Presentation Response: PoliticsI am confused about if they were presenting their own ideas for their projects or if they were just signed up for the politics week, and because of this, I feel that I cannot explicitly critique or analyze their presentations to augment their final research paper. That said, what I feel that I can contribute are some questions and constructive criticism about the presentation.
For Ricky’s analysis, what I got out of the presentation is how Viet Nam has politically and economically become dependent on China for exports and imports. I don’t know if he specifically wants to address just the political and economic effects of the 2008 crisis or not, but what I would have liked to have addressed is what I think Professor Valverde said about capitalism’s effect on the economy and how participation in these politics continues to negatively effect Viet Nam’s society. Based on what I was given during the presentation, I would have liked to know what focus he was trying to get to. Is it interethnic relations between Vietnam and China and its economic and political effects on the economy? Is it either or? Maybe I’m trying too hard to connect analysis to a global picture, but I believe that extending the analysis would help, but I don’t know if it would be plausible for a research paper that’s being done in ten weeks.
For Michael’s analysis, I would have liked it if there were more explanations about his topic. I understand that the presentation itself represented his article only, but I feel that he could have synthesized more information about the government politics and investigate more about the effects on the people. To find more analogous articles and critiques that will help shape his understanding of the material. The article says that that’s the reality for many lawmakers, lawenforcers, and the common people. Is that really true? Have there been writers who criticized Fforde’s research? Have there been some who support it? Considering the small world of academia, I believe that there must have been someone who looked at his article through a critical eye. I would love to see more analysis there.
For Thien’s presentation itself, I felt confused because I felt it lacked a sense of logical fluidity. He kept using they in reference to different groups that for me was confusing. I may not have been for others. That said, I think his presentation on Amerasians in conjunction with Professor Valverde’s comments made better sense in addressing imperialism, flawed foreign policy, and the like. I would hope that he could have addressed these themes in his paper so he can frame his outline in concise and simple manner. That said, I do understand that a lot of my feeling lost was because I did not finish reading all of the articles on the day of class. Nevertheless, the explanations in class should augment what someone read. This brings me to a few questions. One being: what is Thien’s presentation’s goal in his presentation and paper? To educate others, use base knowledge that was talked about in the article, to present his own research? I’m really confused.
I feel like my analysis/critique is flawed considering how I don’t know specifically what our presenters wanted to address, leaving me open to a broad grasp on what they might have wanted to specifically target. I wish I can offer a better critique of their presentations and ideas, but I am limited with my scope and perspective seeing how I don’t have enough information about their personal projects and am not an expert about Amerasian children, Viet Nam’s internal politics, and the interethnic relationship between China and Viet Nam.