Postagens
Welcome back to another post!
➧ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA: CESPE/CEBRASPE-2016-DIPLOMATA-CACD-WRITING EXAMINATION.
➧ BANCA/ORGANIZADOR: https://www.cebraspe.org.br/
➧ ESTRUTURA-WRITING EXAMINATION-2016:
➭ TRANSLATION (English/Portuguese) – 20 points.
- Text (2 parágrafos) – The language instinct || Steven Pinker.
➭ VERSION (Portuguese/English) – 15 points.
- Text (2 parágrafos) – Brasil: uma biografia. || Literatura.
➭ SUMMARY – 15 points.
-Text (09 parágrafos) – Development as Freedom || Amartya Sen.
➭ COMPOSITION – [Length: 400 to 450 words] – 50 points.
- Assunto (geral) – You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race. || Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right and always successful, right or wrong.
- Tema (específico) – Do ponto de vista de um diplomata, comparar e discutir as visões de patriotismo.
➧ PROVA:
Translate into Portuguese the following excerpt.
[value: 20 marks]
As you are reading these words, you are taking part in one of the wonders of the natural world. For you and I belong to a species with a remarkable ability: we can shape events in each other's brains with exquisite precision. I am not referring to telepathy or mind control or the other obsessions of fringe science; even in the depictions of believers these are blunt instruments compared to an ability that is uncontroversially present in every one of us. That ability is language. Simply by making noises with our mouths, we can reliably cause precise new combinations of ideas to arise in each other's minds. The ability comes so naturally that we are apt to forget what a miracle it is.In any natural history of the human species, language would stand out as the preeminent trait.
To be sure, a solitary human is an impressive problem-solver and engineer. But what is truly arresting about our kind is better captured in the story of the Tower of Babel, in which humanity, speaking a single language, came so close to reaching heaven that God himself felt threatened.
Adapted from Steven Pinker.
The language instinct.
Penguin Books, 1995
👉 Resposta (Inglês→português) :
Modelo 1(Matheus Pires Uller – 19/20):
Enquanto você lê essas palavras, você toma parte em uma das maravilhas do mundo natural. Pois você e eu pertencemos a uma espécie com uma habilidade notável: nós podemos moldar eventos com exímia precisão no cérebro um do outro. Não me refiro à telepatia ou ao controle da mente ou a outras obsessões da pseudociência; mesmo na descrições dos crentes, esses são instrumentos grosseiros comparados a uma habilidade que está presente em cada um de nós. Essa habilidade é a linguagem. Fazendo, simplesmente, ruídos com nossas bocas, podemos, com segurança, causar novas combinações precisas de ideias a serem concebidas na mente de cada um. A habilidade é tão natural que tendemos a esquecer o milagre que ela é.Modelo 1(Matheus Pires Uller – 19/20):
Em qualquer história natural da espécie humana, a linguagem se destacaria como traço proeminente. Seguramente, o humano solitário é um solucionador de problemas e um engenheiro impressionante. Mas o que é verdadeiramente admirável sobre nosso gênero é melhor ilustrado na história da Torre de Babel, em que a humanidade, falando uma única língua, chegou tão próxima de alcançar o paraíso que até Deus se sentiu ameaçado.
Modelo 2(André Nassim de Saboya – 19/20 )
Ao ler estas palavras, você está participando de uma das maravilhas naturais do mundo. Pois você e eu participamos de uma espécie com uma habilidade1 impressionante: nós podemos dar forma a eventos no cérebro de cada um de nós com ótima precisão. Não estou me referindo à telepatia ou a controle mental ou a outras obsessões marginais à ciência; mesmo quando descritas por pessoas que acreditam neles, eles instrumentos são rústicos comparados à habilidade que se encontra incontroversamente presente em cada um de nós. Essa habilidade é a linguagem. Simplesmente ao emitir sons com nossas bocas, nós podemos, com segurança, fazer emergir novas e precisas combinações de ideias na mente de cada um de nós. A habilidade é tão natural que nós nos esquecemos com facilidade de que se trata de um milagre. Em qualquer história natural da espécie humana, a linguagem se sobressairia como sua característica mais preeminente. Em verdade, um solitário ser humano é impressionante em resolver problemas e como engenheiro. Porém, o que é realmente marcante sobre nossa espécie é melhor ilustrado na história da Torre de Babel, na qual a humanidade, ao falar uma única língua, chegou tão perto de alcançar o céu que mesmo Deus se sentiu ameaçado.
Modelo 3(Lucas de Brito Lima – 18/20)
A Enquanto você lê essas palavras, está participando de uma das maravilhas do mundo natural. Isso porque eu e você pertencemos a uma espécie com uma habilidade1 notável: podemos moldar os eventos no cérebro um do outro com precisão sofisticada. Não me refiro a telepatia, controle de mentes ou outra obsessão da ciência marginal; mesmo os crentes descrevem esses instrumentos como grosseiros, se comparados a uma habilidade que está presente, indiscutivelmente, em cada um de nós. Essa habilidade é a linguagem.Ao simplesmente fazer sons com nossas bocas, podemos causar, com certeza2 , o surgimento de novas e precisas combinações de ideias na mente um do outro. A habilidade vem tão naturalmente que podemos esquecer o milagre que ela é.
Em qualquer história natural da espécie humana, a linguagem destacar-se-ia como o traço principal. É verdade que um homem solitário tem impressionantes habilidades de engenharia e capacidade de resolver problemas. No entanto, o que é realmente admirável nos seres humanos é melhor descrito na história da Torre de Babel, em que a humanidade, falando a mesma linguagem, chegou tão perto de alcançar o céu que o próprio Deus se sentiu ameaçado.
Modelo 4(Rodrigo Bertoglio Cardoso – 18/20)
Ao ler essas palavras, você está participando de uma das maravilhas do mundo natural. Porque eu e você pertencemos a uma espécie dotada de uma habilidade notável: nós podemos moldar os acontecimentos nos cérebros um do outro com uma precisão maravilhosa. Não estou me referindo à telepatia ou ao controle da mente ou às outras obsessões da paraciência; mesmo nas discussões daqueles que acreditam, esses são instrumentos imperfeitos se comparados a uma capacidade incontestavelmente presente em cada um de nós. Essa habilidade é a linguagem. Ao simplesmente fazer sons com nossas bocas, podemos, de forma segura, fazer com que novas combinações precisas de ideias surjam nas mentes um do outro. A habilidade manifesta-se tão naturalmente que tendemos a esquecer quão miraculosa ela é.Em qualquer história natural da espécie humana, a linguagem se destacaria como o traço proeminente. Para ser justo, um ser humano, sozinho, soluciona problemas e constrói coisas de forma impressionante. Mas o que é realmente formidável em nossa espécie foi melhor apreendido na história da Torre de Babel, na qual a humanidade, falando um único idioma, chegou tão perto de alcançar o céu que até Deus se sentiu ameaçado.
Modelo 4(PIOR TRADUÇÃO)
À medida que você lê essas palavras, entra em contato com uma das maravilhas do mundo natural. Como você e eu pertencemos a uma espécie com notória capacidade, nós podemos condicionar1 eventos no cérebro de cada um com uma precisão notória. Não estou me referindo à telepatia ou ao controle da mente ou a outras obsessões da ciência louca; mesmo nas descrições dos que creem, esses são instrumentos loucos, comparados com uma habilidade que é, de modo incontroverso, presente em cada um de nós. Tal capacidade é a linguagem. Simplesmente, ao fazer barulho com nossas bocas, podemos, de modo confiável, causar novas combinações precisas de ideias para que elas apareçam na cabeça de cada um. Essa capacidade aparece tão naturalmente que nós estamos aptos a esquecer o que é um milagre.Em qualquer história natural da espécie humana, a linguagem se destacaria como traço preeminente. Para ter certeza, um ser humano solitário é um sensível solucionador de problemas e engenheiro. Mas o que é realmente notório sobre nossa espécie é melhor verificado na história da Torre de Babel, na qual a humanidade, falando um única língua, chegou tão perto de atingir o céu que Deus se sentiu ameaçado.
Translate into English the following text.
[value: 15,00 marks]
Com o fim da escravidão e a consequente desorganização momentânea do sistema de mão de obra, uma série de esforços foi feita no sentido de atrair imigrantes, sobretudo europeus, para o Brasil. A experiência vinha da época do Império, mas seria incrementada na Primeira República. Em razão da concorrência de países como Argentina, Cuba, México e Estados Unidos da América, o governo brasileiro teve de se esmerar para vender a ideia do “paraíso terreal”. Grandemente destinado ao campo — à formação de núcleos coloniais oficiais nos estados do Sul e em especial às fazendas de café na Região Sudeste —, esse contingente de imigrantes acabaria absorvido pela dinâmica das cidades que cresciam e ofereciam empregos e serviços.
Como existiam grandes áreas não ocupadas no Sul do país, instalou-se aí um modelo de imigração baseado em pequenas propriedades policultoras. A terra era vendida a prazo, em lotes de vinte a vinte e cinco hectares, geralmente distribuídos ao longo dos cursos de água. As propriedades eram, porém, muito isoladas, e seus novos habitantes sujeitos a todo tipo de adversidade: ataques de indígenas, maus-tratos por parte da população local, dificuldades de comércio.
Since there were large unoccupied swaths of land in the country’s South, an immigration model based on small properties that divirsified their crops established in the region. Land was sold on credit, in tracts of twenty to twenty-five hectares, normally distributed along the course of rivers. These properties were, however, too isolated, and their new inhabitants were subject to all kinds of adversities: attacks by indigenous peoples, ill treatment from the local population and trade difficulties.
Economists are sometimes criticized for concentrating too much on efficiency and too little on equity. There may be some ground for complaint here, but it must also be noted that inequality has received attention from economists throughout the history of this discipline. Adam Smith, who is often thought of as “the Father of Modern Economics”, was deeply concerned with the gulf between the rich and the poor. Some of the social scientists and philosophers who are responsible for making inequality such a central subject of public attention were, in terms of substantive involvement, devoted economists, no matter what else they might also have been. In recent years, economics of inequality as a subject has flourished. This is not to deny that the focus on efficiency to the exclusion of other considerations is very evident in some works in economics, but economists as a group cannot be accused of neglecting inequality as a subject.
If there is a reason to grumble, it rests more on the relative importance that is attached, in much of economics, to inequality in a very narrow domain, viz. income inequality. This narrowness has the effect of contributing to the neglect of other ways of seeing inequality and equity, which has far-reaching bearing on the making of economic policy. Policy debates have indeed been distorted by overemphasis on income poverty and income inequality, to the neglect of deprivations that relate to other variables, such as unemployment, ill health, lack of education, and social exclusion. Unfortunately, the identification of economic inequality with income inequality is fairly common in economics, and the two are often seen as effectively synonymous. If you tell someone that you are working on economic inequality, it is quite standardly assumed that you are studying income distribution.
The distinction, however, between income inequality and economic inequality is important. Many of the criticisms of economic egalitarianism as a value or a goal apply much more readily to the narrow concept of income inequality than they do to the broader notions of economic inequality. For example, giving a larger share of income to a person with more needs can be seen as militating against the principle of equalizing incomes, but it does not go against the broader precepts of economic equality.
Empirically, the relationship between income inequality and inequality in other relevant spaces can be rather distant and contingent because of various economic influences other than income that affect inequalities in individual advantages and substantive freedoms. For example, in the higher mortality rates of African Americans vis-à-vis the much poorer Chinese, or Indians in Kerala, we see the influence of factors that run in the opposite direction to income inequality, and that involve public policy issues with strong economic components: the financing of health care and insurance, provision of public education, arrangements for local security and so on.
Mortality differences can, in fact, serve as an indicator of very deep inequities that divide races, classes and genders. Statistics on mortality rates as well as other deprivations (such as undernourishment or illiteracy) can directly present a picture of inequality and poverty in some crucial dimensions. This information can also be used to relate the extent of relative deprivation of women to the existing inequalities in opportunities (in earning outside income, in being enrolled in schools and so on). Thus both descriptive and policy issues can be addressed through this broader perspective on inequality and poverty in terms of capability deprivation.
Despite the crucial role of incomes in the advantages enjoyed by different persons, the relationship between income (and other resources), on the one hand, and individual achievements and freedoms, on the other, is neither constant nor in any sense automatic and irresistible. Different types of contingencies lead to systematic variations in the “conversion” of incomes into the distinct “functionings” we can achieve, and that affects the lifestyles we can enjoy. I have tried to illustrate the different ways in which there can be systematic variations in the relationship between incomes earned and substantive freedoms (in the form of capability to lead lives that people have reason to value). The respective roles of personal heterogeneities, environmental diversities, variations in social climate, differences in relational perspectives and distributions within the family have to receive the serious attention they deserve for the making of public policy.
The argument is sometimes made that income is a homogeneous magnitude, whereas capabilities are diverse. This sharp contrast is not entirely correct, in the sense that any income evaluation hides internal diversities with some special — and often heroic — assumptions. Also, interpersonal comparisons of real income give us no basis for interpersonal comparisons even of utility. To get from the comparison of the means in the form of income differences to something that can be claimed to be valuable in itself (such as well-being or freedom), we have to take note of circumstantial variations that affect the conversion rates. The presumption that the approach of income comparison is a more “practical” way of getting at interpersonal differences in advantages is hard to sustain.
Furthermore, the need to discuss the valuation of diverse capabilities in terms of public priorities is an asset, forcing us to make clear what the value judgments are in a field where value judgments cannot be — and should not be — avoided. Indeed, public participation in these valuational debates is a crucial part of the exercise of democracy and responsible social choice. In matters of public judgment, there is no real escape from the evaluative need for public discussion. That evasion becomes transparent when we supplement income and commodity data with information of other types (including matters of life and death).
The issue of public discussion and social participation is thus central to the making of policy in a democratic framework. The use of democratic prerogatives — both political liberties and civil rights — is a crucial part of the exercise of economic policy making itself, in addition to other roles it may have. In a freedom-oriented approach, participatory freedoms cannot but be central to public policy analysis.
👉 Resumo em Inglês Modelos de respostas :
Modelo 1(Felipe Pinheiro Mello – 15/15)
If it is true that some economic studies focus more on efficiency rather than inequality, this does not apply to all economists. Several economists, as did Adam Smith himself, are deeply concerned with equity.
However, economists give more importance to income inequality than to other kinds of inequality, such as unemployment and the lack of access to health and education.
The relationship between the two is not always close, since several other economic influences impact on equity. This explain (sic) why African Americans have higher mortality rates than the Chinese.
Statistics on deprivations, such as mortality rates, undernourishment and illiteracy, can depict other dimensions of inequality, which can be utile for policy-making. Several other factor (sic) also affect the individual’s capacity of converting income into capabilities, such as environmental, social and family diversities.
The claim that comparing income is a more “practical” way of addressing the problem is difficult to sustain. Interpersonal comparison of income does not take into consideration the other aspects of economic inequality. It is necessary, thus, to discuss the issue with public participation to valuate (sic) the diverse capabilities and set public priorities. The participation of the public is central to a democratic policy-making.
Adapted from
Lilia M. Schwarcz and Heloisa M. Starling.
Brasil: uma biografia. São Paulo:
Companhia das Letras, 2015.
👉 Resposta (Português→Inglês) :
Modelo Versão 1(Lucas de Brito Lima – 13,5/15 )
With the end of slavery and the ensuing momentary1 disarray of the labor system, a series of initiatives was undertaken to attract immigrants to Brazil, not least from Europe. The experience had started during the Empire, but it would be enhance in the First Republic. Owing to competition from countries such as Argentina, Cuba, Mexico and the US, the Brazilian government had to strive to peddle the country as a “heaven on Earth”. Largely destined to the countryside – to the formation of official colonial settlements in southern states and especially to the coffee farms in the Southeast-, this mass if immigrants would end up being absorbed by the dynamic of the cities that flourished and offered employment opportunities and services.Modelo Versão 1(Lucas de Brito Lima – 13,5/15 )
Since there were large unoccupied swaths of land in the country’s South, an immigration model based on small properties that divirsified their crops established in the region. Land was sold on credit, in tracts of twenty to twenty-five hectares, normally distributed along the course of rivers. These properties were, however, too isolated, and their new inhabitants were subject to all kinds of adversities: attacks by indigenous peoples, ill treatment from the local population and trade difficulties.
Write a summary, in your own words, of the following excerpt. Your text should not exceed
200 words.
[value: 15 marks]
Economists are sometimes criticized for concentrating too much on efficiency and too little on equity. There may be some ground for complaint here, but it must also be noted that inequality has received attention from economists throughout the history of this discipline. Adam Smith, who is often thought of as “the Father of Modern Economics”, was deeply concerned with the gulf between the rich and the poor. Some of the social scientists and philosophers who are responsible for making inequality such a central subject of public attention were, in terms of substantive involvement, devoted economists, no matter what else they might also have been. In recent years, economics of inequality as a subject has flourished. This is not to deny that the focus on efficiency to the exclusion of other considerations is very evident in some works in economics, but economists as a group cannot be accused of neglecting inequality as a subject.
If there is a reason to grumble, it rests more on the relative importance that is attached, in much of economics, to inequality in a very narrow domain, viz. income inequality. This narrowness has the effect of contributing to the neglect of other ways of seeing inequality and equity, which has far-reaching bearing on the making of economic policy. Policy debates have indeed been distorted by overemphasis on income poverty and income inequality, to the neglect of deprivations that relate to other variables, such as unemployment, ill health, lack of education, and social exclusion. Unfortunately, the identification of economic inequality with income inequality is fairly common in economics, and the two are often seen as effectively synonymous. If you tell someone that you are working on economic inequality, it is quite standardly assumed that you are studying income distribution.
The distinction, however, between income inequality and economic inequality is important. Many of the criticisms of economic egalitarianism as a value or a goal apply much more readily to the narrow concept of income inequality than they do to the broader notions of economic inequality. For example, giving a larger share of income to a person with more needs can be seen as militating against the principle of equalizing incomes, but it does not go against the broader precepts of economic equality.
Empirically, the relationship between income inequality and inequality in other relevant spaces can be rather distant and contingent because of various economic influences other than income that affect inequalities in individual advantages and substantive freedoms. For example, in the higher mortality rates of African Americans vis-à-vis the much poorer Chinese, or Indians in Kerala, we see the influence of factors that run in the opposite direction to income inequality, and that involve public policy issues with strong economic components: the financing of health care and insurance, provision of public education, arrangements for local security and so on.
Mortality differences can, in fact, serve as an indicator of very deep inequities that divide races, classes and genders. Statistics on mortality rates as well as other deprivations (such as undernourishment or illiteracy) can directly present a picture of inequality and poverty in some crucial dimensions. This information can also be used to relate the extent of relative deprivation of women to the existing inequalities in opportunities (in earning outside income, in being enrolled in schools and so on). Thus both descriptive and policy issues can be addressed through this broader perspective on inequality and poverty in terms of capability deprivation.
Despite the crucial role of incomes in the advantages enjoyed by different persons, the relationship between income (and other resources), on the one hand, and individual achievements and freedoms, on the other, is neither constant nor in any sense automatic and irresistible. Different types of contingencies lead to systematic variations in the “conversion” of incomes into the distinct “functionings” we can achieve, and that affects the lifestyles we can enjoy. I have tried to illustrate the different ways in which there can be systematic variations in the relationship between incomes earned and substantive freedoms (in the form of capability to lead lives that people have reason to value). The respective roles of personal heterogeneities, environmental diversities, variations in social climate, differences in relational perspectives and distributions within the family have to receive the serious attention they deserve for the making of public policy.
The argument is sometimes made that income is a homogeneous magnitude, whereas capabilities are diverse. This sharp contrast is not entirely correct, in the sense that any income evaluation hides internal diversities with some special — and often heroic — assumptions. Also, interpersonal comparisons of real income give us no basis for interpersonal comparisons even of utility. To get from the comparison of the means in the form of income differences to something that can be claimed to be valuable in itself (such as well-being or freedom), we have to take note of circumstantial variations that affect the conversion rates. The presumption that the approach of income comparison is a more “practical” way of getting at interpersonal differences in advantages is hard to sustain.
Furthermore, the need to discuss the valuation of diverse capabilities in terms of public priorities is an asset, forcing us to make clear what the value judgments are in a field where value judgments cannot be — and should not be — avoided. Indeed, public participation in these valuational debates is a crucial part of the exercise of democracy and responsible social choice. In matters of public judgment, there is no real escape from the evaluative need for public discussion. That evasion becomes transparent when we supplement income and commodity data with information of other types (including matters of life and death).
The issue of public discussion and social participation is thus central to the making of policy in a democratic framework. The use of democratic prerogatives — both political liberties and civil rights — is a crucial part of the exercise of economic policy making itself, in addition to other roles it may have. In a freedom-oriented approach, participatory freedoms cannot but be central to public policy analysis.
Adapted from Amartya Sen.
Development as Freedom.
New York: Anchor Books,
1999. p. 107-10.
Modelo 1(Felipe Pinheiro Mello – 15/15)
If it is true that some economic studies focus more on efficiency rather than inequality, this does not apply to all economists. Several economists, as did Adam Smith himself, are deeply concerned with equity.
However, economists give more importance to income inequality than to other kinds of inequality, such as unemployment and the lack of access to health and education.
The relationship between the two is not always close, since several other economic influences impact on equity. This explain (sic) why African Americans have higher mortality rates than the Chinese.
Statistics on deprivations, such as mortality rates, undernourishment and illiteracy, can depict other dimensions of inequality, which can be utile for policy-making. Several other factor (sic) also affect the individual’s capacity of converting income into capabilities, such as environmental, social and family diversities.
The claim that comparing income is a more “practical” way of addressing the problem is difficult to sustain. Interpersonal comparison of income does not take into consideration the other aspects of economic inequality. It is necessary, thus, to discuss the issue with public participation to valuate (sic) the diverse capabilities and set public priorities. The participation of the public is central to a democratic policy-making.
"You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race."
George Bernard Shaw,
Irish playwright (1856-1950).
"Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right and always successful, right or wrong."
Stephen Decatur Jr.,
U.S. Commodore (1779-1820).
[Length: 400 to 450 words]
[value: 50 marks]
👉 Redação em Inglês Modelo de REDAÇÃO :
Modelo 01:
George Bernard Shaw argues that,* in order to achieve peace in the world,
patriotism must be extinct. Stephen Decatur Jr., in turn, wishes that his own nation prevails as the best and most successful one, no matter under what circumstances. Both of them adopt extreme views on the matter of patriotism. From the point of view of a diplomat, neither one or* the other should be considered entirely right.
When Stephen Decatur Jr. wrote that he wished his country to be "always in the right and always successful, right or wrong", he was not aware of the dangers that extreme patriotism poses to peace. Only in the second half of the 19th century did Imperialism rise, following the consequences of the Industrial Revolution. And only in the 20th century did the world witness the horrors of two heavily industrialised* wars. Even nowadays, when most of the world is relatively in peace, extreme patriotism is responsible for increasing tension between countries and among people. When a diplomat looks at a crisis such as the Crimean one in 2013, he or she cannot pay scant heed to the role of 78 patriotism as an igniting factor. The same is true regarding the refugee crisis in Europe – a continent where growing xenophobia only makes it more difficult for leaders to come up with a solution. Diplomacy can help, as it did when Germany and Turkey reached an agreement regarding the refugee crisis earlier in 2016, but it cannot work miracles.
Unlike Decatur Jr., George Bernard Shaw did live through the rise and fall of the Empires. Arguably, his stance on peace based on the extinction of patriotism might have been motivated precisely by his testimony* of the two world wars. Idealist views were strengthened particularly after World War II, largely based on Kant’s philosophy of a cosmopolitan world. It is true that, as humans, we all share the same existential conundrums. However, it is also true that we value our local cultures and identities. The closest we have ever been to putting Kant’s perspectives into use was the creation of the United Nations – and still, power is not equally distributed and there is a very Realist approach to how its Security Council was formed, with the winners of the war holding permanent seats. A diplomat should always try to reach peaceful solutions, but must also take the reality of the world into account, in order not to be naïve.
Neither Decatur Jr.’s nor Shaw’s views are enough to understand the world in which we live today. When faced with extremisms, a diplomat should always try to find balance* and build consensus, embracing patriotism without bigotry, and always engaging in dialog.
patriotism must be extinct. Stephen Decatur Jr., in turn, wishes that his own nation prevails as the best and most successful one, no matter under what circumstances. Both of them adopt extreme views on the matter of patriotism. From the point of view of a diplomat, neither one or* the other should be considered entirely right.
When Stephen Decatur Jr. wrote that he wished his country to be "always in the right and always successful, right or wrong", he was not aware of the dangers that extreme patriotism poses to peace. Only in the second half of the 19th century did Imperialism rise, following the consequences of the Industrial Revolution. And only in the 20th century did the world witness the horrors of two heavily industrialised* wars. Even nowadays, when most of the world is relatively in peace, extreme patriotism is responsible for increasing tension between countries and among people. When a diplomat looks at a crisis such as the Crimean one in 2013, he or she cannot pay scant heed to the role of 78 patriotism as an igniting factor. The same is true regarding the refugee crisis in Europe – a continent where growing xenophobia only makes it more difficult for leaders to come up with a solution. Diplomacy can help, as it did when Germany and Turkey reached an agreement regarding the refugee crisis earlier in 2016, but it cannot work miracles.
Unlike Decatur Jr., George Bernard Shaw did live through the rise and fall of the Empires. Arguably, his stance on peace based on the extinction of patriotism might have been motivated precisely by his testimony* of the two world wars. Idealist views were strengthened particularly after World War II, largely based on Kant’s philosophy of a cosmopolitan world. It is true that, as humans, we all share the same existential conundrums. However, it is also true that we value our local cultures and identities. The closest we have ever been to putting Kant’s perspectives into use was the creation of the United Nations – and still, power is not equally distributed and there is a very Realist approach to how its Security Council was formed, with the winners of the war holding permanent seats. A diplomat should always try to reach peaceful solutions, but must also take the reality of the world into account, in order not to be naïve.
Neither Decatur Jr.’s nor Shaw’s views are enough to understand the world in which we live today. When faced with extremisms, a diplomat should always try to find balance* and build consensus, embracing patriotism without bigotry, and always engaging in dialog.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário