Well, i'm really bummed that i missed this weekend's field trip to Mokauea island, it sounded like it was going to be a lot of fun. The talks last week were pretty interesting, as a American learning history there were many things we discussed that i had not learned or even heard of before.  Dr. Castanha discussed the papal bulls, and how the Vatican in a way affected the treatment of indigenous people when Europeans came over. I had a discussion with another student after class, and he expressed how guilty he felt for the behavior of his race. This is normally called "white guilt" and is an interesting subject. Should I, being the same race of people that committed horrible atrocities feel guilty for what they did? I think not. First, I don't really see the relation between me and the people who came to America, other than the color of my skin. Does there really need to be any more levels of division in the world? I am white, but I think i put my nationality above my race. In that case, should I as an American feel guilty for how people settled my country? I still think no. I think if there is anything to be ashamed of it should be that we are ignoring this chunk of history and rewriting it so we can teach our children a better story. We can not learn from our past mistakes if we do not teach the past, and we should be ashamed that the same mistakes have been made over and over again. Perhaps the guilt some of my peers are feeling comes from the fact that we did not know this, that we have lived our lives thinking that we just kind of strolled into peoples homes and were welcomed cheerfully. I am not sure why but I am sure that i am going to make it a point to help explain to people these histories that not everyone knows, and maybe one day we as a nation (or world) can own up to the mistakes we have made, and make sure it never happens again.

There is a lot to discuss from our last class. Firstly, we watched Michel Pollan at TED discussing, in brief, humans disconnection from nature. Pollan brought up the idea of  "Cartesian society" and the frame of mind that we control nature, as opposed to nature controlling us. I think Pollan did a very good job of evoking humility to his audience, and offering new framework for the way people see things. I've always felt that, as far as america goes, that our denial of nature came around the industrial revolution.  Before the industrial revolution we were certainly in the hands of nature, annual rainfall and harsh winters determined if people would starve or not, and people could fall victim to predators in the wild. As america became more "civilized" i think there became a push back against nature: there was a desire to switch the roles and control nature, as opposed to being controlled by nature. Living in the wild became brutish and uncivilized, while life became more and more sterile. On a side note, I also think it was this philosophy that hindered women's rights. Women are naturally (biologically) controlled by nature, and i think this close role to the earth created a level of disapproval from men and women alike. I dunno, just a thought...

Kumu Ramsay Taum also came to the class, who i thought was an amazing and inspiring teacher. In about an hour, he successfully painted a picture of the native Hawaiians and more importantly, how they thought. The paradigm shift he created is exactly why i get excited about school, i was able to see concepts in a new light and i can use these wisdoms to help me in the future, personally and professionally. He gave me a lot to think about and i look forward to more great speakers in the future.

First Class Impressions

    As with most college courses, the first day of class is usually a briefing on exactly what to expect for the rest of the semester. My culture, religion and the environment class was no different... well, I suppose that's not entirely correct, I cannot say that i have ever been blindfolded on the first class! It being a longer class than most, we also had time for some basic class discussions. I think what caught my attention most was a comment made by another student. Although I can not remember what exactly it was pertaining to, he asked why people build their houses on fault lines or on other places that could be seen as precarious. The comment reminded me of a book i read a few years ago, The Control of Nature by John McPhee. The book has various short stories discussing particular instances in which mankind has tried to take control of nature, from stopping Icelandic volcanoes to diverting rivers in Louisiana and much more. I think the question itself could have been discussed for an entire class, however I feel there are varying degrees of risk associated with living in naturally volatile areas. I find it hard to muster sympathy for people who would build their home atop a cliff face for the view and then lose their home in a landslide, however many people including myself would argue that the cost benefit of being "home" can outweigh potential risk. Having lived in a place that faced the risk of lost homes and even towns due to avalanches, I can say that for me, the family and community that i experienced there would have me move back in a heartbeat. Even families that have tragically lost children due to nature's harsh hand still choose to live there, because there truly is no place like home.
    Perhaps where I stand is more about respect for nature than actual logical thinking. It would be stupid to assume one's safety when there are clear risks, but it would also be stupid to leave a place you call home because there's a risk of loss. If one can understand and respect the natural risks surrounding their home, whether it be volcanoes, avalanches, tsunamis or anything else, they could have the best of both worlds and live happily and safely.