![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oct. 15th, 2007
My Asia-Pacific International Politics professor wanted us to predict major issues in the Asia-Pacific today. The answers were all Southeast Asian: Myanmar? Indonesia, Thailand, democratization? ASEAN? My professor looked disappointed.
"What about in Northeast Asia?" he asked.
"Well, Russia was selling arms to Indonesia."
"Yes..." When silence was his answer he added: "What about the major powers? Yes, in the back."
"The rise of China?" one high-pitched girl suggested, with complete sincerity.
"Well, that's, yes, that's been an issue all along..." He sighed. He proceeded to tell us what the correct answers obviously were - the dynamics of U.S.-China, U.S.-Japan, China-Japan, the "flashpoints": North Korea and Taiwan, and finally, at the end (because last is least), Southeast Asia.
He later talked about historical context and current developments - "focus on longer term trends, placing recent developments into context" (and he says this is separate from constructivism, which is all about those abstract things "thoughts and ideas") - but oh, woe is us, for we don't know how long-term these trends should be! I guess political scientists are supposed to view history as a chore.
Post Cold-War? Post-2001? Post-1972 (Sino-American rapprochement, a word he insists on pronouncing with a laughably pretentious French accent)? Post-1945? 20th Century? Or 19th + 20th century? Or longer? Which one applies to how we consider Asia-Pacific politics?!
I wrote in my notebook: OR MAYBE IT DEPENDS ON THE COUNTRY AND CONTEXT, GENIUS.
I miss Professor Cooley.
At least Felicity and Kate love me.
I doodle in class - Medusa-like mermaids without mouths and trees with leaves like soft-serve icecream and comic book explosions. I daydream about my senior thesis. It'll be wonderful, I swear.
"What about in Northeast Asia?" he asked.
"Well, Russia was selling arms to Indonesia."
"Yes..." When silence was his answer he added: "What about the major powers? Yes, in the back."
"The rise of China?" one high-pitched girl suggested, with complete sincerity.
"Well, that's, yes, that's been an issue all along..." He sighed. He proceeded to tell us what the correct answers obviously were - the dynamics of U.S.-China, U.S.-Japan, China-Japan, the "flashpoints": North Korea and Taiwan, and finally, at the end (because last is least), Southeast Asia.
He later talked about historical context and current developments - "focus on longer term trends, placing recent developments into context" (and he says this is separate from constructivism, which is all about those abstract things "thoughts and ideas") - but oh, woe is us, for we don't know how long-term these trends should be! I guess political scientists are supposed to view history as a chore.
Post Cold-War? Post-2001? Post-1972 (Sino-American rapprochement, a word he insists on pronouncing with a laughably pretentious French accent)? Post-1945? 20th Century? Or 19th + 20th century? Or longer? Which one applies to how we consider Asia-Pacific politics?!
I wrote in my notebook: OR MAYBE IT DEPENDS ON THE COUNTRY AND CONTEXT, GENIUS.
I miss Professor Cooley.
At least Felicity and Kate love me.
I doodle in class - Medusa-like mermaids without mouths and trees with leaves like soft-serve icecream and comic book explosions. I daydream about my senior thesis. It'll be wonderful, I swear.