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 Reflective. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reflective. 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.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Reflection
Sorry for taking so long to get these up folks, I don't know what my problem is.
There was a point in class before the break where we had established a lack of individual culpability for actions of this nature. There instead seemed to be an agreed upon satisfaction with the idea that what we and todorov could do was analyze and blame the conditions and mentality created by society. And while I essentially propose that society may be the cause for many Macro events in my post the Jeans of Society , I do not beleive that this can eliminate the ultimate culpability of the individual. I find myself in a bad episode of Voyager about temporal loops because of the various deterministic paradoxes. I believe, however, that if we take Columbus, for example, that we have no evidence to suggest he acted in the way he did because society set him up to act that way, instead, his actions and comments are entirely his own, for this reason his actions can be evaluated on their own merit without assuming a societal determinism. We could make the argument that it would have happened eventually, but it was entirely on Columbus' shoulders that it played out in that exact manner and involving him. Without this I think would could run the table to arguing that everything is societally pre-determined (although I am a physical or perhaps quantum determinism myself). I will contend, at the very least, that we have a sense of free will.
There was a point in class before the break where we had established a lack of individual culpability for actions of this nature. There instead seemed to be an agreed upon satisfaction with the idea that what we and todorov could do was analyze and blame the conditions and mentality created by society. And while I essentially propose that society may be the cause for many Macro events in my post the Jeans of Society , I do not beleive that this can eliminate the ultimate culpability of the individual. I find myself in a bad episode of Voyager about temporal loops because of the various deterministic paradoxes. I believe, however, that if we take Columbus, for example, that we have no evidence to suggest he acted in the way he did because society set him up to act that way, instead, his actions and comments are entirely his own, for this reason his actions can be evaluated on their own merit without assuming a societal determinism. We could make the argument that it would have happened eventually, but it was entirely on Columbus' shoulders that it played out in that exact manner and involving him. Without this I think would could run the table to arguing that everything is societally pre-determined (although I am a physical or perhaps quantum determinism myself). I will contend, at the very least, that we have a sense of free will.
Todorov Reflection
A few things with regards to our discussion of Todorov. First, I think we were absolutely right in our apparent consensus that understanding does not have to lead to sympathy and certainly not to empathy. If you fundamentally disagree with someone's actions and their reasoning for their actions, it stands to reason the more you understand about them the more there is to dislike. However, I'm not convinced that this completely covers the case of Cortez. In the course of the discussion there was an excellent point made that while Cortez understood the how of Aztec society he didn't understand the why. I'm not entirely convinced that this completely explains the actions of Cortez, however. While I agree that Cortez didn't necessarily understand the motivations behind the rituals and customs of the Aztecs, I'm also not convinced that it would have mattered if he did. I really don't think that he viewed the Aztecs as humans, but rather as some other species, who weren't really capable of reasoning. Had he had any interest in the whys of the Aztecs, I think he and the other Spaniards would have, like Columbus, recorded them as naturalists' observations, instead of ethnographic observations (a concept which didn't exist at the time), and that these would not have elicited any sense of sympathy from them.
Todorov reflection
Columbus or Cortes? Tricky question. Some chose Columbus for the ignorance is bliss angle. Doing what you felt was right as opposed to doing something you knew was wrong. But couldn't Cortes have felt he was right? I can't remember there being a point in the text where Cortes admits he knew he was wrong. How can someone cause the death of 24 million people (according to Todorov's estimate p133) and not know it was wrong? And for this reason, people chose to be Columbus because he'd be able to sleep better at night. I would choose to be Cortes a) so I wouldn't be crazy like Columbus and b) to understand the Aztecs better (though that didn't stop him from conquering them). All this talk of killing "a great many" reminds me of Eddie Izzard, a stand-up comedian who said:
In his post, Mike brings up why there is no such thing as a Cortes day, but we celebrate Columbus day (as a federal holiday). I looked Columbus day up quickly on Wikipedia and found that Latin America has similar holidays like Día de la Raza (Day of the Race), Día de las Culturas (Day of the Cultures), Discovery Day, Día de la Hispanidad, and Día de la Resistencia Indígena (Day of Indigenous Resistance). Also did you know that Hawaii doesn't celebrate Columbus day but Discoverers' Day (which commemmorates Columbus and Cook)? It's interesting how the United States celebrates the day in the name of Columbus while other countries mention race, culture, and the indigenous people.
Also in class, Mike's example of the mugger in NYC reminded me of the Jesuits on Rakhat inviting Suupari to dinner after he nearly killed Sandoz.
I leave with another Eddie Izzard quote:
"You killed a hundred thousand people? You must get up very early in theI'm sure if Cortes kept a diary it would look like this. Even here, death is seen as an ordinary task like lunch or a shower, not something causing many sleepless nights. My point: I don't think Cortes regretted what he did because he didn't see it as wrong. Setting up the memorial at the Aztec temple on 109 wasn't an act of regret for Cortes. As Todorov says he saw the Aztecs as curiosities.
morning! I can't even get down the gym. Your diary must look odd: 'Get
up in the morning, Death, Death, Death, Death, Death, Death, Lunch,
Death, Death, Death, Afternoon Tea, Death, Death, Death, Quick shower…'"
In his post, Mike brings up why there is no such thing as a Cortes day, but we celebrate Columbus day (as a federal holiday). I looked Columbus day up quickly on Wikipedia and found that Latin America has similar holidays like Día de la Raza (Day of the Race), Día de las Culturas (Day of the Cultures), Discovery Day, Día de la Hispanidad, and Día de la Resistencia Indígena (Day of Indigenous Resistance). Also did you know that Hawaii doesn't celebrate Columbus day but Discoverers' Day (which commemmorates Columbus and Cook)? It's interesting how the United States celebrates the day in the name of Columbus while other countries mention race, culture, and the indigenous people.
Also in class, Mike's example of the mugger in NYC reminded me of the Jesuits on Rakhat inviting Suupari to dinner after he nearly killed Sandoz.
I leave with another Eddie Izzard quote:
We stole countries with the cunning use of flags. Just sail around the
world and stick a flag in. "I claim India for Britain!" And they're
going "You can't claim us, we live here! There's five hundred million of
us!" -"Do you have a flag?" -"We don't need a bloody flag, this is our
country, you bastard!" -"No flag, no country. You can't have one That's
the rule, that... I've just made up."
This is similar to Columbus naming the islands. Are there rules for taking over other civilizations? Todorov showed us how the Spaniards conquered using signs and language. They probably had a flag too.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Reflective 4/15
I feel the idea that we are all aliens, even to our own country, was overlooked. Maybe I'm saying this because that statement is more evident in my case than the rest of the class. First off, I'm blessed to have lived at AU for a whopping 3 years (well three years in Fall 2008). That might not be calls for celebration for the rest of you, but for me it is. I'm not trying to sound like I broken record, but I'm lucky to be in one location for 2 years. Yes, I am an American citizen, but I find myself an outsider everywhere I go, even at AU. I've lived in Europe for 6 1/2 years and the rest has been stateside. I don't have a "home," the closest thing for me is my grandparents' farm where we spend 1 or 2 months visiting every summer. I don't have a home state, I had to think long and hard to figure out where I register to vote. For those who don't understand why: I was born in Las Vegas (valid reason to register there), until Spring Break my driver's license was from Utah where I also graduated high school (another valid reason), and my permanent Address is in Virginia (yet again another valid reason). In the end I picked Virginia, mainly because I changed my license over the Break. I apologize for not saying this in class, but I felt I wouldn't add to the conversation. This is something that is very close to my heart, mainly because I have yet to feel like I "fit in" on my floor, in my classes, and with my peers. Even the old saying of "home is where the heart is" is hard for me. I have yet to discover where my heart is. Is it in Germany, Italy, or the US? Virginia, Kansas, Nevada, or Utah? I hope I can find an answer, and maybe I'll be happier if/when I get this answered. There are times that I despise my upbringing, but I have witnessed so much that many people only dream of. I have been exposed to cultures and countries outside of my comfort zone. At the same time my thoughts will sometimes wander to my Dad, asking myself if he is alright, if he misses me. Call me over dramatic, maybe I'm not this worked up for my Dad's current assignment, but he has served in conflict zones before in more danger than he is now. I envy everyone else, having a home they can go to, friends they can go back to, having a familiar place they can go to. That is the downside of my experiences, I can go home; but Alexandria is not my home. I will always have a loving family to go to, but nothing else in Alexandria. No friends to see, no place to just go to.
I don't expect anyone to try and understand me. I feel I can offer a different side than most people have seen, I've just learned to be the quiet kid in the back of the classroom. I don't care if you think I'm crazy or if this has been meaningless, I just wanted to get it out there.
What happened on Columbus' and Cortez's missions are sad. Conquering/exterminating another race is not "moral" but at the same time progress was made. Life is just a double-edged sword, both sides will get hurt. I would do just as Scott said, I'd rather be Columbus because ignorance is bliss. I'd rather do something I felt was right instead of doing something I knew was wrong. Wait a minute, I did the Columbus thing (doing what I feel is right) with the AUCC. I'm even hated for it, but one person can only do so much. Like the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."
Are we all aliens in America? Aren't the only true "Americans" the descendants of the Native American tribes?
I don't expect anyone to try and understand me. I feel I can offer a different side than most people have seen, I've just learned to be the quiet kid in the back of the classroom. I don't care if you think I'm crazy or if this has been meaningless, I just wanted to get it out there.
What happened on Columbus' and Cortez's missions are sad. Conquering/exterminating another race is not "moral" but at the same time progress was made. Life is just a double-edged sword, both sides will get hurt. I would do just as Scott said, I'd rather be Columbus because ignorance is bliss. I'd rather do something I felt was right instead of doing something I knew was wrong. Wait a minute, I did the Columbus thing (doing what I feel is right) with the AUCC. I'm even hated for it, but one person can only do so much. Like the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."
Are we all aliens in America? Aren't the only true "Americans" the descendants of the Native American tribes?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Deus vult
As PTJ posed in class "Did the Jesuit party make a mistake or screw up along the way that we could expect them to do something else?" Our discussion brought up some good examples like Sofia rising up at the end against the military Jana'ata or the Jesuit party being too quickly satisfied with what was happening. I think that even though everyone involved became practically like family, there was still a lack of communication between them, especially on D.W.'s part. After Alan's death, D.W. planned how to use the fuel reserves, concluding that there was only enough fuel for 5 round trips to the asteroid. However, he never lets anyone else know and also smuggles the Winchester down beause "he didn't want any big damn discussion about it" (216). I don't know what the Jesuit party could have done differently, but I think that the beginning of their troubles involve the lander and the fuel problem, which eventually strands them on Rakhat. Had they the option to leave Rakhat, things might have turned out differently? They might not have planted gardens, which ultimately lead to the military Jana'ata slaughtering Runa and humans alike. But there are instances where it's implied that the mistake was earlier, perhaps in the design of the mission. Was it doomed from the beginning? On page 334 mentions that Alan Pace might have been helpful had he been alive. It is interesting when the narrator pops up, all omnipresent and god-like.
We made a good attempt to list 8 individuals to send on this alien mission. The picks were primarily practical because we read/saw what happened on Rakhat and mentally swore to not let that happen on this space adventure. During the exercise, I couldn't shake the thought about Gilligan's Island. If the space lander breaks, I'd want a Professor-like character who could build a radio out of a coconut and try to get the group off the planet (though maybe MacGyver would be a better choice since it took forever for The Minnow's passengers to get off that island). But maybe the Professor is not to blame. Was it bad luck that kept them stranded on the island or was is deus vult? No character seems to go through a crisis like Sandoz, doubting his faith. In fact, the show seems to lay blame on Gilligan and his clumsiness for each failed attempt to escape.
On the topic of Gilligan's Island, I found out, thanks to Wikipedia, that there was a cartoon spin-off in the 80s called Gilligan's Planet. They go from stranded on an unknown island to a far-off planet. I'd call that a very large turtle on a fence post. I think you can only take responsibility for the failed escapes so many times before adopting a policy of deus vult. That being said, casting Brad Pitt as Emilio Sandoz-- not a good idea; deciding to make Gilligan's Planet-- very bad idea for a tv show. I can handle only so many attempts to escape an island/planet. However, according to Mary Doria Russell in the reading guide at the back of the book, "Emilio Sandoz goes back to Rakhat, but only because he has no choice. God is not done with him yet." Dun dun dun. I can't wait to read Children of God and find out what happened on Rakhat since Emilio left.
We made a good attempt to list 8 individuals to send on this alien mission. The picks were primarily practical because we read/saw what happened on Rakhat and mentally swore to not let that happen on this space adventure. During the exercise, I couldn't shake the thought about Gilligan's Island. If the space lander breaks, I'd want a Professor-like character who could build a radio out of a coconut and try to get the group off the planet (though maybe MacGyver would be a better choice since it took forever for The Minnow's passengers to get off that island). But maybe the Professor is not to blame. Was it bad luck that kept them stranded on the island or was is deus vult? No character seems to go through a crisis like Sandoz, doubting his faith. In fact, the show seems to lay blame on Gilligan and his clumsiness for each failed attempt to escape.
On the topic of Gilligan's Island, I found out, thanks to Wikipedia, that there was a cartoon spin-off in the 80s called Gilligan's Planet. They go from stranded on an unknown island to a far-off planet. I'd call that a very large turtle on a fence post. I think you can only take responsibility for the failed escapes so many times before adopting a policy of deus vult. That being said, casting Brad Pitt as Emilio Sandoz-- not a good idea; deciding to make Gilligan's Planet-- very bad idea for a tv show. I can handle only so many attempts to escape an island/planet. However, according to Mary Doria Russell in the reading guide at the back of the book, "Emilio Sandoz goes back to Rakhat, but only because he has no choice. God is not done with him yet." Dun dun dun. I can't wait to read Children of God and find out what happened on Rakhat since Emilio left.
Beauty and the Other
I want to return to return to the idea of beauty in defining and understanding the other Schmitt notes "The political enemy need not be Morally evil or aesthetically ugly," but I am beginning to question if, for all practical applications, this is actually true. We only briefly touched on this in class last week, but I suspect we will spend at least some time on it tomorrow (given it's apparent importance to Columbus), but I believe it is nearly impossible for humans to separate the two. Exhibit A: the propaganda poster above--what sort of message would it have conveyed if the soldier looked like the upstanding young man who was more likely to be wearing that uniform than a large ugly Gorilla? In the same sense, what would have been the reaction of the people of earth if the Reshtar's music had sounded a little less beautiful and a little more like rape. The prince is never really a prince when he looks like a frog, and the Wicked Witch can always trick the hero if she disguises her ugly worts. We keep using biblical allusions (specifically Job) see Sarah below. I think a story with even more ties is the Odyssey--Odysseus who, during the Trojan war is watched over and guided by Athena, is finally led astray by the Gods, left to roam for years before getting home. Specific to my point in this post is his encounter with the Sirens who's beautiful song is meant only as a lure. someone needed to lash Emilio Sandoz to his mast.
Refection on the Sparrow
I had two general thoughts after reading some of the other posts and our discussion in class. First: while there were several references made in class and on the blogs to the blind devotion of the priests on the mission, and while that seemed true in the case of Sandoz, his training had been for a critical, informed, academic faith, not the stereotypical uniformed devotion. However, he seemed to lose all academic aspects of his faith about thirty seconds after hearing the transmission. Both while reading and during our discussion it struck me that one of Sandoz's primary flaws was that he became so wrapped up in his own personal pentecost that he seemed to completely forget his (presumably) extensive knowledge of both biblical and church history. While many posts and much of discussion make the assumption that the god in the book (assuming there is one) is the god of the deists who created and left, rather than one who leaves turtles on fenceposts, I don't think that this is a necessary assumption. If Sandoz's education was anything like what I'd imagine it to be, he would be well aware that the path of god, even a biblical interventionist god, often didn't lead to good places for the followers. The obvious case of this is the story of Job where a god who intervened in peoples lives on a regular basis deliberately allowed Job's faith to be tested. While this is the almost obligatory reference with regards to this novel, there are other examples of an intervening, turtle-leaving god allowing bad things to happen. John the Baptist, the "voice in the wilderness," had his severed head given to Herodias on a silver platter after having baptized Jesus; he was following the spoken will of god-on-earth and I'd argue that he had it at least as bad as Sandoz. That said, I'm pretty sure that all (there might have been an exception) of the twelve apostles were martyred, and the will of god in people's lives doesn't get much clearer than in their case. So I don't think that we can say with certainty that, in the context of the book, Sandoz's error lied in assuming that the turtles on fenceposts had been left deliberately, but rather that he made the assumption that the turtles were leading to someplace he wanted to go. Even with a complete belief in a biblical interventionist god, he should have been aware of the implicit dangers attached to "god's will."
This leads to my second (briefer) thought, which is that the church would have had a much easier time dealing with Sandoz had he been victimized in a more sanitized way. Mike talks in his post about the saintliness of Sandoz, and it seems to me that the church would have had a much easier time viewing him as good (or even saintly) if he'd simply had the good graces to be martyred like all of the others. In thinking about all of the examples of people being punished for following "the will of god" it occurred to me that while its relatively easy to glorify someone who dies in the name of god, you don't get too much press on people who were raped in the name of god. I guess death makes for better PR. Anyway it just makes me wonder how many cases like Sandoz there are out there. People who almost died for god, but didn't quite get there, and because of that were viewed with suspicion and became outcasts rather than getting their own feast days. Maybe not many, but somehow I doubt it. Either way I find myself looking forward to Russel's further portrayals of faith in the next book.
This leads to my second (briefer) thought, which is that the church would have had a much easier time dealing with Sandoz had he been victimized in a more sanitized way. Mike talks in his post about the saintliness of Sandoz, and it seems to me that the church would have had a much easier time viewing him as good (or even saintly) if he'd simply had the good graces to be martyred like all of the others. In thinking about all of the examples of people being punished for following "the will of god" it occurred to me that while its relatively easy to glorify someone who dies in the name of god, you don't get too much press on people who were raped in the name of god. I guess death makes for better PR. Anyway it just makes me wonder how many cases like Sandoz there are out there. People who almost died for god, but didn't quite get there, and because of that were viewed with suspicion and became outcasts rather than getting their own feast days. Maybe not many, but somehow I doubt it. Either way I find myself looking forward to Russel's further portrayals of faith in the next book.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Reflective 4/1
I'll play devil's advocate again. How cares if Schmitt became a Nazi. Hell, my landlords in Germany were Nazis because they were young kids and all kids had to be in the Hitler Jungen. Time's change, and oh by the way, the Germans were looking for someone to blame about WWI and Hitler gave them that.
Ok, now that my rant is over I can continue. I really don't know what to write this time because I'm beginning to feel this class is rehashing the same topics class after class. That's the main reason I don't say alot in class, I know I've said what I've said a few times and the point of a discussion is for new ideas to come out. I'd rather be quiet and not talk instead of rehashing the same points everyday, it kind of makes the class a bit boring.
Schmitt still makes a pretty powerful point that everything can be seen as part of the political. The EU and Microsoft is a good example. The EU is consistently pursuing the suits against Microsoft in order to make an example out of Microsoft. The EU doesn't care that if Microsoft releases its source code to the public then hackers can get into your computer no problem. That's the main reason Linux isn't a popular Operating System, because its an open source OS (in other words you can google the source code and see the actual code that makes up the OS).
Ok, now that my rant is over I can continue. I really don't know what to write this time because I'm beginning to feel this class is rehashing the same topics class after class. That's the main reason I don't say alot in class, I know I've said what I've said a few times and the point of a discussion is for new ideas to come out. I'd rather be quiet and not talk instead of rehashing the same points everyday, it kind of makes the class a bit boring.
Schmitt still makes a pretty powerful point that everything can be seen as part of the political. The EU and Microsoft is a good example. The EU is consistently pursuing the suits against Microsoft in order to make an example out of Microsoft. The EU doesn't care that if Microsoft releases its source code to the public then hackers can get into your computer no problem. That's the main reason Linux isn't a popular Operating System, because its an open source OS (in other words you can google the source code and see the actual code that makes up the OS).
Monday, March 31, 2008
Ender's Game
I have to agree with Mike and admit that I found our discussion last week a bit disturbing. The idea that the only option was to destroy the buggers since no one knew how to communicate them seems a bit anachronistic to me. Granted, many wars are still fought at least in part because people are unable to communicate, but the idea that we should fight primarily because we can't communicate is rather disturbing.
Over spring break I read one of Card's other books, Pastwatch, in which Card explores the first interactions between Columbus and the natives on Haiti. In that book it becomes apparent that Card blamed the failed communication between Columbus and the native people for many of the wrongs of our society and the future society he was envisioning. However he also envisioned a past in which the natives of Central America had developed the technology to fight back, and the results were as disastrous as the encounter in our time line. However, in both of these cases Card presented the conflict as a problem of the past, one which the people of the future acknowledged and were actively working to correct. I'm not sure how much of that has to do with viewing conflicts retroactively, unfortunately that is the position we're all put in whether reading history or novels. It's also difficult to put ourselves in the position of truly not being able to communicate or understand another civilization. However, that being said, I find it very hard to accept that the complete destruction of an entire species was the only option for the IL. Of course I'm not sure that I could have done anything better than the IL did with the information they had, but it seems like there should have been a better way.
Also for anyone familiar with Babylon 5, I couldn't help but compare this encounter to the initial encounters of the humans with the Minbari. Due to a miscommunication, they entered into a war which almost destroyed humanity. I guess this is a fairly common theme for science fiction. It seems that in 500 years would would have a better way of doing things, but baring a way to communicate I have to admit I'm really unsure what that is.
Over spring break I read one of Card's other books, Pastwatch, in which Card explores the first interactions between Columbus and the natives on Haiti. In that book it becomes apparent that Card blamed the failed communication between Columbus and the native people for many of the wrongs of our society and the future society he was envisioning. However he also envisioned a past in which the natives of Central America had developed the technology to fight back, and the results were as disastrous as the encounter in our time line. However, in both of these cases Card presented the conflict as a problem of the past, one which the people of the future acknowledged and were actively working to correct. I'm not sure how much of that has to do with viewing conflicts retroactively, unfortunately that is the position we're all put in whether reading history or novels. It's also difficult to put ourselves in the position of truly not being able to communicate or understand another civilization. However, that being said, I find it very hard to accept that the complete destruction of an entire species was the only option for the IL. Of course I'm not sure that I could have done anything better than the IL did with the information they had, but it seems like there should have been a better way.
Also for anyone familiar with Babylon 5, I couldn't help but compare this encounter to the initial encounters of the humans with the Minbari. Due to a miscommunication, they entered into a war which almost destroyed humanity. I guess this is a fairly common theme for science fiction. It seems that in 500 years would would have a better way of doing things, but baring a way to communicate I have to admit I'm really unsure what that is.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Ender's Game Reflection
Going off my last comment, I still believe that the I.F. could have done more. And as practically all posts have said, it came down to a lack of communication. In a time where the ansible is possible and super-intelligent children can be "requistioned" I think the IF could have had communication side project. While Scott pointed out for the Enderverse were to remain internally consistent (one of our criteria for science fiction) the ansible could not contact the buggers, it proves that humans were able to communicate similiar to the buggers. In chapter 15 the bugger queen relays to Ender how they found him through the ansible (320). Perhaps this could have worked with another child if the IF had tried.
Does survival mean needing to exterminate the "other"? I'm all for building up defense to ensure humanity's survival, but I don't think the IF had to go hunt down the buggers and eliminate an entire race. It's as if the IF said "You know what, it's been long enough. They have nothing to offer us. Let's show them who the superior race is and destroy them". Again in chapter 15, the bugger queen says they never returned because they realized humans were sentient beings. However, the IF never acknowledge the bugger race as sentient. The closest they get is when Mazer says " In all the bugger wars so far, they've killed thousands and thousands of living, thinking beings. And in all those wars, we've killed only one" (270). Only the queen is recognized as a sentient being, and yet that doesn't deter them from attacking as it did with the buggers.
Overall, I don't believe that the IF was justified in its actions. It had acted as if attacking was its only option, refusing to acknowledge other possibilities. If I had to make this decision, I would've felt better knowing that I did everything I could before turning to ultimate destruction. Or maybe I'm being too sympathetic to the buggers. I would not have made it through Battle school.
Does survival mean needing to exterminate the "other"? I'm all for building up defense to ensure humanity's survival, but I don't think the IF had to go hunt down the buggers and eliminate an entire race. It's as if the IF said "You know what, it's been long enough. They have nothing to offer us. Let's show them who the superior race is and destroy them". Again in chapter 15, the bugger queen says they never returned because they realized humans were sentient beings. However, the IF never acknowledge the bugger race as sentient. The closest they get is when Mazer says " In all the bugger wars so far, they've killed thousands and thousands of living, thinking beings. And in all those wars, we've killed only one" (270). Only the queen is recognized as a sentient being, and yet that doesn't deter them from attacking as it did with the buggers.
Overall, I don't believe that the IF was justified in its actions. It had acted as if attacking was its only option, refusing to acknowledge other possibilities. If I had to make this decision, I would've felt better knowing that I did everything I could before turning to ultimate destruction. Or maybe I'm being too sympathetic to the buggers. I would not have made it through Battle school.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Genes (Jeans?) of Society
Scott makes an interesting case for why the offensive posture taken by the I.F. and in a moment I want to try (just for the hell of it) to make the opposite case. First, however, I would like to make a modification to the initial idea proposed by Gaff about survival being in our genes to suggest instead the idea of societal genes--that essentially describe the nature of our society. It would be these genes Gaff is actually talking about. The strongest traits in cultures survive while the weaker ones die off. The mistake, of course, in Gaff reasoning with biological or social genes is the fact that he assumes our genes are the stronger ones--This is not always true.
I also believe a good argument can be made against the decision of the I.F. First, there is no reason to assume that we could beat the buggers at their homeworld--given this case we could have simply provoked another attack. Second, this left us totally defenseless should our ships have passed in space or something, while we had no idea about the overall strength of the bugger civilization. Third, it must be assumed that any commander capable of defeating the buggers in their turf would also be able to defend out turf--Ender, our weapon of choice, could perceivably serve either an offensive or defensive role. If, we assume that we must prepare for what is essentially the worst possible scenario in which it is possible to survive then leaving the fleet home would have been the best (if not the only) option. The only reason to send a fleet to attack if we assume that they are going to attack us soon would be one of vengeance, since without communication the deterrence idea of "if you kill us we will kill you" does not work.
I also believe a good argument can be made against the decision of the I.F. First, there is no reason to assume that we could beat the buggers at their homeworld--given this case we could have simply provoked another attack. Second, this left us totally defenseless should our ships have passed in space or something, while we had no idea about the overall strength of the bugger civilization. Third, it must be assumed that any commander capable of defeating the buggers in their turf would also be able to defend out turf--Ender, our weapon of choice, could perceivably serve either an offensive or defensive role. If, we assume that we must prepare for what is essentially the worst possible scenario in which it is possible to survive then leaving the fleet home would have been the best (if not the only) option. The only reason to send a fleet to attack if we assume that they are going to attack us soon would be one of vengeance, since without communication the deterrence idea of "if you kill us we will kill you" does not work.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Reflections on Class Discussion 3/18
I feel that the quote from Mazer on 270 is really important. It has application to modern day, look at Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The US was attacked, people died, and the US declared war to seek vengeance. We didn't kill all the Japanese, but we took it to the next level with atomic weapons. This can all go back to the gold rule, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." Even when we try the diplomatic route on earth between people, that hardly ever works. I doubt if the buggers and humans had the ability to communicate at all that it would change everything. After all, we are very egocentric and I just don't think the governments of the earth would agree to allow a race to exist with better technology than us for long. The buggers did in fact fire the first shot from the information the bugger queen gives to Ender. Just like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 we attacked the group that made the first shot.
Maybe the buggers never deliberately attacked a civilian area, but humans have in the past to their own. Does that make us a lesser species?
Maybe the buggers never deliberately attacked a civilian area, but humans have in the past to their own. Does that make us a lesser species?
Friday, March 7, 2008
V reflection
I am still not quite sure where to go with this, but I want to discuss V's motivations. I still can't figure out if V favored anarchy, or if he simply felt anarchy allowed him to do as much damage to those who had hurt him as possible. You can kill whoever you want in the land of do as you please. I think it's telling when V offers to avenge Gordon's life despite the fact that this would lend no assistance to his cause. If he were really interested in anarchy I think he would have kept his focus there.
I also continue to wonder just how much control V had over the situation. We bounced around this question a couple of times in class with regards to moral issues, but I wonder if planned out every single thing, knew how people would react and worked to create the "environment" that would cause that reaction, or if there was actually some element of chance or free will. Yes, V just put Evey in the right environment, but if he knew what would happen then he made the decision for her. It's especially telling that he controlled fate--he had the power to manipulate destiny, to predetermine how things would occur. In a sense, this is even greater power than Paul's as he could only see the future, while V writes the future.
I also continue to wonder just how much control V had over the situation. We bounced around this question a couple of times in class with regards to moral issues, but I wonder if planned out every single thing, knew how people would react and worked to create the "environment" that would cause that reaction, or if there was actually some element of chance or free will. Yes, V just put Evey in the right environment, but if he knew what would happen then he made the decision for her. It's especially telling that he controlled fate--he had the power to manipulate destiny, to predetermine how things would occur. In a sense, this is even greater power than Paul's as he could only see the future, while V writes the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)