Exit west: is anyone really a native?

Exit west, by Moshin Hamid, is a book that depicts the world turning almost upside down, with national borders almost dissolving. Another thing that exit west turns upside down is the subconscious colonial assumptions that we have. One of the ways that Hamid subverts the colonial system is by referring to the white people of England as the “natives”. This simple word choice almost messes with one’s head as we are so accustomed to hearing about natives in reference to the less developed continents that European empires exploited. For white people it is almost a new experience to consider the ‘natives’ as being white. Hamid comments upon this: “And yet it was not quite true to say that there were almost no natives, nativeness being a relative matter” (197). Hamid then goes on to argue that the paler skinned Americans owe their nativeness to their several generations of living in “a thin strip of land between the pacific ocean and the Atlantic ocean” (198).

Yet realistically that makes them far less native than the ones who were there before European contact, but even among those peoples there are groups that arrived long before others.

Is anyone truly native?

Throughout chapters seven through nine Hamid depicts the tensions between the migrants and the natives of London. The natives of London today would be characterized by Norse and Norman genetics, Normans being Norse people who mixed with French. However these groups also displaced the Anglo-Saxons that were there before them. But these Anglo-Saxons arrived from Denmark and Germany to displace Roman groups which in turn supplanted Celtic and Pict societies. Even that natives aren’t native.

Does native as a term even mean anything? Humans are always on the move and always have been. If you look farther than all humans are “natives” to Africa or the Middle East, but we rarely think of things that way. The distinctions that humans create serve to organize their own interests. People could be natives when they want to protect their land yet toss aside the term when they want to take others’.

What do you consider yourself a native to, and why?

the Stanger and SCP:5000, is empathy overrated?

Here is the original article if you want to read it, although it lacks greater context.

If you aren’t aware of what the SCP foundation is, it is a collaborative science fiction website which describes the secretive and fictional SCP foundation, a shadowy group dedicated to Securing, Containing, and Protecting so-called “anomalies” from the general public (Think men in black).

A short synopsis of SCP 5000 follows that somehow the SCP foundation, the ends-justifies-the-means protectors of humanity, have decided to exterminate all of humankind. The article goes into detail about one rogue agent named Pietro Wilson travel across the country and summarize in what horrible ways the foundation destroyed all resistance and what terrible monsters they have unleashed to finish the job. Eventually Wilson uses some time travel shenanigans to ‘save the day’ and prevent it all from happening in the first place.

The real story only begins after one looks at the source code for the website and cracks the secret code at the bottom of the webpage. Long story short it turned out that empathy, fear and pain core tenants of the human experience all exist unnaturally within humans, planted there by something else in an attempt to control people (although love and happiness are still natural). The foundation couldn’t “cure” everybody therefore the only logical option would be to erase every human off the planet that could feel pain, thereby preventing any human ever from experiencing pain of fear ever again. Because the foundation leaders were free from feeling bad about themselves, the decision was easy. To them, it was perfectly logical.

This logical analysis connects with The Stanger, wherein Meursault feels very little empathy and expresses almost no pain throughout the course of the novel. Even his mother’s funeral did nothing to him except make him complain about the heat. But this time he was the one to get killed.

Is it preferable to not feel pain, fear or empathy? For Meursault, he was free to enjoy swimming and sleeping and napping all without worrying about another person or even his own fate. Meursault was almost more free even in prison because he was not constrained by societal expectations for behavior or chained by remorse. This is similar to the future envisioned by the Foundation leaders when they decided to remove empathetic humans from the world. Their goal has always been the mitigation of human suffering, and with just one large burst of it they could have been rid of it forever, guaranteeing that every human being ever would be able to live without worrying about literally anything, just like Meursault.

Would you give up your empathy to never suffer again?

In defense of common annoyances.

Meursault details why he likes washing his hands at lunchtime, and not in the evening because: “the roller towel you use is soaked through: one towel has to last all day.” (25) Upon mentioning this to his boss he gets shrugged off. For many of us discussing our pet peeves with a superior would feel awkward or rude. For some reason it is easy to feel mean when presenting a problem to someone, especially if it is particularly minor. There was a discussion in class on Tuesday about the matter, and Mr. Heidkamp claimed he found it comical to emphasize such a minor annoyance, even referencing it’s similarities to Seinfeld (Which certainly exist).

Contrary to that assertion, I believe that recognition and ultimately finding a solution to such peeves is not only entirely justified, but is perfectly logical and principled. After all, if these problems take up even a fraction of your time, why not just solve it and get over with it?

I, too share some of Meursault’s reactions to small details. One day I found that I was confusing my two green notebooks in my folder, wasting but a couple seconds yet occupying my mind. Therefore I simply colored the edges of one of them so that I could tell in advance. Why shouldn’t I spare myself these seconds? I’m sure that many people would rather use the bathroom at home or at a specific time so as to avoid as much contact with others as possible. This pattern is another example of an incredibly minor peeve (although Meursault probably wouldn’t care about other people) that people always think about, yet are reluctant to share. The passage also demonstrates Meursault’s rather remarkable ability to immediately share the reasoning behind any of his actions at a given time, which I find admirable in a person.

Any second that you spend doing something that you’d rather not is really one second too many, and especially if it is a minuscule problem, why not solve it to the best of your ability?