Diana Eck illustrated in “A New Religious America,” our need to expand our perspective of religion and religious life in the attempt to create a more inclusive society. Specifically, in chapter six Eck states that we need to move beyond first impressions and sight when she explains that “visible difference is the issue” (297). The first thing we seem to notice is sight and through sight difference and strangeness becomes readily apparent. It seems that our prejudgments come out when we see someone that looks different from the norm and that is always problematic.
Eck continues the chapter by illustrating how laws have been passed in the attempt to squash these prejudgments and discriminations that ensues from visible and religious difference. For instance, Eck notes that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination. However, the vague definition and the loose interpretation of the law causes hiccups in the process to gain religious equality. Eck indicates that “but just what constitutes ‘reasonable accommodations’ and ‘undue hardship’ is the thorny issue as each [court] case comes forward” (317). I feel that there is a need to have consistent and cohesive decisions when the language is extremely vague and requires constant interpretation. For instance, Eck explains how the courts rejected the claim that a Native American’s daughter obtain an alternative to the traditional social security number because it was felt that “to assign a number to his daughter would ‘rob her of her spirit.’” While that is very refreshing to hear and realistically few people are overjoyed to be assigned a number in place of their individuality, pragmatically it would be impractical for the government to allow this to take place. It seems like a sticky situation because both arguments are persuasive which makes it is hard to interpret and determine what is just and what is religious discrimination.
However, there were some cases that Eck portrayed that both shocked and appalled me as it essentially revealed the extreme ignorance of some people. This is especially evident when Eck repeats the dialogue of a worker at a domino’s pizza restaurant who states, “‘unless you take that stupid thing [head scarf] off you have to leave” (317). This illustrates that there is sometimes a lack of understanding of another religion and religious practice, especially in the workplace. Although there is individual responsibility of understating and education regarding religion, I think that it also has to be the responsibility of the employer to instill some kind of religious appreciation. Both employees and employers need to be held accountable. Ultimately, this example shows how there is a dire need for education on religion.
Throughout chapter six, Eck convincingly painted many pictures and incidents that reaffirmed our need for understanding regarding other religions. However, I disagreed with Eck’s comparison between religious discrimination and racial discrimination. Eck stated that “looking different comes with a price, as America’s Amish and Hutterites can testify and as people of racial minorities in the U.S. have experienced” (299). Although I definitely agree that religious discrimination is unjust and unnecessary, the choice to wear a headscarf (as was Eck’s example of religious discrimination) can be removed and therefore, it is to some small degree, a choice. Whereas race and skin color is not a choice because it cannot be changed or taken off to alleviate prejudice or discrimination. Therefore, while I see Eck’s point that religious discrimination is prevalent and harmful in society I disagreed with her analogy to race. I also found myself asking more question and wanting more explanation during this chapter. For instance, Eck states that “local media responded supportively with outrage, but the tragedy was ignored by state and national media” (312). I wanted to know why religious persecution or discrimination does not receive national media attention?
Overall, I found Eck’s writing to be extremely informative and I agreed with her solution that we need to stop being strangers and begin to see each other as neighbors and friends. This means taking the time to learn and understand religious differences instead of just pegging them as abnormal or strange. Eck concludes by stating that “time and again, stories that begin with incidents of hatred and conflict evolve in time into stories of new neighbors who have, in the course of their conflict, learned much more about one another. Distant images have become people with faces, voices and problems...and neighbors, even those who differ from us, become allies in creating our common society” (332). It seems that once we get to know and understand a person on an individual level, the lack of understanding and prejudicial ignorance flakes off. It made me understand why Eck notes that “the most religiously motivated hate crimes are directed at property rather than people” (301). It shows that individuals resist what they do not understand and what they think religion symbolizes. Instead of putting a face to Islam or Buddhism or Christianity they pull from the abstract and create misinformation that makes “other religions” seem dangerous and unwanted.
Karen Armstrong also reiterated the need for appreciation and reeducation of religion in her speech regarding the Charter for Compassion. What I found most intriguing and enlightening was the fact that Armstrong vehemently pushed the need to display compassion. She noted the benefits of having compassion is that “we dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and we put another person there.” I felt that this quote was important because it is such a simple ideal yet it seems the hardest to achieve. Instead of compassion some interpret the holy texts so that they are only applicable to them and only benefit them. Some people mold and form religion so it fits in their world and meshes with their beliefs. All texts and laws can be to a certain extent twisted and interpreted in order to benefit someone or something. I believed she referred to this as “religious illiteracy.” Ultimately, Armstrong advocated a reclamation of religion as a tool for compassion and empathy and I thought she illustrated a refreshing illustration of the potential of religion
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Research Project Proposal
I am interested in finding out the details of the situation regarding the protesting monks in Burma. I heard about the incident (Buddhist monks protesting the government in Burma) briefly in September, but I haven’t really pursued any details regarding the why. I would like to know the background that led up to this point. I would also like to find out about the current situation and its impact on the United States (if any). I am interested in the relationship between this religious group and their outspoken response to their government and think that it would be a good topic for me to explore.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
White Theology
In Mo’s presentation handout last Tuesday she observed in James W. Perkison’s article, “White Theology: Outing Supremacy in Modernity,” that the white/male normative gaze still exists today. She states that “our social structure and media have this gaze as the base for women’s approval level, that women must conform to and be a product of desire for white men.” I definitely agree that beauty is defined from the gaze of the white male. For instance, women tend to discipline the body in order to conform to this ideal image through corsets, bras, heels, etc. Furthermore, in terms of race and ethnicity, we see European beauty as the norm while other races’ beauty is categorized as “exotic” and “unusual.” This beauty ideal and this white normative gaze clearly illustrates white supremacy and how this dominant culture elicits self-defined superiority. For instance, in “The American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World,” David E. Stannard states that the idea that Native Americans were actually human was constantly questioned because “if they were men, they were ‘men without God, without Law, without breeches’” (229). I thought it was extremely funny that their lack of clothes presumes that they are savages. But however illogical, it was not surprising to me. This fact that I was not shocked or surprised by the article's illustrations is in actuality extremely sad. Essentially, this line of thinking illustrates how Europeans did not and (for the most part) could not, put themselves in the shoes of Native Americans. Instead, there was a presumption and deep rooted belief that their culture was superior to all other cultures. This is true even today. We call certain types of customs archaic and villages without electricity are deemed primitive. We cannot see the benefits of having these different customs because it is ingrained in our minds that our way is the most effective way. I go back to Ishmael again when he states that, “each Leaver people has a system that works well for them because it…was suited to the terrain in which they lived, suited to the climate in which they lived, suited to the biological community…suited to their own particular tastes, preferences, and visions of the world” (206). Ishmael calls this “wisdom.” However, it is this wisdom that our dominant culture lacks because we insist that our way of living is the best way regardless of climate, biology, taste, etc. It illustrates how the United States’ culture is deeply ingrained with white privilege because we believe that we have the right to control and criticize the activities of other cultures and customs. Who’s to say our customs are superior or even correct? It is because of the white male normative gaze.
James W. Perkison continues his argument of white theology and white privilege by stating that “white self-confession requires more than mere self-naming or ‘me- too-ism.’ It demands clear steps of conversion away from the historical intentions of material privileges of white self-interest” (226). When individuals come to the realization that they are beneficially impacted by white privilege it is a profound discovery. However, Perkison notes that dismantling white privilege goes beyond just admitting that the privilege exists. The hardest part is consciously taking steps to strip some of that privilege from a person’s life. Perkison examines this white privilege through gated community living. He notes that “for some, refusal to live ‘middle class’ in lifestyle and ‘gated’ in a place is a deep choice of spiritual formation and a first step toward social solidarity with the marginalized” (228). This seemingly simple choice actually has powerful connotations. Living in a gated community assumes that a safer environment can be created with a certain level of wealth and money. It also presumes that a gated community is in fact safer than a street without a gate. Furthermore, instead of taking action to change and uplift a community or area, a gated community encourages that money can buy safety and other non material things.
Perkison also asserts throughout this article that everyone benefits either indirectly or directly from this privilege and it takes individual and collective responsibility to join the struggle. The “tongue” or the voice cannot alone solve any solutions. Instead, it is “complex rhythm—in concert with other bodies similarly working anguish into eloquence—is the longest-standing human antidote for such inchoate eruptions” (232). It requires that we no longer look through the white/male gaze and value the white male body as the norm in our culture. It requires a complete reformation of our cultural assumptions. For instance, in our society today most, including myself, still struggle with identifying what is white culture and identifying my white privilege when it takes on the most minuscule forms in my life and in the life of others. Furthermore, this white gaze relates directly to our society’s preference and use of labels for categorization. Labels are used to classify people on a scale where white actions and white culture is normative. Certain types of speech and certain types of dress are valued over others as a way to illustrate covertly that white culture is at “the apex of the great chain of being” (71). Perkison states that “confronting white supremacy in oneself, sooner of later, means exploring the possibility of learning to speak in more than just one voice, to express more than just one rhythm, to reiterate more than just one culture” (238). Ultimately, I take this to mean that even if we use labels as a way of identification, we need to escape from this antiquated idea of assigning value to certain labels.
Perkison concludes his article by briefing touching on the issue of baptism and religion in the context of white supremacy. He explains that instead of experiencing a “momentary, a brief ‘wetting’” of this enlightenment we need a baptismal reprogramming where an individual is enlightened and “able to see and feel the significance of the entire system of supremacy” which would inevitably involve “a disinterring of the theological structure of whiteness as a mode of identity” (245). In these brief last two or three pages Perkison makes a very strong case in which he unveils the negative aspect of religion in the dominant culture. I feel that most hide under the façade of enlightenment that comes with baptism and religion. They realize that discrimination and this “othering” is unnecessary and unwarranted. However, just as recognition of the problem is not enough, neither is a brief water drop of enlightenment. Instead, there needs to be an inclusive look at white supremacy and how it manifests in most religious structures. For instance, at the most obvious level, how is it that today, women are not allowed to be in the high positions of the Catholic Church? How come some religions are segregated by race and gays are condemned for their lifestyle? These questions and more need to be examined and scrutinized in order to see that small silvers of enlightenment does not dismantle this “theological structure of whiteness” that is so prevalent in the dominant religions and in dominant society today.
James W. Perkison continues his argument of white theology and white privilege by stating that “white self-confession requires more than mere self-naming or ‘me- too-ism.’ It demands clear steps of conversion away from the historical intentions of material privileges of white self-interest” (226). When individuals come to the realization that they are beneficially impacted by white privilege it is a profound discovery. However, Perkison notes that dismantling white privilege goes beyond just admitting that the privilege exists. The hardest part is consciously taking steps to strip some of that privilege from a person’s life. Perkison examines this white privilege through gated community living. He notes that “for some, refusal to live ‘middle class’ in lifestyle and ‘gated’ in a place is a deep choice of spiritual formation and a first step toward social solidarity with the marginalized” (228). This seemingly simple choice actually has powerful connotations. Living in a gated community assumes that a safer environment can be created with a certain level of wealth and money. It also presumes that a gated community is in fact safer than a street without a gate. Furthermore, instead of taking action to change and uplift a community or area, a gated community encourages that money can buy safety and other non material things.
Perkison also asserts throughout this article that everyone benefits either indirectly or directly from this privilege and it takes individual and collective responsibility to join the struggle. The “tongue” or the voice cannot alone solve any solutions. Instead, it is “complex rhythm—in concert with other bodies similarly working anguish into eloquence—is the longest-standing human antidote for such inchoate eruptions” (232). It requires that we no longer look through the white/male gaze and value the white male body as the norm in our culture. It requires a complete reformation of our cultural assumptions. For instance, in our society today most, including myself, still struggle with identifying what is white culture and identifying my white privilege when it takes on the most minuscule forms in my life and in the life of others. Furthermore, this white gaze relates directly to our society’s preference and use of labels for categorization. Labels are used to classify people on a scale where white actions and white culture is normative. Certain types of speech and certain types of dress are valued over others as a way to illustrate covertly that white culture is at “the apex of the great chain of being” (71). Perkison states that “confronting white supremacy in oneself, sooner of later, means exploring the possibility of learning to speak in more than just one voice, to express more than just one rhythm, to reiterate more than just one culture” (238). Ultimately, I take this to mean that even if we use labels as a way of identification, we need to escape from this antiquated idea of assigning value to certain labels.
Perkison concludes his article by briefing touching on the issue of baptism and religion in the context of white supremacy. He explains that instead of experiencing a “momentary, a brief ‘wetting’” of this enlightenment we need a baptismal reprogramming where an individual is enlightened and “able to see and feel the significance of the entire system of supremacy” which would inevitably involve “a disinterring of the theological structure of whiteness as a mode of identity” (245). In these brief last two or three pages Perkison makes a very strong case in which he unveils the negative aspect of religion in the dominant culture. I feel that most hide under the façade of enlightenment that comes with baptism and religion. They realize that discrimination and this “othering” is unnecessary and unwarranted. However, just as recognition of the problem is not enough, neither is a brief water drop of enlightenment. Instead, there needs to be an inclusive look at white supremacy and how it manifests in most religious structures. For instance, at the most obvious level, how is it that today, women are not allowed to be in the high positions of the Catholic Church? How come some religions are segregated by race and gays are condemned for their lifestyle? These questions and more need to be examined and scrutinized in order to see that small silvers of enlightenment does not dismantle this “theological structure of whiteness” that is so prevalent in the dominant religions and in dominant society today.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The World We Used To Live In
In The World We Used to Live In, Vine Deloria Jr. explains spirituality and religion concerning both Native Americans and non-Native American perceptions. Deloria begins by explaining how Indian spirituality is heavily commercialized and appropriated. Deloria even explains that “the mystery is largely gone” and these rituals are just that, only rituals without any real meaning that was invested behind these rituals before they became known to the public. We have turned into a consumerism society where we value “accumulating goods” which forces us to set aside Native Americans' values because they don’t match with the dominant society. Deloria notes that only “the south-western tribes are to be congratulated for their protection of sacred ceremonies.” He states that they don’t let strangers into their ceremonies that might exploit them and use their rituals to gain any kind of profit. Deloria implies that in Native American culture there is a huge difference between exploitation and education but these two completely different issues seem to get blurred together at times. In the attempt to educate non-Native Americans, they open up their rituals and cultural activities to the public and in turn these sacred activities become exploited and commercialized.
This is largely due to the fact that non-Native Americans don’t value the spiritual; they only value what is visible. This is most evident when Deloria states that, “believing in nothing, we have preempted the role of the higher spiritual forces by acknowledging no greater good than what we can feel and touch.” This idea that there is value only in the material is reiterated in Ishmael and its comments on the “taker” society. Since most of the time there is no concrete material benefit in believing in spirituality, “takers” tend to degrade spiritual activities and rituals because there is an absence of physical proof.
Deloria also quotes Thomas Lewis in The Medicine Man stating “it would be helpful to return to the old religions in a new form.” Like in Ishmael, you can’t go back completely to the past. As a society we are not in the position to return to hunter-gatherers. Likewise, Deloria illustrates how Native Americans cannot return to the past. For instance, the Ghost Dance did not work because there is an inability to return completely to the past. We cannot ignore the present. Instead, both Deloria and Quinn illustrate how it is the idea of re-incorporating the past into the present that recreates a new (and perhaps better) form of religion and spirituality. Part of this incorporation of the past and the present that both Deloria and Quinn stress is achieved by having a relationship with nature. For instance, Deloria states that “being keen observers of the natural world, the people could quickly tell when something was amiss from the response of birds and animals to disturbances or the sudden changes of weather patterns.” Deloria notes how important it is to recognize the power of nature and it signs, behaviors and patterns. I definitely agree with this idea that nature is very telling and it can help us foresee what is ahead. For instance, in Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, Hurston explains how first the animals moved out of the everglades followed by the Native Americans because they knew that a hurricane was coming. Hurston states that “the next day, more Indians moved east, unhurried but steady. Still a blue sky and fair weather. Beans running fine and prices good, so the Indian could be must be, wrong. You couldn’t have a hurricane when you’re making seven and eight dollars a day picking beans. Indians are dumb anyhow, always were” (155). Hurston’s words reiterate Deloria’s ideas in this article. Native Americans seem to be more in tune to nature and its systems and non-Native Americans or “takers” are more in tune to consumerism and capitalism where money runs life. If the characters in the novel were making money it couldn’t possible mean that Mother Nature would ruin their luck. There seems to be this imbedded belief by “takers” that since the material is present there is no need to listen to the immaterial or listen to nature.
Also, the fact that “leavers” (Native Americans) have a deep connection with nature while most “takers” do not is indicative of the fact that most “takers” do not value or really listen to our planet or the environment. Deloria states that “Indians were tuned in to the almost indiscernible rhythms of nature.” They have a deeply enriched connection with nature. However, “takers” instead of achieving this kind of connection, buy audio tapes of nature sounds. Instead of changing our lifestyle or attitudes we attempt to achieve the sounds of nature through recorded audio in order to feel connected in the unnatural or “concrete jungle” of the city. This type of action and thinking does not establish any kind of deep connection and I believe that it also reinforces this false belief that we do not need to change to survive.
Deloria also talks a lot about dreams and the power of dreams for Native Americans. He states that the power of dreams and the dangers of dreams are prevalent in the Native American culture. Deloria indicates that the Sioux believe that naps during the day will make them more vulnerable to bad and mischievous spirits. I believe that even in the dominant “taker” society there is always a fascination of dreams and their meaning. We have dreams books that analyze our dreams and their meanings. We have horoscopes that explain our behaviors and we have fortune tellers that predict our future. And although many of these things are seen with skepticism, people still are influenced by them. For instance, if you ask people, “what is your horoscope sign?” the majority of people will know what sign they are even if they don’t believe in the implications of horoscopes. And personally, although I don't take horoscopes very seriously, I take my dreams very seriously. The dreams that I remember upon waking usually foreshadow the future or something that is preoccupying my mind at the moment. It allows me to see my truest intentions and feelings.
Overall, the connection between Deloria and Quinn is very strong. Even though Deloria’s article deals with the specificity of Native American culture, both pieces of literature proclaim our need to have a greater relationship with nature. Both illustrate this immediate need and desire to work in harmony with the environment and nature. Progress and our quest for civilization and advancement has erased our connection with the environment and it has led us to degrade Native Americans’ close relationship with the environment. “Takers” do not see this interconnection as beneficial because it has no seemingly material value or reward. But in reality, Deloria illustrates that having a connection and a respect for the environment is highly beneficial because it helps us to “fit into the physical world in the most constructive manner” and it will have positive outcomes in the long run.
This is largely due to the fact that non-Native Americans don’t value the spiritual; they only value what is visible. This is most evident when Deloria states that, “believing in nothing, we have preempted the role of the higher spiritual forces by acknowledging no greater good than what we can feel and touch.” This idea that there is value only in the material is reiterated in Ishmael and its comments on the “taker” society. Since most of the time there is no concrete material benefit in believing in spirituality, “takers” tend to degrade spiritual activities and rituals because there is an absence of physical proof.
Deloria also quotes Thomas Lewis in The Medicine Man stating “it would be helpful to return to the old religions in a new form.” Like in Ishmael, you can’t go back completely to the past. As a society we are not in the position to return to hunter-gatherers. Likewise, Deloria illustrates how Native Americans cannot return to the past. For instance, the Ghost Dance did not work because there is an inability to return completely to the past. We cannot ignore the present. Instead, both Deloria and Quinn illustrate how it is the idea of re-incorporating the past into the present that recreates a new (and perhaps better) form of religion and spirituality. Part of this incorporation of the past and the present that both Deloria and Quinn stress is achieved by having a relationship with nature. For instance, Deloria states that “being keen observers of the natural world, the people could quickly tell when something was amiss from the response of birds and animals to disturbances or the sudden changes of weather patterns.” Deloria notes how important it is to recognize the power of nature and it signs, behaviors and patterns. I definitely agree with this idea that nature is very telling and it can help us foresee what is ahead. For instance, in Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, Hurston explains how first the animals moved out of the everglades followed by the Native Americans because they knew that a hurricane was coming. Hurston states that “the next day, more Indians moved east, unhurried but steady. Still a blue sky and fair weather. Beans running fine and prices good, so the Indian could be must be, wrong. You couldn’t have a hurricane when you’re making seven and eight dollars a day picking beans. Indians are dumb anyhow, always were” (155). Hurston’s words reiterate Deloria’s ideas in this article. Native Americans seem to be more in tune to nature and its systems and non-Native Americans or “takers” are more in tune to consumerism and capitalism where money runs life. If the characters in the novel were making money it couldn’t possible mean that Mother Nature would ruin their luck. There seems to be this imbedded belief by “takers” that since the material is present there is no need to listen to the immaterial or listen to nature.
Also, the fact that “leavers” (Native Americans) have a deep connection with nature while most “takers” do not is indicative of the fact that most “takers” do not value or really listen to our planet or the environment. Deloria states that “Indians were tuned in to the almost indiscernible rhythms of nature.” They have a deeply enriched connection with nature. However, “takers” instead of achieving this kind of connection, buy audio tapes of nature sounds. Instead of changing our lifestyle or attitudes we attempt to achieve the sounds of nature through recorded audio in order to feel connected in the unnatural or “concrete jungle” of the city. This type of action and thinking does not establish any kind of deep connection and I believe that it also reinforces this false belief that we do not need to change to survive.
Deloria also talks a lot about dreams and the power of dreams for Native Americans. He states that the power of dreams and the dangers of dreams are prevalent in the Native American culture. Deloria indicates that the Sioux believe that naps during the day will make them more vulnerable to bad and mischievous spirits. I believe that even in the dominant “taker” society there is always a fascination of dreams and their meaning. We have dreams books that analyze our dreams and their meanings. We have horoscopes that explain our behaviors and we have fortune tellers that predict our future. And although many of these things are seen with skepticism, people still are influenced by them. For instance, if you ask people, “what is your horoscope sign?” the majority of people will know what sign they are even if they don’t believe in the implications of horoscopes. And personally, although I don't take horoscopes very seriously, I take my dreams very seriously. The dreams that I remember upon waking usually foreshadow the future or something that is preoccupying my mind at the moment. It allows me to see my truest intentions and feelings.
Overall, the connection between Deloria and Quinn is very strong. Even though Deloria’s article deals with the specificity of Native American culture, both pieces of literature proclaim our need to have a greater relationship with nature. Both illustrate this immediate need and desire to work in harmony with the environment and nature. Progress and our quest for civilization and advancement has erased our connection with the environment and it has led us to degrade Native Americans’ close relationship with the environment. “Takers” do not see this interconnection as beneficial because it has no seemingly material value or reward. But in reality, Deloria illustrates that having a connection and a respect for the environment is highly beneficial because it helps us to “fit into the physical world in the most constructive manner” and it will have positive outcomes in the long run.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Ishmael
In Ishmael; An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit, Daniel Quinn vividly depicts the interconnection between the past, present, and future. Quinn not only pinpoints the source of the problems associated with humans’ views of progress but also attempts to rectify the problem and set a foundation for the solution to the problem.
Danniel Quinn immediately dispels the reader’s traditional way of thinking by having the protagonist, Alex Lomax, as the student and his teacher as a gorilla. When a teacher comes to mind the traditional association is a person of reverence who has greater wisdom and knowledge. Alex states that, “I thought there had to be someone out there with an unknown wisdom who could dispel my disillusionment and bewilderment: a teacher” only to find that the teacher is not a “someone” but a gorilla (5). This animal, although associated with intelligence, is not usually perceived as having greater intellect than a human. However, reflecting back on the novel and its content, it seems entirely appropriate that Ishmael is a gorilla and the only teacher who knows how to save the human race, and subsequently the entire world. Ishmael is a “Leaver” and understands what changes are necessary of the human population. This untraditional power structure between the gorilla and the human immediately dismantles the traditional way of thinking. It further establishes the need to set aside our perceived superiority and dominance and see that we need to listen and learn from everything and everyone. I also believe that this relationship illuminates that fact that sometimes an impartial viewer who is not part of the problem is the only one who is able to clearly see the problem.
The problem, Ishmael notes is that the “Takers” or the non-indigenous humans are egotistical in their thinking and ideology. He explains how the premise of the “Taker” story is “the world was made for man.” I agree that the majority of people wholeheartedly believe that the world was made for humans and it belongs to us. This is most evident by the fact that we buy and sell land and animals as though we have the ability and right to possess these things. I read an article in the Press Democrat a week ago about how two undersea cables were broken in the Mediterranean Sea which caused reduced internet services in India and Europe and hindered many U.S. businesses that rely on communication overseas (Pressdemo.com). The article’s entirety consisted of the consequences of this break in technology. I was shocked that there was no mention of the impact that this broken cable had on the environment anywhere in the article. Moreover, before I read the article I had no idea there were even cables under the sea. This article and my naivety about the topic further solidifies that fact that our pursuit for technology and technological advancement is extremely narrow minded. Humans are hailed intelligent for these great advancements and as a consumer I use these resources for their ease and efficiency without even considering the impact it causes on everything else. This instance further illuminated that fact that humans are destroying the world with little concern or caution.
Ishmael explains this disillusionment of humans through the analogy of man taking flight on the “Taker Thunderbolt.” Initially everything looks like a success and even when the ground begins to rise up, “Takers” have the false sense of security that everything is going well. However, conditions become worse. Ishmael contributes this degenerated condition through the paradox that states that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population” (109). At first I was confused when Ishmael explained that increased food production for the starving people in the Third World would not ensure population stability. My immediate reaction was that it was unjust to allow individuals to starve to death just to keep the population down. However, upon more careful consideration, I realized that was not what the book was trying to convey. Instead, it is society that wants individuals in developed countries to feel pity of those in their deprived situation. It unjustly illustrates that we are doing people a favor by aiding and providing food to underdeveloped countries. But in reality, developed countries control of food production creates this unequal distribution of resources and food and instigates this unbalanced power. Ultimately, it is this control of resources and the ideology that there is a need and a right to control resources that is problematic and ensures the novel’s claim that society will not continue forever this way.
Daniel Quinn also illustrates how the dominant society’s cultural values are in desperate need of revision and improvement. In the novel, Ishmael explains how most dominant cultures “esteem the values and traditions of wiser, nobler ancestors and deplore their disappearance, but they have no interest in living the way those wiser, nobler ancestors lived. In short, ancient customs are nice for institutions, ceremonies, and holidays, but Takers don’t want to adopt them for everyday living” (202). This statement incorporates the idea that technological progress and cultural advancements take precedence over historical traditions. Typically, dominant cultures only take what is wanted and what is thought as useful to include in the present. It is a very tunnel-vision mentality where the past and the future are mostly forgotten, while the present is valued as supremely important. Therefore, it seems that our reverence to our ancestors is only partial. Furthermore, our concern for the future is only partial as well. There is knowledge that the icecaps are melting and species are disappearing and there is a general consensus that something needs to be changed. And small changes have been occurring. For example, San Francisco City Board of Supervisors passed a law that banned plastic bags in large supermarkets due to environmental concerns that are associated with these plastic bags (SFGate.com). These are positive steps; however the novel’s environmental concerns are much greater than these small steps. One of the novel’s grand claims is that creation has stopped. This is most evident when Ishmael concludes that “those who live in the hands of gods evolve and those who don’t cease to evolve” (237). The implication being that the human race will eventually be destroyed if we continue this way.
But what to do? The novel suggests that awareness and education of the masses through publication and print is the first step to changing the current system (248). It also dispels the idea that we need to revert back to hunter-gatherers to be a successful culture (250). Furthermore, it reiterates the prevalent idea that control and power needs to be redistributed out of the hands of white males (253). All these suggestions are valid and make complete sense. As a reader I was in awe of Quinn’s capability to understandably illustrate the falsehood of history and the past and convincingly show how the present is in desperate need of change. I also was moved by the idea that change must occur with a change in the foundation of the “Taker” ideology (that we are only a part of the world, not owners of the world). But when Alex asks Ishmael what can be done, Ishmael’s only response is to “invent.” (250). As a reader, I wanted a suggestion for change – a suggestion for an invention because it is difficult to fully comprehend and imagine a system that is different from the present. I was left wondering what this change that Ishmael advocates would look like. How would the invention “save the world” as it states in the ad in the beginning of the novel? I longed for some tangible solution that I could hold on to. But again, after I digested the novel I realized that Ishmael had left me with many questions answered and those questions that were unanswerable were for me to ponder for myself. Essentially, Ishmael illustrated through the past, present, and the future the genuine necessity that change must occur.
Danniel Quinn immediately dispels the reader’s traditional way of thinking by having the protagonist, Alex Lomax, as the student and his teacher as a gorilla. When a teacher comes to mind the traditional association is a person of reverence who has greater wisdom and knowledge. Alex states that, “I thought there had to be someone out there with an unknown wisdom who could dispel my disillusionment and bewilderment: a teacher” only to find that the teacher is not a “someone” but a gorilla (5). This animal, although associated with intelligence, is not usually perceived as having greater intellect than a human. However, reflecting back on the novel and its content, it seems entirely appropriate that Ishmael is a gorilla and the only teacher who knows how to save the human race, and subsequently the entire world. Ishmael is a “Leaver” and understands what changes are necessary of the human population. This untraditional power structure between the gorilla and the human immediately dismantles the traditional way of thinking. It further establishes the need to set aside our perceived superiority and dominance and see that we need to listen and learn from everything and everyone. I also believe that this relationship illuminates that fact that sometimes an impartial viewer who is not part of the problem is the only one who is able to clearly see the problem.
The problem, Ishmael notes is that the “Takers” or the non-indigenous humans are egotistical in their thinking and ideology. He explains how the premise of the “Taker” story is “the world was made for man.” I agree that the majority of people wholeheartedly believe that the world was made for humans and it belongs to us. This is most evident by the fact that we buy and sell land and animals as though we have the ability and right to possess these things. I read an article in the Press Democrat a week ago about how two undersea cables were broken in the Mediterranean Sea which caused reduced internet services in India and Europe and hindered many U.S. businesses that rely on communication overseas (Pressdemo.com). The article’s entirety consisted of the consequences of this break in technology. I was shocked that there was no mention of the impact that this broken cable had on the environment anywhere in the article. Moreover, before I read the article I had no idea there were even cables under the sea. This article and my naivety about the topic further solidifies that fact that our pursuit for technology and technological advancement is extremely narrow minded. Humans are hailed intelligent for these great advancements and as a consumer I use these resources for their ease and efficiency without even considering the impact it causes on everything else. This instance further illuminated that fact that humans are destroying the world with little concern or caution.
Ishmael explains this disillusionment of humans through the analogy of man taking flight on the “Taker Thunderbolt.” Initially everything looks like a success and even when the ground begins to rise up, “Takers” have the false sense of security that everything is going well. However, conditions become worse. Ishmael contributes this degenerated condition through the paradox that states that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population” (109). At first I was confused when Ishmael explained that increased food production for the starving people in the Third World would not ensure population stability. My immediate reaction was that it was unjust to allow individuals to starve to death just to keep the population down. However, upon more careful consideration, I realized that was not what the book was trying to convey. Instead, it is society that wants individuals in developed countries to feel pity of those in their deprived situation. It unjustly illustrates that we are doing people a favor by aiding and providing food to underdeveloped countries. But in reality, developed countries control of food production creates this unequal distribution of resources and food and instigates this unbalanced power. Ultimately, it is this control of resources and the ideology that there is a need and a right to control resources that is problematic and ensures the novel’s claim that society will not continue forever this way.
Daniel Quinn also illustrates how the dominant society’s cultural values are in desperate need of revision and improvement. In the novel, Ishmael explains how most dominant cultures “esteem the values and traditions of wiser, nobler ancestors and deplore their disappearance, but they have no interest in living the way those wiser, nobler ancestors lived. In short, ancient customs are nice for institutions, ceremonies, and holidays, but Takers don’t want to adopt them for everyday living” (202). This statement incorporates the idea that technological progress and cultural advancements take precedence over historical traditions. Typically, dominant cultures only take what is wanted and what is thought as useful to include in the present. It is a very tunnel-vision mentality where the past and the future are mostly forgotten, while the present is valued as supremely important. Therefore, it seems that our reverence to our ancestors is only partial. Furthermore, our concern for the future is only partial as well. There is knowledge that the icecaps are melting and species are disappearing and there is a general consensus that something needs to be changed. And small changes have been occurring. For example, San Francisco City Board of Supervisors passed a law that banned plastic bags in large supermarkets due to environmental concerns that are associated with these plastic bags (SFGate.com). These are positive steps; however the novel’s environmental concerns are much greater than these small steps. One of the novel’s grand claims is that creation has stopped. This is most evident when Ishmael concludes that “those who live in the hands of gods evolve and those who don’t cease to evolve” (237). The implication being that the human race will eventually be destroyed if we continue this way.
But what to do? The novel suggests that awareness and education of the masses through publication and print is the first step to changing the current system (248). It also dispels the idea that we need to revert back to hunter-gatherers to be a successful culture (250). Furthermore, it reiterates the prevalent idea that control and power needs to be redistributed out of the hands of white males (253). All these suggestions are valid and make complete sense. As a reader I was in awe of Quinn’s capability to understandably illustrate the falsehood of history and the past and convincingly show how the present is in desperate need of change. I also was moved by the idea that change must occur with a change in the foundation of the “Taker” ideology (that we are only a part of the world, not owners of the world). But when Alex asks Ishmael what can be done, Ishmael’s only response is to “invent.” (250). As a reader, I wanted a suggestion for change – a suggestion for an invention because it is difficult to fully comprehend and imagine a system that is different from the present. I was left wondering what this change that Ishmael advocates would look like. How would the invention “save the world” as it states in the ad in the beginning of the novel? I longed for some tangible solution that I could hold on to. But again, after I digested the novel I realized that Ishmael had left me with many questions answered and those questions that were unanswerable were for me to ponder for myself. Essentially, Ishmael illustrated through the past, present, and the future the genuine necessity that change must occur.
Introduction
My name is Stacy Nojima. I am an AMCS and English major. I am taking this class because I think it would be informative for me to learn about spirituality and religion and I thought it might influence some self-discovery in the process. As I stated in class, I am not very religious. Growing up, my life and my actions weren’t heavily influenced by religion. Both my parents were raised religiously; however, they did not establish any sort of religion in the home. As a result, I haven't really been educated regarding religion or spirituality so this class will be an eye opener and I am positive that I will be learning a lot during the semester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)