I often read, and write comments on, the online news site Huffington Post. I am moved to write replies to people who express ideas counter to mine—such as "homosexuality is a sin (abomination, etc.)." This may result in a back-and-forth dialog in which they in turn try to refute what I said.
Of course I have to suspect that no one convinces anyone. Neither they nor I am there to have my mind changed. Nor, generally, do we behave with open minds. So much of what we read only reinforces opinions we already hold. Liberals read liberal magazines, conservatives read conservative magazines. That's called "preaching to the choir." So we hear (or read) what we already believe because that's what we want to hear.
But as a thoughtful person—forgive a little patting-of-self-on-back—I wonder why people believe what they believe.
Often people have received their ideas, to put it simply: from parents, teachers, preachers. Of course that only begs the question, by moving it up, or back, to someone else, and then we have to ask why they believe. . . ad infinitum.
As to receiving ideas from one's teachers: it is commonly believed that education makes one more liberal. I'd agree, but would hasten to add that it depends on the kind of education. The business school student who reads Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman is going to have different ideas than the English major who reads John Steinbeck and Kurt Vonnegut.
Many people receive the ideas, attitudes, values, beliefs, etc., that are prevalent in their environment: their family, culture, church, etc. A great majority of people are not likely ever to doubt or question their beliefs. If and when people do question what they (and their family, etc.) have believed, it's often the result of something occurring. Something has occurred to shake a person's faith in God. A mother learns that her child is gay and starts to question the condemnations of homosexuality that she has heard all her life. The son of slave owners comes to feel that blacks deserve better treatment than they are receiving under the system of slave ownership.
There are characteristics of the individual at work sometimes. Those few people who question the beliefs received from their parents may possess a certain character--perhaps something like autonomy, or skepticism; at any event, what we might call an independent cast of mind. And, some
people are more thoughtful, more "sensitive." This we might call personality,
character, whatever. And they'd do well to have some courage, too, because they are going to be "on the outs" with their families, and that can be a difficult row to hoe.
I think people with a certain psychological makeup or personality type are more likely to be conservative, and there probably is something more or less parallel in the making of a liberal. And probably there is simply a certain mystery to it all.
Sometimes it's a whole culture that undergoes a conversion to new ideas. I was just reading some interesting ideas about why Hitler was as powerful and influential as he was. I think that's an interesting question. It's often been pointed out that here was a cultured nation, arguably the leader of the world in many fields of scholarship and the arts, that allowed itself to be led into an insane war and also to commit some of the worst atrocities in human history.
But maybe that was not so much a case of changing of minds as just stirring up and exploiting existing attitudes. The article on Hitler's influence said that the German people were already predisposed to anti-Semitism. But it did not go too much into the nationalistic ideas that had prevailed in Germany for a long time, nor Germany's wounded national pride as the result of its defeat in World War I and the humiliation (as they saw it) of the Treaty of Versailles. It's clear that all these things were going on.
Religious conversion might be an interesting case. If you look at they way in which many European cultures became converted to Christianity, often the king or other ruler was persuaded to convert—and then (certainly not miraculously!) the rest of the country converted, too.
Other times religious evangelizing has targeted individual after individual. One only has to think of missionaries, such as Mormon missionaries, who go door to door. So when this is successful, it is a case of changing people's minds. Christianity sometimes won converts because it promised an afterlife. It might be interesting to figure out what carrot (or stick) the Mormons use to gain converts; I'm neither inclined nor qualified to do this here and now.
So, back to my original question. Sometimes we can see where people's ideas have come from. Then there are the issues of whether and in what circumstances minds do or don't get changed. Sometimes we can see what has gone on. But to put it all in a larger perspective, human behavior is complex and very seldom explained simply. We've got the science of the behavior of the individual—psychology—and sciences of the behavior of people en masse—sociology, political science, economics. I submit that none of these fields is so far advanced that we thoroughly, completely understand human behavior.
Revised and expanded April 29, 2013
Appendix A, Added April 29, 2013
Okay, now I would like to propose a question for my readers (with some possible answer choices). I pose this as a question put to my readers because, while this blog has, very gratifyingly, been getting a significantly greater readership lately, my postings—which sometimes try to be controversial and provocative—have not been getting any comments.
So, here is my question which at the very least I hope may provide food for thought. Why are conservatives anti-gay? Please feel free to vote with your answer or any other comment.
A. Because, in the sense of "conservative," they want to keep things as they are, and discriminating against gays is the way it's always been.
B. Because they subscribe to a brand of religion which is basically anti-sex.
C. It's their personality type. For example, they are tight-asses or maybe just mean and nasty people.
D. All of the above.
E. Some other reason (please specify).
Copyright © 2013.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
White Man vs. Native, Pt. 2
In the original post ("White Man vs. Native, Pt. 1"), I omitted one legacy of conquest, colonialism, and white settlement. In many, perhaps most, places these have left a lasting legacy of racism, discrimination, and oppression.
In Australia, the aboriginal peoples are considered "black" and have faced discrimination much as have blacks in America.
In New Zealand, the native people (the Maori) were driven off their land, forbidden to speak their language, etc., with the effect of virtually destroying their culture. Sadly this is a very common pattern.
In Guatemala the indigenous Maya Indians have been disproportionately killed during civil war, even to the point of genocide.
In Peru and/or Equador the Indians have been held to the bottom of the social scale and have even been virtually enslaved. In the 16th century, King Phillip II of Spain ordered that the American natives not be enslaved, but that order was widely ignored, and that has left a legacy that has not been wiped out in 450 years.
In Mexico, where a majority of the population are mestizo—having mixed Indian and European blood—it's been the people of lighter complexion—that is, having pure or more pure European blood—who have been higher on the economic and social scale. I asked a professor who had lived in Mexico if there was racism or discrimination based on skin color in Mexico and he said "not since the Revolution [in 1920]," but I am very doubtful that it ended suddenly or finally as he claims. I think indigenous people in Mexico ("indios") are still very low on the social scale.
Updated June 21, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2013 by Richard Stein
In Australia, the aboriginal peoples are considered "black" and have faced discrimination much as have blacks in America.
In New Zealand, the native people (the Maori) were driven off their land, forbidden to speak their language, etc., with the effect of virtually destroying their culture. Sadly this is a very common pattern.
In Guatemala the indigenous Maya Indians have been disproportionately killed during civil war, even to the point of genocide.
In Peru and/or Equador the Indians have been held to the bottom of the social scale and have even been virtually enslaved. In the 16th century, King Phillip II of Spain ordered that the American natives not be enslaved, but that order was widely ignored, and that has left a legacy that has not been wiped out in 450 years.
In Mexico, where a majority of the population are mestizo—having mixed Indian and European blood—it's been the people of lighter complexion—that is, having pure or more pure European blood—who have been higher on the economic and social scale. I asked a professor who had lived in Mexico if there was racism or discrimination based on skin color in Mexico and he said "not since the Revolution [in 1920]," but I am very doubtful that it ended suddenly or finally as he claims. I think indigenous people in Mexico ("indios") are still very low on the social scale.
Updated June 21, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2013 by Richard Stein
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Things Don't Last Anymore
Nearly anybody who's been around this world for a while will tell you that things don't last like they used to.
As one example, I used to buy bedroom slippers made by one particular US brand. They were expensive, but they'd last forever. I don't buy their slippers any longer because they're not the same as they used to be. They're made in China now and they definitely don't last very long at all.
And I can name a prominent mail-order vendor of clothing and outdoor stuff. I have bought two pairs of slippers from them, and they didn't last, either. (This company has a satisfaction guarantee, but if you send the product back to them, the refund you get will be $7 less than what you paid for the item. I'd rather go on using the rather worn—and nearly worn out--item.)
I have those two pairs of slippers and yet a third, and they're all falling apart. The problem is mainly that stitching between sole and upper seems to be quite inferior. And—guess what? They’re all made in China.
I want to hasten to point out that I don't want to besmirch China and all its manufactures. I believe that China makes some high-quality products. I suspect this is what is going on: Besides the savings in labor costs that come from "off-shoring" manufacturing by American companies, I think they are probably knowingly and deliberately short-changing the customer on quality of material or quality of workmanship—to save still more money.
(To some extent stores like Walmart and customers who buy the very cheapest thing they can find are to blame. On the other hand, there is greed on the part of American companies and retailers. When an $80 Tommy Hilfiger or Ralph Lauren Polo shirt is made in a third-world country, it costs very little to make it. The seller makes a very good profit even when that shirt is on sale for a radically reduced price.)
This might properly be another subject since it is a different matter from clothing, but it still comes under my subject of "Things don't last." That's major appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, and microwaves.
Take refrigerators. Refrigerators used to last 20, 30 years or more. Nearly every family had a second refrigerator, because they bought a new one but the old one still ran so they kept it to put in the cellar or garage. In my last home I had a refrigerator what was a 1977 model and it was still running fine when I left that place in 2001. So it was 24 years old.
Then I bought a refrigerator for my new home and it lasted 10 years. I was speaking to a friend who had to replace his refrigerator after only 6 years. I should not generalize from just two instances, but a repairman has told me that major appliances don't last these days, that they're not made like they used to be.
I surmise that the quality of the mechanical components has been cheapened. That plus, perhaps, the fact that refrigerators (etc.), like our cars, are starting to be more complex, with electronic components and even computers inside. Plus, people may not expect to keep refrigerators as long these days; they want modern kitchens and that means appliances with up-to-date appearance.
And you can't blame China for that one. We have some refrigerator makes and models made in other countries but the majority are US-made.
A counter trend is cars. It used to be that a car might last 6 or 7 years. They would start to rust after 3 or 4 years (at least in northern areas of the US where salt is applied to the roads in the winter). Nowadays cars will last much longer. The latest statistic I heard is that the average age of a car on US roads is now 11 years. (People are keeping cars longer both because they last longer and because they have gotten much more expensive: a car today, in the US, costs 10 to 15 times what a car cost in the late 1950s).
Update April 26, 2013. I just looked at the model/serial number plates in my GE (a "good old" American brand) microwave and GE refrigerator. The microwave was made in Korea and the fridge was made in Mexico. Shame on me for assuming that just because it's an American brand it was actually built in the US. The same, by the way, applies to cars, and I'm sure many people have bought cars with American names and believed they were getting something American-built when the car either was assembled somewhere else or it was made using major components--for example, an engine or transmission--from Canada or Mexico. Ironically, some cars with Japanese names are assembled in the US and might even have a greater precentage of "domestic content" than a car with an American name. The percentage of domestic content is listed on the window sticker which the car wears when it is in the dealer's showroom.
Update July 24, 2013. There was further confirmation that refrigerators don't last anymore from a man who works for a "major retailer," for whom he analyzes things like appliances' expected lifetimes, in order to help determine his employer's policy for the extended warranties it sells.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
As one example, I used to buy bedroom slippers made by one particular US brand. They were expensive, but they'd last forever. I don't buy their slippers any longer because they're not the same as they used to be. They're made in China now and they definitely don't last very long at all.
And I can name a prominent mail-order vendor of clothing and outdoor stuff. I have bought two pairs of slippers from them, and they didn't last, either. (This company has a satisfaction guarantee, but if you send the product back to them, the refund you get will be $7 less than what you paid for the item. I'd rather go on using the rather worn—and nearly worn out--item.)
I have those two pairs of slippers and yet a third, and they're all falling apart. The problem is mainly that stitching between sole and upper seems to be quite inferior. And—guess what? They’re all made in China.
I want to hasten to point out that I don't want to besmirch China and all its manufactures. I believe that China makes some high-quality products. I suspect this is what is going on: Besides the savings in labor costs that come from "off-shoring" manufacturing by American companies, I think they are probably knowingly and deliberately short-changing the customer on quality of material or quality of workmanship—to save still more money.
(To some extent stores like Walmart and customers who buy the very cheapest thing they can find are to blame. On the other hand, there is greed on the part of American companies and retailers. When an $80 Tommy Hilfiger or Ralph Lauren Polo shirt is made in a third-world country, it costs very little to make it. The seller makes a very good profit even when that shirt is on sale for a radically reduced price.)
This might properly be another subject since it is a different matter from clothing, but it still comes under my subject of "Things don't last." That's major appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, and microwaves.
Take refrigerators. Refrigerators used to last 20, 30 years or more. Nearly every family had a second refrigerator, because they bought a new one but the old one still ran so they kept it to put in the cellar or garage. In my last home I had a refrigerator what was a 1977 model and it was still running fine when I left that place in 2001. So it was 24 years old.
Then I bought a refrigerator for my new home and it lasted 10 years. I was speaking to a friend who had to replace his refrigerator after only 6 years. I should not generalize from just two instances, but a repairman has told me that major appliances don't last these days, that they're not made like they used to be.
I surmise that the quality of the mechanical components has been cheapened. That plus, perhaps, the fact that refrigerators (etc.), like our cars, are starting to be more complex, with electronic components and even computers inside. Plus, people may not expect to keep refrigerators as long these days; they want modern kitchens and that means appliances with up-to-date appearance.
And you can't blame China for that one. We have some refrigerator makes and models made in other countries but the majority are US-made.
A counter trend is cars. It used to be that a car might last 6 or 7 years. They would start to rust after 3 or 4 years (at least in northern areas of the US where salt is applied to the roads in the winter). Nowadays cars will last much longer. The latest statistic I heard is that the average age of a car on US roads is now 11 years. (People are keeping cars longer both because they last longer and because they have gotten much more expensive: a car today, in the US, costs 10 to 15 times what a car cost in the late 1950s).
Update April 26, 2013. I just looked at the model/serial number plates in my GE (a "good old" American brand) microwave and GE refrigerator. The microwave was made in Korea and the fridge was made in Mexico. Shame on me for assuming that just because it's an American brand it was actually built in the US. The same, by the way, applies to cars, and I'm sure many people have bought cars with American names and believed they were getting something American-built when the car either was assembled somewhere else or it was made using major components--for example, an engine or transmission--from Canada or Mexico. Ironically, some cars with Japanese names are assembled in the US and might even have a greater precentage of "domestic content" than a car with an American name. The percentage of domestic content is listed on the window sticker which the car wears when it is in the dealer's showroom.
Update July 24, 2013. There was further confirmation that refrigerators don't last anymore from a man who works for a "major retailer," for whom he analyzes things like appliances' expected lifetimes, in order to help determine his employer's policy for the extended warranties it sells.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Monday, April 15, 2013
More, or Fewer, Choices of Cars in the US?
When I was younger—and up until, I think, the late 1960s—there were no Japanese cars being sold in America (and no Korean cars, either; they came into the US even later).
On the other hand, there were many car makes that have since disappeared, both American and imported.
Besides recently-disappeared US car makes—nameplates from the "Big Three" such as Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth, and Mercury--there were many others. In the 1950s the Studebaker and Packard car brands sadly disappeared. At around the same time, Nash and Hudson merged to form American Motors, and their cars were around for a few years before disappearing also. Chrysler Corp. had DeSoto, and Ford Motor Company brought out the Edsel, to much fanfare. (It flopped, and has become a business-school textbook case of failed marketing.) And for a few years around 1950 there were cars made by Kaiser Motors, and also Willys (originally the maker of the Jeep).
(On a side note, at one time nearly all the taxicabs in America were purpose-built vehicles, Checker taxis made by Checker Motors. They had enormous room in the back seat. Checker has been gone for quite a while now.
Of course anybody who is a car buff knows that in what we might consider the "early days" of cars in the US, there were many makes that ceased production long ago.)
On the other hand, in the 1950s very many foreign-made cars were being brought into the US. There were the English sports cars, which were quite popular: MG, Triumph, Austin-Healy, and Jaguar. Of these, only Jaguar is still available in the US.
There were many other English makes being sold in the US at that time: Austin, Morris, Vauxhall, English Ford, Hillman, Sunbeam, Humber, Rover, and Mini (originally the Morris Mini Minor); and a few rather rare ones such as Daimler, Armstrong-Siddeley, Alvis, AC-Bristol, Jensen-Healy. Many of those were very nice cars. (Besides Jaguar, and Mini, there are three other British makes being sold in the US: Lotus, Rolls-Royce, and Bentley. Rolls, Bentley, Mini, and Jaguar are no longer British-owned but the manufacturing of their cars is still, I believe, done in England.)
And we had French cars: Renault, Peugeot, Citroën, Dyna-Panhard, Facel-Vega (a luxury car with a big Chrysler engine).
There were many German cars not seen in a long time: Goggomobil, Opel, Messerschmidt (a mini-car designed by the famous maker of World War II planes), NSU, Taunus (German Ford), Borgward, Wartburg, Goliath, Lloyd. Many of those makes ceased production. We've got five German makes still being sold here: Mercedes-Benz, BMW, VW, Porsche, and Audi (made by the company that sold cars here in the 1950s under the names Auto Union and DKW).
And Italian cars: Fiat (just recently returned to the US market; they made tiny cars, somewhat larger sedans, and a series of nice sports cars), Maserati—also recently returned to the US--Lancia, Alfa-Romeo. Ferrari and Lamborghini are still sold here. There were other, very nice and rare Italian makes such as Iso. I actually once drove a car called Moretti, which no one ever heard of.
We even had available here a Czech-made car, Skoda. Evidently with the fall of Communism the state-owned factory was privatized and sold to Volkswagen, and Skoda now is quite a popular car in Europe.
So many of these makes disappeared because they achieved a poor reputation for reliability. In some cases their tiny, high-revving engines simply wore out quickly, or they were not suited to American driving conditions (and perhaps not least, they required more routine maintenance than Americans typically give their cars).
The first Japanese cars in America were Datsun (later known here as Nissan) and Toyota. According to my recollection they came in at or near the end of the 1960s. Honda came in in the 70s, first with the Civic, which was at that time a very tiny car. In the 1970s we saw the first Honda Accord, which was a two-door car at first.
To some extent the appearance of Japanese and Korean models has offset the loss of a number of American makes; but the disappearance of so many European cars from the US market has surely resulted in a net loss of choice to American car buyers.
Bibliographical note: To refresh my memory about some of the long-gone foreign nameplates I have relied on a book called Cars of the World, in Color, by J.D. Scheel, publ. 1963.
Updated April 18 and April 19, 2013.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
On the other hand, there were many car makes that have since disappeared, both American and imported.
Besides recently-disappeared US car makes—nameplates from the "Big Three" such as Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth, and Mercury--there were many others. In the 1950s the Studebaker and Packard car brands sadly disappeared. At around the same time, Nash and Hudson merged to form American Motors, and their cars were around for a few years before disappearing also. Chrysler Corp. had DeSoto, and Ford Motor Company brought out the Edsel, to much fanfare. (It flopped, and has become a business-school textbook case of failed marketing.) And for a few years around 1950 there were cars made by Kaiser Motors, and also Willys (originally the maker of the Jeep).
(On a side note, at one time nearly all the taxicabs in America were purpose-built vehicles, Checker taxis made by Checker Motors. They had enormous room in the back seat. Checker has been gone for quite a while now.
Of course anybody who is a car buff knows that in what we might consider the "early days" of cars in the US, there were many makes that ceased production long ago.)
On the other hand, in the 1950s very many foreign-made cars were being brought into the US. There were the English sports cars, which were quite popular: MG, Triumph, Austin-Healy, and Jaguar. Of these, only Jaguar is still available in the US.
There were many other English makes being sold in the US at that time: Austin, Morris, Vauxhall, English Ford, Hillman, Sunbeam, Humber, Rover, and Mini (originally the Morris Mini Minor); and a few rather rare ones such as Daimler, Armstrong-Siddeley, Alvis, AC-Bristol, Jensen-Healy. Many of those were very nice cars. (Besides Jaguar, and Mini, there are three other British makes being sold in the US: Lotus, Rolls-Royce, and Bentley. Rolls, Bentley, Mini, and Jaguar are no longer British-owned but the manufacturing of their cars is still, I believe, done in England.)
And we had French cars: Renault, Peugeot, Citroën, Dyna-Panhard, Facel-Vega (a luxury car with a big Chrysler engine).
There were many German cars not seen in a long time: Goggomobil, Opel, Messerschmidt (a mini-car designed by the famous maker of World War II planes), NSU, Taunus (German Ford), Borgward, Wartburg, Goliath, Lloyd. Many of those makes ceased production. We've got five German makes still being sold here: Mercedes-Benz, BMW, VW, Porsche, and Audi (made by the company that sold cars here in the 1950s under the names Auto Union and DKW).
And Italian cars: Fiat (just recently returned to the US market; they made tiny cars, somewhat larger sedans, and a series of nice sports cars), Maserati—also recently returned to the US--Lancia, Alfa-Romeo. Ferrari and Lamborghini are still sold here. There were other, very nice and rare Italian makes such as Iso. I actually once drove a car called Moretti, which no one ever heard of.
We even had available here a Czech-made car, Skoda. Evidently with the fall of Communism the state-owned factory was privatized and sold to Volkswagen, and Skoda now is quite a popular car in Europe.
So many of these makes disappeared because they achieved a poor reputation for reliability. In some cases their tiny, high-revving engines simply wore out quickly, or they were not suited to American driving conditions (and perhaps not least, they required more routine maintenance than Americans typically give their cars).
The first Japanese cars in America were Datsun (later known here as Nissan) and Toyota. According to my recollection they came in at or near the end of the 1960s. Honda came in in the 70s, first with the Civic, which was at that time a very tiny car. In the 1970s we saw the first Honda Accord, which was a two-door car at first.
To some extent the appearance of Japanese and Korean models has offset the loss of a number of American makes; but the disappearance of so many European cars from the US market has surely resulted in a net loss of choice to American car buyers.
Bibliographical note: To refresh my memory about some of the long-gone foreign nameplates I have relied on a book called Cars of the World, in Color, by J.D. Scheel, publ. 1963.
Updated April 18 and April 19, 2013.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Friday, April 5, 2013
White Man vs. Native, Pt. 1
The more modern, and politically correct, version of the title I have given this post would be, "European Meets Indigenous People."
Such encounters, whatever you call them, have usually been disastrous for the native peoples. This includes the Spanish and other Europeans in the Americas; the British in Tasmania; and various Europeans, most notably the Belgians, in Africa.
The Spanish in the New World: Starting when Columbus landed on Hispaniola in 1493, the native people on that island had nearly vanished* in the space of only 30 years—from being exposed to European diseases, being enslaved, etc.
During the conquests of Peru and Mexico by the Spanish, the Spanish conquerors displayed cunning, cruelty, and deceit. These traits, plus again the diseases that Europeans brought, again resulted in massive deaths of the native peoples.
In Bolivia the Spanish conquerors wanted to mine silver from the mountain known as Cerro de Potosi or Cerro Rico, near the town of Potosi. A huge amount of silver (along with other metals) was extracted from this mine over 500 years, at enormous human cost. For one thing, working at the the mountain's 14,000 foot altitude was at or beyond the limit of human capacities. Also,
Metals are still being extracted from this mountain and miners use coca leaves to help them endure the mining conditions.
United States: In what is now the United States the Indians were treated very, very badly. This tragic and even disgusting history is very long and can't easily be summed up here. I'll give only a few examples that stand out in my mind.
In New England the English settlers before long came to make war on the native peoples are wiped out several tribes in very short order.
In California, the Spanish friars who operated the missions enslaved the surrounding Indians, forcing them to get up very early and pray for an hour and then work in the fields for a very long day.
In the Southeastern United States, the lands of the Cherokee and several other tribes were coveted by the white Americans. President Andrew Jackson ordered the Cherokee to migrate to what is now Oklahoma. The Supreme Court ruled that Jackson could not do this but he simply defied the Court and did it anyway. The Cherokee marched on foot through winter weather and many died of starvation, exhaustion, and so forth.
But once there—Oklahoma was designated "Indian Territory" and the promise was made that this was to be the Indians' in perpetuity. However, in 1893 Oklahoma was opened up to settlement by white settlers and the Indians were dispossessed of much of their territory.
In much of the second half of the nineteenth century, once the US Army was done fighting the Civil War, it moved on to the task of "pacifying" the Indians, which generally meant slaughtering all the inhabitants of Indian villages, including women and children. The Indians already were weakened by white man's diseases, against which they had no resistance, and hunger due to the buffalo, or bison, which was a main food source for Plains Indian tribes, having been wiped out.
Indian children were often taken away from their families and sent to special Indian schools, where they were punished for speaking their own language. (Canada generally was no better than the US and similarly suppressed native languages and cultures.)
In Hawaii, as in other Pacific islands, an idyllic place, even a paradise, was unfortunately subjected to the influence of Christian missionaries who proceeded to get the women to cover their breasts and in other ways did their best to destroy the culture and the happiness of the native people.
Tasmania: In Tasmania, to subdue and control the native population, the ruling British mutilated and hung many natives and eventually wiped them out.
Africa: King Leopold of Belgium permitted or even ordered unimaginable cruelty and atrocities to be committed against the natives.
So actions which today would be called crimes against humanity occurred on several continents—everywhere that Europeans came in contact with native peoples. As I said, this list is far from complete; the true story would be much longer and even sadder.
And I do not even include all the instances where missionaries suppressed and destroyed native cultures, languages, and religions.
Africa also suffered from its people being captured and shipped to the West to be slaves. But slavery was not entirely the result of the efforts of Europeans--there were Arab slave traders, and some Africans enslaved their fellow Africans--but it always relied on Europeans as one component of the slave trade.
______________
* Recently there's been evidence that the Taino—one of the native peoples who inhabited Caribbean islands before Columbus' landing—have not disappeared. There are a goodly number of people today who claim Taino descent and/or some degree of Taino blood.
Updated April 26 and June 6, 2013.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Such encounters, whatever you call them, have usually been disastrous for the native peoples. This includes the Spanish and other Europeans in the Americas; the British in Tasmania; and various Europeans, most notably the Belgians, in Africa.
The Spanish in the New World: Starting when Columbus landed on Hispaniola in 1493, the native people on that island had nearly vanished* in the space of only 30 years—from being exposed to European diseases, being enslaved, etc.
During the conquests of Peru and Mexico by the Spanish, the Spanish conquerors displayed cunning, cruelty, and deceit. These traits, plus again the diseases that Europeans brought, again resulted in massive deaths of the native peoples.
In Bolivia the Spanish conquerors wanted to mine silver from the mountain known as Cerro de Potosi or Cerro Rico, near the town of Potosi. A huge amount of silver (along with other metals) was extracted from this mine over 500 years, at enormous human cost. For one thing, working at the the mountain's 14,000 foot altitude was at or beyond the limit of human capacities. Also,
The Spanish called the mountain Cerro Rico, or Rich Mountain, for the silver they extracted from the mountain. Some 3 million Quechua Indians were put to work here over the years. Hundreds of thousands died, casualties of cave-ins, or killed by overwork, hunger and disease [http://www.npr.org/2012/09/25/161752820/bolivias-cerro-rico-the-mountain-that-eats-men].
Metals are still being extracted from this mountain and miners use coca leaves to help them endure the mining conditions.
United States: In what is now the United States the Indians were treated very, very badly. This tragic and even disgusting history is very long and can't easily be summed up here. I'll give only a few examples that stand out in my mind.
In New England the English settlers before long came to make war on the native peoples are wiped out several tribes in very short order.
In California, the Spanish friars who operated the missions enslaved the surrounding Indians, forcing them to get up very early and pray for an hour and then work in the fields for a very long day.
In the Southeastern United States, the lands of the Cherokee and several other tribes were coveted by the white Americans. President Andrew Jackson ordered the Cherokee to migrate to what is now Oklahoma. The Supreme Court ruled that Jackson could not do this but he simply defied the Court and did it anyway. The Cherokee marched on foot through winter weather and many died of starvation, exhaustion, and so forth.
But once there—Oklahoma was designated "Indian Territory" and the promise was made that this was to be the Indians' in perpetuity. However, in 1893 Oklahoma was opened up to settlement by white settlers and the Indians were dispossessed of much of their territory.
In much of the second half of the nineteenth century, once the US Army was done fighting the Civil War, it moved on to the task of "pacifying" the Indians, which generally meant slaughtering all the inhabitants of Indian villages, including women and children. The Indians already were weakened by white man's diseases, against which they had no resistance, and hunger due to the buffalo, or bison, which was a main food source for Plains Indian tribes, having been wiped out.
Indian children were often taken away from their families and sent to special Indian schools, where they were punished for speaking their own language. (Canada generally was no better than the US and similarly suppressed native languages and cultures.)
In Hawaii, as in other Pacific islands, an idyllic place, even a paradise, was unfortunately subjected to the influence of Christian missionaries who proceeded to get the women to cover their breasts and in other ways did their best to destroy the culture and the happiness of the native people.
Tasmania: In Tasmania, to subdue and control the native population, the ruling British mutilated and hung many natives and eventually wiped them out.
Africa: King Leopold of Belgium permitted or even ordered unimaginable cruelty and atrocities to be committed against the natives.
So actions which today would be called crimes against humanity occurred on several continents—everywhere that Europeans came in contact with native peoples. As I said, this list is far from complete; the true story would be much longer and even sadder.
And I do not even include all the instances where missionaries suppressed and destroyed native cultures, languages, and religions.
Africa also suffered from its people being captured and shipped to the West to be slaves. But slavery was not entirely the result of the efforts of Europeans--there were Arab slave traders, and some Africans enslaved their fellow Africans--but it always relied on Europeans as one component of the slave trade.
______________
* Recently there's been evidence that the Taino—one of the native peoples who inhabited Caribbean islands before Columbus' landing—have not disappeared. There are a goodly number of people today who claim Taino descent and/or some degree of Taino blood.
Updated April 26 and June 6, 2013.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Motorcyclists, Consider Your Hearing
There are a lot of motorcycles in the area where I live. At one time I thought it had to do with the presence of a Harley-Davidson dealer half a mile from my house; but that Harley dealer has been gone for several years but the motorcycle traffic does not seem to have diminished very much.
And Harleys are apparently the motorcycle of choice. I frankly know next to nothing about motorcycles, but I have heard that Harleys are very hard-riding, compared to many of the Japanese-built motorcycles. And Harleys are noisy, too. That is my gripe against them. It has become more and more clear to me that young people like vroom-vroom-vroom, whether from motorcycles or noisy car models; whereas old people like me would prefer to have quiet and thus dislike the noisy cars or motorcycles that drive in the vicinity.
Not only does the noise from Harleys bother people who live near the roads that they drive on. According to a March, 2009, article in Motor Cycle magazine (Hearing Protection - Listen Up), the hearing of those who ride the motorcycles is at risk, which of course makes sense since the riders are much closer to the source of the noise than I am. It's surprising to me that you don't hear more about this but my being able to easily find the referenced article shows that it's an issue that has been acknowledged.
As I said, some motorcyclists may positively like Harleys for their noise. They may also be bought out of patriotism—that is, "buy American"—and perhaps also because Harleys have a macho image. But I wish buyers of motorcyclists had the consideration to spare the neighbors the noise of their machines, and the good sense to consider their own hearing when deciding whether to buy a Harley or a quieter motorcycle. But a majority of them don't care to protect their own craniums with helmets, let alone their hearing.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
And Harleys are apparently the motorcycle of choice. I frankly know next to nothing about motorcycles, but I have heard that Harleys are very hard-riding, compared to many of the Japanese-built motorcycles. And Harleys are noisy, too. That is my gripe against them. It has become more and more clear to me that young people like vroom-vroom-vroom, whether from motorcycles or noisy car models; whereas old people like me would prefer to have quiet and thus dislike the noisy cars or motorcycles that drive in the vicinity.
Not only does the noise from Harleys bother people who live near the roads that they drive on. According to a March, 2009, article in Motor Cycle magazine (Hearing Protection - Listen Up), the hearing of those who ride the motorcycles is at risk, which of course makes sense since the riders are much closer to the source of the noise than I am. It's surprising to me that you don't hear more about this but my being able to easily find the referenced article shows that it's an issue that has been acknowledged.
As I said, some motorcyclists may positively like Harleys for their noise. They may also be bought out of patriotism—that is, "buy American"—and perhaps also because Harleys have a macho image. But I wish buyers of motorcyclists had the consideration to spare the neighbors the noise of their machines, and the good sense to consider their own hearing when deciding whether to buy a Harley or a quieter motorcycle. But a majority of them don't care to protect their own craniums with helmets, let alone their hearing.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Monday, April 1, 2013
Who Has Been Tolerant, Islam or Christianity?
Various Muslim dynasties ruled Jerusalem up until Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, in the 12th Century, which stirred up Christians to travel to "the Holy Land" to wrest it from control of the Muslims.
Under the Muslims, Christians and Jews in Jerusalem had been tolerated. Once Jerusalem was conquered by the Crusaders, nearly all the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem were slaughtered.
A similar pattern occurred about three hundred years later in Spain during the so-called Reconquista, or the Christian reconquest of Spain, which was completed in 1492. In most of the Moorish (or Muslim) kingdoms of Spain—notably Andalusia, known in Moorish days as el Andalus—Jews, Christians, and the Muslim Moors lived side-by-side, and most of the time the Muslims tolerated Christians and Jews. That ended in 1492 with the completion of the Reconquista. The Jews were immediately expelled in 1492 (actually, they were given three choices: convert, get out, or die). The Moors were promised toleration but, just 10 years later, that promise was broken and the Moors were told to convert or get out.
Many Jews and Muslims in newly-Christian Spain who agreed to undergo conversion were suspected of not being sincere in their conversions and were tortured by the Inquisition with various torture instruments or burned at the stake.
So in both cases, Jerusalem and Spain, Jews, Muslims, and Christians all co-existed peacefully when the Muslims were in power, and once Christians gained control the situation abruptly changed and the Jews and Muslims were driven out or killed.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Under the Muslims, Christians and Jews in Jerusalem had been tolerated. Once Jerusalem was conquered by the Crusaders, nearly all the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem were slaughtered.
A similar pattern occurred about three hundred years later in Spain during the so-called Reconquista, or the Christian reconquest of Spain, which was completed in 1492. In most of the Moorish (or Muslim) kingdoms of Spain—notably Andalusia, known in Moorish days as el Andalus—Jews, Christians, and the Muslim Moors lived side-by-side, and most of the time the Muslims tolerated Christians and Jews. That ended in 1492 with the completion of the Reconquista. The Jews were immediately expelled in 1492 (actually, they were given three choices: convert, get out, or die). The Moors were promised toleration but, just 10 years later, that promise was broken and the Moors were told to convert or get out.
Many Jews and Muslims in newly-Christian Spain who agreed to undergo conversion were suspected of not being sincere in their conversions and were tortured by the Inquisition with various torture instruments or burned at the stake.
So in both cases, Jerusalem and Spain, Jews, Muslims, and Christians all co-existed peacefully when the Muslims were in power, and once Christians gained control the situation abruptly changed and the Jews and Muslims were driven out or killed.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
