6 things i learned today

Daar’s iets aan stilsit agter ‘n lessenaar met niemand om my idees van af te bounce nie wat my terugdryf na hierdie erg verwaarloosde blog! Ek wil darem jammer se vir die feit dat ek geheel en al nie in September geblog het nie. SR, akademie, muisneste en ‘n job by die biblioteek sal dit aan jou doen!

6 Things I learned today:

• Lensies vat regtig nie lank om te kook nie.
• “Opprobrium” beteken oneer, skande of smaad. Soos in, “Is the moral opprobrium with which Weapons of Mass Destruction are regarded justified?”
• Hill’s Science Diet kos is duur, maar is regtig beter vir jou kat se vel as Whiskas.
• Die griep-epidemie van 1918 het 20 miljoen mense doodgemaak. Dis so goed jy wipe die helfte van ons bevolking – al die wit en bruin en Xhosa mense saam.
• Om ‘n beraming te kry van die helfte van ons bevolking, het ek probeer uitvind hoeveel Engelse Suid-Afrikaners ons het. Hulle is omtrent die helfte soveel soos die Afrikaners, en blykbaar noem ‘n mens hulle Anglo-Africans. Kry vir jou, Ryan ;)
• ‘n Mens kan net 6 boeke uitneem op jou boyfriend se geleende voorgraadse studentekaart, terwyl jy op jou eie nagraadse kaart 15 boeke sou kon uitneem. ‘n Mens kry jou kaart altyd op die laaste plek waar jy soek, en dis altyd nadat die biblioteek vir die volgende 40 uur gesluit het.

Ek het ook regop gesit toe ek die volgende in my handboek lees:

“The point in time at which this book ends is as transient as any in the history of humankind… The temptation to regard this particular moment of the rpesent any differently must be resisted” (Gat, War in Human Civilization: 657)

Ek weet nie of hy nederig is en ‘n indrukwekkende hoeveelheid perspektief op sy eie plek in die geskiedenis het nie – dit is baie moontlik, want die man het omtrent ‘n bree visie van die geskiedenis. Of anders probeer hy net sy bases cover; daarop aandring dat as hy enigsins verkeerd bewys word, hy nooit gedurf se het hy dink hy weet presies wat in die wereld aangaan nie.

take-home exam

Prof du Toit het vir ons hierdie enetjie uitgedeel vanoggend om 8h30. Dit sal ons werk wees vir die naweek. Dinsdag om 16h30 gee ons ons maksimum 15 bladsye in… ek post dit hier want… ek weet nie… omdat ek verstom is deur die scope daarvan!!! Hy haal so half sy skouers op en se “jy’s teen hierdie tyd ‘n expert in een of ander veld… span dit in en beindruk my”.

Tall order vir hierdie jack of all trades.

On the last page (p. 673) of his book War in Human Civilization, Azar Gat concludes as follows:

“People continue to compete vigorously over scare objects of desire… As conditions have changed dramatically and for those for whom they have changed (original emphasis) the violent option – the hammer – in the human behaviour “tool kit”, has become less practical whereas the more peaceful tools have been growing in significance.”

The conditions favourable to the use of peaceful tools he identifies (again on p.673) are “the growth of industrial-technological affluent liberal society going hand in hand with deepening global interdependency and mutual prosperity.”

In the preceding chapters he had already identified the factors that may adversely affect the further spread of  conditions that favour peaceful conduct over violence.

These include:

- The rise of China, Russia and India, as illiberal, authoritarian or even totalitarian regimes with considerable economic power, more or less capitalistic,  but who coalesce into a rical block, a new “second world” to oppose the “liberal democratic zone of peace”.

- The inability or unwillingness of coutnries at the edge of the libral democratic peace to become more democratic, and more liberal, and who then shy away from the liberal democratic zone, and gravitate towards this new “second world”.

- The persistent presence of the forces of ethnic nationalism, in whatever imagined form, that feed on the evolutionary predispositions of kin-based affinity, and the unpredictability of where these forces are likely to emerge.

- The spread and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, (WMD) by illiberal actors, whether states, terrorist movement, failing/failed states, or even disaffected individuals.

Examine these rival sets of forces within a global context, with a view to the future (short, medium and long term): on the one hand, the pacifying effect of liberal capitalist modernity, and on the other, the forces listed above. In assessing these forces, consider

- whether you would like to add to list of factors that inhibit the growth of the affluent liberal-democratic zone of peace;

- whether you would revise and modify his framework (i.e., the definition of the various rival categories and hwo they will shape and re-shape themselves); and

- identify pivotal countries, regions and events that may impact on the stength of these rival sets of forces.

Comments waarin jy jou perspektief op die vraag gee is welkom vanaf Dinsdagaand! Ek’s bitter nuuskierig om te sien wat julle dink.