I’ve never known if it’s a flaw or virtue of mine… but I always get very sentimental about silly things. When I was younger I used to get attached to random things, often inanimate objects like not wanting to throw away a tissue. I realize that’s weird and I’m not that bad anymore, but I did find myself getting sentimental about writing my last blog. I particularly like writing the reflections because they are my chance to write about anything I want – such a liberating feeling! Instead of writing in my own personal journal that no one will ever read, I got a chance to publish my thoughts weekly. I would just like to say that I have enjoyed blogging more than I thought I would especially since I am a very reflective person – it’s been a nice little outlet for me ☺
Along the lines of being able to write anything I want, I want to share some thoughts from my week with all my readers… As many of you might know, my sister was here to visit. Naturally, I brought her to do some toursity things. We ended up checking out the brand new visitor center at the Capitol building since it had opened two days earlier and got rave reviews in The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002569.html. We read this article the morning before we went and we were so excited to see the “ornate” center that was described to us. When we first walked to the entrance, we were stopped by a kooky man whose job was to welcome us to the center… he was beyond strange. Then we had to go through security, naturally, but we were not expecting to see such a disproportionate ratio of security to visitor – there were about 30 officers at the entrance and then my sister and I who they were checking. Needless to say it was pretty intimidating. The whole center had an odd feel to it too… a lot of empty space that seemed like it should have been filled and probably will be filled in the future. There was also an unnecessary amount of bathrooms, just to point out. The displays were interesting so I would suggest going, but don’t expect to be blown off your feet by this $621 million center.
We also stopped by the Library of Congress, which my sister and I were absolutely blown away by. The building was essentially just a very very large piece of artwork. I would definitely suggest going there – just from my one visit through this historical landmark, I feel like a more intelligent person! And an added note – we can all get in to the actual library section for free as students! All you need is to show your ID and you have some of the best resources at your fingertips.
The National Cathedral also made it onto our tourist destinations and I have wanted to go there ever since school started. In short, it was breathtaking; an absolutely gigantic sized building with a beautiful interior. I never would have known it was so new – only 5 years since it was completed I think! It got me and my sister thinking about religion, though, and why it is so important for religions to have extravagant buildings. With all the money the church spent on this building, they could have done much more meaningful things like save people’s lives. However, it’s important for groups of people to have symbols of some sort that represent their unity and ambitions – our government needs expensive new visitor centers just like the Christian church needs elaborate cathedrals. At the same time, I didn’t walk away from the National Cathedral thinking about becoming more religious… Instead, I was thinking about the amazing the architecture and artwork of the building. So I don’t know if the building really served its purpose as a symbol of Christianity, or just a very large and expensive piece of art. I’m interested to hear what you all think of these excessive buildings… are they worth the money? Does a breathtaking cathedral really add more to the religious experience? What does it say about people that we put such value on the material objects of religion? Shouldn’t we be able to reach the same religious experience without all the extravagance?
Now, to talk about Snow Crash a bit since the rest of my blog has been mostly irrelevant to our World Politics class. I found myself enjoying the book for the most part. I definitely think it was the most interesting book we’ve read for class even though it did have some significant flaws. I already pointed out my feelings about the sexual content of Snow Crash in my comments to Rachel and Tori’s reflection blogs so I won’t repeat myself besides to say it was completely unnecessary and bothersome and distracted me from the point of the book. I thought that Stephenson’s style was effective, other than that, because he really kept the reader intrigued if not confused at times. But with confusion comes curiosity for a reader to clarify the confusion, so I kept on reading! I was surprised by the prevalence of obscenities that didn’t really fit into the narration… they were somewhat awkward at times. As other people have said, the ending was a tad bit too predictable for me, but the message came across clearly. I hope this isn’t our future just like I hope the McDonald’s Corporations of the world don’t get to have a huge say in World Bank conferences in the future.
Speaking of McDonald’s, I might as well reflect on the simulation! I thought that the format of the simulation, although accurate and realistic, inhibited a good flow of debate. Even though the rules were laid out clearly in the assignment, for those of us who never did Model U.N. or debate in high school, it was still very confusing and intimidating. God forbid we mess up the rules! I also didn’t feel like there was the same level of enthusiasm for each group’s position as last simulation but perhaps this is because we all went into it thinking that there would need to be negotiation.
Now that the semester has come to a close, I’d just like to say in my final reflection that I enjoyed our class! I think we all learned a lot, whether it was from reading, from exploring D.C., or from each other. Hopefully our lively debates can continue without being prompted by the topics in class. Not to get sentimental or anything, but I’ll miss seeing everyone together at 11:20 on Tuesdays and Fridays!
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Final blog
Well, it's been a few months but the material I learned in this course was very resourceful. With these theories on constructivism, realism and liberalism imprinted into my mind, I have been able to conjure a clear understanding of how the individual nations operate.
While the Western nations of the world look through the eyes of constructivism due to their ability to focus upon the identification of events and how they affect foreign policy, there are some who see foreign policy in a different view. Ever since the fall of communism, Russia has focused on adopting democracy owing to their failure in the Cold War but we can't forget that Russia is deeply immersed in the styles of Machiavelli. If they lose any more power they would collapse even further, which is why for the past few months they adopt a more realist (concerned with security of territory and military strength) foreign policy. This has been the case in the two Chechnya wars, the South Ossetia war, and the standoff with the west on the proposed development of a missile defense system in Poland. The reason for their constant referral to military strength is due to past events where upon military failure, Russian citizens revolt. After the disastrous war with Japan, Russia nearly plunged into Civil war before enacting the October manifesto guaranteeing the creation of the representative body, the Duma. the events following WWI was another example that is Russia's radicalization. This is why Russia must appear war-like in the media for, if they don't, they are seen as soft by their own civilians.
In China, the liberalization of their trade with the Western nations combined with their military capabilities show themselves as a liberal and realist nation. When Taiwan showed interest of achieving independence from its large neighbor, China responded with the deployment of ballistic missiles along its shores. This was due to China's interest in maintaining control over the democratic Chinese civilians in Taiwan who resented their communist neighbor so as to appear peaceful to the West. They even offered pandas to Taiwan in exchange for eliminating their independence movement but they turned it down (much to the people's dismay as they loved those pandas). That's another example of China's liberal foreign policy, instead of fully liberalizing its communist regime into a democracy to appease its neighbors, China entices them with the cuteness of a male and female panda. So instead of appealing to their political sense, China focuses its foreign policy by use of its cutest and most popular endangered animal for enticement while showing off its military strength to its neighbors.
Finally, let's discuss foreign policy between France and Germany after the Great war. Due to their ancestral conflicts over the Alsace-Lorraine province, France wanted Germany to be unable to mount another full scale invasion by limiting its military and economy. Here, France focused on a realist sense to contain its neighbor by payment of reparations. While Germany also followed this policy as well, they tried different methods to appease its neighbor. Since millions of French soldiers were returning with shell-shock and amputated limbs, Germany offered France a new method of reparations by offering them their newest creation, aspirin. Since morphine, the standard painkiller, was addictive and painful after its effects wore off, France was enticed that the Germans were offering a non-addictive and longer lasting drug to ease their pain. Here, Germany appeases France by soothing their bodily pain from this deadly war.
These are not the only nations that posses unusual tactics in foreign policy but if we continue discussing every other nation, this blog may go on forever. When we view fooriegn policy, I tend to see it as a method to appease their neighbors through political liberalization, military fear, and pleasing their animistic instincts.
While the Western nations of the world look through the eyes of constructivism due to their ability to focus upon the identification of events and how they affect foreign policy, there are some who see foreign policy in a different view. Ever since the fall of communism, Russia has focused on adopting democracy owing to their failure in the Cold War but we can't forget that Russia is deeply immersed in the styles of Machiavelli. If they lose any more power they would collapse even further, which is why for the past few months they adopt a more realist (concerned with security of territory and military strength) foreign policy. This has been the case in the two Chechnya wars, the South Ossetia war, and the standoff with the west on the proposed development of a missile defense system in Poland. The reason for their constant referral to military strength is due to past events where upon military failure, Russian citizens revolt. After the disastrous war with Japan, Russia nearly plunged into Civil war before enacting the October manifesto guaranteeing the creation of the representative body, the Duma. the events following WWI was another example that is Russia's radicalization. This is why Russia must appear war-like in the media for, if they don't, they are seen as soft by their own civilians.
In China, the liberalization of their trade with the Western nations combined with their military capabilities show themselves as a liberal and realist nation. When Taiwan showed interest of achieving independence from its large neighbor, China responded with the deployment of ballistic missiles along its shores. This was due to China's interest in maintaining control over the democratic Chinese civilians in Taiwan who resented their communist neighbor so as to appear peaceful to the West. They even offered pandas to Taiwan in exchange for eliminating their independence movement but they turned it down (much to the people's dismay as they loved those pandas). That's another example of China's liberal foreign policy, instead of fully liberalizing its communist regime into a democracy to appease its neighbors, China entices them with the cuteness of a male and female panda. So instead of appealing to their political sense, China focuses its foreign policy by use of its cutest and most popular endangered animal for enticement while showing off its military strength to its neighbors.
Finally, let's discuss foreign policy between France and Germany after the Great war. Due to their ancestral conflicts over the Alsace-Lorraine province, France wanted Germany to be unable to mount another full scale invasion by limiting its military and economy. Here, France focused on a realist sense to contain its neighbor by payment of reparations. While Germany also followed this policy as well, they tried different methods to appease its neighbor. Since millions of French soldiers were returning with shell-shock and amputated limbs, Germany offered France a new method of reparations by offering them their newest creation, aspirin. Since morphine, the standard painkiller, was addictive and painful after its effects wore off, France was enticed that the Germans were offering a non-addictive and longer lasting drug to ease their pain. Here, Germany appeases France by soothing their bodily pain from this deadly war.
These are not the only nations that posses unusual tactics in foreign policy but if we continue discussing every other nation, this blog may go on forever. When we view fooriegn policy, I tend to see it as a method to appease their neighbors through political liberalization, military fear, and pleasing their animistic instincts.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Final Reflection
I'm going to split my final reflection between talking about Barack Obama’s cabinet picks and the simulation. So, first the cabinet picks. President elect Obama has chosen many positions in his cabinet. So far he is establishing one of the smartest and best qualified cabinets in history. A few good examples of the brains and experience Obama is surrounding himself with is putting retired Marine General Jim Jones as National Security Advisor, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Robert Gates in as defense secretary. Now a little information about each person and why I believe that they are qualified for their respective positions. Jim Jones was supreme allied commander of NATO in Europe. In this position he would have been exposed to and have had to deal with many security issues. So since he already has experience in the security area he is a good choice during this heightened time of national security. Hillary Clinton is a great pick for secretary of state. She herself has good international experience as well as having the advantage of being involved during her husband’s administration. During this time of the US slump in world opinion, we need our chief foreign official to be experienced. Finally, Robert Gates who has been secretary of defense for half of the Bush administration. It is a great decision to have him stay on as secretary. He has been one of the main people managing the Iraq war and is very experienced in the conflict. As the US is deeply entrenched in Iraq, like it or not we’re there, this would be no time to bring a new person who doesn’t have the background knowledge into the job of managing the war.
In the simulation I was part of the group that represented Venezuela. I and the other members of this group knew that it would be very hard to impossible to get anybody to vote in agreement on any issues with us. It turned out that as the debated came around that we were right, no one agreed. Our main argument for our disagreement was that we felt the issues presented were encroaching on our sovereignty. So in the end Venezuela was thrown out of the conference because of our inability to agree or even compromise. I thought that this was a really good simulation. It thought me how to represent and debate issues from the standpoint of a country that I don’t agree with.
In the simulation I was part of the group that represented Venezuela. I and the other members of this group knew that it would be very hard to impossible to get anybody to vote in agreement on any issues with us. It turned out that as the debated came around that we were right, no one agreed. Our main argument for our disagreement was that we felt the issues presented were encroaching on our sovereignty. So in the end Venezuela was thrown out of the conference because of our inability to agree or even compromise. I thought that this was a really good simulation. It thought me how to represent and debate issues from the standpoint of a country that I don’t agree with.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Justice and such...
After watching way too many Law & Order’s over the years, I have little faith in our justice system. Not that I could think of a better way for our system to work, but I just find it so disappointing that the system has so many flaws. The wrong people get punished meanwhile the right people may walk free. There is just no good way to obtain justice.
During our mock trial in class on Friday, I think that there lacked passion for the argument at hand maybe with exception of a few people. The question was a little too obvious for all of us that it was difficult to argue about it… Cortes was definitely in violation of human rights. Besides this factor, class on Friday sparked some thoughts about the effectiveness of justice so I think the point came across in the end.
We had this back and forth trial with strict guidelines (not necessarily followed in class as I’m sure they would be in court) and it almost seemed comical. How could this process possibly bring about justice? Is this how we define justice – a convoluted process all to persuade a jury? If this system is justice then how do people get wrongfully punished? How do others get away with crime through legal loopholes? It just doesn’t seem fair… or just.
I wonder what Nicolaus Copernicus would think about justice? I bet our justice system would be very strange to this scholar back in the 15th and 16th centuries. Back then, though, there probably were fewer discussions of justice than of science. If you all remember correctly from your high school astronomy class, Copernicus was the dude who realized that the earth was not in fact at the center of the universe, but instead the sun was. Why do I bring up Copernicus though? Well, I don’t know if any of you heard about this, but Polish researchers found the remains of this well-known fellow. The search has been going on for years. Through reconstruction and extensive DNA testing scientists were able to confirm that the remains actually belonged to the mastermind, Copernicus. Yes, that’s right, they matched HAIR found in one of Copernicus’ books to the hair found at the gravesite in a Polish cathedral! Unbelievable, this man died in 1543, I was shocked to read the article and I thought you all might appreciate it… here it is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_copernicus
As for the Native American museum, I think there was an overall consensus of disappointment in the museum, at least that’s the impression that I got. For me, the biggest problem was the flow of the exhibits. There was an overwhelming amount of artifacts but they lacked sufficient explanation. It was frustrating to see an entire wall of mysterious figures that had no descriptions. My favorite part of the museum was the special exhibit with the abstract Native American artist’s work on display. He had some pretty awesome paintings – some intense, others flat-out beautiful. I was really trying to “read” the museum like PTJ suggested but I had a hard time finding examples of a colonialist view or any biases in general. I thought it did an accurate job portraying the life of a Native American, at least from what I know. It was cool how the many tribes were able to construct their own displays too and I think this helped to avoid any sort of colonialist view. Overall, I liked the museum of the Native American but I wasn’t thrilled like I was when Rachel and I visited the National Portrait Gallery afterward on Wednesday. I would suggest going just to see the modern woman’s exhibit, and of course the U.S. Presidents portraits were pretty cool too.
During our mock trial in class on Friday, I think that there lacked passion for the argument at hand maybe with exception of a few people. The question was a little too obvious for all of us that it was difficult to argue about it… Cortes was definitely in violation of human rights. Besides this factor, class on Friday sparked some thoughts about the effectiveness of justice so I think the point came across in the end.
We had this back and forth trial with strict guidelines (not necessarily followed in class as I’m sure they would be in court) and it almost seemed comical. How could this process possibly bring about justice? Is this how we define justice – a convoluted process all to persuade a jury? If this system is justice then how do people get wrongfully punished? How do others get away with crime through legal loopholes? It just doesn’t seem fair… or just.
I wonder what Nicolaus Copernicus would think about justice? I bet our justice system would be very strange to this scholar back in the 15th and 16th centuries. Back then, though, there probably were fewer discussions of justice than of science. If you all remember correctly from your high school astronomy class, Copernicus was the dude who realized that the earth was not in fact at the center of the universe, but instead the sun was. Why do I bring up Copernicus though? Well, I don’t know if any of you heard about this, but Polish researchers found the remains of this well-known fellow. The search has been going on for years. Through reconstruction and extensive DNA testing scientists were able to confirm that the remains actually belonged to the mastermind, Copernicus. Yes, that’s right, they matched HAIR found in one of Copernicus’ books to the hair found at the gravesite in a Polish cathedral! Unbelievable, this man died in 1543, I was shocked to read the article and I thought you all might appreciate it… here it is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_copernicus
As for the Native American museum, I think there was an overall consensus of disappointment in the museum, at least that’s the impression that I got. For me, the biggest problem was the flow of the exhibits. There was an overwhelming amount of artifacts but they lacked sufficient explanation. It was frustrating to see an entire wall of mysterious figures that had no descriptions. My favorite part of the museum was the special exhibit with the abstract Native American artist’s work on display. He had some pretty awesome paintings – some intense, others flat-out beautiful. I was really trying to “read” the museum like PTJ suggested but I had a hard time finding examples of a colonialist view or any biases in general. I thought it did an accurate job portraying the life of a Native American, at least from what I know. It was cool how the many tribes were able to construct their own displays too and I think this helped to avoid any sort of colonialist view. Overall, I liked the museum of the Native American but I wasn’t thrilled like I was when Rachel and I visited the National Portrait Gallery afterward on Wednesday. I would suggest going just to see the modern woman’s exhibit, and of course the U.S. Presidents portraits were pretty cool too.
Reflection of this past week
In the musical, Chicago, Roxy who shot a man who lied to her about his vocation is put on trial. Her lawyer who is very skilled in law and oratory, tells her before the trial begins that in order to win she must give them the "old Razzle Dazzle". In other words, convince the judge and jury of your innocence by putting on a show of character for them (i.e. acting as though you were the victim). I've seen this play numerous times and I have to say, its no different than how those prosecuted are able to win court cases.
Lobbyists for cigarette and Fast food corporations are put on trial every year because a certain customer was victimized by their products. Each time the corporations won, not because they the corporates are rich but because their lawyers are experienced in this type of work since they face it every day. In the film, Thank you for Smoking, you are introduced to a man who uses his oratory and wit to overwhelm his opponents and this is what every type of lawyer from corporation lobbyists to Civil Rights lawyers like Johnnie Cochran use to save their clients from penalties. Now with regards to our simulation.
My group put together a mock trial to decide if we are to convict Cortes who led the Conquistadors to destroy the Aztec civilization of Crimes against humanity. We had to make this trial one that applied to trials back in Cortes' time and that's when the confusion set in. War crimes is a relatively new concept that originated as another brand of punishment for Nazi Germany and intensified after the Bosnian civil war claimed thousands of innocent civilians. To apply it to a time when Christianity was to justify every misdemeanor, murder or raping of innocent civilians was frankly impossible. This is because after WWII, religion no longer applied to those convicted of war crimes particularly in Bosnia whose Serbian militias murdered thousands of Bosnian Muslims in a time when Islamophobia (the sociological distrust of Muslims) was beginning to emerge. There was also no political international body that worked on these cases during the 1400s. It's amazing how relatively new this concept is when you think about it.
Lobbyists for cigarette and Fast food corporations are put on trial every year because a certain customer was victimized by their products. Each time the corporations won, not because they the corporates are rich but because their lawyers are experienced in this type of work since they face it every day. In the film, Thank you for Smoking, you are introduced to a man who uses his oratory and wit to overwhelm his opponents and this is what every type of lawyer from corporation lobbyists to Civil Rights lawyers like Johnnie Cochran use to save their clients from penalties. Now with regards to our simulation.
My group put together a mock trial to decide if we are to convict Cortes who led the Conquistadors to destroy the Aztec civilization of Crimes against humanity. We had to make this trial one that applied to trials back in Cortes' time and that's when the confusion set in. War crimes is a relatively new concept that originated as another brand of punishment for Nazi Germany and intensified after the Bosnian civil war claimed thousands of innocent civilians. To apply it to a time when Christianity was to justify every misdemeanor, murder or raping of innocent civilians was frankly impossible. This is because after WWII, religion no longer applied to those convicted of war crimes particularly in Bosnia whose Serbian militias murdered thousands of Bosnian Muslims in a time when Islamophobia (the sociological distrust of Muslims) was beginning to emerge. There was also no political international body that worked on these cases during the 1400s. It's amazing how relatively new this concept is when you think about it.
Columbus vs. Present
Is our way of knowing greater than that of Columbus' era? Yes but this is due to our advancement in technology and globalized society. With the launching of numerous satellites and our worldwide connection of computers, we have managed to establish perfect communication with all parts of the globe. The impact of technology has also served to recharter the perspectives of Columbus himself including his fundamental beliefs.
Since the internet has allowed the uploading of numerous documents online, we've been permitted the ability to access all of Columbus' journal entries. In one of Columbus' entries, he mentions how he believed in serpents and supernatural creatures. Today, we've become skeptical of these claims because our technology has revealed no evidence of their existence. Take the story of the Kraken; Norwegian explorers wrote of this gigantic octopus-like creature that attacked ships that interrupted its sleep. Their accounts were ignored but after years of scientific marine exploration, their accounts were verified as true for there was such a creature only it wasn't an octopus but a giant squid who attacks ships because it misinterprets them for its natural enemy the sperm whale. How did we end this mythology? None other than finding physical evidence (ex. remains of giant squid that washed up on shore) and the use of technology to find the creature's location (in this case the use of sonar, which sperm whales use to locate the squid, was able to locate the mysterious squid that lived in the depths of the sea). Satellites and sonar act in the same manner as echolocation is used by bats; as a species that is limited to land, we cannot explore the barriers of the oceans and Space and so we rely on updated technology to validate our scientific claims and knowledge.
Since the internet has allowed the uploading of numerous documents online, we've been permitted the ability to access all of Columbus' journal entries. In one of Columbus' entries, he mentions how he believed in serpents and supernatural creatures. Today, we've become skeptical of these claims because our technology has revealed no evidence of their existence. Take the story of the Kraken; Norwegian explorers wrote of this gigantic octopus-like creature that attacked ships that interrupted its sleep. Their accounts were ignored but after years of scientific marine exploration, their accounts were verified as true for there was such a creature only it wasn't an octopus but a giant squid who attacks ships because it misinterprets them for its natural enemy the sperm whale. How did we end this mythology? None other than finding physical evidence (ex. remains of giant squid that washed up on shore) and the use of technology to find the creature's location (in this case the use of sonar, which sperm whales use to locate the squid, was able to locate the mysterious squid that lived in the depths of the sea). Satellites and sonar act in the same manner as echolocation is used by bats; as a species that is limited to land, we cannot explore the barriers of the oceans and Space and so we rely on updated technology to validate our scientific claims and knowledge.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Better? Yes!
Better better better… hmm how to define this word? I first think of the Beatle’s hit “Hey Jude” when I contemplate what “better” means. They seem to be grappling with what the word means along with Todorov when they repeat it six times at the climax of the song. Poor old Jude needs to “make it better” with a girl; he needs to improve the situation. So in this context, I’d say improvement is implied in the word better.
However, when you go to a playground you would most likely hear this word used in a different way at one point or another. Little Lucy says to Silly Sally, “I’m better than you” and it’s magic! The word “better” suddenly takes on an implication of superiority!
I would prefer to think of the former definition of the word “better” in answering this blog question, even though I realize that the latter is also just as significant (but a little harder to argue). I wholeheartedly and undoubtedly believe that our knowledge has improved, or bettered, since Columbus’ time. I realize that I am a bit biased since I am living in these current times and think that we are pretty darn advanced in our knowledge. However, I would argue that it’s a natural and inevitable thing for the human race to better itself. Just as Columbus’ knowledge was better than that of the cavemen, our knowledge in the 21st century is better than Columbus’ knowledge 500 years ago simply because of time… Time advances our race, we evolve and adapt and it is only expected for us to improve our knowledge. Simply put, we know more now than Columbus or his comrades could have because of time and technological factors.
The argument is the same when you consider the word better to imply condescension. We can’t possibly say that we are smarter than or superior to Columbus because it’s not the human brain that has improved, but the human population. When we say that our knowledge is better, it is not because Columbus as an individual lacked a talented, intelligent mind but as I said before, it is because time and technology have advanced the entire race.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we, as individuals, do not have a better way of knowing because our minds are just as human as Columbus’. However, humans in general have developed since Columbus discovered America in the 15th century and so I would say that the human race has a better, more improved way of knowing right now in the 21st century. Similarly, I assume (and hope) that in 500 years the human race will have improved knowledge as well. It’s not at all a bad thing – it’s natural progression!
However, when you go to a playground you would most likely hear this word used in a different way at one point or another. Little Lucy says to Silly Sally, “I’m better than you” and it’s magic! The word “better” suddenly takes on an implication of superiority!
I would prefer to think of the former definition of the word “better” in answering this blog question, even though I realize that the latter is also just as significant (but a little harder to argue). I wholeheartedly and undoubtedly believe that our knowledge has improved, or bettered, since Columbus’ time. I realize that I am a bit biased since I am living in these current times and think that we are pretty darn advanced in our knowledge. However, I would argue that it’s a natural and inevitable thing for the human race to better itself. Just as Columbus’ knowledge was better than that of the cavemen, our knowledge in the 21st century is better than Columbus’ knowledge 500 years ago simply because of time… Time advances our race, we evolve and adapt and it is only expected for us to improve our knowledge. Simply put, we know more now than Columbus or his comrades could have because of time and technological factors.
The argument is the same when you consider the word better to imply condescension. We can’t possibly say that we are smarter than or superior to Columbus because it’s not the human brain that has improved, but the human population. When we say that our knowledge is better, it is not because Columbus as an individual lacked a talented, intelligent mind but as I said before, it is because time and technology have advanced the entire race.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we, as individuals, do not have a better way of knowing because our minds are just as human as Columbus’. However, humans in general have developed since Columbus discovered America in the 15th century and so I would say that the human race has a better, more improved way of knowing right now in the 21st century. Similarly, I assume (and hope) that in 500 years the human race will have improved knowledge as well. It’s not at all a bad thing – it’s natural progression!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)