I want to focus this week's reflection on the movie we watched this week, District 9. This movie, which I enjoy a lost every time, is an almost satirical representation of how things work in our world. It takes on topics such as refugees in a foreign country, forced relocation, private and economic interests in the world politics, etc.
The first time I watched District 9 I was ten or eleven years old and clearly I couldn't pick up the references to the real-world problems. I re-watched it many times, the most recent occasion some months before coming to AU. I always considered this a good sci-fi movie, one of the best. Yet, I never stopped to consider this movie as relevant as it is to the conversation on International Relations and government bureaucracy. Watching it with this focus was really an eye-opener. One of my favorite aspects is the ending, which leaves the rest of the story up to our imagination. I like to think that this movie works as a prequel to all of the other alien invasion movies, Christopher Johnson comes back with an invading army and takes on the xenophobic humans who have been discriminating his species for 20 years. Some fans of this movie would disagree this is a good prediction, considering the portrayal of the character's motivations as strictly selfish throughout the movie. Regardless of this controversy, I consider this movie a masterpiece and an awesome satire of real world problems in the international scale. 9/10. Would highly recommend.
0 Comments
Should Locke's notion of tolerance be extended to members of the Flat Earth Society? Why, or why not?
As long as they do not intend to establish authority over the rest who think the Earth is round, then they should be tolerated. As John Locke said about atheists, "yet if they do not tend to establish Domination over others[...]there can be no Reason why they should not be tolerated. " However, if the Flat Earth Society (F.E.S) acts in manners that are a threat to the Civil Order they should not be tolerated. That's a possible explanation as to why they are not getting hired in universities and state government's divisions. They should be allowed to believe in whatever they want without government interference, yet this doesn't mean they are to be accepted into society's structure. While this argument may seem contradicting in today's context, it is important to examine it in Locke's context (17th century Europe). In very simple terms, Locke's tolerance refers as to not starting a war, a persecution, or any other violent action against a certain group. It does not mean welcoming and accepting them into society. That's why, even if the tolerance is extended to the members of the F.E.S., it is most likely that they won't get hired. As expressed at the beginning of this post, they are to be tolerated as long as they do not seek domination over the groups that disagree with them. However, putting them in positions of authority over geographic matters would certainly propose an advantage to a group who presents a risk towards the notions of Civil order and Tolerance. Therefore, the fact that members of the Flat Earth Society are not being hired in certain Geography-related jobs should not be considered relevant to John Locke and his notion of tolerance. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|