Doomsday predictions regarding the Earth and its inhabitants have surfaced periodically over the past centuries but never more frequently than now. Al Gore’s recent Nobel Prize winning documentary concerning global warming demonstrates that these predictions are capturing widespread public attention. But are these predictions so different from the early doomsday predictions of Thomas Malthus who mistakenly wrote that the exponentially growing human population would someday be supportable by the agricultural industry? In the face of all these opposing opinions and predictions, what should we be concerned about and what is our responsibility to this Earth?
Personally, I find it hard to believe many of the doom filled prognostications, but that does not mean that I disregard my responsibility to the environment. In fact, my concern for the environment is the reason I do not believe the predictions. In the models developed by many researchers starting with Malthus humans are portrayed as mindless and increasingly destructive. Population, pollution and other trends are modeled exponentially and not in an adaptive manner. I am not an expert in the environmental literature but I would venture a guess that man’s capacity to adapt to and resolve problems is underestimated. Look at all the measures that have been taken in recent years to reduce and eliminate vehicle pollution with hybrid cars and additional legislation on fuel mileage.
Because of our divinely given ability to adapt and change, to act rather than be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:14), I do believe that each human has a responsibility to alter any destructive actions. Ezra Taft Benson said that, “Surely you can see the inconsistency in the individual who insists that we be good stewards and not pollute our environment, and yet who is unscrupulous in his personal life. Again, physical and spiritual laws are interrelated. Pollution of one's environment and moral impurity both rest on a life-style which partakes of a philosophy of "eat, drink, and be merry"-gouge and grab now, without regard to the consequences. Both violate the spirit of stewardship for which we will stand accountable.” I’m not sure I understand fully the doctrine of stewardship but I do know that how we treat what God has given us plays a big role in determining how we are rewarded in the next life. As with the parable of the talents in the New Testament, those who use and care for what they are given are given more, whereas the stewardship is removed from those who misuse it.
I love how President Benson puts everything into perspective. When asked why the Church concerns itself so much with the behavior of the individual while there are tragedies occurring on much larger scales his reply reveals the real answer to the ills of society: “The laws of God give emphasis to the improvement of the individual as the only real way to bring about improvement in society. Until we focus on basic principles, little progress will be made.” Progress in the areas of pollution and disregard for the environment need to begin to be resolved on a personal level. “While the resources of our planet are both perishable and renewable, time cannot be recycled. Self-centered, pleasure-seeking people will not only plunder our environment much more rapidly, but they will be less concerned about the needs of their fellow human beings” (Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson)
As stated in Doctrine and Covenants 104:17, “the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” God knows how much the inhabitants of the earth need but how we use what He has given us is vital to our temporal and spiritual salvation.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
River Log: May 22, 2008
Well, today we didn't really go on the river. We spent the day in the pool practicing our kayak skills. And as I have already taken the class and learned how to kayak it was a chance for me to review. I haven't had the opportunity to go kayaking since the class so I was itching for the chance to practice. The first time I got in the boat and tried an eskimo roll I didn't make it. I had to wet exit that time but it was good to do that to. But the next time I tried I made it up and then went too far and had to try it again but this time without my paddle. Even though I don't remember making it up much a couple years ago when I tried without my paddle I made it up this time. I was pretty happy about it.
I tried to help out others so they could get the hang of the roll but for the most part I think they needed more time. Its a weird skill and I think it just takes time to get used to it.
I tried to help out others so they could get the hang of the roll but for the most part I think they needed more time. Its a weird skill and I think it just takes time to get used to it.
River Log: May 8, 2008
Today we went out on canoes in the Provo River. The weather was great as was the company. We got to know one another as classmates for the first time and had a good time playing on the river. I went in a boat with Lauren and it was my turn at first to be the rudder in the back. We made it up the river uneventfully - I have canoed before so it wasn't new to me. But when it was Lauren's turn to steer the boat back down the river we ended up in quite a few trees. She was having a bit of a hard time with the J-stroke. I had never heard of it before that day but when Brian explained it I thought it was cool and tried it out.
While on the river we saw a muskrat, a beaver, a turtle and a bunch of fish and birds. I felt like my wildlife major friend Robby because I got really excited at the sight of them. But the best part of the whole thing was the great feeling of being on the river. I only know of one better feeling - being in the temple - than being on the river.
While on the river we saw a muskrat, a beaver, a turtle and a bunch of fish and birds. I felt like my wildlife major friend Robby because I got really excited at the sight of them. But the best part of the whole thing was the great feeling of being on the river. I only know of one better feeling - being in the temple - than being on the river.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
How to Take the Sweat Out of Sweatshops
“Recently a manufacturer of McDonald's "Happy Meal" toys was charged with employing thirteen year olds, working them sixteen hours per day for three dollars.” Then an American child ate the Happy Meal and played with the toy for a few hours until he discarded it among his hundreds of other toys. The working conditions in foreign sweatshops shock us when compared with our lives and our children. Conditions such as overtime forced up to one hundred and ten hours a week, managers shoving amphetamines (speed) in the mouths of their workers so they can work forty-eight hours straight until they collapse and employers pressuring female employees to have abortions so they don’t miss a day of work can at best be described as inhumane and criminal (Wells). Citizens of developing nations work in these conditions, forced by their impoverished circumstances, at the hand of huge, wealthy, multi-national corporations such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss. From these conditions the term “sweatshop” is derived. Conditions need to change in sweatshops, that is obvious. Yet can conditions really be improved by contending against these faceless billion dollar corporations?
Since the discovery of the sweatshop Americans have banded together to incite change. Starting with the students of Duke University who learned that their school’s paraphernalia was produced in sweatshops, anti-sweatshop consumer activist movements have since expanded exponentially into hundreds of universities and organizations across the nation (Goldberg). Consumer activism is not new; it has been around since the beginning of this nation. Indeed it could be said that consumer activism formed the United States. The face-painted “Indians” native to Boston, Massachusetts once commandeered an English vessel loaded with tea to demonstrate their displeasure with the taxes placed on tea. The famous activist Upton Sinclair followed the industrial revolution by initiating reforms in working conditions through his book, The Jungle (Wikipedia). This spirit and desire to incite change in the world is part of who we are as Americans.
But can these small groups of individual make a difference contending with Goliath corporations? Historically, activists have propelled changes in working conditions. In 1911 – around the same time as the publication of Sinclair’s The Jungle – an anti-sweatshop movement that began with the Triangle Shirtwaist fire helped move millions of unskilled laborers out of poverty and into better working conditions (Goldberg). Consumer movements have a great deal of influence because, simply enough, they are consumers. The old adage, “the customer is always right,” and the theory of supply and demand explain this influence. Consumer demand is the reason that companies exist. If the consumer demands that the product not be made by children forced to work thirteen hours a day and the company does not provide that, the company will not exist. The customer is always right. Recent events and studies have shown that consumer activism does have an impact.
Many cases exist in which consumer activism has improved working conditions in sweatshops of developing nations, specifically those of Indonesia and Cambodia exemplify activist power. Indonesia has been a hub of sweatshop production for large corporations such as Nike Inc. for many years now. Nike will be the focus of this case study because of the size of its presence in Indonesia and the renowned activist movements against it. In 1990 the average number of workers in specific factories or sweatshops devoted to footwear was 738 people. Once sweatshops were unveiled and the activist movements began, their effect has been drastic. According to a study done by Ann Harrison, an economist at the University of California Berkley, “The combined effects of the minimum wage legislation and the anti-sweatshop campaigns led to more than a 50 percent increase in real wages and a doubling of nominal wages for unskilled workers at targeted exporting plants.” In response to that, most economists would ask, “but what happened to unemployment?” Basic economic theory states that as wage, the price of labor, increases firms demand less of it and unemployment rises. So, counterintuitive though it may be, consumer activism and minimum wage laws resulted in increased wages as well as increased employment in Indonesia. And comparatively, consumer activism had a greater positive effect on wages and employment than did minimum wage. Indonesian sweatshops whose product was solely distributed domestically – thereby only affected by minimum wage laws – saw an increase in average wage of $154 between 1990 and 1996, while sweatshops whose product was always exported – affected by consumer activism - saw an increase in average wage of $263. In employment, while sweatshops with domestic distribution did not see a statistically significant rise in employment, the average number of employees in sweatshops of purely exported products rose by 362 (Harrison). These positive effects of consumer activism in conditions, wages and employment are surprising but can be explained. With the conditions and wages as poor as they were, even an increase from fifty cents to a dollar is huge and even beneficial to Nike. “As Nike increased spending on wages and expensive public relations campaigns to mend its image, its market share of the global footwear market rose by almost 50 percent.” Consumer activism can make a difference and these results show that it did in Indonesia.
As for Cambodia, the results have been similar. In the 80’s and 90’s sweatshops were widespread. However, today Cambodia is selling itself as “sweat-free.” Consumer activism has created a demand for “sweat-free” goods and Cambodia has responded by improving their working conditions in order to attract companies looking for good publicity. Cambodia’s garment industry has recently achieved the number one global ranking in working conditions and that bodes well for companies like Gap, Nike and Levi Strauss looking to improve their public image. Due to bad publicity and consumer activism these companies have responded to Cambodia’s “sweat-free” movement and have contracted their labor. Cambodia’s share of United States’ garment imports rose from 9 percent to 14 over the past few years. Consumer activism has raised production costs for Gap, Nike, Levi Strauss and other companies, yet the demand for production from “sweat-free” Cambodia has increased (Lynch). These results demonstrate that consumer activism is achieving better working conditions in Cambodia yet the principle applies everywhere. Consumers, who are always right, demanding “sweat-free” goods will get them. Indonesia and Cambodia are just two examples yet the companies who employ their labor – Nike, Gap, Levi Strauss and others – have been responding to consumer activism in the same way throughout the world by demanding improved working conditions in sweatshops.
These brand-name companies pay the higher cost of improved working conditions in order to maintain their reputation. Companies work hard to develop trust to associate with their brand. “A brand is the symbolic embodiment of all the information connected with a company, product or service. It also encompasses the set of expectations associated with a product or service which typically arise in the minds of people (Wikipedia).” A brand is not something that can be bought but must be earned. Companies like Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss are worth more than their balance sheet would indicate due to their brand. Their brand quantifiably increases their profits and any threat to that brand could be devastating. A recent article in Business Week ranked and estimated the value of brands such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss. The brands of both Nike and Gap are valued over 7 billion dollars while Levi’s brand is worth over 3 billion (Business Week Online). This is why “Nike couldn’t ignore the possibility that all those crazy kids campaigning against foul labor practices in Asian or Mexican sweatshops might have something to do with falling sales (Greider).” Nike Inc. provides an excellent example of the importance of the brand because so much anti-sweathop campaigning has been directed against Nike. Trying to protect their brand Nike created the Fair Labor Association in the 1990’s which monitors the factories of participating companies. Then in 2005 the company publicized the names and locations of their contracted factories, a huge acknowledgement of consumer activist influence (Jung). And again desperately trying to mend their image, earlier this year Nike and other companies in need of brand improvement joined with the world’s most famous humanitarian, Bono, lead singer of U2, in creating Product Red. Product Red will raise funds to fight diseases but Nike sees it as a way to look like a superhero replacing the villainous, shifty-eyed look they carry now (Milmo). Yet Nike isn’t the only company concerned about their brand; the concern is universal. Walmart’s spokeperson William Wertz wrote, “No question that such a reputation is a plus. Having confidence that a factory is doing the right things for workers in terms of pay, benefits, working conditions, etc., is important to us (Lynch).” Additionally, the importance of a company’s brand is beneficial to the consumer; it gives us a weapon. Brands force social change. “Positive social change in the developing world is happening more quickly than it otherwise would specifically because of corporations’ need to protect brand value by meeting consumers’ expectations (Hilton).” Company’s dependence on brand means that any challenge to it will demand their utmost attention.
Even with the improvements conditions are still worse than American facilities. Corporations are still outsourcing to developing nations because the wages are still much lower than those of the United States. Yet eliminating sweatshops is not the answer. “No one should defend the horrors – factories with locked doors during fires, employers who confiscate passports and harass workers, etc. – but the fact remains that, on the whole, what most opponents call "sweatshops" are actually a good thing.” As put by Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati sweatshops are a “ticket to slightly less impoverishment.” Economists, both liberal and conservative, are united in their opinion that sweatshops equal progress (Goldberg). In fact, Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs wrote in The New York Times of 1997 that “my concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few…those are precisely the jobs that were the stepping stones for Singapore and Hong Kong, and those are the jobs that have to come to Africa to get them out of back-breaking rural poverty (Hilton).” Sweatshops represent about 80% of Cambodia’s total export earnings, and when you ask a local Cambodian for their opinion they will say, as Sophia Mang did, “I like this life better. Both the farm and this are hard work but this is a better life (Lynch).” The word sweatshop may incite opposition but think of the alternatives – prostitution and hunger – and the benefits to sweatshops become immediately apparent.
There is an answer to thirteen year olds working sixteen hours a day for three dollars. The answer is consumer activism. Corporations such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss have outsourced their production to developing nations due to low cost labor but their products are still sold in the United States. Because of that, consumers have power. Consumer activist movements have shown these multi-national corporations that the working conditions of their factories are important and because the customer is always right things have improved. The evidence shows that consumer activism improves working conditions, wages and even lowers unemployment. Improvements occur because of the corporation’s dependence on their brand. “Brands are not the enemy of those wanting to make world a better place, but their greatest ally (Hilton).” Consumer activism improves working conditions in sweatshops of developing nations because consumer activism motivates brand name companies to maintain their reputation.
“2002 Global Brands Scoreboard.” 5 Aug 2002. Business Week Online. 12 Mar 2006.
“Brand.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar 2006.
Goldberg, Jonah. “The Know-Nothings Find a Cause.” The National Review Feb 2001: 30.EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 9 Mar 2006.
Greider, William. “Victory at McDonalds.” Nation Aug 2003: 8-36. EBSCOHost. BrighamYoung U. Libs., Provo. 9 Mar 2006.
Harrison, Ann and Jason Scorse. “Improving the Conditions of Workers? Minimum WageLegislation and Anti-Sweatshop Activism.” California Management Review Winter2006: 144-160. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 8 Mar 2006.
Jung, Helen. “Nike Cast Light on Factories.” The Oregonian 13 Apr 2005. ProQuest.Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
Lynch, David. “Cambodia’s Sale Pitch: Sweatshop-free products.” USA Today 4 April 2005.EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 8 Mar 2006.
Milmo, Cahal. “Ethical Shopping: The Red Revolution.” Belfast Telegraph 27 Jan 2006.ProQuest. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
“Sweatshop.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar 2006.
Wells, Don. “Global Sweatshops and Ethical Buying Codes.” Canada Dimension Oct 2003: 9-11. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
Since the discovery of the sweatshop Americans have banded together to incite change. Starting with the students of Duke University who learned that their school’s paraphernalia was produced in sweatshops, anti-sweatshop consumer activist movements have since expanded exponentially into hundreds of universities and organizations across the nation (Goldberg). Consumer activism is not new; it has been around since the beginning of this nation. Indeed it could be said that consumer activism formed the United States. The face-painted “Indians” native to Boston, Massachusetts once commandeered an English vessel loaded with tea to demonstrate their displeasure with the taxes placed on tea. The famous activist Upton Sinclair followed the industrial revolution by initiating reforms in working conditions through his book, The Jungle (Wikipedia). This spirit and desire to incite change in the world is part of who we are as Americans.
But can these small groups of individual make a difference contending with Goliath corporations? Historically, activists have propelled changes in working conditions. In 1911 – around the same time as the publication of Sinclair’s The Jungle – an anti-sweatshop movement that began with the Triangle Shirtwaist fire helped move millions of unskilled laborers out of poverty and into better working conditions (Goldberg). Consumer movements have a great deal of influence because, simply enough, they are consumers. The old adage, “the customer is always right,” and the theory of supply and demand explain this influence. Consumer demand is the reason that companies exist. If the consumer demands that the product not be made by children forced to work thirteen hours a day and the company does not provide that, the company will not exist. The customer is always right. Recent events and studies have shown that consumer activism does have an impact.
Many cases exist in which consumer activism has improved working conditions in sweatshops of developing nations, specifically those of Indonesia and Cambodia exemplify activist power. Indonesia has been a hub of sweatshop production for large corporations such as Nike Inc. for many years now. Nike will be the focus of this case study because of the size of its presence in Indonesia and the renowned activist movements against it. In 1990 the average number of workers in specific factories or sweatshops devoted to footwear was 738 people. Once sweatshops were unveiled and the activist movements began, their effect has been drastic. According to a study done by Ann Harrison, an economist at the University of California Berkley, “The combined effects of the minimum wage legislation and the anti-sweatshop campaigns led to more than a 50 percent increase in real wages and a doubling of nominal wages for unskilled workers at targeted exporting plants.” In response to that, most economists would ask, “but what happened to unemployment?” Basic economic theory states that as wage, the price of labor, increases firms demand less of it and unemployment rises. So, counterintuitive though it may be, consumer activism and minimum wage laws resulted in increased wages as well as increased employment in Indonesia. And comparatively, consumer activism had a greater positive effect on wages and employment than did minimum wage. Indonesian sweatshops whose product was solely distributed domestically – thereby only affected by minimum wage laws – saw an increase in average wage of $154 between 1990 and 1996, while sweatshops whose product was always exported – affected by consumer activism - saw an increase in average wage of $263. In employment, while sweatshops with domestic distribution did not see a statistically significant rise in employment, the average number of employees in sweatshops of purely exported products rose by 362 (Harrison). These positive effects of consumer activism in conditions, wages and employment are surprising but can be explained. With the conditions and wages as poor as they were, even an increase from fifty cents to a dollar is huge and even beneficial to Nike. “As Nike increased spending on wages and expensive public relations campaigns to mend its image, its market share of the global footwear market rose by almost 50 percent.” Consumer activism can make a difference and these results show that it did in Indonesia.
As for Cambodia, the results have been similar. In the 80’s and 90’s sweatshops were widespread. However, today Cambodia is selling itself as “sweat-free.” Consumer activism has created a demand for “sweat-free” goods and Cambodia has responded by improving their working conditions in order to attract companies looking for good publicity. Cambodia’s garment industry has recently achieved the number one global ranking in working conditions and that bodes well for companies like Gap, Nike and Levi Strauss looking to improve their public image. Due to bad publicity and consumer activism these companies have responded to Cambodia’s “sweat-free” movement and have contracted their labor. Cambodia’s share of United States’ garment imports rose from 9 percent to 14 over the past few years. Consumer activism has raised production costs for Gap, Nike, Levi Strauss and other companies, yet the demand for production from “sweat-free” Cambodia has increased (Lynch). These results demonstrate that consumer activism is achieving better working conditions in Cambodia yet the principle applies everywhere. Consumers, who are always right, demanding “sweat-free” goods will get them. Indonesia and Cambodia are just two examples yet the companies who employ their labor – Nike, Gap, Levi Strauss and others – have been responding to consumer activism in the same way throughout the world by demanding improved working conditions in sweatshops.
These brand-name companies pay the higher cost of improved working conditions in order to maintain their reputation. Companies work hard to develop trust to associate with their brand. “A brand is the symbolic embodiment of all the information connected with a company, product or service. It also encompasses the set of expectations associated with a product or service which typically arise in the minds of people (Wikipedia).” A brand is not something that can be bought but must be earned. Companies like Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss are worth more than their balance sheet would indicate due to their brand. Their brand quantifiably increases their profits and any threat to that brand could be devastating. A recent article in Business Week ranked and estimated the value of brands such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss. The brands of both Nike and Gap are valued over 7 billion dollars while Levi’s brand is worth over 3 billion (Business Week Online). This is why “Nike couldn’t ignore the possibility that all those crazy kids campaigning against foul labor practices in Asian or Mexican sweatshops might have something to do with falling sales (Greider).” Nike Inc. provides an excellent example of the importance of the brand because so much anti-sweathop campaigning has been directed against Nike. Trying to protect their brand Nike created the Fair Labor Association in the 1990’s which monitors the factories of participating companies. Then in 2005 the company publicized the names and locations of their contracted factories, a huge acknowledgement of consumer activist influence (Jung). And again desperately trying to mend their image, earlier this year Nike and other companies in need of brand improvement joined with the world’s most famous humanitarian, Bono, lead singer of U2, in creating Product Red. Product Red will raise funds to fight diseases but Nike sees it as a way to look like a superhero replacing the villainous, shifty-eyed look they carry now (Milmo). Yet Nike isn’t the only company concerned about their brand; the concern is universal. Walmart’s spokeperson William Wertz wrote, “No question that such a reputation is a plus. Having confidence that a factory is doing the right things for workers in terms of pay, benefits, working conditions, etc., is important to us (Lynch).” Additionally, the importance of a company’s brand is beneficial to the consumer; it gives us a weapon. Brands force social change. “Positive social change in the developing world is happening more quickly than it otherwise would specifically because of corporations’ need to protect brand value by meeting consumers’ expectations (Hilton).” Company’s dependence on brand means that any challenge to it will demand their utmost attention.
Even with the improvements conditions are still worse than American facilities. Corporations are still outsourcing to developing nations because the wages are still much lower than those of the United States. Yet eliminating sweatshops is not the answer. “No one should defend the horrors – factories with locked doors during fires, employers who confiscate passports and harass workers, etc. – but the fact remains that, on the whole, what most opponents call "sweatshops" are actually a good thing.” As put by Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati sweatshops are a “ticket to slightly less impoverishment.” Economists, both liberal and conservative, are united in their opinion that sweatshops equal progress (Goldberg). In fact, Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs wrote in The New York Times of 1997 that “my concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few…those are precisely the jobs that were the stepping stones for Singapore and Hong Kong, and those are the jobs that have to come to Africa to get them out of back-breaking rural poverty (Hilton).” Sweatshops represent about 80% of Cambodia’s total export earnings, and when you ask a local Cambodian for their opinion they will say, as Sophia Mang did, “I like this life better. Both the farm and this are hard work but this is a better life (Lynch).” The word sweatshop may incite opposition but think of the alternatives – prostitution and hunger – and the benefits to sweatshops become immediately apparent.
There is an answer to thirteen year olds working sixteen hours a day for three dollars. The answer is consumer activism. Corporations such as Nike, Gap and Levi Strauss have outsourced their production to developing nations due to low cost labor but their products are still sold in the United States. Because of that, consumers have power. Consumer activist movements have shown these multi-national corporations that the working conditions of their factories are important and because the customer is always right things have improved. The evidence shows that consumer activism improves working conditions, wages and even lowers unemployment. Improvements occur because of the corporation’s dependence on their brand. “Brands are not the enemy of those wanting to make world a better place, but their greatest ally (Hilton).” Consumer activism improves working conditions in sweatshops of developing nations because consumer activism motivates brand name companies to maintain their reputation.
“2002 Global Brands Scoreboard.” 5 Aug 2002. Business Week Online. 12 Mar 2006.
“Brand.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar 2006.
Goldberg, Jonah. “The Know-Nothings Find a Cause.” The National Review Feb 2001: 30.EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 9 Mar 2006.
Greider, William. “Victory at McDonalds.” Nation Aug 2003: 8-36. EBSCOHost. BrighamYoung U. Libs., Provo. 9 Mar 2006.
Harrison, Ann and Jason Scorse. “Improving the Conditions of Workers? Minimum WageLegislation and Anti-Sweatshop Activism.” California Management Review Winter2006: 144-160. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 8 Mar 2006.
Jung, Helen. “Nike Cast Light on Factories.” The Oregonian 13 Apr 2005. ProQuest.Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
Lynch, David. “Cambodia’s Sale Pitch: Sweatshop-free products.” USA Today 4 April 2005.EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 8 Mar 2006.
Milmo, Cahal. “Ethical Shopping: The Red Revolution.” Belfast Telegraph 27 Jan 2006.ProQuest. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
“Sweatshop.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar 2006.
Wells, Don. “Global Sweatshops and Ethical Buying Codes.” Canada Dimension Oct 2003: 9-11. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 11 Mar 2006.
“You can’t stop him! He is just so TALENTED!”The Effects of the Sports Media on African American Stereotypes
Jackie Robinson, Doug Williams, Texas Western – historic names that signify the immergence of the African American athlete in professional sports. Jackie Robinson became the first professional African American baseball player in 1947 debuting with the Brooklyn Dodgers. In football Doug Williams was not the first African American in the NFL, but he became the first African American quarterback to win a Super Bowl in 1988. The first team in NCAA Basketball history to start five African American players was Texas Western – and they won the championship that year. Jackie, Doug and Texas Western broke down racial barriers. Baseball before Jackie Robinson was an all-white-boys club. African Americans before Doug Williams were considered mentally ill-equipped to manage a team as quarterbacks. And no one imagined that an all-black team could win at basketball’s highest level (Wikipedia). Today baseball is black, white and every other color imaginable. In the NFL athletic African American quarterbacks like Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb are among the best at their position. All-black basketball teams are the standard in college and in the NBA. The immergence of the African American athlete has removed barriers to their progress, however stereotypes that limit of African Americans still exist in the sports media.
Sports are American rituals. It starts at a young age, playing catch in the backyard with dad, progresses to Pee-wee and Little League and high school sports. Much later, the long summer days of 18 holes at the local country club characterize the golden years of the typical middle class American. Our live are constantly influenced but sports and the sports media. For the fan, watching sports is not mere passive recreation. Most sports fans don’t just watch the game, they prepare, watch and then review. For example, studies show that a majority of NFL football fans begin their Sundays with the NFL Gameday crew on ESPN with broadcasters offering commentary, analysis and predictions regarding the upcoming games (Rada and Wulfemeyer). Through television, radio and the internet the minds of sport fans are inundated with the opinions and comments of the sports media. And exactly what are they telling us?
With the marriage of television and sports came the assimilation of African Americans into mainstream middle class American culture. African American participation in professional sports began at the same time that television became an integral part of American society. This expanded the market for sports and the possibilities of athletes – and African Americans. The sports market became another avenue to achieve the American dream, go from rags to riches with the swing of a bat or a flick of the wrist. In this meritocracy African Americans have flourished (Rada and Wulfemeyer). They are the stars. However, these stars are being typecasted. In spite of an expanded presence, the sports media continually stereotypes African Americans in one specific role: the “brute.”
Commonly, stereotypes afflict the minority. Stereotypes arise from man’s limited knowledge. They are defined as "cognitive structures that contain the perceiver's knowledge, beliefs, and expectancies about some human group (Fujioka)." Stereotypes arise because having intimate knowledge of every member of the human race is impossible. Instead, “we notice a trait which marks a well known type and fill in the rest by means of the stereotype we carry about in our heads.” Stereotyping is not malicious; it is an attempt to understand the world (Buchanan). However, stereotypes limit our understanding of the world. By definition, minorities are less abundant, known and understood, a definition that causes the stereotypes. Stereotypes of minorities are frequently demeaning, as demeaning as “brute”. Webster’s defines “brute” as, “of or relating to beasts; characteristic of an animal in quality, action or instinct; purely physical.” This stereotype of African Americans has existed since they were taken from Africa, subjugated and enslaved (Rada and Wulfemeyer). The “brute” stereotype of African Americans exists in spite of their emancipation and desegregation, in spite of their progress and impact on this country. The “brute” African American is perpetuated through the sports media.
Although the sports media has created an avenue for African American progress it has perpetuated their “brute” image by significantly emphasizing their athleticism and Caucasian intelligence. Since the first steps taken by Jackie, Doug and Texas Western African Americans have been a dominant force in professional sports, and the athleticism of many African Americans is undeniable and overemphasized. Broadcasters, the connection between the viewers and the action, have been shown to repeatedly emphasize athleticism while disregarding other qualities of African Americans. A study on sports commentary performed in 1985 shows that when announcers frame issues and behaviors they do so according to race-based misperceptions. Sports commentary defines Caucasian athletes as hard-working and intelligent while African Americans are physical specimens, genetically advanced super athletes. This does not mean that broadcasters are racist (Rada and Wulfemeyer). The fast-paced action and unscripted commentary creates an environment primed for racial stereotypes. Announcers are pressured to fill time by commenting about everything from an athlete’s childhood to their love life, yet studies show that these comments are significantly skewed to defining African Americans as “brutes.”
One example is the study done by doctors James Rada and Tim Wulfemeyer of college sports. Rada and Wulfemeyer studied the 1998 regular season of college football and the 1999 NCAA basketball tournament, analyzing the commentaries made by the broadcasters. Among other things, the hypotheses that African American players would receive more positive comments relating to athleticism than White player and that White players would receive more regarding intellect were tested. A statistically significant 92% of all comments regarding physical ability were directed to African Americans. Also, Caucasian players received a significantly higher percentage of comments regarding intellect. Additionally, during the basketball tournament, eighteen times references like, “The team they have on the floor right now is just so athletic,” were made about specific teams. In each and every instance the comment referred to teams with five African Americans on the court (Rada and Wulfemeyer). These results indicate the stereotype, and according to Dr. Wonsek of Hunter College African American scholastic inferiority and athletic ability are the most prevalent stereotypes of African Americans today. This sounds an awful lot like the definition of a “brute.”
Because of these unintentionally racist comments the “brute” stereotype prevails. In 1980 a study by Black Enterprise showed that although African Americans have progressed in employment and politics their image in the media is worse than it was ten years ago. The progress and domination that African Americans have achieved in sports has been undermined by the interpretation made by the media. The sports media has attributed their progress to genetics instead of hard work (Wonsek). Another study done by Andrew Billings of Clemson University showed that each success of African American quarterbacks in the NFL were vastly more likely to be attributed to their physical abilities than their minds. So even when African Americans succeed it is not because of their work ethic or their intelligence, it is because they were born as “brutes.”
Though the effects of the media are difficult to quantify, some studies have demonstrated a statistically significant effect of the media on perception. Obviously, there are many other things that influence stereotypes. Parenting, geographic location and peers are just a few of the influence on perceptions. Because there are so many influences it is impossible to isolate the effects of the media. However, the influence can be proved to exist. A study done by Yuki Fujioka compared Japanese and American students’ perceptions of African Americans. Based on the assumption that Japanese students have less direct contact with African Americans than American students, researchers compared both student groups’ perceptions of African Americans. The results first confirmed that Japanese personal contact with African Americans was significantly lower than Americans. The only contact that Japanese students had with African Americans was through the television. Then the data showed that Japanese students hold significantly more negative stereotypes concerning African Americans than American students. Additionally, Japanese ratings of African American work ethic, wealth, trust and intelligence were significantly lower than the ratings of American students. The influence of media does exist. The study shows that media does influence perception of groups especially in absence of their direct contact.
The sports media has provided an excellent medium for African Americans to progress. It gives exposure to their many abilities and enabled them to progress to middle and upper class America. Television is the most powerful marketer of African Americans. They are the stars of professional sports. However these stars are being portrayed as “brutes” by the sports media. Emphasizing African American physical prowess in comparison to Caucasian intelligence only perpetuates the stereotype that has existed in the US since the days of slavery and ignores the progress made by Jackie Robinson, Doug Williams and Texas Western. The evidence of such bias is significant. The sports media perpetuates the “brute” stereotype of African Americans by emphasizing African American athleticism and Caucasian intelligence.
Billings, Andrew. “Depicting the Quarterback in Black and White: A Content Analysisof College and Professional Football Broadcast Commentary.” The HowardJournal of Communications 2004: 201-210. EBSCOHost. Brigham YoungU. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
Buchanan, William. “How Others See Us.” Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science September 1954: 1-11. JSTOR. Brigham Young U.Libs., Provo. 7 Apr 2006.
Definition: Brute. 14 Apr 2006. Merriam-Webster.
Fujioka, Yuki. “Television portrayals and African-American stereotypes: Examination oftelevision effects when direct contact is lacking.” Journalism and MassCommunication Quarterly Spring 1999: 52-76. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
“Jackie Robinson.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
Rada, James and Tim Wulfemeyer. “Color Coded: Racial Descriptors in TelevisionCoverage of Intercollegiate Sports.” Journal of Broadcasting and ElectronicMedia March 2005. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
“Texas Western.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
“Washington Redskins.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
Wonsek, Pamela. “College Basketball on Television: A Study of Racism in the Media.”Media, Culture and Society July 1992: 449-461. EBSCOHost. Brigham YoungU. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
Sports are American rituals. It starts at a young age, playing catch in the backyard with dad, progresses to Pee-wee and Little League and high school sports. Much later, the long summer days of 18 holes at the local country club characterize the golden years of the typical middle class American. Our live are constantly influenced but sports and the sports media. For the fan, watching sports is not mere passive recreation. Most sports fans don’t just watch the game, they prepare, watch and then review. For example, studies show that a majority of NFL football fans begin their Sundays with the NFL Gameday crew on ESPN with broadcasters offering commentary, analysis and predictions regarding the upcoming games (Rada and Wulfemeyer). Through television, radio and the internet the minds of sport fans are inundated with the opinions and comments of the sports media. And exactly what are they telling us?
With the marriage of television and sports came the assimilation of African Americans into mainstream middle class American culture. African American participation in professional sports began at the same time that television became an integral part of American society. This expanded the market for sports and the possibilities of athletes – and African Americans. The sports market became another avenue to achieve the American dream, go from rags to riches with the swing of a bat or a flick of the wrist. In this meritocracy African Americans have flourished (Rada and Wulfemeyer). They are the stars. However, these stars are being typecasted. In spite of an expanded presence, the sports media continually stereotypes African Americans in one specific role: the “brute.”
Commonly, stereotypes afflict the minority. Stereotypes arise from man’s limited knowledge. They are defined as "cognitive structures that contain the perceiver's knowledge, beliefs, and expectancies about some human group (Fujioka)." Stereotypes arise because having intimate knowledge of every member of the human race is impossible. Instead, “we notice a trait which marks a well known type and fill in the rest by means of the stereotype we carry about in our heads.” Stereotyping is not malicious; it is an attempt to understand the world (Buchanan). However, stereotypes limit our understanding of the world. By definition, minorities are less abundant, known and understood, a definition that causes the stereotypes. Stereotypes of minorities are frequently demeaning, as demeaning as “brute”. Webster’s defines “brute” as, “of or relating to beasts; characteristic of an animal in quality, action or instinct; purely physical.” This stereotype of African Americans has existed since they were taken from Africa, subjugated and enslaved (Rada and Wulfemeyer). The “brute” stereotype of African Americans exists in spite of their emancipation and desegregation, in spite of their progress and impact on this country. The “brute” African American is perpetuated through the sports media.
Although the sports media has created an avenue for African American progress it has perpetuated their “brute” image by significantly emphasizing their athleticism and Caucasian intelligence. Since the first steps taken by Jackie, Doug and Texas Western African Americans have been a dominant force in professional sports, and the athleticism of many African Americans is undeniable and overemphasized. Broadcasters, the connection between the viewers and the action, have been shown to repeatedly emphasize athleticism while disregarding other qualities of African Americans. A study on sports commentary performed in 1985 shows that when announcers frame issues and behaviors they do so according to race-based misperceptions. Sports commentary defines Caucasian athletes as hard-working and intelligent while African Americans are physical specimens, genetically advanced super athletes. This does not mean that broadcasters are racist (Rada and Wulfemeyer). The fast-paced action and unscripted commentary creates an environment primed for racial stereotypes. Announcers are pressured to fill time by commenting about everything from an athlete’s childhood to their love life, yet studies show that these comments are significantly skewed to defining African Americans as “brutes.”
One example is the study done by doctors James Rada and Tim Wulfemeyer of college sports. Rada and Wulfemeyer studied the 1998 regular season of college football and the 1999 NCAA basketball tournament, analyzing the commentaries made by the broadcasters. Among other things, the hypotheses that African American players would receive more positive comments relating to athleticism than White player and that White players would receive more regarding intellect were tested. A statistically significant 92% of all comments regarding physical ability were directed to African Americans. Also, Caucasian players received a significantly higher percentage of comments regarding intellect. Additionally, during the basketball tournament, eighteen times references like, “The team they have on the floor right now is just so athletic,” were made about specific teams. In each and every instance the comment referred to teams with five African Americans on the court (Rada and Wulfemeyer). These results indicate the stereotype, and according to Dr. Wonsek of Hunter College African American scholastic inferiority and athletic ability are the most prevalent stereotypes of African Americans today. This sounds an awful lot like the definition of a “brute.”
Because of these unintentionally racist comments the “brute” stereotype prevails. In 1980 a study by Black Enterprise showed that although African Americans have progressed in employment and politics their image in the media is worse than it was ten years ago. The progress and domination that African Americans have achieved in sports has been undermined by the interpretation made by the media. The sports media has attributed their progress to genetics instead of hard work (Wonsek). Another study done by Andrew Billings of Clemson University showed that each success of African American quarterbacks in the NFL were vastly more likely to be attributed to their physical abilities than their minds. So even when African Americans succeed it is not because of their work ethic or their intelligence, it is because they were born as “brutes.”
Though the effects of the media are difficult to quantify, some studies have demonstrated a statistically significant effect of the media on perception. Obviously, there are many other things that influence stereotypes. Parenting, geographic location and peers are just a few of the influence on perceptions. Because there are so many influences it is impossible to isolate the effects of the media. However, the influence can be proved to exist. A study done by Yuki Fujioka compared Japanese and American students’ perceptions of African Americans. Based on the assumption that Japanese students have less direct contact with African Americans than American students, researchers compared both student groups’ perceptions of African Americans. The results first confirmed that Japanese personal contact with African Americans was significantly lower than Americans. The only contact that Japanese students had with African Americans was through the television. Then the data showed that Japanese students hold significantly more negative stereotypes concerning African Americans than American students. Additionally, Japanese ratings of African American work ethic, wealth, trust and intelligence were significantly lower than the ratings of American students. The influence of media does exist. The study shows that media does influence perception of groups especially in absence of their direct contact.
The sports media has provided an excellent medium for African Americans to progress. It gives exposure to their many abilities and enabled them to progress to middle and upper class America. Television is the most powerful marketer of African Americans. They are the stars of professional sports. However these stars are being portrayed as “brutes” by the sports media. Emphasizing African American physical prowess in comparison to Caucasian intelligence only perpetuates the stereotype that has existed in the US since the days of slavery and ignores the progress made by Jackie Robinson, Doug Williams and Texas Western. The evidence of such bias is significant. The sports media perpetuates the “brute” stereotype of African Americans by emphasizing African American athleticism and Caucasian intelligence.
Billings, Andrew. “Depicting the Quarterback in Black and White: A Content Analysisof College and Professional Football Broadcast Commentary.” The HowardJournal of Communications 2004: 201-210. EBSCOHost. Brigham YoungU. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
Buchanan, William. “How Others See Us.” Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science September 1954: 1-11. JSTOR. Brigham Young U.Libs., Provo. 7 Apr 2006.
Definition: Brute. 14 Apr 2006. Merriam-Webster.
Fujioka, Yuki. “Television portrayals and African-American stereotypes: Examination oftelevision effects when direct contact is lacking.” Journalism and MassCommunication Quarterly Spring 1999: 52-76. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
“Jackie Robinson.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
Rada, James and Tim Wulfemeyer. “Color Coded: Racial Descriptors in TelevisionCoverage of Intercollegiate Sports.” Journal of Broadcasting and ElectronicMedia March 2005. EBSCOHost. Brigham Young U. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
“Texas Western.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
“Washington Redskins.” Wikipedia. 11 Apr 2006.
Wonsek, Pamela. “College Basketball on Television: A Study of Racism in the Media.”Media, Culture and Society July 1992: 449-461. EBSCOHost. Brigham YoungU. Libs., Provo. 5 Apr 2006.
The Beast Unleashed
The Beast of Bentonville has snuck out and is now, at this very instance, clamping its mighty jaws around the whole of the earth. Wal-Mart started in the small town of Bentonville, Arkansas by Sam Walton, yet its blue, red and white cookie cutter stores are now seen on every continent but Africa and Antarctica – though that will change the moment real penguins decide they enjoy Coca Cola, as the commercials suggest. The number of stores in the United States is approaching four thousand while down South and across the pond the company owns and operates a total of two thousand three hundred and forty one stores with many more on their way. Of note, Wal-Mart has seven hundred and eighty six stores in Mexico, three hundred and fifteen in the United Kingdom, four hundred and forty two in Japan, and fifty six stores in China (International History). The numbers and the locals of Wal-Mart’s presence are growing. Wal-Mart’s expansion is the definition of globalization; breaking down borders, importing and exporting goods around the globe.
Globalization is defined as the free movement of capital, labor, and goods across national borders. Capital refers to the tools used to convert raw materials into products, like the automated machinery that Ford uses to convert steel into a moving vehicle. Globalization provides poor countries greater access to capital, causing wages to increase because one person produces more and requires greater compensation. Theory states that globalization will reduce global inequality (Easterly). Well, that is theory.
According to theory, Wal-Mart’s growing international presence creates a greater global flow of capital and more jobs and decreases inequality. This is shown empirically by GDP and income growth data in developing nations where Wal-Mart’s presence is growing. International macroeconomic data show that from 1996 to 2004 out of 150 countries with data only one country experienced a reduction in GDP on average: Zimbabwe (World Bank). Globalization has lead to GDP growth in almost every country in the world. Martin Wolf, an economist of the World Bank, shows in his book, “Why Globalization Works,” that between 1980 and 2000 average real incomes in China rose by 440% while that of the United States only rose by 60% (140-150). Wal-Mart’s growing presence in international markets and globalization decrease global inequality of wages by creating jobs and allowing more capital to flow between rich and poor nations.
Or does it? Close examination of the data tells us nothing about the effects of Wal-Mart and globalization on inequality. GDP around the globe and average real incomes may be growing, but the poor may still be just as poor compared to the rich – or more. Averages only depict one point in the distribution of income not the shape of the distribution. The average could remain statistically the same even if the difference between the top 10% and the bottom 10% of the wealth distribution may be three times as large.
According to data, globalization allows the winners to take it all. During this period of globalization, incomes of the poorest fifth of working families in the United States has dropped by 21 percent between 1979 and 1995 while the incomes of the richest fifth jumped by 30 percent. Globally, in 1960 20 percent of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20 percent but by 1995, the richest 20 percent had 82 times as much income as the poorest 20 percent. Inequality has increased even though markets are more global than ever, markets that provide the Amazon access to Wall Street and corporate executives’ access to authentic jewelry and pottery straight from Africa. The theory of globalization makes more intuitive sense, but the evidence shows that globalization does not eliminate but actually exacerbates inequality.
An example given by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree will serve to explain this phenomenon. Massive globalization has occurred in the National Basketball Association over the past few decades. Today the NBA is seen in more than 190 countries in over 41 different languages. The globalization of the NBA has been accompanied by an explosion in players’ salaries with the most famous, Michael Jordan, leading the way. In 1997 Fortune magazine estimated his annual income at $80 million. Michael Jordan was and is an international superstar. The superstar effect is an economic phenomenon that explains the huge salaries of entertainers like Michael Jordan. He offers his product at an extremely low, unchanging cost to him, and as his international influence grows – with Mexicans, Australians and Chinese buying red jerseys with the number 23 – so does his paycheck. Yet sitting just 11 seats away from him on the same bench of the National Champions of 1997, wearing the same red jersey, playing the same game in the same league is Joe Kleine whose salary in 1997 was $272,250. Don’t strain too hard doing the subtraction, the difference is $79,727,750. This is the superstar effect. This huge inequality of wages is because Michael Jordan has a global market for his service and Joe Kleine does not (Friedman 251-254). The same is true for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the Michael Jordan of the retail business. While the incomes of local retailers, whose influence is Joe-Kleine-esque, shrinks, Wal-Mart’s wallets are stuffed more and more with each additional box-store.
Think about this superstar effect logically. No longer do local retailers compete solely amongst one another but against the entire world. It does not matter now which local furniture retailer has the lowest price on the ideal couch because Chinese and European retailers are also involved. If a company gains an advantage, inevitably it will try to expand their share of the market. Market share expansion is magnified because an increase of 1 percent means an increase of one percent of over six billion consumers. The best companies with the lowest costs and highest quality will win in globalization, a phenomena that widens the rich-poor gap, because they take it all. Nothing is left for the small-time and the small-town. Wal-Mart is this superstar who is winning on the global playing field. It continues to eliminate the small-time competitors in small-town USA, lowering employment from 2 to 4 percent in each local, and they are eliminating puny international competitors as well (Neumark).
Evidence shows that the trend of globalization actually increases inequality among nations. Theory states that capital will flow to labor-rich nations causing their production and thereby their wages to increase. William Easterly, an economist from New York University argues this saying, empirically, theory is wrong – both labor and capital flow to the richest countries. The globalization of the economy has coincided with the migration of millions leaving the developing nations towards the wealthy ones. Nearly 4 million people migrated in the year 2000 to the richest countries of the world creating a “brain-drain” as an educated person is 3.4 times more likely to migrate than an uneducated one. Labor is not all that migrates to wealthy nations. In 1990 the richest 20 percent of the world received 92 percent of portfolio capital inflows, while the poorest 20 percent only received 0.1 percent. The same is true with private capital inflows and foreign direct investment; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (Easterly 21-22). Wal-Mart is a microcosm of this phenomenon. Wal-Mart’s greeters and shelf-stockers do not gain much by Wal-Mart’s expansion. Each new store fills the wallets of Wal-Mart’s top executives in America more and more but destroys local businesses and lowers local payrolls by 2 to 5 percent (Neumark).
Wal-Mart and globalization are not leaving. Rather than ask “Should Wal-Mart expand or should globalization occur?” – those questions are old news – we should ask “What are the effects?” Wal-Mart’s growing international presences increases global inequality. Wal-Mart, retail superstar extraordinaire, mops the floors with the competition, taking all the prize money and leaving nothing. Their “Always Low Prices” eliminate competition and expand inequality. GDP may grow and on average real incomes may converge, but this does not imply that inequality has been reduced. Actually, since Wal-Mart and globalization, incomes of the top 20 percent of the world have expanded from 30 to 82 times that of the bottom 20 percent. Something went wrong with the theory. The Beast of Bentonville is loose and being spotted all over the world; watch out for his teeth.
“International History.” Wal-Mart; International Operations. 2006. 20 Feb 2006.
Neumark, David, Junfu Zhang and Stephen Ciccarella. “Report 122; How Wal-martAffects Local Jobs and Wages.” The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets. Nov 2005. 20 Mar 2006.
Easterly, William. “Globalization, Poverty and All That; Factor Endowment VersusProductivity Views.” NBER Globalization Workshop. 2005. New YorkUniversity. 19 Feb 2006.
Wolf, Martin. Why Globalization Works. London: Yale University Press, 2004.
Friedman, Thomas. The Lexus and The Olive Tree. New York: Farrar, Straus andGiroux, 1999.
The World Bank Group. 15 Mar 2006.
Globalization is defined as the free movement of capital, labor, and goods across national borders. Capital refers to the tools used to convert raw materials into products, like the automated machinery that Ford uses to convert steel into a moving vehicle. Globalization provides poor countries greater access to capital, causing wages to increase because one person produces more and requires greater compensation. Theory states that globalization will reduce global inequality (Easterly). Well, that is theory.
According to theory, Wal-Mart’s growing international presence creates a greater global flow of capital and more jobs and decreases inequality. This is shown empirically by GDP and income growth data in developing nations where Wal-Mart’s presence is growing. International macroeconomic data show that from 1996 to 2004 out of 150 countries with data only one country experienced a reduction in GDP on average: Zimbabwe (World Bank). Globalization has lead to GDP growth in almost every country in the world. Martin Wolf, an economist of the World Bank, shows in his book, “Why Globalization Works,” that between 1980 and 2000 average real incomes in China rose by 440% while that of the United States only rose by 60% (140-150). Wal-Mart’s growing presence in international markets and globalization decrease global inequality of wages by creating jobs and allowing more capital to flow between rich and poor nations.
Or does it? Close examination of the data tells us nothing about the effects of Wal-Mart and globalization on inequality. GDP around the globe and average real incomes may be growing, but the poor may still be just as poor compared to the rich – or more. Averages only depict one point in the distribution of income not the shape of the distribution. The average could remain statistically the same even if the difference between the top 10% and the bottom 10% of the wealth distribution may be three times as large.
According to data, globalization allows the winners to take it all. During this period of globalization, incomes of the poorest fifth of working families in the United States has dropped by 21 percent between 1979 and 1995 while the incomes of the richest fifth jumped by 30 percent. Globally, in 1960 20 percent of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20 percent but by 1995, the richest 20 percent had 82 times as much income as the poorest 20 percent. Inequality has increased even though markets are more global than ever, markets that provide the Amazon access to Wall Street and corporate executives’ access to authentic jewelry and pottery straight from Africa. The theory of globalization makes more intuitive sense, but the evidence shows that globalization does not eliminate but actually exacerbates inequality.
An example given by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree will serve to explain this phenomenon. Massive globalization has occurred in the National Basketball Association over the past few decades. Today the NBA is seen in more than 190 countries in over 41 different languages. The globalization of the NBA has been accompanied by an explosion in players’ salaries with the most famous, Michael Jordan, leading the way. In 1997 Fortune magazine estimated his annual income at $80 million. Michael Jordan was and is an international superstar. The superstar effect is an economic phenomenon that explains the huge salaries of entertainers like Michael Jordan. He offers his product at an extremely low, unchanging cost to him, and as his international influence grows – with Mexicans, Australians and Chinese buying red jerseys with the number 23 – so does his paycheck. Yet sitting just 11 seats away from him on the same bench of the National Champions of 1997, wearing the same red jersey, playing the same game in the same league is Joe Kleine whose salary in 1997 was $272,250. Don’t strain too hard doing the subtraction, the difference is $79,727,750. This is the superstar effect. This huge inequality of wages is because Michael Jordan has a global market for his service and Joe Kleine does not (Friedman 251-254). The same is true for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the Michael Jordan of the retail business. While the incomes of local retailers, whose influence is Joe-Kleine-esque, shrinks, Wal-Mart’s wallets are stuffed more and more with each additional box-store.
Think about this superstar effect logically. No longer do local retailers compete solely amongst one another but against the entire world. It does not matter now which local furniture retailer has the lowest price on the ideal couch because Chinese and European retailers are also involved. If a company gains an advantage, inevitably it will try to expand their share of the market. Market share expansion is magnified because an increase of 1 percent means an increase of one percent of over six billion consumers. The best companies with the lowest costs and highest quality will win in globalization, a phenomena that widens the rich-poor gap, because they take it all. Nothing is left for the small-time and the small-town. Wal-Mart is this superstar who is winning on the global playing field. It continues to eliminate the small-time competitors in small-town USA, lowering employment from 2 to 4 percent in each local, and they are eliminating puny international competitors as well (Neumark).
Evidence shows that the trend of globalization actually increases inequality among nations. Theory states that capital will flow to labor-rich nations causing their production and thereby their wages to increase. William Easterly, an economist from New York University argues this saying, empirically, theory is wrong – both labor and capital flow to the richest countries. The globalization of the economy has coincided with the migration of millions leaving the developing nations towards the wealthy ones. Nearly 4 million people migrated in the year 2000 to the richest countries of the world creating a “brain-drain” as an educated person is 3.4 times more likely to migrate than an uneducated one. Labor is not all that migrates to wealthy nations. In 1990 the richest 20 percent of the world received 92 percent of portfolio capital inflows, while the poorest 20 percent only received 0.1 percent. The same is true with private capital inflows and foreign direct investment; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (Easterly 21-22). Wal-Mart is a microcosm of this phenomenon. Wal-Mart’s greeters and shelf-stockers do not gain much by Wal-Mart’s expansion. Each new store fills the wallets of Wal-Mart’s top executives in America more and more but destroys local businesses and lowers local payrolls by 2 to 5 percent (Neumark).
Wal-Mart and globalization are not leaving. Rather than ask “Should Wal-Mart expand or should globalization occur?” – those questions are old news – we should ask “What are the effects?” Wal-Mart’s growing international presences increases global inequality. Wal-Mart, retail superstar extraordinaire, mops the floors with the competition, taking all the prize money and leaving nothing. Their “Always Low Prices” eliminate competition and expand inequality. GDP may grow and on average real incomes may converge, but this does not imply that inequality has been reduced. Actually, since Wal-Mart and globalization, incomes of the top 20 percent of the world have expanded from 30 to 82 times that of the bottom 20 percent. Something went wrong with the theory. The Beast of Bentonville is loose and being spotted all over the world; watch out for his teeth.
“International History.” Wal-Mart; International Operations. 2006. 20 Feb 2006.
Neumark, David, Junfu Zhang and Stephen Ciccarella. “Report 122; How Wal-martAffects Local Jobs and Wages.” The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets. Nov 2005. 20 Mar 2006.
Easterly, William. “Globalization, Poverty and All That; Factor Endowment VersusProductivity Views.” NBER Globalization Workshop. 2005. New YorkUniversity. 19 Feb 2006.
Wolf, Martin. Why Globalization Works. London: Yale University Press, 2004.
Friedman, Thomas. The Lexus and The Olive Tree. New York: Farrar, Straus andGiroux, 1999.
The World Bank Group. 15 Mar 2006.
1 Nephi 2: Sacrifice
Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice, I hear it all the time. It is one of the fundamental laws of heaven. At baptism we implicitly covet to give our all to Christ through obedience and remembrance so that he may save us. In the Old Testament people were sacrificing things at every turn, an obsession that I believe caused a real big shortage of lambs, rams and other sacrificial beasts.
In 1 Nephi 2 the story is about sacrifice. Lehi, called as a prophet of God, is commanded to leave Jerusalem before the destruction. Unfortunately, Lehi does not hate Jerusalem. In chapter 1 he bemoans the destruction of Jerusalem, his home, the home of his fathers and grandfathers. Additionally, Lehi is a rich man. In verse 4 it recounts the many possessions of Lehi. And in chapter one, where it says "goodly parents" there is an argument that "goodly" means "wealthy". So it is not like this guy has no where to live in the first place. He has a lot to lose.
His sons know that. Laman and Lemuel are furious. They bemoaned leaving Jerusalem due to the loss of their inheritance, everything that was about to be theirs. Now what did they have to look forward to? Desert, sand, death? Or all three?
That is why the shortest verse in the second chapter of Nephi is so beautiful. Verse 15 states: "And my father dwelt in a tent." The inherent dichotomy between the tent and the previous dwelling of Lehi and his family shows the complete and holy nature of Lehi's sacrifice. He did not complain. He did not hold back or hold onto some of his precious belongings. He left Jerusalem, the home of his fathers, journeyed into the wilderness and dwelt in a tent. That is sacrifice.
Sacrifice is taught everywhere from the scriptures to family home evening to the ancient and modern temples. If we were to generalize the first principles and ordinances of the gospel - we shouldn't do this often, they are difficult enough without generalities - the path to salvation could be faith, sacrifice, confirmation and then salvation. Repentance and obedience to the principles of the gospel such as baptism and recieving the Holy Ghost considered as parts of our sacrifice, this is an interesting path. Let's analyze this path.
Faith is the principle of action in all things. Joseph Smith emphatically taught this doctrine in the Lectures on Faith, and it is true. To have faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ motivates us to approach him, to become more like him, to sanctify ourselves. But to attain the faith necessary to sanctify ourselves for the presence of God the key is sacrifice. Joseph Smith said, "From the first existence of man, the fiath necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life, and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth's sake, not even withoholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nore will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances then, he can obain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life. (Lectures on Faith 6:58)
And what type of sacrifice brings total confirmation? The type that shows God that without a doubt we will do all that he asks, no matter what. To Abraham his trial seemed wrong. Why would God, a loving God who had blessed him with so much, as him to kill his only son, his only happiness? God had promised to him that his son would be the beginning of his posterity, the promised posterity to Abraham. Maybe Abraham was thinking to himself while hearing this commandment, "What have I done to upset God?" or "I though that God couldn't lie." Nevertheless, he obeyed and was willing to sacrifice all that he had for God. Nephi was asked to kill. But Nephi had heard his father say many times while reading through the book of Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt not kill." Nephi knew that this was a commandment, but he also knew that God was then commanding him to kill. Nephi followed God, sacrificing himself and all the knowledge and strength that he though that he had to follow God. Joseph Smith again said,"When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 150).
Faith, sacrifice, and confirmation. The calling and election made sure is the confirmation. Joseph Smith taught the saints to seek after their calling and election. "I would exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until you make your calling and elction sure for yoursleves, by obtaining this more sure word of prophecy, and wait patiently for the promise until you obtain it." (Teachings, p.299) The calling and election is one of the deepest doctrine of the church but at the same time, as I have shown, it is one of the most fundamental. Faith, sacrifice, and confirmation. With that confirmation comes the peace that is the attribute of the Holy Ghost. "I think the peace here referred to is implicit in the Prophey's statement, "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer's morning. I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men." (DHC, 6:555). And it is the same peace implicitly spoken of in Ether 12:4, "Wherefore whose believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith . . ." The word peace is not there, but I feel it. The better world, the right hand of God, that is peace. And that peace is attained through faith, sacrifice and confirmation, with faith and sacrifice like that of Lehi.
In 1 Nephi 2 the story is about sacrifice. Lehi, called as a prophet of God, is commanded to leave Jerusalem before the destruction. Unfortunately, Lehi does not hate Jerusalem. In chapter 1 he bemoans the destruction of Jerusalem, his home, the home of his fathers and grandfathers. Additionally, Lehi is a rich man. In verse 4 it recounts the many possessions of Lehi. And in chapter one, where it says "goodly parents" there is an argument that "goodly" means "wealthy". So it is not like this guy has no where to live in the first place. He has a lot to lose.
His sons know that. Laman and Lemuel are furious. They bemoaned leaving Jerusalem due to the loss of their inheritance, everything that was about to be theirs. Now what did they have to look forward to? Desert, sand, death? Or all three?
That is why the shortest verse in the second chapter of Nephi is so beautiful. Verse 15 states: "And my father dwelt in a tent." The inherent dichotomy between the tent and the previous dwelling of Lehi and his family shows the complete and holy nature of Lehi's sacrifice. He did not complain. He did not hold back or hold onto some of his precious belongings. He left Jerusalem, the home of his fathers, journeyed into the wilderness and dwelt in a tent. That is sacrifice.
Sacrifice is taught everywhere from the scriptures to family home evening to the ancient and modern temples. If we were to generalize the first principles and ordinances of the gospel - we shouldn't do this often, they are difficult enough without generalities - the path to salvation could be faith, sacrifice, confirmation and then salvation. Repentance and obedience to the principles of the gospel such as baptism and recieving the Holy Ghost considered as parts of our sacrifice, this is an interesting path. Let's analyze this path.
Faith is the principle of action in all things. Joseph Smith emphatically taught this doctrine in the Lectures on Faith, and it is true. To have faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ motivates us to approach him, to become more like him, to sanctify ourselves. But to attain the faith necessary to sanctify ourselves for the presence of God the key is sacrifice. Joseph Smith said, "From the first existence of man, the fiath necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life, and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth's sake, not even withoholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nore will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances then, he can obain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life. (Lectures on Faith 6:58)
And what type of sacrifice brings total confirmation? The type that shows God that without a doubt we will do all that he asks, no matter what. To Abraham his trial seemed wrong. Why would God, a loving God who had blessed him with so much, as him to kill his only son, his only happiness? God had promised to him that his son would be the beginning of his posterity, the promised posterity to Abraham. Maybe Abraham was thinking to himself while hearing this commandment, "What have I done to upset God?" or "I though that God couldn't lie." Nevertheless, he obeyed and was willing to sacrifice all that he had for God. Nephi was asked to kill. But Nephi had heard his father say many times while reading through the book of Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt not kill." Nephi knew that this was a commandment, but he also knew that God was then commanding him to kill. Nephi followed God, sacrificing himself and all the knowledge and strength that he though that he had to follow God. Joseph Smith again said,"When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 150).
Faith, sacrifice, and confirmation. The calling and election made sure is the confirmation. Joseph Smith taught the saints to seek after their calling and election. "I would exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until you make your calling and elction sure for yoursleves, by obtaining this more sure word of prophecy, and wait patiently for the promise until you obtain it." (Teachings, p.299) The calling and election is one of the deepest doctrine of the church but at the same time, as I have shown, it is one of the most fundamental. Faith, sacrifice, and confirmation. With that confirmation comes the peace that is the attribute of the Holy Ghost. "I think the peace here referred to is implicit in the Prophey's statement, "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer's morning. I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men." (DHC, 6:555). And it is the same peace implicitly spoken of in Ether 12:4, "Wherefore whose believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith . . ." The word peace is not there, but I feel it. The better world, the right hand of God, that is peace. And that peace is attained through faith, sacrifice and confirmation, with faith and sacrifice like that of Lehi.
A Message to Judah from Joseph
I believe that President Ezra Taft Benson had a very unique mission among Church presidents. I cannot think of any other prophet of the Church whose mission was so politically motivated as President Benson's. The Lord used him as a tool to help establish the Jewish state and he came to know the Jewish people in a way that most modern saints do not. The article he wrote and published in the Ensign magazine demonstrates his deep love and understanding of the Jews and shows church members how we should view our brothers, the Jews.
The overall theme of President Benson's message was to accentuate similarities.
He spoke of the sufferings which people have experienced. He spoke of our common ancestry. I was impressed by President Benson’s associations with the Jewish people and their mutual respect. It is one thing to believe in the religious relations between our two people and it is another to put those beliefs into action as President Benson did by knowing, helping and being a friend to the Jewish leaders.
The dual nature of the story of Joseph impacted me most. I had never thought that the story of Joseph in Egypt providing for his famine stricken family was dualistic in meaning. The prophecy of Amos is indeed being fulfilled and the world is experiencing “not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the words of the Lord” and again Joseph is poised to feed his brethren. We, as members of the Church in the latter-days, believe we are descendants of Joseph whose son Ephraim was promised to effectuate the work in the last days. By preaching the gospel to all the ends of the earth, and to our brothers the Jews, we are fulfilling that promise.
Benson Article
The overall theme of President Benson's message was to accentuate similarities.
He spoke of the sufferings which people have experienced. He spoke of our common ancestry. I was impressed by President Benson’s associations with the Jewish people and their mutual respect. It is one thing to believe in the religious relations between our two people and it is another to put those beliefs into action as President Benson did by knowing, helping and being a friend to the Jewish leaders.
The dual nature of the story of Joseph impacted me most. I had never thought that the story of Joseph in Egypt providing for his famine stricken family was dualistic in meaning. The prophecy of Amos is indeed being fulfilled and the world is experiencing “not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the words of the Lord” and again Joseph is poised to feed his brethren. We, as members of the Church in the latter-days, believe we are descendants of Joseph whose son Ephraim was promised to effectuate the work in the last days. By preaching the gospel to all the ends of the earth, and to our brothers the Jews, we are fulfilling that promise.
Benson Article
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Jacob 4:14
Liken:
I would like to liken this scripture to us. However, to liken first we must understand what it is actually saying; we need the context, the history, the words of modern prophets.
Jacob: The brother of Nephi, who Nephi consecrated as a priest unto the people. Timeframe: His brother Nephi had just died (1:9), and under the reign of Nephi II the people had become wicked – pride, riches and concubines (1:15-16). Jacob gathered the people at the temple to call them to repentance. Chapter 4 begins his writings to their posterity, persuading them to come unto Christ.
But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.
Analysis:stiffnecked – pride, believing that they could do it themselves, no help necessary.
despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets and sought for things they could not understand – desired to be looked upon (pride) because of their stiffneckedness, and desired more than necessary. Dean Larson in the October 1987 Conference Report said about this: “They were apparently afflicted with a pseudosophistication and a snobbishness that gave them a false sense of superiority over those who came among them with the Lord's words of plainness.”
looking beyond the mark – beyond the simplicity and beyond Christ. Phillipians 3:14 states that, “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Christ is the mark. Elder McConkie said the interesting thing about the Jewish apostasy at the time of Christ was that, “It grew out of one of the most resolute attempts ever made by men to live what they assumed was the will of Jehovah . . . That is to say, they took the plain and simple things of pure religion and added to them a host of their own interpretations; they embellished them with added rites and performances; and they took a happy, joyous way of worship and turned it into a restrictive, curtailing, depressive system of rituals and performances. The living spirit of the Lord's law became in their hands the dead letter of Jewish ritualism.”
Are we seeing a correlation between the Jews in Israel and Jacob’s people? Jacob had just spoke to his people calling them to repentance for that very thing. The writings of Jacob don’t tell us that the Nephites had stopped obeying the Mosaic law, they hadn’t stopped performing the rituals, the sacrifices. They all gathered at the temple to listen to him so we can imagine that they were all active in their respective religious spheres/callings. The problem was that they had sought to understand some point of doctrine that was not plain. They were studying David and Solomon. They had taken up the doctrine of polygamy without the sanction of the prophet. Thereby, their “wives” were not wives but concubines. They had searched for riches, like those of David and Solomon, but had done so with the wrong intent.
Now Jacob was not speaking to these particular Nephites in this occasion, but writing to their children. Could it be that he was foreseeing a little bit into the future thinking that not all the people he had preached to would repent and their children would continue in their ways? I think his purpose was the same in both his preaching and his writing; to teach them to put Christ first. It didn’t matter that they kept the law, that they performed the rituals and the sacrifices, that they were active, that they went to church, that they accepted and did their callings etc, if they looked beyond the mark.
As Jacob says earlier in that same chapter, speaking about the ancient prophets, “Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him . . .” (4:5). 2 Nephi 11:4 states that, “all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him (Christ).” Everything.
What does the tree and something on a tree mean in the Old Testament? It is cursed. How does that typify Christ? He was the one cursed for us, in our stead, on the tree. The snake held up on the branch in the wilderness equals the beast cursed of God being cursed. Christ.
The scattering and gathering of Israel? Reminds us of the way that we are scattered from God because of disobedience and that through God’s servant, Christ, we will be gathered again.
The Melchizedek priesthood? Originally it bore his name and both are without beginning of days or end of years.
The Book of Mormon emphatically tells us that the point of the law of Moses was to lead us to Christ. Lets not miss the mark or look beyond it by loosing that focus. The Book of Mormon also leads us to Him.
I testify that it is only through Christ that we are saved. It is His enabling grace at FIRST that gives us the power to do anything. By the law no flesh is justified . . . and redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. (2 Nephi 2:5,6)
Liken:
I would like to liken this scripture to us. However, to liken first we must understand what it is actually saying; we need the context, the history, the words of modern prophets.
Jacob: The brother of Nephi, who Nephi consecrated as a priest unto the people. Timeframe: His brother Nephi had just died (1:9), and under the reign of Nephi II the people had become wicked – pride, riches and concubines (1:15-16). Jacob gathered the people at the temple to call them to repentance. Chapter 4 begins his writings to their posterity, persuading them to come unto Christ.
But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.
Analysis:stiffnecked – pride, believing that they could do it themselves, no help necessary.
despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets and sought for things they could not understand – desired to be looked upon (pride) because of their stiffneckedness, and desired more than necessary. Dean Larson in the October 1987 Conference Report said about this: “They were apparently afflicted with a pseudosophistication and a snobbishness that gave them a false sense of superiority over those who came among them with the Lord's words of plainness.”
looking beyond the mark – beyond the simplicity and beyond Christ. Phillipians 3:14 states that, “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Christ is the mark. Elder McConkie said the interesting thing about the Jewish apostasy at the time of Christ was that, “It grew out of one of the most resolute attempts ever made by men to live what they assumed was the will of Jehovah . . . That is to say, they took the plain and simple things of pure religion and added to them a host of their own interpretations; they embellished them with added rites and performances; and they took a happy, joyous way of worship and turned it into a restrictive, curtailing, depressive system of rituals and performances. The living spirit of the Lord's law became in their hands the dead letter of Jewish ritualism.”
Are we seeing a correlation between the Jews in Israel and Jacob’s people? Jacob had just spoke to his people calling them to repentance for that very thing. The writings of Jacob don’t tell us that the Nephites had stopped obeying the Mosaic law, they hadn’t stopped performing the rituals, the sacrifices. They all gathered at the temple to listen to him so we can imagine that they were all active in their respective religious spheres/callings. The problem was that they had sought to understand some point of doctrine that was not plain. They were studying David and Solomon. They had taken up the doctrine of polygamy without the sanction of the prophet. Thereby, their “wives” were not wives but concubines. They had searched for riches, like those of David and Solomon, but had done so with the wrong intent.
Now Jacob was not speaking to these particular Nephites in this occasion, but writing to their children. Could it be that he was foreseeing a little bit into the future thinking that not all the people he had preached to would repent and their children would continue in their ways? I think his purpose was the same in both his preaching and his writing; to teach them to put Christ first. It didn’t matter that they kept the law, that they performed the rituals and the sacrifices, that they were active, that they went to church, that they accepted and did their callings etc, if they looked beyond the mark.
As Jacob says earlier in that same chapter, speaking about the ancient prophets, “Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him . . .” (4:5). 2 Nephi 11:4 states that, “all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him (Christ).” Everything.
What does the tree and something on a tree mean in the Old Testament? It is cursed. How does that typify Christ? He was the one cursed for us, in our stead, on the tree. The snake held up on the branch in the wilderness equals the beast cursed of God being cursed. Christ.
The scattering and gathering of Israel? Reminds us of the way that we are scattered from God because of disobedience and that through God’s servant, Christ, we will be gathered again.
The Melchizedek priesthood? Originally it bore his name and both are without beginning of days or end of years.
The Book of Mormon emphatically tells us that the point of the law of Moses was to lead us to Christ. Lets not miss the mark or look beyond it by loosing that focus. The Book of Mormon also leads us to Him.
I testify that it is only through Christ that we are saved. It is His enabling grace at FIRST that gives us the power to do anything. By the law no flesh is justified . . . and redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. (2 Nephi 2:5,6)
1 Nephi 1:1 Nephi's Name
What is in a name?
It was Hugh Nibley that first proposed the question of the names in the Book of Mormon. Do these names correlate with history? Are they names that would have been used during that time and in that setting? Or are they simply inventions of the mind of Joseph Smith?
Nibley, John Gee and Matthew Brown offer interesting analyses of the name Nephi, its origins, its pronunciation and derivation.http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=12&table=jbms http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=301
John Gee traces the possible origins and derivations of the name Nephi and concludes that it is a "Syro-Palestinian Semitic form of an attested Egyptian man's name dating from the Late Period in Egypt". He then answers Nibley's questions by saying that Nephi "is the proper form of a proper name of the proper gender from the proper place and proper time."
Matthew Brown analyzes the textual complexity of the internal evidence for the meaning of the name Nephi. Nephi is derived from the ancient Egyptian word "nfr" with connotates goodness and kindness. He then describes the beauty that this adds to Nephi's prose. "Nephi's use of words that translate into English as "goodly" and "goodness" makes this passage even more beautiful and meaningful if we also understand the name Nephi to denote "good," "goodly," or "goodness." The wordplay perhaps suggests why the name Nephi so befits its bearer: he is nfr, or "goodly," because he was born of "goodly parents" and is one endowed with a "knowledge of the goodness and mysteries of God.'"
Mr. Brown then continues to analyze the textual complexity by citing the reference that Helaman makes in the book of Helaman to the names Nephi and Lehi. "Behold, I have given unto you the names of our first parents who came out of the land of Jerusalem . . . [so that] ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know . . . that they were good. Therefore, my sons, I would that ye should do that which is good, that it may be said of you, and also written, even as it has been said and written of them. Where was it written that their namesakes were "good"? In 1 Nephi 1:1, Lehi is called a "goodly" parent, and Nephi's name corresponds to the Egyptian word meaning "good." Helaman 5:6-7 implies that Helaman was aware of the meaning of the name Nephi and that he hoped this honored name would also befit his own sons by virtue of their good works."
During a class at Brigham Young University Matthew Grey, my Book of Mormon professor, also made reference to the name Nephi along with the names of his siblings. He noted the interesting correlation between the names the Lehi gives his sons and the corresponding living conditions of Lehi's family. Lehi is a jewish trader, he is well off and has knowledge of the surrounding cultures. He knows the science of the jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). A normal progression in the business of trade would assume that Lehi began his trading in the nearby regions and then expanded into neighboring countries and cultures. This progression corresponds to the naming of his children. Laman and Lemuel are arabic names; Lehi had probably just begun his business around the birth of these two children. Nephi and Sam are Egyptian names and would correlate to the prosperity that Lehi and his family experienced when his business was expanded into Egypt. And Jacob and Joseph are the names of ancient desert patriarchs, names which Lehi gave his sons while he too wandered in the desert.
These things do not prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, God does that by sending his witness in the form of the Holy Ghost. But as Matthew Brown states, "The interplay of the name Nephi with words that are translated "goodly," "good," and "goodness" provides further evidence that the Book of Mormon is, in fact, translation literature."
What is in a name?
It was Hugh Nibley that first proposed the question of the names in the Book of Mormon. Do these names correlate with history? Are they names that would have been used during that time and in that setting? Or are they simply inventions of the mind of Joseph Smith?
Nibley, John Gee and Matthew Brown offer interesting analyses of the name Nephi, its origins, its pronunciation and derivation.http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=12&table=jbms http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=301
John Gee traces the possible origins and derivations of the name Nephi and concludes that it is a "Syro-Palestinian Semitic form of an attested Egyptian man's name dating from the Late Period in Egypt". He then answers Nibley's questions by saying that Nephi "is the proper form of a proper name of the proper gender from the proper place and proper time."
Matthew Brown analyzes the textual complexity of the internal evidence for the meaning of the name Nephi. Nephi is derived from the ancient Egyptian word "nfr" with connotates goodness and kindness. He then describes the beauty that this adds to Nephi's prose. "Nephi's use of words that translate into English as "goodly" and "goodness" makes this passage even more beautiful and meaningful if we also understand the name Nephi to denote "good," "goodly," or "goodness." The wordplay perhaps suggests why the name Nephi so befits its bearer: he is nfr, or "goodly," because he was born of "goodly parents" and is one endowed with a "knowledge of the goodness and mysteries of God.'"
Mr. Brown then continues to analyze the textual complexity by citing the reference that Helaman makes in the book of Helaman to the names Nephi and Lehi. "Behold, I have given unto you the names of our first parents who came out of the land of Jerusalem . . . [so that] ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know . . . that they were good. Therefore, my sons, I would that ye should do that which is good, that it may be said of you, and also written, even as it has been said and written of them. Where was it written that their namesakes were "good"? In 1 Nephi 1:1, Lehi is called a "goodly" parent, and Nephi's name corresponds to the Egyptian word meaning "good." Helaman 5:6-7 implies that Helaman was aware of the meaning of the name Nephi and that he hoped this honored name would also befit his own sons by virtue of their good works."
During a class at Brigham Young University Matthew Grey, my Book of Mormon professor, also made reference to the name Nephi along with the names of his siblings. He noted the interesting correlation between the names the Lehi gives his sons and the corresponding living conditions of Lehi's family. Lehi is a jewish trader, he is well off and has knowledge of the surrounding cultures. He knows the science of the jews and the language of the Egyptians (1 Nephi 1:2). A normal progression in the business of trade would assume that Lehi began his trading in the nearby regions and then expanded into neighboring countries and cultures. This progression corresponds to the naming of his children. Laman and Lemuel are arabic names; Lehi had probably just begun his business around the birth of these two children. Nephi and Sam are Egyptian names and would correlate to the prosperity that Lehi and his family experienced when his business was expanded into Egypt. And Jacob and Joseph are the names of ancient desert patriarchs, names which Lehi gave his sons while he too wandered in the desert.
These things do not prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, God does that by sending his witness in the form of the Holy Ghost. But as Matthew Brown states, "The interplay of the name Nephi with words that are translated "goodly," "good," and "goodness" provides further evidence that the Book of Mormon is, in fact, translation literature."
1 Nephi 1:1 "Goodly Parents"
What does it mean to be a "goodly parent"? I think some of the more obvious answers are to be a teacher of the gospel to your children, to be an example of Christ, and to be a protector of your children. But there is another less obvious meaning as well.
But first to explain more in depth the scriptural references to being a "goodly parent".In Deuteronomy chapter 6 verses 6 and 7 reference is made to the responsibility of parents to teach the commandments to their children.6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.And the old adage of sparing the rod is contained in Proverbs 13 verse 24 that states:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. And later in Proverbs it states that we are to train our children, that the modernistic ideal of letting the child do whatever he or she wants is a little off. Parents do have the responsibility to teach their children and raise them in the gospel; the children will eventually make their own decision whether or not to follow it. Proverbs 22 verse 6 states:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
It is also taught in Ephesians that parents should "not provoke their children to wrath" but to raise them by nuturing them and through admonition to the Lord.
The scriptures also teach us that being an example to your children is important. This especially rings true to me. Children are extremely honest and are very observant. If a parent teaches one thing and is another the child will know. And we become what our parents are many times. Everyone complains about it; the woman that becomes a mother and while teaching her children notices that she does so in the same way that her mother did; the man who grows up with a workaholic father reaches middle age and reflects that he is a workaholic as well. The same Nephi of this story demonstrates the importance of good examples. In 1 Nephi 2:16 it states: 16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.And the 2000 stripling warriors of the book of Alma who are under the command of Helaman attribute all their success to the faith of their mothers, giving another example of the importance of the example of the parents.
Concerning the protective responsibilities of parents in Alma chapter 43 verse 47 it states:47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed.
Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.
Yet this is not the only definition of the word "goodly". And it was Hugh Nibley again who was the first to enter into this forray and question its meaning. He stated, "The opening verse of the Book of Mormon explains the expression 'goodly parents' not so much in a moral sense as in a social one: Nephi tells us he came of a good family and 'therefore' received a good traditional education" Could the word "goodly" connotate social status?Brother Marc Schindler analyzes this as being a "midrash". A midrashism is a discrepancy that arises concerning the meaning of a word because either there are multiple meanings of the word or the meanings have changed over time. The Bible is replete with these midrashisms due to its multiple translation. One would think that the Book of Mormon does not contain any because it was only translated one time into English. However, English is such a fluid language that the meaning of many words have changed since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 an even if the meanings of the words had not changed still many words have multiple meanings.
An example of a possible midrashism is the word "goodly". To better understand another possible meaning of the word "goodly" let us analyze the context. The verse states: "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen . . ." The word "therefore" is an adverb that means "for that reason, consequently, etc" Can we assume that Nephi recieved a very generous education, learning about the science of his father and Hebrew and Egyptian simply due to the kindness of his parents? I think that it is safe to assume that when Nephi introduces his parents he is not simply commenting on their kindness but on their socio-economic status as an attempt to explain the priviledges that he had experienced in life.
However, as Marc Schindler states, "Good scriptures are goodly enough in their scope to contain multiple meanings, which do not contradict each other, but enhance each other." It is not necessary to accept one interpretation and abandon the other. Each serve to enhance the total meaning.http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/B/goodly.htm#B162
What does it mean to be a "goodly parent"? I think some of the more obvious answers are to be a teacher of the gospel to your children, to be an example of Christ, and to be a protector of your children. But there is another less obvious meaning as well.
But first to explain more in depth the scriptural references to being a "goodly parent".In Deuteronomy chapter 6 verses 6 and 7 reference is made to the responsibility of parents to teach the commandments to their children.6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.And the old adage of sparing the rod is contained in Proverbs 13 verse 24 that states:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. And later in Proverbs it states that we are to train our children, that the modernistic ideal of letting the child do whatever he or she wants is a little off. Parents do have the responsibility to teach their children and raise them in the gospel; the children will eventually make their own decision whether or not to follow it. Proverbs 22 verse 6 states:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
It is also taught in Ephesians that parents should "not provoke their children to wrath" but to raise them by nuturing them and through admonition to the Lord.
The scriptures also teach us that being an example to your children is important. This especially rings true to me. Children are extremely honest and are very observant. If a parent teaches one thing and is another the child will know. And we become what our parents are many times. Everyone complains about it; the woman that becomes a mother and while teaching her children notices that she does so in the same way that her mother did; the man who grows up with a workaholic father reaches middle age and reflects that he is a workaholic as well. The same Nephi of this story demonstrates the importance of good examples. In 1 Nephi 2:16 it states: 16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.And the 2000 stripling warriors of the book of Alma who are under the command of Helaman attribute all their success to the faith of their mothers, giving another example of the importance of the example of the parents.
Concerning the protective responsibilities of parents in Alma chapter 43 verse 47 it states:47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed.
Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.
Yet this is not the only definition of the word "goodly". And it was Hugh Nibley again who was the first to enter into this forray and question its meaning. He stated, "The opening verse of the Book of Mormon explains the expression 'goodly parents' not so much in a moral sense as in a social one: Nephi tells us he came of a good family and 'therefore' received a good traditional education" Could the word "goodly" connotate social status?Brother Marc Schindler analyzes this as being a "midrash". A midrashism is a discrepancy that arises concerning the meaning of a word because either there are multiple meanings of the word or the meanings have changed over time. The Bible is replete with these midrashisms due to its multiple translation. One would think that the Book of Mormon does not contain any because it was only translated one time into English. However, English is such a fluid language that the meaning of many words have changed since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 an even if the meanings of the words had not changed still many words have multiple meanings.
An example of a possible midrashism is the word "goodly". To better understand another possible meaning of the word "goodly" let us analyze the context. The verse states: "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen . . ." The word "therefore" is an adverb that means "for that reason, consequently, etc" Can we assume that Nephi recieved a very generous education, learning about the science of his father and Hebrew and Egyptian simply due to the kindness of his parents? I think that it is safe to assume that when Nephi introduces his parents he is not simply commenting on their kindness but on their socio-economic status as an attempt to explain the priviledges that he had experienced in life.
However, as Marc Schindler states, "Good scriptures are goodly enough in their scope to contain multiple meanings, which do not contradict each other, but enhance each other." It is not necessary to accept one interpretation and abandon the other. Each serve to enhance the total meaning.http://www.members.shaw.ca/mschindler/B/goodly.htm#B162
Poor Grammar: Weaknesses of Men?
In chapter twelve of Ether a "loophole" is given for the possible grammatical and syntactical errors of the Book of Mormon. It states:23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;This reference has been used to by some as an explanation for apparent anachronisms of the Book of Mormon. I even used it once in a half hearted defense to a man who told me he didn't see any difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.However, I believe that an important principle is taught in this that may actually serve as evidence of the Hebraic origins of the Book of Mormon.
First I would pose a question. As a believer in the Book of Mormon and accepting of its divine nature I ask, why would God allow there to be "weaknesses" in a testament of him? Wouldn't a testament of a perfect being need to be perfect? And as I do believe that the Book of Mormon to be of divine origin I thereby must have an explanation for this, for the outright admitance of errors by the prophet historian Moroni. Don't worry I do.I believe that weaknesses serve to depict people. They show who the person really is, not the mask of perfection and togetherness that is presented to the public. The noted author C. S. Lewis once said in his book Mere Christianity, "What a man does when he is taken off his guard is the best evidence for what sort of a man he is...Surely what pops out before the man has time to put on a disguise is the truth? If there are rats in a cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly. But the suddenness does not create the rats: it only prevents them from hiding." Surely the rats are a better indicator of the true person rather than the public appearance.
So what do these weaknesses tells us about the true character of the Book of Mormon. Ether 12 states that the weaknesses are of men so in that light could they be used to better understand the true character of the Book of Mormon people? I think so.One example of a very indicative weakness is the supposedly poor grammar. Some of the sentences in the Book of Mormon are just massive, full of run-on sentences and many clauses. This type of writing is not correct in English. English has a very formal sentence structure; subject, verb, predicate, and this is not the form of the Book of Mormon. So could we consider these errors? Take for example Mosiah 7:21 which states: "And ye all are witnesses this day, that Zeniff, who was made king over this people, he being over-zealous to inherit the land of his fathers, therefore being deceived by the cunning and craftiness of king Laman, who having entered into a treaty with king Zeniff, and having yielded up into his hands the possessions of a part of the land, or even the city of Lehi-Nephi, and the city of Shilom; and the land round about" What does this apparent weakness - the addition of multiple clauses - in writing tell us?
It tells us about the authors. English does not allow for such sentence structure, therefore English is not the original language. And I suppose that one desperately searching for an argument could say that Joseph Smith, being as untrained in the English language as he was could have written it seeing that he knew nothing about writing anyway. However, to be able to extrapolate on the English language, changing the structure while maintaining the understandability of it, and all the while following a unfamiliar structure from a foreign land and tongue is not possible.
That is right, there is a language that has a similar structure and it actually happens to be the same language from which the Book of Mormon purports to be translated: Hebrew. Brian Stubbs in an article posted on the FARMS website - http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=125 - says, "The fact remains that Semitic mechanisms of narrative allow structural lengths of language in Hebrew and Arabic that are different from and hardly typical of English. In light of patterns inherent to Hebrew, Arabic, Egyptian, and many Native American languages, the copious presence of certain long, awkward structures in the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, speaks much more for the text's authenticity than would a lack." He gives the explanation of "hal clauses" in Hebrew. "Hal-clauses (or circumstantial clauses) typically relate an accompanying state, circumstance, or condition, often expressed in English by subordinating conjunctions such as when, while, or after or by participial phrases. However, in both Hebrew and Arabic the same accompanying conditions are often structurally featured by 'and + noun + the rest of the clause.'" And the best translation of the "hal clauses" in English is accomplished by using the gerund of the verb, such as "being"."'a certain man, being called Amlici, he being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world, he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword'".
So the rats are out and we can see them. So what do they mean? What do they tell us? These rats tell us who the people really are, and the people of the Book of Mormon are what they purport to be.
In chapter twelve of Ether a "loophole" is given for the possible grammatical and syntactical errors of the Book of Mormon. It states:23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;This reference has been used to by some as an explanation for apparent anachronisms of the Book of Mormon. I even used it once in a half hearted defense to a man who told me he didn't see any difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.However, I believe that an important principle is taught in this that may actually serve as evidence of the Hebraic origins of the Book of Mormon.
First I would pose a question. As a believer in the Book of Mormon and accepting of its divine nature I ask, why would God allow there to be "weaknesses" in a testament of him? Wouldn't a testament of a perfect being need to be perfect? And as I do believe that the Book of Mormon to be of divine origin I thereby must have an explanation for this, for the outright admitance of errors by the prophet historian Moroni. Don't worry I do.I believe that weaknesses serve to depict people. They show who the person really is, not the mask of perfection and togetherness that is presented to the public. The noted author C. S. Lewis once said in his book Mere Christianity, "What a man does when he is taken off his guard is the best evidence for what sort of a man he is...Surely what pops out before the man has time to put on a disguise is the truth? If there are rats in a cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly. But the suddenness does not create the rats: it only prevents them from hiding." Surely the rats are a better indicator of the true person rather than the public appearance.
So what do these weaknesses tells us about the true character of the Book of Mormon. Ether 12 states that the weaknesses are of men so in that light could they be used to better understand the true character of the Book of Mormon people? I think so.One example of a very indicative weakness is the supposedly poor grammar. Some of the sentences in the Book of Mormon are just massive, full of run-on sentences and many clauses. This type of writing is not correct in English. English has a very formal sentence structure; subject, verb, predicate, and this is not the form of the Book of Mormon. So could we consider these errors? Take for example Mosiah 7:21 which states: "And ye all are witnesses this day, that Zeniff, who was made king over this people, he being over-zealous to inherit the land of his fathers, therefore being deceived by the cunning and craftiness of king Laman, who having entered into a treaty with king Zeniff, and having yielded up into his hands the possessions of a part of the land, or even the city of Lehi-Nephi, and the city of Shilom; and the land round about" What does this apparent weakness - the addition of multiple clauses - in writing tell us?
It tells us about the authors. English does not allow for such sentence structure, therefore English is not the original language. And I suppose that one desperately searching for an argument could say that Joseph Smith, being as untrained in the English language as he was could have written it seeing that he knew nothing about writing anyway. However, to be able to extrapolate on the English language, changing the structure while maintaining the understandability of it, and all the while following a unfamiliar structure from a foreign land and tongue is not possible.
That is right, there is a language that has a similar structure and it actually happens to be the same language from which the Book of Mormon purports to be translated: Hebrew. Brian Stubbs in an article posted on the FARMS website - http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=125 - says, "The fact remains that Semitic mechanisms of narrative allow structural lengths of language in Hebrew and Arabic that are different from and hardly typical of English. In light of patterns inherent to Hebrew, Arabic, Egyptian, and many Native American languages, the copious presence of certain long, awkward structures in the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, speaks much more for the text's authenticity than would a lack." He gives the explanation of "hal clauses" in Hebrew. "Hal-clauses (or circumstantial clauses) typically relate an accompanying state, circumstance, or condition, often expressed in English by subordinating conjunctions such as when, while, or after or by participial phrases. However, in both Hebrew and Arabic the same accompanying conditions are often structurally featured by 'and + noun + the rest of the clause.'" And the best translation of the "hal clauses" in English is accomplished by using the gerund of the verb, such as "being"."'a certain man, being called Amlici, he being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world, he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword'".
So the rats are out and we can see them. So what do they mean? What do they tell us? These rats tell us who the people really are, and the people of the Book of Mormon are what they purport to be.
The Perfect Woman
Elle MacPherson? NOPE.This is just a taste of what is to come. I will not address all my feelings on the subject however recently I have thought much on the incentives that form us as people. This correlates with my interest in economics; economics is the science of the distribution of scarce resources but it is also the science of incentives that drive behavior.We are all motivated to maximize utility or benefit whether that be economically socially or morally. Many people look upon economics as a dismal science solely concerned with money and how to maximize it. In fact economics is not so concerned with money (though it does play a large part) as REAL goods. Money as we are familiar with it today has no intrinsic value, and although it can assist in the augmentation of the production of real goods in the short run, in the long run it has no real effect. So these "real goods" are the real issue. And I think of them as being of economic, social or moral nature, though there is a lot of overlap.
Economic goods are those that increase our well being physically, like food, clothes, computers, etc. We as humans are driven to maximize our possession of these goods dependent upon our preferences. Social goods are our relationships with our friends, family, etc. We are driven to increase and better these relationships according to our preferences. Moral goods are beliefs and principles and we are also driven to maximize these - our adherence to them or our acceptance personally or publicly of them - according to our preferences. That phrase "according to our preferences" is the key. Economics makes no pretence of explaining or understanding personal preference; there is no model nor solution to these. Each person's preference is different. I prefer old used clothes while others prefer new, stylish clothes and although the costs of these goods are different I maximize my benefit buying a pair of shoes for a dollar just the same as someone else who prefers new shoes maximizes his by purchasing a pair of shoes for $150.The way that this relates to the title "The Perfect Man/Woman" is that, as I have stated, we are all driven to maximize our "utility" socially. Now, before I go on, let me state that this is all theory and conjecture without any solid data. That does not mean that in the future there will not be data on the subject but as of right now it is a mere wondering of Evan's mind. I propose that an individual's social status during the many formative years through which we pass has a profound impact on personality development. Let us take some anecdotal evidence first.
I have a friend who during the elementary school and junior high would have been characterized as a "skinny, toe-headed, metal-mouthed" less attractive girl. Don't you know someone who was like this? Her physical appearance must have place a lot of social pressure on her, those junior high years are best characterized as "hundreds of awkward looking kids trying to fit in and be 'cool' with the kids who went through puberty earliest."Now my friend, though awkward, was like all other human beings in that she was driven to maximize her social utility. Obviously, for her it would have required more effort than for others who were already physically matured. And seeing as physical maturity lies outside of an individual's control, the work had to be done in other ways. The answer: personality. Humor, kindness, and all around "fun-ness" can be developed through work. And this is what my friend did. Although she was not initially accepted socially due to outward appearance, she developed herself personally. She developed a sense of humor that is almost unmatched by anyone that I know. She became one of the funnest people to hang around and soon had many friends. She developed love and compassion for others, and had the ability to befriend anyone - including a midget-sized bucktoothed nerd like myself.Now these awkward years have passed. She is no longer a bean pole, nor toe-headed or metal-mouthed. She is one of the most physically attractive girls that I know. AND she has retained those personality features that she was forced to develop during her formative years. Her innate human drive to maximize her social utility coupled with the natural course of time has transformed her into "The Perfect Woman," a combination of looks and personality that accompany only those who have passed through similar experiences.
This is the progression that I believe forms the most multifaceted human beings. Have you ever talked to a drop dead gorgeous man/woman only to realize that beneath that supermodel like exterior is a hollow waste land? I have and I am sick of it. The years of staring gawk-eyed at supermodels is over. I am looking for a girl who was fat or had acne or some other socially debilitating condition during her formative years to be my wife.
Elle MacPherson? NOPE.This is just a taste of what is to come. I will not address all my feelings on the subject however recently I have thought much on the incentives that form us as people. This correlates with my interest in economics; economics is the science of the distribution of scarce resources but it is also the science of incentives that drive behavior.We are all motivated to maximize utility or benefit whether that be economically socially or morally. Many people look upon economics as a dismal science solely concerned with money and how to maximize it. In fact economics is not so concerned with money (though it does play a large part) as REAL goods. Money as we are familiar with it today has no intrinsic value, and although it can assist in the augmentation of the production of real goods in the short run, in the long run it has no real effect. So these "real goods" are the real issue. And I think of them as being of economic, social or moral nature, though there is a lot of overlap.
Economic goods are those that increase our well being physically, like food, clothes, computers, etc. We as humans are driven to maximize our possession of these goods dependent upon our preferences. Social goods are our relationships with our friends, family, etc. We are driven to increase and better these relationships according to our preferences. Moral goods are beliefs and principles and we are also driven to maximize these - our adherence to them or our acceptance personally or publicly of them - according to our preferences. That phrase "according to our preferences" is the key. Economics makes no pretence of explaining or understanding personal preference; there is no model nor solution to these. Each person's preference is different. I prefer old used clothes while others prefer new, stylish clothes and although the costs of these goods are different I maximize my benefit buying a pair of shoes for a dollar just the same as someone else who prefers new shoes maximizes his by purchasing a pair of shoes for $150.The way that this relates to the title "The Perfect Man/Woman" is that, as I have stated, we are all driven to maximize our "utility" socially. Now, before I go on, let me state that this is all theory and conjecture without any solid data. That does not mean that in the future there will not be data on the subject but as of right now it is a mere wondering of Evan's mind. I propose that an individual's social status during the many formative years through which we pass has a profound impact on personality development. Let us take some anecdotal evidence first.
I have a friend who during the elementary school and junior high would have been characterized as a "skinny, toe-headed, metal-mouthed" less attractive girl. Don't you know someone who was like this? Her physical appearance must have place a lot of social pressure on her, those junior high years are best characterized as "hundreds of awkward looking kids trying to fit in and be 'cool' with the kids who went through puberty earliest."Now my friend, though awkward, was like all other human beings in that she was driven to maximize her social utility. Obviously, for her it would have required more effort than for others who were already physically matured. And seeing as physical maturity lies outside of an individual's control, the work had to be done in other ways. The answer: personality. Humor, kindness, and all around "fun-ness" can be developed through work. And this is what my friend did. Although she was not initially accepted socially due to outward appearance, she developed herself personally. She developed a sense of humor that is almost unmatched by anyone that I know. She became one of the funnest people to hang around and soon had many friends. She developed love and compassion for others, and had the ability to befriend anyone - including a midget-sized bucktoothed nerd like myself.Now these awkward years have passed. She is no longer a bean pole, nor toe-headed or metal-mouthed. She is one of the most physically attractive girls that I know. AND she has retained those personality features that she was forced to develop during her formative years. Her innate human drive to maximize her social utility coupled with the natural course of time has transformed her into "The Perfect Woman," a combination of looks and personality that accompany only those who have passed through similar experiences.
This is the progression that I believe forms the most multifaceted human beings. Have you ever talked to a drop dead gorgeous man/woman only to realize that beneath that supermodel like exterior is a hollow waste land? I have and I am sick of it. The years of staring gawk-eyed at supermodels is over. I am looking for a girl who was fat or had acne or some other socially debilitating condition during her formative years to be my wife.
The Names Lehi and Sariah
The fact that many have tried to defame the Book of Mormon due to the apparent discrepancy with the name Alma, that it is not supposedly a Hebraic name for men, is in reality unfounded from the start. We now know of evidence of the name Alma being used for a man in the Middle Eastern regions, but even so it is not necessary. The name Alma first appears in the Book of Mormon about 500 years after the party had left Jerusalem and 500 years is a lot of time for change. There is no reason to suppose that new names did not arise during those 500 years that the Nephites and Lamanites were separated from Jerusalem. The argument concerning the name Alma lacks foundation, but a similar argument about the names Lehi and Sariah would be valid.
Both Lehi and Sariah were most likely born in Jerusalem (there is no statement regarding their birthplace in the Book of Mormon). Their names along with the names of Lehi's sons are necessarily reflective of the Jewish culture around the year 600 b.c. Therefore, we should study their names.
Paul Hoskisson, Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Dana Pike have written good articles on just such a subject.
http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/pdf/9_1_2000_04a.pdf
http://farms.byu.edu/display.phptable=jbms&id=40&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/pdf/9_1_2000_04c.pdf
All this research concerning the names of scriptural characters is done with the knowledge that strange names without explanation can occur. For example, the name Shaphan belonged to a scribe during the time of Jeremiah and it means rabbit. Hoskisson says that had a name with similar hebraic meaning appeared in the Book of Mormon there would be millions of Joseph Smith detractors laughing. But it didn't. It teaches us that we need not be afraid of strange meanings, unless the person's name is changed by the Lord (like Abraham and Jacob). If the Lord changes a prophet's name to something really wierd like "rabbitt" or "large head" or "dung pile" then we should be a little concerned (if not for the possible anachronism then definitely for that person).
Starting with the name Lehi. It has been suggested for many years that the prophet Lehi's name comes from the Hebrew "lhy" which means "cheekbone". Now there aren't many people named after bodyparts in the Bible so this may present a problem. But it doesn't. One possible answer is that it is the shortened form of the Hebrew expression "Oh God incline thy head" or "cheek".In Western Semitic script it would be "May God let him live". Or Lehi could be a shortened combination of "Of the Living One". The ambiguity is not detrimental either, in fact it is encouraging. The fact that there are many possibilities is intriguing and good for those interested in the study.
Now Sariah. Sariah has long been criticized for being historically a masculine name. There is one attested femenine use in the Aramaic Papyrus #22 reconstructed by A.E Cowley. Because it is a reconstruction it is not certain, but it is encouraging that scholars outside the church are considering the possibility as well. The papyrus states "Sariah daughter of Hoshea", and Cowley had to reconstruct the "h".Otherwise Sariah is related to the masculine biblical name Seraiah which means "Jehovah is my prince". We should also not be offended if Sariah's name has masculine elements, there are many biblical names of females with masculine elements such as, Jezebel and Abigail.
The fact that many have tried to defame the Book of Mormon due to the apparent discrepancy with the name Alma, that it is not supposedly a Hebraic name for men, is in reality unfounded from the start. We now know of evidence of the name Alma being used for a man in the Middle Eastern regions, but even so it is not necessary. The name Alma first appears in the Book of Mormon about 500 years after the party had left Jerusalem and 500 years is a lot of time for change. There is no reason to suppose that new names did not arise during those 500 years that the Nephites and Lamanites were separated from Jerusalem. The argument concerning the name Alma lacks foundation, but a similar argument about the names Lehi and Sariah would be valid.
Both Lehi and Sariah were most likely born in Jerusalem (there is no statement regarding their birthplace in the Book of Mormon). Their names along with the names of Lehi's sons are necessarily reflective of the Jewish culture around the year 600 b.c. Therefore, we should study their names.
Paul Hoskisson, Jeffrey R. Chadwick and Dana Pike have written good articles on just such a subject.
http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/pdf/9_1_2000_04a.pdf
http://farms.byu.edu/display.phptable=jbms&id=40&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/pdf/9_1_2000_04c.pdf
All this research concerning the names of scriptural characters is done with the knowledge that strange names without explanation can occur. For example, the name Shaphan belonged to a scribe during the time of Jeremiah and it means rabbit. Hoskisson says that had a name with similar hebraic meaning appeared in the Book of Mormon there would be millions of Joseph Smith detractors laughing. But it didn't. It teaches us that we need not be afraid of strange meanings, unless the person's name is changed by the Lord (like Abraham and Jacob). If the Lord changes a prophet's name to something really wierd like "rabbitt" or "large head" or "dung pile" then we should be a little concerned (if not for the possible anachronism then definitely for that person).
Starting with the name Lehi. It has been suggested for many years that the prophet Lehi's name comes from the Hebrew "lhy" which means "cheekbone". Now there aren't many people named after bodyparts in the Bible so this may present a problem. But it doesn't. One possible answer is that it is the shortened form of the Hebrew expression "Oh God incline thy head" or "cheek".In Western Semitic script it would be "May God let him live". Or Lehi could be a shortened combination of "Of the Living One". The ambiguity is not detrimental either, in fact it is encouraging. The fact that there are many possibilities is intriguing and good for those interested in the study.
Now Sariah. Sariah has long been criticized for being historically a masculine name. There is one attested femenine use in the Aramaic Papyrus #22 reconstructed by A.E Cowley. Because it is a reconstruction it is not certain, but it is encouraging that scholars outside the church are considering the possibility as well. The papyrus states "Sariah daughter of Hoshea", and Cowley had to reconstruct the "h".Otherwise Sariah is related to the masculine biblical name Seraiah which means "Jehovah is my prince". We should also not be offended if Sariah's name has masculine elements, there are many biblical names of females with masculine elements such as, Jezebel and Abigail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
