I treated myself to the new Sarah Vowell book in hardcover and breezed through it in about two weeks. She is such a joy to read and I really enjoy her writing style. This book was about the end of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I share in her sentiment regarding the end of the Hawaiian kingdom and this book shines light on the other side of the concept of "Manifest Destiny". Understanding what really happened in Hawaii saddens me but most of all it frustrates me that we (as a society) are not taught these things in school.
What I liked best about Vowell's assessment of the annexation was exactly how hypocritical it was of the United States to go through with it after the founding fathers worked to try to limit the power and warn of the risk of overreaching that power, especially with regard to the navy. The underlying reason for Hawaii's importance was it's strategic location in the Pacific. If it is any consolation, it certainly wasn't an easy sell to Congress, though, as it took time to finalize the annexation.
It all started with the missionaries. Apparently, some verse in the bible encourages readers that it is their responsibility to invade territories and push their religious ideals on indigenous people who were living just fine without them for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. This is the basis of the concept of "manifest destiny" we all read about in junior high -- the idea that it was God's destiny for us to expand the US settlement across North America to the Pacific Ocean. The missionaries arrived in Hawaii in the early nineteenth century and there was really no looking back for the indigenous Hawaiians at that point. Sure they were able to have access to some modern ideas and concepts (like monogamy and allowing women to eat bananas -- no joke!) but it came at the cost of freedom.
The majority of this book outlined the events that took place soon after the missionaries arrived in Hawaii and ended with the formal annexation at the turn of the 20th century, which meant I enjoyed the majority of the book until the end, where I become extremely frustrated, angry, and slightly ashamed.
Once the missionaries settled in they convinced the locals how beneficial it would be for them to grow sugar (instead of the local staple, taro root) and sell it to settlements in California and Oregon. The locals were successful at this but soon, the US put tariffs on imported sugar, making the Hawaiian sugar more expensive and less attractive. The Hawaiians sent a representative to Washington to lobby for a special agreement to include no tariffs for Hawaiian sugar coming in to the US. The US agreed on one condition -- Hawaii cannot contract their ports or land with any other nation. This is a direct violation of sovereignty, as pointed out by Vowell. To me, this was the most appalling part of the book. Do you know that currently, Congress is not allowed to dictate to individual US states where they should allocate their federal funding? This is protected by STATE SOVEREIGNTY. So we respect our states as sovereign but we do not do the same for other sovereign nations? Who the hell do we think we are?
This brings up another point that was expressed by many indigenous Hawaiians at the time. Wasn't the United States established to escape colonialism and the control of the British monarchy? The founding fathers were anti-colonialism and against invading territory and starting wars (Does this seem relevant today, in 2011? You bet.). Hawaii lost its freedom to the country that was founded on freedom. It seems not only backward but blatantly hypocritical.
This book was an interesting insight into what happened with Hawaii. It saddens me that even an aerial view of this was not taught in school. It makes me wonder how the history books will read when they reflect on the time we are living in now.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Our Posthuman Future
I realize it has been a while since I posted. I have been busy studying for a work certification exam for many months and once I finished that (and passed! yay!) I knitted a scarf for next winter. Either way, I was not able to devote the time to read a book so I am pleased to say I am back in action. I might have another work exam on the horizon so I want to get in a couple of books before having to take another break.
On a recommendation from Chris, I read Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama which discusses human nature and the consequences of intervention in “germ line” engineering. Much of this book was highly philosophical, discussing the higher-level ethical debate as to whether humans should even be permitted by law to meddle in human nature. I feel Fukuyama outlines serious concerns for society as science advances and this possibility becomes more of a reality.
There were a few very noteworthy points made that I would like to highlight rather than give a general overview of the topics discussed. One of which is the concept of self esteem and our ability as a society to control it with drugs. Fukuyama points out that self esteem used to be something earned – if you wanted to feel like you accomplished something, you worked hard and were then rewarded with that feeling. But lately, self esteem has been treated as an entitlement, something everyone needs to have whether they deserve it or not. People with low self esteem are treated with drugs to hormonally fix their “imbalance” rather than focusing on actions that will positively impact self esteem. Another example of applying prescription drugs to a situation where other therapeutic methods could yield better results is with young children exhibiting “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”, aka KIDS HAVE SHORT ATTENTION SPANS IN GENERAL. Rather than spending the extra time and energy necessary to engage children, parents and doctors are quick to turn to drugs like Ritalin. Both of these examples show the power neuropharmecology has on influencing behavior. He uses these examples as a warning of things to come (this book was published back in 2002).
Another point I felt was noteworthy was the distinction made between rights and interests, which I feel is important for this discussion since modifying our genes may fall into one of these categories that may help determine how it should be regulated. An interest is distinct from a right, in that, “I may have an interest in a pleasant two week vacation, but that cannot compete with another person’s right not to be held as a chattel slave to work someone else’s fields” (p. 110). The point being made here is very important as it levels the playing field for human beings in that our rights are universal while our interests may vary depending on socioeconomic status. The force pushing against this ideal is money – if the individual has enough money they can afford a two-week vacation while paying someone to tend to their fields. Wealth changes our ability to address our interests but it should not necessarily provide someone with additional rights. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Since wealth tends to further both the interests and the rights of individuals (or corporations), human gene engineering will end up as a tool for the very wealthy to have “designer babies”.
Here is where I will express my opinion on this very controversial topic. As Fukuyama points out, if you ban human genetic modification in the United States, scientists and pharmaceutical companies will simply take their research to another country where the practices are not banned. This race to the bottom is inevitable under current international trade agreements. I feel that modifying organisms on the genetic level, whether it be plants or animals, cannot be sustainable in the long term. I am not a scientist so I cannot speak to whether or not it is SAFE. Regardless of the safety concern, the consequences of genetic modification on a human level seem extremely hard to predict. Anything that uncertain involving the building blocks for human life is not something we want to be messing with. Fukuyama likens genes to an ecosystem – each part influences the others. When you are dealing with a system that interconnected, you had better be sure of the outcomes before you start messing with the individual parts.
On a recommendation from Chris, I read Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama which discusses human nature and the consequences of intervention in “germ line” engineering. Much of this book was highly philosophical, discussing the higher-level ethical debate as to whether humans should even be permitted by law to meddle in human nature. I feel Fukuyama outlines serious concerns for society as science advances and this possibility becomes more of a reality.
There were a few very noteworthy points made that I would like to highlight rather than give a general overview of the topics discussed. One of which is the concept of self esteem and our ability as a society to control it with drugs. Fukuyama points out that self esteem used to be something earned – if you wanted to feel like you accomplished something, you worked hard and were then rewarded with that feeling. But lately, self esteem has been treated as an entitlement, something everyone needs to have whether they deserve it or not. People with low self esteem are treated with drugs to hormonally fix their “imbalance” rather than focusing on actions that will positively impact self esteem. Another example of applying prescription drugs to a situation where other therapeutic methods could yield better results is with young children exhibiting “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”, aka KIDS HAVE SHORT ATTENTION SPANS IN GENERAL. Rather than spending the extra time and energy necessary to engage children, parents and doctors are quick to turn to drugs like Ritalin. Both of these examples show the power neuropharmecology has on influencing behavior. He uses these examples as a warning of things to come (this book was published back in 2002).
Another point I felt was noteworthy was the distinction made between rights and interests, which I feel is important for this discussion since modifying our genes may fall into one of these categories that may help determine how it should be regulated. An interest is distinct from a right, in that, “I may have an interest in a pleasant two week vacation, but that cannot compete with another person’s right not to be held as a chattel slave to work someone else’s fields” (p. 110). The point being made here is very important as it levels the playing field for human beings in that our rights are universal while our interests may vary depending on socioeconomic status. The force pushing against this ideal is money – if the individual has enough money they can afford a two-week vacation while paying someone to tend to their fields. Wealth changes our ability to address our interests but it should not necessarily provide someone with additional rights. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Since wealth tends to further both the interests and the rights of individuals (or corporations), human gene engineering will end up as a tool for the very wealthy to have “designer babies”.
Here is where I will express my opinion on this very controversial topic. As Fukuyama points out, if you ban human genetic modification in the United States, scientists and pharmaceutical companies will simply take their research to another country where the practices are not banned. This race to the bottom is inevitable under current international trade agreements. I feel that modifying organisms on the genetic level, whether it be plants or animals, cannot be sustainable in the long term. I am not a scientist so I cannot speak to whether or not it is SAFE. Regardless of the safety concern, the consequences of genetic modification on a human level seem extremely hard to predict. Anything that uncertain involving the building blocks for human life is not something we want to be messing with. Fukuyama likens genes to an ecosystem – each part influences the others. When you are dealing with a system that interconnected, you had better be sure of the outcomes before you start messing with the individual parts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)