During the month of October, The Commons at Vanderbilt hosted "Do Deutsch," which consisted of many events to celebrate and encourage people to learn about Germany. At one of the events, Dr. Hans- Ulrich von Schroeter, German Embassy, spoke about Multikulturellegesellschaft [Multicultural Society] in Deutschland [Germany]. He described immigration in the New Germany, which happened after the Berlin Wall was destroyed. He went into detail about the importance of integrating into new cultures when a person moves to a different country, or when a country divided becomes one, such as after the Berlin Mauerfall. I agree that when you move to a different place, it is important to make an effort to become a part of the culture in order to broaden your view of the world, allow for different experiences and possibly even change your perspective on a certain idea. I think one great way to taste a bit of a culture is to try out the different regionally specific foods that are there, since cultural foods tend to vary widely within certain areas, and I really love food. For example,I have been told that the best tasting Döner Kebabs are made in Germany, but the food item is actually Turkish. I had never heard of Döner Kebabs until I started learning about the German culture. When I visit Deutschland, it will be one of the first foods I will taste. However, this may not turn out well since I had a bit of a hard time transitioning into the different taste of foods when I migrated to the United States over 12 years ago. Thankfully with time, this taste bud shock diminishes, and you get used to the types of food available in a certain region.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Trade and Globalization
Hello all. I am Xaralambos, And I will be your blog author for this week.
Over the next few months, I will be
attempting to analyze the globalization of trade. Globalization
describes how many different cultures interact with each other. One
of the myriad of ways they interact is through trade. One culture
trades goods with another culture, and through that interaction the
two cultures are irreversibly changed. I will start by examining the
effects of trade between ancient societies, such as the ancient
Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, and Egyptians. Following that, I will
continue by analyzing the trade routes between peoples, and the
changes in said people's culture as they continued to trade and grow.
After this I will examine more modern trade routes and the phenomena
that occurred as a result between more modern societies, and analyze
the similarities between said phenomena and the phenomena that occured when the ancient societies encountered similar circumstances. Using the similarities observed, and the differences in reactions under similar circumstances, I hope to observe and, maybe not predict, but note similarities between current events concerning global trade and globalization.
Alright, That's All for tonight. I apologise for the skeletal post, but I do intend to expand on this pitiful post later in the week, after the tests have had their way with me. Hopefully this bottle of wine will help sway them.
This is Xaralambos, Signing off.
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Globalization of Morality
Hello, this is Patrick.
In preparation for my blog post, I began a conversation with the other members of my Mayfield on my proposed topic. It ended up becoming a lengthy debate on the subject of morality in cultures around the world. My topic promptly changed.
The debate revolved around the question of whether morality is innate or learned from society. Whatever one's opinion may be on the subject, anthropology and world history provide a valuable insight into the moral concepts of various people groups throughout time. From the human sacrifices of the Mayans, to the Bacchanalia of the Romans, to the child sacrifice of ancient Canaanite peoples, to the rigid doctrine of the Puritans, to today's postmodernist relative morality, it is safe to say that humanity has failed to come to a consensus on right and wrong or if they exist in the first place. The following discussion will not answer the question but will perhaps shed some light on the subject.
My first statement here is that morality is not part of a human's basic instinct. We do not instinctively do good or evil; we have free will, but with an additional mental construct of what is good and what is evil. If good were an instinct we would not have the option of evil, and vice-versa. As it is, we have instincts as well as an ability to choose between instincts that are often brought into competition.
From here I will assume that certain moral ideas are common to all humans. Principles such as the preservation of one's own species, preservation of one's own life, the valuing of loved ones, etc. are not reasoned out, they are inherent in everyone who has ever lived. When Buddha came along and presented the Seven-Fold Path, he was not introducing a radical new framework of morality but merely elucidating the ideas that people already have. Jesus Christ taught about loving your neighbor as yourself but this wasn't an original idea. People had been loving others for millennia, simply because they felt that it was right. These great teachers showed people how to more effectively carry out the principles they had already known. Question: What about cultures of headhunting or human sacrifice?
In these cultures, the idea of loving your neighbor looked very different from the concept that western civilization has, but they still esteemed members of their own tribe and hunted down the enemy peoples for the purpose of eating them or sacrificing them. Jesus' teaching of loving your enemies was a new one.
I will also state that since morality is not an instinct or a drive, it can be overridden by other desires. This may seem obvious, but it has implications. Of course our desires for selfish gain can overpower our desire to do what is good. What I am saying is that each culture takes the integrity of its moral code upon itself over time. Each culture can shift its focus from monogamy to polygamy, perhaps based upon the lust of its men for more women. Here, the self is overriding the moral tendencies. Cultural deviations from what might be considered "standard moral practices" occur over time as its leaders make good or bad decisions that may or may not be influenced by their selfish desires. Tribal religions can cause new moral rules that are spawned because of one man's desire to rule over his peers through the influence of a supposed deity. This then leads to other practices such as child sacrifices or orgies or whatever one sees in historical cultures. This is the case of people interpreting innate moral concepts in various ways throughout time.
How does this apply to the 21st century? Is there a case to be made for morally equivalent cultures? Hitler has to be mentioned at least once in any blog. I'll go ahead and say that his culture was morally inferior to ours. However, on what basis do we condemn the evil of other cultures? Our moral concepts were shaped over time as people made decisions about moral interpretations of certain logical principles. I think it is important to find principles in this and decide what really is right and what really is wrong. What ideas are innate to everyone? How does rationality enter the picture? Relativism only hurts the cause by taking away any basis for judging other cultures. When one can't judge other cultures, one loses the ability to judge individuals, and thus a justice system becomes impossible. I don't have an answer here, but someone should do something soon. Morality is arguably the most important issue confronting humanity today and pushing it to the side with relativism and situational ethics will not help.
In preparation for my blog post, I began a conversation with the other members of my Mayfield on my proposed topic. It ended up becoming a lengthy debate on the subject of morality in cultures around the world. My topic promptly changed.
The debate revolved around the question of whether morality is innate or learned from society. Whatever one's opinion may be on the subject, anthropology and world history provide a valuable insight into the moral concepts of various people groups throughout time. From the human sacrifices of the Mayans, to the Bacchanalia of the Romans, to the child sacrifice of ancient Canaanite peoples, to the rigid doctrine of the Puritans, to today's postmodernist relative morality, it is safe to say that humanity has failed to come to a consensus on right and wrong or if they exist in the first place. The following discussion will not answer the question but will perhaps shed some light on the subject.
My first statement here is that morality is not part of a human's basic instinct. We do not instinctively do good or evil; we have free will, but with an additional mental construct of what is good and what is evil. If good were an instinct we would not have the option of evil, and vice-versa. As it is, we have instincts as well as an ability to choose between instincts that are often brought into competition.
From here I will assume that certain moral ideas are common to all humans. Principles such as the preservation of one's own species, preservation of one's own life, the valuing of loved ones, etc. are not reasoned out, they are inherent in everyone who has ever lived. When Buddha came along and presented the Seven-Fold Path, he was not introducing a radical new framework of morality but merely elucidating the ideas that people already have. Jesus Christ taught about loving your neighbor as yourself but this wasn't an original idea. People had been loving others for millennia, simply because they felt that it was right. These great teachers showed people how to more effectively carry out the principles they had already known. Question: What about cultures of headhunting or human sacrifice?
In these cultures, the idea of loving your neighbor looked very different from the concept that western civilization has, but they still esteemed members of their own tribe and hunted down the enemy peoples for the purpose of eating them or sacrificing them. Jesus' teaching of loving your enemies was a new one.
I will also state that since morality is not an instinct or a drive, it can be overridden by other desires. This may seem obvious, but it has implications. Of course our desires for selfish gain can overpower our desire to do what is good. What I am saying is that each culture takes the integrity of its moral code upon itself over time. Each culture can shift its focus from monogamy to polygamy, perhaps based upon the lust of its men for more women. Here, the self is overriding the moral tendencies. Cultural deviations from what might be considered "standard moral practices" occur over time as its leaders make good or bad decisions that may or may not be influenced by their selfish desires. Tribal religions can cause new moral rules that are spawned because of one man's desire to rule over his peers through the influence of a supposed deity. This then leads to other practices such as child sacrifices or orgies or whatever one sees in historical cultures. This is the case of people interpreting innate moral concepts in various ways throughout time.
How does this apply to the 21st century? Is there a case to be made for morally equivalent cultures? Hitler has to be mentioned at least once in any blog. I'll go ahead and say that his culture was morally inferior to ours. However, on what basis do we condemn the evil of other cultures? Our moral concepts were shaped over time as people made decisions about moral interpretations of certain logical principles. I think it is important to find principles in this and decide what really is right and what really is wrong. What ideas are innate to everyone? How does rationality enter the picture? Relativism only hurts the cause by taking away any basis for judging other cultures. When one can't judge other cultures, one loses the ability to judge individuals, and thus a justice system becomes impossible. I don't have an answer here, but someone should do something soon. Morality is arguably the most important issue confronting humanity today and pushing it to the side with relativism and situational ethics will not help.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Information Technology directly affects Globalization
Hey everyone! It's Jose.
Well, I'm attempting to study technology and globalization. So, we shall begin with a quote: "In nearly every corner of the world, from Mumbai to Madrid, one cannot enter a café or walk down the street without seeing someone talking, texting, or surfing the Internet on their cell phones, laptops or tablet PCs. Information Technology (IT) has become ubiquitous and is changing every aspect of how people live their lives."
Technology shapes the way we live our lives, whether we want it to or not. The people around us are glued to their phones, iPads and even laptops. But this isn't just a localized phenomena, it's everywhere. "Information Technology (IT) is a driving factor in the process of globalization. ... These advances have facilitated efficiency gains in all sectors of the economy." So, pretty much globalization is affected and maybe even directed by information technology. Pretty cool eh?
Well, I'm attempting to study technology and globalization. So, we shall begin with a quote: "In nearly every corner of the world, from Mumbai to Madrid, one cannot enter a café or walk down the street without seeing someone talking, texting, or surfing the Internet on their cell phones, laptops or tablet PCs. Information Technology (IT) has become ubiquitous and is changing every aspect of how people live their lives."
Technology shapes the way we live our lives, whether we want it to or not. The people around us are glued to their phones, iPads and even laptops. But this isn't just a localized phenomena, it's everywhere. "Information Technology (IT) is a driving factor in the process of globalization. ... These advances have facilitated efficiency gains in all sectors of the economy." So, pretty much globalization is affected and maybe even directed by information technology. Pretty cool eh?
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Cultural property in the 21st century
European colonization of Africa and Asia peaked on the eve of World War I and subsequently began to decline. This decline accelerated rapidly after the end of World War II, and today, most people in the world live free from colonial rule.
However, the Western world has been slower to accept fully the cultural autonomy of many former colonies in Africa and Asia. Consider the fact that Egypt has attempted (unsuccessfully) to recover a limestone bust of Queen Nefertiti from a German museum since 1925 (see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-24/egypt-demands-return-of-3-400-year-old-queen-nefertiti-bust-from-germany.html). In effect, such attempts to recover antiquities are manifestations of a cutlure's desire to preserve its own heritage.
However, in some cases, a former colony's right to cultural property might be contested with some legitimacy: for instance, consider the fact that the Rosetta stone has been a popular fixture of the British Museum for over two centuries. Moreover, the very concept of cultural property is complicated by the fact that the earth's entire population is being viewed increasingly as one community (consider the implications of UNESCO's "World Heritage Site" designation).
Thus, while it remains a fact that many foreign artifacts found in Western museums were acquired by unsavory techniques, the issue of the return of cultural property is not easily solved.
In any case, the idea that a museum's purpose is to exhibit foreign curiosities for entertainment must be discarded. As shown by the very existence of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (mentioned in the article above), many cultures place great importance on their products of their heritage. The least that Western museums can do is to respect that heritage.
However, the Western world has been slower to accept fully the cultural autonomy of many former colonies in Africa and Asia. Consider the fact that Egypt has attempted (unsuccessfully) to recover a limestone bust of Queen Nefertiti from a German museum since 1925 (see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-24/egypt-demands-return-of-3-400-year-old-queen-nefertiti-bust-from-germany.html). In effect, such attempts to recover antiquities are manifestations of a cutlure's desire to preserve its own heritage.
However, in some cases, a former colony's right to cultural property might be contested with some legitimacy: for instance, consider the fact that the Rosetta stone has been a popular fixture of the British Museum for over two centuries. Moreover, the very concept of cultural property is complicated by the fact that the earth's entire population is being viewed increasingly as one community (consider the implications of UNESCO's "World Heritage Site" designation).
Thus, while it remains a fact that many foreign artifacts found in Western museums were acquired by unsavory techniques, the issue of the return of cultural property is not easily solved.
In any case, the idea that a museum's purpose is to exhibit foreign curiosities for entertainment must be discarded. As shown by the very existence of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (mentioned in the article above), many cultures place great importance on their products of their heritage. The least that Western museums can do is to respect that heritage.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Nutella is Now American
Hi guys, it’s Rachael! So, I just got back from an Ultimate
Frisbee tournament at Notre Dame University, where the lovely people who
organized the tournament provided our team with food: bananas, bagels, peanut
butter, and… Nutella!!! If you don’t know what Nutella is, it is an absolutely
delicious chocolatey hazelnut spread that has recently become increasingly
popular in the United States. Every girl on the team got ridiculously excited
about the presence of Nutella, and it made me think about the first time I ever
heard of it. When I was in France for a few weeks about three years ago, I saw
this tasty delight everywhere, because it is a staple, household thing over in
Europe. The French family I was staying with had Nutella toast every morning
for breakfast, and there were little packets of Nutella with the jelly packets
at continental breakfasts at hotels: basically, it was everywhere. In the three
years since I have come back to the U.S., Nutella has started to make an
impression over here too, and may one day be the staple that it is in Europe.
According to http://www.nutellausa.com/history.htm,
Nutella originated in Italy during WWII as a cheap alternative to chocolate,
which was rationed during the war. The spread of this tasty treat from its
origins in Italy, then to the rest of Europe, and now to the U.S. made me think
about globalization in terms of the foods we eat. In matters other than food,
some people have equated globalization with Americanization because of the huge
influence American culture has around the world. This is by no means true,
because there is a lot more to
globalization than that. The food situation in America is in direct contradiction
to this idea. Think about it: when you are deciding where to go out to dinner,
the first thing you ask is, are you in the mood for Mexican, Italian, Chinese,
Indian, Thai, etc. The variety of food in the U.S. largely comes from different
countries and their styles of food. What is American food, anyways, other than
hamburgers and hotdogs? We would not enjoy the richness of variety in food that
we enjoy in America if we didn’t eat a lot of food from cultures other than out
own, and I would argue that American food is really just a combination of all
these other types of food. This is the global nature of the world at its finest.
Then again, I might be biased because I love Nutella and French bread so much.
On a completely unrelated note…
Speaking of chocolate, here is a nice recipe I found the
other day: 5 minute microwavable cake. Great for college students like me
because of its simplicity, this cake actually tastes pretty good! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow5n1NvS0f8&feature=related
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)