Blogging my Subjective Thoughts Away

Class topics that I was itching to get a piece of at, of course, 12:35 (darn it):
We were seeming to come to the consensus that Cortés was more objective than Columbus in his treatment of the Native Americans.  I do not believe this is the case.  Given their historical European backgrounds, their assessements on the indigenous populations could only be subjective because all labeling was grounded in previous context.  For example, the Europeans firmly believed in mythology, superstition, and religious consequences (i.e. Sirens, Grand Khan, Moors).  Thus, although Cortés seemed to "understand" the Native Americans more, he did not "understand" them in the compassionate, globalized way we use that word today.  Instead, his "understanding" was to fulfill this own aims.  Maybe the reason Cortés is seen as a smarter explorer than Columbus was becuase he had concerte goals, and he knew how to accomplish them by using culture as a strategy.  In Todorov, it was perfect that he was likened to a realist:  "discourse is not determined by the object it describes, but is constructed solely as a function of the goal it seeks to achieve" (116).

Additionally, I want to address an earlier notion that these conquistadors did not see the Native Americans as people.  To a certain extent, they did label them and compare them to "objects" (i.e. the land) out of convenience or out of uncertaintity (i.e. Columbus could not reconcile whether they were a tainted self or an "other" to be rejected).  Still, even more, the explorers saw the Natives as inferior beings first, which then further debased their humanity.  He could compare "people to the Indians I have already spoken of," and that typified them "with astonishment . . . closer to men than animals" (35-6).
** Thus, whether the above perspectives are the most accurate or are up to debate, I am loving our analysis on The Conquest of America, in both the contemporary and past tense.  By analyzing the construction of the self/other, identities in general, the power of language, finalist doctrine, and the (lack of) responsibility, the story of colonization has become much more interesting than in the past and an extreme warning of our policies for the future.

Reflections on World Politics and the Real World
Also one of the highlights of this past week was participating in Oxfam's Hunger Banquet (here's what you missed:  http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=109134769152565&index=1).  Though the experience was not as intimiate as a banquet in which I participated in the past, partially due to a lack of people (i.e. the poor eating rice on the floor were proportionally more than the other classes, but not an overwhelming presence), it was really eye-opening when the speaker from Oxfam explained development in relation to the Haitian crisis.  A nation that once could support itself, now has to import 80 percent of its rice.  The series of unfortuante events in Haiti (i.e. widespread poverty, further destruction after the earthquake, cholera) stem from its lack of self-sufficiency.  Yet, this is not the Haitian people's fault.  The aid many countries pump into Haiti is only temporary (i.e. food that undermines local businesses).  The NGOs offer short-term services that are un-coordinated.  The government lacks infrastructure.  Haiti's recovery could be simple if it considered its people, in all their potential, first.  (For more information on Haiti, see  http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2010-03-30/haitians-say-jobs-key-recovery).