quote:

---

Is Canada balancing against external threats or bandwagoning with the strength of the United States?

---

quote:

---

Canada is certainly bandwagoning with the USA. Historically Canada had allied with the British Empire to protect them/ourselves from the rising influence of the United States.

However with the first and second world wars and the clear stark decline of British economic and military influence on the world stage Canada gradually realigned itself with the United States as Canada gained its sovereignty.

With the United Kingdom no longer able to protect Canada's borders it is clear that Canada, without any realistic alternatives for security such as allying with the USSR is politically and ideologically distasteful and geographically and logistically distant; needed to bandwagon with the United States in order to protect their security.

Canada did so by integrating into the NORAD defence network and through further military cooperation with the US via NATO; although the level of commitment varies between Canadian governments. For example Canada stayed out of the Iraq war despite this being unpopular with the United States, while more recently Canada chose to participate in the F-35 JSF program against its economic interests, but to the benefit of the United States.

---

quote:

---

To support the argument that Canada is imply allying with the United States against external threats we could identify a few, primarily it was the Soviet Union during the cold war. Now one may ask when the USSR collapsed why still ally? Momentum and inertia, it takes time for nations to adjust to threats especially in our modern world where the threat of war has been generally at its lowest in human history and during that period without the Former Soviet Union the political and diplomatic cost of dissolving the alliance with the US hasn't been worth the "gain" from increased independence.

Since then however the Russian Federation has regained a decent degree of strength and is actively courting ambitions in the Canadian arctic since global warming has so conveniently opened up its bountiful resources for extraction the Russians now compete with us and the united states for influence.

Additionally states like Iran, North Korea actively harm out trading interests in the region, and China is growing into a potentially strong if as yet fragile superpower in its own right. There are plenty of reasons as to why a democracy such as ours would prefer to stay aligned with a like minded powerful democracy like the USA to counter balance these potential threats.

An economic argument would be, in the wake of the financial crisis Canada has been actively seeking trade partnerships with China and the European Union in an effort to diversify our export economy in case of a sudden slump in American demand for our products. We are aligning away from the US to protect our own interests.

---

quote:

---

Critical Question: What alternatives were there and are there to the UN? How did the UN improve on the League of Nations and where did it not improve?

---

quote:

---

Possible alternatives to the United Nations would be firstly bi/multilateral diplomacy as practiced by nation-states with the Westphalian system. A second alternative would be a strengthening of regional organizations (ex, European Union) or alliances (such as NATO) as the logical extension of the above aforementioned alternative. Nation-states as such would only need to communicate with nation states of relatively local interest. The disadvantage of this approach is that it leaves external regional issues outside the scope of these nation's abilities or diplomacy, which could be dangerous in the case of external invasion by a previously thought geographically distant power.

Another alternative would be that of one world government, if there were no nations, then there would be little possibility of conflict. However considering the that the world's great powers especially the Soviet Union and China would have been extremely unlikely to have given up their sovereignty at the time this alternative is unlikely.

The UN improved upon the League of Nations primarily through its organization. The United Nations Security Council, staffed by the five victorious great powers of the second world war solve the issue of the calculation problem, and by virtue of being great powers are in a position to enforce UN Resolutions and act Independence of a majority of UN member states. The primary weakness of the League of Nations was that it required an unlikely and impractical level of consensus to act against threats to a member states security, allowing for Italy and Japan to flaunt the League's mandates with relative ease. Addendum to this was unlike the League the United Nations has firm financial and economic institutions to act in tandem with resolutions. For example, during the Ethiopian crisis when Italy invaded Ethiopia many nations paid lip service or outright refused to embargo Italy because of the great depression throttling the exports of many nations. Because of this they were unwilling to significantly harm their own economies to stop italy; now, thanks to the IMF and the World Bank it can be possible to provide compensation or relief to nations who in a similar position might find themselves economically unable to comply with collective security mandates from the UNSC.

In ways the UN did not improve upon the League is that, like the League the United Nations is still in many cases the foreign policy tool of the Great Powers and isn't truly an objective arbiter of international justice. Many critical issues of importance are poorly defined and procedure to react to a crisis can be slow if no great powers have particular interest in it.

---

quote:

---

Of course we mustn't lose track regarding the meaning for "alternative", an realistic alternative to the United Nations I would define; would have to be an organization capable of acting to these three following ideals:

1) Keeping the peace between disparate nation-states.

2) Protecting smaller nation-states from being devoured by naked acts of aggression by larger states.

3) Providing a forum for international cooperation on various subjects.

As a special addendum I would add a special Zeroth Clause of "Protecting nation-states from state-terrorism" (re: Noam Chomksy) of where while a larger more powerful state may not directly invade and occupy/annex a smaller state will nevertheless engage in acts of terrorism. I will get to this in due time.

The 19th century example of the Concert of Europe fails the above litmus test as being a ideal or practical alternative for the United Nations because it ultimately failed tests 1, 2 and 3.

3; easiest to explain is that diplomacy in the Concert Era continued more or less unchanged from previous eras, it was simply a de jure diplomatic ideal that the great powers acted under as simply the continuation of the Westphalian system.

2; China, Korea, Turkey, Spain, sovereign North American Indian States, Denmark, Indian continental States, Siam and many African states were all exploited, attacked, or partitioned by the larger Great Power Concert states during the time period of the establishment of the Concert of Europe until the first world war.

1; As we saw with (2) this not only failed with the larger states to smaller states but also there were many great power conflicts such as the Crimean War, the Russo Turkish War, the Russo Japanese War, Sino-Japanese war, USA-Spanish war, Franco-Prussian War, Wars of German Unification, Franco-Austrian War, etc until the final disaster of the first world war. Clearly the Concert of Europe has failed on every count.

Epistemic communities are interesting and very successful at what they do; to elaborate they are great tools for solving specific issues, or maintaining international cooperation on technical matters, such as the organization that handles the standards for telecommunications between nations. But these organizations, staffed by techniticans, bureaucrats, do not have the same authoritative representation as an appointed ambassador would. They cannot call upon sanctions, cannot act on behalf of the international community on such important matters such as wars. Very little that is applicible to state actors is applicible to Epistemic communities.

---

quote:

---

I could dig it up, revise and refine it and resubmit that...

---

quote:

---

As tempting as that is, you might want to be careful with this route. I've had teachers mention that as "still considered plagiarism" even when it is your own paper.

---

Interesting, do you know what their reasoning behind that is? I'm curious.

On a side note that means Mozart was a huge plagiarizer! That Wiley fellow always stealing from himself!
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 

quote:

---

Interesting, do you know what their reasoning behind that is?

---

quote:

---

Interesting, do you know what their reasoning behind that is? I'm curious.

---

Because you're supposed to be working on improving yourself in coursework, not showing you already know things.

And it's heavily frowned upon to do it extensively in published work, too. There's a well regarded academic basically being ripped to shreds because he published the same thing in multiple venues without even citing the other works.
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
At the university I taught at, turning in the same paper twice, or even a slightly modified copy, was most definitely considered plagiarism, at least in part because it was specifically defined as such in the Code of Conduct. So, Blayne, if your school has one of those (which I assume it does), looking there might be a good path.
Also, on that note, be wary of posting answers and papers online, especially if your professors are going to be using any sort of plagiarism checking device (I've seen turnitin.com and SafeAssign used, though just copy and pasting a selection into Google also works and could possibly return this page). Your work would come back as 100% plagiarism and while you would probably be able to explain, better safe than sorry.

Also, I know you love your China/Japan stuff, but might I also suggest 19th century Europe for consideration in your balance of power question, specifically looking at the Congress system? It would most likely be spectacularly easy to write, as there's a ton of literature surrounding it. Just a thought, especially if you find yourself frustrated.

And to completely feed your addiction and make no sense to none-Eve players, iirc you were in WIdot, which folded into Goonswarm? Did you assimilate? If you dare fight on the DRF side (which Mittens doesn't entirely seem opposed to, or at least a NAP) I will... be gravely disappointed.


Fugu: Who are you referring to, out of curiosity? My disciplinary scope is rather limited, so I don't usually get the scoop on whats happening outside my own little sphere.
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Also, sorry for the double post, but there were a few typos in the "Answer 01" that you gave, such as "However considering the that the world's great powers...". If you are being graded on grammatical stuff, I would recommend reading through your posts out loud, as deliberately as possible. This only takes a few minutes but catches the majority of errors. It's the best way to get a quick outside perspective without actually having to rely on another person.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Bruno Frey. He's never been huge, but he's had a solid output for a long time. He's particularly prominent among German-language academics, where apparently self plagiarism is more common/accepted (though I only have that second and thirdhand).
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I vaguely recall that the Congress of Europe period was specifically excluded from consideration and I would rather learn more about stuff I like anyways.

As for the paper I'm not however taking a paper and submitting it twice per se, I'm repeating the class.

edit: also I do not believe I am being marked for grammar, as long as its readable.
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Yeah, Congress Europe is kind of the easy way out, and it is better to go with what interests you. I just wrote a lecture about the Congress system so it was fresh on my mind.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
On more general uni related news I gotta figure out how to pack. Last two weeks I've been practically hiking uphill for multi hour hikes with many pounds of stuff on my back or last week in my laptop back.

What I need to do is figure out:

How much to pack.
How to lighten my load.
How to keep it just to one bag, or stay at 2 bags but significantly lighter.

So far I go in thursdays by train because I want to hang out but go to class fridays and crash at relatives.

What I think I need to do is:

1) Have a overnight bag already there with clothes.

2) Bring a gdamn futon to my brothers, his couch is murdering my back. My sisters is fine.

3) I have math friday. So far I think I need to bring my textbook so I can cross reference the questions as I have ninth they use 10th edition and the questions are numbered differently.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Oh re: EVE Online, I'm in the Goonswarm Federation and its awesome. As a SA member it is only fitting.

OP SUCCESS!
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 

quote:

---

As for the paper I'm not however taking a paper and submitting it twice per se, I'm repeating the class.

---

quote:

---

Oh re: EVE Online, I'm in the Goonswarm Federation and its awesome. As a SA member it is only fitting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Oh re: EVE Online, I'm in the Goonswarm Federation and its awesome. As a SA member it is only fitting.

---

Just remember what happened last time, Blayne. You can't afford any distractions right now, especially since you have a lot of trouble doing things you find boring.

---

quote:

---

a lifestyle that will open up so many other doors for enjoyable experiences you cannot now enjoy, you must accept that for the next few years, you *must* prioritize school, and mundane work above your leisure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It's grueling to read two books a week about stuff I couldn't care less about...

---

Like what? :: curious ::
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
This week I have to read The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge by Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity by Jill Lepore, and Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights 1919-1950 by Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore.

The Gilmore book I've been looking forward to. Lyotard was absolutely agonizing. Some of the ideas were a little interesting, but it was written in a style nigh unintelligible to people who aren't regular readers of philosophy. I had to read it three times just to get the gist. The Lepore book actually does look a little interesting, and it won a Bancroft prize, so there's something.

As it turns out, I wasn't supposed to read the Lyotard, I was supposed to read Karl Marx's The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which as it turns out is pretty interesting. Like I said, the theory books are starting to suck me in a little, even the ones I don't particularly care for.

But the early America stuff, even though I know these are some basic foundational texts on American history, highly regarded and everything, just aren't in my desired field, and I'd sooner skip them and read something else. Ecological Imperialism: the Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 by Alfred W. Crosby, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires and Republics in the Great Lakes Region 1610-1815 by Richard White. White was interesting, it was a take on settler-indian relations that I'd never really seen before, but it was still a drag.

For the theory stuff, we've read On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life by Nietzsche, The Idea of History by R.J. Collingwood, and That Noble Dream by Peter Novick. Nietzsche had a really interesting way of framing history and the pitfalls of historical objectivity. Novick totally blew me away with his study of history as a profession, and the ways in which historical philosophy has changed over the last century, and the effects of culture and politics upon how historians think and publish. Most of this is to get us thinking about the idea of "objectivity" and what it really means, and if it's even possible. The universal answer seems to be that it's absolutely not possible, but that's okay, we just need to change our concepts of how we recognize and grapple with our own bias.

I guess I'm actually finding some of this a tad more interesting than my level of complaining would suggest. It's just a grueling reading schedule, and I'm slipping into something of a utilitarian mindset for what I'd prefer to read. Even the stuff I find interesting but isn't related to my sub-area specifically, I'm in a mood to jettison.
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
Lyr, I completely agree about theory books somehow being more interesting than they should be (I even slightly enjoyed Lyotard once I was finished, though that was mostly because I had a great time tearing down his whole "incredulity of metanarratives" or whatever). I am, of course, the exact opposite of you in that I absolutely love Richard White and Alfred Crosby, and they manage to be cited in 95% of the papers I've written while I've never read Defying Dixie and have no desire to. But still, Marx can be really fun, Collingwood is a classic, and Novick... I sometimes find myself wishing that I could unread that book, as it smashed so many of my idealistic notions of the history profession.

We should really start a history thread... I finished the written portion of my comps last week so I'm actually able to interact with living people again.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
White was quite interesting. I mean, I give the man some serious props for his research skills. It must have taken a decade to amass the sheer amount of archives-based research he cited. It was probably the most well-researched book I've ever read, and it was decent writing. Personally I think he stretched the whole "middle ground" thing way too much. It became more of a catch phrase by the end of the book. Yadda yadda yadda...Middle Ground! Most of the time it wasn't actually the middle ground, it was that one side totally gave way one time, and the next time the other side would totally give way. They rarely created a third alternative in the middle. But I did enjoy his descriptions of the French-Algonquian alliance and what the French did to keep the indians on board, and also what the indians did to extort concessions out of the French. It's not often you read a narrative of Native American history that gives them any sort of agency, and while I don't think White ever used the word agency, he was putting them front and center in a fundamental way.

Honestly I think I need to reread Crosby this summer when I have more time. I read it when I was the most harried, and I thought it was kind of interesting as well, I just wasn't really in the mood for it, and there was other work I wanted to do. And yeah, I've seen both of them cited about ten billion times in almost everything I've read. They're obviously major touchstones in the profession, so I had to read it, but, meh.

Defying Dixie is absolutely fascinating so far. I'm only partway through it. The section that talks about the exportation of Jim Crow to other countries was fascinating. I had no idea that southern style racism was such a powerful, sought after, and dangerous export. We basically instituted Jim Crow in Haiti when we took over in the first part of the 20th century. New Zealand imported Jim Crow to keep the Maori's in check. Lots of colonial governments looked to the south for guidance as a model system for keeping lesser people's down. The way in which it describes the exodus of southern thinkers to the north also flips around my thinking of the civil rights movement. Most of the big thinkers on race issues in the first half of the 20th century were just southern expatriates living in the north, which forces us to re-evaluate how we think about where the movement started.

Of course, Civil Rights history is basically my main course of study, so I would find it more interesting than you, with your crazy EUROCENTRIC historical tastes. Bleh.

I need to reread Collingwood too. I sort of rushed through it. Marx was really quite interesting. You can really see how his ideas have been twisted for political purposes over the last century. As for Novick, see, I don't think he destroyed any preconceived notions I had about the profession. It REALLY put the early days of the profession into focus for me. I had no idea we were so rigid and close-minded back in the day. I really appreciate the irony that in the 1880s we were hooked on the idea of history as a "science" but refused to subject historical studies to any sort of replication or retesting. No one ever checked anyone else's work because it was considered both rude and a waste of time. Now it actually does feel more scientific in the sense that we're constantly re-researching things to make sure they stand up to scrutiny. Someone might be off the mark, but we eventually get it right, and biases are weeded out through the process of professional discourse.

I think we're a much stronger profession now, and I think it's closer to the golden age of historical research, well, with the exception of dramatic funding cuts across the country. As far as historical theory and approach go, though, I'd absolutely rather live in today's world than any other.

Congrats on finishing your written comps! That has to be a big weight off your mind.
 

---

Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:

edit: also I do not believe I am being marked for grammar, as long as its readable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Show your work. :-/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Show your work. :-/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Show your work. :-/

---

That's fine, just print out the intermediate results.

---

quote:

---

Just not here.

---

Elaborate.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I figure by the time you've coded up, debugged, and tested your matrix multiplication code, you'll have had more than enough practice
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Show your work. :-/

---

That's fine, just print out the intermediate results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
And it's heavily frowned upon to do it extensively in published work, too. There's a well regarded academic basically being ripped to shreds because he published the same thing in multiple venues without even citing the other works.

---