blog 1

         In class, we discussed our points of view on what type of “ism” we support. Some said Liberalism, and some said Constructivism. No one really said that they agree with the views and structure of the realist point of view. This is most likely because the realist point of view tends to be aggressive, often violence is prevalent, and its exogenous. With that being said, even if not many agree with this point of view, it is the most relevant ism throughout history, and aspects of this political theory are seen by many powerful nations numerous time.
After discussing in class, it was determined that realism is based on human nature. It is in human nature for people to crave leadership or power, and to achieve it by any means. As for realism being seen throughout history, one example from the fourteenth century is Gengis Khan. Genghis Khan was a mongolian leader who founded the Mongolian empire which is the largest empire in history. Realism stresses dominance, and successfully utilizing resources. Khan and his empire did this by creating a dominating force by unifying nomadic tribes of Northeast Asia, and by conquering most of Eurasia. Khan used his resources of creating a powerful force from uniting nomads, and dominated other dynasties. It was also said in class that a good defense is an aggressive offense, and that is just what Khan did. Realism has a militaristic point of view, and Khan had numerous successful military campaigns. Another focal point for realism is security. Khan secured his security through the fear he instilled on others with his brutal ruling. Genghis Khan and the Mongolian empire is just one example of many of the realist political theory shown in history.
    A more recent, significant example of realism portrayed in history is nazi Germany. Nazi Germany also falls into that saying of “A good defense is a strong offense”. This all started when Germany sent troops into the Rhineland. Germany expanded rapidly under Hitler’s ruling, and was able to gain extreme power from invading and defeating neighboring states and countries. Germany had an outstanding and advanced military which they used to take what they wanted. Another point  of realism is the rise and fall of great powers. Nazi Germany also embodies this. Their downfall ultimately started from the invasion of Russia, and throughout numerous battles and other aspects of war, Nazi Germany fell.
So to conclude, I strongly believe that realism is the most prevalent political point of view throughout history. Realism’s focal points turn up everywhere in history, and although it might not be the most politically correct or sought after style, it is undoubtedly the highest recurring view.

Comments

  1. profshirkSeptember 21, 2017 at 8:07 AM

    Is this Tom or Yousuf?

    some realists certainly think that human nature is the cause of international actions, other see something else. What do you think that something else is?

    Also, you are certainly right that realism seems to fit history well. What do you think a constructivist or liberal would say to that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom PilatSeptember 24, 2017 at 3:16 PM

      This is Tom. When talking about human nature, I think the "something else" you are referring to may be surroundings. The way that a person is molded from is learning from others around them. If someone had an upbringing in a tough town, city, country etc. They are more likely to follow the path of what they know. Referring to history, realism is seen through and through. A liberal or a constructivist would probably say that this is true, but usually when great power is achieved through militaristic action, they will undoubtedly fall. This is seen with Nazi Germany, Athens, and many others.

      Delete
  2. UnknownSeptember 24, 2017 at 11:17 AM

    Realism surely is the most prevalent throughout history, and the need for relative power stretches back thousands of years. Another good example would be the First French Empire. Napoleon swept across Europe, crushing smaller powers and subjugating much of Europe to French rule in a relatively short amount of time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownSeptember 24, 2017 at 12:28 PM

    Realism is definitely common throughout history with many leaders. Do you feel that it is coming into play more often now though with Trump in office and also with the issue dealing with North Korea? Realism though, has certainly left its mark on history due to the need to expand powers and to have the strongest military. How come do you think that many of us in class stated that we agree with a liberalism or constructivism point of view but realism is most common throughout history?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom PilatSeptember 24, 2017 at 3:10 PM

      I do think realism is coming into play when dealing with North Korea. I do think that the U.S has to be firm when dealing with North Korea, because with their nuclear program progressing everyday, it's only a matter of time before things get more serious. I think that most people agree with liberalism and constructivism because they are more civil. With realism there are more broadly seen winners and losers. With liberalism and constructivism, there is more room for everyone to benefit in a non violent manner.

      Delete
  4. Jared RostkowskiSeptember 24, 2017 at 1:38 PM

    Realism is definitely the most popular "ism" in History. Why I believe the shift over to a more liberalist approach happened was that every "realist" state (Nazi Germany, Napoleon, etc.) has fallen and didn't last long, we now have established countries that are successful using a liberalist approach, and have no threat of a major shift in power. So although Realism was the most popular, the success rate is definitely lower.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Victoria PierreSeptember 24, 2017 at 7:33 PM

    I know that realism is the most popular "ism", nut me personally I find it shocking how much people want power instead of being in community with others. It's scary to know that deep down inside I want power, but I think I would say I would want the power to make people live together instead of against each other. But without power their would be no order. I wonder if it is easier to just gain power instead of seeing what the collective good wants?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog post 2, Nukes in Iran

Throughout the past couple of weeks we have discussed numerous times, the effects of nuclear weapons, and the way international/regional relations are affected by them. More specifically, we discussed the nuclear situation in the middle east pertaining to Iran. We debated a little in class  about whether or not Iran acquiring a bomb would be a positive or negative occurrence. After debating the topic, and going over readings in class, I believe that Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities would be a good thing, rather than bad. Many have argued against this point. Many think that as soon as iran acquires nuclear capabilities, they will instantly use it against Israel. It is also argued that since Iran has ties to hateful groups like Isis, they will arm terrorist groups with nuclear weapons. Historically speaking, countries that have acquired nuclear weapons, have not become increasingly aggressive. They have actually become more retracted in their ways. Many believe that when a countr...
Read more

Blog Post 2: Syria and the Fate of Weakened/Failed States Jared Rostkowski

Blog Post 2: Syria and the Fate of Weakened/Failed States Jared Rostkowski In April 2017, President Trump ordered a missile strike on an airbase which allegedly carried out a chemical weapon attack on Syrian rebels by the Syrian government. This was the first military action the U.S. had taken on the war-torn Syria. Syria began the plunge into civil war back in 2011 when protestors were shot dead in the city of Deraa, and the U.S. had, for the most part, stayed away from any physical involvement in the civil war. But since the bombings back in April, it has sparked a debate on whether or not the U.S. should send soldiers into Iraq to try and end this civil war. The side that I have taken is with the Larison reading. Syria is a tar-pit, anyone who interferes is going to only damage themselves and further damage the country.  The problem with weakened and failed states is that they are doomed to stay that way the majority of the time. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia are ju...
Read more

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more