POLS 170 Blog Group 5

  Thomas White Professor Shirk Blog Post 1 September 6th, 2021 Hans Morgenthau’s realist lens is too archaic of a view for today's geopolitical climate, for it to be considered acceptable and viable as a way in which to view international politics. Morgenthau’s claims, which were made over 40 years ago now, have no true standing in the world that is understood today. Morgenthau paints a picture of a world in anarchy, which is true in a sense, but not holistically, which he claims far too often. He believes, as do many realists, that the world is a set of warring states battling for power due to the human condition. Understood in the eyes of realists is that there are true and inherent laws regarding the interaction between states. Yet, through the works of J. Ann Ticker, and constructivist theory, these ideas do not seem to hold the same weight when put into the context of today's world. The first major issue is that today there are too many actors and actions that are not warr

I found DuBois' article, Of  the Culture of White Folk, to be extremely interesting as it analyzes how race, culture, religion, wealth, and overall ways of life differ throughout the world and what these differences amount to in the larger scheme of international politics.  DuBois touches on the hierarchies which can form between individuals and groups with these differences, and continues to imply that European countries are a dominating presence in international politics.  He quotes, “Perhaps we , as folk of simpler souls and more primitive type have been most struck in the welter of recent years by the utter failure of ehite religion (434).”  To me, this signified DuBois’ observance that larger international powers take dominance over minority groups, whether those groups are a race, religion, or smaller or lesser developed country.  Dubois follows this statement by touching on the idea of the white savior complex, elaborating on how those who are in power are typically white

     Within international relations, there is a separation between the concepts of Realism and human security. Realism revolves around the state and how it must operate in order to control inevitable, constant anarchy. On the other hand, human security is about the individual and ensuring that the individual is free from violent and non-violent threats (ex. access to food, clean water, education, shelter, etc.). This blog post argues that the two are entangled and must both be considered in order to reach political decisions and outcomes that are beneficial for all and that are rooted in justice.        In Tickner’s article, titled Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism, A Feminist Reformulation , she argues that masculinity is embedded in political realist theories and written concepts. This same type of argument was made by Zvobgo and Loken’s article Why Race Matters In International Relations where they exposed how race is a central organising feature of world politics. B

              Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks,  and Malcom X all fought for the notion that minorities would one day be seen as equal in the United States of America. This lack of unequal treatment to people based off of their race, ethnicity, religion, and gender has been apparent in the international political scene for as long as the Sun has been setting. In W.E. Burghardt Dub Bois's article, Of The Culture Of White Folk, he made the claims of how white, European men had the pride that they were 'better' than other kinds of people. Remarks by Du Bois in the 1910s like, "But we acknowledge our human frailty while you, claim super-humanity, scoff endlessly at our shortcomings" (Du Bois, 434), make me wonder if this occurs in today's day and age where racial dominance is apparent. I then remembered learning about the schooling system of New York City in my Education 101 class, and I was reminded that this still occurs today.     Du Bois writes a quote such

  Zvobgo and Loken’s article, Why Race Matters in International Relations, tackles some questionable, yet engaging topics in the realm of international relations. The reason for the article, whether people agree or disagree, is to start the discussion of the lack of diversity within the international relations community and hope for change to occur to allow more perspectives in consequential decisions on the global scale. One of their arguments, however, is that of anti-Asian sentiment influencing the development and structure of NATO. At first, I completely disagreed with that statement, but discussing it in class, and reading deeper into it, I would agree. To argue against Zvobgo and Loken’s statement that it was based on anti-Asian hate, there are two main reasons. The culture between the United States, Canada, and Europe are more similar than the U.S. and Japan or Japan and Europe. Yes, there are obviously cultural differences between the USA and Spain, or Spain and Germany, but

Tickner’s article, Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism, A Feminist Reformulation , poses some thought-provoking critiques of the realist approach to international relations. Not only are her arguments representative of the feminist perspective, they also revise realist theory to include broader themes which are critical to understanding politics, such as culture, community, and environment. By reframing the classic realist understanding of politics from an amoral and objective study to one that considers all possible factors and perspectives, Tickner’s argument offers a possible pathway towards changing the world. And in my opinion, this broad framework for analyzing international politics is the best chance we have to address issues of inequality, warfare, and other struggles between countries. In her article, Tickner proposes that, “a truly realistic picture of international politics must recognise elements of co-operation as well as conflict, morality as well as re