Who is Confucius? The teachings, politics and philosophy.

Confucius was a Chinese thinker and social philosopher who continues to have a profound effect on politics and philosophy thousands of years after his death. His philosophy emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity. Confucius sought to build a great, harmonious and humanistic society. Confucius's works are studied by scholars in China and many other Asian countries such as Korea, Japan and Vietnam. Also, on this day many of these countries hold a traditional ceremony for his birthday.

The tradition that bears his name – “Confucianism” (Chinese: Rujia) – ultimately traces itself to the sayings and biographical fragments recorded in the text known as the Analects (Chinese: Lunyu).

Confucius represented his teachings as lessons transmitted from antiquity. He claimed that he was “a transmitter and not a maker” and that all he did reflected his “reliance on and love for the ancients.” Rather than trying to build a systematic ideology or establish rules for society, Confucius wanted his disciples to think for themselves and study the outside world. He disparages those who have faith in natural understanding or intuition and argues that the only real understanding of a subject comes from long and careful study. Study, for Confucius, means finding a good teacher and imitating his words and deeds. He taught through personal exemplification rather than explicit rules of behaviour. His moral teachings emphasized self-cultivation, emulation of moral exemplars, and the attainment of skilled judgment rather than knowledge of rules. His ethical ideals and methods are conveyed indirectly, for example:

When the stables were burnt down, on returning from court, Confucius said, 'Was anyone hurt?' He did not ask about the horses.

Analects X.11, tr. Arthur Waley

Which teaches that you should value human beings over property and it leads readers to reflect on what their response would have been: would they have asked about the horses or the humans?

In times of division, chaos and endless wars, Confucius wanted to unify the world and bestow peace and prosperity on the people. He proposes a new political agenda: a revival of a unified royal state, whose rulers would succeed to power on the basis of their moral merits instead of lineage; these would be rulers devoted to their people, striving for personal and social perfection. Such a ruler would spread his own virtues to the people instead of imposing proper behavior with laws and rules. Confucius thought that a ruler who had to resort to force had already failed as a ruler:

"Your job is to govern, not to kill"

Confucius' political thought is based upon his ethical thought. He argues that the best government is one that rules through "rites" and people's natural morality, rather than by using bribery and coercion. While he supported the idea of government by an all-powerful and wise leader, his ideas contained a number of elements to limit the power of rulers. He argued for according language with truth and placed great importance on honesty.

Confucius' social philosophy focused on the concept of ren, “compassion” or “loving others.” Cultivating or practising compassion for others meant deprecating yourself which meant avoiding deceitful or manipulative behaviour, or being false and giving people the idea that you are wonderful, thus self-aggrandizing yourself. For Confucius, such concern for others is demonstrated through the practice of forms of the Golden Rule:

“What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others;”

“Since you yourself desire standing then help others achieve it, since you yourself desire success then help others attain it.”

(Lunyu 12.2, 6.30).

He saw devotion to parents and older siblings as the most basic form of putting the interests of others before your own and teaches that this practise of unselfish concern for others can be accomplished only by those who have learned self-discipline.

Confucius' goal wass to create gentlemen who carried themselves with grace, spoke correctly and demonstrated great integrity. His strong dislike of the selfish “petty men,” whose clever talk and pretentious manner win them an audience, is reflected passages of his teachings.

While many people may think of Indian or Chinese philosophy as intuitionistic or mystical Confucianism has been said to be a hundred times more rationalistic than Western philosophy. It is thought that Confucianism had considerable importance on European thinkers of the period, particularly among the Deists and other philosophical groups of the Enlightenment who were interested by the integration of the system of morality of Confucius into Western civilization.

While Confucius idea's of paternalism seem to embody conservatism, his ideas of rulers for the people remind me greatly of the early liberal enlightment thinkers giving him an almost middle ground political philosophy. Unfortunately, morals have not played a very important part in politics for a very, very long time and many of the thoughts in Confucianism could never work in today's society. Nevertheless Confucianism provides such a faith in human nature and strong virtues to strive towards, it is no wonder that Confucianism is now one of the religions of China.

Information from:

http://www.friesian.com/confuci.htm

http://www.iep.utm.edu/confuciu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/#ConSoc

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Confucius/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius#Influence_in_Asia_and_Europe

Quote of the Day: Dogen

Do not follow the ideas of others, but learn to listen to the voice within yourself. Your body and mind will become clear and you will realize the unity of all things.
Dogen

Political Writing-Orwell

According to Orwell political writing is used to “defend the indefensible” which means that it justifies killing other people for the sake of your gain. For example inside the text on page it says “Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry”. This statement says that the people/politicians in power really don’t mind sacrificing lives for gain. The land served a purpose for the politicians. They are going to get the land even if it means people leaving their homes with only their clothes.

Language is an important as a way of knowing because it allows you to know the difference between truths. Whenever someone speaks to a person that person would know if it is true. For example when President Bush tells us about war we as people can tell that there is something he isn’t telling us. President Bush isn’t telling us about the thousands of innocent people dying because of the war. He is not telling us that due to the war hundreds of children will not see their parents because unfortunately they were the causalities of war.

The corruption of language could lead to a totalitarian ideology such as “Fascism” & “Stalinism” because NOW people are willing to believe anything by someone of political power. Hitler was the feur of Germany which meant he was looked up to upon the masses. He was such an influential person that whatever he said was to be had gotten done even if it meant killing millions of people. Hitler was by no means a good person and in fact his mind was so corrupt that he was willing to accept praises from the masses. He actually favored himself as a God. If the masses had thought for themselves he would not have climbed the political ladder as he did. He would not have been able to do the things that he did. Since he did get inside the mind of the masses he was able to kill millions of Gays, Jews, Blacks, Gypsies and more. He had no remorse for human lives.

If the masses had thought for themselves he would have been out of office and in prison when he first proposed such an idea as this. Millions of PEOPLE died, not objects but HUMAN LIVES were taken for the simple fact that they did not fit into his idea of a German Society. This goes to show that if not corrected the Dark Nature of Man will take control of person just for the concept of POWER. If the Dark Nature of Man speaks the language in which people with no beliefs for themselves and they feel that they may benefit it takes control of them now.

Distinguish sex and gender and explain its implications for feminist theory

Feminists draw a sharp distinction between sex and gender. ‘Sex’ refers to biological differences between females and males which are natural and unalterable. ‘Gender’ is a cultural term which refers to the different roles that society ascribes to men and women. Gender differences are imposed through contrasting stereotypes of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’. Simone de Beauvoir summarised this with the line “women are made, not born”. This belief has had many implications for feminist theory.

Firstly they believe sex differences between men and women are minor and don’t justify gender distinctions. They therefore believe that human nature is androgynous so women shouldn’t be judged by their sex but as ‘persons’. The goal of feminism is therefore of genderless ‘personhood’.

Secondly, it has affected the ideas of liberal feminists. The first major feminist text by Wollstonecraft argued that women should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as men and the ‘distinction of sex’ would become unimportant in political and social life when the rights were attained.

In particular, the feminist ideas on sex and gender have affected the beliefs of radical feminists who believe gender differences are important in themselves and need to be understood in their own terms. Radical feminists believe the different roles of men and women have their origin or a process of ‘conditioning’ with boys and girls encouraged to conform to very specific gender identities. The oppression of women therefore originates in the family and female liberation thus requires a sexual revolution. This is also based on the assumption that human nature is androgynous.

The largest implication of sex and gender for feminist theory is arguably that they are the only ideology to place sex and gender as a supreme political idea. It therefore distinguishes feminism and makes it an ideology in its own right with its own set of individual ideas.

Who is Kim Il-Sung?

Kim Il-sung was a Korean communist politician who led North Korea from its founding in 1948 until his death in 1994.He held the posts of Prime Minister from 1948 to 1972 and President from 1972 to his death. He was also the General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea. During his tenure as leader of North Korea, he ruled the nation with autocratic power and established an all-pervasive cult of personality. North Korea officially refers to Kim Il-sung as the "Great Leader" and he is designated in the constitution as the country's "Eternal President". His birthday is a public holiday in North Korea.

The Communist Party of Korea had been founded in 1925, but had been thrown out of the Comintern in the early 1930s for being too nationalist. In 1931, Kim had joined the Communist Party of China. He joined various anti-Japanese guerrilla groups in northern China, and in 1935 he became a member of the Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army, a guerrilla group led by the Communist Party of China. Kim was appointed the same year to serve as political commissar for the 3rd detachment of the second division, around 160 soldiers.Kim was appointed commander of the 6th division in 1937, at the age of 24, controlling a few hundred men in a group that came to be known as “Kim Il Sung’s division.” Kim’s division only captured a small Japanese-held town just across the Korean border for a few hours, it was nonetheless considered a military success at this time, when the guerrilla units had experienced difficulty in capturing any enemy territory. This accomplishment would grant Kim some measure of fame among Chinese guerrillas, and North Korean biographies would later exploit it as a great victory for Korea. Kim was appointed commander of the 2nd operational region for the 1st Army, but by the end of 1940, he was the only 1st Army leader still alive.Kim became a Captain in the Soviet Red Army and served in it until the end of World War II.In later years, Kim would heavily embellish his guerrilla feats in order to build up his personality cult. He was portrayed as a boy-conspirator who joined the resistance at 14 and had founded a battle-ready army at 19. North Korean students are taught that this Kim-led army singlehandedly drove the Japanese off the peninsula.

Kim arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile. His Korean was marginal at best; he'd only had eight years of formal education, all of it in chinese. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party.During his early years as leader, he assumed a position of influence largely due to the backing of the Korean population which was supportive of his fight against Japanese occupation.One of Kim’s accomplishments was his establishment of a professional army, the Korean People's Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare.Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft.

In 1948, Kim persuaded the Soviets not to allow the UN north of the 38th parallel, believing he could not possibly win a free election. As a result, a month after the South was granted independence as the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was proclaimed on September 9, with Kim as premier. On October 12, the Soviet Union declared that Kim's regime was the only lawful government on the peninsula. The Communist Party merged with the New People's Party to form the Workers Party of North Korea (of which Kim was vice-chairman). In 1949, the Workers Party of North Korea merged with its southern counterpart to become the Workers Party of Korea (WPK) with Kim as party chairman.By 1949, North Korea was a full-fledged Communist dictatorship. All parties and mass organizations were cajoled into the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, ostensibly a popular front but in reality dominated by the Communists. Around this time, Kim built the first of many statues of himself and began calling himself "the Great Leader."

After the Korean War, Kim launched a five-year national economic plan to establish a command economy, with all industry owned by the state and all agriculture collectivised. The nation was founded on egalitarian principles intent on eliminating class differences and the economy was based upon the needs of workers and peasants. The economy was focused on heavy industry and arms production. Both South and North Korea retained huge armed forces to defend the 1953 ceasefire line, although no foreign troops were permanently stationed in North Korea.

Kim's hold on power was rather shaky. To strengthen it, he claimed that the United States deliberately spread diseases among the North Korean population. While Moscow and Beijing later determined that these charges were false, they continued to help spread this rumor for many years to come. He also conducted North Korea's first large-scale purges in part to scare the people into accepting this false account.Victims often simply disappeared into the growing network of prison camps.

During the 1950s, Kim was seen as an orthodox Communist leader, and an enthusiastic satellite of the Soviet Union. His speeches were liberally sprinkled with praises to Stalin. However, he sided with China during the Sino-Soviet split, opposing the reforms brought by Nikita Khrushchev, whom he believed was acting in opposition to Communism. He distanced himself from the Soviet Union, removing mention of his Red Army career from official history, and began reforming the country to his own radical Stalinist tastes.

From the mid-1960s, he promoted his self-developed Juche variant of communist national organisation. The Juche is the official state ideology of North Korea. It teaches that "man is the master of everything and decides everything," and that the Korean people are the masters of Korea's revolution. According to Kim Jong-il's On the Juche Idea, the application of Juche in state policy entails the following:

1. The people must have independence in thought and politics, economic self-sufficiency, and self-reliance in defense.
2. Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
3. Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
4. The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

The Juche outlook requires absolute loyalty to the revolutionary party and leader. In North Korea, these are the Workers' Party of Korea and Kim Jong-il, respectively.

A new constitution was proclaimed in December 1972, under which Kim became President of North Korea. By this time, he had decided that his son Kim Jong-il would succeed him, and increasingly delegated the running of the government to him. At the Sixth Party Congress in October 1980, Kim publicly designated his son as his successor.

By the early 1990s, North Korea was nearly completely isolated from the outside world, except for limited trade and contacts with China, Russia, Vietnam, and Cuba. Its economy was virtually bankrupt, crippled by huge expenditures on armaments, with an agricultural sector unable to feed its population, but state-run North Korean media continued to lionize Kim. On July 8, 1994 at age 82, Kim Il-sung collapsed from a sudden heart attack. After the attack Kim Jong-il ordered the team of doctors who always were at his father's side to leave, and insisted that only the best be flown in from Pyongyang. Hours passed as the elder Kim lay near death in a room with his son, when the doctors finally arrived, the elder Kim was too far gone and died despite efforts to save him. Many claim Kim Jong-Il did this to ensure his father's death and his rise to power 3 years later.

There are over 500 statues of Kim Il-sung in North Korea. Some statues have been destroyed by explosions or damaged with graffiti. Kim Il-sung's image is prominent in places associated with public transportation, hanging at every North Korean train station and airport.It is also placed prominently at the border crossings between China and North Korea. His portrait is featured on the front of all recent North Korean one banknotes.

Information from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung#Leader_of_North_Korea

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/BowDownAP_468x293.jpg

Why have nationalists viewed the nation state as a political ideal?

The basic belief of nationalism is that the nation is or should be the central principle of political organisation and a nation state is a sovereign political association within which citizenship and nationality overlap. For nationalists, the nation state is therefore the highest and most desirable form of political organisation. In fact the goal of nationalism is the founding of a nation state.

The great strength of the nation state is that it offers the prospect of both cultural cohesion and political unity as when people with a common cultural or ethnic identity gain the right to self-government, nationality and citizenship coincide.

Also the political sovereignty in a nation state resides with the people or nation itself. Nationalism represents the idea of popular self-government with government carried out either by the people or for the people in accordance with their national interest.

This has led nationalists to believe that the forces that have created a world of independent nation states are natural and irresistible and no other social group could constitute a meaningful political community. The nation state therefore is the only viable political unit.

This is reflected in the different nationalist traditions. The ultimate goal of liberal nationalism is the construction of a world of independent nation states as is the goal of liberal internationalism.

India: Motivation and Unity

This video is amazing. This video reaffirms exactly what me (Cortez) and Robyn are trying to do. We as HUMANS can all come together and promote the common good of humanity.




Question:
What is your current perception of humanity and its current state?

Young, Angry and White

In July 2009, almost a million voters chose the BNP in the EU elections. As well as the traditional BNP voters explaining this success, a recent survey found one in 20 young people would vote BNP. In this Channel 4 documentary, Peter Beard follows 19-year-old Kieren who is considering joining the BNP but is unsure that the party represents his views. As the Channel 4 summary put it, "t

his fascinating First Cut documentary offers an insight into a young person's attraction to a party whose policies and image continue to cause extreme controversy throughout the country."

Kieren is part of a new generation of far right recruits, "I do want to see an all white Britain. An immediate stop to immigration and repatriation which would follow”.

Walking down the high street, Kieren points out Halal and Carribean food shops saying he doesn't like all of these things being around. He sees them as a threat, culturally changing his town and destroying what his town is about saying that “its just catering for minority groups but it seems like the majority of the high streets are getting taken over by that” and that he doesn't want it "on my doorstep".

Talking about being a nationalist, Kieren says “you have to be a pessimist about the whole society. You gotta be quite angry and depressed and think oh this is horrible everything about this life is just rotten. But then once you have an alternative once you have an answer which manifests itself via the BNP you can only look forward and try and be optimistic”.

The first thought that comes to someone hearing Kieren have such extreme views is that it must come from his family and friends, but that is where you would be wrong. His mum doesn’t want herself or Kieren brothers to be involved in filming the documentary. His mum comes from a background of liberal voters and doesn’t agree with her sons views. Kieren's parents split up when he was one years old and he didn't have a male role model growing up. This has made him want a strong family when he has children and he wants to be the 'breadwinner'. Five years ago, his Dad moved to Wales with his new wife and children and Kieren sees him a few times a year. His dad is a labour voter and says of BNP leader Nick Griffin, “the way he says things makes him look like a complete racist”. He also disagrees with his sons views. After his Dad moved away, life became difficult for Kieren. He and his mum later had to move out of London because of domestic violence and then move again because of another 'woman beater'. He made friends with nationalists from his old London area of Barnet online and then his friendships grew and he was welcomed into their group. He says that he felt like he belonged to something and found it quite comforting.

Kieren doesn't agree with mixed race relationships, hanging a banner in his garden saying "love music, hate race mixing", a twisted pun on the slogan "love music, hate racism". Asked about mixed relationships he said "as a matter of principle I'm against immigration and multiculturalism. Our own women, by fraternising with the other races, they're part of the problem as far as I’m concerned”. Kieren has a girlfriend called Amy. He questioned her heritage, thinking she had an 'oriental look in her face'. She had to ring her sister to confirm that there was no Chinese in her family and he still didn’t believe it. He admitted he wouldn't have dated her if she had Chinese in her family. Kieren thinks that "people should be around their own type of people” and thinks "multiculturalism cannot work, as a concept, or will work...just from looking at social circles, from studying it. I would welcome people to live amongst each other in harmony but I don’t think it can happen”.

He has also made a new group of friends, none of which are nationalist or agree with his views. One of his friends asked Kieren “how do you feel about me losing my virginity to a black girl?” to which he responded “you know how I feel about that and I told you at the time that you hate your own race...Its a form of genocide”. Despite everyone around him disagreeing with his views, Kieren is unashamed to be honest with them, saying things like “its not that I don’t see people as unequal, its that in my life I want people like me around me” and “if they want to call me a racist then fine, I’m a racist, I’ll happily be a racist but I don’t think its racism and I think the word racism needs redefining and we need to have a common sense acknowledgement of what it actually is”. His friends and girlfriend looked very awkward being around while he said these things.

When deciding whether to join the BNP, he watched the infamous episode of Question Time (read about question time here) with BNP leader Nick Griffin. He said “theres never been a question time like this. I enjoy this show normally”. He is extremely disappointed with Nick Griffins performance and unsure whether they still represent his views. This disappointment was made stronger by the news that the BNP could be extending their membership to allow non-whites to join their party. Kieren doesn’t join the BNP. Instead he attends the annual National Front remembrance march. The National Front are a far-right party that have stronger views than the BNP and are arguably more racist and elitist.

The filmer, Peter Beard, talks to a militant group who also grew disillusioned with the BNP. They only agreed to talk if they could be in disguise. The man speaking for the group said “we would like to see England returned to the hands of the people who have the blood right to this country... their blood is in this soil... we have seen the filth flooding through our streets, we have seen a consumerist nation overtake a moral nation”.

Kieren admits that there can be problems with not wanting to integrate with other races. “A lot of nationalists might suffer from social problems I suppose. You don’t really want to indulge in a social life with people who don’t see everything along the route lines as you. I don’t not want to have a life. Nationalisms brilliant and I put all of my thought into it but at the same time I’m 19 and I want to live a normal life”. Sometimes his nationalist views provide a worry to Kieren: “I want to do well and I feel like I’ve turned it around from not being in school to being in education. I want to enjoy university and have a great time and I want to enjoy a successful career. It shouldn’t be considered wrong for me to say how I feel no matter how un socially acceptable it is I’m not doing it in an aggressive manner. I do worry that my honesty in that regard could hold me back."

If you live in the UK, you can watch this documentary here: Young, Angry and White

Democracy in action: Question Time

In the years since it was first broadcast on 25 September 1979, Question Time has become something of a national institution, offering British voters a unique opportunity to quiz top decision-makers on the events of the day.

The panels are drawn from significant figures in politics as well as industry, the media and entertainment.

But at the heart of Question Time is the audience - both in the studio and at home.

The programme is recorded in front of a live audience from around 2030 each Thursday.

The recording is done in a single take, precisely as if it were broadcast live. Some exchanges occasionally have to be edited out for legal or taste/decency reasons.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/about_the_show/default.stm)

Question time is the public's opportunity to question politicians on their actions and their views on current issues within the UK. It is one of the few ways that the public can directly speak to politicians and is a very often effective debate. The clips below demonstrate some of the topics that have come up in question time. The first video is from arguably the most famous episode of Question Time, with BNP leader Nick Griffin. To read more about the BNP click here. The second video is talking about the recession and the banks bonuses. The third video is about the MPs expenses and second homes. The fourth video discusses Sarah Palin. The fifth video is about the torture of suspected terrorists.

Do you have question time in your country? Do you think it is an effective programme? Leave a comment and let us know!

How to make your voice heard 101

This fantastic video was posted on http://blogs.cqpolitics.com by Craig Crawford. It does talk in terms of contacting in the US but the tips are definitely usable in other countries.

Historical Knowledge: What is history and its role in society?

A paper I wrote about history, what it is and its purpose in society.

History invokes emotion, logic, ideals, perceptions, opinions, bias, and etc. History is a complex subject to talk about in addition to analyzing. History is not scientific. It encompasses a person moral ideals and beliefs. As I look throughout history I cannot ignore the impact that it has had on the development of the American society. The fact is that history evokes emotions inside different people. It is true that history is not scientific but moral. History allows us to utilize what has happened with what is happening now. History allows us to make corrections to the present by looking at past problems.

“It should lead us to acknowledge our profound and chastening frailty as human beings….. that the future outwits all our certainties and the possibilities of the future are more various than the human intellect is designed to conceive. ” This quote is simply stating that history provides a basic foundation as where to start our search for history and search for our future. It is true that this search will not be an easy find. As a society we now know how to learn from history and adapt its laws into our society. In oppose to hundreds of years ago when we had no idea what we were in for as a society.

History also lets us know how easily we are swayed as human beings. Throughout history citizens have been the primary audience of leaders. These leaders feed the citizens words that intoxicate them. These are the words that make the leader in command in the citizens powerless. I take evidence from Slobodan Milosevic who started a campaign for ethnic cleansing movement inside the country of Serbia. “Countries under foreign command quickly forget their history, their past, their tradition, their national symbols, their way of living, often their own literary language.” To some nationalist this movement was a great movement while to others it promoted mass genocide.

When I look at leaders such as this in history I cannot help but feel sad for the thousands of people who have lost their lives. History sparks emotions inside people that allow them to feel empathy for other people. This is the reason why it is classified its values as a moral concept. History makes a person or its reader dwell deeper into themselves and fact their moral self. This is the self that helps you to determine what is morally right. The knowledge issue that is developed with this claim is how can you truly judge a person and their action through your emotions?

In regards to the human aspect of history, it does a major part in helping people to realize that we are all humans. I take reference from The Search For Truths by Jacques Barzun where he states, “Above all, we should stop fighting over tentative notions we believe in.”[1] Societies have been fighting over what they believe to be truth for years. Many of their truths are based on their concept and interpretation of history. This has lead to many wars and many battles and lots of lives lost. The concept of history and its truths are subjected to change anytime.

This is what makes these truths tentative notions because they may be changed at anytime or new evidence can come to contradict these truths. These truths are subjected to constant historical interpretations or biased opinions. These things inadvertently create knowledge issues. What makes your historical interpretations better than anyone else? How is it that absolute truths are subjected to other people’s opinions? How is the right person to make such claims?

When we look at history we must not forget the concept of time. Time is defined as a non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[2] There are two different types of times mechanical time and body time. Mechanical time is measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years. In oppose to body time which is not measured and is based upon the individual. History and time are interrelated to each other, without one we would not have the other.[3] These two things come together and create an event. In fact, some would say that history is composed of events. I think this is partially true because we must ask ourselves the question of who is to determine this.

History is enabling us to be in control of our actions and our destiny. History is embedded in us from the moment that we are conceived. When I look at my actions that I have done to influence my own destiny I see the role of history. It is through history that I have control of myself. I am able to know my past actions and the consequences that came from them. It is also through history that we meet the future. History shows us what we have done as societies and what has to be done. In post-racial America some may say that we are past the concept of race while others say that we are not. I say that we still have work to be done before we can truly claim the title of being truly post racial. When we say this it would mean that we are past race and its questions but we have just touched this concept and have not explored it deeply enough.

As you think of history we must remember the fact that it is subjected to others opinions. “History is a doomed enterprise”[4]. History is constantly victim of people’s beliefs, truths, and bias. Every person has a different perception and different objective of history. This is how history is constantly changing because people are constantly changing what they perceive to be true. This is how some tentative truths become absolute truths and how some absolute truths become tentative truths. It is this movement of history that will forever have it changing or added onto with the emergence of new evidence.

History is the basis of society and civilizations. “History is the cure of omnipotence and omnipresence”. It is true that people tend to think of themselves are all knowing individuals. This is how absolute truths are developed. History cures this because it shows us that the power rests in the individual. The methods that a person used to achieve power can be copied by someone else. History also shows that citizens have rebelled against people who consider themselves all knowing or all powerful beings. This may interfere with beliefs which they feel is an absolute truth. This raise a knowledge issue of to what extent can you be guided by your emotions?

History encompasses a person moral ideals and beliefs. History also lets us know how easily we are swayed as human beings. History does a major part in helping people to realize that we are all humans. History is forever changing and is constantly subjected to other people’s opinions. History is enabling us to be in control of our actions and our destiny. History is very complex and as a society we are understanding history more and more and its complexities. It is through history that we would gain an idea of how to interact with individuals and societies.

Cortez A., U.S.

Questions for you:

1. What do you think is the purpose of history ?
2. What if we as humans did not have history?
3. How important is history to you?

---

[1] The Search for Truth, Jacques Barzun

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/time

[3] Einstein’s Dream- Alan Lightman

[4] Folly’s Antidote

Check out our poll!

At the very bottom of the blog is a poll which very few have spotted, asking what you think are the biggest problems facing the world today. Scroll down and tell us what you think!

Political Ideologies: Feminism - Distinguish sex and gender and explain its implications for feminist theory

Distinguish sex and gender and explain its implications for feminist theory

Feminists draw a sharp distinction between sex and gender. ‘Sex’ refers to biological differences between females and males which are natural and unalterable. ‘Gender’ is a cultural term which refers to the different roles that society ascribes to men and women. Gender differences are imposed through contrasting stereotypes of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’. Simone de Beauvoir summarised this with the line “women are made, not born”. This belief has had many implications for feminist theory.

Firstly they believe sex differences between men and women are minor and don’t justify gender distinctions. They therefore believe that human nature is androgynous so women shouldn’t be judged by their sex but as ‘persons’. The goal of feminism is therefore of genderless ‘personhood’.

Secondly, it has affected the ideas of liberal feminists. The first major feminist text by Wollstonecraft argued that women should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as men and the ‘distinction of sex’ would become unimportant in political and social life when the rights were attained.

In particular, the feminist ideas on sex and gender have affected the beliefs of radical feminists who believe gender differences are important in themselves and need to be understood in their own terms. Radical feminists believe the different roles of men and women have their origin or a process of ‘conditioning’ with boys and girls encouraged to conform to very specific gender identities. The oppression of women therefore originates in the family and female liberation thus requires a sexual revolution. This is also based on the assumption that human nature is androgynous.

The largest implication of sex and gender for feminist theory is arguably that they are the only ideology to place sex and gender as a supreme political idea. It therefore distinguishes feminism and makes it an ideology in its own right with its own set of individual ideas.

American Analysis on Class

Cortez A., US

I had to create my own class system based on what I see in America.

America is by far one of the most classified nations in the world. This nation has classes for different races and etc. America is also known as the melting pot for other nations. There is a classification system even based on how you dress. Class in America means everything to some people and nothing to others. The class system that you see on the cover page is based on an annual income. Race was not considered when making this class values set because economics affects all races. Everyone has the ability to become financially stable or financially unstable.

The Destitute Class has little to one-thousands dollars of annual income. The people of this class value the simplest things. These are the things that we take for granted. To be in a home of their own that has heat and running water would be only a dream. The people of this class interact with people of their class or people who may help them. The Homeless Class is not afraid to ask for what they need. Although people look down on them they still ask for change to get simple things such as sandwich. Society views this class with sympathy because they are lacking life’s necessities due to unfortunate circumstances. The people in this class may also turn to drinking because they have not attained the social status that they would have like.

The Makers Class has one thousand to forty-five thousand dollars of annual income. The people of this class value the concept of making it to high social status someday. Some of these people value education for their youth as a high priority. These people also value the concept of their children making it to achieve high class. The people are content with their children making it to the high class because the makers know they had something to do with it. The Makers associate with their class of people and occasionally associate with the High Class society. For those who don’t associate with other classes and persistently socialize with other classes lose out on opportunities to climb the economic ladder. These are the people who are content with living in an apartment, drink, fight and resort to other methods of attaining financial stability. They then blame everyone else because they do not feel secure and become dependant upon the government.

The Nuclear Family earn between forty-five thousand to two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars of annual income. These people feel that they have made a somewhat satisfied life. The Nuclear parents get up and go to work everyday. The mothers may pickup the children after soccer. The father is at the office sometimes late working so his family could feel good about their life. These people usually associate with all classes during special occasions. They feel that they have attained the American Dream anything above that is luxury. While people may think they are boring they are not. Some of these people are college graduates and members of fraternities and sororities still completing service projects. These people work hard to get the things they have.

The Buyers earn between two-hundred and fifty to three-hundred and fifty thousands dollars. The people of this class are secure with their possessions. They go out to clubs and have a social life. The Buyers social life is very important to the people of this class. They wear the designer clothes no matter how much it may cost. They are willing to go into debt or max their credit cards to have the latest fashions. These people visit the beach and gym frequently to stay in shape and meet new people. Despite of all of this they still get up and go to work with a high paying job.

The Spacers earn between three-hundred and fifty to five-hundred thousand dollars. The people of this class require a somewhat spacious environment. The Spacers value their environment. These are the people who work to keep their high property valued neighborhood clean. They value their cars and prestige that comes with being inside their class. The Spacers associate with all types of people. They keep their connections open since they may need to utilize them one day. They graduate at the top of their class and expect the same from their children. Society views them as financially stable people. A people who's worries are limited to where corporate stocks are going.

The Individuals earn one million to plus dollars of annual income. The Individuals are the ones who rank high in society. These are the CEO’s of fortune 500 companies; they started their company from an idea and watched it grow. These people are classified by their giving hearts by giving away money to organizations. These people wear comfortable clothing since they know they can buy whatever they would like to. Society views them as the leaders our economy and education is based on. These are the people who have very big houses, fancy cars, yachts, smartphones, large estates, and heirs. The Individuals have worked extremely hard to get what they have. They sometimes lack socially but compensate for it when they speak and talk about their accreditations.

As I come to a close I would like to say that these classes are based strictly on annual earnings. I am aware that people of different races can achieve any one of the financial statuses listed above. We are all trying to achieve is status to which we feel comfortable enough to say in our personal opinion that we have made it. All of these classes are starting to intertwine with each other to create mixed income neighborhoods which creates a better America.

Political Ideologies: Liberalism - Why do liberals support the principle of limited government and how do they propose it be achieved?

Here is an essay I wrote while studying liberalism in 2009

Robyn, UK

Why do liberals support the principle of limited government and how do they propose that it be achieved? 45

Liberals don’t believe that a balanced and tolerant society will develop naturally out of the free actions of individuals. Liberals fear that free individuals may want to exploit others if it is in their interest to do so. Therefore our liberty requires that they are restrained from encroaching on our freedom and vice versa. Such protection can only be provided by a sovereign state capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society. While liberals are convinced of the need for government they are also aware of the dangers.

All governments are potential tyrannies against the individual as government exercises sovereign power and so poses a constant threat to individual liberty. This reflects a liberal fear of power as humans are self-seeking creatures so they naturally use power for their own benefit and at the expense of others. Liberals believe egoism plus power equals corruption and follow the quote by Lord Acton that ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Liberals therefore fear arbitrary government and uphold the principle of limited government. Liberals believe government can be limited through the establishment of constitutional constraints and by democracy.

A constitution is a set of rules that govern the government itself and defines the extent of government power and limits its exercise. The power of government bodies and politicians can be limited by external and legal constraints. A codified constitution codifies the major powers and responsibilities of government institutions within a single authorative document. A codified constitution codifies higher law. The first codified constitution was the US constitution but now all liberal democracies have one except for the UK, Israel and New Zealand.

A bill of rights entrenches individual rights by providing a legal definition of the relationship between the individual and the state. This limits government power by limiting their control over the actions of the individual and protects individual liberty.

Where there is no codified constitution or bill of rights liberals stress the importance of statute law in checking government power through the principle of the rule of law. This can be established by the introduction of a number of internal constraints which disperse political power among a number of institutions and creates a network of checks and balances. All liberal political systems exhibit some kind of internal fragmentation. An example is the doctrine of the separation of powers which keeps the judiciary, the executive and parliament as three separate branches that cannot overlap. The principle of judicial independence is respected in all liberal democracies because the judiciary interprets the meaning of law and therefore reviews the powers of government itself. It must have formal independence and political neutrality to protect the individual from the state. Governments can also be fragmented by cabinet government, parliamentary government, bicameralism and territorial divisions such as feudalism, devolution and local government.

Liberal democracy is the most common liberal political system and the political force in the developed world. It balances the principle of limited government against the idea of popular consent. Liberals are concerned that democracy can become the enemy of individual liberty as the people are not a single authority but a collection of individuals possessing different opinions and opposing interests. The democratic solution to conflict is the application of the majority rule which liberals describe as tyranny of the majority. Majoritarianism would have a great effect on elections and referendums as governments could be elected that are in fact unwanted by many individuals and decisions in referendums could go against what many individuals want, thereby permitting government to do things that individuals do not want. Individual liberty and majority rights can be crushed in the name of the people. The best defence against majoritarianism is a network of checks and balances that would make government responsive to competing minorities.

Democracy limits government through consent and the idea that citizens must have a means of protecting themselves from the encroachment of government. Utilitarian theorists developed the notion of democracy as a form of protection for the individual into a case for universal suffrage. Utilitarianism implies that individuals will vote so as to defend their interests as they define them. Therefore the government elected is most likely the one wanted by individuals, ensuring that they are still in control.