On suffering:
If there's been any tone to my writing this term, it would certainly adhere to the above characteristics. With regard to suffering, Strayer reminds us how fundamental suffering is to the human condition. While I wouldn't call it a necessary human condition, I am inclined to say that it's so pervasive not only within our institutions, but in the way we treat one another and in our sense of insularity, that I'm inclined to call it as necessary an offshoot as water. So while it may not be oxygen, our lives do depend on it, or will always involve it. Can we reduce suffering around the globe? Or perhaps better put, do we have the resources to reduce suffering around the globe? Sure we do. That those resources will never be properly allocated seems to be the real issue.
On human agency:
Change begins with the individual. I relate everything back to the individual, because I've been steeped in psychology, and know both the limits and expanses of the human psyche. I am encouraged by Strayer's contention that "history offers encouragement for those choosing to practice kindness or seek justice," but I'm also realistic in seeing how far off from it we are. What's surprising to me is the innovation that we as humans are capable of, but that we don't seem to exploit. We'd rather exploit each other. Thomas Edison has been quoted as saying, "If we all did things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." Just imagine that. To all who are dissuaded by the long road ahead, I'll offer two pieces of advice in the way of adages. One, by Lao-tze, goes: "a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." This lays as testament not only to our willpower, but to our collective strength as well. Take the first step. Be the first step. The second piece of advice I offer comes by way of John Ruskin, who reminds us that the "highest reward for a person's toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it."
On our tendency towards insularity:
Just remember that while the world is made up of you and me, it is at the same time, much larger than you and I. It's much larger than the room you're in reading this. It's much larger than the institution that provided the means for you to read this. Even still, it's much larger than the idea that that institution sprang forth from; much larger than all of the thoughts that institution has generated. To quote the still-living Aubrey de Grey, a pioneer in the field of regenerative medicine, "remember your sense of proportion." Your own sense of things is the single most limiting factor of your existence. If utilized properly, it can also be the most liberating.
Thank you.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Antiglobalization
"Economic golbalization may have brought people together as never before, but it also divided them sharply" (p.730).
So while it would seem, judging by the tone of my posts, that I'd be a proponent of antiglobalization, I am not, necessarily. Though it seems to have garnered a fair amount of support, I am not so much for calling to an end to globalization, as it has its advantages, so much as I am for calling for a state that is more inclusive. The ratio between incomes of rich and poor, largely due to globalization, rose from 3:1 in 1820, to 86:1 in 1991. Now that's unfair. And that was some 19 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten much better, if it has all. This is the type of priming that heralds change.
My thought on the widening gap between rich and poor is that if it continues, there are going to be serious consequences, in the form of rebellions, revolutions, and so on. I think it the more obvious and cooperative aim to seek to include those who may not have been opportuned the same life chances. And yes, I just made that word up.
Now the question seems to be, can globalization, which is seen by many as putting corporate interests before the welfare of people be tweaked so as to make for a more even distribution of wealth-one where human capital, land, and natural resources aren't exploited for the benefit of a minority?
So while it would seem, judging by the tone of my posts, that I'd be a proponent of antiglobalization, I am not, necessarily. Though it seems to have garnered a fair amount of support, I am not so much for calling to an end to globalization, as it has its advantages, so much as I am for calling for a state that is more inclusive. The ratio between incomes of rich and poor, largely due to globalization, rose from 3:1 in 1820, to 86:1 in 1991. Now that's unfair. And that was some 19 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten much better, if it has all. This is the type of priming that heralds change.
My thought on the widening gap between rich and poor is that if it continues, there are going to be serious consequences, in the form of rebellions, revolutions, and so on. I think it the more obvious and cooperative aim to seek to include those who may not have been opportuned the same life chances. And yes, I just made that word up.
Now the question seems to be, can globalization, which is seen by many as putting corporate interests before the welfare of people be tweaked so as to make for a more even distribution of wealth-one where human capital, land, and natural resources aren't exploited for the benefit of a minority?
Human Development Reports
Went looking and here's what I found. For current HDR's, click and follow:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/
http://hdr.undp.org/en/
TNC's: Progress in motion?
According to Strayer, "By 2000, 50 of the world's 100 largest economic units were TNC's, not countries."
I was kind of surprised by that. I had heard the moniker "big business" before, but it's suddenly taken on new meaning. It seems I'm a little slow on the uptake. While shocking, I wasn't as troubled by this as I was by the news about Nike who over the course of 5 years, apparently "closed twenty factories and opened thiry-five others, often thousands of miles apart." While great for business, seems largely an irresponsible practice to me. In light of the impact upheavals like this have, should big business be allowed to do this? Is it not enough that they are able to move in and out of regions more accomodating to their needs?
I was kind of surprised by that. I had heard the moniker "big business" before, but it's suddenly taken on new meaning. It seems I'm a little slow on the uptake. While shocking, I wasn't as troubled by this as I was by the news about Nike who over the course of 5 years, apparently "closed twenty factories and opened thiry-five others, often thousands of miles apart." While great for business, seems largely an irresponsible practice to me. In light of the impact upheavals like this have, should big business be allowed to do this? Is it not enough that they are able to move in and out of regions more accomodating to their needs?
Bretton Woods System
Interesting stuff. Here's a brief history I found on TIME:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0%2C8599%2C1852254%2C00.html
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0%2C8599%2C1852254%2C00.html
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Chapter 17: Reflections: Revolutions: Pro and Con
"To those who complained about the violence of revolutions, supporters pointed out the violence that maintained the status quo and the unwillingness of privileged classes to accommodate changes that threatened those privileges. It was persistent injustice that made revolution necessary and perhaps inevitable" (Strayer, p.520).
The last part feels like deja vu-like something I encountered recently, maybe on a test, or final exam. Nevertheless, to the issue of the violence brought on by revolution, Strayer makes a good point of turning our attention towards the violence maintained by the status quo. But not only violence, but injustice, oppression, exploitation-and everything else protected for by the standing order.
This all goes back to a recent post of mine, where I wrote about how often revolutions are put into action by an outside party-pointing out the North's role in initiating the call for abolition of slavery, so incessant in the South. Granted, there's always this negative connotation associated with revolution, but I argue that we shouldn't be surprised. Nor should we be quick to judge. For it's my opinion that if people are unhappy with something, it's their right to oppose it-the means in which they do so depends on the severity to which they feel they've been robbed of their dignity. Robespierre slaughtered some thousand "enemies of the revolution." I applaud him for it.
Going back to Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement, how many people do you think thought he was outright crazy for calling for equal rights for a black people. Think about how absurd that would have seemed if you were a white person living in the 1950's and 60's. Or a man living during the early part of the 21st century, when women were calling for equal liberties and the right to vote. Downright outlandish right? And now we have gays asking for the same. How dare they!?
What I mean to comment on in all of this is people's subjective experience. We're all making history, and we're all having history done to us, if that makes any sense. Who are we to devalue the way another person sees things, no matter how extreme or how far from the norm they [appear to] fall. Who are we to judge? History has shown us, and it is quite evident, that people in power don't like giving up that power. It's been repeated in the lab. Look no further than the Stanford Prison Study of 1971. In any case, when African Americans demand reparations, which they have been denied in the past, it's often viewed as outlandish. But why? Because it goes against...what? The standing order-the way things are. Revolutions do just that-challenge the so-called natural order. I urge us all to consider what the "natural order" is. Just to finish that thought, what came of 40 acres and a mule? The Reconstruction? When we talk about redistribution of resources in this country and beyond, we might want to start there.
Strayer goes on to comment: "to their victims, critics, and opponents, revolutions appeared quite different. Conservatives generally viewed human societies, not as machines whose parts could be easily arranged, but as organisms that evolved slowly. Efforts at radical and sudden change only invited disaster, as the unrestrained violence of the French Revolution at its height demonstrated."
So in light of this, should one who is unhappy with the way things are address their grievances and allow 200 years for things to change? After all, that's reasonable given our timeline. Or is it? I think certain situations necessitate so-termed "disaster." The responsibiliy, in my opinion is for us to see it (the injustice), and counter it before it reaches a boiling point.
Going back to Professor Fitzgerald's comment last night about the uncertain, but sometimes obvious future, I think too may times we live life reactively, and shield ourselves from life's events under the cloak of ignorace we call the future. While I may have posted this quote, by Shakespeare, before, I neverthless find it a great point to end on. While Strayer also makes this contention, Shakespeare captures it quite eloquently: "There is a chronicle for every man’s life, which shows what happened to him in times now past. If you study that chronicle, you can prophecy what lies ahead with some accuracy. The seeds of things to come are buried in the things that have already happened. These seeds grow, and become the children of time."
The last part feels like deja vu-like something I encountered recently, maybe on a test, or final exam. Nevertheless, to the issue of the violence brought on by revolution, Strayer makes a good point of turning our attention towards the violence maintained by the status quo. But not only violence, but injustice, oppression, exploitation-and everything else protected for by the standing order.
This all goes back to a recent post of mine, where I wrote about how often revolutions are put into action by an outside party-pointing out the North's role in initiating the call for abolition of slavery, so incessant in the South. Granted, there's always this negative connotation associated with revolution, but I argue that we shouldn't be surprised. Nor should we be quick to judge. For it's my opinion that if people are unhappy with something, it's their right to oppose it-the means in which they do so depends on the severity to which they feel they've been robbed of their dignity. Robespierre slaughtered some thousand "enemies of the revolution." I applaud him for it.
Going back to Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement, how many people do you think thought he was outright crazy for calling for equal rights for a black people. Think about how absurd that would have seemed if you were a white person living in the 1950's and 60's. Or a man living during the early part of the 21st century, when women were calling for equal liberties and the right to vote. Downright outlandish right? And now we have gays asking for the same. How dare they!?
What I mean to comment on in all of this is people's subjective experience. We're all making history, and we're all having history done to us, if that makes any sense. Who are we to devalue the way another person sees things, no matter how extreme or how far from the norm they [appear to] fall. Who are we to judge? History has shown us, and it is quite evident, that people in power don't like giving up that power. It's been repeated in the lab. Look no further than the Stanford Prison Study of 1971. In any case, when African Americans demand reparations, which they have been denied in the past, it's often viewed as outlandish. But why? Because it goes against...what? The standing order-the way things are. Revolutions do just that-challenge the so-called natural order. I urge us all to consider what the "natural order" is. Just to finish that thought, what came of 40 acres and a mule? The Reconstruction? When we talk about redistribution of resources in this country and beyond, we might want to start there.
Strayer goes on to comment: "to their victims, critics, and opponents, revolutions appeared quite different. Conservatives generally viewed human societies, not as machines whose parts could be easily arranged, but as organisms that evolved slowly. Efforts at radical and sudden change only invited disaster, as the unrestrained violence of the French Revolution at its height demonstrated."
So in light of this, should one who is unhappy with the way things are address their grievances and allow 200 years for things to change? After all, that's reasonable given our timeline. Or is it? I think certain situations necessitate so-termed "disaster." The responsibiliy, in my opinion is for us to see it (the injustice), and counter it before it reaches a boiling point.
Going back to Professor Fitzgerald's comment last night about the uncertain, but sometimes obvious future, I think too may times we live life reactively, and shield ourselves from life's events under the cloak of ignorace we call the future. While I may have posted this quote, by Shakespeare, before, I neverthless find it a great point to end on. While Strayer also makes this contention, Shakespeare captures it quite eloquently: "There is a chronicle for every man’s life, which shows what happened to him in times now past. If you study that chronicle, you can prophecy what lies ahead with some accuracy. The seeds of things to come are buried in the things that have already happened. These seeds grow, and become the children of time."
The Aims of Society
So everything I've written this morning has had this patronizing overtone. I can't helpt it, reading history does that to me. It strikes a deep chord within my soul-whatever that means.
In reading about the first industrial society-the epic transformation of social life, the shift of wealth from landowners to men of industry, the class system that ensues-I came to wonder what society really is. Is society as it's defined-a structured community of people, a group sharing interests, or a relationship among groups? Is it something else entirely?
It seems to me, that much of the inequality that exists, in societies and institutions, are functions of belonging to this thing we call a society. A structured community of people, it definitely is; a group sharing interests, I'd say it's not; while a relationship among groups I'm inclined to accept. What if one wants out of society? Is it that easy? Societies, I might be inclined to think, are responsible for the ills and inequalities that exist within our governments. So what are those of us that see things this way to do? Pack up and leave for a home in the wildneress, where I can be left to my own my devices, that is until society begins to encroach upon the land I'm living on, blacken my sky, and warm the planet I'm living on? Everywhere we go, we're affected by the actions of others. It only gets worse when self-interest is taken into account. When we think about the sheer numbers of people that the industrial revolution produced, and the limited resources we're going to face in the coming years, it makes me wonder what's going to come of all of it. Will we ever have a just society-one where all people are created equal-have access to equal opportunity, even if we don't all have the same things. Because one definitely can't say that now.
Even if I were to complete my doctorate degree, get a job paying me 120k or more, and work for the rest of my life, I'll never be part of that owning class. So what's it all for? What's it all mean?
In reading about the first industrial society-the epic transformation of social life, the shift of wealth from landowners to men of industry, the class system that ensues-I came to wonder what society really is. Is society as it's defined-a structured community of people, a group sharing interests, or a relationship among groups? Is it something else entirely?
It seems to me, that much of the inequality that exists, in societies and institutions, are functions of belonging to this thing we call a society. A structured community of people, it definitely is; a group sharing interests, I'd say it's not; while a relationship among groups I'm inclined to accept. What if one wants out of society? Is it that easy? Societies, I might be inclined to think, are responsible for the ills and inequalities that exist within our governments. So what are those of us that see things this way to do? Pack up and leave for a home in the wildneress, where I can be left to my own my devices, that is until society begins to encroach upon the land I'm living on, blacken my sky, and warm the planet I'm living on? Everywhere we go, we're affected by the actions of others. It only gets worse when self-interest is taken into account. When we think about the sheer numbers of people that the industrial revolution produced, and the limited resources we're going to face in the coming years, it makes me wonder what's going to come of all of it. Will we ever have a just society-one where all people are created equal-have access to equal opportunity, even if we don't all have the same things. Because one definitely can't say that now.
Even if I were to complete my doctorate degree, get a job paying me 120k or more, and work for the rest of my life, I'll never be part of that owning class. So what's it all for? What's it all mean?
Marx (1818-1883)
"To Marx, the story line of the human past and the motor of historical change had always been "class struggle," the bitter conflict of "opressor and oppresed" (Strayer, p.539).
Hmm....
Aside from the conquests taken by various empires, I would have to agree that the vehicle of historical change has otherwse been class struggle-especially in recent centuries. But what is so damaging about class struggle? Capitalism, our economic system/way of life, demands it. Not only that, but doesn't life outside of these systems/institutions demand it? In gather-hunter societies, did some not fare better than others? Even amidst the agricultural revolution, surely, some were producing more than others, which was a reflection of their agency (right?).
So I guess my question is, is class struggle/the deprived condition, not a natural condition?
Hmm....
Aside from the conquests taken by various empires, I would have to agree that the vehicle of historical change has otherwse been class struggle-especially in recent centuries. But what is so damaging about class struggle? Capitalism, our economic system/way of life, demands it. Not only that, but doesn't life outside of these systems/institutions demand it? In gather-hunter societies, did some not fare better than others? Even amidst the agricultural revolution, surely, some were producing more than others, which was a reflection of their agency (right?).
So I guess my question is, is class struggle/the deprived condition, not a natural condition?
Chapter 18 > The Laboring Classes
About the condition of ubran workers and their relationship to the more priveleged, "Nor was there much personal contact between the rich and the poor of industrial cities." As described by Benjamin Disraeli, "these two ends of the social spectrum [operate] as 'two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets'" (Stayer, p.538).
I think it arguable that the same can be said of our society, even now. While industry has improved, and conditions I assume have as well (I don't know firsthand as I've never worked in one), the relationship between rich and poor is still very polar. I'm not sure how prevalent homelessness was during that time, but one might even say that the relationship has worsened now as some own NOTHING, while others live in a state of excess that characterizes the American way of life, consciously ignorant of the needs of others. Are these people provided for by our government-local or otherwise? It would seem not. Should they be?
I think it arguable that the same can be said of our society, even now. While industry has improved, and conditions I assume have as well (I don't know firsthand as I've never worked in one), the relationship between rich and poor is still very polar. I'm not sure how prevalent homelessness was during that time, but one might even say that the relationship has worsened now as some own NOTHING, while others live in a state of excess that characterizes the American way of life, consciously ignorant of the needs of others. Are these people provided for by our government-local or otherwise? It would seem not. Should they be?
Globalization
So, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution came the idea of globalization. While perhaps what started off as an idea whereby industry would be adopted on a global scale, what has followed, and has many Americans in an uproar, is the accompanying job loss here in the U.S. It seems as a result of globalizing industry, coporations have taken root or sent jobs places where maintaing business operations is more economical. While this is troubling for our national economy, is this dynamic not set forth by globalization, and beyond that, capitalism?
Remember when Professor Fitzgerald talked about unforseen forecasts. Is this not one of those things we should have seen coming?
Remember when Professor Fitzgerald talked about unforseen forecasts. Is this not one of those things we should have seen coming?
Nonviolence and Gandhi
"Non-violence means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one's whole soul against the will of the tryant."
- Mohandas Gandhi
Mahatma, literally tranlsated means "the Great Soul." I'd say his ideology reflects that. Then again, maybe that's my conditioning talking. Speaking from experience, I've always been quick to anger, and take a sometimes violent stand. The reason I call it conditioning is because I've done martial arts for years and of course, there's the time I spent in the military.
In recent time however, I've taken up a very different philosophy, which I've attributed to what else than, another martial art-capoeira. Capoeira, an afro-brazilian martial art, which appears much like dance fighting to outsiders, is as much about personal control-over one's body and emotions, as much as it is anything else. I've really benefitted from it in the sense that I can now honestly appreciate, and embrace Gandhi's sentiment.
The above quote also reflects another statement for which Gandhi is very well known - that "an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind." What the two have to do with each other is that they seek to express that you can't go on combating violence with violence, becauase you're effectually pereptuating the cycle. It takes greater control, and a certain amount of transcendence to stand in the face of oppression, without succumbing to one of the most deeply rooted human emotions-anger.
- Mohandas Gandhi
Mahatma, literally tranlsated means "the Great Soul." I'd say his ideology reflects that. Then again, maybe that's my conditioning talking. Speaking from experience, I've always been quick to anger, and take a sometimes violent stand. The reason I call it conditioning is because I've done martial arts for years and of course, there's the time I spent in the military.
In recent time however, I've taken up a very different philosophy, which I've attributed to what else than, another martial art-capoeira. Capoeira, an afro-brazilian martial art, which appears much like dance fighting to outsiders, is as much about personal control-over one's body and emotions, as much as it is anything else. I've really benefitted from it in the sense that I can now honestly appreciate, and embrace Gandhi's sentiment.
The above quote also reflects another statement for which Gandhi is very well known - that "an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind." What the two have to do with each other is that they seek to express that you can't go on combating violence with violence, becauase you're effectually pereptuating the cycle. It takes greater control, and a certain amount of transcendence to stand in the face of oppression, without succumbing to one of the most deeply rooted human emotions-anger.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Answering Strayer's Questions
"Can the spread of nuclear weapons be halted? Will democracy flourish globally? Are Islamic and Christian civilizations headed for a global clash? Can African countries replicate the economic growth experience of India and China?" (Strayer, p.719)
Looks like I'll have to post my thoughts on these subjects tommorow, because right now, I'm outta here.
Looks like I'll have to post my thoughts on these subjects tommorow, because right now, I'm outta here.
Ignorance and our Ancestors
"The vast uncertainties about the future provide a useful reminder that although we know the outcomes of earlier human stories, those who lived that history did not. Such awareness can perhaps engender in us a measure of humility, a kind of empathy, and a sense of common humanity with those whose lives we study. However we may differ from our ancestors across time and place, we share with them an immense ignorance about what will happen next" (Strayer, p. 718).
Great point to end on, wouldn't you say? We're making the history of tommorrow today. While largely commonsensical, I think collectively, we lose sight of this. We're as ignorant to what will happen next year as our ancestors were that were actively living during and fighting in the world wars. That's really very profound. I urge you to think about that for a second.
"What we do in this life echoes in eternity." Sound familiar? That was a paraphrase of Proximo in Gladiator. Turns out he's right.
While there's much to be said on the topic, I'm afraid I don't have the concentration to tie it all together right now, as I've just recently finished studying for tonight's exam. I just wanted to make it known that this idea of Strayer's resonates with me, and in the same breath, urge you to reflect on the consequences of your action, and inaction....as well as the relative uncertainty of tommorrow.
Great point to end on, wouldn't you say? We're making the history of tommorrow today. While largely commonsensical, I think collectively, we lose sight of this. We're as ignorant to what will happen next year as our ancestors were that were actively living during and fighting in the world wars. That's really very profound. I urge you to think about that for a second.
"What we do in this life echoes in eternity." Sound familiar? That was a paraphrase of Proximo in Gladiator. Turns out he's right.
While there's much to be said on the topic, I'm afraid I don't have the concentration to tie it all together right now, as I've just recently finished studying for tonight's exam. I just wanted to make it known that this idea of Strayer's resonates with me, and in the same breath, urge you to reflect on the consequences of your action, and inaction....as well as the relative uncertainty of tommorrow.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
"Were revolutions the product of misery..."
"Were revolutions the product of misery, injustice, and oppression? Or did they reflect the growing weakness of established authorities, the arrival of ideas, or the presence of small groups of radical activists able to fan the little fires of ordinary discontent into revolutionary conflagrations" (Strayer, p.524)?
While the most obvious, and complete, answer would be that revolutions are ushered in by all of these conditions, I'd like to comment on this passage.
I guess first, what is ordinary discontent? The lack of content that we all feel about some aspect of our society? How is that in any way ordinary? I think Strayer underplays the propensity of so-called ordinary discontent. Discontent is disontent is discontent. I would argue it's the nature of the discontent, and how it's manifested that dictates the way it plays out. This of course, brings us back to the comprehensive viewpoint of Strayer.
Ideas, small groups, established authority-I think it safe to assume that all are smaller pieces of a larger puzzle. But not as necessary as the deprived condition. Show me a state of deprivation and I'll show you a cause for revolution.
While the most obvious, and complete, answer would be that revolutions are ushered in by all of these conditions, I'd like to comment on this passage.
I guess first, what is ordinary discontent? The lack of content that we all feel about some aspect of our society? How is that in any way ordinary? I think Strayer underplays the propensity of so-called ordinary discontent. Discontent is disontent is discontent. I would argue it's the nature of the discontent, and how it's manifested that dictates the way it plays out. This of course, brings us back to the comprehensive viewpoint of Strayer.
Ideas, small groups, established authority-I think it safe to assume that all are smaller pieces of a larger puzzle. But not as necessary as the deprived condition. Show me a state of deprivation and I'll show you a cause for revolution.
Starting with the Abolition of Slavery and ending...
I was doing some reading last night, and I began to think how often changes in history (revolutions, movements, change more broadly) are initiated by the other side. What I'm referring to, is the abolition of slavery, which was initiated by the North, who were non-dependent on it. The South with its slave-based economy, was of course in uproar.
What struck me is that I firmly believe in the dictum, "to each his own." I think it breeds a certain amount of respect for other people's values/culture, etc. But that led me to think about at which point one draws the line between respecting another's culture and taking a stand for what's right (as we perceive it). Was the north, with an economy that wasn't based on slave labor, largely (if not only) because of the unsuitable environment, in any position to dictate the agenda of the South? I'm not saying that slavery wasn't wrong, and by the tone of my posts, I don't think one should be confused by my position. But I guess what I'm asking is...I guess I'm still trying to make sense of it all.
In thinking about Gandhi, Mandela, MLK, and their calls for nonviolence, grounded in the civil disobedience of Henry David Thoreau, I thought about violence, and the role it plays in these movements. As much as I am now a proponent for nonviolence, I was at one point, a member of the United States military, one of the most war-mongering countries in the world. We fight violence with violence and seek to destabilize governments not sensitive to our interests with insurgencies. We've been the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon on another people. Getting back on topic...I got to thinking how violence plays out. Surely, the American, French, and Haitian revolutions would not have played out without violence. So what does that mean for our future. In trying to envision a world without it, maybe I'm just being too optimistic. Because the conclusion I've come to is that one can fight people with nonviolence. But one can only fight violence with nonviolence for so long.
What do we do with all the war mongering people of the world? Arm them with a cause, I don't know, patriotism, and release them upon others in its name.
What struck me is that I firmly believe in the dictum, "to each his own." I think it breeds a certain amount of respect for other people's values/culture, etc. But that led me to think about at which point one draws the line between respecting another's culture and taking a stand for what's right (as we perceive it). Was the north, with an economy that wasn't based on slave labor, largely (if not only) because of the unsuitable environment, in any position to dictate the agenda of the South? I'm not saying that slavery wasn't wrong, and by the tone of my posts, I don't think one should be confused by my position. But I guess what I'm asking is...I guess I'm still trying to make sense of it all.
In thinking about Gandhi, Mandela, MLK, and their calls for nonviolence, grounded in the civil disobedience of Henry David Thoreau, I thought about violence, and the role it plays in these movements. As much as I am now a proponent for nonviolence, I was at one point, a member of the United States military, one of the most war-mongering countries in the world. We fight violence with violence and seek to destabilize governments not sensitive to our interests with insurgencies. We've been the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon on another people. Getting back on topic...I got to thinking how violence plays out. Surely, the American, French, and Haitian revolutions would not have played out without violence. So what does that mean for our future. In trying to envision a world without it, maybe I'm just being too optimistic. Because the conclusion I've come to is that one can fight people with nonviolence. But one can only fight violence with nonviolence for so long.
What do we do with all the war mongering people of the world? Arm them with a cause, I don't know, patriotism, and release them upon others in its name.
Remember Haiti
Okay, so I've got to come clean. I haven't kept up on the reading. The only reason I was able to contribute to the French v American Reolution discussion was because of the paper we had to write, for the French Rev at least. I've commited quite a bit of the American Revolution to memory, from previous history classes, so that wasn't so much an issue.
Anyway, I'm going back [in history] and palying catch-up. In reading about the Haitian Revolution, I can't lie, I was inspired. But I'm kind of a revolutionary. I enjoy, but moreso, think it my duty to challenge other people's thinking. So with that said, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
I just wanted to offer my thoughts on the subject. When Strayer said the situation was primed for explosion, I think he was right. He may have even understated it. 40,000 of a mostly well-to-do priveleged class were ruling over some 500,000 of the slave class. Speaking in terms of inequity and sheer numbers, not to mention the catalyst (the French Revoltuion) that preceded, it seemed more an eventuality than a coincidence. That the French were ousted by a precedent they in many ways set, has to be one of the most paradoxical events in world history. As for the brutality the slaves employed in lyniching their former masters, I have to admit, I'd have done the same.
I wonder, does anyone see something like this happening in our country?
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
The figures might be outdated, but the fact remains.
Anyway, I'm going back [in history] and palying catch-up. In reading about the Haitian Revolution, I can't lie, I was inspired. But I'm kind of a revolutionary. I enjoy, but moreso, think it my duty to challenge other people's thinking. So with that said, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
I just wanted to offer my thoughts on the subject. When Strayer said the situation was primed for explosion, I think he was right. He may have even understated it. 40,000 of a mostly well-to-do priveleged class were ruling over some 500,000 of the slave class. Speaking in terms of inequity and sheer numbers, not to mention the catalyst (the French Revoltuion) that preceded, it seemed more an eventuality than a coincidence. That the French were ousted by a precedent they in many ways set, has to be one of the most paradoxical events in world history. As for the brutality the slaves employed in lyniching their former masters, I have to admit, I'd have done the same.
I wonder, does anyone see something like this happening in our country?
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
The figures might be outdated, but the fact remains.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Inspiration
Thanks to the classes I've taken over the summer, I've been exposed to some really inspirational figures. Among them-Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, Teresa of Avila, Sojourner Truth, the list goes on.
The most recent was Nelson Mandela, who I wrote my research project on. Next time you think about conviction or taking a stand, against injustice or otherwise, consider this: Nelson Mandela spent 27 years incarcerated as a political prisoner for the charge of treason against an all white government. He was offered conditional release a number of times, but would not accept until his colleagues were released. Beyond that, upon his release, he condemned violence and endorsed forgiveness. Four years later, he won South Africa's first "democratic" national election, in which all people, black and white, were able to vote. This took place just 16 years ago (in 1994). I remember hearing about it on the news. I never knew why until now.
The takeaway-oppression still exists in various forms. It's still very pervasive even in our own society. And I'm not just talking racism and sexism. There are 7 categories of otherness that we are judged by, according to Beverly Daniel Tatum. They are race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, class (SES), and mental and physical ability.
It takes people the likes of Nelson Mandela, Mohatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Mercy Amba Okuyoye to do something about it. What drives these people? What drives us? Beyond that, why aren't we more concerned about what's reflected within the greater human character? I'm rambling.
The most recent was Nelson Mandela, who I wrote my research project on. Next time you think about conviction or taking a stand, against injustice or otherwise, consider this: Nelson Mandela spent 27 years incarcerated as a political prisoner for the charge of treason against an all white government. He was offered conditional release a number of times, but would not accept until his colleagues were released. Beyond that, upon his release, he condemned violence and endorsed forgiveness. Four years later, he won South Africa's first "democratic" national election, in which all people, black and white, were able to vote. This took place just 16 years ago (in 1994). I remember hearing about it on the news. I never knew why until now.
The takeaway-oppression still exists in various forms. It's still very pervasive even in our own society. And I'm not just talking racism and sexism. There are 7 categories of otherness that we are judged by, according to Beverly Daniel Tatum. They are race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, class (SES), and mental and physical ability.
It takes people the likes of Nelson Mandela, Mohatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Mercy Amba Okuyoye to do something about it. What drives these people? What drives us? Beyond that, why aren't we more concerned about what's reflected within the greater human character? I'm rambling.
"Evolutionary throwback"
I remember hearing once about how we humans may have evolved from dolphins. No guff, seriously. There's actually a fair bit of theoretics out there, not to say that that makes the theory any more valid, but some people buy into it. One reason is the mammalian cortex (look it up).
In any case, in the reading we skipped, was Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection, which goes something like: those characterisitics that best aid organisms to survive and reproduce are the ones that get passed on. Read the Origin of Species, or any biology book for that matter, for a more detailed account.
Anyway, after a preliminary google search of dolphin evolution man turned up no results of what I was looking for, I decided to take it to the academic journals to find out if any info had ever been published on the topic. I'm still looking, though my interest was sparked when I came accross an article entitled The Ancestor Within, which talks about how one dolphin in Japan was observed to have an extra set of flippers, which he used to escape being slaughtered. The issue of debate is whether evolution is irreversible. The concept of irreversibility is referred to as "Dollo's Law, " after Louis Dollo, who was studying the fossil record at the same time Cesare Lombroso (look him up) was making a case for criminal inheritance, reasoned that "there is no reason why evolution cannot run backwards." In any case, Dollo's Law goes against one of evolution's fundamental tenets-that evolution doesn't run backwards.
While there's more evidence presented within the article, as well as a host of other theories, I haven't the patience, nor time to sift thru it at the present moment. But I figured this post might serve as a springboard for any of you who have any interest in the theory, superifical or otherwise.
Here's the reference if you want to find it:
Lepage, M. (2007). The ancestor within. New Scientist, 193(2586). pp.28-33.
In any case, in the reading we skipped, was Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection, which goes something like: those characterisitics that best aid organisms to survive and reproduce are the ones that get passed on. Read the Origin of Species, or any biology book for that matter, for a more detailed account.
Anyway, after a preliminary google search of dolphin evolution man turned up no results of what I was looking for, I decided to take it to the academic journals to find out if any info had ever been published on the topic. I'm still looking, though my interest was sparked when I came accross an article entitled The Ancestor Within, which talks about how one dolphin in Japan was observed to have an extra set of flippers, which he used to escape being slaughtered. The issue of debate is whether evolution is irreversible. The concept of irreversibility is referred to as "Dollo's Law, " after Louis Dollo, who was studying the fossil record at the same time Cesare Lombroso (look him up) was making a case for criminal inheritance, reasoned that "there is no reason why evolution cannot run backwards." In any case, Dollo's Law goes against one of evolution's fundamental tenets-that evolution doesn't run backwards.
While there's more evidence presented within the article, as well as a host of other theories, I haven't the patience, nor time to sift thru it at the present moment. But I figured this post might serve as a springboard for any of you who have any interest in the theory, superifical or otherwise.
Here's the reference if you want to find it:
Lepage, M. (2007). The ancestor within. New Scientist, 193(2586). pp.28-33.
Eurocentricity
Picking up where I left off...
"How pervasive a concept is this?" I wondered to myself in reading the introduction to Part Five. I hurried through the introduction, which took forever because Strayer rasises some good, allbeit helpful concerns for countering eurocentrism.
Nevertheless, I got thru it and went straight to google maps. A quick search of world maps turned up map after map depicting Europe at center stage. Okay, so Europe's at center stage in all of the maps. I thought back. Europe had been at center stage for every map I'd seen. I really began to wonder how pervasive a concept eurocentrism really is. While I offer no commentary on why it should be or shouldn't be so, the fact that it is so has implications. Strayer discusses a number of them. I was struck with another thought. Has America become the Europe of 21st century? One could easily make the case. Much of the technology, weaponry, and innovation that's used the world over comes out of our lands. Other countries send their citizens here for education. I'd venture to say a majority of them stay. What do you think? How will "our" story be told in the "his story" books of tommorrow.
Fast forward, Strayer, reminds us that history is written by winners, but is participated in by all. This strikes me as a stretch. I'm not quite ready to write about that one yet though. Perhaps a little more reflection. Anyone else have any thoughts?
"How pervasive a concept is this?" I wondered to myself in reading the introduction to Part Five. I hurried through the introduction, which took forever because Strayer rasises some good, allbeit helpful concerns for countering eurocentrism.
Nevertheless, I got thru it and went straight to google maps. A quick search of world maps turned up map after map depicting Europe at center stage. Okay, so Europe's at center stage in all of the maps. I thought back. Europe had been at center stage for every map I'd seen. I really began to wonder how pervasive a concept eurocentrism really is. While I offer no commentary on why it should be or shouldn't be so, the fact that it is so has implications. Strayer discusses a number of them. I was struck with another thought. Has America become the Europe of 21st century? One could easily make the case. Much of the technology, weaponry, and innovation that's used the world over comes out of our lands. Other countries send their citizens here for education. I'd venture to say a majority of them stay. What do you think? How will "our" story be told in the "his story" books of tommorrow.
Fast forward, Strayer, reminds us that history is written by winners, but is participated in by all. This strikes me as a stretch. I'm not quite ready to write about that one yet though. Perhaps a little more reflection. Anyone else have any thoughts?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Nationalism
In doing some reading for another class, I came accross something that allowed me to better appreciate the kind of nationalism Madeleine was talking about in class Monday night.
I'll just share the excerpt here. I'll follow-up with an analysis at some point.
From Mystics, Visionaries, and Prophets: A Historical Anthology of Women's Spiritual Writings > Mother Teresa
"The clash between those who presently hold priveleged positions and those who are becoming communites of resistance and change will only be resolved through a new paradigm for a new India. In the present, as in the past, whenever the poorest people try to claim dignity and human equality, they are opposed by a form of fascism that masquerades as "Indian nationalism." The ideology of Hindu nationhood and Brahman culture has been a dangerous weapon in the hands of the state."
I'll just share the excerpt here. I'll follow-up with an analysis at some point.
From Mystics, Visionaries, and Prophets: A Historical Anthology of Women's Spiritual Writings > Mother Teresa
"The clash between those who presently hold priveleged positions and those who are becoming communites of resistance and change will only be resolved through a new paradigm for a new India. In the present, as in the past, whenever the poorest people try to claim dignity and human equality, they are opposed by a form of fascism that masquerades as "Indian nationalism." The ideology of Hindu nationhood and Brahman culture has been a dangerous weapon in the hands of the state."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)