It seems that it is an important distinction that the target audience is an educated middle class one, since it is a distinction that it serves the argument of an inevitable uprising very well. Involving the middle class makes them more aware of class distinctions and often ultimately leads to questioning whether inequality is worsening or whether the gaps are closing. If the conclusion is that the general direction things are going benefits only one class, that for example, the wealthy owners are the only ones who benefit at the suffering of the working class, one can expect heightened tension between the classes.

In Jack London’s novel, we have Ernest Everhard, a member of the working class, become involved with middle class society by being invited to events such as dinner parties. At these parties, through time, he socializes with university professors, Bishops, and storeowners. Ernest proves to be a very strong contender in the discussions he has with these individuals and earns a certain degree of respect from a few of them, even though they do not agree with his predictions and messages.

Ernest begins with the subject of metaphysics to involve this middle class into the class struggle. He feels that their metaphysical concerns do not allow them to see reality clearly. Ernest points out that this middle class has no knowledge of life for the working class, and that the metaphysics they preach are such that they do not pose a threat to the capitalist class. This allows them to “herd with the capitalist class in another locality…. The capitalist class that pays you, that feeds you…” This middle class survives because it does not challenge the established order. More significantly, however, the middle class does not challenge the established order because it is entirely unaware of the established order.

To raise awareness in this middle class, Ernest presents some of the members with challenges. One such individual is Bishop Morehouse. The Bishop and Ernest engage in a discussion where issues such as class hatred, class struggles, selfishness, social science, censorship, and capitalist economics are all addressed. Ernest promises to the Bishop, “I will take you on a journey through hell,” to make him aware of the working class condition. In this journey, he promises to expose the Bishop to child labor, excessively long working hours, and the unjust ways of the capitalist class. Ernest points out that should the Bishop accept the challenge of facing the truth and the facts, that he runs the high risk of being suppressed by other members of his class. The Bishop accepts the challenge, and Ernest’s predictions about what he will see and what will happen turn out to be true.

In the same scene where Ernest poses the challenge to the Bishop, he also shocks his wife to be, Avis, by telling her that her clothes are stained with blood. In fact, all that she comes in contact with on a daily basis—her house, her food, and such—are all stained with the blood of the working class. As an example of what he means, he tells of a worker who lost his arm at the end of a long workday when he unthinkingly tried to prevent a machine from being damaged. He took the company to court, arguing that the accident would not have happened had he not had to work such long hours. He not only lost his arm and his job, but also he lost the case, the argument being that he was careless. Ernest uses this event to describe the power held by the capitalist class to control the law—to decide what justice means. When Avis asks why she had never read of the case in the newspapers, Ernest points, once again, to the power of censorship held by the capitalist class.

I do not feel that Ernest’s actions were meant in any way as shock treatment. He considered himself a social scientist. He was concerned with the facts. Ernest comes off as a person who not only feels the need to raise awareness, but to be the kind of person who wants to “force” action upon people. Following the well rounded information about socialism presented by The Young Pioneers, I did not actually think much more about socialism for quite some time, until I enrolled in a university Chicano Studies course called Globalization and Transnational Social Movements. Marx was on our reading list, and the course focused largely on the exploitation of the underdeveloped world by the United States capitalists. Action was needed to correct these wrongs.

The coursework involved a lot of research into sweatshop labor, where conditions in underdeveloped world very much resembled the conditions which London was writing about in The Iron Heel. The class was divided into several groups, and each was assigned a multinational corporation to study. Almost 100 years after The Iron Heel, we were asking the same sorts of questions that were included in Ernest’s arguments. Who is in control? Was it the governments and laws, which were supposed to represent the people? Or was it the money and the people, or rather, the creatures formed by “selfish capitalist notions” who were in control?

There were other issues with which parallels could be drawn between The Iron Heel and the world today. One of the groups of people who Ernest gets to best begin to see the conditions for the working class were the shopkeepers in the middle class. There is a scene where a discussion of fairness was taking place. The once successful, profitable shopkeepers were complaining that their profits were being eaten up by the trusts. Ernest asks them about their previous profitability. Their success had come from efficient organization, so efficient that they had managed to cut prices below what their competitors could charge. For a time, then, they were behaving much like the trusts—absorbing all the profits of the competition until there was no room for competition… until a “more efficient” mode of organization came along and drove them out of business. Today, there are many who feel like their jobs are being taken away by workers in developing countries. They complain about their wages being depressed because of the international supply and mobility of labor (and for that matter, of capital also).

There are certainly many disturbances that accompany large-scale change. The problems that were read about in my Chicano Studies course were real problems. I am not, however, confident with evolutionary theories of markets and class struggles as predicted by Marx, and in this case, London. Even if the end of capitalism, or should we look at the situation more accurately, the end of an open market economy was inevitable, what is to guarantee the outcome be a socialistic one? When we look at the turbulent history of economic growth, we are bound to find individuals and groups who are hurt by the changes. Overall, however, the historical evidence tends to mostly show that the growth benefits all groups—not just the rich.

There is another problem with socialism that does not get treated much in The Iron Heel. Early on, Ernest describes the evolutionary view the following way: “The cycle of class struggles which began with the dissolution of rude, tribal communism and the rise of private property will end with the passing of private property in the means of social existence.” In the absence of private property, what are the incentives for innovation. Even Ernest and the Bishop admit to people being selfishly motivated. People would tend to put premiums on certain jobs, services, or duties. We see this even in countries that claim to be communist. Even within these countries there are class distinctions. Different individuals have access to different goods, jobs, and even “public” services such as education.

Bluntly put, we do not live in a perfect world with perfectly ideal, moral, human beings. We hope for things to become better. We hope that our children will be living in a better world—making better decisions than we do. We hope for inequality and exploitation to just be something we read in the history books. We actively try to raise awareness of what is going on—on both a personal level as well as informing others. Revolting against a system that to a great extent works would do nothing but make those hopes more intangible. Finding a way to work with the existing system and make it more effective would be a more beneficial proposition.

The goal of this paper is to present the reader with a brief background of the global experience with sustainable development in the past fifty years. Considering the broad range of issues involved with sustainable development, I decided to divide the paper into ten interconnected sections, each of which would be worthy of extensive analysis on its own.

I will begin by introducing the notion of sustainable development and introducing some of the questions that arise from with our ever-changing “new world order.” Following this will be a brief discussion of the first development experiences, which started as development assistance to help Europe recover following World War II. The success here provided confidence to expand assistance in other parts of the world. The third section covers the changes in the organization of society that provided the environment in which Western wealth and growth originated.

With this basic background of growth and development, I will then begin to present some of the more current issues concerning sustainable development. The fourth section addresses concerns that globalization will result in the extinction of individual cultures, with the world’s cultures ultimately being standardized. Section five is focused around knowledge inequalities and the technology gap between the developed countries and the developing ones. Multinational corporations are often accused of not contributing anything (in terms of such things as transferring management skills and technological knowledge) to the countries in which they operate. Section six briefly looks at these concerns. Inappropriate approaches towards growth also have severe consequences on the environment. A few of the environmental problems stemming from growth are the topics of section seven. Section eight raises questions about the measurement of the standard of living and discusses some recent ideas for improvement. This is followed by a short discussion of a fundamental question that should be asked when analyzing development experiments: does growth help the poor? With that question asked, I will end the paper with the convergence theory—that is, that the incomes of the late starters to growth converge quite rapidly with those of the leaders.

Sustainability in a Changing World

As economies grow and as a country’s national markets become increasingly interconnected in world markets, concerns of future events—such as an international “financial and economic meltdown”—as well as concerns for the well being of future generations arise. There are two major aspects of sustainable development that can be linked to these future concerns. The first is that for already developed countries, there is the desire to ensure that future generations enjoy at least the same material standard of living as we do today. For the developing countries, there is the hope to “catch up” with the developed countries in a relatively short period of time, while at the same time not loosing sight of the goal of sustainability. Sustainable development implies that “current needs are to be met as fully as possible while ensuring that the life opportunities of future generations are undiminished relative to the present” (Howarth 473). Perhaps the fundamental goals of sustainable development are to promote growth that will eliminate poverty, and to assist with stability. As a result of globalism—”a state of the world involving networks at multicontinental distances” (Keohane 104)—economic shocks travel across the globe “within seconds” (Beynon xii).

There have been many different approaches towards sustainable development, and these ideas are continually being reworked, analyzed, and expanded upon. There have also been many questions concerning the legitimacy and interest of development assistance. The past two centuries have shown incredible growth in wealth and the standard of living. These advances have not, however, been universal, and there has been a good deal of research aimed at explaining how some countries advance while others lag far behind. Among the proposed ideas are that the advance of the Western economies was a result of exploitation, including its use of slavery and colonialism at various points in its development. But this argument does not help answer the question whether growth is good, nor does the historical story of western growth fully support this claim concerning the West’s rise to wealth. These questions have, however, led to questions about whether growth leads to greater inequality—between countries and within them—or whether convergence is occurring. In other words, is growth really good for the poor? Has aid and development assistance succeeded in its goal to reduce poverty?

The Early Development Experiences

Following the Marshall Plan, which helped post-war Europe to recover, we have had a half century that has been called “a period of considerable international generosity.” Early on, Cold War competitive ideology also played a major role in spurring on the development experience, with the two main schools of thought concerning the means of achieving growth being the adoption of democracy and market economies, versus development aided by central planning and some form of authoritarianism (Sagasti 4). The “American Model” was fueled by a certain degree of overconfidence, public support for aid that was supposed to “modernize” what many considered “backward” economies, and a degree of fear of the powers of the Soviet Union. Similarly, the Soviet Union sought to strengthen its alliances by development assistance. “Soviet aid was seen as another weapon in the fight against Western capitalism” (Sagasti 20).

One of the interesting outcomes of these early development experiences stems from the perception that the countries being assisted were often considered to be culturally “backward.” The result of this view was that a country’s failure to “modernize” and conform to Western tradition and values was in part to blame for the backwardness of the economy in that country. Traditional ways were seen as a hindrance to economic progress, and were often disregarded and replaced by Western ideas (Sagasti 90). There are pros and cons to this argument. Much of the historical evidence points to the requirement of appropriate political systems, institutions, and values to encourage change and growth. Traditionalism, which asks us to accept the established order, is thus a hindrance to growth.

Traditionalism and Growth: The Environment for Innovation

We can take the example of China’s experience as an illustration here. China had incredible science and technology, with inventions such as paper, iron casting and medicine hundreds of years in advance to Western Europe. Yet, starting in the 17^th century, Western Europe took the lead, and by the 19^th century, the economic gap between them was incredibly large. One explanation is that the Chinese leaders valued stability, and were thus often skeptical of new ideas. In addition, China kept herself very isolated from the rest of the world. Everything she needed could be found or produced within her boundaries. Thus, early Westerners were seen as barbarians who had nothing to offer her. Indeed, Chinese leaders felt they were offering a service to these backward traders by letting them establish ports in a country that was morally advanced (The Economist, Dec. 31 1999, p12).

By contrast, Western Europe saw institutional changes such as the separation of the economic sphere from political and religious control. The West’s growth was the result of a society that developed a set of institutions that were favorable to change. Four rights are cited by economic historians Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell as contributing to the environment for the growth that was to come for Western Europe. These were: the authority of individuals to form enterprises; “enterprises were authorized to acquire goods and hold them for resale at a profit or loss”; enterprises were given authority to determine the activities they engaged in and; property rights were more clearly defined, and the property of enterprises were made “immune from arbitrary seizure or expropriation by political authorities” (22). Traditionally, these rights and decisions were made in the political and religious spheres, where leaders were interested in maintaining the status quo.

At the same time this was happening, Western European markets were also freer from religious and political control than markets in other societies were. With the granting of authority to make the above-mentioned decisions to enterprises and the individuals who owned them, the owners were made responsible for the economic outcomes of their decisions. The markets in turn determined the success or failure of an innovation, as well as determined the rewards to innovation (Rosenberg 23).

It is interesting to note that what this setting resulted in was not technological progress due to scientific progress (although there was considerable scientific progress—again from the changed set of values which allowed for a shifting away from the binds of political and religious control). The advances of the mid 18^th century to mid 19^th century were brought about by “artisans or engineers with little or no scientific training. They were men of common sense, curiosity, energy and vast ingenuity…Their goal was not to understand, but…to make machines that worked better and…at lower cost.” Not all innovations succeeded, perhaps only as few as one per hundred. But the significant innovations involving political and economic institutions of the time provided increased incentive to try new ideas, and in doing so, prepared Western Europe for the changes which were going to accompany their upcoming growth (The Economist, Dec. 31 1999, p11).

Globalization and Cultural Identity

Recall the origin of the above discussion of Western Europe’s ability to promote growth and achieve its wealth. I began by pointing out that some of the early development projects tended to try to discard many traditions and values within the country receiving aid, with the justification that the existing traditions were “backward” and hindered progress. As noted, there is a con to this argument. Apart from the unattractiveness of the concept of a homogenous world culture, there are other problems with this…egotistical… view of development assistance. There is a certain degree of pretentiousness which may involve such a program which could likely lead to resentment of the donor countries by those receiving the aid.

As mentioned before, ideas concerning development have constantly been changing and adapting. Adapting is the key word here. One of the main problems with assuming one approach to be the only way to achieve success is that such a view does not account for variability, not only in individuals, but also in location. Rosenberg and Birdzell address this in the conclusion of their book on the history of Western growth, How the West Grew Rich. “We wish particularly to avoid any suggestion that the West’s historical path to wealth contains any simple formula that, if used in the Third World, would produce a similar outcome…. Another fundamental consideration is that the West has been remarkably willing to pay the price of growth, in the form of changing the whole structure and interpretation of Western life” (327-328).

Francisco Sagasti feels this penetration of Western culture is even more significant today, with the agent of distribution being modern telecommunication and other such technological advances. The “images of affluence” portrayed on television can create cultural tensions in the developing world. These images of Western life brings with it “pressures to standardize (Westernize?) aspirations and cultural values,” while at the same time, there is a growing desire to “reassert individuality and cultural identity” (53). This set of contradictory aspirations may play a significant role in addressing why certain development programs have had little or no effect on promoting growth. As a result of the acknowledgement that what is good for one is not necessarily best for everyone, we observe in more recent development approaches increased levels of “case-by-case” and “country-focus[ed]” attempts to try to address regional and cultural differences (Sagasti 16).

It is interesting to be able to observe this struggle between traditionalism and standardization on American television. One can observe, for example, the version of MTV that is broadcast in various parts of the world—including on the domestic international channels. While MTV Mexico or MTV Asia definitely tend to embrace American pop culture, the music is often definitely different and frequently employs each region’s respective traditional instruments. One can then question whether we are dealing with cultural degradation (should MTV be there in the first place?), or whether the transformation can be more appropriately termed selective cultural assimilation (whose MTV is it?). Building on the unattractiveness of a homogenous world culture, and the experience with things such as the various international versions of MTV, perhaps the emerging “global order” will be more like Jack Weatherford sees it: “We need to share some values such as commitment to fundamental human rights and basic rules of interaction, but we can be wildly different in other areas such as lifestyles, spirituality, musical tastes, and community life (290).

The Inequality of Knowledge

Whatever the situation, development programs have begun to address cultural concerns. As Sagasti points out, “Even international institutions like the World Bank, previously known to focus exclusively on economic and social questions, are beginning to pay attention to cultural questions” (55). The addressing of concerns of cultural degradation are not the only changes taking place. An additional host of issues such as human rights issues, environmental protection, relief assistance, labor rights concerns, education, leadership training, and the restriction of weapons trade are all topics that have become part of foreign development assistance. Many of these alternative foci are pursued by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which tend to “promote particular goals rather than the broader goal of development” (The Economist, Jan.29 2000, p27).

Often, however, many of these issues are crucial to the success of a sustainable development program. We can start this discussion with investments in human capital—specifically in the importance of knowledge for growth. The rate of change in knowledge generation and use has been increasingly rapid. “It took from the time of Christ to the mid-eighteenth century for knowledge to double. It doubled again 150 years later, and then again in only 50 years. Today it doubles every four or five years. More new information has been produced in the last 30 years than in the previous 5000″ (David Linowes quoted in Sagasti 59). With the transformation of the importance of knowledge in the global economy today, property rights and ideas have transformed ideas into capital, and capital has always been a major economic barrier to entry (The Economist, Apr.08 2000, p17). Access to knowledge, increased incentives to create knowledge, and a promotion of the ability to make use of knowledge through education and training, will prove to be very valuable for a developing country in trying to achieve sustainable growth.

A reading of a textbook on macroeconomics will point out that capital accumulation cannot be the source of sustainable economic growth, but rather that growth “must ultimately be due to technological progress” (Blanchard 461). This is because with a given level of technology, capital eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns, where each increase in capital leads to smaller increases in output. Technological progress can change this by increasing the effectiveness of labor, making the existing capital more productive. Technological progress can also mean new products and different types of products. Much of what has pushed growth in recent years has been the result of innovation. “Innovation has become the industrial religion of the late 20^th century” (Valery The Economist “Innovation Survey”, Feb. 20 1999 p5).

Well-defined property rights have been key players in contributor to providing incentives for innovation. It may also provide some explanation of what can be termed the “technology gap” between the developed countries and the developing ones. Professor Paul Romer, a “new growth” theorist, addresses some of these questions of knowledge, competition, and convergence in his essay The Origins of Endogenous Growth. Professor Romer points to five basic facts about economic growth in the neoclassical model of growth. Here are three of them. “Discoveries differ from other inputs in the sense that many people can use them at the same time.” Seen in this light, information is a nonrival good—the additional cost of providing ideas to another person are zero. “Technological advance comes from things that people do.” Discoveries will not be made if people do not pursue activities that lead to discoveries. “Many individuals and firms have market power and earn monopoly rents on discoveries” (Romer 12-13).

Professor Romer’s last fact is significant. Neoclassical growth models treated technology as a public good. With such treatment, it was difficult to explain why developing countries could not absorb the more productive technologies of the developed countries and then enjoy a period of rapid economic growth. Public goods are not only nonrival, but they are also nonexcludable. Firms and individuals typically control access to their information and use of their information “for at least some period of time,” making “economically important discoveries” not fully subject to the treatment offered by neoclassical growth theories (Romer 13). Temporary monopoly power in the form of property rights may play an important part in encouraging innovation (Romer 18). Professor Romer feels that deriving from his work with investments in human capital one can find a policy prescription for economic success which involves “more saving and more schooling” (20).

The Role of the Multinational Corporation

The findings of Romer and of others who have looked at the importance of knowledge and research on growth have been reflected in more recent growth experiences. Francisco Sagasti feels that “creating and consolidating scientific and technological capabilities in the developing regions” will be one of the major themes in the “development-cooperation” experiences of the years to come (148). Much of the controversy concerning multinational corporations, for example, is that their power combined with their drive for profits often lead to very exploitative working conditions. The ability for multinationals to easily shift from one country to another—based on features like the tax incentives, environmental regulations, and labor costs offered countries competing for investment—have led many to question whether globalization is ultimately going to lead to a race to the bottom (Ross 71; The Economist, Jan. 29 2000 p21; Breecher 19-27). Many people fear that these corporations are mostly engaging in production of goods which do not require much skilled labor, and as such, do not contribute much in the way of technological “know-how” transfers to the recipient country.

This is not quite the case. There is the argument that multinationals are more afraid of possible protest in their home countries than they are of “resentment abroad” (The Economist, Jan. 29 2000, p21). Nevertheless, “every so often, a multinational does something stupid,” but on the whole, they do achieve in success in creating jobs quickly, and these jobs often pay better than local firms do. They are also better at transferring technology, at least between the parent firm and their foreign counterparts (Greider 22).

Environmental Concerns and Sustainability

The United Nations feels that businesses are indeed their “Partners in Sustainable Development.” In a publication by that title, the United Nations discussed the role of business and industry in improvement of the production process (at home and abroad) “through the introduction of technologies that use resources more efficiently and minimize environmental impacts” (Alvarez-Rivero iv). While the UN does admit that there are great costs associated with research and development (R&D) involving cleaner production technologies, it points out that the long run benefits outweigh these costs, and that furthermore, the large market would help absorb the costs. In a number of case studies, the clean technologies not only had environmental benefits, but they also generally resulted in higher production efficiency (Alvarez-Rivero 1). One of the major obstacles to investment in cleaner production identified in the UN report is misinformation about the costs of environmental protection. Part of the misinformation stems from the difficulty in doing cost-benefit analyses involving environmental costs. The UN recommends increased use of environmental accounting—using a framework that would allow firms to internalize the environmental costs to better determine whether a given project would “meet their benchmark for rate of return on investment” (Alvarez-Rivero 6).

The effect of growth on the environment is an important one to look at when the goal is sustainable development. “Trade liberalization, per se, is not necessarily linked to either environmental degradation or environmental preservation.” It is likely, however, that trade can be an “effective agent” for sustainable development (Schultz 424). Environmental issues are of international concern and span many generations. Matters of intergenerational equity arise when considering environmental issues, because there is often a trade off to be made between “efficiency, [which] puts society on the utility possibilities frontier…[and] sustainability, [which] is a matter of distribution of assets across generations” (Howarth 473). There is also the concern that our placing a value on sacrificing something today for future generations may not be a value that is passed down through generations. We may be inclined to wonder about whether our efforts today may simply be foiled by acts of these future generations.

The environmental concerns regarding sustainability have many different aspects. These include problems stemming from agricultural practices, increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and concern about global warming. Improper farming techniques, for example, while embodying good intentions such as providing more abundant, cheaper food, has resulted in environmental damage in the form of soil degradation, pollution, water scarcity and biodiversity loss. Soil degradation is taking place as a result of over-planting and overgrazing, accompanied by poor drainage and improper irrigation techniques. Pollution arises from the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides. In addition to contaminating water sources, it is also causing many biological problems “throughout food-chains…in both man and beast.” Water is running out as a result of inefficient use in farming. Farm practices such as intensive monoculture programs, deforestation, selective animal breeding, and genetically modified high yielding, fast growing crops, have had a severe impact on biodiversity. “Over a sixth of the 3,800 breeds of domestic animals that existed a century ago have disappeared” (El Feki The Economist “Agriculture and Technology Survey,” Mar. 25 2000 p11).

This is not to say that the situation concerning the environment is entirely bleak. The World Trade Organization, for example, has begun to include statements in its publications of interest in environmental issues and, as a more active stance, formed the Committee on Trade and the Environment in early 1994 (Schultz 425). There have also been environmental subsidy provisions that permit “governmental assistance to promote the adaptation of existing facilities to new environmental requirements (Schultz 429). Such acts as eco-labeling are being promoted by environmental groups and help raise public awareness and information about the goods that they consume. Perhaps the most well known case was the US ban on Mexican tuna that was not dolphin safe. At the time, tuna canners began a program labeling their products “dolphin safe.” Interestingly, such programs may “obviate the need for governmental product regulations,” by letting consumers express their environmental preferences by the informed choices they make in the marketplace (Schwartz 435).

In addition, international economic relations are increasingly being formed conditional on adopting environmental protection measures. A few countries have already begun to position themselves “to compete in what will be one of the most dynamic markets of the future, environmentally sound technologies. Being able to provide environmentally friendly technologies is rapidly becoming a source of competitive advantage in the global search for new markets” (Sagasti 50). Studies have also found that “while increased economic output tends to be associated with higher CO₂ emissions, a rising standard of living also slows down population growth and leads to reduced energy consumption per unit of output” (DeCanio 41). One thing that is key to success, however, is the rate of change at which new policies for promoting environmental sustainability are enforced. As Lester Brown points out, “This is not a spectator sport…the central issue [to the environmental challenges] is the need to restructure the global economy quickly” (20-21).

The Change of the Worldwide Standard Living

The measurement of a country’s standard of living also needs to be addressed when talking about sustainable development. Traditionally, economics has relied on real per capita GDP as their measure of the standard of living. Naturally, such view leads to a bias “toward economic growth as a policy objective, rather than striving for balanced human development” (Easterlin 8 ). More recently, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has begun to annually report a human development index (HDI), which includes such measures of human welfare as health, education, and democratic freedom. This is a result of a recent evolution of development-cooperation that illustrates the concept of “sustainable human development.” “Sustainable human development” aims to provide current and future generations not only the opportunity to expand (and support) their capabilities in the economic realm, but also to expand capabilities and put them to their best uses in the political, social, cultural and environmental realm (Sagasti 17). While over the past 100 years “the gap between the richest and poorest countries has widened dramatically” in material standards, the HDI measurement of standards of living show a sharp decrease in global inequality over the past 50 years (The Economist, Apr.15 2000, p86).

The last two centuries have seen what has been termed by Richard Easterlin, “A revolution of the human condition.” In making this statement, he is referring not only to the incredible material transformation that has taken place, but also in terms of basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter, as well as in terms of conditions that enhance the life experience, such as improved health and education (7). In an intensive study aimed at finding out “what people want out of life,” the findings were that while living level—or one’s material position—was a major concern in many of the counties, concerns of family, health, values, and work were also important to many (Easterlin 9). While some of these measures clearly have upper limits (for example, literacy has an upper value of 100 percent), there is still a lot of room for advances in quality the quality of life (Easterlin 23).

Growth for the Poor

Easterlin begins his essay with a qualification, “Although the picture is not one of universal progress…” (7). This brings us back to the question of inequality and growth mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Earlier this year, prior to the meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, demonstrators were gathering to protest acts by these institutions which protestors claimed “impoverish and oppress the majority of the world’s peoples…while enriching themselves and corporations” (The Economist, Apr. 15 2000, p76). The complaint by many people who oppose globalization is not so much that globalization is bad for growth, but rather that the rewards of growth are only observed by the rich. There is the feeling that the rich get richer and the poor get left out, thus increasing inequality (The Economist, May 27 2000, p82).

A recent paper by David Dollar and Aart Kraay for the World Bank comes to different conclusions. Their findings show that while growth is slower for the poor in the early stages of development, and faster in the later stages. Additionally, they found that “growth spurred by open trade or other macro policies…benefits the poor as much as it does the typical household” (27). Among the macroeconomic policies often recommended for growth are political stability, openness to trade, deregulation, good rule of law, and fiscal discipline (Dollar 5).

Convergence Revisited

There is much to say in favor of development and foreign aid when one looks at the general picture of growth today. Given the right set of standards, which include the macroeconomic policies suggested by Dollar and Kraay, we would expect later starting countries growing at fast initial growth. In convergence theory, “the late entrants have much higher initial growth rates than the early entrants but do not surpass their income levels” (Lucas Jr. 161). This argument builds on the idea that knowledge is cumulative, and makes use of the shaky assumption discussed earlier that knowledge is a public good. There may be a need for a revision, however. “Digital technology allows the dream to become a reality: quite simply, it provides a way of capturing information and transmitting it at a fraction of the cost previously” (Beynon 111). Many more people around the world are gaining access to information more easily and less expensively than before. Thus, the monopolization of ideas is likely to be weaken, lowering one of the major barriers to entry, and allowing us to see whether convergence will indeed occur.

The convergence theory also expects high levels of inequality, and according to Robert Lucas Jr.’s model, it expects a long phase of increasing inequality. According to his model, this phase has already occurred, with the constant phase of inequality (a time when inequality is neither growing nor shrinking) were the years 1960 to 1990. The proximity of his data to the current time, however, makes it difficult to determine conclusively whether the recent convergence that he observes in his model will continue (165).

Conclusion

In this paper I have presented only a very small portion of what sustainable development involves (I didn’t even begin to talk about population pressures!). I have also refrained from getting into particular issues about how one should promote the goal of sustainable development. This is because there is no straightforward prescription of policies that can be made. One of the complications is that certain countries are more prepared for growth than others. They may have a culture that encourages education, or they may have a stable government dedicated towards helping its constituents improve the value of their life. Countries at different stages of development will have different needs. Spending money under the name of aid will do little to assist development if the institutions necessary to make use of the aid are not in place.

Simply put, decisions regarding development should be made on a case by case basis. At the same time, a global awareness of the goal of sustainability needs to be encouraged. This starts at the local level. For example, as advanced as the United States is, there is still considerable room for, and more importantly, need for improvements. This can be in the form of improved energy efficiency, or in the form of improved education. It can come from improving the level of trust within our society (ask an American about their politicians for a feel of this). Finally, one should not make the mistake of expecting progress to immediately follow change. The process of growth has been a slow, relatively steady one. We should try to ensure that it can maintain this stability.

The global play is still being written. The major characters are still in development. The ending has yet to be determined.

Works Cited

• Alvarez-Rivero, and Theresa Olvida eds. Business and the United Nations: Partners in Sustainable Development. New York, United Nations Publications, 1999.
• Beynon, Robert Ed. The Routledge Critical Dictionary of Global Economics. New York, Routledge, 1999.
• Blanchard, Olivier. Macroeconomics. New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1997.
• Breecher, Jeremy and Tim Costello. Global Village or Global Pillage: Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom Up. Boston, South End Press, 1994.
• Brown, Lester R., et al. State of the World 2000. New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 2000.
• DeCanio, Stephen. “International Cooperation to Avert Global Warming: Economic Growth, Carbon Pricing, and Energy Efficiency,” The Journal of Environment and Development, vol. 1, no. 1, Summer 1992.
• Dollar, David, and Aart Kraay. Growth is Good for the Poor. Washington, DC, The World Bank, March 2000.
• Easterlin, Richard A. “The Worldwide Standard of Living Since 1800,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2000.
• El Feki, Shereen. “A Survey of Agriculture and Technology,” The Economist, March 25^th 2000.
• Greider, William. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1997.
• Howarth, Richard B. and Richard B. Norgaard. “Environmental Valuation under Sustainable Development,” The American Economic Review, vol. 82, no. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May 1992.
• Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye Jr. “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?),” Foreign Policy, Spring 2000.
• Lucas Jr., Robert E. “Some Macroeconomics for the 21^st Century,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2000.
• Romer, Paul M. “The Origins of Endogenous Growth,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 8, no. 1, Winter 1994.
• Rosenberg, Nathan, and L. E. Birdzell, Jr. How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World. New York, Basic Books, 1986.
• Ross, Andrew. No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment Workers. New York, Verso, 1997.
• Sagasti, Francisco, and Gonzalo Alcalde. Development Cooperation in a Fractured Global Order: An Arduous Transition. Ottawa, Canada, International Development Research Center, June 1999.
• Schultz, Jennifer. “The GATT/WTO Committee on Trade and the Environment—Toward Environmental Reform,” American Journal of International Law, vol. 89, no. 2, April 1995.
• The Economist. “A Century of Progress.” April 15^th 2000.
• The Economist. “Growth is Good.” May 27^th 2000.
• The Economist. “The Road to Riches.” December 12^th 1999.
• The Economist. “The World’s View of Multinationals.” January 29^th 2000.
• The Economist. “Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?” April 8^th 2000.
• Valery, Nicholas. “A Survey of Innovation in Industry,” The Economist, February 20^th 1999.
• Weatherford, Jack. Savages and Civilization: Who will Survive? New York, Random House, 1994.

The primary issue at stake in The Octopus is one of land ownership. Along the lines of the Pacific and South West Railroad, alternate sections of land had been granted to the P. and S. W. Trust by the government. The P. and S. W. invited farmers to settle the land and cultivate wheat, and ultimately to offer the land for sale, at first to the first occupants. Furthermore, the price was promised to be between $2.50 and $5.00 per acre. Improvements to the land would not affect the price, thus, for the initial settlers, the land would prove to be very valuable. They could settle, work with the land to a profitable point, work on improving the land through things like improved irrigation, and, when the Trust decided to sell the land, the farmers would acquire it at a low price. The profitability of resale would thus be great, for, as one of the major characters Annixter notes, “The land has more than quadrupled in value. I’ll bet I could sell it tomorrow for fifteen dollars an acre.” To the P. and S. W., this essentially amounts to an effective way to provide incentives to improve land. With the forces of capitalism in mind, the promise of private ownership gives the farmers an incentive to keep the land in good form and make the most of its potential.

However, considering the forces of capitalism, one would be inclined to question the interpretation of the agreement made by the railroad trust to the farmers. Genslinger, an editor to the local newspaper, points out that not only do the farmers add value, but the presence of the railroad also increases the value of the ranches, and that “fairness” would involve sharing the benefits of the rise in value between the farmers and the railroad. He further adds, “I don’t believe the P. and S. W. intends to sell for two-fifty an acre at all. The managers of the road want the best price they can get.” This proves to be the case. The railroad has taken its time in putting the land up for sale, and upon decision to sell, issues letters to the current occupants of the ranches which state the selling price to be in the range between $20.00 and $30.00 per acre. Thus begins the war between the farmers and railroad trust.

Assuming the farmers to be correct in their interpretation of the contract issued to them by the railroad, their ensuing call for violence or revolution can be seen as justified. Upon hearing of the “merciless” prices demanded by the P. and S. W., the ranchers decide to form a league against the railroad. The rapid formation of the league is accompanied with such phrases as, “This is a family affair,”  “Organization, that must be our watchword,” “Now we must stand together, now, now,” and “Every one of us here to join it, to form the beginnings of a vast organization, banded together to death, if needs be, for the protection of our rights and homes.”

At a crucial point in the novel, however, it is found that the ranchers cannot organize well enough to act as a group—and falls apart at the first experience with confrontation:

“Why, where’s all the men?” Annixter demanded of Magnus.

“Broderson is here and Cutter,” replied the Governor, “no one else, I thought you would bring more men with you.”

“There are only nine of us.”

“And the six hundred leaguers who were going to rise when this happened!” exclaimed Garnett bitterly.

“Rot the league,” cried Annixter. “It’s gone to pot—went to pieces at the first touch.”

The strength of the railroad trust was such that the farmers and families involved did not feel that collective action would so much as budge the decisions made by the railroad trust. The effectiveness of collective action, or promised collective action is hard to predict. Success depends partially in the willingness to commit to the cause at hand—the ability to overcome, or at least lessen, the free-rider problem. Everyone in the league would have wished the success of Annixter and the other men present at the above scene, but few rose to the call, or, as noted later, were made aware of the call at the appropriate time.

One can’t help but wonder what the relationship between the farmers and the railroad would have been if the outcome of the previous scene had ended differently, for example with the intended result of no bloodshed, but rather a hopefully productive encounter. One also can’t help but wonder if success or change was at all possible. The question of choice arises here—the question of an individual’s ability, or even that of a group, to actively take part in change.

Indeed, from the descriptions of the mechanisms at work in The Octopus, one would be inclined to think that choices play an incredibly small part. There is a scene where Lyman Derrick receives a railroad map. “The map was white, and it seemed as if all the color which should have gone to vivify the various counties, towns, and cities marked upon it had been absorbed by that huge, sprawling organism… a gigantic parasite flattening upon the lifeblood of an entire commonwealth.” The farmers may fight the men involved in the railroad business, but business, but that would mean little if anything. The real enemy was the railroad. It had taken on a life of its own. When Presley meets Shelgrim, the President of the P. and S. W., he says to him, “You are the head, you control the road.” Shelgrim is amused by this and replies, “I can not control it. It is a force born out of certain conditions, and I—no man—can stop it or control it.”

Following this experience, Presley first comes to the depressing conclusion that “Men were nothings,” they “fluttered and fell and were forgotten…. Men were naught, death was naught, life was naught; FORCE only existed.” Norris tries to take us away from such a pessimistic outlook, however, and to do so, he has a hermit-like character, Vanamee, talk to Presley. Presley ultimately comes to the conclusion that, “Falseness dies; injustice and oppression in the end of everything fade and vanish away. Greed, cruelty, selfishness and inhumanity are short-lived; the individual suffers, but the race goes on…. All things surely, inevitably, resistlessly work together for good.”

Norris also shows this view in the change in the character of Annixter. Annixter used to be the type content with only a few friends who mattered. He was impatient, rough, and more than content to make enemies with any act. In a transforming conversation between himself and Hilma Tree, his wife-to-be, he says, “Remember, once I said I was proud of being a hard man, a driver, of being glad that people hated me and were afraid of me? Well, since I’ve loved you I’m ashamed of it all. I don’t want to be hard anymore, and nobody is going to hate me if I can’t help it.” In Vanamee’s words, “it is not evil, but good, that in the end remains.”

While both these ends are more reassuring in their optimism concerning the “big picture,” it does not quite fully satisfy the reality of our daily concerns. I think it is fitting that Norris had Presley saying he was going to India. The Hindu and Buddhist religions make such views as Vanamee’s easier to accept. Hinduism calls for humans to separate their “ego-selves” from the true Self. To do so, they manage to break the cycle of karma—they realize the insignificance of their ego-selves, or what we can think of in Western terms as our personal identity. Buddhism calls for a separation from desires to end suffering. It also calls for a detachment from self. There is no such thing as the “identical I”—”The identical I never was, never is, never will be” (Sri Aurobindo). We are nothing more than forces of karma constantly flowing and changing through time.

This is not a conclusion that entirely satisfies me. I like to think that I have a will, and that the power to change things is within us all. Hopefully, those who can recognize this power do not abuse it, and use it, instead, for the betterment of as much of humanity as is rationally possible.

I have always been taught that the Civil War was a war fought over slavery and the North imposing its ways on the South. From what I have gained from high school history courses, I feel that slavery was what got the war started, but the divisions between the North and South were stronger. Those divisions, although political intervention could have probably helped ironed them out, are what allowed the Civil War to continue. These differences can be noted in the very first few paragraphs of Shaara’s foreword to his novel. The Confederate army, for example, is shown to be “an army of remarkable unity,” who “share common customs and a common faith.” By contrast, the Union army is “a strange new kind of army” made up of “vastly dissimilar men” with “strange accents and strange religions and many who do not speak English at all.”

The history of slavery was not unique to the Southern states. Slavery accompanied the founding of the United States, but it was always accompanied with hopes that it would gradually decline in use. The slave trade with Africa was abolished in the early part of the 1800s, and slavery in the North dissipated while the region began to undergo many changes, especially the increase in immigrant workers to work in the factories. The Southern states, however, were mostly dependent on a plantation economy based on crops like tobacco and cotton, and continued their use of slave labor in the fields. The North was changing rapidly, with many immigrant workers and an industrializing society built up around the city structures, compared to the relative stability of the South, where life had not changed much over the years.

And yet, though growing apart as they were, the North was, as Shaara put it, a group of “dissimilar men fighting for union,” fighting against the rebel volunteers, “an army of remarkable unity, fighting for disunion.”

This conflict between the North and South arises a couple of times in Shaara’s novel. Take, for example, Fremantle, then Englishman who accompanies Longstreet. In a passage where he is trying to work out to himself what this war is about and where it fits in with the history of the United States’ experiment in democracy, sees a similar image to the one presented above. He says, “The North has those bloody cities and a thousand religions and the only aristocracy is the aristocracy of wealth. The Northerner doesn’t give a damn for tradition, or breeding, or the Old Country. He hates the Old Country…. In the South…by and large, they were all the same nationality, same religion, same customs.” At one point, he says that the war is basically about these differences, about the “sameness” of the South to the Europe that Americans had tried to leave, contrasting with the forces of change in the North.

In addition to these forces of change and disunity, the young United States was also very economically different by geographic regions. The North (Union) was over twice as large as the South (Confederacy), both in terms of population and number of states (not land area). The North had a diverse economy and was home to many more factories and manufacturing bases than did the South, which settled with their prosperous “one crop” cotton agriculture. Most of the arms supply for the war was manufactured in the North, a fact touched on at various times throughout Shaara’s novel. For example, it is noted that many of the Confederate soldiers (volunteers) were “unpaid and self armed.”

This said, however, I think that it is unquestionable that slavery was the big issue behind the Civil War. To the Confederates, the persistence of the Union pushing their views on them was something they were quite resentful of. One of the Confederate soldiers offered the following analogy about what the war was about: “I think my analogy of the club was the best. I mean, it’s as if we all joined a gentleman’s club, and then the members of the club started sticking their noses into our private lives, and then we up and resigned, and then they tell us we don’t have the right to resign.” That they did not hold slaves in the North was supposed to make the Northerners morally better. These Northerners were people who were fighting for the ideal of freedom. The Southerners were people fighting to have their Constitutional rights upheld—not fighting a war about slavery.

At the same time there was much resentment in the North of the Southerners’ “arrogant” use of the Bible to justify their acts—trying thus to make their acts seem morally acceptable. A very interesting part of The Killer Angels which looks at this issue is the scene where the wounded black man is taken up by the Union Army. A discussion takes place between Chamberlain (sort of an idealist) and Kilrain (more of a realist). Discussing issues of racial differences between blacks and whites, Chamberlain says, “To me there was never any difference.” Chamberlain remembers a time when a Southern minister and a university professor visited him in the North. The discussion ended on slavery and morality. Chamberlain argued that men should not be used like animals, to which the minister replied, “A Negro is not a man.”

Kilrain, a man who considers himself “not a clever man,” comments on Chamberlain’s story. “No two things on earth are equal or have an equal chance…. There’s many a man worse than me, and some better, but I don’t think race or country matters a damn. What matters is justice.” Kilrain believes that things must change—not just in the South though, for he sees discrimination by the aristocracy that he is fighting against. “They used to have signs on tavern doors,” he tells Chamberlain, speaking of taverns in the North, “Dogs and Irishmen keep out.” The situation in the North was far from flawless. Chamberlain’s “oddness, a crawly hesitation, not wanting to touch him [the black man],” is an example of the unstable grounds that the Civil War was being fought on.

The Killer Angels ends without any real resolution, which seems strange for a novel with 100 years hindsight, until one manages to place themselves in the situation at that time. Even today, it seems like the war was unavoidable—and it was a war in which the soldiers were all a bit unclear about what they were fighting for. Even at the end, a Union soldier notes that, “When you ask them prisoners, they never talk about slavery…. If it weren’t for the slaves, there’d never have been no war, now would there?” That final question is perhaps one of the biggest ones concerning the Civil War.

To look at her problem, Stowe offers us a diverse cast of characters. Through the course of the book, we get to know Christian slaves and unchristian masters, masters and slaves who are unbelievers in Christ and in God (but for different reasons), educated slaves and illiterate masters, angels, humane people, decent people, wicked people, and people so evil, we find it hard to believe they exist.

I refrain from using skin color being black or white as the definition of slave or master, because Stowe makes it clear on numerous occasions that there were many cases where the slaves were fair skinned as a result of being the child of a black mother who had been made the mistress of the white mother. The offspring, even if fair skinned, was destined to be a slave. Take, for example, George Harris. His mother was a beautiful slave whose “personal beauty” made her “the slave of the passions of her possessor.” George ended up possessing European features, resembling more a “Spanish-looking fellow,” but being destined to a life of slavery.

Perhaps one of the most prominent depictions of the slave owners is their feeling of superiority over the slaves. Indeed, the slave race is seen as inferior. Although there is, on occasion, mention of slave marriages, it is also made clear that these were not legal marriages, and that many slaveholders felt that the slaves were too inferior to feel familial attachments. Babies were separated from their mothers, on the one hand because they were seen as a burden, and on the other, because if they could be held a couple of years more, they could bring in a higher price. Since the slaves were not often allowed the chance to show sentiment over their loss, except at the initial separation, the slaveholders pointed to that as their emotional inferiority.

Even the “kinder” slaveholding families did not always see the slaves in favorable light. Marie St. Clare, for example, who holds herself to be a humane Christian woman, held (while her husband and daughter were alive), that slaves ought to be kindly treated, but at the same time, they ought to “know their place.” They need, on occasion, to be “put down.” She sees “servants,” as she calls them, as grown up children. There is no reason to put any effort into educating slaves. They are children of God, but they are not, and should not by any mean be put “on any sort of equality with us, as if we could be compared.” Marie explicitly states that, “They are a degraded race.”

Augustine St. Clare is a different sort of person. He does not hold religion in high regard. As he says regarding Christianity and slavery, “My view of Christianity is such… that I think that no man can consistently profess it without throwing the whole weight of his being against this monstrous system of injustice that lies at the foundation of all our society.” To Augustine, it seems to be hopeless. He despises slavery, although he admits it had made him rich, and he is too lazy to do anything about it. He has nothing to fall to, for he sees religion as hypocritical. He wants to believe in God, however, for as he tells Uncle Tom, “I don’t disbelieve, and I think there is reason to believe; and still I don’t.” A transformation of Augustine takes place through his time with Uncle Tom, and he makes motions to begin the freeing of his servants. Augustine never gets his chance to free all his slaves, nor any of them, for he is killed in a fight.

Augustine is not alone in his beliefs. George Harris, previously mentioned, also finds it hard to believe in a Christian God. George is an educated slave—literate, a farm manager, an inventor, and a businessman. He is owned by a cruel slaveholder who takes every chance he gets to “insult and torment” George. George directly poses the problem of evil when he says, “I ain’t a Christian… my heart ’s full of bitterness; I can’t trust in God. Why does he let things be so?” He feels that religion is on their side. Of the system, he points out that slaves do not have a country. There are no laws for them, only laws about them—meant to keep them down. The only thing George has is love for his wife, Eliza, and his son, Harry.

The theme of love runs strong throughout the book, as it should for a book commenting on Christianity. The fundamental teaching of Christ was that of love. In that sense, there are two true Christians in Stowe’s novel: Uncle Tom and Eva. Eva is the daughter of Augustine, and is often referred to as an angel. She is often seen playing with her father’s slaves. In a scene with her cousin, Henrique, she is essentially told that one does not love his or her servants, at which point she asks, “Don’t the Bible say we must love everybody?” In a naïve way, she says that she likes having as many servants as they do at their house because “it makes so many more round you to love.” Eva begs her father to tell her he is a Christian. Augustine asks what it takes to be a Christian, to which she replies, “Loving Christ, most of all.”

Eva is not the only one who shows concern for Augustine not being Christian. Uncle Tom is also very concerned, and does not hesitate to tell Augustine so. It is something he feels, he tells Augustine, when talking of the love of Christ. Uncle Tom’s faith shows even stronger after he has been traded to the inhumane plantation owner, Legree. He comes to the point that he is willing to lay his life down to follow the laws of the Lord, and for the love of God. In one scene, he disobeys orders by his master to flog another slave. He points out to Legree that although Legree may own his body, Legree can never own his soul, for his soul is committed to the Lord. That said, Uncle Tom also states his diligent obedience to his owner, and his devotion to the message of Christ, by saying, “Mass’r, if you was sick, or in trouble, or dying, and I could save ye, I ‘d give ye my heart’s blood; and, if taking every drop of blood in this poor old body would save your precious soul, I ‘d give ‘em freely, as the Lord gave his for me.”

These are but a few of the major characters in Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and their insights into the problems of evil, injustice, religion, superiority, and slavery. It is interesting, however, to take some distance from the particular details of the novel and consider some philosophical and historical ideas which indirectly relate to this story (at least to my wandering mind).

One of the initial things that arises within me when I read this book is my atheistic point of view. In many ways, I am doubtful, like Augustine is, for I have never seen God, nor can I say that I know anyone who has. There is too much wrong in this world to make me comfortable with this world. On the other hand, I have known people who cannot live in this world without some sort of belief in a Supreme Being. The belief gives them hope. And hope is a big part of progress. It bothers me, however, that hope always seems to lie in the next world for most of these people—not in our world today. It certainly would make it a depressing world if it were the case that there is no hope for humanity.

The quest for salvation and the desire to spread the word of God by Christians as part of that quest is another thing which comes to mind when I read Stowe’s novel. I am always a bit taken aback by the ideas of racial superiority that often accompanies these past humanitarian missionary acts. I am reminded of the early Spanish explorers landing in Central America and encountering the Aztec and Maya Indians. After many debates, it was determined that the Indians were inferior humans, not savages, and they did have souls, but they desperately needed to be saved. This idea preceded the mass destruction of Central American science, which in some cases were actually quite advanced in comparison to Europe’s at the time. But the Europeans were right; the Central American Indians were in a sense, inferior. The region in which they lived was a very secluded region, and the people who lived there had not been exposed to many of the germs and diseases that afflicted other parts of the world. As a result, exposure to the early Spanish explorers proved to be devastating to them.

We can extrapolate this feeling of superiority to the slaveholders in America and see what we have as a result. The story now changes. Part of the reason for importing slaves from Africa, was their ability to work and, ultimately, their “resistance” to diseases—especially mosquito borne ones. When one looks at the age of races and the “travelling” of various diseases, one finds that Africans have developed many stronger immune defense systems than people whose origins lay elsewhere have. Thus, when the Americans began importing slaves from Africa, it was often the case that the African slaves were more resistant to diseases such as malaria than were the Americans. The Africans were proving to be the superior race.

The travelling of disease has changed dramatically with increased world travel, and such ideas about racial superiority in immune systems no longer hold very well. Ideas of racial superiority on the basis of ideas such as purity and “right” however, do still persist to a degree that I feel is too large. The mid 1800s were important to begin breaking down some of these prejudices, and Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin did a good job of illustrating that although someone may be of a different color, we are all humans, and as such, we should make a conscious effort to behave humanely towards each other. Of course, none of our acts would mean anything at all if we did not believe them.

According to Dr. Ford, Belize manages to still hold much of the same charm and awe that we often associate with the findings of the early explorers of the New World. It is a place that lives up to the saying that, “You cannot put a spade into the ground without turning up bits of pottery and stone tools” (v). However, Dr. Ford is careful to point out on numerous occasions that as tourists to the area, we must absolutely refrain from pretending to be archaeologists. Archaeology today, she points out, is very “laborious and time-consuming” contrasting with excavation techniques from 100 years ago, which often included the use of dynamite (29). Our curious (and tempting) interference with artifacts could be just as harmful to these sites as the old excavation techniques were. One thing we can note is that all “archaeological excavations are destructive” (7).

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Anabel Ford’s publication gives readers some background information on the Maya. It begins with a short discussion of the different time periods of Maya civilization, and the manner in which Maya civilization was organized. Dr. Ford makes an important point with the latter discussion when she states that, “To understand a complex society like the Maya…you need to move beyond what those at the top were doing and look to the general populace” (4). To look at such issues causes us to try to understand how communities were organized, and what sort of things people valued. We may find, for example, that while most communities or sites may be relatively self sufficient, different areas with different economic advantages may partake in a certain degree of specialization and use their “crafts” for trade purposes—either within their community, or with neighboring sites.

The bulk of this publication, however, lies in addressing some of the particular features of 18 of the more major sites in Belize. Much of what would immediately come to our attention, then, would be the monumental architecture that can be found at these sites. These sites are important when one considers that “for impressive large centers to have grown and flourished…the Maya rulers had to effectively organize and integrate the communities within their domain” (5). Thus, what we have to do is to understand both that the sites we may be visiting are foremost elite guided creations, and that the underlying gears of society, (though guided by elite), are the commoners.

In the course of her discussion of these sites, Dr. Ford manages to portray some of the regional similarities and differences between different Maya sites. Excavations at Cuello, for example, show evidence of the common Maya practice of building and rebuilding at the same location—creating what can be called house mounds (18). Another similarity is that many of the structures at various sites were also covered in stucco. Other sites may be representative of the special requirements or endowments of certain parts of the Maya landscape. The site of Nohmul, for example, was faced with swamplands, causing Maya farmers to seek a solution using drainage with canals and other intensive farming techniques. It is interesting to note that this solution was not done independently by the people of Nohmul, but rather, the farmers “relied on others for their basic farm tools,” reinforcing the notion of specialization for different Maya regions (15).

These regional differences, as just shown, often have the effect of resulting in a certain amount of trade taking place. To illustrate this, Dr. Ford points to the example of the Wild Cane Cay site. This site was not important just because it provided ocean-fishing bases, but also because it helped facilitate trade between the highlands of Guatemala and the Belize lowlands. The highlands were endowed with “durable items” like obsidian, which was used for many utensils. The lowlands, relatively void of such commodities, traded colorful feathers and spices, among other things. These were mostly perishable goods, but were often important for Maya elite society. Wild Cane Cay is a particularly interesting site since there is also evidence that the people of the area partook in long-distance trade activities—thus expanding the influence of- and on Maya civilization.

This brings us back, in a circular fashion, to Maya civilization, particularly regarding the relation between elite and peasant members of society. The elite of the ancient Maya society were not just responsible for the management of their own centers, but were also responsible for the establishment of connections with further removed Maya and non Maya centers. Their intertwining trade helped cement a relationship among elite of other centers, creating what can be termed a prestige goods economy. By the Late Classic Period, the Maya elite had expanded their role and control to encourage further specialization of communities in farming. Communities with land more suitable for maize production produced surplus maize to trade. Those communities with land more suitable for cash crops, such as cacao or tobacco focused their production on those goods. This was a shift from when the Maya peasants of each community would keep “all the basic aspects of daily life going.” They did this not only by providing food for themselves and the elite rulers, but many also manufactured household goods (often for use in the individual household—not meant for trade) (6). In other words, we can notice a bit of a shift from true self sufficiency of Maya communities, to directed interconnected trade among communities based on what they had to offer. What is important to note here is that much of this can be attributed to the actions of the Maya elite interacting with each other.

This is just a representation of some of the information that can be found in Dr. Anabel Ford’s publication, aimed primarily at guiding those who have “a yen to learn something about this civilization” (1). Overall, I found the information provided to be in agreement with the information I have gained from Anthropology 137. While by no means a complete or thorough treatment, Dr. Ford’s publication would definitely serve useful to a visitor to the Maya regions of Belize. As a travel guide, it gives the reader a set of monuments they may wish to take note of, simple maps of each site, a little understanding of the historical role of archaeology in the area, and enough information about Maya culture to give the visitor a greater appreciation of the sites they are visiting.

All quotations are from The Ancient Maya of Belize: Their Society and Sites, by Dr. Anabel Ford, published by the CORI/MesoAmerican Research Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Upon looking around, it appears to us that the earth is flat—despite the rumors. But accepting the earth as flat has been doubted by one of my wizards whose son is a fisherman. Each day his son sails off towards and past the horizon, appearing to have “fallen off the face of the earth,” only to eventually turn around and return home. For the observer on land, the boat does not simply fade to a dot on the horizon. Not even with our strongest distance viewers, on the clearest days, can we continue to see the fishing boats. This implies that there is a certain degree of curvature to the surface of the earth.

Another argument in favor of a degree of curvature of the earth was offered by one of my wizards who decided to take to some hills that overlook our oceans. Some fifteen to twenty miles off our shore there are two islands, whose silhouettes are easily distinguished. Further out, about sixty miles from our shores, and between these two islands, is a third, larger island. However, despite the higher mountains and larger size of this third island, it is never visible from our beaches. We can reason that, with our ability to see the heavenly stars, that if the earth was flat, and this third island lay in-between the other two, that on clear days we should be able to see it. We find that this is not the case.

The wizard who took to the hills, however, found something intriguing. Upon ascending an extremely high mountain, he found that he could see the third island. Assuming a slight curve in the form of the earth, he demonstrated with tangential lines of sight, that the most probable explanation was that the earth was round—or rather, he corrected me—spherical.

My astronomers supplied a final piece of evidence supporting the idea that the earth is spherical. They noticed that on the occasion that the sun, moon and earth lined up in such a manner that the earth cast a shadow upon the moon, the form of the earth’s shadow took on the form of a circular section.

This first question answered, my wizards next set out to try to measure the circumference of the earth. After some struggling with problems of measurements of distance and time, a pair of them came up with a potential solution. With the help of our expert astronomers, who have been studying the heavens for some time now, my wizards determined a day when the noontime sun would be directly overhead in my kingdom. With this the case, if a stick were planted perfectly perpendicular to the earth, there would be no shadow.

Once the date was determined, we set up three observers each an equal distance apart—say 150 miles, all directly north (or south) of our location. The experiment would not work if the stations were to the west or east since these locations would be along the path of the sun. Each station would have the identical setup of the stick planted perpendicular to the earth. At noon, those attending these latter stations should observe a shadow cast by the stick. We can then use the shadows to figure out the angle of the sun to our second and third locations. We know there are 360 degrees in a circle, and dividing that figure by the estimated angle to the earth should give us an idea of the proportion of each 150-mile stretch to the diameter of the earth.

The calculations are yet to be performed, but I have faith in my wizards that they would provide me with their solution shortly.

Disneyland. I think that many of us have been there at some point in our lives. The wonderfully entertaining characters from our television screens come to life in front of us. Incredible rides swish us through space, seeming to defy gravity. Cotton candy, hot-dogs, soda pop, music, clothing, family entertainment…. I think that it is almost safe to say that this place has it all.

At least it has always seemed to want it all. As far back as the creation of Disney, there have been parodies concerning Disney’s desire to have it all. Al Capp, in his humorous hillbilly comic strip “Lil Abner,” commented in the early years of Disney’s attempt to do the impossible: bring cartoon characters to life. One of these characters was a homely pig, of which there was only one live one left in existence. In his desperate attempt to maximize his profits by exploiting the pig (“Just think how inexpensive it would be to keep the pig!” says Mr. Yapp, the Walt parody, in one of the panels), Mr. Yapp did all he could to steal the pig from its owners—even if this meant tidily “disposing” of them.

So, Disney has it all, and now it wants to take itself everywhere. And by this, I am not referring to other theme parks across the globe. There doesn’t seem to be too many charming pigs out there to exploit with scraps anymore, so that wouldn’t even be feasible. What, then, can Disney do to enhance its bottom line?

It seems like the answer chosen by Disney was becoming a multi-national corporation. (It is a small world, after all). By moving abroad, Disney could be seen as promoting development and industrialization of the third world, providing jobs, providing American consumers with less costly products, and in the process, it can also increase profits.

The following section of this paper will discuss some of the effects of Disney’s production abroad.

“Mickey Mouse Goes to Haiti”¹ (and Gives His Son a Happy Meal Toy)

A common tactic in reducing costs in today’s industrial world is moving production overseas. In times when much of the world was being developed, this made a fair amount of sense. Certain areas of the world had what could be called a “comparative advantage,” for example, in natural resources, which would make them more efficient in producing given commodities.

The “comparative advantage” of foreign countries today can be seen in terms of their policies regarding wages, environmental regulations, working conditions, and such. Pressure from corporations, and desire from the government inside the countries, lead to countries competing among each other in terms of the above mentioned policies.

Disney has taken advantage of these practices and has moved production around the globe to developing areas like Haiti, China, Vietnam, and Thailand. What is the result of such action?

Largely, it affects the bottom line.

Disney is able to contract out garment production to, say a manufacturer in Haiti. This manufacturer in Haiti, in turn, offers Disney a comparative wage of 28 cents an hour. The finished products are shipped back to the United States where they are sold to consumers for a mere $12-$30.² Wages are not the only point of competition. There may also be a given production quota which “forces” manufacturers to engage in such acts as working [forced] overtime to meet the production quotas. No extra benefits are given to the workers for this overtime work.³

Another point of competition for these manufacturers is that they can cut costs to Disney by cutting their own costs. The easiest way to manage this is to cut down the costs of operating in their plants by subjecting workers to poor working conditions. The production factories often do not have adequate ventilation; they have poorly kept restroom facilities; workers are not given free access to these restrooms (they must request permission, and are allotted a certain time limit); workers face harassment by manufacturers; the factories are poorly lit; the majority of the workers are teenage girls.⁴

This raises an important question: What are the workers in Haiti doing about these conditions? They could attempt to unionize, and have done so, but what does this result in?

Since the beginning of September [1997], the management at B.V.F. [a garment manufacturer in Haiti] has fired three workers who were the top officers of the union at the plant: the president, the secretary and the treasurer of the union. They have also made it clear that they intend to continue this campaign of repression and intimidation through additional firings.⁵

Needless to say, these actions by management make it quite discouraging to anyone who wishes to form a union. The argument could follow, from the owners of the manufacturing plant, that they are preserving the interest of the workers by keeping the Disney jobs in Haiti. If there are too many regulations observed, they may [correctly] claim, Disney would likely simply move its production elsewhere and leave these people unemployed—a worse case than being exploited.

The conditions referred to above are not typical to Haiti alone. When we look at Disney production elsewhere, we find the same patterns of exploitation. In Vietnam, where workers are making Disney characters for McDonald’s happy meal toys, workers are earning as little as six cents an hour, 70 hours a week. In a report concerning this factory in Vietnam, an Urgent Action Alert reported the following:

Of the approximately 1000 employees, 90% are young women 17 to 20 years old. Overtime is mandatory: shifts of 9 to 10 hours a day, seven days a week…. Overcome by fatigue and poor ventilation in late February, 200 women fell ill, 25 collapsed and three were hospitalized of acute exposure to acetone [which causes many health problems].⁶

Is Disney to be Blamed? Or are the Manufacturers at Fault?

Blame is a tricky issue at times. Disney, for example, would be inclined to comment that they are doing what they could. They could point to the fact that they have written a code of conduct for manufacturers which clearly states that, “Manufacturers will respect the rights of employees to associate, organize, and bargain collectively in a lawful manner, without penalty or interference,”⁷ and that manufacturers are expected to recognize that “wages are essential to meeting employees basic needs.”⁸ Disney is also likely to point out that they have gone to the trouble to translate this code of conduct into French so that the Haitian population can read it, but does not question where the code is placed.

Certainly the Disney spokesperson, Chuck Champlain, feels he can continue working for Disney with a clear conscience. “The problem is,” he said, “we don’t own the factories; we are dealing with a licensee…. [Using Disney's leverage to require that licensees to pay a living wage would be] an inappropriate use of our authority.”⁹

The Haitian manufacturers could cite the possibility that if Disney observes too much of an uprising in the factories, they would pick up and move out of the area. Thus they are doing what they need to do in order to keep the much needed labor opportunities in Haiti. Further, they would do all they could to deny allegations concerning wages and working conditions (but can’t supply evidence to support their claims).

What did I do as an Activist?

To start with, I think it is important that I point out two characteristics of myself that I am very aware of. First, I am not much of an activist, and I never have been. Second, I am quite an individualist when it comes to work. Neither of these qualities are ones which I should necessarily be particularly proud of.

Although I am not an activist, I do make a conscious effort to make myself as aware of the workings of the world as I can. I do this by reading, taking classes, talking to friends, and, importantly, and listening.

Perhaps that is what offended me most in my experience being an activist: no one seemed to listen. In the four minutes that I was at the Thousand Oaks Mall handing out flyers, I probably offered flyers to about thirty people. Six or so took flyers, one looked it over briefly in my presence and listened to my spiel on development, at which point a mall cop came over and asked to speak to the ringleader. The others who took flyers seemed to glance over it briefly. One man simply asked what we were boycotting, and gave us a thumbs up when we said Disney.

How effective, I sarcastically thought to myself. My heart was thumping. This was more exciting than what I remembered the Disney roller coasters to be like. Did I make any sort of an impact? The old white man that I spoke to seemed shocked at the Vietnam wages I quoted him, but did it interest him enough that he would look for more information? Was my appearance presentable enough that I would strike him as a respectable source of information?

The following day, I wandered around the UCSB library and handed out flyers. I didn’t talk to too many people; most of them seemed too busy. Quite a few looked at the flyer before I gave it to them and said “Oh yeah, I’ve heard about that,” but didn’t take the flyer to look over it. One person at the rear entrance, however, trying to enjoy his cigarette on this rainy Monday, found himself, instead, with having to listen to me talk about Disney and exploitation. At first, he wouldn’t even take the flyer, but I felt at the end of the conversation, and at the point that he went to take a flyer from my hand, that maybe I had affected someone. If anything, it was a test to me of whether it meant enough to me to have a conversation about it with a stranger—and it did.

I also found it hard to pick out whom I would pick as reliable sources of information about Disney labor rights. Along with the campaign against Disney dealing with labor/human rights issues, there is also a movement calling for a boycott of Disney on the grounds of anti-family values arguments, such as Disney’s support of gay rights, and depiction of violence and sexuality in Disney productions. I found many of those sites absolutely gross, and I kept thinking “I hope so bad that no one associates me with these groups for my motivation of a Disney ‘boycott’.” Actually one of my favorite sites was the Six Degrees of Disney site, which was also a dismal site since, if it eventually all comes down to a boycott, this site shows just how difficult it is to boycott someone like Disney.

As I said before, I am unfortunately not much of a group person. I opted to create the flyers on my own in the privacy of my own room, providing everyone gave me their two cents as to what in particular they wanted to see on the flyer. We had just a couple of actual group meetings, which, for some reason, one of our group members was not invited to. For the most part, however, we more or less did individual research towards a common cause and probably got about half the amount of material we could have gotten if we had all worked together. I hate to admit it, but there seemed to be a fair degree of… insignificance, among the members of the group. My girlfriend came along with me to one of the meetings where we were watching the video Mickey Mouse Goes to Haiti for a second time and said to me that it looked like we were all bored.

I don’t know. I think we did well, we meant well, but by no means did we work up to our capacity. And that is a shame to admit.

But at least I am now well informed.

1. The title comes from a video released by the National Labor Committee titled “Mickey Mouse Goes to Haiti.”
2. Ewald, Shawn. Disney Union in Haiti asks For Support. Shawn@wilshire.net
3. Haiti Union Busting source: Kapab@aol.com. September 1997.
4. The title comes from a video released by the National Labor Committee titled “Mickey Mouse Goes to Haiti.”
5. Haiti Union Busting source: Kapab@aol.com. September 1997.
6. Haiti Union Busting source: Kapab@aol.com. September 1997.
7. Disney/Haiti workers threatened published by the Campaign for Labor Rights. clr@igc.apc.org.
8. Haitian Organizers Confirm 150 firings by Disney Contractors. The Campaign for Labor Rights.
9. Mokhiber, Russell. The Ten Worst Corporations of 1996. Found at the National Labor Committee’s web site.