Cuban Engineers make very little and Cuban Doctors are extorted by their government according to my step dad.

This happened a few years ago so I, unfortunately, cannot remember all the details of the conversation. But even so it still bothers the hell out of me to this day.

Cuba was obviously the topic of discussion and I was raving about how their doctors are the best in the world, my step dad then mentioned that when they are sent overseas they must return home, they cannot just leave Cuba at all (perhaps for vacation but other than that they apparently have to remain in Cuba forever). I was unbothered by this, because honestly I wasn’t fully convinced, and said “thats fine.” He laughed in disbelief because what he just described was “extortion.” The Cuban government is extorting their doctors.

At some point my mom and step dad were talking about their vacation to Cuba and how their cab driver was apparently an engineer but had to work this side job to make more money. I guess being a cab driver is more lucrative? I do not remember why he was telling me this, maybe it was a way to criticize the Cuban economic system? Regardless, this discussion has bothered the hell out of me ever since it happened, and although I cannot remember some of the specifics the main parts still eat at me to this day.

So, is anything that he told me true? I have a hard time looking this information up as all the sources I get are from the West and very anti-Cuba in general so they’re unhelpful. Thanks for any information you can provide!

Edit: grammar/spelling mistakes.

Today the topic of enshitification and planned obsolescence were brought up as I was teaching my family these concepts. My step dad and I were on the same page about how this process started before the 21st century and kicked up pretty badly in the 90s.

Before I could say why, as I was really trying to see if I even should based on vibes, but my step dad stated that the reason why this happened is because manufacturing is done in China. My mom replied that was because labour was cheaper, step dad said it was because things were cheap in general. My mom said that people here don’t want to pay for better products and step dad added that people here just don’t want to pay in general. The conversation ended when he stated that this problem was the fault of unions.

I didn’t know what to say, how is planned obsolescence the fault of unions? Why is the fact that products have gotten worse over the years on purpose a problem that unions caused? I have been aware that my step dad is very anti union but it was only brought up once ages before. This is probably the second time it’s ever been said in all the years I’ve known him. My bio dad is a union man and I’ve seen how it has protected him and guaranteed him work. They also pay him well too so it’s interesting to see the dichotomy between my dads.

I just wanted to share some weird thing that was said today. Someday soon I’ll make a post about my mom and step dad’s experience vacationing in Cuba a few years ago (I actually have that post all written down but have yet to publish it).

January 28th, 2026

For today we went into detail about the Ego, Superego, and Id. We did not go into it as deeply as a psychology course would, although in my experience my psych classes just dogged on Freud a lot and how his theories just do not hold up in reality. Although I do find people citing him on social media when they see posts about family members being weird to each other (e.g. Boy Moms).

The Ego is the conscious brain, it is the tip of the iceberg. The Ego is the rational part of the brain, it takes the desires of the Id and wants of the Superego and presents what is acceptable to society. The Superego is the part of the subconscious that is concerned about what we should do. It is actually not the subconscious really but the preconscious, it lies just beneath the surface. The Id is the fucked up part, it is in the deepest depths and is concerned about what it wants which is typically based around sex and death. It is quite violent and lies in the subconscious. The Id is also the most powerful of the three.

When there is a struggle of balance between these three pieces then we have mental illness. Is this true? No, of course not, but the theory became very popular after World War One due to cynicism dominating the culture. Psychoanalysis was used in art, like in the Rebecca West novel and in AQOWF.

We used this knowledge to talk more in-depth about the novel and the movie. Here are some things said:

WWI was very different from WWII. Yes, technically the Kaiser started the war but by 1916-1917 no one could even remember what they were fighting for.

Paul comes from an upper class family, so when he returns from the front on leave (he will go back shortly) he goes to some sort of country club to chat with his Father’s friends. These men show the disconnect between the ruling classes back home compared to the experiences of the soldiers. When Paul gently opposes their strategies for winning the war they laugh at him and say he has a narrow view of what is going on when he is the one actually there.

They quite literally treat the war like a strategy game, moving mugs of beer around and laughing. Has anything truly changed? Warfare itself, yes. These elites were acting like it was still like the old days, when in actuality trench warfare was more brutal and stalling. The strategy of cutting through Belgium to defeat the French was actually the biggest mistake Germany could’ve made.

January 26th, 2026

Before we get into the day let me just say that I have no real excuse for being so damn late with these posts except that I got lost in the sauce that is school. Not in the good, productive way, but in the burnout type way where I am just sad all the time, like my motivation i just completely shot, the only thing I am enjoying is season 2 of The Pitt. Oh well. I’ll get over it hopefully. Let’s get on with these posts that I am super behind on.

So today we continued to talk about WWI and the novel by Rebecca West. We had a short discussion at the beginning of the class, delving into the characters’ classism.

So there was a gap between expectations and the reality of WWI. Most of you know this so I will go through it quickly. There was this belief that the war would play out like the ones of old, where man to man combat was the norm. People thought the war would be over by Christmas. Obviously that didn’t happen. Everyone was of equal strength and the weapons were better than ever meaning trenches were required. It also meant that the front lines would not move much at all. It was a filthy and awful war what with all the gas attacks and lack of penicillin, the only comfort people had was camaraderie with fellow soldiers.

WWI was also the first industrialized war where everyone, including those at home, were mobilized. There was censorship galore, ensuring that people at home did not know what the hell was happening, but soldiers’ letters made it through telling loved ones of their reality on the front. This was the time where modern propaganda was created. Women and children were used in propaganda posters to demonize the enemy. We were shown these posters and they were the same ones I was shown in my Modern Europe history class many semester ago. Women were encouraged to ration food and learn how to can.

The armistice was signed on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, 1918. A ceasefire was negotiated, there was no ending battle or official retreat. People died right up until the end because they were told to. So much death and for what?

The war did contribute to culture. The book we just read, Return of the Soldier, and All Quiet on the Western Front were made as well as other pieces of art. People were also turned into pessimists, they became disenchanted with the world. Scientific advancements were used for improving human lives while also being used to cause death in the war. This is when psychology and Freud’s psychoanalysis became more popular, before it was quite fringe.

We ended the class by briefly getting into Sigmund Freud and his whole deal regarding humans being governed by their sex and death drives. Most of this section was actually getting into how the doctor that actually has the solution to healing Chris’ ailment (shellshock) is someone who is trained in psychoanalysis and is not looked at with respect due to him looking lower class and less professional. So another piece of commentary on classism.

There are a few more days left of WWI stuff as we had to watch the 1979 movie of All Quiet on the Western Front and then we will get into James Baldwin.

Hello comrades!

For my seminar class I decided to do my research paper on Karl Marx, chronicling his migration journey around Europe until 1849 when he permanently settled in England. The overarching topic of this class is about migration during the age of revolutions and one of the last sources we have to read (the one I am presenting on) is about Marx in Paris, this is why I chose to write about him for my project.

I have yet to concoct a thesis, which is fine apparently as it is still early and I haven’t read anything. Because of that my professor told me to find a biography on Marx so I can know what he was doing bouncing around all the time, why he was doing so, what he was writing and who he was corresponding with. Like with any Marxist topic, I worry that certain sources I delve into will be really anti-communist and I would rather not waste my time on them if I can help it. I know biases are unavoidable but the less aggressive it is the better, I suppose.

If any of you could push me in the right direction on which biography, or biographies, to read I would really appreciate it.

January 23rd, 2026

We had our first proper pop-quiz today and I did fine I think, we had to find a quote from the book that described a character or setting, thus it was open book. Afterwards we had a brief lecture on WWI.

This will sound repetitive as I have written about the First World War in a previous semester, but maybe something new will be said. Besides, WWI is important as it was directly responsible for WWII.

We were shown a picture of the trenches left in Belgium. Around 25,000 miles were dug, they are basically scars left on the earth and can be seen from planes. She also mentioned how people to this day still come across unexploded ammunition and have to call in the bomb squad to deal with it.

The First World War had the most combat deaths ever recorded. Around 10 million soldiers were killed, and many more were left wounded from physical and mental injuries. One million soldiers died during the Battle of Somme (200 000 French, 400 000 British, and 500 000 Germans). On the first day of the battle 57 thousand died. Six million horses were deployed on the Western front and 850 thousand died. The First World War was a mixture of old and new forms of warfare. The lecture part ended by briefly talking about how technological developments were made during the war, like with the HMS Dreadnought. Women, also called Cary girls, took up jobs in munitions factories and other areas where the men worked, although they worked male jobs they did not have the right to vote yet.

the discussion part of the class was about Chapter 3-4 of The Return of the Soldier. we basically had to talk about the characters and settings, what we learned about them. I think I will skip this as it may be uninteresting for people here, but I will say that I clocked the class elements immediately. I read the book while listening to the audiobook on YouTube and noticed that the narrator gives Margaret (the working women) a different accent than Jenny and Kitty (the upper class women).

It is a very interesting book and I would honestly suggest giving it a read, it is quite short, the audiobook is less than 3 hours long so it can be finished fairly quickly. I think I will tell my professor about the book Johnny Got His Gun as it is another WWI tale and it gives such a different vibe compared to All Quiet on the Western Front.

January 22nd, 2026

Today for my seminar we discussed pieces about the American and French Revolutions. This relates to migration due to many emigres making their way to America. There was also a piece that compared American Loyalists who migrated to Britain and the French Emigres that went wherever they could. You may be a bit proud of me due to the fact that I actually did speak in this class at least twice. Although sitting at the front next to my professor is difficult regarding people being able to see me more, it is useful in telling my professor I would like to speak without having to signal as much. I will show you how I managed this as I continue through the post. Do not worry, this will be a short one.

Before class started my classmates were talking amongst themselves, it was very… enlightening. To hear them talk about politics, specifically the US, and act like this is all new and not predictable is a little distressing if a bit annoying. I heard them complimenting a previous President (Biden, I think) because he was a respectful debater and spoke much better than Trump, a student said that was not a high bar to jump over. Hearing them speak just reminded me of how Canadians look down on American issues as if we are not doing the same. It is fascinating but also quite troublesome.

While I was waiting or my professor I was accidentally misgendered by a fellow classmate, he was pointing at the people he was familiar with and I was one of them. I wasn’t mad or anything because it was an accident but damn, I wish I knew how to better prevent this. My hair is short, I wear “masculine” clothes, I have yet to get top surgery yet (I am on the wait list) but I try to hide that as much as I can. HRT has to wait too. My voice is definitely a problem factor. Oh well, enough of my whining and let’s get onto the content.

Before we discussed the readings (we were assigned quite a lot of pages), we talked about the differences between the Anglo “land of liberty” and the French “terre d’asite.” The Anglo statement has a pull factor, it is advertised as a place for opportunity, there is a sense of choice when moving, and there is an acceptance of permanent immigration. The French one has a push factor, people are pushed to move due to circumstances (mainly some sort of conflict), this also leads to a temporary stay rather than permanently resettling. I did not write much about what others said regarding the readings since I want to keep these seminar posts short, I will however write what I had to say.

When I first spoke in class I had to whisper to my professor next to me as two students were talking to each other because I wanted to say something but did not know how to insert myself. She asked if I wanted to speak, I said yes, and then she signalled for me to go when the other students were finished. I then brought up how the French migrants to America were not successful in cultivating many crops, they were successful in growing grapes, thus setting up vineyards and making wine. This was a display of their French culture being brought to America as drinking wine is a very French thing to do. The students and my professor laughed, which was what I was going for. Although my heart was pounding like crazy when I was speaking.

Rousseauean ideology regarding the “noble savage” was big with these French emigres who went to America, wanting to live off the land and whatnot like Rousseau stated. This was peculiar to me as I was aware that the French Revolution had two phases: the Liberal Voltaire phase and the Radical Rousseau phase, but I forgot during which phase these emigres moved out of France. I brought this up because if the emigres were so obsessed with Rousseau then it was strange that they might have left during his phase of the revolution. My professor answered that the Noble Savage Rousseau was different from what he wrote regarding the Social Contract, which was the Rousseauean philosophy that defined the Radical Phase. Although me bringing this disparity up is important, it highlights the contradictions. So apparently I make good points and ask good questions, so that was validating to hear.

Since I sit next to my professor I can see what she is doing when student are speaking, whether they are doing the reading presentations or just engaging in the discussion. I could see that she would have our names written on the paper in the same position where we are sitting, and putting check marks under our names to show how many times we contributed.

Anyway, we were told that the French felt betrayed by the US during the war with the UK, the US took a neutral stance and did not get involved. In turn, many years later, the US felt betrayed when France refused to support the invasion of Afghanistan. During the Cold War, Historians came together to link the American and French Revolutions, they were labeled as the two founding events of democracy. Why? I wanted to answer that this had all to do with Cold War politics, opposing the USSR through flimsy solidarity. I was unheard and need to be louder, clearly.

A student spoke up asking who wanted these two revolutions to be merged. He said that during this period (Cold War) Americans were anti-imperialist so was it left wing people? No, my professor said, it was an anti-communist move. Historians use the French and American revolutions to create the illusion of democratic revolutions to contrast the “un-democratic” communist revolution that established the USSR. My question is, why the fuck did this student say that Americans were anti-imperialist? Is this not ass backwards?

Before our 30 minute break, my professor showed us two Hamilton songs to show us the relationship between the French and American Revolution: “Guns and Ships” and “Cabinet Battle 2.” When I was reading the pieces I actually did make a note for myself about how Hamilton did have a song based on the split in American politics on whether they should support the French or not.

After the break not much was written down, I wanted to ask about the language factor that may have played a part in people migrating but was unable to.

January 21st, 2026

I watched the second episode of The Pitt last week and it was good. The episodes are almost an hour long yet I am always surprised when they end, they are very good at getting you to go “AW MAN” once the end credits start going. I told my mom to start watching it a while ago and she finished season 1 loving it, she refuses to start the second season until all the episodes are out because she is not fond of waiting a week for the next episode to release. She is so real for that, to be honest. I am torturing myself with waiting a week for some semblance of closure (I haven’t gotten it yet) but I think it is worth it especially because if I waited for the entire season to finish I would immediately be spoiled by the fandom since I am deep in those trenches. I am also deep in the Heated Rivalry trenches and there is some fucked up discourse about how that show is apparently Russian Propaganda! If you want to know more let me know and I will explain, but for now let’s get into today’s content.

Today was half lecture and half discussion. The lecture portion covered some background information about the suffragettes before World War One, and the discussion was about some oft he characters from the book The Return of the Soldier. Next class should cover more about the war itself, but for now let’s get into the suffragette campaign. Apparently they used a lot of the same rhetoric from the age of revolutions, the same rhetoric that secured most men the right to vote in Britain and France. In the 20th century, suffragette activists utilized more radical tactics like civil disobedience and hunger strikes to push their movement, apparently this was inspired by the Irish (I believe my professor said something about Irish independence). The most radical suffragettes committed acts of mailbox bombings, arson, and the like. The state would respond with mass arrests and force feeding supporters.

This led to going over Emily Wilding Davison. I remember learning about her many semesters ago so this felt like review. She was forced to-fed 48 times, and this was a record. She is “famous” for her stunt in June 1913, where she threw herself in front of the King’s horse at the Epson Derby. No one knows her true motives for this move: was it to bing eyes on the suffragette movement or an act of suicide? If it was suicide then she did technically succeed due to her dying from her injuries a few days later. She then became a martyr for the movement.

Next we wet over anti-suffragette stereotypes. Women who wanted the vote were portrayed as being neglectful. Misandrists, unattractive, and mentally ill. They were also said to be emasculating their husbands, as is shown on propaganda posters that were making the rounds during this era. Women were blurring the gender spheres (men in the public and women in the private), and thus were troublesome. Only women who were physically undesirable to men, who had no husbands, became suffragettes. They had nothing better to do. There were also anti-suffragette women who celebrated the so-called “cult of domesticity” and “natural maternal morality.” These women trusted that their male loved ones would vote in their favour, which is a very naive thought, but whatever. Suffragette groups agreed to postpone the cause to support the war effort, this is called the Wartime Pause.

The lecture ended by showing a map of all the countries that were involved, showing that it was a truly global conflict. The Triple Alliance consisted of German, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans; the Triple Entente was Russia, the UK, France, and their respective colonies. Fighting mostly occurred on the western front, but troops were pulled from all over the world, India specifically sent thousands. Although my professor did say that she i sure many of the solders were angry due to this not being their war.

We ended class with a discussion about three characters from the book The Return of the Soldier. it is a very short book, there is a free audio book on YouTube and I got the kindle version for free. The three characters we talked about were Jenny, the narrator, Kitty, and Margaret. We were told to get into small groups again and as I was on my own my professor came up to ask me about how I felt about Jenny. I stated that Jenny seemed unusually close to her cousin, that she clearly loves him a LOT.

I did not want to imply that there are incestuous feelings there, only that she seems to revolve around him and idealize him. I also talked about some of the classist comments made throughout the first chapter that made me believe that there was something else going on regarding how Kitty and Jenny posture themselves, especially against Margaret who is the target of said classist comments. She said what I had to say was good and I should share with the class.

I did end up doing that but it was because she pointed me out and asked. If it makes any of you feel better, I did put up my hand unprompted to answer the question “why did Jenny and Kitty not trust Margaret?” It is because they thought she was a scammer, which apparently was common during the war, people saying they hand information about loved ones but required payment in exchange for said info.

This is basically where class ended and now I have to read chapters 3 and 4 for Friday. I honestly might just finish the book entirely by then so I can work on this weird Biology “paper.” If you’d like to know, I basically have to pick a concept from my biology class (genes, evolution, biochemistry, inheritance, etc.) and find a pop-culture reference (newspaper, video clip, magazine, product claims, etc.) to it and then break that reference down with real scientific studies. I then have to use AI and show what it had to say about the concept. Sound confusing as shit? It is! I have no idea what to do here. I have to display critical thinking by critiquing the pop-culture reference with real sources.

Anyway, yesterday I had my first Biology quiz and I got 98% so that’s cool. Good for me. I watched the movie Pillion when I got home and WOW that was not the black comedy they said it would be. I have a lot of mixed feelings which I think was the point.

January 19th, 2026

Okay os this class wasn’t much as it was mostly about how to go about writing our papers. We did start with our participation quiz. We were given the questions that would be on the quiz a few days prior. The reason for this is because these quizzes are supposed to be pop-quizzes, open book as well which helps. But because of the weirdness that has been going on regarding our lectures, as in we have sort of fallen behind schedule due to illness and lecture length so she has had to move things around a bit, we were told when the quiz would be and the questions. Thus this particular quiz was not open book, which is fine obviously. There were three questions we had to answer and I think I nailed it overall. I know we get two mulligan quizzes, as in she will drop the two lowest marks before she tallies up our final grade for the course. So thats cool.

After the his we finished off the Nogarola discussion, not much was said here except people talking about what she said in her essay on Eve, and proceeded into the essay workshop. We were supposed to end the lecture with an introduction into WWI but we didn’t end up getting to that.

We have two papers for this class and the first one is due on February 2nd, although this one is not even a real paper. What I mean by that is this first project is just to get a sense of what a humanities paper is supposed to look like. We have to choose a piece of paper we have read/watched for the first 2 units of class we went over and the write a proper introduction paragraph, with a topic and thesis, with bullet point body paragraphs. This paper is literally called a “starter” in the syllabus. The body paragraphs are not fully done and are only supposed to list textual pieces of evidence alongside a sentence describing how it relates to our thesis. No outside research is permitted as we are only supposed to use a singular in class text, plus the lecture material. I will not go into further detail as I am sure most of you are uninterested in this.

It was helpful to me as I have experience writing History and PoliSci papers but not Humanities (although History is part of the Humanities department). For my starter paper I can write about the first three chapter of Genesis, The Return of the Soldier, or the All Quiet on the Western Front (1979) movie. We are currently reading The Return of the Soldier by Rebecca West, who was a suffragette and a socialist, apparently. So far we have completed the first two chapters. Have any of you read this book before?

January 16th, 2026

We continued the discussion on Genesis today but mostly with lecture. First we began with comparing the punishments given to Adam and Eve in chapter 3. The punishments are very gendered: manual labour vs reproductive labour. They also differ in duration where Adam has to till the earth and whatever all the time while Eve only has to suffer, greatly, only during childbirth. The rationale God gives is different as well when punishing Adam and Eve. Eve is condemned to being submissive to her husband, is this mandate from God part of his divine plan or is it a consequence of disobedience?

Remember how last time I mentioned that there were three readings to Genesis? We only got into the first two put this time we learned the third. This one is the Two-Women reading. It posits that there was two separate women, rather than the two references two women in genesis both being Eve. The Rabbinic interpretation of the woman referenced in chapter one is actually Lilith. She is sometimes seen as a feminist figure due to her refusal to being subservient to God and Ada, thus leaving the Garden herself. Thus Eve is the second woman made and she was created to be subordinate, she was the second try.

The traditional reading is that Lilith is the Cautionary tale about sexual equality and female renegade-ness. She is seen as demonic and a dangerous rebel, often portrayed as a Satanic snake in art. She apparently targets women in childbirth and children.

The feminist reading is that Lilith is the empowered woman that refused to be subjugated after equal creation and walked away from paradise to be independent. What good is paradise if you are not free?

This led into the part of the lecture about Renaissance Humanism, why? Because of the thinker Isotta Nogarola, who re-read Genesis and argued that Eve was not the one who condemned humanity to suffer. We were given background knowledge on renaissance humanism but I will not get into it as I believe I have talked about it before many semesters ago, regardless I am sure most of you are familiar with it. The main point of today’s lecture is about the Woman Quarrel: what is a woman’s nature and what is her role in society? This is the question that was being asked in this era.

The “Bad Eve” interpretation was reigning supreme: women were seen as being driven by bodily desires, they were more sensual and promiscuous. Eve is a deceptive temptress! Women must stay in the private sphere because of this, lest they lead society astray.

Isotta Nogarola was born into a large, wealthy and highly educated family. Although her mother was illiterate, she encouraged her daughters to be the opposite. As a teenager Nogarola attempted to engage with male authors in humanist debates (secular issues) but was met with great contempt. Instead of attacking her arguments, they attacked her character. They claimed she was committing incest, was a lesbian, and was promiscuous. Because a woman who engaged in public discourse was a loose woman. Women’s minds are reduced to their bodies. Is this logic not ass-backwards? Men claim they are all knowing and logical while women lead with their bodies, but when they discuss women all these men think about are the body and sexual urges.

Anyway, these accusations hurt teenage Nogarola greatly, her virtue was being questioned and attacked which was a big deal back then. She even decided to not get married due to her sister having to quit writing after getting married. Even when Nogarola was complimented a lot of the time it was backhanded: the scholar Lauro Quirini praised her for overcoming her feminine nature, basically she was becoming a man.

Because of the backlash she got for engaging in secular discussions, Nogarola decided to just stick to reading the bible and interpreting it as that was more acceptable to do, especially if it was about Genesis. The essay we had to read for class was the epistolary called On the Equal or Unequal Sin of Eve and Adam. This was between Nogarola and Ludovico Foscarini, who both drew on the scripture itself and classical authorities to re-interpret what the bible was saying.

Nogarola did not challenge scripture, she just asked new questions. She turned the tables on anti-Eve readings. If Eve was by nature less intelligent and less “constant” (unwavering, principled, strong, etc.) then she is less guilty of sin than Adam. She uses irony, accepting female inferiority to defend Eve. Whether she actually agrees with women being seen as less than men is unknown. Regardless, that is what she does and she displays great knowledge in the text as well as what other thinkers have said so she is treated as an equal by Foscarini.

January 15th, 2026

On Wednesday, January 14th class was cancelled due to my professor being sick but she was back for today to teach our first proper seminar of the semester. I did not speak today when I really should’ve as I had all the right answers but was too scared to speak because god forbid I am incorrect about anything. I am aware that it is better to speak even when wrong than to never speak at all. I will do better next time.

The discussion for today was an introduction to migration, specifically about religious migration although the readings mostly focused on Protestants. There was some mention of Jews and Muslims, but barely.

Slavery in certain periods was different than the trans Atlantic slave trade. The one on the Mediterranean, slaves were mostly like hostages s they were held for ransom. They could leave slavery through converting religions. I know in some cultures where slavery was practiced, you’d be a slave for a while and then naturally become a citizen. It’s different from what would become chattel slavery. There was less racialization (is that a word?).

My professor brought up impressment, which relates to migration for war. Soldiers were forcefully conscripted and sent abroad for war purposes like shooting peasants in Spain. Maybe my research paper will be about this or chronicle the migration journeys of Marx through Europe.

My last seminar there was a ten minute break given, but for this one she gives us a 30 minute break for lunch. Which is nice considering some people need to go and wait in line for food/coffee. Next time I have to remember to bring myself lunch.

After the break we talked about the term “cosmopolitan.” It is a person that transcends polities. It is a word that can, culturally, be positive and negative. The negative version of the word describes someone that is not a nationalists and thus not loyal which is bad for regional politics. I wonder if you could make a connection to the throwing around of the word “globalist.” Most enlightenment thinkers were cosmopolitans, except Rousseau who was not like other girls.

Next she brought up a slide of Kant’s Essay on Perpetual Peace (1795). He believed that the foreigner has the right to not be treated with hostility when visiting the land of another—right to hospitality. He also specified that the foreigner was to stay a limited time, not for long term. It is a right to visit, not the right to be a guest (during this time guest meant to be permanent). Kant even critiques European colonialism as they are overstaying their welcome, Indigenous hospitality has been abused. Even when a foreigner displays bad behaviour, they should not be ent back if they will be in danger.

We ended the class by learning about the difference between Refoulement and Asylum. Refoulement is French for “to push back,” it is a negative obligation on states. The state asks people to return to where they came from but cannot force them back into danger. Asylum is a positive obligation where they must offer long-term protection to those seeking asylum. This led to a short discussion about the shifting in narrative regarding the migrant to refugee crisis. In the 18th century people were more accepting of non-military migrants (women and children), but when military age men would come in that changed the debate.

We see the same thing now regarding young Ukrainian male refugees being asks to go back. British tyranny controlling the migration of people was one of the grievances that Americans had that led to the War of Independence (that plus slavery). Americans back then wanted migrants to come in (i am assuming it was to increase the settler population) but now the opposite is being stated by Americans, they do not want immigrants (except maybe the white ones).

Anyway, thats it. Class is over. I should’ve have spoken regarding the religion discussion as I knew the answers as to why the whole “Jews control the banks” stereotype and why Protestants are more individualist and capitalistic. I knew the answers but was too scared to say, so someone else did and I was so pissed at myself.

January 12th, 2026

Today was our first discussion day and it was about the rise three chapters of Genesis. She wanted us to get into groups first to discuss the questions she wrote on the board, and then we would talk to her when she addressed the class again. I obviously didn’t join a group and she came up to me to ask me on my thoughts. I told her my interpretations on the difference in punishments given to both Eve and Adam (Eve is given painful childbirth while Adam has to toil over the land). I told her this was interesting regarding agriculture and how history just does not really connect to this division of labour confiding women worked the fields all the time.

I also pointed out how interesting it was that God refers to himself as “our” in one of the verses rather than “me/my.” He made male and female in “our” image. So it was a little odd, is God acknowledging himself as a concept, referring to himself and the angels, or is it a perspective written by whoever wrote that verse on paper? I also mentioned that I don’t believe God actually calls himself a man. Adam is also punished specifically for listening to his wife.

There was discussion from the other students, at some point she asked us what reading of Genesis is most persuasive, the egalitarian one or the hierarchical one? Unfortunately, the hierarchical one is most persuasive due to the historical division of labour and treatment of men and women. I did not say this out loud although the students voiced the same-ish opinion. She did ask me to speak my thoughts to the class as another student brought up the “our” thing so I explained “God as a concept” and how it may be due to author interpretation regarding what God actually said, because we know God didn’t write the book. Unless he did. I also brought up the idea of capital He/Him pronouns for God rather than the typical lowercase he/him. Which could mean nothing.

There was mention that Eve may have been the tougher target and thus she was the first to be fooled by the Devil. Adam just went with it, no convincing was necessary but Eve needed to be told, although to be fair it did not take much to get her to eat the fruit. I mean, all the Devil said was “You will not die by eating the fruit, you will gain knowledge of good and evil like God.” Then she went and ate the fruit. We looked at two translations and the convincing was short in both. The Bible is a strange thing, no offence to those who like it/follow it.