Patrick Thaddeus Jackson Analysis

From the three pieces of work all authors all had different views but explained their connection very well. It made you feel as if the question or assumption made was the correct way or the most obvious way of doing things. In reading 1 by the author Patrick Thaddeus Jackson he asked “Must international studies be a science?” I read through the piece I feel as if first you have to break down the question itself first. International means to existing, occurring, or carried on between two or more countries. In the reading it has it “involves cross- boundary encounters with difference.” International is a word that brings others together for whatever cause is at hand. Reasons it could be a study of science because it can either engage economically
or socially detach different countries front different point of views. Reasons for me to saying are a science because it takes a certain type of formulas mentally or physically to inter act internationally to be able grow as a world. In furthermore in details the world is nothing but mixture of people from different cultures and different ethnicities. The Reading said the world is made up of hybrids and in my opinion I believe without hybrids the world would not be able to function. The alcohol preference also draws us closer. We may have learned practices from a different country and put a twist on it to make it ours but we were influenced. Knowing that we have developed multiple types of whiskey from different countries but knowing the different aspects to keep it diverse.
The second reading is G(r)azing the Fields of IR Romping buffaloes, festive villagers by Quynh Pham and Himadeep Muppidi.
My first initial thought of the reading is Native American people and how they were ran away from their land or how they had to create villages to with stand the wild together. The piece as I read through it was about how you have these happy villagers in the small secluded areas that raise cows and big herds of buffaloes. Then it seems to me how people with power began to abuse the little people in those villages. Or people in politics look at them as beneath and all they wanted with is them were they animals and manipulate. The only way the people could survive he had to learn a “new language – power, self-interest, utility, preferences, social choice, possessive individualism – getting a passport to facilitate my entry and membership into that international.” He had to learn all of that to even have a chance to compete or turn the manipulation upon them. When it was all said and done their culture was too important to forget songs, proverbs, legends, epics just to name a few. In conclusions, I drew from that there are people still living before modernized times and are happy where they are in life. Even though people with power make comments about the methods they still going to believe and keep alive traditions of their
cultures.
The final reading by Brent J. Steele: Of ‘Witch’s Brews’ and Scholarly Communities- the Dangers and Promise of Academic Parrhesia. Parrhesia is from the Greek word for frankness or truth telling and to investigate the inter-relationships and tensions that existed between freedom, truth-telling and political authority. What I acknowledged from this piece early on is how scholars get manipulated by politicians and how they are sneaky, truth benders, and being the typical politician. “ The point here is not for the parrhesiastes to convince a community to follow his lead, but to get a targeted audience(demos) or power (monarch) to see the error of its own ways- to get it to care for its own Self in the hope that such improved Care will also benefit the polity.” It resembles the Presidential election between Clinton and Trump where they point out the flaws of the individual instead of the major at hands. Just learn how to tell the truth regardless the situation academic setting or in the scholarly community.