Precursor - I apologize if I sound a bit like an idealistic college student. Right now idealism is what is letting me see that the world can actually change for the better rather than just getting worse.
For the past three and a half (almost) years, I have been trained by the Sociology department to use my sociological imagination when it comes to understanding the world around me. Though this is a very good way to view the world, I have realized, while in Latin America, that it is equally important to view the world for a few other perspectives; namely an economic perspective, holistic perspective and historical perspective.
I will begin from the end. When understanding a new culture, it is important to pay attention to the history of a country. I have made a decision that whenever I move to a new country, I will spend quality time researching in libraries and online about the history of the country, because history makes the present. In Nicaragua, history is living and breathing; the wars ended twenty years ago - and unlike in the United States, people seem to be incredibly willing to speak about their experiences. In fact, they want to teach people about their experiences in order to avoid repetition. History has a great impact on the present for people; it affects their decisions in the present, what they buy, where they buy, what kind of jobs they pursue, what kind of government they elect or support.
A holistic perspective is more along the lines of being a part of the sociological imagination, but at times it can be incredibly overwhelming. When you see a problem in society, you look at how you can solve this problem in a holistic manner, best benefiting all people. For example, when one looks at the idea of fair trade, the goal is to give farmers a more stable livelihood with more of a voice and power in the capitalist markets of the world. Take specifically, a coffee farmer in rural Costa Rica. He joins with a cooperative of others who all receive approval for fair trade certification. They then begin growing larger quantities of commodity coffee to be sold in the United States and Europe (usually). This benefits not only the farmer, but also the other aspects of the economy that he participates in - buying consumer products from local areas, thus boosting these economies. Great, right? Yes. And no. With a holistic approach, trying to see from all angles, you can find a lot of cracks. The one that I see the most right now is this: the land that is being used now for coffee farming is being used to grow for exports, taking land that would otherwise support the local community with local crops. For instance, if the farmer had previously grown beans or corn, now the local community has to import this product from another area, allowing the farmers in other areas to increase their proces. Pros and Cons - there are many. Which is best? I don't know enough to answer that question.
The final perspective that I want to address is an economics perspective. Taking my Latin America studies class has allowed me to broaden my perspective - to understand not only the economics of Latin American countries, but that of the United States as well. When politics are unfortunately driven by economic interests of a country, it is incredibly important to have some sort of base knowledge of the global market and economic powerhouses. For example, how do the driving US interests in a country affect the people of that country? Historically, US foreign policy has supported the small minority of wealthy and powerful, completely missing the base of people living in the country with subsistance lifestyles.
Questions to ponder are how do we actually initiate this kind of change? How can you change the foreign policy of a country so powerful as the United States? Do you sit by and do nothing? Will you stick with the cause to instill change by slowly working with a cause? Or do you get so frustrated at the lack of change happening that you give up? I commend president Obama for his work that he is doing. He wants change. When he came into office, he had ideas that were just that: idealistic. But he was willing to share these ideas and stick with these ideas (most of them). If I were in his place, having to deal with a congress that is more focused on what is right for their party rather than their country, I would be frustrated. People give him a lot of flack for not doing anything - I would rather take the blame off of the president - it is very easy to blame someone with power. Yes, he has made mistakes, but I think he still has hope and is willing to take action to make change. A prime example of this is his decision to bring all 39,000 troops out of Iraq. We have learned something - war does not equal power. Especially not war on someone else's soil. Too many people would die and too much money would be spent. If the 9/11 terrorists had a goal of making the US spend trillions of dollars on a relatively fruitless war, they epically succeeded.
I am frustrated at the lack of respect that my country (government and more often that I like, citizens) shows for other countries. We were a powerhouse, and it is time to let that go. Give power back to the 'people' - the third world countries who we have made dependent on us through loans and unjust wars. Yes, change is scary. Yes, letting go of control of other countries is hard. Yes, uncertainty is unpleasant. But I would say that in this current economic climate, the government needs to be willing to change and work together for what is best for the American people. Who will our next president be? Someone who says the right things to get the votes? Or someone who is telling the truth with a real passion to do what is best for a country, not a party?
