Wider Horizons

I believe that Todorov made a good point in his quote. Knowing what one sees first hand is only the first level of knowledge. People who only have this perspective on the world cannot make informed decisions because they may know very little about the world outside of their little ‘bubble’ that they live in and can see the workings of first hand. They make decisions based on how it would affect their own world, but these decisions are not informed because they cannot foresee results that are not obvious.

The second type of person (the man for which each country is as his own) has achieved the second level of knowledge, He is able to view issues in the context of how it will affect his world, how it will affect someone else’s world, and how it may affect his own world indirectly. He has a wider base of knowledge than the first man and is able to understand international issues with a broader perspective. However, he still only views problems in the context of the effects it will have on him.

The third type of person has the highest level of thinking. I would define the third type of person in the same way that Runners World defines an advanced runner. Unlike the intermediate runner who is obsessed with running and plans his whole day around his run, the advanced runner is able to go for a run once a day, enjoy it, and leave it at that. The person for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is like an elite runner because he is able to step back from things and pass judgment without involving his emotions.

I think that Todorov had the right idea with this because people who are not emotionally involved in issues often have the clearest perspectives. However, I do wonder where one could find the third type of person. My perception is that the majority of people who are knowledgeable about international relations have emotions about most of the issues because international relations issues have such broad consequences. It would be hard to find a person that wouldn’t be affected by an issue. So although I think that Todorov was right, I don’t necessarily think that he was practical in this context.

World Views

From an early age, American students at the primary level of education are taught to recite the pledge of allegiance. Granted, this generally only applies to public schools, and as the students mature they exercise greater freedom in their decision to recite or abstain from reciting the pledge, but regardless of their later actions they are trained to think of America as a country worthy of their service. The phrase “One nation, under God,” is one that I personally find somewhat appalling, but that is a digression from my intended point.

 

A man concerned only with the affairs of his own country is a man limited and ignorant of other cultures and societies. In a sense, that man is the same as the student who faithfully pledges his allegiance to the stars and strips, never pausing to consider what it is he is actually promising. He holds only a shallow understanding of the world around him, because his world is in reality but one nation.

 

The second man, one who is familiar with all nations, is a model that all who are concerned with world politics should strive to emulate. It is through this understanding that one gains appreciation and ultimately respect for the diverse ways of other human beings. My belief is that this is the type of man that best understands the world, and therefore is the man who is consciously in the best position to engage in diplomacy and interactions on an international level.

 

Of course, it is not that simple. Todorov gives us the curveball when he considers the “man to whom the whole world is as a foreign country.” I don’t get it. A man who lacks understanding of the entire world is an indication of ignorance, not of knowledge. If Todorov’s point was that one demonstrates wisdom by exhibiting humility, I regard that perspective as out of context with one’s worldview. Todorov was on to something in his first two assertions, but his third point failed to exhibit any rationale. 

Why do we hold elections in November? Because it's the best time to pick out a Turkey.

Ahhhhh Turkey day! Best holiday after 4th of July and Christmas. And Cinco de Mayo. And New Years. Anyways, let me crank this out so I can hit the road- 6 hour flights baby, Rachel and Catherine know what’s up.
Well I managed to successfully get caught in my own argument today. I concede: it only makes sense to judge history in order to learn anything from it and move forward. I guess where I found the issue is how to go about doing that. Like many of us said, judgment is subjective (but not arbitrary). Yet if we don’t judge people with our own sense of morality, everything becomes moral. This reminds me of people who love to champion all cultures, even those cultural behaviors that are abusive and backward- people aren’t willing to say “yes, my morality is superior to yours,” which is necessary- not exactly what I was arguing in class, but what I’ve concluded from our talk.
Onwards.

“The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is foreign country is perfect.”

Let me get this straight:
The man who’s satisfied with his own country is lame.
The man who thinks he can do whatever he wants with all nations like they are his own is pretty alright.
The man who sees all other territories as foreign and conquerable rocks.
Hmm.

Maybe from a strictly Machiavellian/realist perspective that’s “correct,” it certainly maximizes one’s ability to conquer without remorse. However it wouldn’t rest very easily on most people’s consciences.
PTJ asked if we (as a collective modern humanity? What does that even mean when half the world isn’t socially “modern” by our standards?) are better suited not to engage in genocidal behavior nowadays. This goes back to the “is our knowledge better?” question. Yes, our morality is better than Cortez's, but it’s not the best. We still have genocides going on and military conflicts such as Rachel was making a connection to (I’m assuming Iraq). While I personally do think we have a superior moral code, I don’t believe it is our place to intervene in affairs not directly relevant to us (insert Family Guy Ground Zero clip haha). The majority of Spaniards in Cortez's time were probably unconcerned with his actions abroad. The fact that a vast percentage of the population today is not a fan of such interventionist activities shows the continual evolution of morality.

And now I’m off to pack! Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

Cortes the Killer

The trial to determine the guilt of Cortes, though not the most organized of trials, really got me thinking. Not about whether or not it was morally correct to utilize the means he did to reach his end, but whether or not he thought he made the right decisions, or even if he believed he was doing good deeds. I think it’s rather obvious that massacring thousands of natives and providing false information to get them going about killing themselves off as well is, by any, or at least most modern standards, immoral. But since his goal was conquest and ownership of the continent, Cortes must have thought that what he was doing was at least in his best interest, and in that of Spain’s. What I would be interested to know is if he thought he was improving anything by being there. As far as I know, there isn’t much left to determine one way or the other.

This weekend I also went to the Air and Space museum for the first time in a few years. The museum of my childhood was gone. As soon as I entered, I started to analyze the layout of the exhibits and tried to “read” the museum. Gone was my child-like simple wonder. When you walk in, the put all the cool replicas right there so you can immediately think “wow, look at all that cool shiny stuff we can put way up there”. A new addition was a model of the SpaceShipOne, the first privately owned and operated vehicle to enter space. The museum showcased the technological superiority of the United States and how it helped us in air battles since World War I. On the whole, I think the museum exists to elicit a sense of patriotism, “NASA is really cool”, and “we beat them commies good”.

cortez on trial

This week it was my group’s turn to teach the class, and I think it went fairly well. People were frustrated because they weren’t sure whether they should use present day laws or the laws of the time to argue their cases. Even though it was frustrating, I think it was a good representation of justice on the world stage. Sometimes in less clear-cut cases it is not clear to anyone whose laws will be followed and which party is in the wrong. The theme of justice coupled with our visit to the American Indian Museum made me think about the how American Indians could have been given justice and the constraints that culture barriers generate. I think that a lot of times, ‘justice’ isn’t really justice. It is the best we can do under the circumstances, but in the end one or more of the groups involved gets the raw end of the deal. It seems like there must be some way to make things fair, but even if there was, fairness is not always justice.

I surprised myself when I began to think that Cortez was not at fault during the trial. The defense made some good points that I had not thought of before, and if I had been the jury I might have acquitted him. But the problem is, whether or not Cortez could justify what he did or blame it on someone else, thousands of American Indians were slaughtered as a result of his actions. Is justice an eye for an eye, the attempt to make things as right as possible after the fact, holding someone responsible for something that they were not at fault for or something else? After the Europeans had already conquered the Americas, there wasn’t much that one could do to fix things. It wasn’t fair that any land was taken from its rightful owners, but it wouldn’t be fair to take the land away from people who had started a new life there and had no part in the killing either.

Objection, Your Honor

I hate to sound like a sore loser.

 

Nevertheless, I will say that although I did enjoy the simulated trial of Cortes, I maintain my assertion of the invalidity of the trial, as I feel the jury was biased and therefore inherently subjective against my perspective: that of supporting Cortes. I of course do not believe that Cortes was a good man, and being forced to debate on his behalf was an enlightening exercise that gave me another viewpoint on a man who I considered and still consider to have been a ruthless conquistador. What may have changed, however, is the morality (or lack thereof) of his actions, and whether or not Cortes was simply the extension of his superiors.

 

Expeditions to the New World were unprecedented, and so there was nothing on which to base interactions between the Spanish and the indigenous peoples. Consequently, Columbus’s treatment of the natives eventually became harsh and unequal; he ceased to view them as human beings and instead viewed them as a utility. Cortes was no different, though his actions were drastically more violent.

 

Because Cortes operated without precedence and without the modern rules of engagement, there were no moral standards for him to consider. His dealings with the Aztecs were that of military strategy and diplomatic savvy. Though today it is considered genocide and a crime against humanity, such notions would have been foreign to Cortes, who was simply acting to secure specific interests under dire circumstances.

 

I must admit, I feel that my group argued more capably and more consistently with the point of debate. Ben did, however, own in his closing statement, which was far more eloquent, logical, and coherent than mine. As we determined in class, it was an effective exercise, though not without flaws. In the future, may I suggest a clear set of rules, a set point of debate, and an emphasis on the text. As it was, I felt the trial was rather broad.  

Wingapo

Catherine inspired me to put a soundtrack to my reflection this week as well. The band’s called Justice, beyond that it has nothing to do with class but is a fun song.


I really enjoyed the Native American museum, especially all the southwestern tribal cultures (I pretty much automatically associate Native Americans with cedar bark houses, totem poles and salmon). I especially loved the section of paintings by Fritz Scholder. This one is my favorite:


I love Native American culture. I don’t know about elsewhere, but back home there is a fairly big emphasis on it in education. The first 8 years of my schooling involved learning about local native tribes, hatching/releasing salmon eggs, having powwows every month, etc. From the Macaw tribe’s whaling pursuits to Native festivals and awareness, not to mention that most of our cities (Seattle, Chehalis, Puyallup, Yakima, etc) are named after Native tribes/people, Native culture is somewhat alive in Washington. That being said, they’re still most famous for bringing 80s one hit wonders to their casinos (Loverboy, anyone?) and being the best place to get 4th of July fireworks for cheap (the Muckleshoot reservation is my favorite).

As far as Columbus/Cortez goes, they screwed up. But they were products of their times, which doesn’t justify their actions, but at least allows you to understand their mindset a bit. Conquering was the norm, there wasn’t really an idea of a collective humanity. As we witness concepts of knowledge and justice molded over time, perhaps (and probably) hundreds of years from now people will be snickering at our models of the universe and how primitive we are.