"To what extent has this up-close-and-personal expose of so many seriously screwed-up people changed your view (or not) of these enterprises? Furthermore, has it shed any light on contemporary issues of exploration and exploitation? Use examples."
This has made my view more cynical of colonizers (and people)--I've always known that they go in expectation of a return of some kind--but this has made it clear. People were forced into these actions by the peer pressure and 'norms' around them, and this makes it sick. It also as well makes people change, and lose their independence if they are weak in any way at all. Almost everyone has some of these weaknesses. It has shown me that it is bad for everyone, not just the obvious victims (although this effect is almost insignificant in terms of the scope of the victims). It only reiterates the fact that we, in our own countries, usually do not understand any part of another culture, and any forced interaction with them (whether it be colonizing them or invading their country to 'help them') it always ends up worse for the lesser-developed and weaker country.
This book has made me seriously doubt whether humans have the ability to do things purely from philanthropic tendencies--there is always a bottom line that it seems that the 'good work' fulfills; tax deductions, public image, a larger financial return...it makes me sad. There should be more anonymous donations, where there isn't anybody looking for recognition.
I do feel however, that humans can act selflessly in any situation (not all humans, but most), as long as there is full transparency for the whole world to see. When every fact, figure, practice, beneficiary, method, dollar spent, hour worked, financier, and product made or produced is accounted for and made into public record, then mostly purely good deeds can occur.
This has shown that people will try to get away with anything that they possibly can--whether it be mining meteorites in space, chopping down forests for lumber, or drilling oil offshore--they will do anything to maximize profit with no regard whatsoever towards the people, environment, and economy that had been there long before they had arrived. The 2010 Gulf oil spill is a great example, as it was brought about by a company (BP) cutting corners by skipping costly procedures. The spill dumped around 172 million gallons of oil into the bay, also killing 11 workers, but more importantly it contaminated millions upon millions of gallons of water, killed off countless animals, fish, and birds, and destroyed the local fishing economies for thousands of fishermen. Just writing about it makes me sick, and yet BP was only eventually fined 4.5 billion dollars in fines, and as a company they face no restrictions, bans or criminal charges. Only four executives face charges.
People are greedy, people cut corners.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
6 - Under the Yacht Club Flag
Because King Leopold the second already basically has his colony, this chapter deals with his attempts to keep going in search of turning a profit. He has neatly burned through his significant personal funds, and now turns to every side for cash: banks, wealthy families, the church, money from bonds, and finally his own country. King Leopold has so masterfully shaped the public opinion about himself (creating scientific gatherings, claiming he skips a course at lunch to economize, altering the date on his will to make a financial move seem benevolent) that he is able to convince his country to lend him 25 million francs.
With this infusion of cash, he is now able to put together his superior technology in weaponry (breech loading rifles, maxim gun), medicine (quinine for malaria), and transportation (steamboats) to start a push to develop some infrastructure in the Congo which will eventually help transport valuable goods to the coast which he will be taking.
The start of the chapter talks about Leopold's family life, which is deteriorating. In his efforts to create ties between himself and the Austria-Hungary ruling family, he marries of both of his daughters to princes from there. They are horrible match-ups, so much so that after cheating on her husband the prince, Louise actually chose to go to an insane asylum instead of returning to her husband. There seems to be a pattern with the women around Leopold; they either go crazy, die, or end up in a worse situation (Louise, Carlota, Prostitute & Stephanie).
Everything seems to work out for King Leopold--governments buy his ploys, a disillusioned and betrayed Sanford dies without causing any troubles, and Stanley does as he is told. Still no one knows Leopold's true purpose with the Congo.
November 1889, when the Anti-Slavery Conference was held, Turkey had been invited to keep diplomatic ties strong, yet Turkey only abolished slavery ten years later in 1899. When Islamic harems were mentioned as something that kept the slave trade going, the Turkish delegation erupted with laughter, probably due to the fact that they thought of harems as nothing out of the ordinary, as men of many different levels of power had harems of varying sizes. Turkey was basically on the other side of the spectrum toward slavery in relation to all the guests at the conference, yet they weren't treated with indignant delegates and forceful talks. It seems as if customary niceties towards other countries had quelled the righteous voices of the righteous people representing their countries.
Questions:
1. Why is Stanley's love life discussed so often? What is the purpose?
2. What is more important to Leopold: money or power? Why?
3. Why does Leopold move to annex part of the Nile instead of solely focusing on the Congo?
4. Why does Stanley feel such loyalty towards King Leopold?
5. Where would Leopold stop in his quest for his colony? Could anything stop him?
With this infusion of cash, he is now able to put together his superior technology in weaponry (breech loading rifles, maxim gun), medicine (quinine for malaria), and transportation (steamboats) to start a push to develop some infrastructure in the Congo which will eventually help transport valuable goods to the coast which he will be taking.
The start of the chapter talks about Leopold's family life, which is deteriorating. In his efforts to create ties between himself and the Austria-Hungary ruling family, he marries of both of his daughters to princes from there. They are horrible match-ups, so much so that after cheating on her husband the prince, Louise actually chose to go to an insane asylum instead of returning to her husband. There seems to be a pattern with the women around Leopold; they either go crazy, die, or end up in a worse situation (Louise, Carlota, Prostitute & Stephanie).
Everything seems to work out for King Leopold--governments buy his ploys, a disillusioned and betrayed Sanford dies without causing any troubles, and Stanley does as he is told. Still no one knows Leopold's true purpose with the Congo.
November 1889, when the Anti-Slavery Conference was held, Turkey had been invited to keep diplomatic ties strong, yet Turkey only abolished slavery ten years later in 1899. When Islamic harems were mentioned as something that kept the slave trade going, the Turkish delegation erupted with laughter, probably due to the fact that they thought of harems as nothing out of the ordinary, as men of many different levels of power had harems of varying sizes. Turkey was basically on the other side of the spectrum toward slavery in relation to all the guests at the conference, yet they weren't treated with indignant delegates and forceful talks. It seems as if customary niceties towards other countries had quelled the righteous voices of the righteous people representing their countries.
Questions:
1. Why is Stanley's love life discussed so often? What is the purpose?
2. What is more important to Leopold: money or power? Why?
3. Why does Leopold move to annex part of the Nile instead of solely focusing on the Congo?
4. Why does Stanley feel such loyalty towards King Leopold?
5. Where would Leopold stop in his quest for his colony? Could anything stop him?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Our reactions to third-world, far-away atrocities
Why don't people speak up sooner when they realize that mass brutality, manipulation, and subterfuge is going on in various of the lesser-well-known corners of the world?
When we, living in the U.S or Europe, hear of some geographically distant conflict of enormous scope, we tend to not do much about it. Maybe this is because we don't feel any part of it; it is too distant, and many times we never see any part of it as well. "Vava Tampa is the founder of Save the Congo, a London-based campaign", and one of his theories is that "no Western interests or ally is endangered by it", and so we don't instinctively care, and we cannot grasp the implications. This effect mirrors the familial protectiveness that many of us feel; we are looking out for our family first and foremost, and then we can begin to care about others. We have to be, in physical and mental and financial senses, taken care of and rested in our own body first, in order to to be able to with any meaningful energy and purpose focus our energy on somewhere literally across the globe. The distance involved between areas is a large part of the lack of response.
A valid point is: why is it up to us to solve every other countries' problems? Who is taking care of ours? I believe in the U.N--and through them NATO--can intervene as a coalition of countries, but beyond that I don't think the U.S.A should be taking these judgement calls and acting independently. Our country isn't in any fit shape to be expending ourselves like this, as we are 16 trillion dollars in debt currently and have many other failings and shortcomings besides.
Maybe we don't speak up because we are actually benefiting from these wars in that the minerals and other raw materials being fought over in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo are ending up here, and if we helped to stop the conflict then the resources would stay there.
Also, there are so many conflicts and wars constantly raging around the world (Syria, Pakistan-Israel, Tunisia) that we become numb to stories of atrocities. We physically couldn't do something if we tried to help remedy each situation, and this can turn into apathy. In far-off corners of the world, there are also added roadblocks to publicizing and getting help for a situation because they simply don't have the technology and the means to get the word out there.
When we, living in the U.S or Europe, hear of some geographically distant conflict of enormous scope, we tend to not do much about it. Maybe this is because we don't feel any part of it; it is too distant, and many times we never see any part of it as well. "Vava Tampa is the founder of Save the Congo, a London-based campaign", and one of his theories is that "no Western interests or ally is endangered by it", and so we don't instinctively care, and we cannot grasp the implications. This effect mirrors the familial protectiveness that many of us feel; we are looking out for our family first and foremost, and then we can begin to care about others. We have to be, in physical and mental and financial senses, taken care of and rested in our own body first, in order to to be able to with any meaningful energy and purpose focus our energy on somewhere literally across the globe. The distance involved between areas is a large part of the lack of response.
A valid point is: why is it up to us to solve every other countries' problems? Who is taking care of ours? I believe in the U.N--and through them NATO--can intervene as a coalition of countries, but beyond that I don't think the U.S.A should be taking these judgement calls and acting independently. Our country isn't in any fit shape to be expending ourselves like this, as we are 16 trillion dollars in debt currently and have many other failings and shortcomings besides.
Maybe we don't speak up because we are actually benefiting from these wars in that the minerals and other raw materials being fought over in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo are ending up here, and if we helped to stop the conflict then the resources would stay there.
Also, there are so many conflicts and wars constantly raging around the world (Syria, Pakistan-Israel, Tunisia) that we become numb to stories of atrocities. We physically couldn't do something if we tried to help remedy each situation, and this can turn into apathy. In far-off corners of the world, there are also added roadblocks to publicizing and getting help for a situation because they simply don't have the technology and the means to get the word out there.
Friday, February 1, 2013
SPP Update
The research paper was hard for me, due to the fact that good information on the job market 25 years ago was sparse. What went well for me was my method of writing the paper--from my notes (citations/urls/quotations) I would look at a body of information and directly write a paragraph of commentary and synthesis, and after I had done a few of these, paired with my intro., my paper was three and a half pages long. I didn't get it my paper back, even though you insinuated that we did! I did good research, using the Library's Opposing viewpoints linked, and Google scholar searches. I could have researched my topic first before I submitted my topic, because then I would have found (or not found!) the information available about my specific area of research.
RP Update
1. The purpose of my paper is to evaluate the use and consumption of GM foods, and to assess if consuming these products is problematic or fine.
2."Genetically Modified Food Should Be Banned", by Andy Rees has proven to be a very useful source for me to use when I back my arguments up. He provides specific examples supporting his thesis (he is anti-GMOs) to many different facets of GMOs--their regulation, tests done, and their dissemination.
3. As of right now, I feel that I am still leaning towards an anti-GM view, because of the research and tests that have come up, the environmental effects caused, the uncertainty regarding the safety, my personal family views, and the divisions of thoughts by different nations.
4. The FDA's testing methods are not accepted by everyone as thorough enough. Testing right now can be done by the standard of substantial equivalence--a practice where the GMO is compared to the closest product to it (say, GM corn to corn). They are compared based on taste, smell, look, toxins, nutrients, or allergens, which isn't enough because these foods are changed at a cellular level. Testing parameters such as amino acids, cyclopropenoids, fatty acids, and acidsglycoalkaloids should be tested regularly to ensure an all-round evaluation that is thorough.
5. The fact that GM seeds can travel around 25 km naturally or on the wind was so surprising because of the sheer distance involved and the fact that the chemical companies proposed safe buffer zones between GM and non-GM crops of 5 ft to be safe.
2."Genetically Modified Food Should Be Banned", by Andy Rees has proven to be a very useful source for me to use when I back my arguments up. He provides specific examples supporting his thesis (he is anti-GMOs) to many different facets of GMOs--their regulation, tests done, and their dissemination.
3. As of right now, I feel that I am still leaning towards an anti-GM view, because of the research and tests that have come up, the environmental effects caused, the uncertainty regarding the safety, my personal family views, and the divisions of thoughts by different nations.
4. The FDA's testing methods are not accepted by everyone as thorough enough. Testing right now can be done by the standard of substantial equivalence--a practice where the GMO is compared to the closest product to it (say, GM corn to corn). They are compared based on taste, smell, look, toxins, nutrients, or allergens, which isn't enough because these foods are changed at a cellular level. Testing parameters such as amino acids, cyclopropenoids, fatty acids, and acidsglycoalkaloids should be tested regularly to ensure an all-round evaluation that is thorough.
5. The fact that GM seeds can travel around 25 km naturally or on the wind was so surprising because of the sheer distance involved and the fact that the chemical companies proposed safe buffer zones between GM and non-GM crops of 5 ft to be safe.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)