Dear Sirs and Madams,
You may not have expected it, but Vanity Fair provided the most readable explanation for the financial collapse in Iceland. This article by Michael Lewis in April of this year gave a very detailed and meticulous analysis of Iceland's woes.
I found the following passage extremely interesting:
"This insight is what led Iceland to go from being one of the poorest countries in Europe circa 1900 to being one of the richest circa 2000. Iceland’s big change began in the early 1970s, after a couple of years when the fish catch was terrible. The best fishermen returned for a second year in a row without their usual haul of cod and haddock, so the Icelandic government took radical action: they privatized the fish. Each fisherman was assigned a quota, based roughly on his historical catches. If you were a big-time Icelandic fisherman you got this piece of paper that entitled you to, say, 1 percent of the total catch allowed to be pulled from Iceland’s waters that season. Before each season the scientists at the Marine Research Institute would determine the total number of cod or haddock that could be caught without damaging the long-term health of the fish population; from year to year, the numbers of fish you could catch changed. But your percentage of the annual haul was fixed, and this piece of paper entitled you to it in perpetuity.
Even better, if you didn’t want to fish you could sell your quota to someone who did. The quotas thus drifted into the hands of the people to whom they were of the greatest value, the best fishermen, who could extract the fish from the sea with maximum efficiency. You could also take your quota to the bank and borrow against it, and the bank had no trouble assigning a dollar value to your share of the cod pulled, without competition, from the richest cod-fishing grounds on earth. The fish had not only been privatized, they had been securitized.
It was horribly unfair: a public resource—all the fish in the Icelandic sea—was simply turned over to a handful of lucky Icelanders. Overnight, Iceland had its first billionaires, and they were all fishermen. But as social policy it was ingenious: in a single stroke the fish became a source of real, sustainable wealth rather than shaky sustenance. Fewer people were spending less effort catching more or less precisely the right number of fish to maximize the long-term value of Iceland’s fishing grounds."
Perhaps Michael Lewis is on to something in terms of saving the global stock of fish. The quota system and the government regulation of the fish population is great and all, but my reservation is that it does not solve the issue of fishermen dumping dead fish overboard. I cannot say that I am an expert on the economy of fishing, so I will shut up now.
I hope the sushi fifty years from now won't be too expensive...
Best,
Yong Kwon
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Coffee house economics
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Studies show that women are far better than men in predicting the flow of finance. My mother is no exception.
I was conversing with her over Skype when she shared with me her insight on price and wealth.
In my current residence in Cairo I have noticed the great disparity of prices even within the downtown area. A bottle of water which on average costs less than a dollar (4 LE) in a local Egyptian hotel lobby or shop easily becomes three or four times in tourist destinations. This makes absolute sense, a tourist is willing to pay a higher price because even the inflated price is equal to or below what he is used to back home. However, upon closer observation, this disparity in prices appear as a symptom of a wider problem.
Why are the tourists unable to leave their hotels and take advantage of the cheaper products? Tourist destinations like the Egyptian antiquities museum is not like a sports stadium where you are not allowed to bring in anything nor is it the case that you cannot reenter once you exit the compound. There are many shops across the street from the museum that sell bottles of water for a cheaper price, yet the tourists opt for the more expensive shops within the museum compound.
From what I have seen, I believe that the tourists are absolutely frightened by Egyptian society. The streets are filled with trash and the traffic system is an absolute nightmare. On top of this women have a legitimate cause to be afraid of Egypt. Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights in July 2008 reported that 98 percent of foreign women and 60 percent of Egyptian women are harassed on a daily basis. Another report from the government stated that 47 percent of married women between 15 and 49 are subjected at least once to physical violence.
As a result, tourists travel in packs and never come face to face with the real Egyptian society. The shops in tourist destinations are able to take advantage of the tourists’ fears and sell at prices that seem absurd for Egypt’s cost of living, keeping the Egyptians out. Furthermore, the wealth from tourism is never spread among the masses despite the presence of cheaper local shops across the street or closer.
While my family lived in Amsterdam my mother observed that the price for a cup of coffee in Amstelveen, a suburb of Amsterdam, was the same as one in downtown Amsterdam. The reason for this is because the flow of tourists and population is unregulated by the risk of hazard in the Netherlands. A person is as likely to go to a bar in Amstelveen as she is to go to a bar in Amsterdam because there are no major inhibiting factors.
If Egypt truly wishes to maximize its return from the vast number of tourists it needs to shape up and make serious changes. People need to take care of their own streets and stop pestering foreigners for tips. The dispersion of the tourists into Egyptian society will bolster not only the wealth of the local people but also ease the travel expenses of the tourists themselves.
I say the first step will be to establish a democracy. More on this later.
Best,
Yong Kwon
p.s. an interesting article here
Monday, June 8, 2009
Dear God...
Dear Sirs and Madams,
The results for the European elections are in and I have become more worried for this world than before the elections. Not only was the voter turnout a historic low this year (43%), but the Europeans also managed to put anti-immigration and racist groups, like the British National Party, into the parliament. While these radical right groups hardly constitute a force to be reckoned with, I feel this is a serious sign of popular sentiments in Europe.
At the same time, no one has stepped forward to make any significant moves to tackle the big problems. The green paper, published by the European Commission, admits that 88% of European fish stocks are overexploited and 30% have collapsed. No serious voices advocate for the dismantling of NATO or to protect refugees.
Do the European want a closed continent? They clearly don't mind keeping the spoils of their plunder and further victimizing those who have escaped the inner-circles of hell that some EU member states have helped create.
The EU elections have been a step back for liberty.
Best,
Yong Kwon
The results for the European elections are in and I have become more worried for this world than before the elections. Not only was the voter turnout a historic low this year (43%), but the Europeans also managed to put anti-immigration and racist groups, like the British National Party, into the parliament. While these radical right groups hardly constitute a force to be reckoned with, I feel this is a serious sign of popular sentiments in Europe.
At the same time, no one has stepped forward to make any significant moves to tackle the big problems. The green paper, published by the European Commission, admits that 88% of European fish stocks are overexploited and 30% have collapsed. No serious voices advocate for the dismantling of NATO or to protect refugees.
Do the European want a closed continent? They clearly don't mind keeping the spoils of their plunder and further victimizing those who have escaped the inner-circles of hell that some EU member states have helped create.
The EU elections have been a step back for liberty.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Sunday, June 7, 2009
My answer is a resounding NO!
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Niall Ferguson, bless his Scottish heart, is a fantastic historian and has produced incredible analyses of the 19th and 20th centuries. I've read a few of his books and they never cease to awe me. I particularly found his public dismissal of advocates for the use of the word "islamofascism" refreshing. Nonetheless, I have to disagree with his assessment that the British sacrifice of its own empire to stop the German and Japanese empires should absolve Britain of all its other sins. He furthers his claim in a debate amongst a few historians that the alternative to a world with a British hegemony was one ruled by a worse empire like Russia or Germany. After all, says Niall Ferguson, look at all the contributions from the British Empire like the financial establishments and global trade. I would like to state my resounding rejection of this apology for the British Empire.
I like England. I love it for Oxford University, the House of Commons, the cozy country cottages with a trout filled creek running beside it, etc. However, I must be cruel to English history for I believe too many English historians, including Niall Ferguson, have not been critical enough with it. When faced with criticisms regarding British rule over India, Niall Ferguson responded by arguing that the alternative, a potential Russian rule over India, would not have been more favorable to the Indians. Regarding a Russian occupation of India, there has never been a serious Russian attempt to advance south of the Hindu Kush. Ferguson played the tune of the age old myth that the Russian are driven by a search for a warm water port. The same epidemic of Russophobia in the mid 19th century caused diplomats like Stratford Cannings to exacerbate the negotiations between the Ottomans and the Russians, sparking the Crimean War. Forget geopolitics, the Crimean War was fought to defend British and French interests in the Mediterranean against an enemy who had no intentions of making a serious challenge to Egypt or the Mediterranean. Clearly, Ferguson is still struggling to defend his empire from imaginary threats.
Yes, Britain fought tooth and nail against Nazi Germans and the Japanese, but it was the expanse of the British Empire itself that provoked the militarists to pursue a policy of expanding their own lebensraum. The political and economic conditions that sparked the World Wars can be epitomized by the British Empire. What, absolve? How about taking part of the blame?
A great point was brought up by historian Eric Hobsbaum regarding Ferguson's claim on the spread of the financial institutions and capitalism. The Latin American republics had an intimate trading relationship with Britain, with much investments and loans traveling across the Atlantic, yet they were never under British colonial occupation like the Indians or the Egyptians. Therefore, the colonial institutions were not necessary for the transfer of capitalism and free trade. (I despise arguments made on the economic contributions of imperial masters to their colonial subjects)
Eric Hobsbaum made a great point, but missed the bigger picture. The economic system that the British Empire enforced was never free. Mike Davis, the author of Late Victorian Holocausts, writes that the export of 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat was maintained by the British viceroy in India during the 1870s despite the drought in the Deccan plateau. Between 12 and 29 million people died, a feat unsurpassed until the horrors of the 20th century. By creating taxes and restrictions on key essential commodities (such as salt) the British created an unfair system where the society could not function and produce efficiently. These unfair conditions destroyed indigenous entrepreneurs that had once traversed the Indian Ocean to trade. One could say that the British did more to impoverish the Indians than any other European empire that had set foot on India.
Furthermore, the British government's apathy towards the human suffering resulting from the famines they helped create is a serious indictment. The British intensified the famine by refusing to allow Indians to have a voice in the politics as Amartya Sen notes:
"Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence … they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press. … a free press and an active political opposition constitute the best early-warning system a country threaten by famines can have"
Not only did Britain stunt Indian prosperity, but it was also an accomplice in killing Indians during the droughts. Colonialism was a social, political, and economic killer of nations. Ferguson would ask "But would the Mughals have done better?". Why yes, they might well have done better without exporting millions of tons of grain while the people are starving or turning land for food production into land for cash crops.
Unless, one is prepared to establish a price for human life, I think it is fair to say that Britain's overall performance during its imperial rule over the quarter of the world was less than honorable and not so well minded.
Godspeed,
Yong Kwon
Niall Ferguson, bless his Scottish heart, is a fantastic historian and has produced incredible analyses of the 19th and 20th centuries. I've read a few of his books and they never cease to awe me. I particularly found his public dismissal of advocates for the use of the word "islamofascism" refreshing. Nonetheless, I have to disagree with his assessment that the British sacrifice of its own empire to stop the German and Japanese empires should absolve Britain of all its other sins. He furthers his claim in a debate amongst a few historians that the alternative to a world with a British hegemony was one ruled by a worse empire like Russia or Germany. After all, says Niall Ferguson, look at all the contributions from the British Empire like the financial establishments and global trade. I would like to state my resounding rejection of this apology for the British Empire.
I like England. I love it for Oxford University, the House of Commons, the cozy country cottages with a trout filled creek running beside it, etc. However, I must be cruel to English history for I believe too many English historians, including Niall Ferguson, have not been critical enough with it. When faced with criticisms regarding British rule over India, Niall Ferguson responded by arguing that the alternative, a potential Russian rule over India, would not have been more favorable to the Indians. Regarding a Russian occupation of India, there has never been a serious Russian attempt to advance south of the Hindu Kush. Ferguson played the tune of the age old myth that the Russian are driven by a search for a warm water port. The same epidemic of Russophobia in the mid 19th century caused diplomats like Stratford Cannings to exacerbate the negotiations between the Ottomans and the Russians, sparking the Crimean War. Forget geopolitics, the Crimean War was fought to defend British and French interests in the Mediterranean against an enemy who had no intentions of making a serious challenge to Egypt or the Mediterranean. Clearly, Ferguson is still struggling to defend his empire from imaginary threats.
Yes, Britain fought tooth and nail against Nazi Germans and the Japanese, but it was the expanse of the British Empire itself that provoked the militarists to pursue a policy of expanding their own lebensraum. The political and economic conditions that sparked the World Wars can be epitomized by the British Empire. What, absolve? How about taking part of the blame?
A great point was brought up by historian Eric Hobsbaum regarding Ferguson's claim on the spread of the financial institutions and capitalism. The Latin American republics had an intimate trading relationship with Britain, with much investments and loans traveling across the Atlantic, yet they were never under British colonial occupation like the Indians or the Egyptians. Therefore, the colonial institutions were not necessary for the transfer of capitalism and free trade. (I despise arguments made on the economic contributions of imperial masters to their colonial subjects)
Eric Hobsbaum made a great point, but missed the bigger picture. The economic system that the British Empire enforced was never free. Mike Davis, the author of Late Victorian Holocausts, writes that the export of 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat was maintained by the British viceroy in India during the 1870s despite the drought in the Deccan plateau. Between 12 and 29 million people died, a feat unsurpassed until the horrors of the 20th century. By creating taxes and restrictions on key essential commodities (such as salt) the British created an unfair system where the society could not function and produce efficiently. These unfair conditions destroyed indigenous entrepreneurs that had once traversed the Indian Ocean to trade. One could say that the British did more to impoverish the Indians than any other European empire that had set foot on India.
Furthermore, the British government's apathy towards the human suffering resulting from the famines they helped create is a serious indictment. The British intensified the famine by refusing to allow Indians to have a voice in the politics as Amartya Sen notes:
"Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort. Not surprisingly, while India continued to have famines under British rule right up to independence … they disappeared suddenly with the establishment of a multiparty democracy and a free press. … a free press and an active political opposition constitute the best early-warning system a country threaten by famines can have"
Not only did Britain stunt Indian prosperity, but it was also an accomplice in killing Indians during the droughts. Colonialism was a social, political, and economic killer of nations. Ferguson would ask "But would the Mughals have done better?". Why yes, they might well have done better without exporting millions of tons of grain while the people are starving or turning land for food production into land for cash crops.
Unless, one is prepared to establish a price for human life, I think it is fair to say that Britain's overall performance during its imperial rule over the quarter of the world was less than honorable and not so well minded.
Godspeed,
Yong Kwon
Friday, June 5, 2009
On the future of the European Union
.gif)
Dear Sirs and Madams,
As results come in from all over Europe for the European Union Parliament elections, I have a quick shout out to those that live in EU member states.
Denizens of the EU have a crucial role in this time of increasing volatility. The $50 billion of agricultural subsidies from the European Union are keeping other farmers in much worse of regions of the world from being able to access the food market. Their despair will transform into violence as it did for the fisherman in Somalia.
European Union and its member governments’ refusal to confront the fishing lobbies and decommission the excess boats encourages mass poaching in areas like Senegal and Somalia. One must recognize that this is a self destructive act that will only decrease the available fish in waters around Europe. As the Senegalese starve and the Somalis take up arms against international shipping, the European fishing boats are digging their own graves.
However, it is not just those beyond the borders of the European Union that face injustices waged upon them, sanctioned by the EU. There has to be a system of accountability which ensures the practice of adopted legislations regarding human rights and equal treatment. I do not wish the European Union to take on more federal power, so I beseech individuals in the EU to take it upon themelves to demand from their governments to ensure the liberty, equality, and justice for all.
All, including immigrants and refugees, many of whom have escaped hell-on-earth only to find themselves in shanty towns made of card board boxes, hunted down by the host government and ostracized by the local communities. Redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor will inevitably occur under a free market and it is the most efficient, moral, and peaceful way to make the whole world a lot more prosperous. Your alternative is to await the violence unleashed by honest, hard working people whose only fault is that they were on the receiving end of the unfair and illiberal market conditions. I assure you that the losses in the former scenario to be insignificant, especially compared to the latter. Besides for the European nations whose population is decreasing who will pay for today’s young when they become pensioners?
Lastly, take the first step to disestablish NATO. There is no reason for its existence nor a European Union army, it will only provoke further tensions with Russia. Russia could probably use some help from the European Union. If people are so concerned with immigrants maybe Europe should look into diagnosing the issues after complaining about the symptoms for so long.
That goes for everything else as well.
Ah, I rant.
I hope you will not find offense in the above criticisms. I have tremendous respect for the European Union’s stance on all sort of things from humane treatment of animals to its position on ensuring the safety of food products. However, certain actions undertaken by the EU really damages the world and I believe it is important for the constituents of the EU to recognize those serious problems. The Common Agricultural Policy is under review regarding its subsidies and it has been promised to the world that it will be diminished. The Economist picked up the problem with fishing and it should be now on the minds of the politicians who have the means to change the situation. Everything necessary for Europe to finally lurch forward on the liberal path to global prosperity is present. Now the European Union constituents must send the right people into power.
They better, the livelihoods of many people depend on it.
I wish the old continent good luck.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Saturday, May 30, 2009
This aggression will not stand, man
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Historicism dictates that the specific rhetoric utilized in deliberating our moral dilemmas indicates our society’s attitude, culture, and values. Observing the political language since and before the Bush administration betrays something highly disturbing. Enshrouded within the popular rhetoric exist the oppressive institutionalized suppositions that falsely pose as mediums for debate while marginalizing independent assessment.
Observe the value of justice. The debate in the popular media following the invasion of Iraq was whether or not the war in Iraq was just. However, to even contemplate the matter seems redundant. It is absolutely unjust for any state actor to contemplate the exchange value of individuals' lives and demean the basis of life, liberty, and justice by sacrificing innocent civilians without their consent. To debate whether or not a specific war is unjust would be to imply the plausibility of certain wars to be just.
The very fact that we have a rhetorical medium in place that could possibly justify war is unsightly. Presupposing that wars ‘should be just’ alters the inherent nature of war and undermines the premise of any argument against war. This makes any engagement in a debate a concession.
With this semantic shift, war itself enters into a definitive crisis. It goes from a form of excessive brutality to a legitimate solution, bolstered by human rationale. Robert McNamara said that the problem with war is that the human race have not yet grappled with the rules of war. However, how do we produce civility out of something that is inherently uncivil. Today, official terminologies such as “smart bombs” and “minimized collateral damage” work to exacerbate the basic fallacy in society’s perception of war.
Rationalization of war is not a modern construct, but there is a clear difference in rhetoric used in the past and today. When Britain engaged France during the Napoleonic War, Pitt never proclaimed that British victory would in any way better the French people. To the extent of my knowledge, even during the Second World War, the Allied forces never used the liberation of the German people from Nazism as a cause for war. In fact, the only precedence upon which the western civilization took it upon themselves to impose the benefits of war upon the opposing peoples was during the brutal imperial aggression against the peoples of colonial possessions.
The misuse the utilitarian value to justify war is a modern construct and is rooted in the perverse language used by the imperial powers with racist presuppositions. Journalist and author Chris Hedges writes that war "corrupts language... preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death". War rhetoric and war stories are addictive. Moral philosophers like Adam Smith recognized this danger in the Wealth of Nations. This corruption of reasoning through attractive rhetoric may be best depicted in the Coen brothers' movie The Big Lebowski in which the protagonist repeats President Bush's (senior) quip "this aggression will not stand".
We are deeply engaged in the semantic game established for the specific purpose of controlling independent public interpretations and institutionalizing the acceptable debates. Our entire society, regardless of whether or not we are for or against state intervention, has been duped into a trap. An illusion of a plausible ‘just war’ is created by establishing parameters on the rhetoric utilized in debates. The public conscience is effectively limited to a foregone conclusion established by the ideological apparatuses of control. The current mass media perpetuates and consolidates these parameters. For the sake of providing legitimacy to an illegitimate debate, the public rationale was sacrificed, processed, and institutionalized.
As we again charge into Afghanistan and Pakistan with renewed resolve under the new administration, let us not forget that no war is just. There will be many more innocent deaths and lives ruined despite the best intentions of the United States. This is the reality of war and I guarantee there will be unintended consequences.
Let us be always skeptical of our governments' best intentions.
Afterall, intellectual laziness leads to state abuse.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Historicism dictates that the specific rhetoric utilized in deliberating our moral dilemmas indicates our society’s attitude, culture, and values. Observing the political language since and before the Bush administration betrays something highly disturbing. Enshrouded within the popular rhetoric exist the oppressive institutionalized suppositions that falsely pose as mediums for debate while marginalizing independent assessment.
Observe the value of justice. The debate in the popular media following the invasion of Iraq was whether or not the war in Iraq was just. However, to even contemplate the matter seems redundant. It is absolutely unjust for any state actor to contemplate the exchange value of individuals' lives and demean the basis of life, liberty, and justice by sacrificing innocent civilians without their consent. To debate whether or not a specific war is unjust would be to imply the plausibility of certain wars to be just.
The very fact that we have a rhetorical medium in place that could possibly justify war is unsightly. Presupposing that wars ‘should be just’ alters the inherent nature of war and undermines the premise of any argument against war. This makes any engagement in a debate a concession.
With this semantic shift, war itself enters into a definitive crisis. It goes from a form of excessive brutality to a legitimate solution, bolstered by human rationale. Robert McNamara said that the problem with war is that the human race have not yet grappled with the rules of war. However, how do we produce civility out of something that is inherently uncivil. Today, official terminologies such as “smart bombs” and “minimized collateral damage” work to exacerbate the basic fallacy in society’s perception of war.
Rationalization of war is not a modern construct, but there is a clear difference in rhetoric used in the past and today. When Britain engaged France during the Napoleonic War, Pitt never proclaimed that British victory would in any way better the French people. To the extent of my knowledge, even during the Second World War, the Allied forces never used the liberation of the German people from Nazism as a cause for war. In fact, the only precedence upon which the western civilization took it upon themselves to impose the benefits of war upon the opposing peoples was during the brutal imperial aggression against the peoples of colonial possessions.
The misuse the utilitarian value to justify war is a modern construct and is rooted in the perverse language used by the imperial powers with racist presuppositions. Journalist and author Chris Hedges writes that war "corrupts language... preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death". War rhetoric and war stories are addictive. Moral philosophers like Adam Smith recognized this danger in the Wealth of Nations. This corruption of reasoning through attractive rhetoric may be best depicted in the Coen brothers' movie The Big Lebowski in which the protagonist repeats President Bush's (senior) quip "this aggression will not stand".
We are deeply engaged in the semantic game established for the specific purpose of controlling independent public interpretations and institutionalizing the acceptable debates. Our entire society, regardless of whether or not we are for or against state intervention, has been duped into a trap. An illusion of a plausible ‘just war’ is created by establishing parameters on the rhetoric utilized in debates. The public conscience is effectively limited to a foregone conclusion established by the ideological apparatuses of control. The current mass media perpetuates and consolidates these parameters. For the sake of providing legitimacy to an illegitimate debate, the public rationale was sacrificed, processed, and institutionalized.
As we again charge into Afghanistan and Pakistan with renewed resolve under the new administration, let us not forget that no war is just. There will be many more innocent deaths and lives ruined despite the best intentions of the United States. This is the reality of war and I guarantee there will be unintended consequences.
Let us be always skeptical of our governments' best intentions.
Afterall, intellectual laziness leads to state abuse.
Best,
Yong Kwon
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?" - Walter Sobchak from The Big LebowskiSunday, May 24, 2009
Injustice in the eyes of children
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I just reread Roald Dahl's intensely touching short story "The Boy Who Spoke with Animals". To give a brief summary, the story is narrated by an unnamed tourist in the West Indies who witnesses an extraordinary event. A child intervenes upon a group of tourists savaging a giant turtle on the beach. While the pompous tourists are merely concerned with flaunting their masculinity and turtle soup, the child empathizes and communicates with the sea turtle and at the end of the story escapes from the cruel adult world on the back of the giant sea turtle.
I do not know whether or not this was the acclaimed author's intent, but it seemed to me that this short piece was a critical assessment on colonialism. If it was not, its prevailing message on dignity and the straightforwardness of decency pushes a reader of colonial history to evoke the savage injustices of imperialism in all its splendid façade of marble halls, uniforms, steamships, and trains.
The key elements of the story like the setting on a pristine Caribbean island, its beauty sullied by the boorish conducts of English tourists, and its resident-victim, the sea turtle who "was senior to any of [the tourists] in age," all betray a deep sense of injustice that is undetected to the characters save to the narrator and the boy. The savagery of these self-proclaimed civilized gentlemen are made more evident by their gross appearance such as having "exceptionally hairy chest" while the absence of their shirts "was obviously a calculated touch". This unnecessary overcompensation by the self proclaimed heroes and their absurd actions range from attempting to drag the giant turtle by a rope (as they did in the story) to slaughtering thousands over the control of a desert wasteland (as the Europeans actually did). In imperial propaganda literature masculinity was inseparable from heroism and any decent subject of the crown was clearly required to reflect the prowess of the empire through his arrogance. It is an image which Roald Dahl completely lays to waste with his depiction of the tourists' ludicrousness and barbarity. Dahl further highlights the sinful nature of the patronizing tourists by admiring the turtle who while "[the tourists] were discussing [its] destruction, [its] consumption and [its] flavor... seemed, even when upside down, to be extraordinarily dignified." This was imperialism in its truest form.
The hero of this tale is a boy whose unashamed sentiments for another living being made even the most condescending adults to feel as though they were "caught doing something that was not entirely honorable". The simplicity of the boy's virtues rightly brought "a feeling of uneasiness, a touch even of shame" to the so-awesomely-masculine men. The rejection of this cruel adult world by the boy is celebrated by the narrator who rests assured that the boy is "quite happy where he is".
This short story reminds us that at the end of the day what remains unassailable is not quantifiable rationality like gains and losses in capital, but the unadorned and unpretentious nature of mutual respect and learning to enjoy each other's companionship.
Hat off to you Mr. Dahl.
The children had it right all along.
Best,
Yong Kwon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)