1y ago

Day 4 Semester 2 of Political Science (and History)

This is a day late again so if the POV changes that’s because I wrote the last half today.

So day 4 has arrived (past?) and this time I wont be skipping my History class as some interesting things were said. Most of this class discussed chapter 3 of Lynn Hunt’s History Why It Matters which focused on History being a discipline that was the domain of privileged men (wealthy white men), social and cultural History, and History and Citizenship.

History used to be about politics and statesmanship but more “recently” has shifted to being about citizenship since people of multiple backgrounds have access to academia that was previously barred from them. Is it perfect, no of course not. Let’s be honest, we all know there are still barriers to higher education that nobody seems to acknowledge. But thats just my own thoughts on the matter, none o that was said in class. Moving on, apparently women in Europe didn’t start making it into universities until the1920s vs women in North America were going to university and college as early as the 1880s (or around that time, at least) which I had no idea about, the fact that North America was slightly better than Europe when it came to educating women. Lynn Hunt does comment that ethnic minorities and even lower class white men struggled even more so when it came to breaking into university. Now when discussing minorities trying to destroy barriers in society my professor brought up systemic racism and how frustrating the conversations surrounding it are. As a liberal he believes in personal individual rights and freedoms but also understands that barriers, such as systemic racism, are incredibly difficult to break through. For example the well-known liberal Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. Liberal? I that doesn’t sound right.

Moving on, when lecturing about cultural history my professor asked the class what culture is. The consensus was along the lines of food and general tradition. My professor was, I guess, pleasantly surprised as according to him back in the day he and his classmates would describe culture as being paintings, music, ballet (as it was a “cultured” activity), the opera (same deal as ballet), and things like that. He then went on a weird tangent about the opera and when he was younger Bugs Bunny was used to teach about the opera, something about Elmer Fudd singing “Kill the Wabbit” but nowadays Bugs Bunny isn’t on TV anymore because it too politically incorrect because the coyote always dies and I think something about characters getting shot/blown up. This kind of confused me because I grew up with Bugs Bunny but also other violent cartoons that still air today. Also cartoons still depict violence quite frequently. You could also argue that a lot of cartoons deal with more mature themes such as mental health problems and politics in general. Whether they handle those subjects well is up for debate and really dependent on the specific show.

After that this class was coming to an end in which we went over Canadians not getting citizenship until, like, the 1940s which is much later than the US and France. We then talked about sovereignty, what it means in certain contexts, and pluralism. Regarding pluralism my professor talked about his father, who left when he was nine, hating the fact that cereal boxes had French translations on it and would deliberately turn the boxes to hide the French part. This was not because the man hated French people or the language, he encouraged my professor to learn it in school, he just hated the government mandating it on products and “basically” making people buy French stuff. Does this sound like it came out of nowhere? Because it kind of did! My professor seems to have a weird habit of dropping tidbits about his personal life, some of it being quite traumatic. His mother was a super alcoholic and he had too help raise his siblings.

Class ended but I want to talk about a segment from Lynn Hunt’s book as it feel necessary:

“In 2012, fifteen years after the Chinese took over Hong Kong from the British, they introduced a new curriculum that vaunted the communist party as “progressive, selfless, and united,” while downplaying the violence of the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s and the bloody crackdown on dissidents at Tiananmen Square in 1989. Despite protest demonstrations against this brainwashing by tens of thousands of parents, the government enforced the new standards.”

I’m so glad I didn’t spent a cent on this book, because what the hell is this? Clearly Lynn Hunt is a French Revolution historian because she fumbled this so badly. Absolutely embarrassing. Anyway, moving on.

During my two hour break I ate my grilled cheese and mushroom sandwich, biscoitos, and wrote the first half of this post. Nothing really happened except its hard to find good places to sit and write as majority of the tables near my Political Science class are very short so typing hurts the back big time. Maybe Friday will be better on my back.

So what happened in Political Science; oh boy this class was a doozy! So right off the bat we had a pop quiz, and I got all but one question right so that’s cool. I forgot the word “Postmaterialism” by Ronald Inglehart. So this class we went over the characteristics of the modern state: territory, sovereignty, legitimacy, and bureaucracy. Fun fact, I have such a hard time spelling the word bureaucracy. First we began with the historical origins of the modern state and apparently it was conceptualizer in Europe and then exported to the rest of the world. It emerged at the end of the Middle Ages. Then we went over the terms state, country, nation, regime, and government and how they don’t actually mean the same thing contrary to vernacular usage interchanging them constantly. That is not allowed in Political Science and I made sure to make note of it because I am very forgetful. Max Weber was mentioned due to his definition of what a state is; my professor says he wont really be testing us on the names of most political figures but we should probably remember Weber and Marx.

When discussing the 4 characteristics of the state this is where the most interesting part of the school day happened and I would encourage everyone to at the very least read this part of the post! First was territory, an area with boundaries where a state lays claim. With this in mind my professor brought up that after the collapse of the Jewish Kingdom and WWII there are nations but they have no state. Second was sovereignty defined as absolute power, ultimate authority within borders with external and internal validity, as there needs to be recognition by outside states. My professor used the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic as an example of recognition, they internally recognize themselves as states but have yet to gain external recognition, therefore they are not states. I swear to God, when I heard my professor say “Donbas” my head whipped up so fast I should also mention that when my professor was explaining why the DPR and LPR aren’t states he used a neutral matter-of-fact tone rather than mocking.

Continuing with this sovereignty conversation, while it seemed my professor was ready to move on a few students had questions and they were quite interesting. one student asked about the China and Taiwan dispute, how Taiwan wants to be a sovereign nation but China refutes this vehemently, or. In other aspects Taiwan sees itself as the legitimate China and wants to govern over the entire country instead. My professor acknowledged this as a difficult question to answer as this conflict is less an issue of Political Science and more of a game of power relations. He also made sure to add the context that the government of Taiwan was expelled from mainland China due to their loss but also growing tensions, he also made sure to add in a comment about nationalism. He explained that sovereignty is not to be defined by Political Scientists but by governments.

Sovereignty is not unchallengeable. But then another student piped up with a laugh to her question that by that definition North Korea is not sovereign because its government in unchallenged. My professor explained that there are conflict between the North and South Korean governments but both are well defined separate states since the Korean War (did the Korean War ever really end?). “But what about Russia?” she asks, and with the aid of another student he continues her question “Russia is a democracy but their higher powers cannot be challenged.” What does he mean by this? I have no fucking clue. The student continued before my professor could answer, “Russia has veto powers too, so maybe they’re just corrupt.” Finally my professor was able to speak, while yes it is hard to condemn a permanent member of he security council due to their veto ability, but its also difficult to condemn Russia as illegitimate since there isn’t really much substance to that claim. He seemed to be connecting the dots that this question was being brought up because of the current war in Ukraine so he emphasized that such a conflict must be resolved diplomatically.

When the students tried to push on Russia not having internal sovereignty as the government goes unchallenged my professor shut it down as he clearly wanted to move on to the next section of the material before we ran out of time. That next section was about the 3 kinds of legitimate authority: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. He mentioned Mao Zedong as a charismatic leader, and just revolutionary leaders in general fitting that form of authority. he emphasized that all leadership makes use of all three (most of thee time). Students asked about Hitler but that discussion wasn’t interesting and unfortunately it took up the rest o our class time that we couldn’t finish the content.

Then I went home and finished writing this post the day after. So what did you think? For me I’m a tiny bit optimistic when it comes to my Political Science professor. Is he a Marxist? I have no clue and maybe I’ll never know but he seems incredibly respectful so far. Let’s hope things get better and better and the days go by and maybe I’ll feel comfortable enough to participate in class. I do need to take advantage of office hours so if anyone has questions I could ask during those I’d be more then happy to bring them up.

Thank you all for reading and I look forward to my next classes.

One last thing, I’m going to be making a separate community for these posts as it’ll help keep things more organized. I will still cross post to here but make my main posts (journals?) in their own space. I hope I am allowed to do that.

5 comments

I find it weird that your professor is still operating as if the situation with the Donbass was still the same as it was in 2021. The DPR and LPR are not independent states because they have voluntarily chosen to be absorbed by Russia. They have already been annexed and integrated and have just participated in Russian elections. And it would be interesting to see if Kosovo ever gets brought up in such discussions because its alleged independence and statehood has even less legitimacy than the DPR and LPR did pre-2022.
Why this double standard that when the West recognizes a state it's legitimate but when Russia does, as in the case of Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Ossetia it's not? Unlike the Donbass republics Kosovo never had a referendum on whether to declare independence, instead an illegitimate and unrepresentative "parliament" simply unilaterally declared it and was backed by the US and EU in doing so because their goal was to divide all remnants of the former Yugoslavia as much as possible and especially cripple Serbia to prevent it from becoming a regional power again.
In fact similar arguments could be made about South Korea and whether it is a legitimate state as it was established by a foreign power and based on the violent suppression of the population by a military dictatorship to prevent communists coming to power like in the north. It seems like the main condition that is being suggested for whether a state is legitimate or not is recognition by other states, but mainly by Western ones. And if China wasn't so powerful that everyone wanted to have trade relations with them they would probably recognize Taiwan too, despite being the most clear cut case of an illegitimate "state".
- I find it weird that your professor is still operating as if the situation with the Donbass was still the same as it was in 2021. The DPR and LPR are not independent states because they have voluntarily chosen to be absorbed by Russia. They have already been annexed and integrated and have just participated in Russian elections.
  Maybe he’s like me with regards to not even knowing that happened. I knew that the Donbas wanted to be annexed but I wasn’t aware it actually happened to the point where they are participating in Russian elections.
  Why this double standard that when the West recognizes a state it’s legitimate but when Russia does, as in the case of Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Ossetia it’s not?… And if China wasn’t so powerful that everyone wanted to have trade relations with them they would probably recognize Taiwan too, despite being the most clear cut case of an illegitimate “state”.
  I know this is the attitude when it comes to the Western international community, but I don’t know if my professor feels the same as he never acknowledged Taiwan as its own state. He did talk about how it is not internationally recognized save for a select few nations. I could ask him during office hours what the deal is with approval from Western states being the deciding factor on whether a state is legitimate or not.
  With your comments about Kosovo and South Korea, I am interested in hearting his perspective on both issues but I’ll have to gauge whether its “appropriate” to ask or not. Some professors are more open than others and he is Korean so I may have to tread lightly.
  
  Ask him why Palestine isn't a recognized state but Israel, a settler-colonial state, is.
  Ask why Westerners (the US) prevented the liberation of Formosa (Taiwan) from the brutal military dictatorship imposed by Chiang Kai-shek.
  Follow up: Ask why Westerners (mostly US) still uses Taiwan as a chess piece despite the people there seeking to maintain the current status quo and not necessarily full independence as a state.
  Ask why Westerners (the US) prevented the people of Korea from uniting and forming a people's republic across the entire peninsula. Kim Il-Sung's liberation army had nearly driven Rhee from the country. He was ready to essentially concede defeat and flee into exile acknowledging that Kim was favored by the people generally. And then the US intervened.
  The answer to these types of questions are complicated sometimes, but the underlying reasoning is always the same: position the US in a way in which to exert the most leverage and power possible on all nations of the world. The "spread of communism" was such a threat because nationalized industries serving the people of their respective countries are no longer exploitable by western capitalists. There's also the whole racist and weird "warrior for Christ" insanity from some at the absolute top of foreign policy, but the material reason is to set the world up for extraction to the first world, specifically to the US.
  Since he's Korean, if he's willing to engage in good faith on the subject and admit that the south was a military dictatorship implemented by and propped up by the US for decades while the north held actual elections and was genuinely popular (like the Chinese communist revolution that had just happened nearby) then you might make progress speaking with him. If his view is that Kim Il-Sung was the aggressor and a bad guy then, well, probably not going to convince him otherwise. I would hope a history professor understands that the US was the instigator in the entire Korean War, but, who knows. Some people believe some wild shit.

This kind of confused me because I grew up with Bugs Bunny but also other violent cartoons that still air today.
Maybe Wiley Coyote always represented indigenous people?
On asking questions in office hours… I wanted to comment on some of the suggestions in other comments. I'd be extremely wary of asking inflammatory or combative questions or even trying to find out exactly what your prof thinks. I don't think that's the purpose of office hours. They're available so that you can get extra support for your learning.
You can ask for an opinion but these things can be more productive if you frame everything as seeking support for your development (and at least follow his advice if he gives you any). Your prof has chosen to be a teacher. It's hard to break into and takes years to do so. Not all teachers are good ones but many of them are still in it to see you develop (and to do their own writing/research) (and yours does sound good, tbh). If you go in with the mindset of a mentee/supervisee, there's a reasonable chance that your prof will love you for it and take you under his wing, which is when you can get into more contentious issues, by asking advice about how to deal with them (e.g. without tanking your career).
As for the content of the suggested questions. The crimes of the US in SK, for example, do not rest on your prof (whatever they think about it). And if they are from Korea, they could have serious trauma about all that's happened. If they're a bit quiet about setting out their view, it wouldn't necessarily mean they don't have a good one. That history is going to be contradictory and confusing for Koreans in a way that is hard for us in the west to picture. You also might not know the full circumstances of his move to Canada.
Taking a hard-line in favour of the Kims, for example, could ostracise him from his community, family, friends, in a way that serves no purpose as an individual opinion. And taking any kind of pro-communist view while working in Canada could put his job, livelihood, and visa at risk. You know what racist reactionaries are like. If he's Canadian but e.g. his parents are Korean, taking a pro-DPRK stance could still put him in real physical danger and still risk his job and livelihood.
Being a communist Korean who isn't protected physically within the DPRK is dangerous in other ways. He might not be able to go back home by voicing support for the DPRK, as he might be surveiled or prosecuted under the SK National Security Act (I think that's it's name, if it's still in force). Given all this, if he does reveal sympathies, it might be a good idea not to share them online due to the risk of doxxing.
Tbh he sounds like the kind of person with whom you could get into some great discussions – but over a coffee. Be cautious of bombarding him with questions to pin down his politics like a PCM quiz.
I think you'd have handled it well without all this. I highly doubt you'd have gone in looking for trouble. Much of this is more of a general opsec warning for others: don't encourage comrades to do dangerous things or to unsettle relationships with people (especially those who hold power over comrades).
- Maybe Wiley Coyote always represented indigenous people?
  I’ve never heard of this before. I’ll have to look into it at some point.
  I’d be extremely wary of asking inflammatory or combative questions or even trying to find out exactly what your prof thinks. I don’t think that’s the purpose of office hours. They’re available so that you can get extra support for your learning.
  You’re exactly right. When reading comments and questions people have, I appreciate them so much but I’m also aware of how office hours are to be used and what questions, even if I framed them differently, should be asked. Questions relating to the definition of statehood in relation to Israel and Palestine I think would be fair to bring up for better context of what we are learning, but some questions I just can’t ask without getting myself and/or my professor in trouble. I don’t want to jeopardize my education and future relationships with my professors. I genuinely like my Political Science class (including last semester) and the instructor, I know I can learn a lot from him.
  If you go in with the mindset of a mentee/supervisee, there’s a reasonable chance that your prof will love you for it and take you under his wing, which is when you can get into more contentious issues, by asking advice about how to deal with them (e.g. without tanking your career).
  That’s honestly one of my goals while getting a degree, gaining mentors, even one would be more than enough. Maybe it wont be this particular instructor but either way I want to get as much out of this class I can. And honestly, I think he could be. Great mentor to me but that will only reveal itself with time and me opening up.
  The crimes of the US in SK, for example, do not rest on your prof (whatever they think about it). And if they are from Korea, they could have serious trauma about all that’s happened. If they’re a bit quiet about setting out their view, it wouldn’t necessarily mean they don’t have a good one. That history is going to be contradictory and confusing for Koreans in a way that is hard for us in the west to picture. You also might not know the full circumstances of his move to Canada.
  I know this is one question I cannot and will not ask my professor. I understand many people’s curiosity, I really do but its not realistic in my circumstances (me being a student) and it doesn’t really align with the course content any way. I wouldn’t want to corner the man, nor do I think if I was the one asking he’d feel that way but still. Im not in the position to ask and I don’t want to risk re-traumatizing someone, especially someone who is innocent.
  Being a communist Korean who isn’t protected physically within the DPRK is dangerous in other ways. He might not be able to go back home by voicing support for the DPRK, as he might be surveiled or prosecuted under the SK National Security Act (I think that’s it’s name, if it’s still in force). Given all this, if he does reveal sympathies, it might be a good idea not to share them online due to the risk of doxxing.
  This is just good advice overall. Even when I wasn’t the one asking and it was another student bringing up the DPRK I couldn’t help but cringe because of how sensitive the issue is. I Wouldn’t dare ask him about it. All I can really hope for while studying is that my professors remain factual and matter-of-fact, not dismissive. I wasn’t aware of the SK National Security Act so Im glad you brought it to my attention. I don’t want to put anyone in danger, especially not my professor who by all intents and purposes is good at his job. Even I have to tread lightly when it comes to drawing hard lines, its one of the reasons I hesitate to speak in class in fear of being ostracized. I like to think I word my questions and statements in a way that is gentle, non-intimidating, and open but you never know how someone might interpret.
  Tbh he sounds like the kind of person with whom you could get into some great discussions – but over a coffee. Be cautious of bombarding him with questions to pin down his politics like a PCM quiz.
  I’d definitely like to be colleagues one day, just to be on even ground with my professors is honestly a dream, but I’m not there yet and I’m more than willing to wait for that day. I also never want to come across as if I’m cross examining any of my instructors, though with my temperament I don’t think I’d succeed with that even if I tried.
  I think you’d have handled it well without all this. I highly doubt you’d have gone in looking for trouble.
  You seem to understand me very well. I’m a bit overly cautious, soft spoken, non-confrontational, and anxious but sometimes it works out well for me. I know at some point I’ll need to be able to flip my personality into something harsher for certain situations but right now I think my current demeanour is just fine.