I attended the PSL Scholars Advocacy Forum on Tuesday, April 9. This was a fun event where I was able to reconnect with old friends from PSL and learn about issues they cared about. I listened to presentations in things ranging from women’s rights on college campuses to discourse regarding the interpretation of laws. I found the event to be very interesting and informative and felt that it was a great learning experience in preparing for the International Affairs Scholars Second Year Symposium which occurred on the following evening.

This event was on Thursday, April 4, in Page Hall. The presenter was Johanna Sellman of the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. Johanna began by defining what she means by contemporary as literature from the 1990s to now. Johanna explained that recently, migration literature has stemmed from conflicts in the Mediterranean and Mediterranean crossings. She explained that forced migration is migration attributed to threats to life or livelihood and that she uses this definition so as to be inclusive of all migrants and not just those who are asylum seekers. I found it interesting how Johanna said that the term “forced” does not always have to be related to the number of options a migrant has.

Johanna explained that contemporary migration literature began with Northern African “Harraga” literature. The term Harraga referred to those who would burn their citizenship papers before migrating. Since the coining of this term, however, migration literature has expanded geographically as conflicts in the Arab region have developed.

Johanna spoke about the book Bird of the East which is about a migrant who travelled to Paris and falls in love but becomes dissillusioned by the materialistic nature of Western Society. She said that this novel was writen in a period of the “season of migration,” where migration was much different than and occurred before the current “season of forced migration.” I found how the attitude toward Western culture in this story to be interesting, especially in comparisson to attitudes of today’s forced migrants who are desparate to escape to the West. Johanna’s statement that people view literature from the “season of migration” as art, yet literature from the “season of forced migration” not as such to be especially profound. It makes sense to me, as many may view forced migration literature from more of a utilitarian lense, and literature from the “season of migration” under more of an artistically and culturally curious lense.

I also really appreciated Johanna’s explicating the resistence to the term “refugee literature,” as in some sense it is demeaning to categorize the authors in such a way since ultimately they are authors who are equal to non refugee authors. I believe that removing the moniker of “refugee” from works writen by such an individual leads to a more profound appreciation for the true value of the work itself, removing any pre-concieved notions the term “refugee” carries.

Johanna explained four frameworks through which to view forced migration literature, the “crisis” framwork, the “border” framework, the “intertextuality” framework, and the “defamiliarization” framework. The first two frameworks are relatively self explanatory, but I found “intertextuality” to be especially interesting as it allows for texts to be viewed as adaptations of others, or a “modern adaptation” which is more applicable to the experiences of the forced migrant authors. Also, “defamiliarization” is interesting because in this framework, things we take for granted, such as citizenship or currency, are completely defimiliarized, providing readers with an entirely new perspective differing from that which readers are comfortable and understanding of.

I attended the non-IA event “Nationalism, History, and Revolution in Cuba,” on Friday, November 30th in Thompson Library. The event was put on by the Center for Historical Research, the History Department, and the Center for Latin American Studies. The speaker was Professor Louis A. Perez. Professor Perez began by speaking about United States involvement in the Cuban War of Independence that occurred form 1895 – 1898. He emphasized that the United States did not start the war, but rather entered it.

Professor Perez also spoke a lot about Cuban identity, and how it with the goal of self-determination entered into Cuban politics. He said that Cubans obsessively on their past and the history of the Cuban people. He said that this past was not only something to be proud of, but a cite of moral validation and was the source of consciousness of Cubans. Professor Perez said that Cuban politics from 1902 – the 1950s was mostly based upon history, and a memory of remorse, unrealized expectations, and unmet expectations, these memories surfaced in Cuban political discourse. This form of political discussion essentially politicized the nation’s history.

In the 1950s, this politicized emphasis on the past led to a realization that there must be a pursuit to achieve former unmet goals, leading to a strong desire to achieve independence through statehood with a revolution. Professor Perez then went on to speak about the Cuban Revolution, and how it was a struggle for the Cuban nation to fulfill its historical objective of national sovereignty and self-determination. He said that in the eyes of the United States, Cuba having national sovereignty and self-determination was not acceptable in both the 1890s War of Independence and the revolution in the 1950s, and continues to be something that the United States disproves of. I found this statement interesting but question his view that the United States still disproves of Cuban sovereignty and self-determination, as it begs the question of who would the United States rather have presiding over the country. America cannot afford to take on Cuba as another territory, and if it had done so we would be faced with a much stronger feeling of communist nationality in the country today than there actually is presently. With warming relations between the United States and Cuba, and decreasing vigor in the hardline wing of Cuba’s communist party, I feel that the current state of relations between the United States and Cuba are as good as they realistically could be. This statement is especially true considering the strong influence the former Soviet Union had over the country.

In short, I found Professor Perez’s talk to be extremely interesting and insightful. He is extremely knowledgeable on the history of the country and presented the information he shared in a well thought out, chronological, and captivating manner.

I attended the US – China Trade discussion ” Rising China: Trade and America’s Pacific Posture” put on by the Alexander Hamilton Society. I found this event to be extremely interesting as I did an internship abroad in Hong Kong this past summer and since Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, this discussion was extremely relevant to me. The event was at 6 p.m. on September 6th in 100 Mendenhall Laboratory, and there was free pizza. The speakers were Dr. Phil Levy, who is a Senior Fellow for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and Dr. Bin Yu, who is a Professor of Political Science and East Asian Studies at Wittenberg University. The event was moderated by Dr. Peter Mansoor. The discussion began with Dr. Mansoor introducing the two speakers, and then Dr. Levy went first. Dr. Levy’s perspective was especially interesting since he used to serve in President George Bush’s cabinet. His stance was essentially that the United States was in the right and needed to stand up for itself. He also emphasized the issue of intellectual property and how companies that want to enter into China usually are forced to partner with a state owned company. This state owned company then, quite often, steals the trade secrets of the United States company, and then produces the product on their own for at a much cheaper rate. He said that this is the biggest issue for United States trade in the country and is what should have been focused on the most. Dr. Yu spoke of the misrepresentation of the trade deficit. He essentially conceded that the United States, in some sense, needed to protect its companies, but stated that the basis of their being a trade deficit between the United States and China was grossly overstated. He demonstrated how the figures being used by the United States government failed to represent revenue generated by United States companies in the country, and that they were much lower than reality. I had an issue with his decision to include Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan under trade sources with China. Macau and Hong Kong are special administrative regions of China which have independent governance and economies. They both use their own currencies and are highly autonomous, especially Hong Kong which strives to distance itself from China as much as possible. I feel that including these regions in the trade figure is incorrect. Also, to include Taiwan in the figure is especially incorrect. Taiwan is, in the view of the United States, an independent nation, and China exerts no governance over the island whatsoever. In short, I found the discussion to be interesting and enjoyed hearing the contrasting viewpoints of Dr. Levy and Dr. Yu. Also, the free Adriaticos was nice too.

[The Home Page will show a running blog of your recent posts, which are categorized and show on that category’s page. Please delete this post or edit with your own information.]

[ “Year in Review”  is where you should reflect on the past year and show how you have evolved as a person and as a student.  You may want to focus on your growth in a particular area (as a leader, scholar, researcher, etc.) or you may want to talk about your overall experience over the past year.  For more information, go to: http://honors-scholars.osu.edu/e-portfolio. Delete these instructions and add your own post.]

[ “G.O.A.L.S.” is a place where students write about how their planned, current, and future activities may fit into the Honors & Scholars G.O.A.L.S.: Global Awareness, Original Inquiry, Academic Enrichment, Leadership Development, and Service Engagement. For more information, go to: http://honors-scholars.osu.edu/e-portfolio. Delete these instructions and add your own post.

Global Awareness: Students cultivate and develop their appreciation for diversity and each individual’s unique differences. For example, consider course work, study abroad, involvement in cultural organizations or activities, etc .
Original Inquiry: Honors & Scholars students understand the research process by engaging in experiences ranging from in-class scholarly endeavors to creative inquiry projects to independent experiences with top researchers across campus and in the global community. For example, consider research, creative productions or performances, advanced course work, etc.
Academic Enrichment: Honors & Scholars students pursue academic excellence through rigorous curricular experiences beyond the university norm both in and out of the classroom.
Leadership Development: Honors & Scholars students develop leadership skills that can be demonstrated in the classroom, in the community, in their co-curricular activities, and in their future roles in society.
Service Engagement: Honors & Scholars students commit to service to the community.]

[“Career” is where you can collect information about your experiences and skills that will apply to your future career.  Like your resume, this is information that will evolve over time and should be continually updated.   For more information, go to: http://honors-scholars.osu.edu/e-portfolio. Delete these instructions and add your own post.]