“Anyone who refused to submit to what God himself had commanded was thus by definition a ‘rebel’ or an ‘unlawful combatant.’”
(Last Days of the Incas, p. 33)
“Most serene Inca! You will know that there are in the world two princes more powerful than all the rest. One of them is the supreme pontiff who represents God. He administers and rules all those who keep his divine laws, and teaches his holy word. The other is the emperor of the Romans, Charles V. king of Spain. These two monarchs, aware of the blindness of the inhabitants of these realms who disrespect the true God, maker of heaven and earth, and [who] adore…the very demon who deceives them, have sent our Governor and Captain General Don Francisco Pizarro and his companions and some priests, who are ministers of God, to teach Your Highness and all his vassals this divine truth and His holy law, for which reason they have come to this country.”
(Last Days of the Incas, p. 62)
From the perspective of a citizen living in 2012 with all that is going on in the world today, what do the statements above make you think? They were pronounced 500 years ago. How do they strike you? 130 years after Pizarro, the Puritans fled England in search of religious freedom in the New World. Nevertheless, within two years of their arrival they began slaughtering Indians under the same justification. That is, the Indians were heathens, non-Christian, barbaric and deserving of death. That slaughter lasted for 200 years in North America. Of course, today throughout Central Asia, in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the same words used by the Spaniards are appropriated by radical Muslims in the name of Allah instead of the Christian God. Pizarro, the Puritans, and Muslims invoke these words at some level of sincere belief. But they also do it to justify conquest and control over other people and their land.
The point is to see constancy in human behavior, hypocritical as it has been and is. That which is constant is the use of ideology or theology (which is to say belief systems) to justify acquisition and/or control over other people’s labor and resources. It’s important to be on the look-out for this behavior in the past and the present. Therefore, for your blog contribution this week I want you to find an example of this behavior in the past or the present and to describe it in roughly 100 words.
Find an example (from the newspaper, history books or your own experience) in which an individual or group invoke an abstract belief (religious, patriotic, political or other) to legitimate the use of force to take over other peoples’ property or force them into involuntary labor, and describe it. All postings are due by Saturday, Feb. 4, at 5 pm.
An example of an individual or a group invoking an abstract belief to legitimize the use of force to take over other peoples’ property and force them into involuntary labor is Feudalism during the Middle Ages. The Feudal System was introduced to England following the invasion and conquest of the country by William the Conqueror. This system was based on the belief that the land belonged to God but the Kings, who ruled by divine right, managed the land and used it as they wished. Feudal society structure was similar to a pyramid. The King was at the top of the pyramid and owned all the land in the country and decided who he would lease land to. At the middle of the pyramid were the nobles and vassals. The King granted the land to important nobles and these nobles pledged their loyalty by swearing to serve and protect the king. The king also granted land to military men called vassals. The vassals also agreed to fight for the king in exchange for their land. At the bottom of the Feudalism pyramid were the peasants or serfs. They worked the land and belonged to the land owner. They were not allowed to leave the property or service of the owner without permission from their owner.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an example of a group that has taken control over others’ property over the past few years. The controversy over GM (genetically modified) foods has been an ongoing battle between the USDA, consumers, and farmers. In a 2011 article published on healthfreedoms.org, the USDA is continuing to deregulate more and more bioengineered crops. First, it was GM Alfalfa, then later it was certain types of GM Corn, as well as GM Sugar Beets. Consumers have been fearing this GM takeover for years, as they are very concerned about the origin of their food. The USDA has ignored the research that shows the harm to health and resources that these crops produce. They have ignored consumers’ and farmers’ concerns, as well as dismissing any opposition from health and environmental organizations. In 2009, approximately 95% of all soybeans and 80% of all corn in the U.S. were grown from genetically engineered seeds. Monsanto, a leading producer of genetically engineered seed, has been involved in underhanded deals with buyers to cut out the competition in their push for a monopoly. Clearly, these crops are not healthy for consumers, as many more people seem to have food allergies and sensitivities. Farmers are losing control of their land. Of course the motivation is money, but you cannot put a price on the health and wellbeing of humans.
ReplyDeleteAn example of the use of ideology and theology to force people into submission is the threats of Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden started a terrorist group known as Al Qaeda. This group used the views that the religion of Islam is superior to the other religions and groups of the world to persuade people into giving up their lives (literally) to support this cause. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda did not take kindly to those that tried to interfere with their mission of total domination. They took very drastic measures to make sure their voices were heard and their messages were clear. One big example of this was the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. There had been rising conflict between Bin Laden and the United States and he wanted to make his impact felt in the most radical way possible: by sacrificing others for the sake of his “religion and people.”
ReplyDeleteBeing from Canada, the example I am going to choose is the events that took place in "Manifest Destiny." The United States wanted to take over all of North American and they saw it as God's plan for them to have this entire continent. The People of the USA believed in their institutions and felt that God wanted these institutions to spread throughout Mexico and Canada. The interesting thing about this entire battle on the Norther border with Canada was the advancements made by the USA past the 49th parallel were eventually countered by the Canadians and the Americans were pushed even further back into the USA. This conquest for destiny was all for not as the border went back to the 49th parallel as its seen today. Thousands of people died in this battle from both sides as a quest for what the US believed was their destiny given from God.
ReplyDeleteAn example of a group asserting their political ideologies to threaten and harm others would be the Palestinian group called Black September. This group used force at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, Bavaria in southern West Germany. The Israeli Olympic team, which consisted of eleven members were held hostage. Two were killed after trying to fight back. The Palestinian group demanded the release of 234 prisoners held in Israeli jails. Negotiations were made for the Palestinians to fly back to Egypt to solve this whole ordeal. However at the airport, chaos broke out and nine of the Israelis were killed. This was one of the most significant terror attack of modern times.
ReplyDeleteWhat comes to my mind almost immediately that fits here is probably one of the most controversial topics of our time, abortion. We saw this more in the 80’s and 90’s, the bombing of clinics that performed abortions and the attempts of murder on those who performed it. Whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice, most people can see the hypocrisy in these acts. These extremists felt it was their religious duty to attack those who perform abortions and the places where they are done and possibly take a life, in an effort to save a life. These extremists felt that even though they knew murder was wrong, if they killed someone who committed multiple murders, it was ok because the good outweighed the bad. While in recent history the protests are less violent, they do still exist. This is true even though most of these clinics perform a wide array of women’s healthcare, not just abortion concerns. Just recently, the Susan G Koman foundation cut their funding to Planned Parenthood, which has started a bit of a donation reception contest between them. Planned Parenthood and many others feel this was due to political pressure about funding clinics that perform abortions, while Koman says that is not true. Although there is no property being stolen and no one being forced into labor, people’s lives are very much in danger, funding to perform services for woman are in jeopardy, and the clinics are under a constant threat of violence.
ReplyDeleteAs a devout Christian and someone who will not waiver in my beliefs feel it is a shame when I can not feel free to reference God anywhere I please, or bow my head in prayer when I feel lead. Madalyn Murray O’Hair was most famous for the lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court, Murray v. Curlett. O’Hair was an atheist activist. She was named by Life magazine “the most hated woman in America: in 1964. Her lawsuit resulted in ending official Bible-reading in American Public Schools. A year later the Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale ended officially sponsored prayer. I have heard people complain lately because of the mention of God and Christianity in the recent presidential political campaigns. I understand that not everyone believes differently. In fact, that is just my point. I do not understand why it is excepted for figures such as Madalyn Murray O’Hair to cause me to loose the ability to practice religious customs I believe are important, but it is frowned upon when a religious belief is publicized or practiced in public. The way I see it there has to be a balance. If people keep filing suit to insist their beliefs, that makes things unbalanced.
ReplyDeleteAs a woman who has a tendency to follow feminist ideology, I would like to hit on a political issue that has been playing a huge factor in the upcoming presidential election, and a huge factor in the lives of women: Abortion laws.
ReplyDeleteI believe that my body is my property and that I should be able to do with it what I like. However, much of Washington is out to steal my property. Politicians are using their religious beliefs as a means to take away the right of women to have abortions. The last time I checked, the constitution clearly states that there should be a separation of church and state. However, these politicians are intertwining their personal values and religious beliefs with their job of creating legislature. It might not be as bad as murdering an emperor and taking over an entire civilization, but it is an attempt to take over women’s bodies—something that should be their property.
The people of Cambodia endured an incredible amount of oppression under The Khmer Rouge, the ruling party in Cambodia from 1975-1979. The leader, Pol Pot, invoked the abstract political belief that Cambodia needed to become a pure agrarian society. All private property was seized and people were forced out of urban areas. They were either killed or forced to become farmers in labor camps.
ReplyDeleteBloodshed during this “transition” was based on social class and political affiliation (it is estimated that 1.5 to 2 million people were killed in the genocide). The end result, a pure agrarian society, legitimized the Khmer Rouge’s use of force. Just like the conquistadors rationalized their use of force in the name of a religious ideology, the Khmer Rouge rationalized their actions in the name of a political ideology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn 1993, President Bill Clinton signed a bill that officially apologized to native Hawaiian people for the role of the U.S. government in the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian queen who ruled the islands at the time. This apology was an acknowledgment that what Americans did at the time was wrong and that there was no legitimate justification for the take over of Hawaii and its annexation as a state. The actions were driven mostly by people who wanted to have more control over the islands and to put in a place a government like that found in the U.S. Once the queen was overthrown, the U.S. military put in place a provisional government, one that I would guess isn’t too different from what the U.S. did in Iraq. And of course Hawaii was eventually added to the U.S. as a state. This prevented native Hawaiian people from having any significant power or role in self-government and demonstrates a colonialist attitude towards native people.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history there have been many tyrants, and whatever other names they received, but they all used force to take over other peoples’ property and/or force them into involuntary labor. They all had abstract beliefs in which they had reasoning of why they were able to do as they did. An example of this was in 1619 when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia. Americans were in high demand for labors and slaves were a great way to increase their wealth. Slaves were taken from their homes and everything they knew to be shackled together very closely and brought across the Atlantic on boats, if they survived, they were then sold to work. They may have had very little in their native homes, but at least they had family and friends. When the boats they arrived on finally docked they were taken to auction blocks and became property of the highest bidder. It was not until 1865 when the Civil War ended and Lincoln was assassinated, that the Thirteenth Amendment was constituted and abolished slavery throughout the United States.
ReplyDeleteLiving in the year 2012 things has changed a lot there is still a great belief in god. However, if anyone refuses god they do not get punished because everyone worships different gods. So they are not considered to be a “rebel” or “unlawful”. There is more freedom now with religion so reading that just makes me think about how far the world has come. With the freedom that people can believe in who ever they shall choose. The second quote reminded me of USA because we used the separation of church and state. Since here in the U.S. they try to not let religious belief effect the decisions that are being made in the government. Trying to keep a balance between religion and government, but still giving the people a right to have their own opinion. Which has turned out great for the U.S because people are able to express their belief in god and it does not affect the laws of the world.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the phrase “an individual or group invoke an abstract belief (religious, patriotic, political or other) to legitimate the use of force to take over other peoples’ property or force them into involuntary labor,” the first thing that came to my mind was slavery. Slavery in the United States of America started because the people of the English colonies decided that white was the “supreme race” and they had the right to control everyone who wasn’t white. This meant that Africans were below them on the totem pole therefore; they had the right to make the Africans their slaves. This is a perfect example of a false belief that led to something that changed our country for ever.
ReplyDeleteI am speaking from a personal work experience. I had worked at a large well-known international company. My department was led by a man who was a United States citizen. The next one in charge was a man from another country. The woman in charge of our office was also from another country. These two teamed up along with a few of the work staff who were also from another country to all be in charge whether being assigned that responsibility of not. They formed an alliance that placed fear and paranoia within the entire work group. The ones that were not officially a boss were given the responsibility to watch all others and report it back to the two that were in charge. They were to act as spies. Some of these individuals did as they were told, but others did not feel comfortable doing so and acted as they were true to them but in actuality were not. We as the employees that were truly United States Citizens felt as though we were being categorized and discriminated but had no power to do anything to change it. I myself, was smarter than them and acted as though I was on their side, so I knew all of their plans but in turn stood by my fellow coworkers and when needed informed them of the situation. These people relate to all of the groups that want to enter an area and conquer to make themselves feel superior.
ReplyDelete