Vietnam

The news regarding Vietnam recently has been interesting. First, a president embroiled in what could become a modern day Vietnam is visiting the site where many in his administration first cut their teeth in power. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and many of the senior level generals and Pentagon officials were just getting their start when the Vietnam War occurred. They seemed to have forgotten some of the lessons but have learned some things including manipulating the press, lessening the impact of the death tolls, and stifling opposition as un-patriotic.

What really interests me is the House’s refusal to pass a treaty recognizing Vietnam as a free trade partner. First, many argued against the bill because it furthered the process of free trade. This is unpopular with many because of the perception that it cost jobs. It is also interesting that the legacy of the war was problematic as well. Some republicans argued against it because it would further normalize or integrate a prior enemy while some on the left felt it did not do enough to strengthen labor rights. It strikes me as odd that the party that got into Vietnam full strength is now having qualms about the quality of life for civilians while the party that exited Vietnam is worrying over trade with an old enemy. I also happen to think that both sides will prove inconsequential because Vietnam will still be able to join the WTO and continue its integration into the world system. Good Night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/business/15trade.html?ex=1321246800&en=712dcc3b4aa071fd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Questions of my own

Some of these may be observations rather then questions.

1. If Japan played a major part in US involvement in Korea, was it more so out of fear of a threat to the system or a need to preserve further spread of Communism? Did it also seem odd that only a few years after the war that Japan would regain regional hegemony with a few different conditions such as openness to trade?

2. This a broad point. Reading so far has led me to the conclusion that a system must be in play for reasonable stability. If this idea is somewhat recognizable, then would the communist/socialist system have been any less exploitation or did the better system (liberal capitalism) eventually win in the end?

3. It seems as if there was a continuum in US policy from the late 1890's onward throughout the use of the a-bomb and US insistence that Japan be kept from Russian hands or policy. The goal appeared to be an emphasis on liberal economics and adherence to US norms and policy. Is there any truth to this?

4. Schoonover's conclusion makes more sense now with the chapter on post-WWII events. He observed that communist Russia and Vietnam were logical responses to the imperial/neo-imperial policies of the west. Should we view them as such or should we also look at external factors such as the influence of the USSR? Why did they go Communist when Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, the Malaysia and many other South Asian and Pacific nations went with the liberal world system? Nonetheless it does seem correct that western difficulties with these two nations did rest upon the inherent nature of the world system.

5. Without engaging in majority's simpleton arguement, was it logical for the US to hold back in Korea? If the goal was to further the world system in favor of the US, why would China not merit addition? Or was the restraint due to the internal/external needs of US politicians who realized that long term success was more important and required restraint to matinee domestic support?

6. The delay in peace talks was presented by McCormick as a need to implement NSC-68. Could also be that the delay was imperative for the US to concretely implement the new evolution of the military-industrial complex that was required to support its world system?

7. It seems odd in Germany that the US could quickly turn into a better friend then that of one of its war allies France. While the war was brutal, did the conclusion of it mean that enemies could quickly become friends in a world system were economics were more important than prior conflicts? Also, did US alliance with Germany occurring early on in the Cold War, was the US already seeing an endgame where Germany would be key to toppling the Cold War and in creating a new Europe with a relatively friendly Germany as its core?

8. Was Vietnam really the loss of American hegemony given its current friendly relations and embrace of the world system?

9. Were Japan and Vietnam effects of WWII goals to create a free Asia where liberal economics would rule the day? Or should the be looked at separately? My interest is in how Japan like Germany quickly became the centerpiece of US policy with an understanding that arms and power must be given to preserve the world system to former enemies.

10. I found the suggestion that the Cold War was used to suppress the EEC interesting. A new Europe with a clearly antagonistic French outlook on US would have surely led to an impediment on trade and a reorganization of European relations with the USSR. Is this a correct understanding of US actions that seemed to intesify the conflict?

11. Hegemony v. Intergration. If intergration would bring countires into the world system, is it any better or worse then communist attempts to keep them out. Can intergration be looked as a way for the hegemon to ensure the success of its systerm even if ability declines to prop up the system?

12. Can Israel and its destabilizing actions be looked at as an effect of US need to keep the Middle East non-commuinst/USSr friendly? Could it also be that the Middle East in turmoil is more profitable for the world system if the "Achilles heel" of the world system is oil? Is this one of the reason's the US continues to prop uo Isreale and keep out of its actions?

Discussion Questions for McCormick - Take 2

Here are some more discussion questions (2 from each chapter) regarding McCormick's America's Half-Century.

Chapter 1

What are the two instances that a single hegemonic power overtook the balance of power in the capitalist world economy and what was the crucial element for the formation of this single hegemonic power in both cases?

What gave the ins-and-outers the advantage over the careerists?

Chapter 2

What strategy did the US employ to minimize casualties, achieve continuous victories, and maintain their wealth during WWII?

What was the significance of the Yalta System and what brought it to a close?

Chapter 3

What was the reason for the US to utilize the atomic bomb twice and with such haste?

How was productionism favorable to the US? What did other nations fear about productionism?

Chapter 4

What were the major concerns of American government and big businesses when the dollar gap impacted the trade between America and Europe?

What were the American responses to the dollar gap and how did they influence this crisis?

Chapter 5

What common goal was the US seeking by entering into the Korean War and Vietnam War?

If Vietnam "had little intrinsic value" according to McCormick, then why did the US play such a large role in the war?

Chapter 6

How did the French stand in the way of American hegemony after the return of French leader de Gaulle?

How did the US deal with peripheral nations that turned from being stable parts of economic internationalism to being uncooperative?

Foreign policy today

I found an article on foreignpolicy.com by Marcia Pally, a professor at NYU, that directly relates to the material we are covering in McCormick's America's Half-Century.

According to Pally, foreign policy will not change as much as some think, though there may be many changes in the "domestic arena". Pally takes a fairly neutral approach to this article. She looks back to the "exceptional period of U.S. internationalism" which is exactly what we are covering in the text by McCormick.

Pally compares Bush's invasion in Iraq to the US invasions of the past, such as Phillipines, Korea, and Vietnam. She concludes that although the results are dissimilar, the motives are the same. That is, the US looks to maintain a stable periphery in order to have "access to the key resources".

Question

I enjoyed the book so far.

1. Is world systems an appropriate way to analyze events or do events require analysis on issues other then sole economic imperatives?

2. I agree with others on the question of American hegemony. It seems that while other nations such as China may be on the rise, American hegemony is evolving rather than disappearing after the end of the Cold War. How do we reconcile McCormick argument that since the 1970's hegemony has been on the decline when it seems to have remained strong?

3. I enjoyed the analysis of the domestic sphere reinforcing the notion of hegemony. McCormick was convincing in his argument that much of American popular belief is unsupported by fact. What would it take for Americans or any nation for that matter to look at themselves objectively without merely accepting the beliefs that elites want to propagate?

I also enjoyed reading Julie's response. It was redeeming in its clarity and clarification of beliefs that at first seemed...well somewhat on the verge of political fanaticism. Hopefully moderation and reason will win the day. Good afternoon.

Discussion Questions for McCormick

I enjoyed reading this first part of McCormick's America's Half-Century more than any of the books we have covered up to now.

The 3 discussion questions I have developed for the reading (Ch 1-4) follow. I was most comfortable with the material in the first chapter, so I focused my discussion questions on that material.

In America's Half-Century, published more than 10 years ago, McCormick raises the question, "Will the United States accept the loss of hegemony, and how will it define its new role in world affairs?". So my question is, has the US lost its hegemony at present, or is the US in the process of losing or regaining hegemony?

Does the US act as the global policeman, and overinvest in military production (a sign of speeding up the decline to a rentier nation and warfare state, according to McCormick)?

How is hegemonic power distributed throughout the world today?

Schoonover

Chapter six, "The War of 1898 in the Pacific Basin" examinies the background and the development of the war. Schoonover spots the need for "...industrial and consumable raw materials, labor, markets for overproduction, investment opportunities, and a stake in the future of selected external areas of resources", as the trigger for the US intervention in the Pacific Basin. For him the whole campaign was a response "...with a set of expansionist policies". While elaborating on the actual development of the different battles, Schoonover points out that the Filipinos were civilized, disciplined, intelligent and organized and partly independent (even under Spanish rule) and therefore showed no desire for American rule and resisted the US army in devastating and bloody skirmishes, which should last for decades. Schoonover gives various examples of Americans who opposed the war (Mark Twain, Henry Adam, Henry Waterson...) and identified it as Social Imperialism. Further, he also shows how other countries, as Germany for example, tried to benefit from the political change by securing their interest in the Pacific Basin. He concludes this chapter by talking about how Americans changed their language ("liberate"="occupy" and "pacify"= "conquer"), in order to change the mindset of the people at home (make them believe that the Filipinos were inferior and needed guidance) and to advance their expancionist policies in the Pacific Basin.

Moderation and Reason, the bedstone of my political beliefs

I share Julie’s hope for a change with the Democrats regaining control after the 2006 midterms. It seems clear that uni-party government does not lead to reasonable outcomes or honesty. It fosters insulation against differing ideas resulting in mis-management.

Now for the response Julie must have known would result from her clear adoration of Congresswoman and potential House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It is interesting how the character traits that made some politicians in-competent and foolish are know being heralded as much needed. Bush’s backwater conservatism meets Pelosi’s and other liberal democrat’s inner city idealism and liberalism, six one way and half a dozen the other. Her strict adherence to her beliefs whereas the other side of course was foolhardy.

“Pelosi's democratic track record indicates a strong politician with apparent opinions and values... just the type of woman to open more political doors to females. Pelosi is no pushover, "she demands discipline and loyalty,”

Lets remember for a second 2004, Bush firm on beliefs whereas Kerry was prone to switching. An interesting change. Furthermore, is Pelosi any more at home to run the country that any other overly secure incumbent? My own intuition is that any challenger to her would face an uphill battle just as I am saddened to note that Republican Randy Forbes goes virtually unmatched in my own district. Just a thought to contemplate before one’s adoration turns into blind idol worship. While Pelosi’s gender will make history if she becomes the next speaker, I would certainly hope that biology alone is not enough to blind one’s reason.

However, I do understand Julie’s and others adamant liberal beliefs. I too used to feel secure in knowing that as a liberal I was right and others wrong. It felt good to look down un-approvingly on those “backwood” conservatives. I could articulate everything that was wrong and blame it all on Bush. I eventually reached some cracks in the logic of American liberals. I realized that they were as deciding and righteous as any person on the right. Many looked down on me as an aberration that could not exist within their select circle. My belief in things such as reason, the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the belief that work is not such a bad thing, and that at times we have to reconcile our political beliefs with the economic needs of the nation; these all led me to see that liberals did not have the entire picture. I could not join conservatives either. They looked down on other individual rights such as gay marriage and felt that business deserved a free hand without any safety net. Furthermore, neither could articulate solutions, a real problem when the purpose of government is supposed to serve the people. The only logical conclusion was to become an independent.

Back to now, it is important to note that the Democrats who actually won races were moderate and more understanding of the needs of everyday America. Polticians such as Webb, Tester, or Kaine illustrate what is the future of the Democratic Party. There are two articles in The New Republic I would recommend. One deals with democrats being the party of the people (it highlights the difference between old liberals and new moderates, including the remarkable fact that many old school liberals were not self-made) and the other argues that “gun toting libertarians” will provide the future of the party. Furthermore, if the party wants to grow and possibly win 2008, Pelosi will quickly need to temper her beliefs. On Friday, an aide to Senator McCain announced an exploratory commission to examine his running in 2008. The party had better remember this. My hope is for moderates such as Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Warner, and others to take the helm. The Democratic Leadership Council, of which the party’s greatest hero in recent memory (Clinton) was part of works towards moderation. It also contains many officials who manage to win elections in red states and accomplish things with the Republicans. If the party is to continue, it will be with politicians who understand the needs of the global economy and can mange to balance the needs of the American people with the cold hard economic realities of the 21st century.

One other thing I would like to note. I feel that the unwillingness to compromise is the inability to govern. To govern is to understand all sides of the debate in an attempt to reach a reasonable and productive outcome.

“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America”, Bill Clinton

Jagshemash...

I remember watching the Borat character in the "Ali G-Show" a couple of years ago and now after Sacha Cohen (the man behind "Borat") dedicated a whole movie to him, the whole world starts talking about this movie or tries to imitate his accent and his jokes.

First of all, I have to admit that I really like this kind of humour, but after having read a couple of articles which talk about the dangers of this movie, I have to admit too that not everyone gets the "real" joke behind Cohen's ballyhoo. I am probably biased, because one of my best friends is actually from Kazakhstan and since the first trailers of this movie were released, he has tried to convince me not to watch it... He keeps asking me me how we (people living in the 21st century) could not be even a little bit informed about Kazakhstan and why we tend to think of the East as an underdeveloped whole with no exceptions??? To be honest I do not have an answer???

This one article that I found from Eric Weiner ("The Real Kazakhkstan") deals with this issue and tries to make people aware of how people could misunderstand the message behind Cohen's humou. Please read it in the for my friend Genya's sake, because he has no problems with Jews at all, does not shoot dogs, does not sleep with his sister, does not believe in Pamela Anderson's virginity, does not listen to Corky Butshek and does not wrestle me all the time... :)

Borat

A few weeks back our school had free tickets to a preview of the film "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan". I know several people from the class were able to go see it. So I'm sure this will inspire a couple of you to share your thoughts.

I thought the movie was a brilliant mixture of grotesque humor and social satire, but I can understand how some people might take offense to it. Throughout the movie he constantly jokes about cultural stereotypes, religious beliefs, and social actions. In many cases the real insult of the joke is not even directed at the culture, religion, or people that are at the surface of the joke. Rather, the joke is directed toward the people around him (several of them blatantly racist). For example, many of his jokes involve Jews, but you have to think about the joke with an open mind and realize that he is not making fun of the Jews (he is actually Jewish himself). The review below brings up the question of "Does being Jewish himself make his jokes acceptable?" I guess it is a matter of opinion as well as how you view the direction of the joke.

I'd like to hear some other thoughts about the movie.

Check out the NYTimes movie review for Borat.

2006

First and foremost, I am ashamed of my home state passing the clearly bigoted and unconstituitional implementation of religion on the state. Thankfully though at 10:10 the races still hold hope. I am going to provide some humor tonight to lighten the mood. Afterall, with any senator who can make a man on dog comparison (Santorum) there should be some humor in the air. Here are some fun lyrics along with some photos.

SWEET NEO CON
(M. Jagger/K. Richards)

You call yourself a Christian
I think that you're a hypocrite
You say you are a patriot
I think that you're a crock of shit
And listen, I love gasoline
I drink it every day
But it's getting very pricey
And who is going to pay
How come you're so wrong
My sweet neo con.... Yeah
It's liberty for all
'Cause democracy's our style
Unless you are against us
Then it's prison without trial
But one thing that is certain
Life is good at Haliburton
If you're really so astute
You should invest at Brown & Root.... Yeah
How come you're so wrong
My sweet neo con
If you turn out right
I'll eat my hat tonight
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah....
It's getting very scary
Yes, I'm frightened out of my wits
There's bombers in my bedroom
Yeah and it's giving me the shits
We must have loads more bases
To protect us from our foes
Who needs these foolish friendships
We're going it alone
How come you're so wrong
My sweet neo con
Where's the money gone
In the Pentagon
Yeah ha ha ha
Yeah, well, well
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah...
Neo con

This goes deep...

U2 meets global capitalism... Its my favorite song!!! You have to watch it!!!

One...Bank

Vote !!!

After having talked briefly about the campaign ads on Slate.com, I checked the site and just wanted to add the link here "The Slimiest Campaign Ads of 2006"

The adds are interesting and very disturbing at the same time, because I have never experienced German campaign acts to be so insulting and simple-minded like these ads. Somehow it is extremely difficult to spot a certain difference in the ads, because both parties use excactly the same methods and techniques... What do you think???


But nevertheless it is extremely important to vote and so far I have met a lot of fellow students who have never voted before and who wont take part in the upcomimg vote...

Mountain Top Removal and Recycling

After attending the presentation on Mountain Top Removal and seeing the devastating results of this terrible method of obtaining coal, I found myself more aware of the wasted energy around me. I've always been one to shut off the lights when I leave a room and to recycle a can or bottle rather than toss it in the garbage. Sometimes knowing the facts helps to make people more away of the energy they are using. So I've found two sites with some interesting facts about recycling.


http://www.oberlin.edu/recycle/facts.html
This site is organized into specific recycling categories.

http://www.recycle-more.co.uk/nav/page712.aspx
Although I found many of the facts on this second site helpful, I do not like the way they organized the facts. The first fact states that "aluminium is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust and is the earth's second most used metal". Now the people who need to know more about recycling might think, "Well it is the third most abundant metal, so what is the harm in throwing it away?". I think this fact is one of the least important, and should not be listed at the top.

The US, the Philliphines, and the birth of an American legend

Reading Schoonover this weekend reminded me of a connection to a caliber and firearm that was and is the quietensetialy American pistol. While the .45 has evolved with companies such as Heckler and Koch, Glock (my personal favorite), Kimber, and most recently the Brazilian manufacturer Taurus; the gun is ingrained with the remembrance of its original name, the Colt 1911 Government Issue .45 semi-automatic sidearm.

You are most likely thinking right now that the crazy southerner has gone of his rocker again, but unfortunately for you I have not.

The Colt .45 was developed when the .38 was insufficient to stop Philiphine rebels who were often under the influence of strength altering drugs. Furthermore, US troops found that insurgent warfare required the ability to stop a motivated opponent with the first shot. The Army’s answer was to have Colt firearms develop a new pistol. It was initially issued as a revolver but the soon infamous semi-auto was issued. It served US troops in World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and with decreasing use in the First Gulf War. In an effort to deal with things such as the Geneva Convention and the international use of the 9x19mm shell; the US switched to the 9mm in 1990.

The .45 is an interesting firearm for our class for two reasons. I am assuming that despite its reliability, effectiveness for self-defense, and enjoyment it provides on the range, you are most likely interested in its historical importance and relevance to class.

First, the weapon can be understood as the evolution of American arms supremacy. Despite the fact that at times the Germans and Japanese may have had better tools for a time, the .45 illustrates the continual growth of American armaments into being the best in the world. The .45 grew with each war to accommodate the needs of a modernizing army.

Second, at the turn of a new century the US has found itself again fighting a highly motivated, rebel force in an occupied country. US troops (especially the special operations) have found the newer, less powerful 9mm insufficient for one-shot effectiveness. They have returned to the .45 to regain a capability lost in attempt for uniformity. Interestingly, the .45’s used the most are the Heckler and Koch (German), Glock (Austrian), Colt (US), and the Kimber (US). Two out of the four are internationally made (however they do come from one of the century’s other great arm manufacturers).
I hope you found this tangent somewhat interesting. Good night.

http://www.m1911.org/history.htm

Cultural Anthropology

Today I went to the book sale and bought William A. Haviland's "Cultural Anthropology" and guess what I found on the first page??? An explanation for anthropology:

"[... ]Anthropology, the study of humankind, seeks to produce useful generalizations about people and their behavior and to arrive at the fullest possible understanding of human diversity. [...] Physical anthropologists study humans as biological organisms, tracing the evolutionary development of the human animal and looking at the biological variations within this species. Cultural anthropologists are concerned with human cultures, or the ways of life in societies. Within the field of cultural anthropologists are archeologists, who seek to explain human behavior by studying matererial objects, usually from past cultures; linguists, who study languages, by which cultures are maintained and passed on to succeeding generations; and ethnologists, who study cultures as they can be experienced and discussed with persons whose culture is to be understood."

UN

I was curious and had to find out the requirements myself (Sorry, Julie and ES!!!)


"Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing and able to carry out these obligations.

The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

Article 4, Chapter 2, United Nations Charter

How does a new State or Government obtain recognition by the United Nations?
How does a country join the UN as a Member State?

The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not posses any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.

Membership in the Organization, in accordance with Paragraph I of Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, "is open to all peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations." States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The procedure is briefly as follows:

1. The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a formal declaration stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.

2. The application is considered first by the Security Council. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of nine of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members - China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America - have voted against the application.

3. If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State, and membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

At each session, the General Assembly considers the credentials of all representatives of Member States participating in that session. During such consideration, which routinely takes place first in the 9-member Credentials Committee but can also arise at other times, the issue can be raised whether a particular representative has been accredited by the Government actually in power. If controverted, this issue is ultimately decided by a majority vote in the Assembly. It should be noted that the normal change of Governments, as through a democratic election, does not raise any issues concerning the credentials of the representative of the State concerned.

"Cowboy Nation"

Robert Kagan’s provocative piece “Cowboy Nation” details what he sees as the desire for empire as war being part of our American blood. He wrote, “The early United States was an expansionist power from the moment the first pilgrim set foot on the continent; and it did not stop expanding—territorially, commercially, culturally, and geopolitically—over the next four centuries. The United States has never been a status quo power; it has always been a revolutionary one, consistently expanding its participation and influence in the world in ever-widening arcs. The impulse to involve us in the affairs of others is neither a modern phenomenon nor a deviation from the American spirit. It is embedded in the American DNA”.

What is interesting about this argument is Kagan emphasis that our liberal (not current political nor IR term, but idea of the individual) tradition leads us to see ourselves as able to spread liberty. Furthermore we as a nation see it or our destiny as listed in the Declaration (Kagan sees it as the defining document of the American mantra) to spread our empire.

I think Kagan needs to emphasize that despite our goals toward liberty, we still act in accordance to what serves us. Currently actions in Africa or other parts of the world could be seen as spreading liberty, but they do little to serve our national interest.

This article is important to our study because it reminds us to examine ourselves without forgetting that our past is not ideal. Furthermore the idea makes both sides examine their roots. The question of doing good is troublesome for us because it can embroil us in conflicts that neither suit us or that we cannot solve. Perhaps the lyrics of a Rolling Stones song have applicability here. Instead of fighting our past, we should have some “sympathy for the devil”.

"Please allow me to introduce myself
Im a man of wealth and taste
Ive been around for a long, long year
Stole many a mans soul and faith
And I was round when jesus christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around st. petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a generals rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
Who killed the kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
Im a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached bombay
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But whats confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me lucifer
cause Im in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or Ill lay your soul to waste, um yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down
Woo, who
Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Tell me baby, whats my name
Tell me honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, whats my name
I tell you one time, youre to blame
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah
Whats me name
Tell me, baby, whats my name
Tell me, sweetie, whats my name
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah"

Some words of hope

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."


Thomas Jefferson

Mark Moberg - Responsible Men and Sharp Yankees

Essence of the essay:

Moberg discusses the strategies employed by United Fruit to monopolize the banana export industry in British Honduras (known today as Belize) and how these strategies affect the relationship between "the colonial state, traditional elites, and the United Fruit Company. In the essay he traces the history of United Fruit in British Honduras from the time the company was invited to operate early in the 20th century until the time the company abandoned their contract in 1920.

Short summary:

The intentions of United Fruit are made clear in the essay; the company moves in, develops a monopoly, and exploits the land of British Honduras. A contract between United Fruit Company and British Honduras was formed. United Fruit was to produce and export agriculture for 25 years and in return the government would provide the company cheap land and a new railway system for transportation of goods. The company was able to buy land for $1 per acre, whereas private farmers had to pay nearly $8 per acre.

The land was infected with Panama Disease circa 1914 and the disease slowly spread causing most of the land owned by United Fruit to be unsuitable for the growth of banana plants. Shortly after this disaster struck the company pulled out of British Honduras and offered to sell the land back for twice the price at which it was purchased. In the conclusion, Moberg mentions the present situation with the banana export industry in Belize.

One idea that I may look into for a future blog is the outcome of the suit that was initiated by Chiquita (the successor of United Fruit) through WTO. The suit was meant to end the tariff quota system that allowed ACP fruit to export a certain amount of fruit with reduced taxation. If the ruling passes, "United Fruit will have dismantled a banana industry that played a major role in the company's own growth".