Wednesday, May 18, 2011


Felipe Navas
European History 4460
Professor Ping
(optional) exam 2


 

Why was Charles Darwin's Origen of Species so controversial and shocking to the Victorian Age? Is the theory of evolution a direct attack on the Christian Religion?


 

In 1859, the foundation of an old system was shaken by what many thought was a blasphemy against God himself. The Origen of Species by Charles Darwin was and remains to be a controversial little book. Who would have thought that the work of a shy man like Charles Darwin would have had such an impact in past generations and generations to come?

Darwin suffered emotionally and intellectually with every discovery that he made because the more he learned about The Origen of Species, the more he understood that the traditional idea of creation, could not be so; or as far as we understand time. As Darwin worked on his theory, the same ideas that fed his logic, during the day, would cause him to have night mares. In other words, it is fair, to say that for many years during his research, a struggle took place in Darwin's mind: empirical science vs. the orthodoxy of religion.

Darwin, the man, found himself divided between the traditional man and the man of science. As a traditional man, he was supposed to do what society did, don't ask why but, believed. At this time, even now, young men were taught to have faith in religion and that preachers were authorities who one should not question. Sometimes, religion becomes just methods to control the lives, behavior, and even ideas of members of society who are willing to comply with such norms.

"The real challenge of Darwinism for Victorians was that it turned life into an amoral chaos displaying no evidence of a divine authority or any sense of purpose or design. (Browne, 2006, p. 86)

However; Darwin, remained a church goer even after he had published his now famous or infamous Origen of Species. It is not clear if Darwin was able to find the equilibrium of his two worlds. He was without a doubt a man of science; he found great pleasure in evidence.

As his love for science increased, his interest in blind faith decreased; he seems to have faith in reason. Scientific research became his passion, evidence his joy, common sense and logic his moral compass.

"…I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old testament from its manifestly false history of the world and from its attributing to God the feeling of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appears to me utterly incredible. By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,-- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,-- that men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,-- that the Gospel cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,-- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses;-- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieved in Christianity as a divine revelation…" (Green, 2011)

    

To many, Charles Darwin's Origen of Species is a direct attack on Christianity. Because some Christians believe that if a scientist denies the bible theory of creation, it is denying God himself. There seem to be a fallacy here because The Origen of Species is a work full of evidence of evolution among animals, including humans, throughout time not evidence of the non-existence of God. What Charles Darwin denied was the literal interpretation of the bible. If he denied God later in life; he might have had different reasons for that. But with his work Origen of Species, he was presenting evidences and saying, seven days for the creation of Species, can't be taken literal, because it takes many years for species to evolve in to what they are now.

However, for many Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, The Origen of Species seems as a direct attack on their faith and their dogma. Darwin's theory was not a direct attack on Christianity. However, the authorities of various religious institutions saw it as a direct threat to their reign of absolute control over the people. Origen of Species, offered peoples a different approach to life other than the literal interpretation of the bible by religious authorities; whom, sometimes would use their absolute authority to intimidated and oppress their followers with threats of eternal condemnation.

After an in-depth study of Origen of Species, one can see that it is not an attack on Christianity; however, it is an awakening call to not allow faith to become the end of reason. And if Darwin, denied God, it is not clear to me; if he did so, I strongly disagree. Because, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Dr. Carl Sagan)


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Browne, J. (2006). Darwin's Origen of Species A Biography. In C. Darwin, Darwin's Origen of Species A Biography (p. 153). New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Green, J. C. (2011, April Monday). Darwin and Religion. Retrieved April 4/18/11, 2011, from http://www.jstor.org: http://www.jstor.org/stable/985427


 


 


 


Felipe Navas
European History 4460
Professor: Ping
Exam 1


 

The Essential Ideas of Marxism and the meaning of "Historical of Materialism"


 

According to Carl Marx, the history of humanity has been a struggle between the classes. "The fundamental basis of history is material production, and social life in general depends finally on the class dynamics of the production process. The practical purpose of historical materialism is to analyze the proletariat's social/political situation and thus guide it in its struggle against the Bourgeoisie." (Marx 1988, 25) Marxism as a theory is the most appealing of all system. Is it practical? Have Marxists been able to establish a real Marxist society?

"Marx's historical materialism method involves (1) understanding society in terms of its mode of production, especially its class structure; (2) identifying the influence of class conflicts on the prevailing political institutions and ideologies (including law, religion, and philosophy); and (3) using this "scientific" understanding of society to assess the prospects of historical change, especially for proletarian revolution. (Marx 1988, 29)

    The aim of Marxism is the elimination of the bourgeoisie class, which, according to Marx is the class that lives off the labor of the masses. In other words, the bourgeoisie is the class that has throughout history exploited the working class. As Marx analyzed the phenomenon of class struggle, he saw the need of forming a new social order that created equality among classes. Communism was his new social order; a political system where the means of production are owned by the state. Marx thought that if the means of production were owned by the state and not by the bourgeoisie, the exploitation of men by men would come to an end.

    Marx's socialist/communist ideas have put him in direct confrontation with capitalists that deemed Marx a utopian dreamer. Marx understood that the ruling class was not going to be willing to yield the advantageous position, which it had held on to in the already established system. Marx warned the masses that they were going to have to take the power away by means of revolutions; revolutions that were the direct result of the oppressive ways of government by the bourgeoisie.

    The Marxists and capitalists are at war and mankind has been caught in the crossfire. Communism, with the promise of equality among classes, and capitalism, with the promise of equal opportunity, are in a struggle for power on a world scale. It is clear that it is not in the best interest of either system to allow the other to succeed. So they have sabotaged each other since their struggle began. As a result, the systems have delivered more destruction and misery to most people than the good that they both offer. For example, instead of delivering the equal opportunity which it promises, capitalism has been used as a tool of exploitation by a few against the masses and it has enlarged the gap between rich and poor and between powerful and powerless.

In similarity, communism has failed to create the equality among the classes that it promises; instead, communism has created dictators that have oppressed the people. Nevertheless, communism is determined to create a new man; a man who sees the accumulation of wealth as something unnecessary; a man that desires only the bare necessities of life.

"Life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself… [I]n any interpretation of history one has first of all to observe this fundamental fact in all its significance." (Marx 1988, 26) Capitalism, capitalizes on the nature of men, exploiting the natural greed of men for the common good. Even though the means of production are owned by a few, in a capitalist society, the rest of the society is kept with a hope that if they work hard, some day they too could be part of the elite and be in control of the means of production.

    "Liberal theorists depicted bourgeois society as morally legitimate; for them, alienation and dehumanization could not be acknowledged. For the bourgeoisie, it is a matter of life and death to understand its own system of production in terms of eternally valid categories: it must think of capitalism as being predestined to eternal survival by the eternal laws of nature and reason. Conversely, contradictions that cannot be ignored must be shown to be purely surface phenomena, unrelated to this mode of production." (Marx 1988, 25)

    In essence, Marxism promises that through socialism, which is the first step toward communism, the new form of government that will deliver the masses from exploitation by the bourgeoisie can be achieved. However, capitalists argue that communism is an unachievable goal because it fails to recognize human nature and the creativity of men.

    The promises of a brighter future have been made to the masses by Marxists and capitalists; the fallacy in these promises is that it implies that those in charge will be trustworthy men; and that they will work only for the common good of the people. Unfortunately, now we know that the greed of capitalists can destroy the lives of those that have the misfortune of getting caught in their web of lies and business schemes. We also know the atrocities committed by communist dictators. Marxists would argue that a bad communist dictator does not represent those ideals of Marx. Just like a bad capitalist is not evidence of a bad system.

Both systems have created the illusion of freedom; and yet, when the people come to represent some kind of threat to the system, neither system hesitates to use their military machine to oppress the people. So, what is freedom anyway? Freedom is nothing but an illusion and submission to the ideas of the ruling class.

An economist and capitalist named Joan Robinson once claimed, "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all." (The Economist Newspaper Limited 2010) This creates a "this or that" fallacy. It implies that there were only two options, when in fact there are always other options, for example, creating jobs for people so they can live with dignity, paying them decent wages so the workers can afford education and medicine for their children.

The struggles between the classes will continue until, or as long as, either system fails to recognize and respect the free will of the people; because so far, people have become nothing but, a means to an end for both systems.


 


 


 


 

Bibliography

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1988.

The Economist Newspaper Limited. The rising power of the Chinese worker. July 29, 2010.


 


 


 


Popol Vuh (Las antiguas historias de Quiché)


 

    ¿Me pregunto si Darwin alguna vez leyó esto? Se me hace interesante la teoría de la descendencia de los monos. A pesar de que la historia del Popol Vuh está un poco incoherente, no pierde ese toque de interés. Además, tengo en cuenta que es una traducción de la original. Puede que lo incomprensible de la historia sea el producto de la traducción.

Lo que si queda claro es que la ciencia ficción no es producto de este siglo. Sigo pensando en la similitud de eventos del Popol Vuh y otros libros considerados sagrados por muchos, como el diluvio, el creador y el formador. Similitudes importantes que hacen reflexionar a quien lee esto. Uno se pregunta si es coincidencia o si hay un propósito y significado más allá de lo que parece una simple coincidencia.

Dejando por un lado ese toque de misterio, es bastante entretenido leer el Popol Vuh por la ciencia ficción (el realismo mágico) que en el se encuentra. Los perros que habla y amenazan a sus amos con morderles las carnes que al principio de la historia era pura madera y que después se convirtió en carne, ¡qué bueno por los perros¡ Las casas que derriban a los hombres cuando intentan escalarlas, Las cavernas que se cierran cuando los hombres intentan usarlas de guaridas, los árboles que lanzan a los hombres cuando ellos intentan subirse en ellos para escapar de la furia y el castigo de los dioses. Los comales, las hoyas, las piedras de moler que hablan y proponen vengarse en contra de sus dueños por el maltrato que habían recibido durante su existencia.

Todo en contra de los hombres de palo es decir, todo en contra de los antepasados de los monos. Los dioses, la naturaleza, las mascotas y aun todo lo cotidiano, ¡pobres monos¡


Historias de las Indias
[LA REBELLION DE ENRIQUILLO]


 

La educación que recibió Enriquillo en el monasterio de San Francisco, fue lo que le ayudo a ver la injusticia y opresión a la cual su pueblo estaba siendo sometido. Enriquillo, se dio cuenta de que no era necesario ni justo el trato que su gente recibía de parte de los Españoles. No me sorprende este tipo de abusos de parte de los españoles en contra de los nativos Americanos.

    Desafortunadamente, es por naturaleza que los países imperialistas y colonizadores han forzado sus ideales en otros pueblos a través de la violencia y crueldad; los españoles, no han sido la excepción. Lo que si me sorprende a veces es encontrar, llamados intelectuales que aun tratan de racionalizar la conducta imperialista, opresiva que tuvo España en América.

    A través de la historia, es evidente la práctica de los países imperialistas para mantener a los pueblos oprimidos, siempre ha sido la ignorancia, la amenaza, y la brutalidad.

Cuando Enriquillo despertó de ese sueño embrutecedor, se dio cuenta que era mejor pelear por su libertad y la de su gente que vivir oprimido por los Españoles. Pero sin su educación, a lo mejor, él hubiera visto la brutalidad de los opresores como castigo divino y algo que tenía que aceptarse con paciencia sin quejarse; porque, así lo había querido el destino y Dios mismo.

La Historia de las Indias, de Frey Bartolomé de las Casas, es un relato, en lo personal, más cercano a la realidad de la conquista de América. La historia que se conoce acerca de la conquista, es en su mayoría, una historia desde el punto de vista Europeo. Por lo tanto, en la historia se ha quedado ahogada la vos de las víctimas, es decir, los habitantes del continente Americano. Los escritos de Frey Bartolomé de las Casas, son reliquias históricas de la brutalidad de la cual el hombre es capaz.


 

    


Carta de Cristóbal Colón a Luis de Santángel


 

Para Cristóbal colón, esta carta tenía varios objetivos. Primero, informar a la realeza española que su viaje había terminado en éxito en nombre de España. Segundo, obtener el apoyo incondicional de los reyes españoles por medio de la codicia que los reyes tenían por el oro.

    Para poder lograr esto, Colón, estuvo dispuesto a exagerar la realidad de las cosas. Colón escribió cosas que él se imaginaba que los reyes de España querían oír. Por ejemplo él sabía que tan importante era la religión católica para los reyes; Colón, se aseguró de mencionar que tan fácil sería el convertir a los habitantes del lugar al catolicismo "Y no conocían ninguna secta ni
idolatría" También, se aseguró de mencionar en su carta la vulnerabilidad de los habitantes. "Ellos no tienen hierro ni acero ni armas"

    Para Cristóbal Colón, esto era el comienzo de una aventura; sin embargo, para los habitantes del continente era el comienzo de una tragedia que se iba a materializar por medio de las enfermedades extranjeras, la violencia de las armas desconocidas, la religión a través de la violencia, genocidio a una escala jamás antes vista.

    Es obvio que esta carta, tenía como objetivo principal persuadir a los reyes españoles a que le dieran todo el apoyo que Cristóbal Colón necesitaba para seguir descubriendo el nuevo mundo. A pesar de que fue escrita con un español no muy eficiente, este documento logró el apoyo económico de los Reyes españoles.

La historia trágica, de los últimos 500 años de américa, es el testigo de que Cristóbal Colón logró su objetivo con su carta. Una carta, que hoy sabemos, era una amalgama de realidad y exageración. Exageración que Cristóbal Colón sabia era necesaria para poder engañar a los Reyes.