It’s seems okay so far, a nice small class size and my professor seems nice. Though he did make me pause a few times. I couldn’t gauge where he lies politically as he seems to see Trump as a joke while also making neutral comments/examples on the likes of Danielle Smith. It is the first class so I’m not going to make quick judgements of his stances. What did make me slightly uneasy is his sprinkled comments about China here and there.
By comments I mean him using China as an example for a few of the terms we were learning about. The first comment that came up was China using ”soft power” to influence African countries and to push Chinese culture on said countries. He gave the example of the push for learning the Chinese language.
The next time he brought up China was when we discussed Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis, this sparked the conversation about the idea of dual-citizenship and how China is very against it. You can only be Chinese, nothing else.
The last time he brought up China was in regards to Taiwan. We were learning about what the definition of “State” was:
- building blocks of politics
- legal entity
- sovereignty—absolute control
- territoriality
- population
- government
- external recognition (UN)
Taiwan was brought up as an example of a place wanting to become sovereign, a state of its own, but China having absolute power to veto their request.
At this point I put a little star in my notebook that my Professor seems to be very focused on China. He never had anything good to say but so far he hasn’t said anything explicitly negative.
Anyway that was my first day of PoliSci, by the end of it I sent in a request to join the model UN club lol.
If anyone has some great resources on China to dispel any misinformation, both common and obscure, I would appreciate it very much. Even just pointing me in the direction of certain books and/or historical events would be incredibly helpful.
If any of you would like me to share more of my experiences in, not only my Political Science class, but also Psychology, let me know!
Plenty of countries have the same rule. For example German citizenship requires that you forego other citizenships.
In my limited experience, most poli sci teachers/professors are idealists and liberals.
Yes. This is historically the norm, to only allow one citizenship. The fact that the teacher did not know this is very bad.
Citizenship involves various duties which can sometimes conflict if you have dual such as military service and loyalty pledges etc.
Granted a lot of those requirements can be voided, as neither military generally wants a technical “foreign national” serving with them. For example for a person with dual Russian-US citizenship, Russia voids their standard conscription and the person does not need to serve. All the person needs to do is receive the proper documents from both the local military office, and consulate.
Germany allows dual citizenship for EU citizens. For example, a lot of polish descended Germans flocked Poland after 2004.
And speaking of Poland, it is excellent example why this should not be allowed and why China is completely right about it. Poland allow for dual citizenship even for people who never lived in Poland because, especially those people living in USA and Germany, are very conservative and their numbers are boosting the conservatives.
Not yet it doesn’t (for Germany). There’s discussion about allowing it, but it hasn’t gone through yet, except in cases of people born in Germany to extranational parents.
Or claiming german descent which like half of Poland did, fucking volksdeutsch wannabees.
He actually brought up Germany’s citizenship thing but he put it in the past tense.
It’s certainly not past tense yet. I know first hand.