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?
Anti-conquest? I think so. The Earthers appear fairly ethnocentric in this story. So one "problem", as Ray mentions, is that the Aqueduct humanoids don't make use of their ears. But was this really the FIRST problem? I think "fixing the air" was the real problem because the Earthers would have known since their arrival on the planet that it is loud. Giving Aqueducts the implants benefits the Earthers more than the Aqueducts: it makes trading easier, and gives them reason to "fix" the air. Since many Aqueducts have implants and now realize they are a loud people, the Earthers can once again use anti-conquest to "help" the implanted people better integrate into their cities without discomfort. There is nothing for the Earthers to lose in this situation. The Aqueducts, however, must sacrifice much of their culture to adapt to these changes.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know whether or not the Earthers' motives stem beyond trade. In Avatar, the humans' interest in the Na'vi is nearly completely based on the valuable material (i don't remember what it was called) that existed underneath the Na'vi village. Perhaps the Earthers in the short story have ulterior motives as well...
I have actually not seen Avatar, but I know the basic plot line of the story, and I do see the correlation between the short story and the movie. And as far as "anti-conquest" goes, I do agree that it was the Earther's intentions to go in an maybe just observe and trade with the Aqueduct people, but judging off of the only thing I KNOW - today's world - Earthers are usually not satisfied with merely going in an observing/trading/"ant-conquest". There really aren't many examples, ever, of simply observation. I guess it shows the egotistical side of the human race in the sense that we always think there's a better way something could be done, and generally, our way is the best way.
ReplyDeleteAs far as how the Aqueduct people would be better off, it's kind of hard to deduce. Like Heidi said, they have the most to lose out of the situation, but don't they also have the most to gain? There's a fine line between being able to integrate new "technology" into a society and being able to keep old traditions and foundations of the culture.
Also, think of what the 30 page thing we had to read was about: Europeans determining whether or not certain cultures could adapt to theirs. Whose to say they wanted or even needed to?
On a completely different note, it's interesting how pop culture draws from older literature. You made the connection between the short story and Avatar. Have you seen the movie Up? It's a kind of twisted/childish/cartooned version of The Lost World. No joke! :)
Nice comparison with avatar. I never even thought of that. But yea, this story most definitely reflects the characteristics of anti conquest. And as previously stated by both Heidi and Ashley, it is impossible to know what the true intentions of the Earthers were. Most likely, however, it was with the intentions of conquering. If it wasn't then why would the Earthers put so much time into changing the air and the culture to better suit their own? I like what Heidi said about the whole "reverse psychology" plan. How they make opportunities that sound so good in the short run for the natives to take, but in the long run only benefit the Earthers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do have a question. I was wondering after the discussion of how mad and disappointed the older aqueduct people were with the changes. But if it were one of them that would have come up with the change would they mind as much? Or would it just be a new stem in the history of their people? With this thought, I feel like they should approach this situation with the same mind set. They still have their culture and they will still be the same. There people are just taking a new road…right?
1. About culture: From the New Oxford American Dictionary, the culture means that the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded. The key words in the definition are "intellectual achievement," so a better culture has to be more intelligent.
ReplyDelete2. About the Lingua Franca: In my view(a Earther's view), the Earthers' culture and Aqueduct's culture are totally in contradiction. Aqueducts like everything natural. We can see the hints from their name:"Mist," "Iron," "Flower in the Sun." However, the Earthers prefer to be unnatural: "fixing air,""implanting speak/hear system," "making noise." because of this cultural contradiction, It has to be many conflicts between the Earthers and Aqueducts.
3. About Avatar: In the movie, human and Navi have totally different cultures too. Although human and Navi tired to negotiate with each other, it finally turns out to be a war. Between human's model technology and Navi's nature power, Navi proves that they have better "intellectual achievement" than human do.
4. My thinking: Culture is not just tradition. It has to be "intellectual progress". When people face the choice between "tradition" and "progress", they have to choose progress, so I agree with Steve's idea that "people are just taking a new road"
However, can people really determine correctly which culture is more "progress?" I do not think so. In the Lingua Franca, I am not sure that human's technology is definitely better than Aqueduct's. Further, it seems that the best way to determine who has more "intellectual achievement" is through war.