Progress and decline

This week, in the upcoming moments to our lecture on slavery, we were asked as a class to answer what factors were accountable for the disparity in white and african-american standards of living. This got me thinking more generally as to the causes for disparities in countries' living standards worldwide. Why is the east today generally less affluent than the west? Why has Africa as a continent not advanced technologically to the same level as Europe or the USA? Why have some nations progressed to modern standards of thought today while others remained rooted in traditional and more primitive thinking?

I do not believe the causes for world differences in living are linked to any differences in national intelligence. While areas such as the middle east may not be living in first world standards today, they made vast contributions to mathematics and science in previous ages, while Europe remained in a dark age dominated by the Roman Catholic church's doctrines. The middle east is responsible for the invention of algebra, irrigation, and if one looks far back enough to Mesopotamian civilization, the wheel. Europe's crusades to Jerusalem did much to bring them into contact with new ideas and technologies, whilst they remained in a superstitious age which saw the execution of scientists and the burning of witches. Each area of the world has seen its periods of rise and decline. The middle east, it would seem, is experiencing its own today, as poverty rates are high and politics are dictated largely by religion. The causes for these periods in rise and decline are what interest me.

China is a model example of a nation which experienced a golden age, followed by a dark age, and is now back on the rise to a golden age. China's legacy to the world cannot be described in this piece of writing alone, but includes fundamental items still used currently such as paper, the wheel barrow, the water mill, silk, and gun powder. Their philosophies on life were detailed and complex, featuring the schools of Confucian and Taoist thought. However, progress in China slowed during the age of European imperialism, allowing the mechanized west (namely Britain) to enter China, establish regions of extra-territoriality, and utilize its technological advantages in warfare to dominate the people of that nation. Following Britain's withdrawal from China, and its humiliation at the hands of the west, China has seen a great drive to bring its country to the level of a modern superpower, and currently possesses the fastest growing economy in the world. I however wonder why its period of decline and slowed progress happened at all. I believe a country's progress is fueled by a period of decline and hard living, and desire to escape it. As the living standards rise, though, the nation becomes increasingly lethargic and a period of decline ensues again. The explanation would fit China's history. It would fit Britain's history as well: Britain's status as an insignificant island changed enormously as it established the world's largest empire, while today it has returned to a country lacking true drive to progress, as its top two universities (Oxford and Cambridge) remain rather elitist in their acceptance of students, public examinations are becoming increasingly easy and meaningless, and its standards of state school education are incredibly poor.

I cannot help but see an obvious implication of my theory: hard work is disliked by the majority. It is done when necessary, to increase one's assets, but abandoned when living standards become comfortable. I certainly do not speak for all men or women, as many are hard workers in their very nature, but rather am just describing a trend I believe to be the truth for most.

Bias and neutrality

These past few days in class, we've been examining a textbook chapter on the american colonists' treatment of the natives, examining diction to give clues to the author's bias. After looking closely, it seems the author's bias in favor of the Indians is ridden everywhere. The language all serves to portray the white colonists as slaughterers and the Indians as innocent victims. As the saying goes, 'history is written by the victors, and so historical accounts will be written from the victor's point of view. In this case, the author's sympathy for the defeated Indians prevailed. Often times, however, the victor's account will portray the defeated side in a negative light.

It seems to me as if one's bias is inevitably inserted into their writing. Even if pure objectivity is intended, an author will have a hard time if not an impossible one avoiding the use of language that emphasizes his personal view point. He will also pick and choose the facts he wishes to include accordingly. If one reads Tacitus' accounts of the Roman conquering of Britain, or any other "barbarian" nation for that matter, the conquered tribes are portrayed as brutal savages, living primitively, and brought out of their dark ways by Roman influence. Contemporary european accounts of the crusades portrayed the crusaders as heroes, whereas muslim accounts obviously gave an opposite viewpoint. I doubt there has ever been a work of historical documentation written which truly refrains from bias.

A mosque at ground zero: cowardice or tolerance?

It is human nature to avoid hard truths. As humans we often turn to self-deception to avoid the matters we find hardest to face. In 1939, such self deception at the hands of Europe's governments proved fatal, resulting in the explosion that was the second world war. As Hitler rearmed Germany, breaking each term of the Treaty of Versailles, Britain's leader Neville Chamberlain and the French government turned a blind eye in an effort to escape the truth, ignoring it until their mistake proved fatal. Today a debate rages over the establishing of a mosque at ground zero, the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that shocked the west and established fear in american minds of the religion these terrorists practiced. Islam has seen a fast and powerful growth in the west, notably in Europe, where the muslim population is estimated to double by 2020. I cannot help but look in revolt when i see a faith westerners deem 'peaceful' attempt to establish a holy house of its own on the site where 3000 or so fell victim to the hands of its own followers. I cannot help but look in shame when i see the country that suffered such atrocities permit such a mosque to be built.

I do not for an instant believe all muslims to be terrorists or vice versa, and anyone who believes so is wholly ignorant. However, I do recognize that there is a notably substantial minority of muslims, those extreme practicioners, who threaten the safety of american lives and the west. It is fear of this minority that drives the appeasement of muslim demands, such as the building of this mosque. It is only an extreme and anti-western islamist who would desire the building of a mosque in a place that would provoke such great hurt and grief in the hearts of so many who lost loved ones there, that day. American have spoken out strongly against the mosque's establishment, with cries of 'USA' being heard at rallies. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/11/new.york.islamic.center.rallies/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn There are few, i find hard to believe otherwise, who are supportive of the mosque's construction. Obama himself stated that while they have the right to build the mosque, he is unsure of its wisdom.

It appears to me that the building of the mosque is being permitted not out of genuine belief in the right of muslims to practice their faith, but out of fear for national security if such a request be denied. The islamist leader behind the building of the mosque has stated that the USA's handling of the matter will affect its national security. In my mind he ought simply to have issued a terrorist threat. Pastor Terry Jones backed of his stated intention to burn koran books if such a mosque be built, due to Obama's appeal not to endanger the safety of troops in Afghanistan. Fear of extremist muslims prevented an american exercising his right to speak freely and express his anger. Yet no significant opposition has been made to the mosque's establishment. Their right to build it has gone for the most part unchallenged. As americans, we hide behind a facade of 'rights', the 'right' of a faction living within our own nation to build a temple of their own on ground where thousands of our own died at their hands. While it is true that these terrorists did not represent all muslims, they represented a notable sum, enough that a country's government refused to hand over the instigator of the attacks, driving us to war, where even more of our own died. If the muslims building the mosque wished no conflict, they would not choose such a site for the mosque. Yet we appease them.

This appeasement of islam stretches beyond New York and the USA. In the united kingdom, sharia courts have been granted the right to enforce muslim law on muslims living within the country. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece These courts can enforce the power of british law, passing judgements which often favor men over women. Surely, within a democracy, the law should apply equally to all? It seems the UK has its own version of democracy, though, where groups can live under differing laws of their own if they push hard enough. In France, as the muslim population grows rapidly, the french way of life has come under threat as public facilities such as swimming pools have begun to adjust their schedules to the muslim calendar and daily practice of prayer five times a day. For the first time in its history the rich and diverse culture of France has shown an inability to assimilate a group of arriving immigrants into its own practices. It would seem arriving islamists are determined to spread their own practices throughout the country until they supersede the nation's own culture. Yet France places no lines or barriers. It appeases.

At some point the west will have to step up and face a hard truth. Or perhaps we will suffer some form of repeat of the dark years of 1939-45. Who knows? All I know is I've lost faith in humanity's ability to learn from its mistakes.

Solitude and nature

This summer's reading on 'Into the Wild' has provoked thoughts within my mind on the withdrawal from society of certain known and important figures in search of higher fulfillment. Chris McCandless, inspired by the writings of Thoreau and Tolstoy, decided to pursue a solitary life in the american wilderness after graduating college, in an effort to escape the confines of routine and consumerism. He believes such a lifestyle offers superior rewards to those of the average citizen. Various religious figures are known to have practiced this same withdrawal from human contact: Jesus wandered in the desert for forty days and nights, the buddha meditated under a fig tree for 49 days, and the prophet muhammed likewise withdrew to the caves of Hira to meditate in solitude. The rewards these three sought were life changing experiences and revelations in their solitary wanderings. They all claim to have found them: Jesus, as the bible has it, describes being visited by satan, the buddha reaches enlightenment, and Mohammed is visited by the angel gabriel.

The association such men (and world changing men they were) have had between some higher attainment and a solitary, simple existence in the wilderness has provoked thoughts within my mind on the truth of such claims. Does such a base existence provide greater reward and satisfaction than the consumeristic life most of us live? Does it lead to realizations and answers we would not otherwise find? As an atheist, I lack any belief in the validity of claims Jesus, the buddha, or mohammed made. But that is not to say i reject the possibility of a greater self awareness achieved by such a lifestyle, which is what i believe chris mc Candless was ultimately seeking. Chris no where mentions religious motives behind his lifestyle, rather he simply believes its unpredictability and closeness with nature provides a greater satisfaction than that of wealth, which he holds in contempt. Perhaps there is truth to this statement, though i cannot see it applying to any except the purest intellectuals among us.