Greed is Good :)

Just like the speech from the movie Wall Street, "Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

But maybe it doesn't always mark the "upward surge of mankind." Todorov paints a different picture of Columbus than most Americans, or myself, learn about. Basic history classes just go over how Columbus sailed to the New World, and that's it. Not that his main motivation was gold, like Todorov proves through journal entries from the man himself.

Another great line from the same movie is "Greed captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit." Columbus' expedition definitely benefited Europe, but what about the Native Americans? They didn't really go upward, they went down very violently, with the affects still manifesting to this day.

I found this a very interesting read. It most likely has to do with me being a history nut, but Todorov brings up ideas, and facts that challenge the popularly accept "history" about Columbus.

Columbus' mission was to find a route to Asia from the West, and Todorov points out how Columbus negated any argument, mainly by the natives, that challenges this. Renaming everything when it already has a name by the locals will just make things a bit worse. For those in the class that study foreign languages, you probably understand this. Most of you might think that Munich and Muechen are practically the same thing, and just because the Germans will know what city you are talking about when you say Munich doesn't mean that it is the proper name to use.

I thought Jen did a really good job pointing out somethings between Todorov and The Sparrow.

Reflective 4/8

Drake Equation for all those who want to see it.

I stand by my "monospecieism" being the reason that the mission failed. As we discussed in class, even the The Time Machine it is acknowledged that there are two species. Perhaps we have a leaning towards the first find? I've moved over 10 times in my life, and each time I was in a similar situation. I didn't want to do anything wrong in the "alien" planet I was on. And when someone would extend a hand or acknowledge my existence, I would stay close to them until I had established myself in the new area. Similar to what the expedition did. And in both cases, the first was "boring" and the other, physically, screams "danger" to humans. When was the last time you snuggled up with your stuffed Aye-Aye? Probably never, we tend to lean towards teddy bears, or in my case F-16s.

In the end, hindsight is 20/20. When was the last time you did something perfectly, and when you look back there is nothing you could have done better/differently? To be honest, I would take the route the military has been making since the dawn of UAVs, send them in first so there is no loss of life. How were they suppose to know the air was not toxic? Just like I said in class, just because a planet/asteroid has life, doesn't mean the environment is safe for humans.

The Sparrow

Well, like Jen said, Sandoz's interrogation was very moving and almost heart-breaking to read. From the beginning, we the readers know that something bad is going to happen. The prologue begins with "It was predictable, in hindsight" and ends with "They meant no harm" (3). Cue dramatic music. I'm not too sure who Russell means by "they". It could be the Jesuits who wanted to visit Rakhat as soon as possible, which causes the mental and physical destruction of Sandoz. Or it could be the Jesuit party that unknowingly upset the ecological balance between Runa and Jana'ata by planting gardens. This made me wonder whether the Runa/Jana'ata meant any harm, which I have no clue. Maybe it will be resolved in the sequel. But back to the point (if I have one), Russell set up the story, letting the readers know that only Sandoz lives and a very basic understanding of how he was rescued. So we knew that he was found in a brothel and he killed a child, but actually reading his explanation of it was shocking, especially Askama's death.

"'Not one sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it'"
"But the sparrow still falls" (401)

This was the only reference to the title I found in the book. It is obvious that Emilio represents the sparrow that falls and questions God after what happens to him. I looked up Matthew 10 verse 29 to see what followed and this is what I found:

29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to
the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of
your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than
many sparrows.

Verse 31 "So don't be afraid" just jumps out for me. It's like saying "Bad things are going to happen. It's inevitable," and then all of a sudden "You have value. Don't worry". Right now my thoughts are much like Felipe Reyes' "but the sparrow still falls".

Isn't it reassuring that we'll still be quoting movies like Young Frankenstein and The Prince Bride in 2059?

The Sparrow

I'm not real sure what to write, as Tim and Scott kind of covered what I was thinking. I might even be saying this as I just rewatched the anime Trinity Blood that has similar themes, except no alien species. Just good old Vatican against the "vampires," who are actually the descendants of a failed mission to Mars where they caught a local virus that made them drink human blood when they came back to the Earth. Feel free to wikipedia the anime, or I'll gladly let people borrow it or read some of the manga.

Just like Tim mentioned, I don't really understand why missionaries try to help people/species that don't want to be helped. Maybe I've just become fed up with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door. You'd think after having a conversation with the Mormons, who apparently graduated from the same high school, telling them how we lived in Utah and are not interested that they would stop coming to my house. I feel that is kind of the same with the mission to Rakhat. The alien species was more concerned about everything but spirituality.

The Sparrow

This will be the third time today I have tried to write this (sorry it's a little late). Last time it was about 5:00 and almost as soon as I had the text box open I leaned back and feel asleep. That reminds me of the first time I read the book, I was about 3/4 of the way through (maybe even a little farther--just when Emilio finds out nothing he sent back was published) when midnight brought with it the close of my favorite coffee shop--where I happened to be reading. I was, however, so involved in the book that I had to walk across the street to Village Inn (a classy version of Dennys) and finally finished around 2:00 in the morning (just in case you were interested).

What kept me involved then, and many of you have commented on, is the religious/spiritual journey of Emilio, Job, or, the man who God gave everything to and then took that plus interest. I too found this especially moving--being an atheist who was raised Catholic. My second reading through--for this class--however, forced me to pay attention to something Scott touches on briefly in his post and that is the question of the other. Schmitt makes an interesting note that the friend enemy distinction is not a question of beauty, and it seems Russel almost directly confronts the idea of how beauty impacts our perception of the other. There are numerous times on earth, before they leave where it is pointed out that a race which creates such beautiful music must be good. I wonder what Sandoz thinks now. Once they are on the planet again, there is an alomst deliberate deception by Russel to lul her characters into a false sense of security because of the beauty of the VaRakahti--particularly the Runa.
I believe Schmitt would find the book especially pleasing, not because Sandoz is hirribly raped, but because the order/the mission seemed to confuse astetics (beauty v. ugly according to Schmitt) with the political. And while I don't believe the book was intended in this manner it could be easily read as a Science Fiction play on the follies of liberalsim.

If we take the idea we expressed early in class about science fiction being a means with which to critique society without doing so directly, yet more explicitly, drawing parallels between some alien or futuristic story and the problems of the world today. One could not outwardly criticize the ideals of modern liberal pacifism where friend and enemy becomes confused with civilized and uncivilized, democratic and undemocratic, good and bad. But if you create an alien world and have a group of explorers confuse Beauty and Ugly with Friend and Enemy then the situation becomes far enough detached that those criticisms are possible. They explicitly make the mistake of confusing the two and are explicitly rebuked for it. Again, I don't think that was the point, but it's a pretty intersting line of thought anyway.

Reflection of the political

I want to start by noting that at the end of class, as Professor Jackson alludes to, I was not suggesting Schmitt somehow embraces Wilsonian liberalism. I simply thought it was unfair that we left the class on the rather disheartening quote which seems to admit defeat quote "A war waged to protect or expand economic power economic power must, with the aid of propaganda, turn into a crusade and into the last war of humanity." When, in fact, the piece ends with a statement of certain victory (victory for the author and the concept of the political). While I will allow that it could be an intellectual tip o' the hat to Nietzsche I think it must also be read as an admission that the ideal he outlines in the piece (and elsewhere) is simple a personal preference in the name of efficiency as opposed to some sort of philosophical law. I am especially appreciative of this comment as it gives an out to people like myself who agree with his definitions of the concept of the political, but who do not aspire to the totalitarian/fascist conclusions he reached as a result.

Sarah points to another rather brilliant remark. On 79 Schmitt seems to perfectly predict the shifting language of US war propaganda. I wonder, however, if Schmitt would be more critical of leadership that places war on the friend foe terms or if he would be more critical of a society and a people who refuse to accept War on traditional terms--So much so that if we discover the initially established friend v. foe terms were falsified (No WMDs in Iraq for example) we quickly lose our patience for any violence. I think there is another interesting storyline in our continued love of the Death Penalty, Schmitt points out executions are permitted within his understanding of how liberalism works, but many liberal societies (including many liberal states) do not permit executions. This calls me to question Schimmit's conclusions that liberalism can not bring an end to war. I contend that true liberalism goes one step further, and that the Friend Foe we are currently fighting is actually a result of the half-committed portion of society that still likes fighting foes and executing criminals.

Schmitt Reflection

It struck me during our discussion that the War on Terror is a combines Schmitt's idea of the foe and of the increasing pacification of political dialog on 79. Instead of declaring war on an enemy (which would be violent and go against the aversion that society has developed towards war) war has been declared against an idea. The only people who are actively vilified are those who criminally violate peaceful order. This is much easier for (in Schmitt's definition) a relatively pacifist society to stomach. It seems that Schmitt is right and we prefer to have as few enemies as possible, so while there are a few terrorists who we demonize, the rest of the people are our friends who welcome our peace and freedom with open arms. Of course, this has little effect on reality, since our "friends" are nearly as or more likely than our enemies to be killed as we try to enforce peace and freedom. However, the new forms of pacifist propaganda, which Schmitt alludes to makes the "collateral damage" of wars for peace and freedom much easier for a post world war society to deal with.

Reflection

In class and blog posts, the discussion seemed to focus around the question: "How do we determine who is an enemy?" and this post is no exception. The friend-enemy distinction seems completely arbitrary like A pointing at B and saying "You are a threat to my existence. You are my enemy." As we pointed out in class, there is no physical characteristic to distinguish friend from enemy ["the morally evil, aesthetically ugly or economically damaging need not necessarily be the enemy" (27)]. Lindsay brings up that the enemy is determined because "he held the opposite belief from you so strongly that it threatened your way of life". I think it goes a little farther than this. It's not simply that the friend and enemy have opposite beliefs, but that they think their belief should replace the other. Simply holding opposite beliefs doesn't necessarily mean there is a threat to either's existence. Also Mel points out that despite being primarily alien and different, friend and enemy share a similarity ["An enemy only exists when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity” (28)]. I think this is the recognition that separates enemies from foes, which is another distiction Schmitt writes about. Enemies are recognized as human and it is only necessary to push them back to their borders while foes are seen as inhuman and the only course of action is to annihilate them.

That being said, I did more thinking about Ender's Game. In the first two invasions, I would say the buggers are recognized as the enemy that threatens Earth's existence. But for the Third Invasion, the buggers are foes that the IF hunts down and annihilates. The conflict turned from political to personal.