Doenload Dagny tries to keep the peace between three factions:
Selenarchs;
the Human Defense Union;
the National League.
Selenarchs are Lunarians who want their own unrestricted freedom;
the Human Defense Union are Terran Moondwellers who might soon arm themselves and establish a militia to defend the status quo - Federation law protecting them with subsidies, quotas and exemptions resented by Lunarians;
the National League are Terrans who want reform within a democratic republic with Federation membership.
Huizinga, representing the Union, says that "human" means everyone and "'...is not a matter of racial prejudice.'" (p. 474)
Oh, yeah? Why call yourselves that, then? There are some "Defence Leagues" in Britain at present.
Dagny recalls Guthrie:
"'Xenophobia isn't pathological in itself. A degree of it is built into our DNA, and is healthy. Not all men are brothers. The trick is keeping it under control, and setting it aside when it isn't needed.'" (p. 475)
My responses to Guthrie:
Not all men act as brothers but we can work towards a culture where that is the accepted norm. The Ode to Joy says that "All men will be brothers."
It isn't needed, period. I don't want to feel a degree of hostility towards foreigners but keep it under control, then set it aside. I want to accept each new acquaintance, local or foreign, as an individual.
A foreign student at Lancaster University observed that some foreigners are obsequiously polite to everyone whereas he isn't. An initial response to the obsequious ones might be "Obsequious bastard!" An initial response to the one who isn't might be "Arrogant bastard!" But those are just initial responses. If we can't get past our initial response in the first few minutes of speaking to someone, then the problem is with us, not with them.
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree with you and agree with Download Guthrie. A certain degree of caution, even wariness, simply makes sense when people are dealing with strangers. Bona fides need to be established. And I don't think all men will ever be brothers to each other. ALL of human history convinces me that is merely the simple truth.
Sean
There's an interesting article in the latest New Scientist, about DNA research by David Reich's team on prehistoric population movements in Spain.
Around 4500 years ago, people from Central Europe -- ultimately derived from the Yamnaya grouping in what's now the Ukraine -- moved into Spain.
This resulted in a sharp genetic transformation; when things settled down a century or so later, the population of most of Spain (some parts weren't affected) was 40/60 a genetic mix of these two populations.
But the Y-chromosome lines -- the male lines of descent -- were exclusively from the newcomers.
(This almost certainly coincided with the introduction of an Indo-European language and a new culture).
(Aside: Unfortunately New Scientist articles are behind a paywall, but the publication is worth getting for a broad range of articles on various fields of scientific research).
Unless you accept some very, very improbable hypothesis (universal male suicide or a sex-selective virus?) what that technical analysis of DNA indicates in the real world is what we'd call "invasion" "massacre" and "rape".
It's also strikingly similar to the genetic composition of many Latin American populations, where the autosomal DNA is mostly European, but the Y-chromosome lines are _all_ European and the mitochondrial (female) lines of descent are all Amerindian.
Ancient DNA research is indicating this sort of thing happens all the time in human history. It's one of the main "motors" for historical change.
Sometimes it's more drastic still -- about the same time people of the same ultimately Yamnaya background moved into Britain, and there was a 90% genetic shift -- the previous population, the ones who built Stonehenge, left hardly any genetic legacy at all. The famous "Amesbury Archer" (whose bone isotopes indicate he originally came from Central Europe) was part of the invasive group.
That's fairly similar to what happened in say, southern New England in the 1600's; war, and a combination of expulsion and massacre seasoned by epidemic disease, resulting in a total turnover of populations.
(aside: This is when the native population of Britain acquired the basic physical characteristics it has to this day; previously, the inhabitants had been mostly descended from the Middle Eastern migrants who introduced agriculture, and looked more like Levantines or Anatolians.)
So xenophobia is built into our natures because human groupings are (demonstrably) viciously, violently competitive and a lack of suspicion of outsiders sets you up for extermination.
Taking it too far is also counter-survival, too -- there are examples in history of groups which pretty much wiped themselves out by being excessively aggressive towards their neighbors, even if they won all the fights but the last one -- the ancient Assyrians seem to have done that.
But without it, collectively you're like an individual without an immune system, just food for opportunistic attackers.
And I am sorry that I can't afford to pay for interesting articles in the combox!
Dear Mr. Stirling,
I am not in the least surprised by the examples you gave of how gruesomely xenophobic human beings could be (and were). It supports the point I made that prudent people are WARY of strangers till all parties concerned are convinced of each other's good will.
Sean
Post a Comment