Proving the Impossible

[Read up to Chapter 16 before reading this post]

In The Calcutta Chromosome no one takes Murugan's work seriously. It was mentioned in class that in the same way Professor Challenger's work was not taken seriously. Challenger's claim was inhibited by accessibility of the plateau (no planes that zip you to South America, no Google Earth to zoom in on the area of the plateau...) so it was not easy to test/prove the idea. I think all of us would agree that the other scientists should not have discarded his evidence and ignored his ideas if they weren't willing to test them.

Murugan exists in a futuristic world where computers can tell you pretty much anything and traveling from Long Island to Calcutta is easy--- and not a month long excursion through the jungle. However, Murugan's ideas are not inhibited by distance but by time. All of his proof centers around events that took place in the 1800's. Trying to prove that there as an ultra-secretive group of "anti-scientists" from the 19th century (which potentially exists today through the "calcutta chromosome") is incredibly bizarre. Do you guys think that Murugan's claims should be taken more seriously in the same way that Challenger's claims should have been? Can his ideas be tested? Are Murugan's claims even in the realm of science? Or is Murugan a more modern example of Challenger: someone whose claims are ignored by modern society because they seem so illogical. Any ideas?

Avatar. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who made the connection. Of course, it's not that Avatar ripped off Lingua Franca, or vice versa. There are quite a few parallels, and it seems that the idea of the anti-conquest is applicable to to both the real world and pop culture. I know, the idea of the anti conquest is "sooo last week," but it's still an interesting concept, and I feel like there was more to be discussed.

It was never really made clear why the "Earthers" had come to the Aqueduct's world. One of the women that passed Mist signed "These Earthers are not like the other off-worlders...Not content with fixing our 'problem,' now they say they're 'fixing' our air." I don't think "fixing" the air was the primary objective, but what was that original "problem" that the Earthers came to fix? The fact that the Aqueducts couldn't speak or hear? That sounds a little like anti conquest to me. And keep trying to make parallels to Avatar. I thought the close relation was interesting, although unintended.

Let's put it this way:

"You guys need help. Let us give you the ability to speak and hear, while we slowly establish small but ever growing colonies and indoctrinate your people with our ways. Sound good?"

Well, that's a little more clear. At least it clarifies what the current situation is on the Aqueduct's home planet. We still don't know about the original motivation for coming to that planet. Maybe just for pure exploration. Either way, I don't believe that the author intended for it to be important.

So I suppose my first question is; does this short story put the Earthers in the position of the "Anti conquesters?" And how so?

Let's also check out the relationship between Mist and her daughter, Flower-in-the-Sun (that's a mouthful, let's call her FITS). FITS wanted to jump onto the speak/hear bandwagon, against her mother's wishes. Again, in Avatar, Neytiri mated with Sully, against her clans wishes.

There seems to be a lot of tension between the older, more traditional Aqueducts and the younger, progressive ones. The older generation is worried that their ancient culture will be lost/destroyed, and all because the newer generation is becoming more prosperous, thanks to the Earthers. FITS is immediately starting to become more popular with her cousins after her operation.

So my second question would be; which path do you think is more advantageous for the Aqueduct people? To remain traditional, or to be progressive and open to the Earthers? Should they chose to be more prosperous and risk losing their culture, or stick with the status quo? Why?

Where do you draw the line?

Ok, well during discussion about the anti-conquest idea of Pratt's article and the gun slinging conquest style of the characters in The Lost World, I started thinking; what are some good examples of these ideas throughout history. All I could come up with were examples of the latter, as in Cortes and the the conquistadors, Columbus and his treatment of the natives, etc. I couldn't come up with any anti-conquest examples. What do you guys think classifies something as anti-conquest? And what examples throughout history would classify as an example of anti-conquest? Where do you draw the line between good and harsh treatment of natives of the colonized land?

PS: By the way, I'm sorry for such the short post. I'm terrible at writing these things...