Similar to Jackie, I was left with a much more contented feeling after finishing Children of God. I was also left with a burning question: can one species or race thrive without it being at the expense of another species or race? If we look at most of human history, the answer would be a resounding no. If you look at humanity in the present from a purely objective standpoint you see a species that has risen to dominance on the subjugation and domestication of the natural world, including animals.
It makes me wonder if advancement always means someone or something else’s sacrifice. Russell characterizes this as a “tragedy…the fall of the Jana’ata and their replacement by the Runa…a catastrophe for the Jana’ata but…the best thing that ever happened to the Runa” (Reader’s Guide). Does this mean that, as with the expression ‘what goes up must come down’ – that whenever something is ‘coming down’ something else is ‘going up,’ and vice-versa? It is an interesting thought, unfortunately I do not have the answer…Perhaps if I did we could finally move beyond war.
Throughout the Children of God I also kept thinking, which species are the Aztecs and which are the Europeans, as discussed in The Conquest of America? The Jana’ata certainly seem the more past-looking race, focused on ancient traditions rather than adaptability and man-to-man communication. On the other hand, Emilio and his crew came directly from the Judeo-Christian world, yet they do not prove too swift in man-to man-communication. Rather they get caught up in trying to reform Runa - Jana’ata relations, which perhaps distracts them and leads to the “misunderstanding” that occurred when Supaari gave away Emilio, interpreting the word ‘service’ quite differently from Emilio. There is an interesting mix in both parties of attention to spirituality and/or tradition and focus on human interaction. It seems in this case both parties were caught up in a web of misunderstandings.
"Does this mean that, as with the expression ‘what goes up must come down’ – that whenever something is ‘coming down’ something else is ‘going up,’ and vice-versa?" I think you've reached one of the most essential questions of international relations - is IR a zero-sum game? A realist would argue that, yes, it is. If the Runa are going to thrive, then the Jana'ata must decline, or vice versa. The IR liberal, however, would probably point out that the well-being of the Runa or Jana'ata isn't inextricable. Russell, ending the book, seems to inform us that the Jana'ata will survive to some extent. Perhaps then relations between the Runa and Jana'ata are not a zero-sum game, but just damn close to one?
ReplyDelete