End of the world by 2012. Heard that one before? Research any New Age writing and its bound to crop up. Largely based on the Mayan calendar which does not continue beyond December 21 of that year, despite being an astronomical masterpiece of the ancient world. Thanks to the Spanish conquistadors the Mayan libraries were destroyed, some 2500 sacred texts according to the consensus view. So, no corroboration there although inscriptions on tablets and monuments have provided some information. This has led to divided views that the calendar may also depict the start of an enlightened age, on the date in question. Whether this will turn out to be a self fulfilling prophecy remains to be seen.
Its also commonly accepted amongst alternative thinkers, that, a "quickening" manifests in the immediate period preceding great change. This convergence of issues usually provides the critical mass to then effect understanding and acceptance of a new order. When we look at the planet today these issues abound: rising prices and dwindling resources in the agricultural and energy sectors, deepening antagonism and confrontation regarding geo-political questions, massive increases in development projects for water and housing, the continued infra-structural demand for transportation, reckless financial operations fuelled by globalization, increased consolidation of media and information outlets into fewer hands, greater unemployment thanks to mass manufacturing and distribution, sharply climbing inflation due to macro mismanagement, continued political corruption and civil unrest. The list goes on.
Globalization is, of course, increasingly being blamed for most of these ills. Globalization is very often used to refer to economic globalization, that is integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology. In short, a world system that places economics above anything else and which now effectively controls most areas of human activity. If that sounds like a conspiracy theory, consider this: what can you achieve today without money, education and technology? The odds are stacked in favour of the system, but the system is not sustainable. Far more people are being excluded, while fewer are benefitting. Often with obscene accumulation of wealth.
Looking at those Mayan extrapolations again, it seems there might be something to it after all. We don't have to be economists to figure out that the issues described above, are fast driving our world towards the moment of truth. The moment when you lose your house or your car is repossessed; your job long sinced downsized, outsourced or eliminated through mechanization. Maybe the moment arrives when money can no longer buy food and water because it has been exhausted. With money no longer the instrument of control, the moment is defined when societies start using guns to ensure their primacy. Some scenario planners predict environmental catastrophe will be the moment when the planet readjusts the imbalance. Most agree that large loss of life will be an inevitable result, perhaps even extinction. Whichever way you lean, many people in the third world already experience these condition on a daily basis.
Ironic then that Africa seems to be the "canary in the coal mine" when contextualizing these complex issues. The world looking at its future, so to speak, when observing the continent. The captains of industry all admit that corporate governance has become a priority, but also claim that globalization is still the way to go... it just needs a human face. Their trump card being that there doesn't seem to be a ready made solution in the wings. So, a ticking clock with less the 4 years to the Mayan deadline; perhaps even social disintegration before then if current global trends intensify.
Still, we can't die en-masse and then blithely start all over again with a small band of survivors. Einstein famously said: "...we can't solve problems with same understanding that created them." Clearly, then, a new understanding is called for; but where do we turn when our global system has created these problems? If first nation peoples were capable of creating complex societies built on astronomical calendars, what other ideas of wisdom may their history contain? Some say its impossible to integrate knowledge of this nature with modern societies, that urban culture is impervious to it. Well, history shows that resistance to change disappears pretty quickly when a crumbling system collapses. Self preservation is still the oldest concept known to man.
The talking shops of our planet can do with fresh perspectives too. Imagine for a moment the impact of recent Amazonian tribal protest over a hydro-electric scheme, if it had taken place on the floor of the UN general assembly. How arresting will it be to see Congolese pygmies and Namibian KhoiSan walk through the snow to address the World Economic Forum in Davos. Alaskan Inuit and Indonesian aborigenes appearing before OPEC about the effects of oil drilling on their environment. Its a safe bet that the message will be same; we need this planet, not the other way around.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Mars Or Bust
The spacecraft Phoenix has landed successfully on the icy northern plains of Mars after a triumphant voyage of 422 million miles halfway around the sun. With a 130-pound cargo of instruments and a robotic digging arm to probe for ancient water and ice and long-decayed traces of organic chemicals essential for life, the three legs settled gently onto a boulder-free Martian surface. No obstacles were anywhere near - only a little pile of small rocks nearby, looking somewhat like a very small hill.
Because the planet is now 171 million miles away, it took 15 minutes at the speed of light for the first faint radio signal of success to reach the scientists, relayed from Mars Odyssey, the orbiter flying high above the landing site. Carl Sagan famously announced that existing technology could place humans on the red planet, but the great distance involved precluded the possibility of an immediate return journey. Robert does make an interesting case that life can not only be supported on Mars, but will actually flourish. Which creates an interesting question: would you sacrifice yourself, on a one-way trip, to establish a human presence on Mars?
Let's consider the more prosaic reasons for colonizing Mars: similarity to Earth, economic value, inter-planetary position for further exploration, scientific discoveries etc. The best reason has to be the focus it will provide to Earthbound humans though. Here's a concept that transcends narrow national interests, in fact in can only be realized through tremendous vision and cooperation. To make it happen all current disputes and conflicts will have to cease. Imagine that, an idea so big it can relegate any problem we have to the backseat. The idealism it will unlock can unify our species to a common goal, greater than any we have imagined in our history.
Because the planet is now 171 million miles away, it took 15 minutes at the speed of light for the first faint radio signal of success to reach the scientists, relayed from Mars Odyssey, the orbiter flying high above the landing site. Carl Sagan famously announced that existing technology could place humans on the red planet, but the great distance involved precluded the possibility of an immediate return journey. Robert does make an interesting case that life can not only be supported on Mars, but will actually flourish. Which creates an interesting question: would you sacrifice yourself, on a one-way trip, to establish a human presence on Mars?
Let's consider the more prosaic reasons for colonizing Mars: similarity to Earth, economic value, inter-planetary position for further exploration, scientific discoveries etc. The best reason has to be the focus it will provide to Earthbound humans though. Here's a concept that transcends narrow national interests, in fact in can only be realized through tremendous vision and cooperation. To make it happen all current disputes and conflicts will have to cease. Imagine that, an idea so big it can relegate any problem we have to the backseat. The idealism it will unlock can unify our species to a common goal, greater than any we have imagined in our history.
Mohammed Cartoon Furore
Danish newspapers on Wednesday reprinted one of the 12 drawings of the Prophet Muhammad that caused global Muslim outrage two years ago, to protest against a plot to murder one of the cartoonists. A Danish citizen of Moroccan descent and two Tunisians were arrested on Tuesday for planning to murder 73-year-old Kurt Westergaard, a cartoonist at Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper that originally published the drawings in September 2005.The republication of the cartoon showing Muhammad holding a bomb drew criticism from Muslims, who said it would only stoke anger. Five major daily newspapers, 10 smaller papers and a Swedish daily reprinted Westergaard's cartoon, the one that had caused the greatest controversy.
In the interest of respecting Islamic religious believes, without denying rights to freedom of speech, this link provides visual material for private viewing: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/
Most Muslims consider any depiction of the founder of Islam as offensive. "We believe this is very foolish and does not help building the bridges we need," said Imam Mostafa Chendid, a leading Danish Muslim cleric. Chendid, an Imam at the Islamic Faith Community, a religious Muslim organisation at the centre of the first cartoon controversy, condemned all violence but said it would be difficult to absorb the anger young Danish Muslims might feel. "It will make our young people feel more isolated," he said. "The printing of the cartoon is an insult to our intellectual capacity. We are not against freedom of speech but we are opposed to continued discrimination of the Muslim minority in Denmark." Three Danish embassies were attacked and at least 50 people were killed in rioting in 2006 in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Several young Muslims have since been convicted in Denmark of planning bomb attacks, partly in protest at the cartoons.
This link provides a chronology of events from the Danish perspective: http://jp.dk/udland/article1292543.ece
A scene from an animated version of a popular Japanese comic book has sparked a renewed outcry in the Muslim world, where some fear it could fuel the backlash created by the republication of the Muhammad cartoons. At issue is a 90-second “JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure” video segment that depicts Dio Brando, a villain, picking up a Quran from a bookshelf and apparently examining it as he orders the execution of the hero and his friends. The original artist professes innocence, citing that he didn’t understand Arabic and simply thought adding Arabic writing would be more believable in the context (the villain was hiding out in Egypt).
In the interest of respecting Islamic religious believes, without denying rights to freedom of speech, this link provides visual material for private viewing: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/
Most Muslims consider any depiction of the founder of Islam as offensive. "We believe this is very foolish and does not help building the bridges we need," said Imam Mostafa Chendid, a leading Danish Muslim cleric. Chendid, an Imam at the Islamic Faith Community, a religious Muslim organisation at the centre of the first cartoon controversy, condemned all violence but said it would be difficult to absorb the anger young Danish Muslims might feel. "It will make our young people feel more isolated," he said. "The printing of the cartoon is an insult to our intellectual capacity. We are not against freedom of speech but we are opposed to continued discrimination of the Muslim minority in Denmark." Three Danish embassies were attacked and at least 50 people were killed in rioting in 2006 in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Several young Muslims have since been convicted in Denmark of planning bomb attacks, partly in protest at the cartoons.
This link provides a chronology of events from the Danish perspective: http://jp.dk/udland/article1292543.ece
A scene from an animated version of a popular Japanese comic book has sparked a renewed outcry in the Muslim world, where some fear it could fuel the backlash created by the republication of the Muhammad cartoons. At issue is a 90-second “JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure” video segment that depicts Dio Brando, a villain, picking up a Quran from a bookshelf and apparently examining it as he orders the execution of the hero and his friends. The original artist professes innocence, citing that he didn’t understand Arabic and simply thought adding Arabic writing would be more believable in the context (the villain was hiding out in Egypt).
Islam In Africa
Good Muslim, Bad Muslim - An African Perspective by Mahmood Mamdani, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and Anthropology, Columbia University:
Islam and Christianity have one thing in common. Both share a deeply messianic orientation. Each has a conviction that it possesses the truth. Both have a sense of mission to civilize the world. Both consider the world beyond a sea of ignorance, one that needs to be redeemed. Think, for example, of the Arabic word al-Jahaliya, which I have always known to mean the domain of ignorance.This conviction is so deep-seated that it is even found in its secular version, as in the old colonial notion of "a civilizing mission," or in its more racialized version, "the White Man's Burden." Or simply, in the 19th century American conviction of a "manifest destiny."In both cultures, Christian and Muslim, these notions have been the subject of prolonged debates. Even if you should claim to know what is good for humanity, how do you proceed? By persuasion or force? Do you convince others of the validity of your truth or do you proceed by imposing it on them? The first alternative gives you reason and evangelism; the second gives you the Crusades.
Take the example of Islam, and the notion of Jihad, which roughly translated means struggle. A student of mine gave me a series of articles written by the Pakistani academic and journalist, Eqbal Ahmed, in the Karachi-based newspaper, Dawn. In one of these articles, Eqbal distinguished between two broad traditions in the understanding of Jihad. The first, called "little Jihad," thinks of Jihad as a struggle against external enemies of Islam. It is an Islamic version of the Christian notion of "just war". The second, called "big Jihad," thinks of Jihad as more of a spiritual struggle against the self in a contaminated world.
All of this is true, but I don't think it explains terrorism. I remain deeply skeptical that we can read people's political behavior from their religion, or from their culture. Remember, it was not so long ago that some claimed that the behavior of others could be read from their genes. Could it be true that an orthodox Muslim is a potential terrorist? Or, the same thing, that an Orthodox Jew is a potential terrorist and only a Reform Jew is capable of being tolerant of those who do not share his convictions?
I am aware that this does not exhaust the question of culture and politics. How do you make sense of politics that consciously wears the mantle of religion? Take, for example the politics of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, both of whom claim to be waging a Jihad, a just war against the enemies of Islam? How do we make sense of this? I want to suggest that we turn the cultural theory of politics on its head. Rather than see this politics as the outcome of an archaic culture, I suggest we see neither the culture not the politics as archaic, but both as very contemporary outcomes of equally contemporary conditions, relations and conflicts. Instead of dismissing history and politics as does culture talk, I suggest we place cultural debates in historical and political contexts. Terrorism is not a cultural residue in modern politics. Rather, terrorism is a modern construction. Even when it tries to harness one or another aspect of tradition and culture, it puts this at the service of a modern project.
Eqbal Ahmed writes of a television image from 1985, of Ronald Reagan meeting a group of turbaned men, all Afghani, all leaders of the Mujaheddin. After the meeting, Reagan brought them out into the White House lawn, and introduced them to the media in these words: "These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers." This was the moment when official America tried to harness one version of Islam in a struggle against the Soviet Union. Before exploring the politics of it, let me clarify the historical moment. 1975 was the year of American defeat in Indochina. 1975 was also the year the Portuguese empire collapsed in Africa. It was the year the center of gravity of the Cold War shifted from Southeast Asia to Southern Africa. The question was: who would pick up the pieces of the Portuguese empire, the US or the Soviet Union?
As the center of gravity of the Cold War shifted, from Southeast Asia to Southern Africa, there was also a shift in US strategy. The Nixon Doctrine had been forged towards the closing years of the Vietnam War but could not be implemented at that late stage - the doctrine that "Asian boys must fight Asian wars" - was really put into practice in Southern Africa. In practice, it translated into a US decision to harness, or even to cultivate, terrorism in the struggle against regimes it considered pro-Soviet. In Southern Africa, the immediate result was a partnership between the US and apartheid South Africa, accused by the UN of perpetrating "a crime against humanity." Reagan termed this new partnership "constructive engagement."South Africa became both conduit and partner of the US in the hot war against those governments in the region considered pro-Soviet.
This partnership bolstered a number of terrorist movements: Renamo in Mozambique, and Unita in Angola. Their terrorism was of a type Africa had never seen before. It was not simply that they were willing to tolerate a higher level of civilian casualties in military confrontations - what official America nowadays calls collateral damage. The new thing was that these terrorist movements specifically targeted civilians. It sought specifically to kill and maim civilians, but not all of them. Always, the idea was to leave a few to go and tell the story, to spread fear. The object of spreading fear was to paralyze government.
After the Cold War and right up to 9/11, the US and Britain compelled African countries to reconcile with terrorist movements. The demand was that governments must share power with terrorist organizations in the name of reconciliation - as in Mozambique, in Sierra Leone, and in Angola. If terrorism was an official American Cold War brew, it was turned into a local Sierra Leonean or Angolan or Mozambican or Afghani brew after the Cold War. Whose responsibility is it? Like Afghanistan, are these countries hosting terrorism, or are they also hostage to terrorism? I think both. Official America has a habit of not taking responsibility for its own actions. Instead, it habitually looks for a high moral pretext for inaction.
I was in Durban at the World Congress Against Racism (WCAR) when the US walked out of it. The Durban conference was about major crimes of the past, about racism, and xenophobia, and related crimes. I returned from Durban to listen to Condoleeza Rice talk about the need to forget slavery because, she said, the pursuit of civilized life requires that we forget the past.It is true that, unless we learn to forget, life will turn into revenge-seeking. Each of us will have nothing but a catalogue of wrongs done to a long line of ancestors. But civilization cannot be built on just forgetting. We must not only learn to forget, we must also not forget to learn. We must also memorialize, particularly monumental crimes. America was built on two monumental crimes: the genocide of the Native American and the enslavement of the African American. The tendency of official America is to memorialize other peoples' crimes and to forget its own - to seek a high moral ground as a pretext to ignore real issues.
I would like to conclude with the question of responsibility. It is a human tendency to look for others in times of adversity. We seek friends and allies in times of danger. But in times of prosperity, the short-sighted tend to walk away from others. This is why prosperity, and not adversity, is the real litmus test of how we define community. The contemporary history of Southern Africa, Central America, and Afghanistan testifies to this tendency.Modernity in politics is about moving from exclusion to inclusion, from repression to incorporation. By including those previously excluded, we give those previously alienated a stake in things. By doing so, we broaden the bounds of lived community, and of lived humanity. That perhaps is the real challenge today. It is the recognition that the good life cannot be lived in isolation.I think of civilization as a constant creation whereby we gradually expand the boundaries of community, the boundaries of those with whom we share the world - this is why it is so grotesque to see bombs and food parcels raining on the defenseless people of Afghanistan from the same source.
Islam and Christianity have one thing in common. Both share a deeply messianic orientation. Each has a conviction that it possesses the truth. Both have a sense of mission to civilize the world. Both consider the world beyond a sea of ignorance, one that needs to be redeemed. Think, for example, of the Arabic word al-Jahaliya, which I have always known to mean the domain of ignorance.This conviction is so deep-seated that it is even found in its secular version, as in the old colonial notion of "a civilizing mission," or in its more racialized version, "the White Man's Burden." Or simply, in the 19th century American conviction of a "manifest destiny."In both cultures, Christian and Muslim, these notions have been the subject of prolonged debates. Even if you should claim to know what is good for humanity, how do you proceed? By persuasion or force? Do you convince others of the validity of your truth or do you proceed by imposing it on them? The first alternative gives you reason and evangelism; the second gives you the Crusades.
Take the example of Islam, and the notion of Jihad, which roughly translated means struggle. A student of mine gave me a series of articles written by the Pakistani academic and journalist, Eqbal Ahmed, in the Karachi-based newspaper, Dawn. In one of these articles, Eqbal distinguished between two broad traditions in the understanding of Jihad. The first, called "little Jihad," thinks of Jihad as a struggle against external enemies of Islam. It is an Islamic version of the Christian notion of "just war". The second, called "big Jihad," thinks of Jihad as more of a spiritual struggle against the self in a contaminated world.
All of this is true, but I don't think it explains terrorism. I remain deeply skeptical that we can read people's political behavior from their religion, or from their culture. Remember, it was not so long ago that some claimed that the behavior of others could be read from their genes. Could it be true that an orthodox Muslim is a potential terrorist? Or, the same thing, that an Orthodox Jew is a potential terrorist and only a Reform Jew is capable of being tolerant of those who do not share his convictions?
I am aware that this does not exhaust the question of culture and politics. How do you make sense of politics that consciously wears the mantle of religion? Take, for example the politics of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, both of whom claim to be waging a Jihad, a just war against the enemies of Islam? How do we make sense of this? I want to suggest that we turn the cultural theory of politics on its head. Rather than see this politics as the outcome of an archaic culture, I suggest we see neither the culture not the politics as archaic, but both as very contemporary outcomes of equally contemporary conditions, relations and conflicts. Instead of dismissing history and politics as does culture talk, I suggest we place cultural debates in historical and political contexts. Terrorism is not a cultural residue in modern politics. Rather, terrorism is a modern construction. Even when it tries to harness one or another aspect of tradition and culture, it puts this at the service of a modern project.
Eqbal Ahmed writes of a television image from 1985, of Ronald Reagan meeting a group of turbaned men, all Afghani, all leaders of the Mujaheddin. After the meeting, Reagan brought them out into the White House lawn, and introduced them to the media in these words: "These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers." This was the moment when official America tried to harness one version of Islam in a struggle against the Soviet Union. Before exploring the politics of it, let me clarify the historical moment. 1975 was the year of American defeat in Indochina. 1975 was also the year the Portuguese empire collapsed in Africa. It was the year the center of gravity of the Cold War shifted from Southeast Asia to Southern Africa. The question was: who would pick up the pieces of the Portuguese empire, the US or the Soviet Union?
As the center of gravity of the Cold War shifted, from Southeast Asia to Southern Africa, there was also a shift in US strategy. The Nixon Doctrine had been forged towards the closing years of the Vietnam War but could not be implemented at that late stage - the doctrine that "Asian boys must fight Asian wars" - was really put into practice in Southern Africa. In practice, it translated into a US decision to harness, or even to cultivate, terrorism in the struggle against regimes it considered pro-Soviet. In Southern Africa, the immediate result was a partnership between the US and apartheid South Africa, accused by the UN of perpetrating "a crime against humanity." Reagan termed this new partnership "constructive engagement."South Africa became both conduit and partner of the US in the hot war against those governments in the region considered pro-Soviet.
This partnership bolstered a number of terrorist movements: Renamo in Mozambique, and Unita in Angola. Their terrorism was of a type Africa had never seen before. It was not simply that they were willing to tolerate a higher level of civilian casualties in military confrontations - what official America nowadays calls collateral damage. The new thing was that these terrorist movements specifically targeted civilians. It sought specifically to kill and maim civilians, but not all of them. Always, the idea was to leave a few to go and tell the story, to spread fear. The object of spreading fear was to paralyze government.
After the Cold War and right up to 9/11, the US and Britain compelled African countries to reconcile with terrorist movements. The demand was that governments must share power with terrorist organizations in the name of reconciliation - as in Mozambique, in Sierra Leone, and in Angola. If terrorism was an official American Cold War brew, it was turned into a local Sierra Leonean or Angolan or Mozambican or Afghani brew after the Cold War. Whose responsibility is it? Like Afghanistan, are these countries hosting terrorism, or are they also hostage to terrorism? I think both. Official America has a habit of not taking responsibility for its own actions. Instead, it habitually looks for a high moral pretext for inaction.
I was in Durban at the World Congress Against Racism (WCAR) when the US walked out of it. The Durban conference was about major crimes of the past, about racism, and xenophobia, and related crimes. I returned from Durban to listen to Condoleeza Rice talk about the need to forget slavery because, she said, the pursuit of civilized life requires that we forget the past.It is true that, unless we learn to forget, life will turn into revenge-seeking. Each of us will have nothing but a catalogue of wrongs done to a long line of ancestors. But civilization cannot be built on just forgetting. We must not only learn to forget, we must also not forget to learn. We must also memorialize, particularly monumental crimes. America was built on two monumental crimes: the genocide of the Native American and the enslavement of the African American. The tendency of official America is to memorialize other peoples' crimes and to forget its own - to seek a high moral ground as a pretext to ignore real issues.
I would like to conclude with the question of responsibility. It is a human tendency to look for others in times of adversity. We seek friends and allies in times of danger. But in times of prosperity, the short-sighted tend to walk away from others. This is why prosperity, and not adversity, is the real litmus test of how we define community. The contemporary history of Southern Africa, Central America, and Afghanistan testifies to this tendency.Modernity in politics is about moving from exclusion to inclusion, from repression to incorporation. By including those previously excluded, we give those previously alienated a stake in things. By doing so, we broaden the bounds of lived community, and of lived humanity. That perhaps is the real challenge today. It is the recognition that the good life cannot be lived in isolation.I think of civilization as a constant creation whereby we gradually expand the boundaries of community, the boundaries of those with whom we share the world - this is why it is so grotesque to see bombs and food parcels raining on the defenseless people of Afghanistan from the same source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)