also very important. Next, the Vienna talks of late October and November 2015 were described, and these talks were significantly different in that Russia is more obvious in supporting the Syrian government, and Iran is allowed to participate. The humanitarian situation involving the Syrian internally displaced persons and the refugees is also briefly described. The article then begins its examination of ISIS, and explains its influence and the involvement of other countries. Following this, Iraq is scrutinized, and the political and economic developments are described, such as the influence of ISIS and low oil prices. Next, the Saudi interventions in Bahrain and Yemen are examined, with the histories and political aspects prevalent in the descriptions. The problem with the Palestinians is addressed also, and this section debates whether Palestine will become a state, and what that would look like. Lastly, the article wraps up with a recap of the Iran and Saudi Arabia competition and the Saudi influence in other countries, and Norton uncovers the unfortunate truth, that "governance in the region is often weak and corrupt." In sum, the conflicts in the Middle East are many, they have deep effects and influences in the region, and they will continue unless the people are better served by their governments.
Analysis: Augustus Norton's article "The Middle East's Spreading Morass" has a very strong argument: the lack of proper governance will cause the Middle Eastern conflicts to continue and fester. This argument is well-supported by an incredible amount of recent evidence, including an analysis of the Syrian civil war, an explanation of the Vienna talks, an examination of ISIS, a scrutinization of Iraq, a description of the Saudi interventions in Bahrain and Yemen, and a debate over a possible Palestinian state. These different topics each have political aspects, which are explained as well. Norton distinguishes between fact and opinion by using specific details for facts, and often introducing opinion with a question about the subject, or a particular part of the subject. Lastly, Norton is a very reliable source, due to his experiences in the Middle East, his academic credentials, and his involvement in many associations concerning the Middle East and foreign relations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)