Debate #3

For the third debate, we covered the topic of colonialism. The debate was probably the worst out of the first two I'd have to say, but there were still some great points made on both sides. I have to say that the con side really took the cake in this debate. There first point they brought up was how colonialism exploits the people and their resources. They make the point across that these colonizers were coming to these areas for their own good and not to help promote economic development like the pro side was saying. I have to firmly agree with what the con side said about this. The whole idea behind colonialism was to expand the empire and gain more riches, wealth and resources from other areas. Another point that the con side brought up was about how colonialism destroys independence and self determination. I do not feel that this point hit as hard as the first, but the way they talked about how people coming into another country that has been doing for something for so long a simpler way, then having an outside source come in, set things up and leave would do more harm than them just not coming in the first place. Another strong point that the con side had was issue dealing with national identity and racism. They used an example from Africa when the Europeans came over, they left leaving the power in the hand of a few crooked and corrupt chiefs that were racist toward other tribes. Also the cons put down what the pros said about how colonialism is an inevitable process because they say how the culture has survived for thousands of years and now this culture feels the need to come in and help out. No, these places do not have to do this and the only thing they are in it for is to better themselves. I do agree with the pro side when they talk about how different concepts would not be as widespread as they are now without colonialism, but then again I agree with the con side when they say well who says that we are right to force it upon these people. Overall, the pro side had a very westerner point of view while the con side obviously took the complete opposite. In all, I figured out that colonialism can be both a good and a bad thing.

Debate #2

This week’s debate was on the Electoral College. I thought overall the debate went fairly good. Both sides had some good points and both sides had some points that were somewhat confusing. I will talk about some of the points that the sides made and throw my personal input from the debate in as well. I will first talk about the con side. Their idea was that the Electoral College is a negative system for many reasons. The first point they brought up was that with the current system it is reduces the chance of having a minority president. What the pro side had to say to this was that if people really wanted and had enough support behind a third party candidate, then they could possibly win the state. The con side then talked about how if the 3rd party received 40 percent of the votes and the two major parties each got around 30, then once taken to the house, the third party would eventually loose. The con side also talked about the fact that since voting numbers are down, the Electoral College may have something to do with it. They then talked about how many people believe that if they think there vote is not important, then they just assume to not vote. There one major example was that if a candidate needs majority vote to win, then if one candidate gets 500,000 and the other gets 700,001 votes, then 200,000 votes were wasted because all the candidate really needed was one over the five hundred thousand. They also talked about the case that since we are in such a two party system many people vote against whom they do not want to win, instead of the candidate that they want to win simply because they feel there is not one they have full trust in. The pro side thinks it is better to have a two party system because the chance of a third-party or independent candidate getting elected is slim. So therefore what they say is that it is a mean for indirect voting. This part of the lecture was very confusing to me because I do not have a solid grasp on what indirect voting is. The girl from the pro side that was sitting nearest the center had much to say about this but to me it was all just rambles. To me the side that won the debate was the con side. I liked when the one gentleman brought up the facts that a couple of the states had more population than one state by itself, yet this one state had more electoral votes than the others combined. I think the Electoral College is a system which has more negative issues about it than the positives. I feel that a better system which could be used is a true one person one vote system. The pro side say that the electoral college is meant to be an equal representation of the people, but unfortunately it does not work out that way. I know you said in class during the break that if we do the one vote for every person and each one taken individually, then the idea of a recount would be impossible. Yet I believe that there must be a better way of voting than the current system in place.

The Merits of Colonialism

For this weeks blog topic we had to write about colonialism. There are many positive and also many negative sides that go for and against colonialism. I really do not know what side I stand on when the topic turns to colonialism, but I do have my opinions both on the pro and con side. First, I will talk about the negative parts of colonialism. Many people say that colonialism is a good thing because it benefits the country that is being colonized. Well in many cases this is not so true. The reason that countries that go into another to colonize it is not to benefit the country. The reason they go to these places is because there in something in that country that the colonizers want. For example, when the Europeans came to the Americas it was to explore the area and find things that benefit them. In this case they took back things such as spices and riches. It was also about expanding the empire. We as humans are greedy and want more and want the most. Therefore colonization is a mean of getting these things to be stronger and wealthier than other countries. Obviously from a western point of view colonization was a good thing, because if not for it we would not be here. But for the countries that have been colonized while there was already an indigenous population there, this has caused turmoil and has been a negative effect of colonialism. The example of Africa comes to mind when I think about some of the negative effects of colonialism. The first thing the colonizers did was exploited the resources in the continent for the better good of the Europeans, not the African populations. They then developed some parts of the continent while leaving the others undeveloped after stealing their resources. Then they gave authority to some of the warrant chiefs which were corrupt towards the other Nigerian citizens. But on the flip side many people say that the Colonialism in Africa brought along many positive effects. Some say that it brought along an education system in Africa, whether it was successful or not. Also it brought many of the western civilization ideas to the country as far as technology and modern ideas. The problem I have with colonialism is that if you go into another country and try to enforce your ideas on a community or culture that does not want your input, then that is immorally wrong. Just because we do not live in huts and have a third world way of life does not mean that the people that have lived for thousands of years need our "help". The reason I think this is because I watched a documentary about a year ago about a handful of kids in different African cultures. Some were wealthy white kids, some were wealthy blacks, some were middle class white and black, and some were poor white and blacks all over the continent. And out of my surprise the ones that seemed the happiest were the ones that live a more primal way of life than the others. These people are happy people that have survived for centuries and their traditions have not changed much at all. So who's to say that if we come into these peoples lands and try to force something on them is right?