Culture and Globalization

Sep 30

Last week’s readings helped us think about the important place of the city in processes of globalization. In this response, reflect on how this week’s readings help us think about the ways globalization affects the land itself and natural resources. Furthermore, how are indigenous communities impacted by this? You should use each of the readings to support your claims. It may also be helpful to think about some of the key concepts from last week and how they connect to this week’s issues.

78 comments so far

  1. btaborga
    5:48 pm - 10-2-2012

    Waziyatawin= Globalization has affected local communities and indigenous peoples since colonial times. Currently now days we have been able to see how globalization has been harmful to our environment. In the article Waziyatawin writes, we can see a little of what globalization has done to our environment. He talks a little on how his lands “Minisota Makoce” on how in the past it was perfectly normal, but after colonialism and globalization you can start seeing the effects it has had on the environment. “Loss of 98% of Minnesota’s whit pines, 90% of the wetlands, and 99% of the prairies” Because of industry, companies and farmers brought pipes that affect the wetlands, many buffalo have been killed or have left these areas, mining companies have contaminated the surroundings. Because of this, “one in ten babies born in the area is affected with unhealthy levels of mercury. In the novel by Leslie Maromon we can also see how indigenous peoples feel towards the presence of Whiteman in their territory. “Entire villages will be swiped out, they will slaughter whole tribes.” This novel shows so much resentment to the “Whiteman” (the colonials) it shows them as being greedy and not carrying about the environment that is so precious to the natives. We can see that globalization (through this novel) that globalization has also brought other negative things like disease. “They will bring terrible diseases the people will never know about.” This excerpt of the novel shows how ingenious peoples resent “Whiteman” for taking what is theirs and not appreciating it, and only causing harm. In Judy Pasternak’s article she focuses on how the environment was damaged in the 1960’s during the Cold War. The United States started drilling for uranium and lithium to build nuclear weapons in New Mexico; they were also testing them in the deserts of New Mexico! Private companies did not care much on making sure toxic material would leave the area. Because of their lack of care, many indigenous peoples started to get cancer and birth defects. They “inhaled radioactive dust” that caused many health problems. Their live stock was fed with contaminated food and water, their kids played in areas that were extremely contaminated as well. Many Navajo people got lung cancer because they worked in the mines which large private corporations owned. In these three articles we saw how the environment and local indigenous have been affected, in Alyosha Goldstein’s article; we can see a different perspective on the ongoing fight between “Whiteman” and indigenous people. In this article Goldstein analyses the anti sovereignty groups and the trial that happened between “City of Sherill and Oneida Nation of New York”. Anti sovereign groups basically argue that Native Americans get “special rights from the government just because they are Native Americans. Many old “patriots” or Americans who have had lands for centuries are mad that many of their lands might be taken away by Indigenous groups who claim that those lands are theirs. This article offers us a different point of view to an outside perspective. In my opinion I agree with the fact that globalization has affected many of the lands where indigenous live, and companies have done very little to fix it. Globalization has brought industry that has only affected the environment and opportunities of Native Americans. This has also created hate between indigenous people and white men. The constant fight for what land belongs to who is only creating a hostile nation and not a united one in my opinion. Last week we read how the expansion of urban cities into other areas has had positive and negative impacts. In this case, as these articles present, it is a negative fact because as cities grow and there is a demand for land, they take lands that once belonged dot native people, and what urban cities bring with them is industry. They bring technology to exploit natural resources like we learned in Waziyatawin’s article. This technology can have a harmful impact on its surroundings by contaminating water supplies, killing local animals, deforestation and air pollution.

    • shanaz
      1:00 pm - 10-3-2012

      There is much conflict around the world over land scarcity along with overpopulation, oil scarcity and other natural resources. It seems that globalization has greatly heightened this conflict in the land itself along with other natural resources. Furthermore, indigenous communities are exposed to nation’s that are seeking to gain power through land and natural resources. In Waziyatawin’s article, “The paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire,” the writer states that “the Earth can no longer feed the rapacious appetite of imperial powers or support the paradigm of unlimited growth”. It is evident that there are limited amount of resources on Earth, however, the way that corporations and states are using it is at a very rapid and destructive pace. He uses the Minisota Makoce (Land Where the Waters Refelct the Skies) as an example of colognial occupation, where there was a loss of “98 0ercent of Minnesota’s white pines, 90 percent of the wetlands, 98 percent of the Big Woods of southern Minnesota, and 99 percent of our priairies.”
      Although globalization has given humans the technology to view the issue from their own home, for some reason it is not enough for people to change their ways. This is partially is because the people that have the capacity to change this will not want to change their current lifestyle. People simply do no want to pay more for goods. Furthermore, governments and corporations are willing to sacrifice natural resources for their own good. One side comment, in Pasternak’s article, she shares stories that I haven’t personally heard about. I think literature in this sense can be used as a tool to encourage the masses to demand changes.

      • btaborga
        8:52 pm - 10-3-2012

        Its a good point you brought up that people now days don’t want to change their lifestyle or pay more for goods and that is why corporations do so little to protect the environment. I wanted to give you a current example in Latin America. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s Exxon has been exploiting oil from Ecuador. To make huge profits they ignored many environmental laws and contaminated indigenous territories and the ecosystem. What has changed is that now Correa is the president of Ecuador and he has been enforcing environmental and indigenous rights strictly.

      • grivas3
        11:29 pm - 10-4-2012

        Very good points were address in your article but i really like how you mention that people are not willing to change their lifestyles. I think this is true most people are not very concerned with how they are hurting natural resources, they are more worry about how they can exploited to receive goods and dont think about the consequences and how those natural resource will not always be available.

  2. kmilburn1957
    10:16 pm - 10-2-2012

    Most of our readings this week centered on the Native Americans and their trials and struggles in dealing with the white people and their values. Globalization can and does include the introduction of values and traditions different from our own, either through colonization, trade or religion. These introductions can occur gradually, or aggressively. Silko’s depiction of the western takeover of Indian ways, in her poem from Ceremony , paints a stark view of the havoc white people have caused on the Native Americans’ way of life. Sadly, the story that she told was true. Through globalization the indigenous population’s ways can become subdued or eradicated by the stronger society. Many are nomadic or agricultural, and base their way of living off of the land, while the more technologically advanced civilization steamrolls over them. In the case of the Native Americans, their way of life is also tied into their religious thoughts of being in tune with the plants and animals that they share the land with. Western religion, according to author Waziyatawin, believes that man was put on earth to dominate all of creation. This author asserts that this disconnect in beliefs resulted in the people losing their language and culture and, eventually, their land. She states that it’s “never been about God, or civilizing us-it’s always been about the land.” This relates to our discussion last week on the importance of land and urban sprawl. Owning land in a desired location is utmost. Whether it’s an inner city, or a pasture by the lake, it’s the importance of land. As more and more westerners settled into farms, cut down forests and killed wildlife, the Native Americans were left with less and less land and resources with which to practice their lifestyle. Resources that were inconsequential to one society might be the bread and butter of another. Once a resource is eliminated, the world is forever changed. In that same article, Waziyatawin argues that the western way of industrialization was ruining their lands and, even if they could regain lost land, would it be of any value to them once they did? They needed clear streams to fish in and land that had not been deforested to hunt in. The effects of technology were not only destroying the environment, but affecting health and life as well. In Judy Pasternak’s article in the L.A.Times, she encounters a Native American reservation profoundly impacted by the irresponsible technology of western businesses. Uranium mines near the reservation were not properly contained and the Native Americans suffered severe rises in incidents of cancer due to their exposure to toxic elements. Aloysha Goldstein’s article portrayed the difficulties the Native Americans of New York in regaining the land they said was wrongly taken from them during colonization. The article describes the legal battles the Native Americans entered into with the U.S. Government to either get their land back or be monetarily recompensed for it. Its argument was put in a materialistic light. Contrarily, in Waziyatawin’s article, the fight was centered on the need to regain original lands in order to enable them to follow their traditional beliefs and way of land based living. In all but the poem by Leslie Silko, the articles highlight the perceived indifference of the U.S. Government towards the Native Americans. The tribes in New York were not awarded their lost lands, and the tribe in Pasternak’s article fought long and hard to have minimal health issues addressed. However, I do fault the Indian councils in prolonging the help the Navajo’s received in the Utah reservation. They refused help, ”withholding information about uranium related dangers from their own people , reasoning that there was no point stirring up fear if there was no money for a solution”.

    • ksalvucc
      10:59 am - 10-3-2012

      Great analysis of the articles. I definitely now have a better understanding of the readings, after reading this.

      • ksalvucc
        11:11 am - 10-3-2012

        I say this because it gives me a look at how you see the readings. Meaning, the angle in which you view the readings.

        • ksalvucc
          11:15 am - 10-3-2012

          I understand the difference of opinions that people have on this subject.

          • ksalvucc
            11:16 am - 10-3-2012

            I understand the difference of opinions that people may have on this subject.

    • jbleichn
      10:56 am - 10-5-2012

      Very nice analysis. I like how you emphasized that globalization not only destroyed the land of the Native Americans, but also paid no mind to the destruction of their culture and belief systems.

  3. tmarchan
    11:32 pm - 10-2-2012

    According to the article written by Waziyatawin, historian Jack Forbes calls de-sanctification of the earth when agriculture and food is seen as a commodity and a way to achieve wealth by the imperial powers. Imperial powers came to the lands of the Indigenous people killed their buffalo, mined their land, and killed their people. They had no regard to the impacts of the ecosystems and those who inhabit them. Nehanee claims that by separating the indigenous people it would help them achieve their goal of making money out their land. Indigenous leaders have tried to warn colonial societies on the dangers of harming the land but the colonial societies always think they can overcome the harm by using technologies, exploiting more resources, and developing more. Alyosha Goldstein defines the term “collective rights”, which means threat of majority rule with the tyranny of a minority. The majority rule is the rule of the colonial society and the minority rule is that of the indigenous people. Colonial rulers are not going to stop exploiting the land because that is what is most beneficial to the majority.
    The article written by Judy Pasternik is proof of the harsh conditions Indigenous people are exposed to. She tells a story about a couple that purchases a home at a Navajo Reservation that once supplied the nation’s nuclear weapons program. Why did they make a reservation in such a dangerous place close to radioactivity? Navajos inhaled radioactive dust and drank contaminated water. This led to cancer caused mortality. Authorities made no serious effort to learn more about this case, this was not important enough to them. There was a “lack of interest” from the US government.
    All of the damage that has been done by the colonizers cannot be undone. As Leslie Marmon writes “It’s already turned loose. It’s already coming. It can’t be called back”.

    • jnewman4
      1:01 pm - 10-4-2012

      Yes, it would appear that our society is living a cannibalistic lifestyle. I agree 100% that the western world will not stop consumption, it will continue to consume until all non-renewable resources are depleted; a point of no return. You mentioned that we always strive to find new technologies that will keep our populations afloat, however we are witnessing every day the consequences of resource shortages…death and war. In class we talked about “American conceptionalism”, it is baffling to me that this ideology can even exist when all around us states are failing.

      • tmarchan
        9:44 pm - 10-4-2012

        I agree, we are witnessing the consequences of using up our resources. I feel like technology can only do so much. We need to be global citizens and stop using our resources in a wasteful way.

    • sarahariri
      12:51 pm - 10-5-2012

      I agree with your statement that the exploitation of the land won’t come to an end anytime soon. When something is in the best interest of the majority, it is usually practiced despite the consequences on the minority.

  4. saehwan72
    1:13 am - 10-3-2012

    Globalization affects land and natural resources by developing territories and boundaries through out the world. The spread of culture may be a positive of globalization, but in terms of natural resources there are always negatives. There are only limited natural resources and land in the world; therefore there will always be conflict between who has control over both in specific areas of the world. Those that are often the ones to suffer are those that are indigenous to the land. “Settler colonies were not primarily established to extract surplus value from indigenous labor. Rather they are premised on displacing indigenes (or replacing them) on the land” (Goldstein). The idea of settler colonies was never to get an edge using indigenous labor it was to actually remove the indigenes from the land itself. The idea itself makes perfect sense in economic terms. Why would anyone want to have workers on a foreign land cutting into profit, when they could just own the land and do whatever they please with it? Economically speaking it makes perfect sense, however morally speaking it is very flawed. Indigenous communities are often forced or “encouraged” to move to a remote part of the country. The developments of Indian reservations in the U.S. aren’t necessarily in the best or safest areas. There is a reason why the rate of cancer in reservations is seriously higher than the rest of the country. The living conditions that the indigenous communities are faced with are far from ideal. For example the uranium mines that were left after the Cold War, have affected the surrounding Navajos. Even with the increase in cancer rates, the U.S. government has yet to “conduct a comprehensive study of the health effects of uranium mining on the reservation” (Pasternak). The federal government’s apathy towards the reservations is blatant. Culturally speaking, the actions (or lack of) by the U.S. government in these situations have caused a certain disdain of “white men” to resurface in Indian communities. The indigenous communities are depicted as victims in “The Paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire”. “The story is repeated throughout Indigenous homelands as companies prey on the vulnerability created by the hardship of poverty.” The indigenous communities are falling victim to poverty levels due to the lack of government help. These articles/essays relate with what we discussed in class last week. “We strongly support the full participation of indigenous peoples in democratic decision-making processes, but cannot accept the notion of a sub-national group having a ‘veto’ power over the legislative process” (Goldstein). This particular quote ties in the discussion topic of last week with the current one. Cities are depicted as smaller communities within a larger nation-state. The indigenous population is in essence the same, as the cities in the sense that although they have the right to democratic rights such as voting, they don’t have a final say in the legislation process, much like people inhabiting cities.

    • ksalvucc
      11:06 am - 10-3-2012

      I thought that was a great connection that you made between the readings from last week and this week. Also, I thought the way you discussed the readings was very informative. I thought this because it showed me what the main idea of the readings was.

    • acoreas12
      11:59 am - 10-5-2012

      I really like how you analyzed the readings versus just summarizing, because it really helped in seeing how all the articles were interconnected. Good job, in tying concepts from last week into your discussion, it flowed very nicely. Also I really liked your comparison of cities to the indigenous population. I would say that I agree with you in that in both scenarios these smaller communities do have some rights, but overall their power is very limited.

  5. ender91
    1:49 am - 10-3-2012

    The readings have shown the damage caused by globalization to the earth itself and the indigenous communities. One result of globalization is the migration of people which is seen during the era of colonialism from our readings. The problem is that the people came with their own way of life and mindset which brought tragedy to the indigenous people as illustrated in Leslie Marmon Silko’s poem Ceremony. Another consequence from globalization that has brought destruction to the environment and the indigenous communities is the rise of technology. In Judy Pasternak’s article A Peril that dwelt among the Navajos she informed us about the radiation emanating from uranium mines from the 1970s during the arms race. The unattended and abandoned mines have contaminated the land, the air, and the water around it but also brought the disease cancer to the indigenous people who unfortunately have the rights only to those sick lands. The fact that uranium was mined in the 1970s also connects to globalization. It is because through globalization nations separated by vast bodies of water were now connected and communicating. This connection had lead to war and then to an arms race in the Cold War. Uranium which turns to be very harmful became important for nuclear weapons. Colonialism also has close ties with globalization. In The paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire, statistics of exactly how much trees are gone and how many animal species are extinct are depleted because of the settlers that came with colonialism. Now natural resources like oil are also dwindling. One aspect that the author Waziyatawin associates with colonialism is the disconnection of the people from the land. He claims this disconnect is actually the “key to the process of colonization” (72). He says its what made colonization so successful. When the people lost touch with the land and the animals, they forgot to be grateful and to nurture the environment that sustains them. All the readings show that the negative impact of globalization has been felt and painfully experienced by the indigenous communities when they gradually lost their home, their people, their traditions and lifestyles in the past.

    • btaborga
      9:19 pm - 10-3-2012

      I agree with what you say that these articles show the negative side of globalization on the land and on indigenous people. I would however, like to read articles where we could also see the pros. I am certain that globalization and companies have also had a huge positive impacts on development and on the indigenous populations in North America and in Latin America. I would like to read articles that show the positive side as well!

      • ender91
        11:07 pm - 10-4-2012

        I also wish we could read articles that show the positive side of globalization. If you think about it, an article that considers both the pros and cons of globalization seems more useful. We can see what we’re doing right and what mistakes people have to learn from.

    • sarahariri
      1:00 pm - 10-5-2012

      The Goldstein quotation regarding the voice of indigenous peoples in a democracy is a valid concern. As a “separate” system in a sense, should they have veto power? If no, are they apart of the main system?

  6. albuquerque
    3:01 am - 10-3-2012

    Globalization, and all of the complex processes it involves, is always going to be stuck in debate about whether or not t is a positive or negative thing for us as humans. With that said, there is one aspect that cannot be overlooked in this debate and that is the huge increase in environmental harm that has occurred as globalization has become more apparent. It cannot be denied or ignored that processes such as industrialization and the pressures to compete in the new world market are leading to less and less care for the environment. Mines are being built then disregarded as fast as they were built, leaving land overturned and ruined for decades to come, our resources are being exploited at an alarming rate, our oceans are being polluted every second with tons of waste from all the products we throw away, the list goes on forever. TO further this, there is even less attention paid to the rights and lives of the people who live on these desired resourceful lands and/or who wish to live within nature as it was before the forces of globalization advanced. In the Waziyatawin article it explains this further, talking about how it is becoming near impossible for traditional indigenous people to live as they once did. Be it their government taking their land or the need to modernize to stay alive, the indigenous way of life is quickly being forgotten and disregarded by governments only wishing to globally advance. It seems absurd when you think of the damage globalization has influenced all over the world but it is even harder to think about how many people do not know or do not care about the effects it has on groups such as indigenous people who want to live as they always have. In the LA Times piece I was shocked to hear about the uranium mines and the materials being freely used by the Navajos in the area. It literally infuriated me to think that the US government has done so little to help in this situation. It is clear that the mines were used for a profit then forgotten but it is disgusting that the government placed a profit higher than its citizens well being. Any mining engineer could have told them that the materials were dangerous but they didn’t do so much as mark the land as undesirable and I find that appalling. Furthermore I found the excerpt from the Ceremony piece very interesting. It makes me a little mad that it is so basic in its use of the term white but I see the over all message. It really made me think, at what cost do we want this global economy and new world order that globalization is bringing about? There is always question about whether or not globalization is inevitable and reading the articles about the indigenous people it makes me alter my original stance on this debate and think that globalization is not truly inevitable; it is driven purely by human greed.

  7. acoreas12
    6:44 am - 10-3-2012

    The articles for this week look at globalization from an environmental standpoint in which the focus was on the negative impacts it has had in regards to the depletion of natural resources and greed for land by early settlers. According to he readings, Native Americans have witnessed for centuries the devastating effects globalization has had on their land, families and health. In Leslie M. Silko’s poem, one “witch” foreshadows the time when Native Americans would see their land stolen and destroyed by the “white skin people” without any regard to the plants, animals or locals who live off it. Sadly, this foreshadowing was true and the Native Americans were pushed aside and witnessed the destruction of their trees, river, mountains and tribes. Diseases and guns were brought by the settlers, and whole tribes were killed, for control of the land and resources available leaving behind destruction.
    Waziyatawin, sees our current global environment crisis as being “human-created,” and the only possible solution is to protect what we have left and “re-institute land practices that reconnect us with our lands”. As we are destroying the planet and “exploiting every last resource,” we are also leading society down a “suicidal path” in which survival of the human race is at risk. One way to address this global crisis, is by trying to mend the errors of the past that are affecting so many people today, like the Navajos in reservation in Utah and Arizona that Judy Pasternak mentions in her article. These people have been victims of cancer, due to contaminated uranium mines and radioactive waste piles left behind by companies during the Cold War. The US government has done little to repair the damage and help the natives relocate to a safer environment.
    Alysha Goldstein’s article looks at land rights of portrayed the Native Americans and how difficult it was to fight with the government to try and get back the land they believed was so rightfully theirs. By “settling” in America some argue that the settlers were entitled to the land, and that after going to war and winning the Native Americans lost that “ownership” and sovereignty over the land.
    Even though we cannot go back and stop what has begun we can however try to work with the present and make sure there’s some chance for a sustainable future for upcoming generations. Less emphasis needs to be placed on the market and more on the external cost companies and governments are having on innocent people for the sake of accumulating wealth.

    • ngibson3
      12:36 pm - 10-3-2012

      I really like how you not only pointed out the crisis but gave ways in which we should remedy it.

    • albuquerque
      3:12 am - 10-5-2012

      I could not agree more with your last paragraph! We really do need to look less at what we can gain and focus more on what we might loose in the process. We are so driven to advance economically that we have stopped caring about the potential dangers of what we do and from what the articles indicated, we do not think at all about the future generation and thats really disappointing.

  8. ksalvucc
    10:42 am - 10-3-2012

    The articles and poem for this week each point out different angles related to the destructive effect of globalization in terms of colonization of our land and the natural resources it provides us.
    The Waziyatawin article talks about the history of colonization in the U.S. and its disastrous effect on the indigenous populations and the land they lived on then and its continued effect today. The article states that the ancestors of the Indian tribes in the U.S. knew then that what the “invaders” were doing to their land such as the destruction of natural resources in Minnesota such as the white pines, wetlands the Big Woods, the prairies, and the buffalo would “spoil what the spirit who gave us this country made beautiful and clean.” This destruction has come to pass because of the “de-sanctification of the earth” as part of globalization as described by historian Jack Forbes. He explains how this de-sanctification of the “earth, the animals, the plants, the trees, and even human beings” has occurred in a thousand different ways on Indigenous homelands. The author points out that unfortunately there has been an increased disconnection from the way of life of his ancestors among the indigenous populations since the late 1980’s when gaming was introduced to our communities. The author also talks about resilience and sustainability as ways to protect our land in the future. An example of this can be found in the Sentilinese people. The author ends by warning that “the paradox of the end of the empire is that while we have an opportunity to realize its emancipator potential, if we do not succeed soon, the chances for the survival of all life will severely diminish.”
    The Goldstein articles lays out the history of legislative actions taken in response to pleas from indigenous populations about returning their lands to them after “settler colonization” both in the U.S. and internationally.
    The most heart wrenching of the articles was the one written by Judy Pasternak. It detailed the effect on the health of the Navajo of leaving closed down uranium mines. The negligence of the mining companies in not “cleaning up” the areas around the mines has resulted in increases of cancer and other negative health conditions among the Navajo in the years since this happened with almost no help from the government.
    Finally, the poem from Ceremony by Silko was sad to read because of all the warnings it gave to the indigenous people about the upcoming destruction caused by the White man.

    • saehwan72
      8:32 pm - 10-4-2012

      Ceremony was like we discussed in class “apocalyptic” although it was a little exaggerated, it does have a certain disdain of white people.

  9. rgomez5
    10:58 am - 10-3-2012

    The process of colonization brought terrible consequences to the local indigenous people who lived in the colonized areas. Colonizers had more technology, and well develop political structure that combined with other factors help them to dominate Native Americans over the years. However, we may argue that in this point globalization is a harmful process because it imposed a foreign way of living into many communities, killed people and brought damages to the environment. But it can also be argued that this process took out of misery many people who emigrated from Europe and created new nations. In the Waziyatawin article, is explained how the industrialized world is becoming more and more polluted and resources are extracted at alarming rates. At this point we could also argue that is not only globalization or industrialization to blame. Technology and clear policies play an important factor in this process, some cities or rural areas are less polluted today than 50 years ago when factories had less environmental regulations and incentives. Also I think it is unrealistic for us to expect that local people will always stay the same and keep the same way of living, people will tend to do what is more economically profitable for themselves; so if your father used to fish at night with a small boat and a torch, maybe thanks to technology and globalization you may have access to a bigger boat with better fishing gear and as a result be more productive. The negative side will be that that ancient tradition of fishing with the torch will be lost, but this person is choosing to do what is more productive for himself.
    In the LA Times article it was shocking to see how little the government did in order to make sure this people were in a radiation free zone, but most politicians are selfish and won’t care about a struggling minorities who make little or no difference in a local or national election.

    • saehwan72
      8:28 pm - 10-4-2012

      I too was appalled with what the LA Times revealed about the uranium mines as well. It goes with how national security can sometimes lead to urban insecurity.

      • rgomez5
        6:37 am - 10-6-2012

        Like we spoke in class, it looks like sometimes governments can overlook things due to the lobbying power some companies have.

    • tmarchan
      9:49 pm - 10-4-2012

      I think that when an imperial power tries to impose its “ways” to natives it is a negative aspect of globalization. The LA Times article definitely shows the negative aspect of globalization. Although I do think that there are many positive aspects of globalization.

    • ender91
      11:14 pm - 10-4-2012

      I also don’t think that people’s way of living just stay the same but something that gradually evolves over time. I think with the indigenous people during colonization, unfortunately, they didn’t have time for gradual evolution. Instead they were confronted with technologies, immune systems, political structures, etc. that were different and maybe much more advanced than them.

  10. emyers
    11:10 am - 10-3-2012

    “They grow away from the earth…from plants and animals, they see no life…they fear their world, they destroy what they fear, they destroy themselves” I think these lines from Ceremony are really telling of the situation of our past and what is being explained in this weeks reading. Western Civilization and the emergence of globalization as viewed by the Indigenous people is absurd and demeaning of their culture, it is disrespectful to both mother and human nature by the exploitation of natural resources and people in the quest to overcome anything that might diminish its power. Locke said that “there existed no inherent right to property in land, because they never cultivated nor enclosed the land” the Brits could claim property rights by settlement and agricultural labor. They had fear of having no space and place in this new world they discovered so they did what they knew the indigenous people would not and took over the land and used power to rise above them and acted like they were of more importance, and as we can see they end up killing themselves in the process. With settlement comes establishing infrastructure and institutions, high rates of production and high population density in urban areas which is globally destroying ecosystems. Many Indigenous populations in the U.S. were forced to submit to these Western ways if they wanted to have any feeling of existence left and were exploited, opened up casinos, participated in the Tar Sands, where as other populations have been able to remain somewhat undisturbed by the rest of the world. There has been a loss in the Arctic Sea, melting Tundra, and a high release of carbon in the air, lowering are chances of survival at an increasing rate. One area was affected by the mining industry in a terribly negative way and their entire population was hit with cancer from the radioactive uranium that was being used all for the purpose of the U.S. government in the Cold War. It seems as if we should go back to the ways of the Indians, they were able to survive without all of this exploitation of natural resources and by respecting them instead and had the right idea of sustainable development that is actually becoming more popular with the green movement, but I think we still have a ways to go.

    • ngibson3
      12:35 pm - 10-3-2012

      I live how you tie the modern day green movement to the way in which the Indians lived off the land for 1,000’s of years.

  11. sbannach
    11:27 am - 10-3-2012

    In this modern era of globalization, the issue of state sovereignty is constantly debated. Supranational organizations such as the United Nations have been instituted as a forum to discuss international problems and are meant to be a means by which to formulate solutions. However, oftentimes states, especially very powerful ones, will refuse to contribute or agree to resolutions on the basis of maintaining sovereignty even if this means perpetuating or denying the problem at hand. In 2007, the United States along with several other prominent nations abstained from the UN General Assembly Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Although the abstentions did not block the resolution from being passed, the United States was able to declare a clear political message–that this resolution impeded on sovereignty and was therefore undesirable. Their abstention, however, had even deeper political implications, as political scientist Alyosha Goldstein argues in her article, ” Where the Nation Takes Place: Proprietary Regimes, Antistatism, and U.S. Settler Colonialism.” She contends that the US has systematically taken measures to block any measures to bestow certain land or other rights on Native American populations, citing that such an action would “undermine American democracy” (837-838). Thus, the attitude of the United States towards native peoples has been perpetuated as a refusal to surrender lands “rightly conquered” by imperialism.

    Waziyatawin expands upon this “right of refusal” in the article, “The paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire.” He laments the extensive ecological destruction of forcibly taken native lands at the hand of white imperialists that he claims continues today (69). For instance, massive mining projects have completely depleted the soil of valuable nutrients (69). However, this type of ecological ruination seems rather counter-productive; why would imperial settlers want to destroy the land now that they claimed stake? Waziyatawin argues that it is the “disconnect from the land” that the settlers are destroying that causes them to so haphazardously commit these offenses to the land itself, for if the land has no value other than as property, there is no reason not to “suck it dry” for resources (72). Thus, it is due to this attitude that the United States as an entity is able to justify refusal of returning indigenous lands as asserted by Goldstein.

    Indigenous populations have suffered greatly as an effect of this brand of globalization. The United States established reservations as some semblance of an apology to native tribes–partitioned land they could inhabit as their own even if it was not historically theirs. But these reservations also came with great health and ecological risks. One shining example of these risks is the mining for uranium that occurred in the early 20th century on Navajo territory. The mining projects caused leaks of radiation that contaminated the earth, homes, and Navajo peoples themselves (Pasternak). Despite half-hearted efforts by the US government to clean up the radiation-riddled areas, many of the environmental risks still remained (Pasternak). Once again, the disconnect from the land itself has allowed for the US to publicly ignore the environmental hazards globalization has caused on both the domestic and international spheres.

    On the whole, it is clear that rights of indigenous peoples come second to establishing the spatiality of the nation for the United States. It is obvious that construction, expansion of agriculture, and development of residential communities is much more important than respecting basic rights. The US has even gone so far as to dismiss such rights on the international playing field by making statements to the contrary through mediums such as the UN. Defining the space of the United States versus the space belonging to indigenous tribes has come even at the cost of ecological and health risks.

    • shill10
      11:46 am - 10-3-2012

      Your conclusion is great– very well stated and a good summary of the ideas from all of the readings. I think it is interesting that the US feels above international law. That seems so arrogant. In one of the articles it talked about how America is like the Roman empire which eventually fell. Do you think this might happen to the American Empire?

      • sbannach
        9:28 pm - 10-4-2012

        I think it’s certainly possible that the US may eventually fall. However, I don’t think it’s going to happen any time soon. The problem most empires had in the past was the inability to manage their vast amounts of territory since the technology to stay in contact simply didn’t exist. Of course, nowadays this isn’t the case; everything everyone does is instantly broadcasted on the Internet. So, the question of how this will impact the United States in the long run still remains. It’s definitely interesting to think about!

        • rgomez5
          6:42 am - 10-6-2012

          Another interesting association with ancient empires such as the Romans is that they had to keep expanding in order to support their public/military extending. In this case the US has to keep increasing taxes!

    • jbleichn
      11:03 am - 10-5-2012

      I really like the way you summarized the readings. I thought the mention of the “disconnect with the land” was particularly interesting. Lack of care for the land and viewing it as just an object is a major reason why the settlers felt they could use it as they pleased and a major contrast between the beliefs of the colonizers and the Indians that led to many disputes.

  12. sarahariri
    11:27 am - 10-3-2012

    With an increase in globalization and a larger global economy, comes a greater cost to the environment. Waziyatawin’s article, “The paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire,” discusses the “climate chaos, fossil-fuel resource depletion, overpopulation, and the ongoing destruction of ecosystems” which are a result of globalization. Waziyatawin also mentions that the earth cannot sustain our huge “appetite.” This is true, because globalization has proven to be the source of the irresponsible use of resources that are not sustainable. Often, globalization can lead to greed and less concern for the environment.

    Not only is the environment overlooked, but indigenous peoples are overlooked as well. Globalization comes at the expense of the indigenous communities who, very often, do not have the “upper-hand” in society to begin with. In Judy Pasternak’s article, “A Peril that Dwelt Among the Navajos,” the effect of radioactive uranium on a once virtually cancer-free community was devastating. This has caused an effect that has plagued generation of Navajos as their radioactive homes were passed from generation to generation as were illnesses such as lung cancer.

    Similar to the concept of displaced indigenous peoples in this week’s readings, Stephen A. Crockett, Jr. article, “The Brixton: It’s new, happening and another example of African-American historical ‘swagger-jacking’” from last week’s readings refers to the gentrification of the U Street area in Washington, DC and how the African Americans who were living in this neighborhood were essentially driven out by a trendy “bar scene” that appropriated African-American culture in DC while driving them out of their neighborhoods.

    • shill10
      11:42 am - 10-3-2012

      Your post was very clear and easy to understand! I thought the idea that the Earth cannot keep up with our current appetite a very good way to give a better understanding to what Waziyatawin was trying to get across. I also like the way you related the displacement of the indigenous and black populations through the Crockett article from last week.

  13. jbleichn
    11:32 am - 10-3-2012

    This week’s readings showed on the effects of globalization and technological advancement on the natural environment. Depletion of natural resources, such as fossil fuels and the physical landscape, have had devastating effects on the land and on people. The articles this week focused primarily on the difficulties faced by indigenous Native American tribes as globalization destroyed their societies.
    Indigenous peoples have faced the threat of environmental destruction for many years. The introduction of new societies into the territories of native peoples has caused them turmoil throughout history. Their food sources were depleted, their people killed and enslaved, and their lands destroyed and forcibly taken. The new settlers used and destroyed with no regard to the environment or the people living there. In the Waziyatawin article, Jack Forbes says “The significance of de-sanctifying the earth, the animals, the plants, the trees, and even human beings is that the world is made a potentially ugly and very exploitable place.” While earlier in history the long term effects of destroying the environment were not as evident, we can now see the widespread damage that has been done.
    The article by Judy Pasternak details a specific and horrifying example of how the indigenous people have been affected by globalization. She tells the story of A Navajo tribe in Utah who were unknowingly living in a cancer inducing area. For years they inhaled radioactive dust, drank contaminated water, ate contaminated food, and spent their lives around radioactive uranium mines. No warning signs were placed and no federal intervention occurred. The living conditions of these people caused the death rate on the reservation to double. Despite the havoc caused by the uranium mines little effort was put towards helping these people.
    The spread of globalization, while beneficial in many ways, has caused serious deterioration of the environment and irreversible damage. The exploitation of the environment and of people is quickly leading to a bigger and bigger problem with no real solution in sight.

    • hakunanahtata
      5:41 pm - 10-4-2012

      I like how you brought up the authors reference to Jack Forbes. His views that the beginning of de-sanctifying was 10,000 years ago at the dawn of agriculture when resources/plants/animals became commodities. What interests me is that indians had agriculture and food surplus but bartered and lived “with the land” and didn’t just see the resources as commodities. Why did their culture develop the way it did in contrast to the Europeans.

    • emyers
      10:53 am - 10-5-2012

      I like the quote you put in about the world becoming a very exploitable place, do you think there will come a time where we humans don’t feel the need to exploit others anymore and just live with what we all have to sustain each other?

  14. shill10
    11:38 am - 10-3-2012

    This week’s readings were focused on Native Americans and their rights to land. I feel like the main point of the articles was to think about how colonializing the New World was a process of globalization. This process was definitely seen as a negative for the indigenous populations of the conquered lands. There are numerous examples from the readings that show settlers taking over not only the land but also the natural resources on that land. The Natives were basically left with nothing.
    I began the readings with the excerpt from Ceremony by Leslie Marmon Silko. Here the author talks about how the world was functioning just fine without white people, but then the winds blow the white settlers across the oceans and into the New World. This author saw whites as awful beings that “see no life”, “fear the world”, and “kill the things they fear”. She suggests that settlers bring diseases that wipe out entire tribes, and those that survive disease die from starvation because the white people kill all the animals.
    The article “Blighted Homeland” by Judy Pasternak also gave examples of negative impacts of globalization. The governments and corporations of the U.S. began mining and trying to create nuclear bombs on the lands where Indians were raising families. Cancer became a big issue from leftover uranium, but no one wanted to step in and clean up the uranium. The houses were so far apart and the cost was so high it wasn’t an important issue for non-Indians.
    What I found most interesting in the article by Waziyatawin was that the Bible teaches that globalization is positive and that human domination over all animals and eco-systems has led to overuse of the land and extinction of Earth’s animals. This article calls for Indians (and all humans) to return to the ways of living off the land. Otherwise, through globalization, our society will crash.
    Finally, the Goldstein article was mostly about the legal struggle Native Americans have faced in the U.S. It was interesting that both Indians and non-Indians felt that they were the victim of land disputes. Should Indians still be fighting for land that hasn’t been theirs for a century and a half?

  15. shusain
    11:44 am - 10-3-2012

    I think the readings from this week show us the ugly side of globalization. They all have one thing in common; they talk about how Native Americans were greatly affected when they had everything taken away from them through means of European colonial occupation. In this case, globalization is used for occupying land and making profit off of it, and in turn a culture having everything stripped away. Starting with the article by Waziyatawin, it was mainly about how the lands that indigenous people once lived in were ruined by higher powers that came in and took over. In the article she explains that the process of colonization is what caused a rift between indigenous people along with their land and food. She brings up that separation was key in that process. I really liked the quote from Harriet Nahanee on page 72, where she explains her observations and feelings about the residential school system because it gives insight on what exactly disconnection feels like. She states, “We were the Keepers of the Land; that is the special job given to our people by the Creator. And the whites wanted the land, the trees and the fish. So they had to brainwash us to forget we had to guard and preserve the land for our Creator. That’s why they put us in the residential schools, and terrorized us, so we’d forget out language and our laws, and allow the land to be stolen. And it worked. The whites have 99% of the land now, and our people are dying off.” Colonial occupation took their white pines, wetlands, and their beloved buffalo. This was also seen in the essay written by Goldstein. She explains how settlements provided the European colonizers a possessive feeling over the land (836). The essay is about how the Native Americans wanted back what was taken from them years ago. Robert Hagen, U.S. advisor to the UN assured that returning the land, “would be impossible to implement.” In his perspective, giving back what was taken might expand the sovereignty of the Indian nations (838). Moving on the article by Pasternak made me really sad. I couldn’t believe the Holiday couple was living on a floor that was radioactive, and they had no clue. In the article, it’s stated that from 1944 to 1986, there were 3.9 million tons of uranium ore that was chiseled and exploded from various mountains and plains. These mines provided uranium for the Manhattan Project, which was a top-secret project for developing an atomic bomb. The companies that provided this project often left behind radioactive waste piles; however they did nothing about it. Desert winds carried the radioactive dust all the way to the land where the Navajos resided. On page 2 of the article, the Navajos, “drank contaminated water from abandoned pit mines that filled with rain. They watered their herds there, then butchered the animals and ate the meat.” Billy Boy Holiday unfortunately lost his life to lung cancer because during the day he worked at the uranium mines, and at night he slept unknowingly with it in his home. Pasternak assures in the article that today there is no opportunity for cancer immunity in the Navajos. Lastly, the poem entitled, “Ceremony,” was interesting to read because the “vision” by the witch actually happened. In the poem, a witch emerges warning all of people who are coming to take everything away from them. The witch goes on to explain many things about these people which include that they fear and destroy whatever they fear, they carry objects that can shoot death, and by the end of it entire villages will be wiped out (pg 2). The witch emphasizes the words killing and starving which is mainly what occurred between the Native Americans and the settlers. The witch’s prediction came true and in turn the Native Americans endured killings and the possession of their land.

    • jhanse10
      12:35 pm - 10-3-2012

      I feel that seeing the ugly side of globalization is necessary to us completely understanding it and is often overlooked. Also, I enjoyed how you linked all the readings together showing their common standpoints and exactly how they all related. Great job!

  16. vorozhko
    11:46 am - 10-3-2012

    I have started this week’s reading from a poem by Leslie Marmon Silko which, I believe, has summarized the content and spirit of this week’s conversation topic perfectly, although I am reluctant to draw parallels between globalization and colonization processes. Globalization, without a doubt, has a tremendous impact on world’s economic, political, judicial and eco systems. However, relations of a particular state with their indigenous peoples are, to a larger extent, a matter of domestic law rather than international regulations. Hereby we face a question of which factors determine country’s law in the area of private property, land management and economic regulations. As it is profoundly shown in Alyosha Goldstein’s article, the United States law does not allow formation of a separate sovereign community within the nation state, while providing indigenous communities with a large share of autonomy. The new economic and political challenges associated with globalization do not, however, make life of indigenous peoples any safer than it was centuries ago. Natural resources that lie within the lands of Native American tribes, such as natural gas or uranium are being widely exploited, disregarding the necessary public health and safety precautions and concerns. Judy Pasternak draws a horrific picture of uranium mining on tribal territories in the United States that took place for over half a century, increasing the radiation levels and multiplying cancer rates in the area. The corporations and the government tend to neglect the very basic safety and health regulations to even a larger extent, when working in tribal areas. Surly, we cannot say that EPA’s recommendations and concerns of the NGOs are always taken into account by the government and the business community when large profits are at stake, just see ‘fracking’ as an example, but I would agree with a point made in Pasternak’s article that sky-high levels of radiation and a tremendous increase in cancer levels would not be just as tolerated in a densely populated city like Los Angeles. Climate change is accelerated by globalization, and multinational corporations are increasing the scale of operations put an immense threat on indigenous communities all over the world. As the article “The paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire” argues that, in part, the indigenous people might be the one’s less affected by the natural disasters due to their traditional knowledge of nature. However, the raise of ocean levels and spread of toxic waste will mean miserable consequences for them.

  17. oliviab
    11:59 am - 10-3-2012

    To be completely honest, I found this week’s readings to be very depressing, and by the end of the reading “The paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire” I pretty much just wanted to become a “hippy” and stop using electricity, eating any processed food, etc. Needless to say I took a lot from these readings and I definitely believe that the aspects presented in these articles are very important to consider when examining the effects of globalization, especially when looking in the context of the future.
    Several times in the Wiziyatawin article, industrialization is either directly mentioned or its results are hinted at. As we took from Osterhammel and Petersson’s book, Globalization, the Industrial Revolution played a huge part in spurring on globalization. In the Wiziyatawin article, p. 75, the author writes that as industrialization continued to more and more rapidly destroy the land, Indigenous people continued to give warnings to those who had a part in the destruction. But, obviously, those people never really listened or took the advice. Also, taking from the book Globalization, war had a large part in globalization process as well. And as we read in the LA Times article, in order for the U.S. to develop the technologies to maintain our control in the world during the time of the Cold War, we “had to” destroy the Native American reservation land and, in turn, largely affect the overall health of the people who lived on that land. This is echoed in the Wiziyatawin reading, “’The technologies and social systems that have destroyed the animals and the plant life are also destroying the Native people’” (p. 75).
    Another thing that I thought about as I was reading these articles was the whole theory of how if the world’s population keeps increasing as the current rate, we will eventually have a world-wide food shortage. In the Wiziyatawin reading, the author continuously writes the importance of Indigenous groups getting back to their homelands and taking up the ways of their ancestors. And that if this were to happen, these groups would be sustainable. The Indigenous people knew/know how to take care of their land in such a way that their families would be able to survive off of it for generations–something that the ways of the Western world clearly have not allowed. And what I thought about as I read this is that there are millions people today who are starving or do not have access to clean, healthy drinking water…how are those people ever going to survive in the future unless the rest of the Western world begins to take on some of the ways of the Indigenous people groups and respect the land that we have available to us?

    (There are so many important things that are presented in this week’s readings that I feel it is very difficult to type out everything that I am thinking of in regards to the discussion prompt.)

    • jhanse10
      12:30 pm - 10-3-2012

      I agree with you in regards to the articles having so much to say and it being too much to say in a 300 work answer for the prompt. I also like how you pointed out that the importance in studying this is not necessary for the present but the future!

    • ncockril
      1:28 pm - 10-3-2012

      Well, that is in effect what the “hippy” counter-culture is. There has always existed those that wanted to exist outside the realm of civilization, especially when its darker natures have come out. Counter-culture exists to protest the actions of the majority, and the case for doing so (even though the benefits of modernity are decidedly awesome) is growing.

    • kmilburn1957
      8:25 pm - 10-4-2012

      Olivia- I loved your desire to drop out and turn hippy 🙂 Most of the articles from last week pointed out the dangers of technology steamrolling over the more primitive cultures. The more advanced societies have a huge role in using their abilities to protect the finite land we all cohabit.

    • sbannach
      9:33 pm - 10-4-2012

      You offer a very unique response to the readings! I think your opinion is very interesting. However, I don’t know if I personally necessarily buy the apocalyptic vision of the future that you discuss. Obviously, the thought of over-population is quite harrowing, but the fact of the matter is we don’t really know if there even is a limit to how many people can sustain. While it definitely is possible that we could eventually run out of resources, I find myself wary of these types of predictions since I think the era we live in is so unique compared to all of history until now. Regardless, people should definitely still try to think about how to be self-sustaining. Since we don’t know either way for sure, it’s better to be safe than sorry!

      • vorozhko
        12:59 am - 10-5-2012

        “I think the era we live in is so unique compared to all of history until now”, – I believe that every generation thinks that about their time. To paraphrase Marks, the historic progress is inevitable, so every consecutive generation will be unlike any before, but I do not think that this necessarily means the humanity becomes safer or invisible to certain challenges.

        • albuquerque
          3:20 am - 10-5-2012

          I agree, every generation thinks they are something new and unique but honestly its just development, like you said. Every generation will be unlike the one before, and I think that concept just solidifies that we need to do more to take care of our land and people rather than just striving for economic gain.

  18. grivas3
    12:20 pm - 10-3-2012

    For this week readings the main concept was on indigenous communities and harm that is being done to their land and natural resources. The discovery of different cultures thorough globalization might be a positive affect but it does not have the same affect for natural resources. Since the beginning, settlers that discovered indigenous communities did not think about improving these people’s way of living but rather find ways to take them off their land. This is due to the competition for land and natural resources. Furthermore, this discovery lead to destruction of the environment and indigenous people that still lived in those areas. We can see proof from today’s articles on the negative affects globalization has had on indigenous people, the land and the natural resources.
    The Alyosha Goldstein article explained the native americans demanded to their land rights and how difficult this was to obtain from the government. Unfortunately, the majority ruled and at the end the indigenous are the minority. In silko’s “excerpt from a ceremony” reflects also on damages conducted by foreigners and their ideas. Indigenous people have a great connection to the environment, they do not seek technological improvement, they rather focus on maintaining the lands natural resources and not damaging it.
    Judy Pasternak’s article, “A peril that dwelt among the Navajos” explained how radioactive uranium has caused sickness to the Navajo community. This uranium radiation has spread in their homes, environment, and Navajo residents, leaving them with generations of lung cancer and other health problems. Furthermore, Waziyatawin’s article, “The paradox of Indigenous resurgence at the end of empire” continues on the exploitation on the native americans land for mining projects; “While mining, industrial agriculture, animal feedlots, and manufacturing all contribute to the toxification of our homeland”. These native americans are witnesses to the destructiveness of their homeland and unfortunately is hard for them to stop this corruption from continuing. The mining conducted in Minisota Makoce has led to results of new born babies with unsafe levels of mercury. Moreover, the US government has done little to help this communities and provide a safer home for them. We can connect this weeks articles to the last ones by seeing the situations minorities face and how we can hopefully began to see a change a these minorities can have a voice. Overall, we can see in these different articles that government officials are not interested on helping this indigenous communities, they are more in tuned to expending their agriculture and seeking power.

    • shusain
      12:16 pm - 10-5-2012

      I like how throughout your post you keep mentioning that indigenous communities and minorities are not at any fault and if anything they’re trying to do good for their community. I also like how you explained both the negative and positive side of globalization in your post.

  19. jhanse10
    12:28 pm - 10-3-2012

    Last semester in my Global 101 class I watched a short film titled the “Story of Stuff” which is about the mass consumption and mass production of the modern world. When reading these articles it made me think back to that film and realize that globalization, as many benefits as it has, needs to be reevaluated and address the strains it puts on the environment. At the rate our society is going, our consumption and production will end up killing our neighbors.
    The articles assigned this week focus on mass consumptions from an environmental standpoint. Judy Pasternak’s article titled “ A peril that dwelt among the Navajos” was very clear when informing how the indigenous population was affected when their land was misused and not well kept. She talks about how the indigenous people began to create floors out of sand and crushed rocks that had washed down from a close by Uranium mine. The local Native Americans were developing cancer from these uranium deposits in the rocks and sand. Their population was dying before they could realize what was causing the cancer and fix it. It is interesting to think about. The author stated that the miners left the mines without putting up warning signs of how toxic the area was and to avoid it. This alone shows that the speed of globalization and want to produce more has created a disregard for the local peoples’ health. Waziyatawin’s article “The paradox of indigenous resurgence at the end of the empire” discusses how the white people came in and massacred all the buffalo, which resulted in the natives dying from starvation. This article is interesting because it places the blame on a race of people rather then blaming globalization as a whole. It does imply later in the article how most of modern society has developed the idea that they can have what they want and as much of it as they want. The article talks about how in the modern era not everyone recognizes that the earth produces everything. Instead, majority of cultures recognize grocery stores as the source of all our goods. With this happening, society forms this idea that they can get more and more of things with no consequence other than spending money. However this is false! This thought process fails to recognize that the earth does not have a continuous supply and by abusing it, indigenous populations pay and these are often the people who are not abusing it. This can be seen through Glodsteins’ article, which argues which groups of people have been victims through globalization.

    • kmilburn1957
      8:32 pm - 10-4-2012

      Upon reading this week’s articles and listening to class discussions, I too thought of a different class touching on the same theme. In Anthropology we studied the pygmies of Africa and the effect of colonization and globalization on their life style. As Waziyatawin’s article asked, the more advanced societies cannot beleive that once the mor eprimitive society is shown the marvels of their technologies, why wouldn’t they want to discard their outdated ways for that? Yet the pygmies and another tribe mentioned in our readings both chose thier traditional way of doing things rather than the new, improved versions. Globalization should give them the option of doing just that, but I am not sure that it does.

    • shusain
      12:24 pm - 10-5-2012

      Your post was well thought and organized. Waziyatawin’s article reminded me of when I took Environmental Geology at NOVA, I even did a whole paper on ocean acidification! I especially liked the end of your post because it really made me think of globalization in a different way from what we’ve been learning the past few weeks.

  20. ngibson3
    12:30 pm - 10-3-2012

    Globalization introduces hyper competitive industries, constantly seeking new labors and new markets, that has come to been known as the world economy has impacted indigenous peoples cultures and way of life, and has had a great environmental impact.
    Leslie Maromon talks about how Indigenous peoples view outsiders, mainly “Whiteman” from the colonial days, as exploiters, destroying their lands in order to gain an object that is valuable to them. Whiteman ruins the environment with chemicals and machines, having no regard for the fact those whole cultures live off that land. Then when the land is all used up, many indigenous people have the culture of the exploiters pushed down their throats as better, in the olden days this was done through slavery or colonization, now it is done in order to find a cheap labor source and create new markets to sell things in.
    The indigenous people to the United States are the Native Americans, a term which includes hundreds of tribes, all of practicing different religions, speaking different languages, have unique power structures with in their tribes, and living off of the wild but by different means. Silko’s poem describes the decline of Native American ways which started with westward expansion of the Whiteman. This is common in history, where a larger or stronger group of people take over an area, bringing their culture and way of life with them. Unfortunately for the diverse indigenous population, they become lumped into a group called Native American, a term which doesn’t do justice to their diversity. The author Waziyatawin points out that one of the main differences between the Whiteman and the Native Americans is that Whiteman’s religion taught them that they were on earth to dominate it, not peacefully coexist with it like the Native Americans believe. This was the justification used in westward expansion, after they had overused their original home lands. Judy Pasternak article gives us a modern day case study of the impacts of industry upon the dwindled Navajo lands. Uranium mines had been build up, used, then abandoned, and not properly taken care of because they contained no more uranium, and so were useless to industry. The improperly closed mines, contaminated the environment around them, and impacted the health of the people living on the land near them, the navajo’s.

    • navery
      1:12 pm - 10-3-2012

      I thought it was interesting how you brought Christianity into your comment. I remember reading about it in the article and I thought it was a good point to bring up. Do you think it was just religion that motivated this treatment to the land or just a lust for land and resources….or both?

    • ncockril
      1:33 pm - 10-3-2012

      It is true that the divine right for land was a defining factor in Christian expansion from Europe to the New World. However, I doubt its authenticity in the higher circles of power; while the actual adventurers and settlers probably believed that these people needed to be brought to “enlightenment,” this has hallmarks of just more power play from the European elite. As to what this has done in the modern context of where we all ended up, I leave that up to interpretation.

    • hakunanahtata
      5:28 pm - 10-4-2012

      I think it is important that they bring up religion since it has a huge impact peoples belief systems and values. The Bible says resources are for men to consume and are plenty full and that is what we have been basing our cultural practices off. Indians on the other hand live with the land not on the land, I wish the author went in to more detail with an example of why Indians held that belief. The reason why they were motivated for land is because they wanted the resources and the reason they had no regard for the way they were extracting the resources is because of culture. The point is that the Indians have a different perspective of the land so they treat it differently. It was shocking to the indians to see how the “whitemen” hunted buffalo because the buffalo were a part of their livelihoods not just a commodity to be sold. Based on the teaching of the bible buffalo were put on earth for us to consume.

  21. jnewman4
    12:33 pm - 10-3-2012

    The developed world has indeed encouraged innovation and new technologies to surface, promoting the development of megacities where ideas are shared. Populations in this global process are constantly moving towards these areas to either contribute to these massive networks or to benefit from them. However despite the positives that can come out of globalization, negative externalities develop as well. On the subject of the environment, globalization has created a catalyst for its demise. The constant flow of innovators and workers continue to leave damaging scenes behind. Populations of the first world are wreaking havoc on the commons while natives bare witness.
    The arms race during the Cold War did not only bring fear to the homelands, it also brought dangers to the environment and overall health of the people. In her article “A peril that dwelt among the Navajos”, Pastermak describes how uranium deposits left waste on barren lands. Natives that lived there unknowingly suffered; families watched one another die off. With no money, education on the subject or support from the government, leaders of the tribe were forced to keep their members in the dark. Native Americans and the US government have a long history beginning with the colonization of the Americas. This is just a modern day example of the exploitation of resources and leaving indigenous people to fend for themselves. Goldstein writes about a more vigorous approach to land rights of the Native Americans. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York took a stance and challenged their government to reclaim what was taken from them. In colonialism the government acts to support the majority, and in these cases the majority weren’t the Native Americans.
    However, as empires grow they danger themselves as well. Sustainability is a huge discussion among environmentalists; the global population is growing exponentially and depleting nonrenewable resources. “Earth can no longer feed the rapacious appetite of imperial powers…”, Waziyatawin. This article also mentions a valid paradox: the western empires have a “cannibalistic nature”, and when it collapses, “[the natives] will have renewed opportunities to break colonial bonds and reclaim our homelands…”. But nothing will be left.

    • rafae309
      2:00 pm - 10-5-2012

      Your post made me think clearly about the subject. It was sad to know how families knew nothing about the dangers of living in the radiated area and slowly started developing cancers. “Populations of the first world are wreaking havoc on the commons while natives bare witness.” I have seen this many times in history and it’s true that the first world powers are completely blind with greed for profits and expansion, willing enough to ignore the lives and needs of everyone else.

  22. hakunanahtata
    12:43 pm - 10-3-2012

    Globalization affects the land and natural resources because it is a competition to have rights to consume and sell as much as possible that has been going on for centuries through exploration, imperialism and colonialism. The dawn of capitalism has only acted as a catalysis for this competition. As our western culture values spread we lose site of how we use the land as Silko describes in her poem from ceremony. The excerpt distinguished “witches” as seeing the land and resources subjectively as objects, not as living things. The way the world is today has been a long time in the making. Historian Jack Forbes attributes what has been happening to the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago and its verification by Judeo-Christian teachings. This thought that man rules over all resources is the root of our plight. Indigenous tribes live with the land not on the land and their ways of sustainability are being lost with globalization. Goldstein discusses the history of indigenous people and how laws enacted by imperial and colonizing powers marginalized them. These historic rulings such as the “doctrine of discovery” are the foundation for current policies that continue to suppress indigenous rights. The “doctrine of discovery” gave the USA the power to control the indians indigenous land because after the end of colonialism they had the “right” to occupy it. Another example is the case brought to New York by the Seneca tribe in 1993 against New York state and the private land owners. The ruling was in the state/landowners favor with the courts judgement based on the 1764 treaty with Britain that says the tribe ceded their property and was purchased by New York. The defendants case was embedded on them being “hostages of history”. The end of the welfare state (Keynesian economics) beginning in the 1960’s has also contributed to further marginalization of indigenous Americans. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was voted against by only four countries; The USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. These countries all have large Indigenous populations that they don’t want international rule interfering with because it will negatively effect there capitalist output. Globalization is pushing people to use land and natural resources to their brink in order to feed capitalism which in turn is degrading our planet and future generations. Indigenous tribes have different values and beliefs about the land than capitalist ran economies and are at risk of losing even more land to the resource hungry. The point is that indigenous people are able to live with the land sustainably and we need to take advice from them to slow down the mass extinction of resources wether its plants, animals, water, coal or fuel. Indigenous communities are greatly affected by globalization because it caters to western ideals and past policies that marginalize them and they are losing the non replenishable resources they use to survive and are having to adjust there way of life just to survive. We need to be adjusting our lives in order to survive the long run not just the present day.

    • acoreas12
      12:43 am - 10-5-2012

      I completely agree with you in regards to globalization pushing people over the edge in regards to overuse of the land and depletion of natural resources just for capitalism sake. By focusing on just fueling the global market, our future and that of future generations seems destined for failure. We definitely have a lot to learn from the indigenous people and I think you’re right to say that we must adjust our lives to survive.

    • vorozhko
      1:19 am - 10-5-2012

      I think you make a very good point stating that capitalist society needs to adjust it’s profoundly consumerist lifestyle that accelerates the rates of clime change and pollution. Personally I think we have a lot to learn from the Native peoples on an individual level on how to sustain households and make our lives less dependent on chemicals, as I believe the routes to sustainable society lies on the individual, not social level.

  23. rafae309
    12:44 pm - 10-3-2012

    Each of the readings explains how globalization and the U.S government affected the land, natural resources, indigenous communities, and health problems in a very negative manner. Alyosha Goldstein argues how white settlement and court rulings were detrimental to the indigenous people and their loss of territory. She also explains why the U.S always opposed to the Indian declarations, maintaining that the right to self-determination should not be automatically applicable to indigenous peoples since doing so would “fatally undermine U.S democracy.” Collective rights would supposedly threaten majority rule with the tyranny of minority and was therefore refused to the indigenous people. Further acts and laws were also passed to detribalize the indigenous peoples or to make actions of acquiring and buying lands legal and justified. The 1851 Indian Appropriations Act further eroded the tribal land base and also removed Indians to the undesirable territory in many cases. The 1887 General Allotment Act sold off “surplus” property to white settlers, and also aimed to detribalize the Indians. The land on which the indigenous communities lived basically became ‘territory’ to the settlers and the government which divided it into private property.
    In the article by Waziyatawin, it mentions how the imperial powers were the cause of resource depletion and the destruction of eco-systems. In the Dakota homeland alone, there was a loss of 98 percent of Minnesota’s white pines, 90 percent of the wetlands, 98 percent of the Big Woods of southern Minnesota, and 99 percent of the prairies. Hundreds and hundreds of buffalo were killed on a mass scale, skinned and left to rot all over the country. The trees were chopped down and cleared to create farm fields, mining, or buildings and industries. Globalization and the expanse of the empire was also the reason the fertile topsoil was destroyed because of the industrial wastes while all the minerals were extracted from the earth. In the North Shore of Minnesota, studies have now revealed that every one in ten babies have unhealthy levels of mercury. In the Judy Pasternak article, the uranium-mining companies for the Manhattan Project left behind numerous radioactive piles, open tunnels and pits. Over the years, the Navajos inhaled the dust from these waste piles. Water was also contaminated, which was being drunk by the people and the animals. The government didn’t care, the federal inspectors didn’t care, and no comprehensive study of the health effects was ever carried out. The rate of cancer doubled in a place which was initially known to be immune to cancer. In the Leslie Silko poem, we can see how native Indians were slaughtered, how their water was posinoned, how the animals were killed at a mass scale. We can see the diseases brought by the settlers and how the natives saw the mass destruction of everything around them. The readings told us about the realities and the helplessness of a once beautiful land and people and how everything was stolen or destroyed systematically. They were very insightful and informative.

    • jnewman4
      1:09 pm - 10-4-2012

      the depletion of our resources and the destruction of habitats and ecosystems is a tragic externality of globalization. Listing statistics is a great way to put in perspective how grave these mass extinctions are. You speak of our once beautiful land- the same beauty that attracted colonialism and its destruction. The land’s beauty is also its curse. This is why the restoration of parks and the preservation of natural habitats is important. Its our obligation to preserve the land and its beauty for future generations to enjoy.

  24. scamp3
    12:46 pm - 10-3-2012

    Each reading this week dealt with the impact that globalization has had on indigenous peoples. The first article I read, “Where the Nation Takes Place: Proprietary Regimes, Antistatism, and U.S. Settler Colonialism” by Alyosha Goldstein mainly focuses on colonization in the U.S. and its impact on the land. The main points Goldstein discusses are “the role of settler claims historically and in the present; how colonial projects advanced in part by legal disputes over the distribution of political authority; and the assertion of historical dispossession as a means to preempt American Indian self-determination and restitution”. This article connects to the next article I read, “The Paradox of Indigenous Resurgence at the end of Empire” by Waziyatawan. This article also discusses the impact of colonization in the U.S. Waziyatawan explains that we have destroyed a piece of culture, “the ecological destruction may be so complete that Indigenous lifeways may be impossible to practice”. He argues that the way we have treated the land and the differentiating cultures of the land are threatened to vanish completely. Unless we make an effort to help certain indigenous peoples, they may never flourish the way they once had. This brings me to the next article, “A Peril that dwelt among the Navajos” by Judy Pasternak. In this piece, Pasternak focuses on a specific group, the Navajos, and the issue that “during the Cold War, uranium mines left contaminated waste scattered around the Indians. Homes built with the material silently pulsed with radiation. People developed cancer. And the U.S. did little to help”. This discussion ties in directly to the previous discussions of colonization. Instead of helping we continuously change things, sometimes not noticing how much damage we cause in the process. While the mines in the article may have been necessary to use during the Cold War, we neglectfully left it for someone else to deal with, or for no one to deal with at all. Not only hurting an entire culture, but ultimately hurting ourselves. Lastly, I read the poem “Ceremony” by Leslie Marmon Silk, which I believe sums up the point of all three articles in a less factual way, but in a more creative and artistic way. It tells the story of men arguing over who is best, and by doing so they start a contest. In the end, no one is the winner. It shows what happens to the things that are truly most important when greediness and carelessness overcome.

    • navery
      1:08 pm - 10-3-2012

      I really like the way you ended your paragraph. Its almost as if this is the inevitable when it comes to resources and land by the sound of these articles. Do you think it would’ve been possible for things to go a different direction?

  25. ncockril
    12:56 pm - 10-3-2012

    This week’s readings had to deal mainly with the rapacious nature of “settler colonialism” here in the New World; putting this stain on our past into modern perspective leads to similar, if not more dire conclusions. As Waziyatawin explains in his piece, European ownership really boils down to extreme exploitation of land, resources, and people. In today’s world dominated (where “dominated” almost seems like putting it lightly) by trans-national corporate entities, we see exploitation on a massive scale. In my opinion, this is the new colonialism- that while Western groups no longer hold colonial political power over former colonies (African and Asian now-sovereign states) and subjected peoples (mostly), there exists a new form of ownership. Corporate ownership spans the globe, and these companies have so much cash to move around that anything can (and will) be purchased for the sake of the profit. Goldstein writes about the methodical attacks on Native American settlements as having no validity in European systems of thought; rather, they were really thought of as “natives” in the sense that they hold no sort of ownership whatsoever. Indigenous peoples, while now getting at least a partial say in various European-constructed political entities (like the Canadian assemblies of government), see their sovereignty getting eroded by corporate power. Indeed, the common citizenry does as well! How are we, whose data is taken and stored so as to advertise better to us, whose ability to vote a candidate into office is overshadowed by the millions of dollars poured into rival campaigns, and whose world is quickly falling into decay after centuries of exploitation, any different from indigenous peoples? Corporations, according to the United States Supreme Court, are even entitled to the rights of individuals. How are we any different from the Native Americans, who saw their ability to define our landscape and the movements upon it crumble in the face of superior force?

    • rafae309
      1:55 pm - 10-5-2012

      Very insightful post! I like your use of the term “Rapacious nature.” Exploitation did indeed happen on a mass scale and the transnational companies took advantage of the people and the land. You have very interesting questions in the end.

  26. navery
    1:01 pm - 10-3-2012

    I think its pretty clear that whenever globalization occurs there is always some sort of effect; whether the effect is positive or negative, however, is one of the most important questions. Upon reading the article on the Navajos and the waste they had to live in, it is completely apparent that the effects were negative.

    The Waziyatawin reading reminds us that there has been a history of ignoring native people to gain resources and land from them. Its well known that the Native Americans were brutally killed and forced to leave their lands throughout history. It seems to almost be a pattern where the minorities of one place are cared for less as people, and turned away for their land’s good. This reminds me especially of the readings last class which discussed the power or the lack thereof for minorities. This almost parallels with the Brixton reading last week, where the white people were taking the black people’s land and culture away. The author of the Waziyatawin reading, mentions that white people had forced the Native Americans to disconnect from the land they had vowed to protect. They forced them to forget their ways for the purpose of gaining land. Leslie Marmon Silko’s poem vividly described the negative effects of globalization on indigenous tribes. I felt this particular piece was very dark and highlighted everything wrong with the globalization and its treatment of natives. While all of these articles focus on the negative effects, I still think there could be some positive ones that we haven’t studied yet, and I really would like to learn about them.

    • grivas3
      11:33 pm - 10-4-2012

      I enjoyed reading your response because is good to see how other people interpret the article and what we learned from it. But it is safe to say that these articles presented a negative aspect of globalization and its good to see the negative sides of things too.

  27. njelvani
    1:42 pm - 10-3-2012

    In the readings by Goldstein, Waziyatawin and Pasternak, a series of symptoms of colonialism on indigenous people are proposed. The articles are advocating for human rights and justice for people trying to uphold their social status and quality of life. In the articles, the factors that are put into consideration regarding the conflicts between the “Whiteman” and indigenous more specifically, focus on the imbalances and misappropriation of valuable territories that provide and enable efficiency that appeal to all people in general; regardless of their own perceived inadequacies. The article articles, promote the concerns involving the environment, specifically in respect to the effects of industrialization on the conditions of the health of living things and the ecosystem that are all interrelated and susceptible to disease, pollution and corruption, which cause further disruptions the social utopian paradigm. The readings suggest that these conflicts are not conditional to a group, but to the behavior of the participating individuals that identify themselves as being better than another group based on separatism and subjugation. The readings emphasize that the damage caused by globalization to the earth itself and the indigenous communities is more harmful than recognized. The blame is not on globalization itself. Another consequence from colonialism as stated was the destructive and contamination of resources from the environment and the indigenous communities that nurtured and maintained them without the new modalities of recent technological advancements. It is mention in the readings, that the unattended and abandoned mines have contaminated the land, the air, and the water around it but also brought the disease cancer to the indigenous people who unfortunately have the rights only to those contaminated lands. The consequence behind the impositions on the weaker indigenous peoples is not one-sided as mentioned in the readings. The unwillingness and resistance to repatriate ownership of property rights lead to further injustices that cause immobility, injustice and genocide. The relation is that is attempts to disregard the people previously residing in the same land.

You must be logged in to post a comment.