Human Interest

As a student who someday wants to teach social studies at the high school level, this article brought to light one of the hardest concepts to teach. There are always two sides to every story. While the victors get to write history, the victims are often silenced over time. One man's violent rebellion is another man's treasonous operations. Honestly, the Chinese have done an excellent job of keeping this out of the western media. The only real struggle we ever hear about in China that of Tibet and Taiwan.

This is really disturbing to know that China is attacking their ethnic minority who is just protesting for what they believing in. To make things worst, the Chinese government controls the media and they basically can say whatever they want. For example, referring to these ethnic minority as foreign terrorist. That changes the perspective on how people view and perceive the situation happening in Xinjiang.

This art seems like a logical extension of the government’s use of power although I personally don’t agree with their abuse of power. In China the government will uses its authority to monitor the personal activities of its citizens as demonstrated by the pictures dictating what people should and shouldn’t wear. When the citizens don’t follow through with China’s rule, violence typically happens. In fact, a fair deal of the paintings showed violence (i.e. the tank running people over). I actually find those depictions more offensive and disturbing than any of the other pictures because the end result is clearly that of dath rather than disapproval. Now, I understand that some places need to be ruled with an iron fist (i.e. Iraq), however I don’t really see how threatening people with more violence solves the issue of extremism. If anything, doesn’t this just give the extremist more of a reason to dislike the government? As such, is the government just creating more resentment that will lead to demonstrations in the future? I say this because eventually when a local population is subject to such horrible treatment, there isn't much else to lose and very little reason no to fight back. 

This article has great insight on the way government influences popular belief. We have seen these many times in American society also when government was afraid of communism during the cold war for instance. Often we have prejudgements or beliefs and we are not sure where they even stem from. Pushed Propaganda can be very influential over the mass population, in instilling certain beliefs.

What caught my attention was the name that this protest has ("umbrella revolution”). After investigating I could find why this protest has that name, the reason is  because the people who are protesting  used umbrellas to protect themselves from tear gas.The Occupy Central movement ( which is  a civil disobedience campaign initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong , and advocated by Occupy Central with Love and Peace) threatens to block financial and commercial center of Hong Kong if their demands are neglected: the resignation of the Chief Executive, Leung Chun-ying and the possibility of holding truly democratic elections in 2017. If none of the parties can agree I think there will be any solution for both parties and this will continue.

The umbrella revolution in Hong Kong is simply that Protestants are using all kind of tools to block the tear gas that the police are pulling them. Protests in Hong Kong are to change some of the rules that Beijing has also want Leung Chun-ying resign his position. The vast majority of the protesters are young and who began the protests were also young people who are fighting for the good of their city.

Myth

The idea of the Caliphate seems to be more of what all the groups which called themselves Caliphates seem to be pursuing. It seems to me that the fact of the matter is less important than the idea, as what happened one hundred years ago is far less important than what is believed to have happened. That ISIS is a state can be argued, but the fact that they are fighting a conventional war is indisputable. Yes, the tactics we use must be shifted, but this means that support from aircraft or by indirect means are even more viable than they were during the Second Gulf War.

it seems that this a a recurring theme with china. disputed lands surround this country inside and out, they claim to own all of it as well. but when the people that live their claim to be independent and choose not to associate themselves with you than it creates and interesting dynamic.

This article discusses how there is a chance that the capital city in Argentina can change from Buenos Aires to a smaller city called Santiago Del Estero which is in the middle-north of the country. Many say this move can heal the divide between the two cities but the bigger picture it that it'll make it a lot worse. I wasn't aware that moving capital cities is actually a more common thing than we think. Buenos Aires is very over populated which is one of the reasons for wanting to move it. The major problem is an outcry from the people living in those cities and rebelling against this which could cause the government more problems. 

Very interesting article on capital city moves in this century. It also works for capital cities in the US that are rural in nature and away from the bright city lights. The plus side is that capital cities located within the most populated areas of a country or state will be under intense scrutiny to do the right thing and politicians will be held accountable for their actions. Doing business in the place where you live usually has this effect.

The negative aspect of moving to a rural area is that politicians can govern in relative anonymity away from the hustle and bustle of the big city. There is also a fear factor in South American countries that we in the US don't face; coups that will overthrow governments if they don't do the right thing. A protest in Buenos Aires for instance will carry much more weight than a protest in the rural setting of Santiago del Estero.

National capitals are symbols of identity for countries, and moving them constitutes altering said symbol dramatically. It is a decision that should not be made lightly, as it does have consequences, and this should be kept in mind by Argentine legislators as they debate moving their capital. I did not agree with the author's assertion that shifting the capital away from major population centers decreases the government's ability to effectively lead; look at the United States, Brazil, Canada, Australia, etc. All of these nations are enormous in size, with urban populations scattered in all corners of their borders, yet their governments are still able to govern faraway urban centers effectively. I think his claim is right within the context of Argentina's history and the reality that Buenos Aires is a "super city" in much the same way that Mexico City is; to move the government away from the nation's only enormous urban center would be to suggest that the government is scared of its own people, and would almost undoubtedly lead to increased corruption. However, to make a blanket statement that this is true for all countries is absurd. I, for one, and interested in seeing if the move takes place. Perhaps the move would do the nation some good. However, I have a feeling that the problems the Argentine government are trying to run away from, and that the populace are protesting about, will only get worse with increased space between the ruling body and its constituents.