History Repeated

          "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." -George W. Bush 10/7/2002

          Substitute President Bush with President Obama, and substitute Iraq with Syria and look what we have. We have the current issue of Syria possessing chemical weapons. This has been a claim made largely by the international community. But is this an accurate claim? Or is this a claim made as an excuse to go to war? Comparing Iraq and Syria, it is scary to see how they are similar. It is scary to see how history could possibly be repeating itself.
          The Iraq War started with the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. President Bush accused Saddam of possessing WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). Bush made the statement that Saddam was going to use these weapons against his own people and also use the weapons against the greater international community especially its neighbors, such as Iran. When Bush made this claim, people believed him. When Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council with a vial of anthrax, everyone believed him. At that point everyone was going to support an invasion of Iraq. But when the Iraq War "ended", it was revealed that Saddam had no WMDs. This lead to widespread speculation that the issue of WMDs was used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Did we invade Iraq due to WMDs? Did we invade due to a oppressive regime? Or did we invade to benefit ourselves?
          Now lets look at Syria. The Syrian regime is controlled by Assad. Assad has been oppressing the people of Syria, and Syria is caught in a civil war. The international community has largely not gotten involved on the ground in Syria. However, this may soon change due to one simple accusation. There have been reports that Syria posses chemical weapons. If Syria were to actual posses these chemicals, it could do severe damage to its people and some countries around it. But the question is does Syria actually posses these weapons? It could be possible that this is just an accusation made so that Syria is invaded. Either war, it provides an eerie comparison.
          We are not on the ground in Syria. Neither were we on the ground in Iraq. As a result we do not know the exact conditions. We were not in Iraq experiencing the issues there. We the public did not know if Saddam had the weapons. We were told that he did. It brings up the issue of what the public is told. We the public are outsiders. The people "in" major players in world relations either knew if Iraq had the weapons or they themselves were fooled as well. I am not willing to argue the conspiracy here, but I will acknowledge both sides have plausible cases. The issue that I would like to bring up is that we the public, as outsiders, are never told the full story. This is for obvious security reasons, but it brings up the issue what should or shouldn't we be told? In the case of Syria, I have no idea what is actually going on. I only have news sources to rely on. However, is that better than if I knew the actual truth?

Mexico and Traps

          Mexico. Sunny. Warm. Vacation hot spot. Illegal immigrants. Those are some typical connotations that certain Americans have with Mexico. However, those are certainly viewpoints from outsiders. If these individuals were to actually go on the ground in the streets of Mexico, not the elaborate resorts, they would certainly see a different place. They would possibly see a Mexico that is in conflict, or seeing people struggling. But, that is not to say that Mexico is a poor developing country. Mexico in fact is in the upper tiers of economic status. A recent book by Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion, talks about countries that are considered in the bottom sixth of the worlds growth. Collier describes four traps that countries in the bottom billion are stuck in. While Mexico is not in the bottom billion, nor is it directly caught in each trap, each trap still has something to do with Mexico.
         The first trap that Collier describes is the conflict trap. In Collier's book the conflict trap is centered around civil war. While Mexico is not in a civil war, it is caught in a drug conflict. Drug cartels have taken over Mexico in many ways, and deaths occur on a daily basis. This is a drug war. The government has not had a complete grasp on this conflict. Recently, the government of Mexico has captured certain drug lords; however, this capture does not entail the end of this war. This drug war has been long going. While people may argue a end is coming, it does not seem like it. This conflict has brought instability to Mexico. What it has also done is caused a great financial strain on the government in an effort to combat the war. While these costs are not to the extent of a civil war, it is still draining money that could be sent elsewhere. For this reason, Mexico is neither directly in the conflict trap, but it is also not completely out of it.
         The second trap Collier describes is the natural resources trap. Again, Mexico is not really effected by this trap. Mexico's two largest exports are oil and agricultural products. The natural resource trap describes an effect that too many resources are a bad thing. They bring instability to the region and cause economic strains. Mexico has been able to avoid this trap because first, they are not the main oil exporter in the world. Countries generally look elsewhere for their oil. Mexico's agricultural industry is not the only agricultural industry in the world either. Mexico has been able to avoid this trap because it does not really have a plethora of resources.
         The third trap is the landlocked with bad neighbors trap. Again Mexico has been able to avoid this trap because look at its neighbor to the north, the United States. Mexico is also not landlocked. It has oceans bordering its east and west. These coastal lines allow for trade. Therefore, Mexico has been able to use this to progress economically.
         The final trap is the bad governance in a small country trap. Again Mexico is not directly effected by this one. Mexico is not a small country. It has the eleventh largest population in the world. While Mexico may seem to have a government that has been incapable of holding a grip on the conflict within the nation, this has still not swayed investors from investing in Mexico. Mexico in fact has made multiple investments both with its government and its resources that have economically progressed the country. The problem for investors now is to ensure that their investments are secure in light of the conflict in the country. But Mexico's government has not led Mexico to economic hardship.
          All of this may have just opened up your eyes a little bit in your knowledge of Mexico. As outsiders it is not uncommon for us to overlook the certain events within a country. However, as outsiders we still need to be informed and up to date with the events in other nations. While an outsider may not believe the events in Mexico are significant, they are wrong. Mexico is our neighbor. We have had a relatively good relationship with Mexico. But our relationship with Mexico does not only stop at vacationing and illegal immigrants. Even throw in the drug war and that does not even begin to cover our relationship. Open up your eyes. Mexico effects us.

Art Critique

"Art is always criticized and always an outsider gets the blame." Ville Vallo

     Art is a form of beauty. It is beautiful because many different people can have unique interpretations on a single piece. The issue then becomes how closely related are the artists meaning and the audiences interpretation. Artists have often constructed pieces that are interpreted by others in a way not intended by the creator. There are two sides to this issue. The first is that many different opinions can be extremely beneficial. The alternative is that different view points stray the audience from the actual intended purpose.
     First let us look at many different view points. Different view points allow different opinions. What is great about living in the United States is that each person is entitled to their own opinion.We do not live in a theocracy where criticism is prohibited. Therefore, this all adds to the beauty of being unique and seeing things differently. Different is good. Recently I was at a local elementary school reading a book to first graders. The book was titled, "You Be You" by Linda Kranz. The book teaches kids that uniqueness is precious. Kids are often falling into traps of peer pressure these days. Kids should be taught that different opinions are highly valuable. The book gets this point across. In relating this to art, art is beautiful because people can see it many different ways. Two similar people walk into a art gallery, and each leaves a different person.
     The argument can also be made that unique view points corrupt ideas and minds. When their is one clear purpose to be sent across the table, it doesn't always get there. Think of it as a game of telephone, the story keeps changing, and the initial "idea" often doesn't get to the end. If you want to get a point across, I agree that artwork is powerful. However, it is not the most efficient way to describe an event to the tee. There is this "wiggle-room" that can corrupt the image.
     Recently in class, we talked about the idea of museums and what the purpose of museums are. An art museum can be for profit or non for profit. If it is for profit, then the art will displace things to get people into their institution. This can be dangerous and powerful. Dangerous because it can lead to the sole focus on money, of powerful because the money can do a lot of good for the museum. Each is a possibility. However, if a museum is non for profit, it can still be extremely productive. In that case, it can pool all of its resources on educating the public through art. Art is a powerful teaching tool. Visual learners are empowered by art. But the issue of different view points comes into play here.
     Now the thought of how this affects outsiders. Outsiders are definitely not the artist. The artist him/herself is "in" on whatever piece of work he/she is producing. So then the outsider can be considered the audience. In reference to the quote, the outsider can also be considered the critic. A critics job is to well criticize. It is extremely easy to find flaws and form criticisms. That is why a critics job is easy. However, critics form controversy. That is why they are often blamed. The quote stipulates this extremely well. An artist can easily blame the critic because the critic's views are not the same as the artist's views. Therefore the artist blames the critic. The reality of it is that the critic just has a unique view to the work of art. In that situation, critics are important because as an outsider, they see things differently.

The Election

     As the election approaches, both candidates have wanted to appeal to the American public. By doing so this will generate them votes and possibly the title of President of the United States. One key aspect of appealing to the public that I would like to focus on is by connecting to the public. Specifically, this is done by trying to appear as a Washington outsider. Let’s look at both candidates and their connection to Washington.

     When President Obama first ran in 2008 he claimed to be an outsider. He cited his African roots and his birth in Hawaii. He then proceeded to discuss how much of a family man he was. What he forgot to mention was his service as Junior Senator in Congress from the state of Illinois. That is a pretty significant connection to Washington. How can someone be a Washington outsider when they worked in Washington prior to their election? In this campaign trail, Obama has been unable to use his outsider label because well, he has been the President of the United States! His service in Washington now has made him a political insider. So, if people want an outsider, they should definitely look elsewhere.

     The next candidate is Governor Romney. Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts. Technically speaking, this does not make him a Washington insider. However, he is certainly not new to politics. As Governor or Massachusetts he established policies that are closely tied to Washington. While he may not have physically worked in Washington, he certainly has built up political connections. Aside from politics, Romney has tried to connect to the public by saying he is one of them. How can a filthy rich man be an everyday person on the street? In this regard as well, Romney has failed to connect to everyday people.

     So if you want to vote for a President that is considered an outsider, vote for Romney. However, if you want to vote for an individual who is closely connected to the American public, vote for yourself.

"You can be a rank insider as well as a rank outsider." -Robert Frost

African Conflict

     During this week, I had the opportunity to attend a presentation by an organization called Invisible Children. They presented on a conflict located in Africa in the region of Darfur. Some may be more familiar with this when hearing Kony 2012.
     This was my third time seeing a presentation by Invisible Children. Each presentation I have seen has been well done. However, I am not here to speak about the presentation. Instead, I would like to comment on the issue at hand.
     It finally hit me seeing this presentation for a third time. Also, I believe that it was in conjunction with my blog topic. Nevertheless, I got it.
     The whole idea of Invisible Children started with individuals in the United States trying to fix a conflict in Africa. These Americans who had this idea can be considered outsiders. To them, they were stuck in the United States looking over the Atlantic Ocean and trying to come up with a solution to the problem. It was not until they could set foot on the ground in Africa that they realized what this conflict actually was.

"Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." -Carl Jung

     Carl Jung's quote summarizes the outside perspective perfectly. Imagine from the perspective of American looking at Africa. The American is an outsider. To solve the issue in Africa, all the American can really do is dream. They can try to think of possible solutions to the problem. However, when an individual actually goes to Africa and sees pragmatically what can and can't be done, then a whole other viewpoint is set into place. This "awakening" is not a dream anymore. It is a realization. In the context of the conflict in Darfur, the organization, Invisible Children, was not able to fully succeed in the region until it went in on the ground and realized what they as outsiders could do.
     At first, it is entirely possible that they were not gladly welcome into the African region. Africa has had a poor history with white people, and anti sentiment could still be in the air. It is possible for Africans, as the native people, to feel that the white people are nosy, and that this is none of their business. However, I believe that the success of Invisible Children banked on the willingness to accept this notion. Invisible Children sounds like yet another missionary group to enter Africa. It is different. They went into Africa knowing their role. They weren't going to transform African society. They were only going to help the people of a specific reason.
     In a more broader sense, the outsider must know the appropriate time and place for each action. The outsider cannot act out and draw attention to himself. If that were the case, then the outsider would be kicked out by the insider. The success and survival of the outsider depends on the acceptability of the insider. Make best friends with the insider, and the outsider will survive and thrive.

Welcome to the Outside

Today starts a journey From the Outside Perspective.

I am not here to share my inside secrets that I have accumulated so far. Instead, I am here to share what it means to be an outsider.

I am the first person in my family to be born in America. My parents have lived here for nearly twenty years and still consider themselves outsiders. However, they have developed a clear influence on the people around them.

I am here to speak about how outsiders influence the people right in front of their eyes. From the Outside Perspective will take you through the eyes of an outsider and how the outsider influences the daily lives of others.

This blog will not be covering how native individuals feel about the influence of others. Instead, it will take a direct dive into the lives of what can be considered foreigners, people not native to the area.

To clear up some confusion, I am not strictly speaking about outsiders based on nationalities or cultures. Although this blog will take a look at such specifics, it is more so focused on the broader issue of outside influence.

Outside influence could be considered how an outsider influences the inside politics of Washington. Or, it is how a new immigrant influences the lives of their new community.

The beauty of everything is that outsiders are all around us.

Go to work, or school, and come back. At one point in the day an outsider must have influenced you. The realization may not be so clear, however it is certain.

For example, it may even be the car you drive, the TV you watch, your computer, or your cell phone. Each of these objects is a product of outside influence. These outside influences change the everyday lives of people.

Each person is an outsider in their very own way. It is time to explore each person.

"To the people here, we are outsiders. Foreigners." -Roberto Clemente