All are welcome!
Showing posts with label World at LUC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World at LUC. Show all posts
Friday, 23 November 2012
12.12.12. philosophy at the end of the world
This year's 'Philosophy in the World' lecture will take place a week before the end of the world, on 12.12.12, becoming LUC's first ever 'Philosophy at the end of the World' lecture. The first two lectures in this series, by Simon Blackburn and then Raymond Geuss, were great successes. This one also promises to be a special event that LUC will share with our colleagues from the Honours College in Leiden and the wider public of The Hague. Hence, the special venue in the city centre: the Nieuwspoort.
Thursday, 27 September 2012
International Day of Peace: LUC Round-Table Discussion
On the 21st
of September the world celebrated the International Day of Peace, a day
dedicated to world peace and the absence of war and violence, a day which conforms
perfectly to LUC’s profile of global challenges. LUC could of course not miss the opportunity
to dedicate some time and effort to this important day. Therefore, a round
table discussion on peace education was held at LUC, for peace education is
perhaps one of the most profound, bottom-up ways of building towards a more
peaceful future. But can peace education really make a change in the world, besides
just giving us a good and warm feeling inside?
Four experts shone their light on the different aspects, levels and concerns of
peace education. They are all experienced in different sides of peace education
and gave therefore a very diverse insight to the subject. The panel consisted
of Lieke Scheewe, student and activist at the development NGO Light for the
World, Jenny Gillet, Curriculum Manager at International Baccalaureate, Prof.
Lennart Vriens, Professor of Peace Education at SIFE University College
Utrecht, and Mrs. Iona Ebben, Trainer and Research Fellow at the Clingendael
Institute. Different topics were discussed, e.g. whether peace education can
lead to world peace and the way in which peace education is implemented in
policy making. Active engagement with
the public gave rise to an interesting interaction between personal experiences
and peace educational ideals.
'World peace starts from within' seems to be a hackneyed ideal to which peace
education is implicitly connected. Building world peace is often not as simple
as that. Of course, peace education itself cannot suddenly transform every
single human being into a peaceful, world-loving creature. It can, however,
provide the necessary infrastructure in which each individual can move itself towards
a more peaceful future. A quote mentioned during the round table discussion
that is very suitable and self-explaining in this matter is the following one
by Martin Luther King Jr.: 'Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but
a means by which we arrive at that goal.' The participants in the round table discussion
agreed that this is a very important and relevant idea when it comes to the aim
of peace education. Peace education should not be impersonally, drily given
information about war, violence and peace, i.e. a distant and unknown stream of
facts that goes in at one ear and out at the other. Neither should peace
education be an overload of too idealistic, peace-loving, universal happiness
celebrating messages that people just do not buy. The approach of peace
education should be in the middle of these two extremes, enabling people to
think for themselves in a critical way about the world around them and to look
beyond cultural boundaries and biased media.
An additional aspect of the round table discussion which was rather interesting
from an LUC student’s perspective was the way in which peace education is
practiced on different levels and how it plays an essential role on each of
them. The spectrum of peace education, about which the expert panel talked,
ranges from primary school to diplomatic training and everything in between and
beyond. What struck me most was how peace education is of major importance on
all those different levels and how we should never stop learning and reminding
ourselves about it, for peace does not establish itself without any effort. It
should constantly be rebuilt collectively.
Hence, we as LUC students, with our futures in front of ourselves, bound to end
up in diverse places throughout the world, should never forget this importance.
We should always keep reminding ourselves that peace is not a goal we strive for,
but a means to get there.
By Emiel Coltof, LUC Class of 2015
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
LUC agreement with UN University for Peace
LUC The Hague is delighted and proud to announce the completion of an agreement with UPEACE and the Alliance for Peace. Recognizing the synergies between the missions of the institutions, this agreement will enable each party to develop new collaborative teaching and research capacities in the area of Peace & Conflict Studies.
On 26 June 2012, the dean of LUC The Hague, the rector of the UN-mandated University for Peace (UPEACE), and the chairman of the UPEACE Alliance signed a Memorandum of Understanding that allows for the joint development of educational programmes. In the first instance, the agreement enables LUC to offer a new track in Peace & Conflict Studies in its innovative BA programme, in cooperation with the new UPEACE Centre in The Hague, based in the Peace Palace.
In the future, the main UPEACE campus in Costa Rica and LUC The Hague will also work towards the development of collaborative programmes at the graduate level. The two institutions signed a separate agreement with that intent, and we should look forward to seeing developments in this area soon.
:
Chris Goto-Jones (LUC), John Maresca (UPEACE), Marius Enthoven (Alliance)
Signing the MoU in LUC's boardroom
Chris Goto-Jones (LUC) and John Maresca (UPEACE) complete the agreement
Monday, 25 June 2012
DAI Triumph!
Building on the success of last year’s poster conference, emerging out of the core course, Designing Academic Inquiry, this year’s students did a fantastic job of raising the bar even higher.Whilst last year’s conference focussed on issues of direct relevance to the city of The Hague itself (+Public transportation +Healthcare +Recycling and waste management +Sporting and leisure facilities +Museums and cultural provisions +Parks and open public spaces), this year’s took a broader, global perspective on questions of environmental sustainability.
Building on the success of last year’s poster conference, emerging out of the core course, Designing Academic Inquiry, this year’s students did a fantastic job of raising the bar even higher.Whilst last year’s conference focussed on issues of direct relevance to the city of The Hague itself (+Public transportation +Healthcare +Recycling and waste management +Sporting and leisure facilities +Museums and cultural provisions +Parks and open public spaces), this year’s took a broader, global perspective on questions of environmental sustainability.
A very effective device on this poster was the use of a mirror in the screen of a laptop, to suggest that the audience was always and already a participant in the issue.
Other groups tackled more familiar materials, such as cotton, copper, water, rubber and wood, albeit with equally provocative and powerful messages.
In the end, as last year, our poster conference was honoured by the presence of the alderman for education of the city of The Hague, Ingrid van Engelshoven, who answered questions about the various ways in which the city is committed to environmental sustainability, and she asked LUC to prepare some policy recommendations for the city based on the work done for this conference.
Many congratulations to all the students and staff involved in making this second Designing Academic Inquiry poster conference such a success. As last year, it was extremely impressive to see what students can achieve even after such a short period at LUC.
With admiration,
Chris (the dean)
Friday, 18 November 2011
Indigenous Heritage and Human Rights by Maarten Jansen
A few weeks ago, some of us had the privilege to listen to Professor Maarten Jansen speak as part of the visiting Lecture series. His lecture on indigenous heritage and human rights was highly interesting, however it provoked some questions.
To give a short summary of his talk, Professor Jansen started his lecture by investigating what exactly was meant by the term “indigenous peoples” before moving on to looking at the various stereotypes that have typified representations of Indigenous groups throughout Central America (i.e. ‘Cannibals’, ‘Human Sacrifice’ and ‘the Noble Savage’). After this introduction, Professor Jansen used these historical points to introduce his opinions on the current situation of indigenous groups and their struggles for rights and recognition in Mesoamerica. He stated that the importance of indigenous ‘participation’ in larger society rather than ‘integration’ was a vital change in policy needed in the struggle for indigenous rights and mentions examples of the changing status of indigenous rights throughout the world (e.g. The 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples). Moving on to the idea of the ‘endangered heritage’ of indigenous people, Jansen mentions the fact that it is estimated that of the 7000 languages currently spoken in the world, six thousand will most likely be lost by the end of the century. Not only that but, most of those six thousand are actually already considered ‘extinct’, or to rephrase Maarten Jansen, it is like a species of animal who, though the last specimen is still alive, has lost the ability to reproduce and is as such ‘extinct’.
Jansen further outlined how since the Spaniards ‘discovered’ the Americas, Ancient artifacts belonging to the Indigenous peoples have been brought to Europe and the ‘western’ world (naming as an example the famous ‘Crown of Moctezuma’ which currently resides in a museum in Vienna). He stated that the indigenous peoples whose culture these artifacts belong to contend that “Why should ‘they’ have all the benefits while it is the work of ‘our’ ancestors?”
Professor Jansen then moved on to his personal work in the field with indigenous communities, using both the returning of artifacts to indigenous groups and the risk of the loss, or ‘extinction’ of culture to validate one project he has been working on, namely the ‘teaching’ of Mixtec culture and language to Mixtec Indigenous peoples. Using his background in Archaeology and in particular, his expertise on the interpretation of Mixtec pictorial manuscripts, Professor Jansen goes to Mixtec Indigenous communities and works together with the people there to ‘interpret’ artifacts of Ancient Mixtec culture in order to maintain the culture and language of the area. Here I must critique his method as serious issues arrive when considering the ‘teaching’ of culture.
Professor Jansen stated that ‘we’, here he meant of course western society and in particular himself, are able to understand, and thus teach about, Mixtec pictorial manuscripts as accurate ‘dictionaries’ exist which provide translations of the pictorial manuscripts. These dictionaries however were written by the Spanish conquerors of the area and as such provide only an interpretation of what the Spanish conquerors thought the meaning of the pictographs were. This of course means that the very translations which Jansen is basing his teachings on are simply the ‘western’ perspective of the meaning of those manuscripts. Thus Jansen is in fact not maintaining the Mixtec culture by instructing Mixtec people about the manuscripts but he is fact influencing their culture by teaching it to them from a western perspective. When I brought up this issue with Professor Jansen, he admitted that this was a cause for concern and his counter argument was that he worked together with the local people in his work in order to improve the accuracy of the translations.
Though I personally believe in the fact that culture must be preserved it must also be taken into consideration that the culture that Jansen instructs about in fact no longer exists because the ancient Mixtec culture of 500 years ago has developed since colonisation to become what it is today. Jansen seem to imply in his lecture that he was ‘reviving’ a culture and language --however he is teaching the history of a culture to its descendants. That is of course a valuable thing to do as knowledge of the history of one’s ancestry is important, but I think that the work that Jansen does in Mixtec communities cannot be seen as the ‘revival’ of a culture, simply the investigation of the history of a culture.
The lecture by Professor Jansen thus brought up a variety of interesting questions in us as an audience. In particular the question as to whether the ‘teaching’ of an indigenous culture to its descendants is useful was an interesting point to contemplate as the question of western involvement in indigenous communities is of course one of great contention.
Jori Nanninga
BA 1
To give a short summary of his talk, Professor Jansen started his lecture by investigating what exactly was meant by the term “indigenous peoples” before moving on to looking at the various stereotypes that have typified representations of Indigenous groups throughout Central America (i.e. ‘Cannibals’, ‘Human Sacrifice’ and ‘the Noble Savage’). After this introduction, Professor Jansen used these historical points to introduce his opinions on the current situation of indigenous groups and their struggles for rights and recognition in Mesoamerica. He stated that the importance of indigenous ‘participation’ in larger society rather than ‘integration’ was a vital change in policy needed in the struggle for indigenous rights and mentions examples of the changing status of indigenous rights throughout the world (e.g. The 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples). Moving on to the idea of the ‘endangered heritage’ of indigenous people, Jansen mentions the fact that it is estimated that of the 7000 languages currently spoken in the world, six thousand will most likely be lost by the end of the century. Not only that but, most of those six thousand are actually already considered ‘extinct’, or to rephrase Maarten Jansen, it is like a species of animal who, though the last specimen is still alive, has lost the ability to reproduce and is as such ‘extinct’.
Jansen further outlined how since the Spaniards ‘discovered’ the Americas, Ancient artifacts belonging to the Indigenous peoples have been brought to Europe and the ‘western’ world (naming as an example the famous ‘Crown of Moctezuma’ which currently resides in a museum in Vienna). He stated that the indigenous peoples whose culture these artifacts belong to contend that “Why should ‘they’ have all the benefits while it is the work of ‘our’ ancestors?”
Professor Jansen then moved on to his personal work in the field with indigenous communities, using both the returning of artifacts to indigenous groups and the risk of the loss, or ‘extinction’ of culture to validate one project he has been working on, namely the ‘teaching’ of Mixtec culture and language to Mixtec Indigenous peoples. Using his background in Archaeology and in particular, his expertise on the interpretation of Mixtec pictorial manuscripts, Professor Jansen goes to Mixtec Indigenous communities and works together with the people there to ‘interpret’ artifacts of Ancient Mixtec culture in order to maintain the culture and language of the area. Here I must critique his method as serious issues arrive when considering the ‘teaching’ of culture.
Professor Jansen stated that ‘we’, here he meant of course western society and in particular himself, are able to understand, and thus teach about, Mixtec pictorial manuscripts as accurate ‘dictionaries’ exist which provide translations of the pictorial manuscripts. These dictionaries however were written by the Spanish conquerors of the area and as such provide only an interpretation of what the Spanish conquerors thought the meaning of the pictographs were. This of course means that the very translations which Jansen is basing his teachings on are simply the ‘western’ perspective of the meaning of those manuscripts. Thus Jansen is in fact not maintaining the Mixtec culture by instructing Mixtec people about the manuscripts but he is fact influencing their culture by teaching it to them from a western perspective. When I brought up this issue with Professor Jansen, he admitted that this was a cause for concern and his counter argument was that he worked together with the local people in his work in order to improve the accuracy of the translations.
Though I personally believe in the fact that culture must be preserved it must also be taken into consideration that the culture that Jansen instructs about in fact no longer exists because the ancient Mixtec culture of 500 years ago has developed since colonisation to become what it is today. Jansen seem to imply in his lecture that he was ‘reviving’ a culture and language --however he is teaching the history of a culture to its descendants. That is of course a valuable thing to do as knowledge of the history of one’s ancestry is important, but I think that the work that Jansen does in Mixtec communities cannot be seen as the ‘revival’ of a culture, simply the investigation of the history of a culture.
The lecture by Professor Jansen thus brought up a variety of interesting questions in us as an audience. In particular the question as to whether the ‘teaching’ of an indigenous culture to its descendants is useful was an interesting point to contemplate as the question of western involvement in indigenous communities is of course one of great contention.
Jori Nanninga
BA 1
Friday, 20 May 2011
Party at the end of the world/year
Dear students,
There's so much to say about the last year (the first year) of LUC, but there was no time to say it at our Finishing-Line party a couple of nights ago. Actually, there was time, but there was too much alcohol and too much noise for anyone to make sense of anything any of us were saying ... so, instead, I thought I'd pen a little something here.
The first thing to say is this: wow!
And the second thing, which is a slight expansion of the first, is this: well done!
I mean these things in various and complicated ways. The most obvious (but certainly not the least important) is simply to observe how much you have all accomplished over the last year. LUC has risen from nothing into a thriving and exciting community of learning since last summer -- you have built it through your toil and tears and laughter, and you should be incredibly proud of what you have done. I am certainly proud of you ... well, of most of you ;) It has been wonderful to watch how you have taken on this challenge.
On another level, it's also just fantastic to see how many of you are still here! It has been a very intense ride; there has been a lot of work, a lot of arguing, scheming, debating and structuring, a lot of playing (maybe not enough playing), and not a lot of sleeping. But you are still here, and (most of you) still smiling. It's very inspiring for me to see how you have all drawn energy from your own activities and from the satisfaction of expending all your energy on building something worthwhile.
Some of you will recall something I said at the (unofficial) opening of the college last summer, when I told you to take your responsibilities at LUC seriously, because you were all specially selected to be here, and because your being here means that other people (who wanted to be here) were not. Well, you're still here, and I am unspeakably proud of the way you have honoured your responsibilities this year.
In other words, you have not only survived but thrived. In some intensive institutions, like Cambridge University, where I did my undergraduate work, the end of year events are sometimes called the 'Survivor's Ball.' This term usually refers to the fact that you've made it through the exam-hell at the end of term ... or sometimes to the fact that you're still conscious for the group photo at end of the ball. At LUC this year, though, the idea of survival has a more profound meaning: it reminds me of the ideas about challenge, violence, bloodshed, toil, change and tears that we discussed right at the start of the year, when we watched Apocalypse Now as the Dean's Choice movie. Oh, the horror, the horror …
While I don't want to claim that you have survived the apocalypse this year at LUC (!), I also don't want to diminish the sense of our having confronted some angels and daemons together. And, most importantly, I want to spare a little thought for the Greek origins of the term apocalypse, which refers to the idea of revelation or of lifting the veil of ignorance. The apocalypse reveals a process that discloses something hidden or profound in a time or context of ignorance, misperception, or falsehood. In other words, like the virtual, architectural tram-ride that was built by one of the teams for the Designing Academic Inquiry poster conference, the apocalypse is a trial and a process that leads to enlightenment (or a horrible death ... but we're all survivors!).
So, we began the year rather ominously with Apocalypse Now, and we end here, on the way to enlightenment, ready for something new to begin after the end of the world (of the first year of LUC). I can’t wait to see what the next year will bring, and I’m excited to know what a post-apocalyptic LUC might look like!
Meanwhile, there are a few people I’d like to thank for their help, industry and enthusiasm this year, without which we would not have made it through in such a spectacular way. In some ways, I could say this of all of you, but there are some particular people who should be recognised.
The first group is the board of our shiny new student association (which became a legal association on Monday of this week), Fortuna. The members of this board, under the sagely guidance of our first ever student president, Flip, have worked extremely hard and accomplished so much, not only organizing so many great events and processes, but also actually creating the association from scratch. My thanks to Flip and his team: Stefan, Sanne, Marc, Georgina, Marline, and Laurens (and also thanks for the sweat-shirt!).
Instead of listing names of other individuals (who will receive a letter from me in the summer), I’d also like to give special thanks to those students who organized reading groups, those on the Housing Committee, those who organized the Amnesty Benefit activities, the inter-UC sports tournament, the Act Aware events, the Current Affairs evening, the Pax Magazine, the Debating Union and the World Foresight conference. You have all brought something special and valuable to LUC, and you have my gratitude and admiration.
I wish you all a sunny and rejuvenating break, and look forward to welcoming you all back again, together with a whole new year of students, at the end of the summer.
Cheers and beers,
Chris (the dean)
There's so much to say about the last year (the first year) of LUC, but there was no time to say it at our Finishing-Line party a couple of nights ago. Actually, there was time, but there was too much alcohol and too much noise for anyone to make sense of anything any of us were saying ... so, instead, I thought I'd pen a little something here.
The first thing to say is this: wow!
And the second thing, which is a slight expansion of the first, is this: well done!
I mean these things in various and complicated ways. The most obvious (but certainly not the least important) is simply to observe how much you have all accomplished over the last year. LUC has risen from nothing into a thriving and exciting community of learning since last summer -- you have built it through your toil and tears and laughter, and you should be incredibly proud of what you have done. I am certainly proud of you ... well, of most of you ;) It has been wonderful to watch how you have taken on this challenge.
On another level, it's also just fantastic to see how many of you are still here! It has been a very intense ride; there has been a lot of work, a lot of arguing, scheming, debating and structuring, a lot of playing (maybe not enough playing), and not a lot of sleeping. But you are still here, and (most of you) still smiling. It's very inspiring for me to see how you have all drawn energy from your own activities and from the satisfaction of expending all your energy on building something worthwhile.
Some of you will recall something I said at the (unofficial) opening of the college last summer, when I told you to take your responsibilities at LUC seriously, because you were all specially selected to be here, and because your being here means that other people (who wanted to be here) were not. Well, you're still here, and I am unspeakably proud of the way you have honoured your responsibilities this year.
In other words, you have not only survived but thrived. In some intensive institutions, like Cambridge University, where I did my undergraduate work, the end of year events are sometimes called the 'Survivor's Ball.' This term usually refers to the fact that you've made it through the exam-hell at the end of term ... or sometimes to the fact that you're still conscious for the group photo at end of the ball. At LUC this year, though, the idea of survival has a more profound meaning: it reminds me of the ideas about challenge, violence, bloodshed, toil, change and tears that we discussed right at the start of the year, when we watched Apocalypse Now as the Dean's Choice movie. Oh, the horror, the horror …
While I don't want to claim that you have survived the apocalypse this year at LUC (!), I also don't want to diminish the sense of our having confronted some angels and daemons together. And, most importantly, I want to spare a little thought for the Greek origins of the term apocalypse, which refers to the idea of revelation or of lifting the veil of ignorance. The apocalypse reveals a process that discloses something hidden or profound in a time or context of ignorance, misperception, or falsehood. In other words, like the virtual, architectural tram-ride that was built by one of the teams for the Designing Academic Inquiry poster conference, the apocalypse is a trial and a process that leads to enlightenment (or a horrible death ... but we're all survivors!).
So, we began the year rather ominously with Apocalypse Now, and we end here, on the way to enlightenment, ready for something new to begin after the end of the world (of the first year of LUC). I can’t wait to see what the next year will bring, and I’m excited to know what a post-apocalyptic LUC might look like!
Meanwhile, there are a few people I’d like to thank for their help, industry and enthusiasm this year, without which we would not have made it through in such a spectacular way. In some ways, I could say this of all of you, but there are some particular people who should be recognised.
The first group is the board of our shiny new student association (which became a legal association on Monday of this week), Fortuna. The members of this board, under the sagely guidance of our first ever student president, Flip, have worked extremely hard and accomplished so much, not only organizing so many great events and processes, but also actually creating the association from scratch. My thanks to Flip and his team: Stefan, Sanne, Marc, Georgina, Marline, and Laurens (and also thanks for the sweat-shirt!).
Instead of listing names of other individuals (who will receive a letter from me in the summer), I’d also like to give special thanks to those students who organized reading groups, those on the Housing Committee, those who organized the Amnesty Benefit activities, the inter-UC sports tournament, the Act Aware events, the Current Affairs evening, the Pax Magazine, the Debating Union and the World Foresight conference. You have all brought something special and valuable to LUC, and you have my gratitude and admiration.
I wish you all a sunny and rejuvenating break, and look forward to welcoming you all back again, together with a whole new year of students, at the end of the summer.
Cheers and beers,
Chris (the dean)
Thursday, 12 May 2011
LUC poster boys (and girls)
+Public transportation
+Healthcare
+Recycling and waste management
+Sporting and leisure facilities
+Museums and cultural provisions
+Parks and open public spaces
Congratulations to the students on this fantastic accomplishment – I’m impressed and proud of you all!
Posted by Chris (the dean)
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Three hundred and forty-six
Accused as ‘slacktivism’, a feel-good type of activism, by a student (who, might I say, never took up the offer of explanation or discussion) I’d like to remind all those who did participate in the recent Amnesty Letter Writing Campaign that their efforts weren’t in vain. Yes, they did contributed to a wonderful and entertaining evening in the LUC Common Room, but let us also not forget the impact and support oppressed families around the world will experience upon the arrival of hundreds of letters of support.
The recent turbulent events in North Africa and the Middle East have shown how people and ideas can be empowered by the use of mass media, essentially shedding light on the immense power of the propagation of words. History has shown how the impact of people writing letters can be enormous too, and thus also play major role in ensuring justice is done.
Since Amnesty International’s earliest days in the 1960s, letter writing has been an integral part of the campaign for demanding human rights and the release of political prisoners. Hundreds of prisoners have been freed due a continuous stream of letters from Amnesty members calling for the respect of human rights, as well as voicing their support for political prisoners.
And letter writing is exactly what LUC students undertook last Monday night. Starting at 22:00 and going all the way through to 04:00, a dedicated group comprising of roughly half the College gave their time, creativity and ink to Write for Rights. Besides formal letters to politicians and diplomats (regarding the detainment of Burmese political prisoners and the exploitation of illegal immigrants in Malaysia), students settled down in the Common Room and feverishly wrote notes of support and encouragement to a host of political prisoners and human rights NGOs. As the night progressed and the impressive pile of filled envelopes grew, various musical performers, litres of hot drinks and snacks drove the group to produce letters of praise, poems and drawings.
Throughout the night a humanitarian-focused movie was shown, students performed a preview of the LUC play, some sang or DJed, while others contributed lame dance moves during their letter writing breaks. The buzzing atmosphere and insane amounts of sugary snacks kept everyone in high spirits, while friendly (and completely beneficial) competition saw students such as Limo Baroud and Sarah-Louise Todd write non-stop for the whole six hours. These latter two students produced a spectacular 106 letters between them. If anyone were ever entitled to a hand massage, or possesses these skills, please look no further than these two!
Slashing all expectations, 04:00 saw a considerably large group bearing down into the depths of the box with letters, two last students calling out from the other side of the room that they were ‘nearly done! Just two more! Please! Give me a few more minutes!’ With great pride we’d like to announce that a total of 346 letters were written over the course of 6 hours and 49 students.
Due to LUC students’ incredible effort we are sending letters of protest and support over the whole world this week. So whether you are a true believer of blog-driven revolutions or more cautious about the power of the spread of words, your commitment to take action through words on Monday night is truly appreciated, and on behalf of SAIM The Hague we would like to say: thank you thank you thank you, and we are so proud of all of you who participated.
Cecilia Diemont, 1st Year Student, LUC, Co-Chair of SAIM (Student Amnesty Int. Movement)
A big thank you also goes to those students who attended the Amnesty Training Day on Wednesday. Through a very interactive and informative session led by two regional Amnesty employers, members of SAIM learnt vital information about Amnesty’s founding, the structure of the organization, worldwide membership and brainstormed for ideas for campaigns in the future. To Marianne and Naomi—thank you for coming down to visit and inspire us, and we will keep you updated on our activities!
Since Amnesty International’s earliest days in the 1960s, letter writing has been an integral part of the campaign for demanding human rights and the release of political prisoners. Hundreds of prisoners have been freed due a continuous stream of letters from Amnesty members calling for the respect of human rights, as well as voicing their support for political prisoners.
And letter writing is exactly what LUC students undertook last Monday night. Starting at 22:00 and going all the way through to 04:00, a dedicated group comprising of roughly half the College gave their time, creativity and ink to Write for Rights. Besides formal letters to politicians and diplomats (regarding the detainment of Burmese political prisoners and the exploitation of illegal immigrants in Malaysia), students settled down in the Common Room and feverishly wrote notes of support and encouragement to a host of political prisoners and human rights NGOs. As the night progressed and the impressive pile of filled envelopes grew, various musical performers, litres of hot drinks and snacks drove the group to produce letters of praise, poems and drawings.Throughout the night a humanitarian-focused movie was shown, students performed a preview of the LUC play, some sang or DJed, while others contributed lame dance moves during their letter writing breaks. The buzzing atmosphere and insane amounts of sugary snacks kept everyone in high spirits, while friendly (and completely beneficial) competition saw students such as Limo Baroud and Sarah-Louise Todd write non-stop for the whole six hours. These latter two students produced a spectacular 106 letters between them. If anyone were ever entitled to a hand massage, or possesses these skills, please look no further than these two!
Due to LUC students’ incredible effort we are sending letters of protest and support over the whole world this week. So whether you are a true believer of blog-driven revolutions or more cautious about the power of the spread of words, your commitment to take action through words on Monday night is truly appreciated, and on behalf of SAIM The Hague we would like to say: thank you thank you thank you, and we are so proud of all of you who participated.
Cecilia Diemont, 1st Year Student, LUC, Co-Chair of SAIM (Student Amnesty Int. Movement)
A big thank you also goes to those students who attended the Amnesty Training Day on Wednesday. Through a very interactive and informative session led by two regional Amnesty employers, members of SAIM learnt vital information about Amnesty’s founding, the structure of the organization, worldwide membership and brainstormed for ideas for campaigns in the future. To Marianne and Naomi—thank you for coming down to visit and inspire us, and we will keep you updated on our activities!
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Courageous men and women
'Courageous men and women had for many decades defied state terror... Today they are joined by the masses'
Listen to Dr Elizabeth Kassab
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2011/02/110228_kassab.shtml
Dr Kassab is the author of Contemporary Arab Thought: Cultural Critique in Comparative Perspective published by Columbia University Press.
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14488-9/contemporary-arab-thought
For a review of Dr Kassab's book, see
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-levant&month=1009&week=e&msg=opEoQuUesNZ2g9dx4PWyCw&user=&pw=
Thomas Bundschuh
Listen to Dr Elizabeth Kassab
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2011/02/110228_kassab.shtml
Dr Kassab is the author of Contemporary Arab Thought: Cultural Critique in Comparative Perspective published by Columbia University Press.
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14488-9/contemporary-arab-thought
For a review of Dr Kassab's book, see
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-levant&month=1009&week=e&msg=opEoQuUesNZ2g9dx4PWyCw&user=&pw=
Thomas Bundschuh
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Let us pause
“The horrible and heartbreaking events in Japan present a strange concatenation of disasters”, writes Jonathan Schell in his article From Hiroshima to Fukushima. “First, the planet unleashed one of its primordial shocks, an earthquake, of a magnitude greater than any previously recorded in Japan. The earthquake, in turn, created the colossal tsunami, which, when it struck the country’s northeastern shores, pulverized everything in its path, forming a filthy wave made of mud, cars, buildings, houses, airplanes and other debris. In part because the earthquake had just lowered the level of the land by two feet, the wave rolled as far as six miles inland, killing thousands of people.
In a stupefying demonstration of its power, as the New York Times has reported, the earthquake moved parts of Japan thirteen feet eastward, slightly shifted the earth’s axis and actually shortened each day that passes on earth, if only infinitesimally (by 1.8 milliseconds).”
Yet, as Schell observes, “this was not all. Another shock soon followed.” Schell then draws our attention to the “chain of events at the [Fukushima] reactors now running out of control” – events that provide “a case history of the underlying mismatch between human nature and the force we imagine we can control.” Read more at TheNation.com
Jonathan Schell is the Doris M. Shaffer Fellow at The Nation Institute and teaches a course on the nuclear dilemma at Yale University. He is the author of The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence and the Will of the People, an analysis of people power, and The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger.
Thomas Bundschuh
In a stupefying demonstration of its power, as the New York Times has reported, the earthquake moved parts of Japan thirteen feet eastward, slightly shifted the earth’s axis and actually shortened each day that passes on earth, if only infinitesimally (by 1.8 milliseconds).”
Yet, as Schell observes, “this was not all. Another shock soon followed.” Schell then draws our attention to the “chain of events at the [Fukushima] reactors now running out of control” – events that provide “a case history of the underlying mismatch between human nature and the force we imagine we can control.” Read more at TheNation.com
Jonathan Schell is the Doris M. Shaffer Fellow at The Nation Institute and teaches a course on the nuclear dilemma at Yale University. He is the author of The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence and the Will of the People, an analysis of people power, and The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger.
Thomas Bundschuh
Recovery from mass trauma
“The recent 9.0-magnitude earthquake in Japan and the devastating tsunami that followed are likely to lead to widespread mental health problems in survivors”, writes Professor of Psychiatry and trauma expert, Metin Basoglu, in his blog on Mass Trauma, Human Rights & Mental Health. Based on his research with earthquake survivors in Turkey, Professor Basoglu estimates that more than 50% of people with high levels of exposure to traumatic events may require treatment. Such a high rate of exposure, he notes, “can be attributed to mainly 3 types of stressor events experienced by the Japanese people: (1) earthquake tremors, including the initial major shock and the aftershocks, (2) the devastating impact of the tsunami, and (3) threat of exposure to radiation from damaged nuclear plants.” Basoglu also points to possible economic, social and political consequences if traumatic stress reactions are left untreated. For a more detailed assessment of the psychological toll of the disaster in Japan, see Professor Basoglu’s blog on Mass Trauma, Human Rights & Mental Health.
In a recently published book – A Mental Healthcare Model for Mass Trauma Survivors: Control–Focused Behavioral Treatment of Earthquake, War, and Torture Trauma – Martin Basoglu and Ebru Salcioglu bring together 20 years of experience with disaster survivors. The volume offers an evidence-based mental health care model for mass trauma survivors. Critically, the book not only contains a treatment delivery manual for professional and lay therapists but also a highly structured self-help manual designed to help survivors administer the treatment by themselves.
Metin Basoglu, MD, PhD is Professor of Psychiatry / Head of Trauma Studies at the Institute of Psychiatry of King’s College London and Director of the Istanbul Center for Behavior Research and Therapy (ICBRT / DABATEM) in Turkey.
Thomas Bundschuh
In a recently published book – A Mental Healthcare Model for Mass Trauma Survivors: Control–Focused Behavioral Treatment of Earthquake, War, and Torture Trauma – Martin Basoglu and Ebru Salcioglu bring together 20 years of experience with disaster survivors. The volume offers an evidence-based mental health care model for mass trauma survivors. Critically, the book not only contains a treatment delivery manual for professional and lay therapists but also a highly structured self-help manual designed to help survivors administer the treatment by themselves.
Thomas Bundschuh
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Art as a salve for suffering
From the Asashi Shimbun 23/03/11, by YUSUKE TAKATSU
Japanese artists sprang into action this month, creating a series of works online to comfort those affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake.
Even though art may not be able to keep the cold out, or stave off hunger, it can be a source of emotional support and encouragement. Some of Japan's top artists asked themselves what they could do to make a difference, and wisely decided to play to their strengths.
Manga artist Takehiko Inoue, best known for "Slam Dunk" and "Vagabond," had been posting a series of illustrations under the title "Smile," on Twitter for some time.
But on March 12, a day after the mega-quake struck, Inoue posted an illustration of a boy, titled "Smile 34," on the site, along with a tweet that read, "I pray." It was followed by a series of light-hearted drawings featuring smiling boys, an elderly man and a dog. He also drew boys wearing T-shirts printed with the names of the stricken areas, such as "Miyagi" and "Fukushima."
Takehiko Inoue: A boy pledges support to one of the affected areas with his T-shirt. ((c) I.T. Planning, Inc.)
Inoue has been prolific, uploading 50 drawings in just five days. He also decided to produce an exclusive set of 16 postcards and to donate the profits to relief efforts.
"It's important to carry on working as normal, and what I am doing is nothing more than that," Inoue wrote on Twitter.
Moyoco Anno, whose "Ochibisan" manga strip has been running in The Asahi Shimbun's lifestyle section, started posting her illustrations for quake victims on her blog from March 13. The newspaper has put her strip on hold due to its extended coverage of the disaster.
Anno wanted to encourage and spur on those affected by the quake, and her cheerful drawings reflect that. In one drawing, the Ochibisan characters wave pompoms. In another a character runs across the frame holding a flag with the message: "Let's do our best!"
"People in the disaster-stricken areas probably can't see (the illustrations) now," Anno said. "But I'm drawing these in hope that they may somehow reach the eyes of people who have been looking forward to reading my 'Ochibisan' every week."
A sprout gives Moyoco Anno's trio hope. ((c) Moyoco Anno)
Internationally acclaimed pop artist Takashi Murakami took to Twitter to encourage artists to post their illustrations to support relief efforts for survivors.
Murakami sponsors the art fair "Geisai," which was supposed to begin on March 13, but has now been postponed due to the massive earthquake. He asked artists who were preparing to submit their works to the fair to instead submit to his "newday" project, based around the theme of: "There will always be tomorrow. The sun will rise again."
One of the illustrations shows friends gathered together in a scrum. Murakami also uploaded two self-portraits, one of which shows him screaming, and the other in tears.
"In a sense, art can be seen as impotent and meaningless from society's view of what is valuable," Murakami commented. "But I think that we may be able to communicate something, like hope, through the power of art," he added.
A tearful Murakami comforts himself with the message, "The day of hope will come!!" (Provided by Takashi Murakami)
Japanese artists sprang into action this month, creating a series of works online to comfort those affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake.
Even though art may not be able to keep the cold out, or stave off hunger, it can be a source of emotional support and encouragement. Some of Japan's top artists asked themselves what they could do to make a difference, and wisely decided to play to their strengths.
Manga artist Takehiko Inoue, best known for "Slam Dunk" and "Vagabond," had been posting a series of illustrations under the title "Smile," on Twitter for some time.
But on March 12, a day after the mega-quake struck, Inoue posted an illustration of a boy, titled "Smile 34," on the site, along with a tweet that read, "I pray." It was followed by a series of light-hearted drawings featuring smiling boys, an elderly man and a dog. He also drew boys wearing T-shirts printed with the names of the stricken areas, such as "Miyagi" and "Fukushima."
Inoue has been prolific, uploading 50 drawings in just five days. He also decided to produce an exclusive set of 16 postcards and to donate the profits to relief efforts.
"It's important to carry on working as normal, and what I am doing is nothing more than that," Inoue wrote on Twitter.
Moyoco Anno, whose "Ochibisan" manga strip has been running in The Asahi Shimbun's lifestyle section, started posting her illustrations for quake victims on her blog from March 13. The newspaper has put her strip on hold due to its extended coverage of the disaster.
Anno wanted to encourage and spur on those affected by the quake, and her cheerful drawings reflect that. In one drawing, the Ochibisan characters wave pompoms. In another a character runs across the frame holding a flag with the message: "Let's do our best!"
"People in the disaster-stricken areas probably can't see (the illustrations) now," Anno said. "But I'm drawing these in hope that they may somehow reach the eyes of people who have been looking forward to reading my 'Ochibisan' every week."
Internationally acclaimed pop artist Takashi Murakami took to Twitter to encourage artists to post their illustrations to support relief efforts for survivors.
Murakami sponsors the art fair "Geisai," which was supposed to begin on March 13, but has now been postponed due to the massive earthquake. He asked artists who were preparing to submit their works to the fair to instead submit to his "newday" project, based around the theme of: "There will always be tomorrow. The sun will rise again."
One of the illustrations shows friends gathered together in a scrum. Murakami also uploaded two self-portraits, one of which shows him screaming, and the other in tears.
"In a sense, art can be seen as impotent and meaningless from society's view of what is valuable," Murakami commented. "But I think that we may be able to communicate something, like hope, through the power of art," he added.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Moral calculus
It is a truism that disasters bring out the best and the worst in people.
I tend to believe that most people sustain a basic level of compassion for each other, even for those they have never met or those who live at great distances of separation, whether such separations are social, economic, cultural or simply geographical. This is not to say that I am unaware of the existence of unpleasant or even genuinely evil people. In general, however, I have faith that such people are in the minority. And I think there is good evidence that my optimism is a kind of realism, which I mean in full consciousness of the ambiguity of the term ‘realism’ and hence the multifarious motivations that could undergird acts of compassion and charity.
A number of years ago I visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Museum, which was constructed in 1954 in the ruins of what was once the bustling business district of Hiroshima before the atomic bomb destroyed the city and so many lives. The museum has gone through a number of different iterations as the Japanese and the rest of the world struggle to come to terms with how to remember such unbelievable and unspeakable horror. By the time I visited, however, the museum was a moving and even harrowing experience, with most of the controversial political issues exorcised from its displays (which itself was controversial, of course). I confess that I walked through the park and museum in a rather numb state of disbelief as I tried to understand the historical reality of what was being presented to me. Looking around, it was clear that nearly everyone else there was in the same kind of condition. What was at stake was not the political or strategic salience of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the closing days of WWII (about which scholars and policy makers have debated for decades), but simply the human suffering that the bombs brought on the people who were going about their lives in these cities – this requires no debate.
But there was a family of American tourists who burst into the mausoleum-like silence of the museum just before I left. They were happy and jovial, laughing at some of the exhibits and pushing through the lines of people who were walking in rather shocked silence. Before I go on, I should say that there were many other Americans in the museum who seemed as shocked as I was by this behaviour, shocked and embarrassed: this is not about American-ness, whatever that might be. My mind cycled through various responses: repugnance at inappropriate behaviour, but then a glimmer of understanding that perhaps they were just overwhelmed by it all and hence responding with some juvenile form of denial. In the end, my view of this family was sealed when I followed them to the guestbook that is provided near the exit of the museum for visitors to write their thoughts and feelings as they leave. In general, the book is filled with the apparently heart-felt agonies and compassion of people from all over the world, as well as from Japan, who were simply stunned into disbelief that people could do this to one another and that people could endure so much horror. But the last three entries in the book, by the father and two sons of the family I watched, simply said: F*&k you Japs! This is what you get for Pearl Harbor! It was written three times in the same words, but in different handwriting.
On the one hand, this incident reveals something reassuring. The vast majority of people who were confronted with this human tragedy reacted with compassion and sympathy and disbelief; only a tiny minority seemed to find pleasure in the suffering of others. On the other hand, the logic of that minority view is pernicious and dangerous. It revolves around what ethicists and historians have come to call ‘moral calculus’: the belief that one atrocity can be balanced against another, that vengeance is a mechanism for levelling the scales of justice.
As the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis has unfurled in Japan this month, I have been reassured by the massive support that the people of Japan have received from the international community, who recognised a human tragedy in the making. However, as in the Hiroshima Museum, I have also seen an ugly and vindictive minority who have sought to deploy a version of ‘moral calculus’ to give voice to their own chauvinisms and hatreds. There appear to be two such ‘equations’ doing the rounds of internet forums and chatrooms: one of them involves the now customary accusation that Japan deserves all the tragedies that it suffers because of ‘Pearl Harbor’ (whatever might have happened there in reality); the other seems to revolve around the idea that the Japanese deserved the be hit by this earthquake and tsunami and nuclear crisis because they eat whale meat and kill dolphins (and the Sendai area is a major fishing zone). In some cases, this latter charge is phrased as: it serves them right for ‘The Cove.’
Just as I was shocked by the family in the Hiroshima Museum, I am shocked to see such sentiments amidst such suffering and such widespread human compassion. However, in some ways this represents a new low-point in the kind of moral calculus employed to justify such vindictiveness: in this case, the calculators are not claiming that human vengeance for wrongs suffered can be justified by the moral equivalence of the wrongs inflicted (Pearl Harbor = Hiroshima & Nagasaki); instead, they are claiming that historical events justify any and all calamities that might befall a people in the future, whether enacted by historical victims or even by the planet Earth itself. That is, the calculus is not so much moral as karmic, and karmic on a national scale (ie. it is not individual people that accumulate karma, but nations accumulate it and then their people suffer for it). The despicable ridiculousness of this logic reminds me of a brilliantly disturbing episode of South Park in which it is revealed that the Japanese kill dolphins and whales because the American government convinced them that a whale piloted the Enola Gay (presumably in order to prevent the moral calculus around Hiroshima & Nagasaki working against the USA).
Posted by Chris
I tend to believe that most people sustain a basic level of compassion for each other, even for those they have never met or those who live at great distances of separation, whether such separations are social, economic, cultural or simply geographical. This is not to say that I am unaware of the existence of unpleasant or even genuinely evil people. In general, however, I have faith that such people are in the minority. And I think there is good evidence that my optimism is a kind of realism, which I mean in full consciousness of the ambiguity of the term ‘realism’ and hence the multifarious motivations that could undergird acts of compassion and charity.
A number of years ago I visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Museum, which was constructed in 1954 in the ruins of what was once the bustling business district of Hiroshima before the atomic bomb destroyed the city and so many lives. The museum has gone through a number of different iterations as the Japanese and the rest of the world struggle to come to terms with how to remember such unbelievable and unspeakable horror. By the time I visited, however, the museum was a moving and even harrowing experience, with most of the controversial political issues exorcised from its displays (which itself was controversial, of course). I confess that I walked through the park and museum in a rather numb state of disbelief as I tried to understand the historical reality of what was being presented to me. Looking around, it was clear that nearly everyone else there was in the same kind of condition. What was at stake was not the political or strategic salience of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the closing days of WWII (about which scholars and policy makers have debated for decades), but simply the human suffering that the bombs brought on the people who were going about their lives in these cities – this requires no debate.
On the one hand, this incident reveals something reassuring. The vast majority of people who were confronted with this human tragedy reacted with compassion and sympathy and disbelief; only a tiny minority seemed to find pleasure in the suffering of others. On the other hand, the logic of that minority view is pernicious and dangerous. It revolves around what ethicists and historians have come to call ‘moral calculus’: the belief that one atrocity can be balanced against another, that vengeance is a mechanism for levelling the scales of justice.
As the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis has unfurled in Japan this month, I have been reassured by the massive support that the people of Japan have received from the international community, who recognised a human tragedy in the making. However, as in the Hiroshima Museum, I have also seen an ugly and vindictive minority who have sought to deploy a version of ‘moral calculus’ to give voice to their own chauvinisms and hatreds. There appear to be two such ‘equations’ doing the rounds of internet forums and chatrooms: one of them involves the now customary accusation that Japan deserves all the tragedies that it suffers because of ‘Pearl Harbor’ (whatever might have happened there in reality); the other seems to revolve around the idea that the Japanese deserved the be hit by this earthquake and tsunami and nuclear crisis because they eat whale meat and kill dolphins (and the Sendai area is a major fishing zone). In some cases, this latter charge is phrased as: it serves them right for ‘The Cove.’
Just as I was shocked by the family in the Hiroshima Museum, I am shocked to see such sentiments amidst such suffering and such widespread human compassion. However, in some ways this represents a new low-point in the kind of moral calculus employed to justify such vindictiveness: in this case, the calculators are not claiming that human vengeance for wrongs suffered can be justified by the moral equivalence of the wrongs inflicted (Pearl Harbor = Hiroshima & Nagasaki); instead, they are claiming that historical events justify any and all calamities that might befall a people in the future, whether enacted by historical victims or even by the planet Earth itself. That is, the calculus is not so much moral as karmic, and karmic on a national scale (ie. it is not individual people that accumulate karma, but nations accumulate it and then their people suffer for it). The despicable ridiculousness of this logic reminds me of a brilliantly disturbing episode of South Park in which it is revealed that the Japanese kill dolphins and whales because the American government convinced them that a whale piloted the Enola Gay (presumably in order to prevent the moral calculus around Hiroshima & Nagasaki working against the USA).
Posted by Chris
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Armchairs and white coats
Armchairs and white coats: the crisis of the humanities
(on the occasion of the inaugural ‘LUC Philosophy in the World’ lecture by Professor Simon Blackburn
“Philosophers from the 21st century cannot ignore science,” warns the renowned British philosopher Simon Blackburn, “but they should not let themselves be taken over by it.” As technology advances, an increasing number of research domains that have traditionally been located in the sphere of philosophy are being ‘taken over’ by the sciences. With the dawn of fMRI scans and other such instruments, questions about human nature can no longer exclusively be evaluated from within the proverbial philosopher’s armchair – they can be brought into the lab, a research facility with more authority. As a result of this, the gap between the sciences and the humanities is widening at an ever faster pace. “Good for technology,” remarks Blackburn, “bad for science and education.” Reflecting on this crisis of the humanities, Prof. Blackburn points out some fundamental problems with the institutional delivery of science that suggest that science needs input from the humanities.
A problem in today’s physics classroom is that little to no attention is paid to the ontology and metaphysics of science. Illustrating this point, Blackburn tells an amusing – if slightly worrying – anecdote about his daughter who, although able to solve complex equations, did not grasp the concept of ‘energy’. Asking her teacher about this (“what is energy?”), she was simply told to get on and solve the equations. Incidents like this are symptomatic of the widening gap between “ideal science” and the “institutional delivery of science”; the first referring to science as it should be taught and pursued (science as a value or end in itself), the latter referring to the manner in which it is currently taught and pursued. The education of science should not only be about solving equations and ‘mindlessly’ measuring the measureable, it should also provide students with a thorough understanding of what they are doing, of how this is relevant and of how theories are formed. In other words, they should be taught the philosophy of science alongside the content of science, and they should be taught to be critical.
Stressing the importance of being critical, Blackburn points to another problem with the sciences: the often blurred boundary between the ideology of scientists and what they present as scientific fact. This twilight zone between science and opinion is clear especially in claims that pertain to matters like human nature and free will. To illustrate, Blackburn mentions Richard Dawkins’s statement that “we are born selfish.” Presenting this as a scientific fact (without any reservations whatsoever), Dawkins overlooks recent research about human nature that suggests otherwise or at least complicates the claim. “Claims like these,” says Blackburn, “require more philosophical and epistemological thought – they are often a reflection of the spirit of the time.” The spirit of our time, in turn, is influenced by the formation of theories. If we were to accept the views expressed by these scholars as true, we would start acting as if they were true. Statements like “we are born selfish” are dangerous especially because, despite their questionable truth-value, they are presented as facts by people in positions of authority. “A dangerous interface between ideology, science and the humanities,” warns Blackburn.
The gap between ideal science and the institutional delivery of science is further widened by the way in which research is presently funded. Researchers (including scientists and scholars from the humanities) are dependent on the findings or results of their publications for their income and research grants. Yet a lot of science that might open up new research domains or science that is just plain ‘boring’ does not appeal to investors. As a result of this, researchers are often forced to conduct research that satisfies the investor. Dependent on the investor’s satisfaction for their next research grant, they may already be biased toward a result that will satisfy the investor (sometimes actively looking for a statistical correlation that may favour the investor in an otherwise insignificant set of data). If anything, “this is an open invitation to junk science,” remarks Blackburn. Yet it is not only the scientists who are affected by such policies. Philosophers, too, are dependent on their output for their income. Where formerly students of philosophy were taught not to say anything unless they actually had something to say, they are now told (if not pushed) to publish as much as they can. According to Blackburn (and I wholeheartedly agree), this is “a complete debasement of the academic exercise.”
Ending his lecture on a more positive note, Blackburn points out that there are ways to get past these institutional perversions. For instance, thanks to more sources of private research funding, scholars in the United States are not as driven by ‘impact’ indicators as those in the United Kingdom. Even so, the humanities remain under threat and Blackburn’s critique of the institutional delivery of science remains valid. Fortunately, he is not alone in expressing his worry about the present role of the humanities in the sciences and the role of research assessment exercises in funding allocation. Throughout his lecture, I could not help but notice that the worries expressed by Prof. Blackburn resonated with some discussions held within our Disciplinarity & Beyond classes – an encouraging development. Whether it means that Prof. Blackburn’s critique is already being internalised remains to be seen, but I am hopeful that his voice (and the voice of many other critics) will be heard. All in all, an inspiring – if worrying – lecture, and from within my comfortable armchair I can wholeheartedly say that Prof. Blackburn has truly changed my life.
Barend de Rooij (LUC, 1st yr student), 4 March 2011
Historical context
It is well know that Japan sits precariously at the meeting of several tectonic plates and hence that it is prone to seismic activity. The horrible events that started off the Oshika Peninsula on 11/3/11 have a shocking lineage in Japanese history. The Sendai earthquake of 2011, which had its hypocentre at a depth of 24.4km just off the coast of Oshika, has been of such severity that it is termed a megathrust earthquake (magnitude 8.9 or 9.0) and it generated tsunami of 10m in height. This is the most powerful earthquake to have hit Japan since records began, and amongst the 5 most severe earthquakes in the world
(the more severe being: Validivia, Chile, 1960 (9.5); Alaska, USA, 1964 (9.2); Indian Ocean, Indonesia, 2004 (9.1); Kamchatka, Russia, 1952 (9.0)). The Sendai quake was so powerful that many of its hundreds of aftershocks also rate as amongst the most serious earthquakes of modern times in their own right. The associated tsunami struck Kamaishi, Miyako and Yamadamachi and generated tsunami warnings in 19 other countries.
Kamaishi in March 2011
Texas Tech have produced a real-time viewer that maps the aftershocks:
In the twentieth century alone, Japan has survived a host of terrible quakes, only the most famous of which are:
September 1923
Perhaps the most iconic and devasting quake of modern times in Japan, the Great Kanto earthquake was of magnitude 8.3. Its epicentre was near the twin cities of Tokyo and Yokohama, and it is estimated that approx142,800 people lost their lives, largely as a result of the firestorms that devastated the area after the quake, reducing approx. 50% of residences to ruins. The quake was accompanied by 12m tsunami in the Sagami Bay.
March 1933Taking place in an area rather close to the 2011 quake (almost exactly 78 years later), the so-called Sanriku earthquake hit with a magnitude of 8.4. It is estimated that 3,000 lives were lost. As in 2011, most of the casualties appear to have been caused by a large tsunami that devastated the area, especially around Kamaishi Bay, Iwate.
Kamaishi in March 1933
Kamaishi in March 2011
June 1948
The Fukui earthquake (of magnitude 7.3) caused massive structural damage to approx.. 70,000 homes and claimed 3,769 lives.
June 1978
Also in the Sendai area, the so-called Miyagi earthquake was of magnitude 7.7.
January 1995
Most people today will remember the devastation of the Hyogo earthquake (of magnitude 6.9), which struck the Kobe area and claimed 5,500 lives. The earthquake, whose hypocentre was 16 km beneath its epicentre on Awaji Island (20km from the city of Kobe) destroyed approx. 200,000 buildings with 90% of the casualties being reported on the southern coast of Honshu between Kobe and Nishinomiya.
(the more severe being: Validivia, Chile, 1960 (9.5); Alaska, USA, 1964 (9.2); Indian Ocean, Indonesia, 2004 (9.1); Kamchatka, Russia, 1952 (9.0)). The Sendai quake was so powerful that many of its hundreds of aftershocks also rate as amongst the most serious earthquakes of modern times in their own right. The associated tsunami struck Kamaishi, Miyako and Yamadamachi and generated tsunami warnings in 19 other countries.
Texas Tech have produced a real-time viewer that maps the aftershocks:
In the twentieth century alone, Japan has survived a host of terrible quakes, only the most famous of which are:
September 1923
Perhaps the most iconic and devasting quake of modern times in Japan, the Great Kanto earthquake was of magnitude 8.3. Its epicentre was near the twin cities of Tokyo and Yokohama, and it is estimated that approx142,800 people lost their lives, largely as a result of the firestorms that devastated the area after the quake, reducing approx. 50% of residences to ruins. The quake was accompanied by 12m tsunami in the Sagami Bay.
March 1933Taking place in an area rather close to the 2011 quake (almost exactly 78 years later), the so-called Sanriku earthquake hit with a magnitude of 8.4. It is estimated that 3,000 lives were lost. As in 2011, most of the casualties appear to have been caused by a large tsunami that devastated the area, especially around Kamaishi Bay, Iwate.
June 1948
The Fukui earthquake (of magnitude 7.3) caused massive structural damage to approx.. 70,000 homes and claimed 3,769 lives.
June 1978
Also in the Sendai area, the so-called Miyagi earthquake was of magnitude 7.7.
January 1995
Most people today will remember the devastation of the Hyogo earthquake (of magnitude 6.9), which struck the Kobe area and claimed 5,500 lives. The earthquake, whose hypocentre was 16 km beneath its epicentre on Awaji Island (20km from the city of Kobe) destroyed approx. 200,000 buildings with 90% of the casualties being reported on the southern coast of Honshu between Kobe and Nishinomiya.
Monday, 14 March 2011
Japan, Earthquake, Tsunami, Nuclear disaster
The catastrophic and tragic events that have been developing in Japan over the last few days have sent shockwaves around the world. The scale of the disaster is difficult to comprehend, especially at distance, and particularly through the abstractions of the international media. It is impossible to imagine the powerful viscerality of living through such massive demonstrations of the destructive power of nature, and difficult to understand the anxiety and fear of nuclear disaster that has followed the earthquakes and tsunami. From the privileged safety and calm of The Hague, we should remember that these events are first and finally about real people struggling for their lives.
From here, we can only hope that the emergency services and institutions of Japan and elsewhere are able to help, and that the people of Japan receive (and feel) the support they need. I have every faith in the resilience and industry of the people there, but I hope that the staff and students of LUC will do all they can to support those people in this time of dire need. There are ways for us to help, please find them.
For now, on behalf of LUC, I wish those affected by these events strength and health and a speedy recovery.
With deep sincerity, Chris Goto-Jones (dean, LUC)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)