By reading only the introductions of both books, I understood 2 things about myself. The first thing I realized is that although I’ve thought extensively about humanity, war, diplomacy, history, and a number of philosophical concepts over the course of my extremely eventful life, I still have much to learn. There are still many thought processes that I have yet to have that are required for the completion (or near completion) of my understanding of these concepts. The second thing I’ve learned about myself is that due to my extensive thought over a long period of time, I have become in some ways biased in it. Due to my apparent lack of knowledge and/ or understanding, I must re-open my mind, so to speak, so that I can intake all of the new information and have the thought processes that I now realize I have lacked. I am excited about this class.

Both of our textbooks seem to be great learning tools. They both give a very good introduction to the topic of IR from 2 necessary perspectives. International Relations, so far, seems to be written and mean to teach us International Relations from a historical perspective, while International Relations Theory seems to be written and teach us from and analytical; theoretical perspective, allowing us to open our minds and see the history from the perspectives of different schools of thought. I personally appreciate the approach, as it propels the acquisition of the philosophy of IR for the reader; which is my primary aim in this class.

I appreciate the concise nature of the writing in both books. It allows for ease in our learning process, which in turn allows us to think more critically and with a more level-headed mind (being unburdened by a storm of seemingly endless information). In particular, I appreciate the supportive nature of International Relations Theory. The author has seemingly chosen to take a personal, compassionate approach to teaching the reader, offering advice in numerous areas.

I am excited to continue reading both books, and I will continue to read with an open and analytical mindset.

I believe that too often in modern dialogue, the word “race” refers to skin color. The Oxford dictionary defines the term “race” as: a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. Based on the actual definition of the term, racism has existed in humankind as well as animal kind throughout all of history. Conflicts between any countries, states, or even groups of people is, by definition, racist; “These people are not like us in this or that way and that might hurt our way of life”. This is a natural, animalistic self-defense mechanism that humans have because we are animals and have survival instincts predicated on sticking with your own kind. Granted, this statement is completely lacking in context of any sort (and my personal belief is that we are all humans and therefore should all be working together for our collective benefit), it is an over-arching explanation of human conflict throughout history. Humans also have a tendency to categorize everything for the sake of understanding and using collected data. Of course, this way of thinking has led to many atrocities across time, but it has also led to many successes. I can speak on this topic almost endlessly, but the point I want to make is that “race” is not equivalent to skin color, and I believe that the current national discussion of “race” is leading to the imminent destruction of our American society. Flawed as it may be, our country was built on the best foundation in the history of human civilization, allowing for self-correction over time, and the complete overhaul of our system of government is not the best course of action, but it seems inevitable due to a lack of real dialogue and the constant interference of a biased, far-reaching media presence in our daily lives.

I think that this article was written by an extremely biased and politically motivated person. I have a few issues with it.

1. Why are there no sources for it? The article refers to a number of surveys taken. Who was being surveyed? What specific questions were asked? Were the questions leading? What is the context?
2. It is a completely opinionated piece. Where is the factual evidence? What are your sources? Do you expect the reader to just listen to what you have to say because it sounds good and resonates with the politically motivated, widely promulgated, contextually and factually ignorant “liberal” or “woke” narrative that has captured so much of the American populace?
3. I’m curious to know why our professor assigned this reading, especially as the first assignment. Does she agree with the article? Does she agree with the narrative? What are her motivations? What are her political views? Does she plan on imposing those views on her students? Would she be interested in a dialogue or debate on the currently controversial topic of race?

I plan on doing as many of the adventures as possible, to ensure the best possible grade. My schedule will depend entirely on the events of the days. All work will be handed in on time.