For this week, you have two assignments: Robbins Chapter 3 (focusing on pp. 93-107) and Collier Chapter 1. This is a spot in which you can post a response, if you'd like to, or comment on the reading. Make sure you identify yourself in a way that I can give you credit.
Name: Chandra Millbauer
ReplyDeleteClass: Rev and Dev at 10AM
Reading through Robbins work around page 102-106 was intriguing. I completely agree that the power of Education in creating a unified people was incredible. However I have a hard time believing that the spread of a unified language was as easy as he made it out to seem. Bringing this language and culture out to small developments of people was probably very difficult. They may have had similar words in their vocab, but it would have been very hard to communicate. Not to mention hostility, several of these people may have been perfectly happy being established the way they were, and this new culture was trying to change them completely to fit a cookie cutter of what these strangers thought 'french' should be like. I can only imagine some of the looks the French were getting from the country men during this time. Bringing berets out to hard working farm men, just seems funny.
Either way, no matter how it went down it's completely amazing how so many people came together. So many that didn't have much in common, and completely changed the way they and their families and friends communicated. Whether it was in France or in any other country. The unity of a population of people is always incredible.
Overall, Robbins ideas of nation state formation are thought provoking. It’s amazing to think how so many people came together to make so many different nation states. Where is the line drawn from one nation state being part of another? Luckily, Robbins answers this question in his text, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading, Robbins analyzes how nation states are formed. It is interesting how he provides many different theories for their development. One theory is that people should share the same culture, language, and heritage. By doing so, it allows them to work easier with one another. For example, if they have diverse languages, a language barrier occurs, making it difficult to communicate and get ideas across. Also, it makes sense that people are naturally drawn to others like themselves (same culture/heritage) because humans like the familiar. It is where they find comfort. Another necessity for a nation state’s formation is to have an enemy or an “Other” to compare themselves against. In order to defeat an enemy, a strong force is required. And by uniting together as a nation state, people will create a much stronger force.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKaty Sloyer
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting that in order to create a "nation" we all must look a like and speak the same language or believe in the same religion. Clearly dating back to the beginning there was never a large group of people that all matched the EXACT description of one "nation." It is definitely unfortunate that to this day people are still forming groups around the same interest as one another, or the way we look. The part about the education seems interesting since maybe the reason countries were in hostility towards one another was maybe because lack of education. It said few schools had maps, teachers couldn't read and students couldn't read. The lack of education would result in animosity towards each other when they didn't know about each other. Ultimately, the world will always have animosity because since the beginning we couldn't accept difference with people around the world.
What resonated most with me in the reading from Robbins was the discussion about the state being an "instrument of control to maintain the privileges of the ruling group" (p. 97). From the time we are children, we are bombarded with propaganda about the heroic feats of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, et al. What isn't generally discussed is the fact that the so-called "Founding Fathers" were overwhelmingly comprised of the wealthiest of the colonial elite, and were simply trying to maintain their positions of economic power, while avoiding paying taxes to the British Crown. "Freedom" was the last thing they had in mind -- in fact, democracy was amongst their greatest fears. They feared democracy because they knew that it would lead to dramatic political and economic reforms, and to prevent this, they designed the structure American government to protect the interests of the wealthy classes in perpetuity. As James Madison said:
ReplyDelete"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. ... unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes..."
We don't tell kids about this in schools. Instead we indoctrinate them with nationalist idiocy about Paul Revere, or about General Motors and IBM getting filthy rich off of selling their wares to the Nazi military during World War II (oh wait -- maybe I didn't get the last part from school). I agree with Robbins (p. 105) that among the most effective parts of the indoctrination we receive in our schooling is the history we are taught. Our understanding of the past is how we situate ourselves, and determine what to do in the present. As Orwell said: "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."
Josh Murphy
ReplyDeleteThere were many things that interested me from Collier chapter one. What interested me the most was that Mexico takes so much from Chiapas and they get very little in return. They use Chiapas for its natural resources, but do not listen to the inhabitant’s opinions. They treat them like kids and do not respect them. I also found fascinating that when Mexico speaks of their revolution they refer to the governments operation of the political and social reforms confined by the 1917 constitution. They do not only refer to the civil war that happened.
Margaretta Underhill
ReplyDeleteThe first chapter of the book Basta! by Collier, proved to be a comprehensive and eye-opening overview of the history of Chiapas, Mexico. I found it interesting that the colonial organization of the state so thoroughly affected the individual townships within Chiapas and that the Spanish ruling class so thoroughly disregarded the unique goods and perspectives offered by the inhabitants of those townships. The fact that the state remained relatively stable throughout the 20th century is astonishing given the drastic changes inflicted upon the indigenous people of the region; it seems as if the people of the state were subject to the whim of the wealthy elite and the nebulous government through the stifling of religious liberties, the promotion of major exports like timber and coffee and the promise and seeming failure of land reform. However, the government’s renewed attention to the indigenous inhabitants provided me with the hope that the sad position of the people might change in chapters to come. It will be interesting to see how the government’s treatment of their people changes in chapters to come.
Name: Lauryn Gallagher
ReplyDeleteClass: Anth. 366 10am
In Robbins, Chapter 3 puts a different perspective on my thoughts towards economic growth and the influences on today’s world.
“There is another factor, which receives little attention, that contributes to our understanding of economic growth and financial crises--that is, the wealthier a country becomes, the more difficult it is to maintain economic growth.” (pg.94)
This at first didn’t make sense to me but the more I kept reading the chapter it summarized that the recent crisis has to do with the need for perpetual growth than with human characteristics, such as greed. So it has more to do with the people operating this whole economic situation. As we go on it outlines the evolution of the organization of capital from the beginning of 1400 to the present, the ongoing division of the world into poor nations and wealthy nations, the role of the state in these processes, and the interaction of capitalist, laborer, and consumer. It also takes a closer look at the creation of the nation-state, and its role in the creation and maintenance of capitalism. Robbins states some excellent examples but what I don’t necessary agree on is the “analysis of how the culture of capitalism is incomplete.” My contrast to that statement is capitalism is an ongoing cycle, it is the means of production and distribution where the industry is privately owned and operated for a private profit.
Amy Hart
ReplyDelete9:00 am class
I disagree with the fact that in order to create a nation we have to be the "same". I definitley think that that is very discriminating because we live in a country where we "say" that we do not discriminate towards sex or race. After everything i read in Robbins the one thing that i disagree with most is, "violence remains one of the main tools of nation building." (Pg 106) Im not sure if i just didnt understand this part but after a few readings i feel like i still disagree with Robbins. The part about the government in Cambodia killing as many as 2 million citizens was very distrubing to me that they did it to create an ideal society, which to me is wrong.
Anne Byers
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Robbins would dismiss greed as a too simplistic reason for the latest economic collapse. In my opinion, greed is at the forefront of the problem because it’s one of the main forces (besides mass consumerism) that drive capitalism. Corporations want to increase their profits no matter the current economic situation. For example, did anyone really think that giving mortgages to people with little collateral was a good idea, and then to take all those loans and package them into “credit default swaps” and sell them onto the next company knowing that the product was unstable to begin with? I don’t think it takes an expert in economics to see how this wasn’t going to work. It was a short-term profit mentality driven by the pressure to increase profits no matter the method. I see this as a huge example of how greed nearly drove our economy into the ground.
In Robbins, on page 82, there is a quote from Abraham Lincoln near the time of his death which stated: "corporations have been enthroned... An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people...until wealth is aggregated in a few hands... and the Republic is destroyed."
ReplyDeleteThis quote struck me because it seems our country (and much of the world) is dealing with the same issues our society was dealing with over 150 years ago. I also feel the quote relates to the financial collapse of the last few years. I, like Anne B. above, disagree with Robbins when he stated greed was not a primary reason for the collapse. An idea, like that of J.P. Morgan to have AIG insure the Exxon loans in order to free up more money to invest, could not be created out of pure capitalistic spirit. Greed played a part. Many of those in the industry who contributed to the demise of our financial system knew they were selling bad product(s). And they continued to do it and they continued to profit off of it.
Meghan Elder
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChrissii Almquist
ReplyDelete9:00 am ANTH class
When I started out reading the pages I felt a little overwhelmed because it was kind of hard for me to follow and understand because it didn't catch my attention. The debt problem in he world, interest rates and GDP does not interest me. However knowing that we have, "50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population" amazes me. As I read more a became more interested. I do agree with Robbins one how education is important. I believe it is a key part of our society and that everyone needs and deserves a good education. However, when I started reading about the genocide and violence is when I started to disagree with him. I did not agree to the fact that he said, " violence remains a main tool of nation building". Violence is not a main tool it is a nuisance to nation building not a tool. Maybe i was confused, but how could violence be a key part of nation building?
Jacob Riley
ReplyDeleteRobbins' theory that a successful nation must be based on a common group of people who share the same language and culture just seems to me to be to much of a generality. I am of the opinion that nations that restrict, either socially or institutionally, people that are perceived as different only weaken the state as a whole. Throughout history there have been some incredibly successful nations that consisted of diverse populations, often differing in language and culture, and while these nations may have had their sets of difficulties because of this I believe that the positives out weighed the negatives.
That said there are several of Robbins' opinions and theories that I can agree with. For example, his theories on the state existing only to keep the privileged in positions of power is spot on. As Jesse Taylor elaborated on above, even our nation uses this "instrument" to maintain the status quo at the cost of misinforming and ill-equipping our children by telling them fairy tales about our founding fathers and omitting history that can be seen as a blemish on our nations record. Sure the "state" can throw the people a bone once and a while and it provides a since of order, but there are substantial costs that are paid for that.