Apologies for the late post, my capstone temporarily ate all of my time.
Going along with Liz's and Phil's posts, I agree that the revolution would not have happened without outside influence, but I think it was Sophia's assimilation into Runa society which kept the revolt going. In class, I mentioned the connection I saw between Sophia and liberation theologists in Latin America, and on reflection, I think that it is a relatively apt comparison. One of the most basic reasons that liberation theology took such a strong hold in places like El Salvador was because it introduced leftist ideas as a part of the pre-established Catholic culture. This is not to say that leftist ideals about class equality and labor equity would not have caught on eventually, but by couching it in theological terms it became much easier to make liberation ideas a part of every day existence. Likewise, I believe that Sophia's shout of "we are many they are one" might have eventually sunk in for a few Runa and maybe someday there would have been a revolution. However, the fact that Sophia became stranded with the Runa, and learned their cultural ways, meant that she was able to adapt her idea of justice to fit within their cultural framework. I believe it was because Sophia became an accepted member of the Runa culture that she was able to become an effective proselytizer for justice. I think this goes along with what we discussed in relation to the Spanish in Mesoamerica. It was not the priests and conquistadors who viewed the indigenous populations as essentially Spanish in nature who were successful at converting and conquering, but rather the one who took the time to understand the culture which they were trying to interact with. Granted, Sophia's efforts were ostensibly more moral, but the principle behind them, I believe, was the same.
Showing posts with label Children of God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Children of God. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Children of God Reflection
Sorry this is last minute. I didn't have any complaints about the writing or parallel ways of Russell's book, but I guess I'm in the minority on that one. Going off what others have posted, I think that the Sofia brought the revolution to Rakhat. I don't believe that it would have happened without her. She was the one so insistent on bringing "justice" to Rakhat. If she had actually died during the uprising, like we all thought in The Sparrow, a revolution still would have occurred, thanks to the Runa mimicry, but it would not have reached the same level. But could any of the other members of the Stella Maris caused a revolution like this, or would Sofia, given her background, have been the only one to start the uprising? Had she lived, would Anne have done the same thing? I'm not sure, but I think Anne would have acted differently than Sofia. In Sparrow, Sandoz relates Sofia's action to a Hebrew phrase meaning woman of valor, somehow linking it back to religion. I'd like to think Anne would act differently causing a whole new chain of events, maybe preventing Sandoz from suffering. I can't help feeling sorry for him.
I relate Sofia living among the Runa with vegetarianism, kind of. She began to empathize with them, without understanding the social structure among Runa and Jana'ata. We sort of discussed what separates pets from breakfast. PTJ posed the question "does talking mean they are no longer prey?" My answer would be yes but only if the talking prey tells me to stop eating them. In the case of the Runa, some would still offer themselves up to the Jana'ata.
I relate Sofia living among the Runa with vegetarianism, kind of. She began to empathize with them, without understanding the social structure among Runa and Jana'ata. We sort of discussed what separates pets from breakfast. PTJ posed the question "does talking mean they are no longer prey?" My answer would be yes but only if the talking prey tells me to stop eating them. In the case of the Runa, some would still offer themselves up to the Jana'ata.
Reflection on God's Children
I seem to have a knack for doing these things at the last possible moment. This time I have a pretty good excuse though; I just had no clue what to blog about--reading Windward however, I came to reconsider a point that was brought up in class and reiterated by Kristen. This is the idea of outside influence as the cause of social turmoil/civil war/revolution/etc. In class I went along with the suggestion that ultimately without Sophia the Runa would have not revolted. While, as I will explore below, this may have been the case on Rakaht I am not sure this is the rule. The outside influence and or superior leader concept is one that is cited rather frequently to explain large shifts in civilizations and societies. I am becoming less convince (especially after thinking about this while reading banks) that these outside influences can ever be considered the cause of societal shakeups (I explain my reasoning with regard to the Runa in a moment), instead, I would argue that while the sudden presence of the other may serve as a catalyst to a specific reaction the actual cause of this reaction was already present in the society. I am not sure that the mere introduction of someone with a different perspective is enough to completely transform a society.
Admiral Perry/ the forced introduction of the west is largely credited with the shakeup of the traditional feudal system in Japan. Suddenly the Japanese realized just how "backwards" they were and felt the need to completely reinvent themselves. If we look more closely, however, the makings of an unstable society were already there--misapportioned wealth, a largely superfluous military class, and an emergent and increasingly powerful merchant class are all things that are also associated with the French Revolution and the slow demise of feudalism in Great Britain. Neither of these societies saw the sudden introduction of an outside force, yet both transformed (one rather quickly and violently) there is nothing to indicate that without Perry presence the Japanese would not have been set on a similar course.
A more extreme example is that of the overthrow of the Aztecs by Cortez. I will go so far as to suggest it was not Cortez's doing, but the internal characteristics of an unstable empire. The Romans, without the assistance of a funny looking god-like ruthless Spaniard managed to fall apart because of some of the same issues that were beginning to plague the Aztecs--Overreaching in conquest, a large number of seditious conquered peoples, and a system of ruler selection which was not designed to pick the best individual for the job (sound like any empires you can think of now). I again argue that if Cortez/Columbus/stupid spanish had not appeared the Aztec Empire may have fallen apart (either quickly or slowly) of it's own volition.
I realized that over the course of simply writing this post I have once again switched positions on my view of the Runa revolt I once again do not believe that it would have been possible without the Jesuit presence, but I believe this is because the situation was designed to mimic the ideal--the outside influence concept was taken to the extreme in this circumstance. The civilization created by Russel was so perfect for the scenario that it could have played out no other way. The VaRakaht civilization was so perfectly constructed as a ecologically feudal society that there seems to be no way of destroying it internally. It reminds me of the mistake so often made in assuming that the actions of Humans are "not natural" we assume we are somehow capable of destroying the balance of the planet because of our Moral ability to folly or something of the sort. In the same way she seems to suggest the runa and Janata are inhuman---truly other--in that they do not share this quality. Only humans were able to step in an disrupt this balance previously the society was perfect (exactly opposite of what things should really be or even how Banks portrays the Chel civil war). Not only that, but the society was also perfectly set up to be formerly balanced yet completely susceptible to outside influence. The social mimicry of the Runa makes the whole thing spread like wildfire. Yet in most earthly examples of the outside influence the civilization is already messed up enough that the slightest little disturbance from the other is enough to bring it down. THIS IS NOT THE CASE ON RAKAHT. THE SOCIETY GOES FROM PERFECTLY STABLE TO COMPLETELY INSTABLE IN JUST A FEW YEARS.
Admiral Perry/ the forced introduction of the west is largely credited with the shakeup of the traditional feudal system in Japan. Suddenly the Japanese realized just how "backwards" they were and felt the need to completely reinvent themselves. If we look more closely, however, the makings of an unstable society were already there--misapportioned wealth, a largely superfluous military class, and an emergent and increasingly powerful merchant class are all things that are also associated with the French Revolution and the slow demise of feudalism in Great Britain. Neither of these societies saw the sudden introduction of an outside force, yet both transformed (one rather quickly and violently) there is nothing to indicate that without Perry presence the Japanese would not have been set on a similar course.
A more extreme example is that of the overthrow of the Aztecs by Cortez. I will go so far as to suggest it was not Cortez's doing, but the internal characteristics of an unstable empire. The Romans, without the assistance of a funny looking god-like ruthless Spaniard managed to fall apart because of some of the same issues that were beginning to plague the Aztecs--Overreaching in conquest, a large number of seditious conquered peoples, and a system of ruler selection which was not designed to pick the best individual for the job (sound like any empires you can think of now). I again argue that if Cortez/Columbus/stupid spanish had not appeared the Aztec Empire may have fallen apart (either quickly or slowly) of it's own volition.
I realized that over the course of simply writing this post I have once again switched positions on my view of the Runa revolt I once again do not believe that it would have been possible without the Jesuit presence, but I believe this is because the situation was designed to mimic the ideal--the outside influence concept was taken to the extreme in this circumstance. The civilization created by Russel was so perfect for the scenario that it could have played out no other way. The VaRakaht civilization was so perfectly constructed as a ecologically feudal society that there seems to be no way of destroying it internally. It reminds me of the mistake so often made in assuming that the actions of Humans are "not natural" we assume we are somehow capable of destroying the balance of the planet because of our Moral ability to folly or something of the sort. In the same way she seems to suggest the runa and Janata are inhuman---truly other--in that they do not share this quality. Only humans were able to step in an disrupt this balance previously the society was perfect (exactly opposite of what things should really be or even how Banks portrays the Chel civil war). Not only that, but the society was also perfectly set up to be formerly balanced yet completely susceptible to outside influence. The social mimicry of the Runa makes the whole thing spread like wildfire. Yet in most earthly examples of the outside influence the civilization is already messed up enough that the slightest little disturbance from the other is enough to bring it down. THIS IS NOT THE CASE ON RAKAHT. THE SOCIETY GOES FROM PERFECTLY STABLE TO COMPLETELY INSTABLE IN JUST A FEW YEARS.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
4/22 Reflective
Just as Rinske mentioned in class, I feel that Sofia is responsible for the Runa uprising. Although, maybe it isn't really Sofia to blame, but humanity. Take your pick from the previous social science books we have read throughout the semester, and possibly dig up some Hobbs and Locke. One thing that humanity can't stand is "injustice." Sofia struggles with the Runa when she is
trying to explain why they should rise up by mentioning what they have on their side, but there isn't a word for "justice" in the Runa language. I think it would have eventually occurred, with the intervention of humans, and Sofia was just there at the right time, with a strong sense of justice.
Right now it mainly looks like this course, and readings, have posed the same question time and again, who are we to judge?
And remember, there may be a day in the future when the chickens rise up.
trying to explain why they should rise up by mentioning what they have on their side, but there isn't a word for "justice" in the Runa language. I think it would have eventually occurred, with the intervention of humans, and Sofia was just there at the right time, with a strong sense of justice.
Right now it mainly looks like this course, and readings, have posed the same question time and again, who are we to judge?
And remember, there may be a day in the future when the chickens rise up.
Substinative
I wonder how history might have been different if after a few years with Columbus missing some other explorer sets out to the west and finds him alone as a prostitute? I also wonder if he would have had similar difficulties overcoming the only conclusion that he could possibly have reached which is GOD wanted him to be raped? I propose that, instead, Columbus would easily have seen that it and little to do with God and much more to do with Godless barbarians.
I say this, hoping to turn it around as well, what would Sandoz have done in Columbus' situation. Would he have presumed the perfect equality of everyone he came in contact with, and assumed that he could quickly understand not only their language, but their society and culture as well? Would he have found himself prey to some hungry cannibal tribe?
Both The Sparrow and Todorov seemed to express to opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to dealing with the other. In Children of God, Russel makes a distinct effort to convey and ideal of something in the middle. Not the same, but not unequal. Equal but different. Somehow both Columbus and Sandoz are closedminded explorers. Where both expeditions went wrong where they could have improved their crew lists would have been to be willing to accept something not expected, or to have brought someone along with the capacity to beleive that not all societies not all peoples are exactly the same.
I wonder if, given a sense of post modernism, Columbus would have been able to handle his interactions with aboriginal americans in a positive manner.
I say this, hoping to turn it around as well, what would Sandoz have done in Columbus' situation. Would he have presumed the perfect equality of everyone he came in contact with, and assumed that he could quickly understand not only their language, but their society and culture as well? Would he have found himself prey to some hungry cannibal tribe?
Both The Sparrow and Todorov seemed to express to opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to dealing with the other. In Children of God, Russel makes a distinct effort to convey and ideal of something in the middle. Not the same, but not unequal. Equal but different. Somehow both Columbus and Sandoz are closedminded explorers. Where both expeditions went wrong where they could have improved their crew lists would have been to be willing to accept something not expected, or to have brought someone along with the capacity to beleive that not all societies not all peoples are exactly the same.
I wonder if, given a sense of post modernism, Columbus would have been able to handle his interactions with aboriginal americans in a positive manner.
Children of God
First off, while I agree with several of the other posts that this seemed to resolve everything a bit too neatly, I enjoyed the fact that Russel allowed the readers to be as misguided as her characters. She intentionally didn't reveal all of the information, and really demonstrated exactly how easy it is to be completely wrong about a person or their motivations when working with incomplete information and poor communication. While it wasn't completely unexpected after PTJ's preview, it still was well done by Russel.
That said, I did feel like she stretched things a bit thin in this book. There were so many characters that I felt like a lot of them were left half-developed, which was disappointing, because most of them were people who seemed worth description. Also, while I still appreciated the literary device of jumping around in time, it felt much more haphazard in this book. I suppose that has something to do with the decreased role of determinism in this book as opposed to the last one, but the jumps felt a bit more awkward in this book. At first it does make sense when moving in relative time and actual space between Sandoz and Sophia, but the few jumps she makes to the time after Sandoz left felt forced, as though she had to fit in more exposition and foreshadowing, and this was the fastest way to do it.
I agree with the others who were left a bit disoriented by this book, but over all it was enjoyable. I felt as though its ending did detract a bit from the last book, but the bulk of the two were very complementary. I'm looking forward to our discussion, and to hearing other people's opinions.
That said, I did feel like she stretched things a bit thin in this book. There were so many characters that I felt like a lot of them were left half-developed, which was disappointing, because most of them were people who seemed worth description. Also, while I still appreciated the literary device of jumping around in time, it felt much more haphazard in this book. I suppose that has something to do with the decreased role of determinism in this book as opposed to the last one, but the jumps felt a bit more awkward in this book. At first it does make sense when moving in relative time and actual space between Sandoz and Sophia, but the few jumps she makes to the time after Sandoz left felt forced, as though she had to fit in more exposition and foreshadowing, and this was the fastest way to do it.
I agree with the others who were left a bit disoriented by this book, but over all it was enjoyable. I felt as though its ending did detract a bit from the last book, but the bulk of the two were very complementary. I'm looking forward to our discussion, and to hearing other people's opinions.
Children of God Substantive
I had hoped there would be a big shocker like Professor Jackson had alluded to in class. I actually wasn't all that impressed, and felt the book had a more uplifting ending than the first. Granted, Sandoz had good things in life and then is sent back to Rakhat. But I kind of had the idea that would happen from the beginning.
I enjoyed how the book skipped back and forth between the three sides. Call me scatter-brained but by the time I was bored with one chapter about Sandoz the next normally had nothing to do with him.
Maybe this has to do with just my twisted logic or something, but I actually started to feel bad for Supaari.
I guess in the end I'm like Jen and Tim in that I don't really know what to say about the book.
I enjoyed how the book skipped back and forth between the three sides. Call me scatter-brained but by the time I was bored with one chapter about Sandoz the next normally had nothing to do with him.
Maybe this has to do with just my twisted logic or something, but I actually started to feel bad for Supaari.
I guess in the end I'm like Jen and Tim in that I don't really know what to say about the book.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Children of God
I was glad to return to Children of God after Todorov more so than the other science fiction books we read because there was a sense of familiarity with the characters. PTJ said we'd be shocked early on and I'll admit I was. So when Russell revealed that Sofia was still alive, my jaw dropped. I wouldn't say the miscommunication between Supaari and Sandoz on 51 was shocking as in "never saw that coming". In The Sparrow Supaari is seen as different from the other Jana'ata and part of me refused to believe that he would just sell Sandoz away to Hlavin Kitheri. The line that got me was Supaari leaving Galatna Palace "believing that he had done right by Sandoz" (52). That scene reveals that Sandoz unknowingly brought it upon himself. Related to that, on page 290, John wonders what would happen if it was Emilio's fault.
"Listen, John prayed, I'm not telling You what to do, but if Emilio brought the rapes on himself somehow, and then Askama died because of that, it's bettter if he never understands, okay? In my opinion. You know what people can take, but I think You're cutting it pretty close here. Or maybe--help him make it mean something. Help him."
At that point, "oh no, what is Russell going to do? She's going to break Emilio again". Fortunately, that wasn't the case and things turned out relatively okay for Emilio in the end, which I think he deserved.
The Emilio from the end of The Sparrow, the one who didn't know whether to hate God or believe that this was all bad luck, is still present at the end of Children of God. On page 414, Emilio and Sofia say "I was done with God" "But He wasn't done with you" "Evidently not, either that, or this has been a run of bad luck of historic proportions". He is still not sure which it is, but is more accepting of the choice.
I was reading this book of 6 word memoirs called Not Quite What I was Planning. Found one that I swear Emilio could have written over the course of these two books: "I lost god. I found myself".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)