Barbara Wankoliie Blog Post #1
\
02/03/2022
“We are not to speak before the people, no doubt in case the mass of the people should hear once and for all and without interruption…Now suppose that you who sit here should make assurance doubly sure” (Thucydides).
Both the Athenians and Melianns officials made it very clear that they were different when they collectively agreed to leave “ the people” out. But who were the Athenians referring to as “the people”? And why were they the ones deciding the fate of the people that are not like them? If you look at the structure of leadership at that time you can tell that the hierarchy was mainly of noblemen. These men were in charge of deciding the fate of a whole nation (the people), based on their reasoning. If the people were only men, there would have been no argument, but “ the people” consisted of men, women, and children. Deciding the fate of your nation based on just half if not less of that nation is what I believe Enloe described as the political pyramid in international politics. This pyramid power functions in such a way that it keeps the people from the lack of power and in return make them the object of that and others’ power.
Today, our International Politics are mainly based on the Eurocentric idea that is traced back to Greek and Romans idea of leadership, and due to this, I can safely say that most of the time the people that are considered collateral damage in international relations are women and children.
For example the deployment of U.S troops from Iraq. There might be lots of reasons why the Iraqi government is ok or is fine with this decision, from what I’ve read the agreement is to focus on training Iraqi troops to fight Isis. There is nothing wrong with that, but was this decision based on the” the people”. We all know that just the mere fight that the U.S Army was in Iraq had an effect on the people. They felt calmer and the rebels were restless. Girls were now going back to school and women to an extent slowly leaving the house. Given that the country is not yet stable, I believe they should have looked more into the matter or should have gotten “the people” perspective, but looking at the patriarchal hierarchy in the government it is no surprise that this decision was made dominantly by man and if something goes wrong at the end, ”the people” will be the ones to suffer from this decision.
The point I’m trying to make is International politics most of the time forget the people, or in the case of today's politics,” the people” are underrepresented. So even if they are there, they are structured in such a way that they are still not part of decision making. The political pyramid structure keeps them silent.
Source
Afghan Women Fear The Worst After U.S. Withdrawal - The New York Times
U.S., Iraq agree on eventual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops
https://moodle.bucknell.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=1153458
https://moodle.bucknell.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=1153460
You have a very poetic way of writing. Your point of view is one I find very intriguing and I think Tickner could agree with your argument that the "people" are left out of every day international politics and it is much more focused on the interaction and value of states and not those living under their commands. Your focus on oppression of almost "all people who aren't the top of the pyramid" is one that does not receive as much notice as it should.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ariel regarding your very unique way of writing. You have a compelling style that definitely draws the reader in and makes your point very clear. Piggybacking on Ariel, I also believe that Tickner could agree with your argument surrounding the lack of concern for "the people." Your point, though focused on Iraq, can be seen throughout history, with "the people" slowly turning to be in opposition to "others," ultimately forming the "us vs them" mindset that we have studied through race and gender, and ultimately the US and its power against other countries.
ReplyDelete