What Is The Relationship Between Geography And Relations Cultural Studies Essay

What Is The Relationship Between Geography And Relations Cultural Studies Essay To answer a question like the proposed one, it is necessary first to follow some steps that can guide us into the correct line to obtain the best response which not only will give the exactly solution to the problem but also it will let one fulfill the necessity of know and comprehend the context of the entire situation. Saying this, it is essential to know how the international relations work and what are they about, and off course it is needed to recognize the definition of geography to be able to create some bases for give a correct response and to have the capacity to establish a connection between the two terms meaning and make a reflection of how they can coexist and be related with each other in the daily development of life. Although, we need to analyze each of the geography factors that have influenced the international system, why are they about and how they have change their importance according to the evolution of the actors during the time; so we can finally come with a complete solution to the question treated, taking into account all the information recollected. This solution will let us create some general and specific conclusions that may be useful to understand the conduct of this system and come with a new perspective of the worlds behavior in terms of the international relations and the geography that would permit us participate of it in an active and conscientiously way. The term of international relations, to begin, refers to: a branch of political science concerned with relations between nations and primarily with foreign policies(1). Analyzing this definition, there is the word international as a strong factor, that involves not only more actors with different cultures, aspects, needs, and behaves participating in the system, but also implies an expansion of territory where relations are not longer realized in the national borders from each state, yet it now refers that human interactions are done in the entire world. The definition also shows the importance of creating foreign policies which can be understood as the plans of states to follow at the time of interact internationally. No matter how different international contacts between states have been, (due to peoples mental conception of the world, and the existing differences between the actors that affects this humans interactions), they will be always present in the history, representing humankind natural necessity of interaction, and they will be always affected by the decisions and behaviors of the representatives in the international system. One example can be taken from the old ages, where the interests of some international actors as Cristobal Colà ³n, were discovering new lands and persons, to increase the territory of the king and to open new markets with the India. In here, territory represents Cristobal Colà ³n wants of recognizing the shape of the world and the general necessity of creating maps to be able to go through the land and expand territory, wealth, knowledge and so on. As we see, international relations can be a complex system that shows the interactions between the humans all around the world, but having a deeply view, it is possible to understand and see that those interactions work according to more specific aspects of the actors, which are also related to the external environment where they developed their cultures, believes, wants and methods to achieve all the goals that they have on mind. On the other hand the term of geography, refers to: The scientific study of the location and spatial variation in both physical and human phenomena on Earth (2). Since ancient times, humankind has always been interested in knowing the surrounding world and before we knew the world as it is today, we used to dream with distant treasures in other lands, including not only the mineral materials like gold or oil that have a big economic value nowadays, but also new landscapes with better grounds that let us harvest and build new villages, territories with a variety of climates and may be other persons with differences in their physical aspect, culture and life style from who to learn new techniques and to whom we could teach or even colonize. In other words, geographers are the ones who investigate the distribution of all of the resources in the earth and how nature has gave to some nations what other nations dont even know but that they will probably want a need. According to the geography branch, geographers have an especial field of study, for example, those who have the population as the base of study and are in charge of analyze physical differences between races, are called human geographers; those specialized in behaviors and believes are called cultural geographers, and finally those who search all the territory, its location in the map and the advantages and disadvantages of that location, are the physical geographers. As we have discussed before, international relations have been evolving according to the actors and some other factors that influenced them, including ideology, economic, politic, and geographical aspects. It is in this analysis where we can notice the relation between the two terms, and it permits us the establishment of a new definition that involves both terms. This definition would says that international relations are the connections and interactions established by humans all around the world, whose acts are defined according to their personal culture, raze and territory characteristics. Therefore sometimes the relations become difficult when the differences between these aspects from each nation, shock among them. All this factors that influenced human actions are the field of study of geography. Starting with the analysis of the human branch, we see that there have been many differences between races on earth, for example black people in Africa have a strong physic which represents an advantage in doing hard jobs, or the natives in America with beautiful features and big knowledge of the nature. These varieties have influenced peoples behavior and thoughts of the worlds reality in each time. We can see as an example, that at the beginning, when the humankind felt the necessity of investigate and make an appropriation of the earth, international actors have interests on discovering new lands and learn from possible different cultures. They started traveling all around the world, arriving to new lands that were already inhabited by more developed cultures or at the opposite by cultures that, for being less developed, were also more vulnerable to being attacked and colonized, even when populations physical characteristics were as strong as the Africans. At this time, human thoughts were based on the growing, not only of the empires but also of their knowledge about the world were they lived; also the relations between nations were based on mutual recognition, acceptation and interaction. But after the discovery of new lands that were possibly richer in resources (human, cultural, physical), and because of humans natural ambition, the wishes of territorial expansion to increase wealth and power appeared on International relations field. Human interactions development changed from the ones that used to be, to a new scenario based on the pretenses of the statesmen in increasing their power, without caring about the means they had to use, like violent acquisition of human, mineral, and land resources taken from any place they wanted, even if there were established any other nation. In the cultural analysis, we can say that: All cultures change through time. No culture is static. However, most cultures are basically conservative in that they tend to resist change. Some resist more than others by enacting laws for the preservation and protection of traditional cultural patterns while putting up barriers to alien ideas and things. (3). Culture represents one of the biggest and more important aspects in international relations because of the strongest link existing between humans behavior and humans believes. Both aspects influence each other and make the other possible, therefore sometimes it is difficult to maintain some interactions between the representatives of different traditions, because even if the culture is somehow open for new changes, there will be always some kind of resistance to accept the external ideas that are different from their believes and ways of behave. In the history, cultures differences have represented not only difficulties to maintain commercial or diplomatic relations, but also the reasons given by some actors to initiate wars as the one in the Middle East with the well known problem land of promise, that hasnt been resolved and that also shows how different believes can influence the international relations scenario. Finally the physical aspect of geography refers to all of the specific resources inside any territory. Since the mental expansion of the actors, and their capacity of extend their physical territory occurred, territory has become one of the most relevant points to understand the international system, due to the fact that it has become the place where all the relations are done, therefore land appropriation has become the biggest want of the international actors to control all new interactions and increase their power and recognition among other states. Statesmen who have always looked for their benefits and profits in international interactions, understood that having richer territories with all kind of resources, and strategic locations, would let them achieve their personal goals, therefore all international policies in the different countries take in to account land and its characteristics to plan the nation behave in the international system. Therefore it is possible to see now that developed nations helped the developing ones to fulfill their necessity of power even if they dont say it in a direct way. To conclude, we have analyzed and proved that all human interactions are influenced somehow by some geographical aspects that are, were and will be always present in humankind evolution. Factors as the territory where we live, the culture that we have learned and our specific physical aspects, including behaves, are the ones that guide us in the international relations field. Therefore there is a big relationship between the two terms, and it is essential to study geography in the international system, to be able to be a conscientiously actor that participates actively in that big network, where all is connected.

Heart of Darkness versus Apocalypse Now Essay -- essays research paper

Books and movies present stories in different ways because the medias are incredibly different. In the story Heart of Darkness, the author takes the motif of the journey and presents it in the third person in a way that people could understand with the topic of the spread of culture in the â€Å"third world.† Apocalypse Now shows the journey in a completely different way. It is made into a first person narrative and is changed from colonization to the modern day equivalent of the Vietnam War. Both ways of showing the story keeps the main idea of the journey both inside and outside, but the way of presenting it is very different.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The story Heart of Darkness is presented to us in the third person. From the beginning, the story is shown as someone telling a story about something that’s already happened and it goes back and forth between the â€Å"present† and several times which make up the past. The story starts with the narrator telling his fellow boat-mates about a man named Marlow and his adventure into the wild to find a man Kurtz. The whole time the story goes back and forth between the narrator and his telling the story and Marlow driving the action. This is an interesting way of narrating the story because we really do not hear much from the actual speaker but most of the action takes place through Marlow. In the movie Apocalypse Now, the entire story is presented to us from one persons point of view. The Marlow figure in the movie is Captain Willard...

Augustinian Theodicy and Irenaean Theodicy Essay

The problem of evil is a significant and enduring philosophical and theological debate. A question is often raised and discussed: if God is both all-loving and all-powerful, then how can evils-including natural evil and moral evil—exist in our world? In response to the charge that the evils of the world are incompatible with God’s omnipotence and perfect goodness, the word†theodicy† is coined to deal with the problem of evil. Usually it is an attempt to show that it is possible to affirm the omnipotence of God, the love of God, and the reality of evil without contradiction. Two of the most well-known and most frequently discussed theodicies are the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy. The Augustinian theodicy was constructed by Saint Augustine (345-430 AD) and is the main traditional Christian response to the problem of evil. The Augustinian Theodicy holds the view that because God is perfect, the world was created free of imperfections. God cannot be blamed for evil and suffering since God didn’t create them, on the contrary, evil comes from angels and humans who act less than perfectly and choose through free will to sin and disobey God. Natural evil is an appropriate punishment because humanity destroyed the natural order, we have all sinned so we all deserve to be punished. Quite different from the Augustinian theodicy, the Irenaean theodicy which was created by Saint Irenaeas (130-202 AD) and later developed by John Hicks and Richard Swinburne doesn’t see the world as created all-good and describes an almost opposite process compared with the Augustinian theodicy. It holds that humans were initially created as immature and imperfect beings; they were created in the image of God, but not His likeness. Mankind’s goal is to achieve that likeness. Such perfection and likeness of God cannot be ready-made, it can only be developed through free will choices, and we can only become moral and develop through making moral judgments. Natural evil has to be created in order to help man progress. According to Irenaean theodicy, the suffering of the world will be justified with the reward of heaven, and this is a heaven for all, everybody will go to heaven by achieving the likeness of God. The following passages are mainly devoted to the discussion of the distinctions between the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy. First, the different theories of evil are where a foremost and drastic distinction emerges. In the Augustinian theodicy, the main philosophical position is the idea of the negative or privative nature of evil. Evil here is seen as a matter of privation-in each created being, evil is that which deprives it of the particular form or purpose which is natural to it. In other words, evil is not substance, not a â€Å"thing†, but a privation of good, an absence of good and a falling away from good. It always consists of the malfunctioning of something that is in itself good. For example, shadow is not a proliferation of darkness, but an absence of light. Since evil is a lack of something, it is not something that was created by God, but comes from angels and humans who act less than perfectly. When human being’s free will abandons what is above itself and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil. So human beings are totally responsible for evil because evil is the result of hu man error. In the Irenaean theodicy, however, evil plays an important role in the gradual creation of a perfected humanity through life in a highly imperfect world. Then a question â€Å"Why can’t God just create us as perfect as in Augustinian theodicy?† is raised. To this question, John Hick gave a fully and vivid explanation in his book Philosophy of Religion. He cleverly points out: if the world were a paradise from which all possibility of pain and suffering were excluded, then the consequences would be very far-reaching, nothing bad, nothing suffering would exist in this world, no one could ever be injured by accident, people could do anything immoral they want without hurting other people†¦ As a result, in a world free of real dangers, difficulties, problems, obstacles, there will be no meaning for the real good qualities as generosity, kindness, love, prudenceetc to exist. God had to allow the possibility of evil, because if there were no such possibility man would not be free to choose good over evil. If there were no evil and suffering humans would always follow God’s law because there would be no difficulties in doing so. The evils in this world are required by a God of love who seeks the development of his free creatures from their original innocence into fully mature spiritual beings. In other words, we human beings learn to be morally mature enough to grow closer to God. Evil can lead us to the final goodness and perfection. In this regard, God is partly  responsible for the evil in the world. Second, Augustine sticks close to the biblical text, whereas Irenaeus ties his theory less to the biblical text. As the more authentically biblical view, the Augustinian theodicy is based on the Bible and does not contradict the scriptures; it follows the traditional Christian interpretation of the creation story in the Genesis: God creates the world perfectly in six days, Adam and Eve—-the ancestors of human beings—live in the Garden of Eden happily, until one day Eve is tempted by a serpent and eats the forbidden fruits and is finally driven out of the Paradise. By eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Eve commits the first sin. Augustine’s theodicy could be seen as consistent with this interpretation of the text. Moreover, he uses other Biblical ideas of God, and defends the perfection of God by maintaining that evil is a privation and not a substance, and that evil comes from human sinfulness. Humans deserve the consequences of natural evil and they are responsible for their own suffering through abuse of their own free will. The Irenaeus theodicy, on the contrary, is not compatible with biblical teaching. As a matter of fact, it is in many ways just the opposite of the interpretation of the Bible by claiming that God is partially responsible for evils. Third, in comparison to the Augustinian theodicy being a â€Å"Soul deciding† theodicy, the Irenaean theodicy is a â€Å"Soul making† theodicy. â€Å"Soul deciding† means that different consequences come as a result of the free will of human beings. So if a person chooses to do a morally wrong act a consequence will follow. A â€Å"soul making† theodicy is applied by irenaeus, which means to move from the state of imperfection through moral struggle toward eventual completed humanization. Besides the distinctions mentioned in the above passages, the Augustinian theodicy and Irenaean theodicy are often compared by people in many other aspects. For instance, Augustine leaves some people a long way from God whereas Irenaeus explains how everyone can reach heaven through moral struggle; for Augustine God is remote from man, having been distanced by his sin whereas for Irenaeus, as we make this progress we grow closer to God, reducing the epistemic distance between us and God; the Augustine’s theodicy is often thought of as a pessimistic and â€Å"tragic†Ã‚  theodicy whereas the Irenaean theodicy is generally conceived as a â€Å"comic† theodicy as is more positive and optimistic. Not surprisingly, the two theodicies also have some similarities, the most common one is that both of them trace evil back to human free will: for Augustine it is the reason why angels and human beings fall from the ultimate goodness of heaven, and what they use to disobey God, but for Irenaeus it is a part of God’s plan because it allows self-development, people also use this free will to disobey God and it causes suffering, but this suffering can help them to develop their character in order to choose to embrace goodness or evil. In conclusion, the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy are two sharply contrasted theodicies: the Augustinian theodicy which is also known as the â€Å"soul deciding† theodicy, stresses the role of the Fall, and sees evil as either sin or the result of sin; whereas the Irenaean theodicy, which regards evil as a requirement by a God of love to let his free creatures to develop from their original innocence into fully mature spiritual beings. Thus, our world becomes â€Å"the vale of soul-making†. Since the day of their births, the two theodicies have respectively received many praises as well as criticisms and challenges. Many deficiencies are found in both of the two theodicies. As a matter of fact, the problem of evil, far from being solved, is still open to discussion. References Day, Elizabeth. â€Å"Geneticist claims to have found’God gene’ in humans.† The Washington TimesWorld. 15 Nov 2004. Copyright 2004 News WorldCommunications, Inc. Hick, John. â€Å"An Irenaean Theodicy.† A John HickReader. Ed. Paul Badham. Philadelphia:Trinity Press International, 1990. 88-105. Ridley, Matt. Genome. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2000

The Cuban Missile Crisis Was A Big Event During The Cold War

The Cuban missile crisis was a big event during the â€Å"Cold War† that almost brought the world into a nuclear catastrophe. In this event the Soviet Union deployed around 100 tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba aiming to land in U.S. territory. The possibilities of a nuclear war was predicted by the president of the United States John F. Kennedy to be around a 33% chances of actually happening. The local Soviet commander in Cuba could have launched these weapons that were sent without additional codes or commands from Moscow. There was also a scheduled U.S. air strike that could have triggered a nuclear response against American ships and troops. If the Cuban missile crisis were fulfilled, over 200 million people around the world could have died in the resulting war. It was because of the American foreign policy that the crisis was diverted and resolved without war. During the Cold War, the United States was concerned about an expansion of Communism. On December 19, 1960, after seizing power in the Caribbean island nation of Cuba, leftist revolutionary leader Fidel Castro aligned himself with the Soviet Union. Under Castro, Cuba grew dependent on the Soviets for military and economic aid. A Latin American country allying openly with the USSR was regarded as unacceptable, given the US-Soviet enmity since the end of World War II. The Soviets were feeling uncomfortable with the amount of nuclear weapons that the U.S. had targeted at them in Western Europe and Turkey. As a resultShow MoreRelatedThe Cuban Missile Crisis During The Cold War1378 Words   |  6 PagesThe Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in 1963 in a setting that was the high point of tension in the Cold War. The most significant background cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis was the underlying cold war ideology of capitalism vs communism. This was dramatically increased by the second key c ause, a series of events that quickly built tensions between the super powers from 1959 such as the U2 incident, JFK’s response to the Berlin Wall, and the Bay of Pigs incident. The third cause was the relationshipRead MoreCuban Missile Crisis Essay1203 Words   |  5 PagesThe Cuban Missile Crisis was a 13 day political and military deadlock in 1962 between the United States and the Soviet Union. It appeared that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, and it was the closest the United States has ever came to a nuclear war. Using the movie, 13 Days, the Cuban Missile Crisis is explained and compared to the actual event. The crisis was led to by the Cold War. The Cold War was a period between 1947 and 1991 of geopolitical tension between the corruptedRead MoreNuclear Warfare Between The Soviet Union And The Cold War1826 Words   |  8 Pagesâ€Å"The most terrifying moment in my life was October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis†¦.† The Cuban Missile Crisis was started by the tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States, which shaped Communist Cuba; this was the brink of nuclear warfare between both sides that left its effects on both the world and the sides involved. The United States and Soviet Union were both involved in the Cold War, especially when tensions between the two reached a new high. As tensions were risingRead MoreVasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov ( Arkhipov )1407 Words   |  6 PagesAlexandrovich Arkhipov (Arkhipov) Vasili Alexandrovich was born in a peasant family on January 30 1926 in Olovo, Moscow Oblast Russian Soviet union where he went to caspian higher naval school. Notes: Born January 30, 1926. In Olovo, Moscow Oblast, Russian. He was in the Family of the Moscow for a very long time . He was educated in the higher education School that wasnt for a normal average person . He later participated in the Soviet- Japanese War in in the Russian navy August of 1945, serving aboardRead MoreThe Cuban Missile Crisis : A 13 Day Standoff1726 Words   |  7 PagesThe Cuban Missile Crisis was a 13 day standoff in Cuba during the Cold War that struck fear into many American people. Joseph Roblat said, â€Å"The most terrifying moment in my life was October 1962, during the cuban missile crisis. I did not know all the facts - we have learned only recently how close we were to war - but I knew enough to make me tremble†. Missiles were in Cuba, in range of the U.S.. The world has never come so close to being in a full out Nuclear War. If the Soviets launched one ofRead MoreWar Is A Very Traffic And Devastating Event That Not Only1637 Words   |  7 PagesWar is a very traffic and devastating event that not only affects those directly involved with the fight but also the r est of the population sitting and waiting back in their homes. The idea of war such as the Cold War being associated with Dr.Suess s, The Butter Battle Book, should not be the focus of a children s book. People like Joseph Stalin and events such as the creation of missiles and bombs and the cuban missile crisis played a significant role in the Cold War. Joseph Stalin was a powerfulRead MoreRethinking Cold War History, By John Lewis Gaddis1340 Words   |  6 PagesGaddis, John L. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press1997. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, is a book about the Cold War. This book was written by John Lewis Gaddis. John L. Gaddis is a Cold War historian. He portrays the Cold War in English and through the dialect of others. The thesis of this book is, I seek to situate this book at a particular point in time, not to claim timelessness for it. This is what I think we know now but did not knowRead MoreEvents Leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis1579 Words   |  6 PagesCuba, a country just south of the United States of America, was the center stage of events leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Actions attempted by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower prior to the crisis gave incentive to the Soviet Union and Cuba to agree to place missile installations in Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis was an incident that might have potentially led to a third world war because of the already heightened tensions between Cuba and the U.S. - but this time withRead MoreThe Assassinat ion Of John F. Kennedy1620 Words   |  7 Pages Ever since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, there has been controversy over whether the true gunman was held accountable. The United States Government claimed that it was an easy, open and closed case. They found Lee Harvey Oswald, close to ground zero, with a freshly fired riffle, immediately after JFK was shot. Contrary to the governments report, skeptics argue a vast scope of conspiracies to shed light on what they believe happened that day; ideas ranging from magic bullets, multipleRead MoreHow Did The Bay Of Pigs Invasion And The Cuban Missile Crisis Affect The Cold War3334 Words   |  14 PagesThe Cold War began in 1947 and was, obviously, a war fought between the Western and Eastern Blocs. The Western Bloc consisted of the United States and the allies in the National Atlantic Treaty Organization (which was formed 2 years after the war had started). The Eastern Bloc consisted of the Soviet Union (now Russia) and other communist countries like Cuba. The reason the Cold War got its name as a war that cold is because there were no large battles ever fought, it was a war of technological advances