On p. 245 of the novel _Horizons_, Ahni Huang declares: "The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Do you agree with her? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary "Horizon" refers to the line where the earth seems to meet the sky. Also, the word can be used to describe the range of perception or experience of a person. The book written by Mary Rosenblum relies heavily on the limited horizons people can have when they enter the conversation on a simple "us" vs "them" mentality.
The story introduces the reader into a complicated world set in the distant future. In this post-apocalyptic world the earth is divided into states that participate as members of a central forum called the World Council while orbiting platforms act as colonies. The Council is where all the decisions about the Earth and the orbiting platforms are made, enforced by the Council Security Forces (CSF). It is important to mention the little say members of the orbiting colonies have over the matters disputed on the World Council. The story revolves around Ahni Huang, member of the Huang family (although she is actually daughter of a Zhen), and Dane Nilsson, who lives in NYUp and seeks independence from Earth. Other secondary characters such as Koi (the evolved kid), Laif, Li Zhen and Noah support the main characters on their quest to unravel complex political intrigues and ultimately gain peaceful independence for the orbiting colony. A radical group named Gaiists attempts to cause an open conflict between Earth and the platform by dropping a massive rock on the World Council Island. These environmentalist group desires a clean Earth and to stop the "stealing" of resources by the Upsiders. In addition, Ahni's Mother crafts a carefully planned web of levers to regain power from her husband, further complicating the political intrigues. In the end, NYUp gains independence through peaceful means while keeping trade and tourism between Upsiders and Downsiders alive. The direct context involving the quote said by Ahni on page 245 takes us back to the beginning, when she meets Dane for the first time. There she is surprised by the weirdness of the genetically manipulated boy named Koi. Later, Dane explains to her that he is not a "creature" made in some lab, but a result of low-gravity and evolution. Back to page 245, Ahni is talking with Li Zhen, after Aliya has already been killed, in order to get him to join her. Li Zhen also has a son who has evolved due to the low-gravity conditions, and is afraid his son will be seen as a monster and killed by the CSF. This leaves Li Zhen with no other option than to join Dane, Laif and Ahni in their movement for independence. The most important "us" vs "them" conflict is present between the opinion of Upsiders and Downsiders with regards to the evolved humans. On page 44 Dane tells Koi that Downsiders are afraid of him because he is different. He also mentions that while Upsiders will get used to weird humans, Downsiders would never accept them. This statement is confirmed later on when Aliya is killed by CSF forces and the media is not made aware of it. Judging from history, colonizers are not open-minded when they encounter "different" humans. Instead, they regard them as "creatures" and either subjigate them or eliminate them. Before his trail Dane feels the same when he thinks of the "millennia of xenophobia and genocide" that weighed on Earth. Downsiders lacked the ability to realize that the evolved kids were still human despite their differences in language and appearance. This behavior resonates with Todorov's interpretation of the Spaniards reaction to the Indigenous populations. There is a tendency of "Othering" the different to the point were it is no longer human. These is what happened back in the Conquest, and its the exact same phenomenon described by Rosenblum. Therefore, I agree with Ahni's statement that the only way to keep the evolved safe was by forming the sovereign platform of New York Up. Even though it is not part of my answer, I do want to make an honorable mention to Rosenblum's inclusion of "Fake News" and mainstream social-media (named Con in the book). Con, used to spread false information on Laif among other political intrigues, greatly resembles modern-day interaction between politics and media. This book was written in 2006, when Twitter was just beginning and concepts such as "fake news" where not as colloquially used as today. So, I find it amazing that the author was able to elaborate a political world that is still relevant twelve years later. Also, I think that speaks not only about the author, but to the unchanging, common themes of world politics and domestic affairs.
6 Comments
The Spanish conquest over Tenochtitlán represents the clash of opposites. Two cultures with very different ways of understanding the world, at war with each other. The Spanish conquistadors, drastically fewer in number, ultimately conquered the Aztec empire. How did they achieve this? Was it, as Todorov asks, by means of signs? Or is there something else?
The author puts a great emphasis on the "otherness" that both Aztecs and Conquistadors faced, but positions one culture over the other. On one hand, he mentions how the Aztecs, unable to process the differences between themselves and the newcomers, accepted them as gods. (pg. 76) The Aztecs were no longer able to gather sufficient information about the invaders because it was out of the reach of their language. A language that was focused on the past being the same as the future, a search of knowledge to understand "what are we to know?" The Aztec codes represent a constant cycle that allowed them to understand their world, yet made it impossible to improvise. (pg.87) Another important aspect of their language is the veracity that it carried, adding to the lack of ability from the Aztecs to deceit the conquistadors. Todorov connects these linguistic elements with the defeat of the Aztecs. On the other hand, the Spanish first reaction is to perceive the "other" as inferior. This reaction is based on the Western concepts of language, considering the Aztecs as "barbarian" just because they don't share the same language construction. (pg. 76) The conquistadors use the information at their hands to decide "what is to be done?" and act accordingly. (pg. 110) One clear example of this is Cortes's use of Quetzalcoatl's myth (very much in a Machiavellian sense) to trick the Indians into believing he is a god. (pg.116) Todorov describes these and many other linguistic "advantages" from the conquistadors as key to their victory over the natives. Regardless of the evidence presented by Todorov, I do not believe that the Aztec where defeated by means of signs. On the contrary, I find the signs ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of the conquest. Just as the Aztecs had a limited reach due to their cultural formation of language, the Spanish fall victim to a similar problem. The conquistadors also accept omens and lack the vocabulary to describe certain aspects of the Indians. (pg. 108) Some of them even lack the ability to communicate "man to man" as seen in the previous chapter with Columbus. Therefore, the claim by Todorov that Cortes and his companions were superior due to their language leaves out many other variables present in the conquest of Tenochtitlán. Other problem with Todorov's interpretation comes from his viewpoint. He writes from a purely Western perspective. For example, he discards the Mexicans' cultural construction of "La Malinche" as the impossition of European culture over the Indians. On the contrary, he introduces her as a symbol of understanding and assimilation amongst cultures. Despite the altruistic aim of this statement, the reality of the oppression and destruction caused by the Spanish towards the Aztecs takes away the "understanding" part of the statement. (pg. 101) The overall assumption of the author that Aztecs were not able to defeat the Spanish based on their culture, instead of providing a voice to the "Other," continues the Western ideals of European superiority over "natives". The fall of Tenochtitlán, as in any other war, is a sum of multiple factors. Both cultures had to balance new and unprecedented information with their past knowledge. Both the Spanish and the Aztecs suffered defeats and claimed victories during this war. The Spanish, while technically outnumbered, recruited allies within the surrounding chiefdoms. The Aztecs, while supposedly superior in number, lost men at the hands of disease. Based on the number of factors ignored during the chapter, I do not consider the explanation that the Aztecs were defeated only by signs as accurate. Instead, a more in-depth exploration of the fall of Tenochtitlán is necessary to explain the impacts of the "Other." Have recent changes in the organization of the global political economy meant the end of the postwar "embedded liberal" order, or are they an example of "norm-governed change"?
Considering that I do not know nearly enough to give an accurate answer, I started reading other documents related to embedded liberalism and the other economic theories that have shaped the world in the past century. While doing this I came across a text that was also by Ruggie. The article, called Globalization and the "Embedded Liberalism Compromise: The End of an Era?" (1992), was written more than ten years later than the one we read for class. In it, the focus is solely the end of embedded liberalism and the subsequent transition that the economy is going through. Ruggie argues that globalization acts as an increasing force that directly affects policy and organization in the world economy. Globalization, in hand with its direct and indirect effects, poses a deep transformation to the institutions on the global market. Ruggie then says that the divide between obtaining economic security for the nation and the extent where globalization threaten that security have to be compared to past economic transitions. After giving the reasons behind the change of the new market theory, he goes on to claim that "the American public and its leaders appear trapped by their own ideological predispositions, which make it difficult for them to see the contradiction between their increasingly neo-laissez-faire attitude [...and their] desire to safeguard the nation from the adverse effects of increasingly denationalized market forces." He concludes his paper by mentioning how moments of transition are the most dangerous for the world economy, as something would most likely go wrong. (Ruggie 1996) I think that his thoughts are accurate, as we have seen in the past decades since Ruggie wrote the article. The world order as it was known after WWII is over. Yet, a new concise order has not been established. The United States, especially under the current administration's policies, is losing its place as the hegemon in the world's economy. Rising economies such as China, India, Russia, are already contending for economic control, while disregarding principles of liberalism. Meanwhile other nations, such as Mexico and the U.K. are trying to grab a more isolationism stance. Wether nations are sticking to some sort of embedded liberalism, neoliberalism or have been taking a realist approach is very debatable. What is more certain is how the lack of a stable economic order has caused recessions and a growing inequality in the world. This period of transition also adds to growing tensions between countries, as trade wars increase and trade agreements are shaken. The next years will be very interesting as administrations changes in the U.S. and other nations will dictate the new path for the world's economic order. Works Cited: Ruggie, John Gerard. "Embedded Liberalism Compromise: The End of an Era?" Columbia University, New York, 1996. https://web.archive.org/web/20150910220511/http://www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp97-1/wp97-1.html. "The World's Biggest Economies in 2018." World Economic Forum, 2018. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/the-worlds-biggest-economies-in-2018/. Ruggie, John Gerard. "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order." Volume 36, Issue 2, International Regimes. Spring, 1982, 379-415. How should the U.S. define the domestic content of automobiles, and why? The debate on what should the U.S. do about domestic content rules is one that varies depending on the scope. What is the goal? Long term economic revenue for the country, job demand increase, political leverage... Every objective changes not just the position, but the format of the conversation around it too.
For example, the post by Mimi, one that I enjoyed a lot, takes a position on the debate setting "a healthy and functioning diplomatic world" as the goal. With that goal in mind the arguments proposed are effective and even logical. But hat if the problem depends on the opinion of the every-day citizen? Then the arguments proposed by Mimi wouldn't be as relevant as other, more locally appealing, arguments such as the ones exposed by Blake. Blake's argument provides very good and logical points too, yet the aim is set at bringing Michigan some improvement rather than seeking world peace. I doubt some proposed home-runs would seem interesting to the Barcelona (Spain's best soccer team, and there is no debate or different scope possible here). What I mean by all of this is that sometimes, in order to win the game, it is necessary to understand what game is being played. Politics and policy stick very closely to this rule, especially in democratic societies where elected representatives need the vote of the people. Because while loosening the domestic content rules might bring economic progress and eventual world peace, it might not help you win the election in today's (which is prone to change soon) electoral environment. Machiavelli wouldn't be very happy with that decision... Liberal theory might have different opinions, and the debate goes on without something as "the best solution" ever coming into existence. How specific in applicability is this concept? Do other groups experience the same, or at least a similar, sort of of "double consciousness," either in the United States or elsewhere? Is Du Bois' concept helpful for an understanding of other societies and other experiences, beyond the United States?
While I don't have a lot of experience on the topic of racial divisions in the United States, I know that the racial division in Mexico is not as visible as in America. The division in Mexico can be seen more clearly at the socio-economic level, rather than the racial one. Yet, these two are tied together in what could be considered the consequences of Spanish colonization. Descendants from the Spanish usually held high offices and had the economic power while native populations and mixtures between natives and whites used to be in the lower spheres of social influence and economic wealth. Although this link between socio-economic and racial division can still be seen in Mexico today, the narrative of "double consciousness" is not as applicable throughout the history of my country. Different civil wars and social movements have presented fluctuating relations between socio-economic classes and ideologies, but there has never been a mayor fracture due to a racial divide. Sometimes the rulers were of native descent, many other times they were of Spaniard tradition, yet this was never a crucial stand-point for most of their actions. I do not consider myself an expert on Mexican history, but I do consider the following statement to be true: a big factor to explain the absence of a racial divide in Mexico, compared to the United States, is due to the fact that there was no systematic oppression of a specific race. In other words, there was no slavery. I am not saying that there are no profound divisions in Mexican culture. Oppression targeted at ethnic and racial groups happened throughout my country's history, but most of the times it was attributed to socio-economic status or education rather than race. The consequences of these historic events can be seen in our modern politics, were the everyday people, "el pueblo", feels oppressed by a ruling elite that controls every economical and social sphere in the country. So there is a "double consciousness" in Mexico, yet it is difficult to attribute it to a single race or group, as labels have been fluctuating more throughout Mexican history. On a side note, I found interesting that Vicky, who is Latin American too but not Mexican, also mentioned how the double consciousness "does not exist as harshly as it does for African Americans in the United States." What her comment helped me realize is that the situation in Mexico resonates in other Latin American countries too. This tells me that Spanish colonial rule, in some sort of way, managed to merge the European and native cultures, and that the almost complete lack of native slavery affected how these societies merged. Maybe some possibles solutions to the racial divide in the United States can be drawn from the history and culture of its latin American neighbors. I also want to thank Sophia for using my commentaries on her blog! I'll be happy to answer comments and questions about the post, as I enjoyed very much writing about this. 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. What is the most unrealistic element of the game?
While this game has many elements that could be considered unrealistic, I want to focus on the cultural aspect. In the classroom we all speak the same language and come from similar backgrounds (considering our geographical location). In real life, languages and culture around the world are extremely different, and some clash with others and make relations more complicated. Communication during the game, wether it is between state leaders or diplomats, its simplified and very direct. The resolutions and agreements can be reached in a surprisingly short time and without translation or clash of world views. These does not reflect real life conversations between states. I do not think this is a problem that we should worry about because there is no way of "fixing it". Yet, it is important to notice it and keep it in mind. World Politics and International Relations are topics deeply tied with culture. The more we understand other cultures, through language and other forms of immersion, the better chance of reaching agreements and solving international conflicts. Immersion can be between states, regions, countries, continents. It is necessary for us, who focus on the international stage, to understand cultural differences and learn from them and about them. Personally, I love immersing myself in foreign cultures and trying to understand them with an open mind. By doing these, many aspects of their traditions, history and current political inclinations become more clear. At the end of the novel, Awiti comments:
"No matter the destruction that ensues, I have learned no amount of vengeance can replace what I lost. There is no reparation great enough to substitute for what was stolen. Is there truly a cost for an altered destiny? There is nothing that can overturn the curse of a nation that was once blessed." I agree with Awiti's sentence where she mentions that "no amount of vengeance can replace" what she lost. Although retaliation is commonly the first reaction humans have when offended or attacked, it has never worked as a mean to resolve a conflict or as a reparation. Actions taken as vengeance can make as much damage as the initial conflict, usually creating a cycle of hostility and distrust between the two sides of the dispute and leading farther away from resolving the issue. For example, a group X(ethnic, racial, ideological, religious) of individuals in a certain area is being discriminated by another, somewhat larger group Y(ethnic, racial, ideological, religious) existing in the same geographical place. Group X decides to have vengeance by attacking violently every time there is an injustice towards them. After some time, group Y starts retaliating with violent attacks too. Eventually the violence rises so much that they decide to segregate the area, which leads to more disputes over what pieces of land go to which group. Hate from both sides increasingly grows to the point where a clear division is marked between the two new areas, each belonging to one group. Eventually both groups start talking again, but from a distance, always careful not to turn their backs on the other. From broad global view point, disputes like the one mentioned above have been happening since the beginning of human interactions. Without stating which specific conflict is the example referring to, more than three historical examples surely are on your mind already. Sometimes history is very clear, sometimes it is blurry as to which State or group offended first and which other was just seeking reparation, but the outcome is always a bigger, more complicated conflict. As history has proved many times before, Awiti will never be able to find peace as long as she keeps hoping to obtain that reparation through damage. My conclusion: It is important to realize that direct retaliation or vengeance is not the solution to international conflicts between states or groups. Such actions, instead of leading towards peace, create a deeper wound and more hate. There is a popular phrase that says "money is the root of all evil", but Plato said it was ignorance. What if he was right?
The most pressing global challenge at the moment is the lack of a education around the world. According to UNESCO, the global adult literacy rate was at 86% in 2016, meaning that only 14% of the adults in the world were illiterate. Yet this 14%, which represents 750 million adults, is concentrated in specific areas such as Southern Asia (49%) and sub-Saharan Africa (27%), while less than 2% of the global illiterate population represents regions such as Central Asia, Europe, Northern America, and Oceania. Coincidentally, the specific areas with less literacy have higher concentrations of the world's most pressing challenges. Some of these pressing challenges include, racism and discrimination, machismo, unnatural environmental change, wars and post war problems, terrorism and religious extremism, drugs, poverty, world hunger. Just by reading over them, these problems might seem a little more pressing than ignorance because their impacts on the global community are as visible as the branches on a tree. On the other hand, lack of education is not as visible because its impact can go unnoticed for years, just as the roots of a tree. This problems lies underneath all of the others because it grows slowly over time, and most of the other global issues develop from it. For example, with a proper and impartial education, it is possible to understand that we are all equal human beings who deserve respect, therefore racism and other forms of discrimination could be put aside. Education could pave the way for better behaviors towards the environment, and it has been used before (locally) as a mean of reducing extremist ideals, poverty due to lack of opportunities and the use of illicit drugs. While the answer might not be as simple as it sounds, taking into consideration that the ideal of offering a better education involves way more than a few fundraiser to build a school or two, it is an interesting option to be considered. More questions than answers might arise from this proposal, but finding solutions to the lack of education can become a powerful tool towards solving some of the world's most pressing global challenges. Source: unesco.org/Sep.2017/Literacy Rates. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|