Novelty

Who could have done a better job? First of all, we should reassess our criteria. What is a good outcome? What's a bad outcome? Before that, though, let's distinguish between the two "fronts" of change on Rakhat and their sources. These must be considered separately to avoid confusing distinct influences. The landing on Rakhat in turn set off two waves of change, one centered on Gayjur Palace, and the other around the VaKashan Runa.

I believe the changes implemented by the Reshtar are the result of Contact with foreigners and little more. The nature of the first crew did not cause the changes so much as their mere presence. What happened to Emilio had more to do with the aspirations and character traits of the Jana'ata than ay of his own actions or traits. Supaari was waiting for an opportunity to gain foundership. The Reshtar was uniquely receptive to anything that might upset the status quo. Rgardless of who went, as long as they made any kind of contact, Kitheri would have started to sing new songs. One way or another, anyone would have been the catalyst.

The second wave, the Runa gardens and eventually Sofia's role in fomenting revolution, could probably have been avoided, this I do not deny. Instead, I question our framing of foreign influence as somehow unnatural, something to be rejected. Humans, Runa, and Jana'ata alike evolved out of what is natural, and are themselves a part of nature. Where are the rules that decide what will be considered "unnatural"? What does it mean that this standard itself changes over time? We have a false conception of a bunch of closed-systems. This tribe over here cannot be influenced by the outside world, and nw this planet is somehow off-limits. We arbitrarily define these boundaries, and I think it is futile, counterproductive to do so. In fact, one of the traits we as humans have come to value is communication, contact within our species, the cross-pollination of ideas. Why should we be so selfish as to deny this to the species on Rakhat?

Modern hypnotists claim that people under hypnosis will not do anything they would never do while "awake;" there is no way to coerce someone using hypnosis. While I'm not so sure I believe hypnotism, I do think that this distinction applies to what happened on Rakhat. Sofia did not force anything on the Runa. The landing party did not make them plant gardens. The Runa encountered novelty, and decided the new ideas were worthwhile. I just don't see how someone can say in one scenario that it is okay to share an idea (example: the entire purpose of schools), and in another case, the other person/group/cultures does not have the right to encounter it and decide for themselves its worth. One could frame schooling in terms of interference. I would never have known about the chemical properties of water if a teacher hadn't told me. I would never have discovered that on my own. Does this mean I don't have the right to know it?

Disowning the Children of God

In class on Thursday I questioned the idea of a mission "to know and love God's other children." What, I asked, happens if we simply can't love them? Do we turn around in failure, content with the fact that we gave it our all? Or, do we change them so that we can love them. A lot of our discussion centered around this notion, the morality of changing society on Rakhat into something that jives with our conceptions of right and wrong. This conversation usually heads down the road of a cultural reletavism debate, and I get enough of that in Cross-Cultural Communication. After class, I thought about a third option that makes sense in light of some of our other readings. The easiest solution is to accept that the aliens on Rakhat are not God's children.

As I have said a few times, Manifest Destiny is a constant re-characterization of our interests and motives. If we wanted to expand our territory, then we just rationalized our way right through the native Americans or other colonial powers. The indigenous people were hardly people at all, and therefor had no right to their land, or even their way of life. It is conceivable, then, that this could happen on Rakhat. If we failed to love them, it is not our fault; they are not God's Children. This paves the way for all kinds of injustices. I probably don't need to remind you what Carl Schmitt had to say about fighting for "humanity."

A tricky thing about Rakhat, however, is that there are at least two other species that one could safely call inhuman. It's hard to think of them as such, but the Jana'ata and the Runa are not genetically related. They are literally different beasts. There is a clear gradation of intelligences on the planet, putting outsiders face-to-face with realities of nature (as in vs. nurture) that make comparing the social structure on Rakhat awkward to compare to any historical human societies. Drawing a parallel to antebellum South feels wrong, because although there are some similarities, we can't forget that the Runa are, as a race, not capable of the same intellectual capacity as the Jana'ata.

I am looking forward to reading Children of God to find out what humans decide to do with this planet. I have become used to authors forcing readers to speculate at what happens next, and I would not have been surprised to see Russell do the same. Children of God is exciting because we the readers get a chance to sit back after reading The Sparrow, think hard about our predictions, and then see what actually happens. I know it'll probably be depressing, but I can't wait for more.