| Summary: | 5 theconcordian.org • February 4, 2016 THE CONCORDIAN Twitter and other social media sites are erupting due to a new feud between rapper B.o.B and the entire science community. The subject of the feud? The hip hop artist is promoting a theory that has been disproven for centuries — the idea that the earth is flat. It all started more than two-and-a-half millennia ago, when one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, Pythagoras, declared the earth to be round. Since that time, most people have accepted Pythagoras’s claim to be true. Despite the myth that Columbus and his men were worried about sailing off the end of the earth, historians are now sure the crew knew better. The New World Encyclopedia says most people knew the earth was round even in the 15th century, and perhaps as early as several hundred years B.C. Columbus was far more worried about eradicating entire indigenous peoples than falling off the edge of the world, and none of his men would risk appearing ignorant by suggesting the earth may actually be flat. In truth, it wasn’t until 2016 that the theory regained significant ground, and the world has B.o.B to thank for that. B.o.B, a popular rapper, began tweeting flat-earth theories and his supposed proof on Jan. 24. A flat-earth model shows the countries arranged as they currently are — just on a flat, circular surface as opposed to a sphere — with the exception of Antarctica, which circumscribes the planet on all sides, existing like a natural border to the edge of the earth. This is why access to Antarctica is restricted by virtually every nearby country. Meanwhile, the sun and moon orbit what we once thought of as the North Pole, moving around in a circle suspended high above earth. Night occurs when the sun is on the other side of its circle. Circumnavigation is still possible because the countries still form a circle, just a flat one instead of a spherical one. Of course, if one were to apply any logic to this theory, he or she would ask, “What about the numerous pictures we have of earth from space?” B.o.B believes this indicates one of the most well-hidden conspiracies in history. According to the rapper, scientists have been behaving suspiciously for decades, and he believes it is because they have a lot to hide. Why might scientists want to hide the fact that the planet is flat? First of all, they wouldn’t, and also the earth isn’t flat. That part aside, some conspiracists believe both the United States and the USSR lied about making it to space during the Cold War, in order to appear to have won the space race against each other. This would mean the moon landing had been staged. Since then, neither country has dared to refute its previous claims. Why hasn’t gravity pulled the planet into a spherical shape? Because gravity is another lie made by strangely sadistic scientists. Earth is just hurtling through space at exactly the rate of what we think of as gravity, causing things to fall against its flat surface. Believe it or not, B.o.B isn’t the only person alive who actually believes the earth is flat. There is an organization called the Flat Earth Society that exists to uncover one of the world’s oldest conspiracies. On their FAQ page, the first question is, “Is this site a joke?” Unfortunately, it’s not a joke. And while it may seem to be a completely ridiculous but innocent organization, it is anything but. There is a group of people living in the 21st century, maintaining ideas that were disproved centuries ago. Because the United States of America is a free country, people are allowed to believe whatever they want — but sometimes it can be dangerous. Another conspiracy theory promoted by B.o.B is that the Holocaust was a myth created by the United States in order to justify destroying Germany, which is another unfortunately popular, but less innocent conspiracy. An incredibly common Internet meme is “Bush did 9/11,” which is just flagrantly offensive to the victims of the trade center attacks. It is a citizen’s duty to question his or her government, but to capitalize on national tragedy is to spit in the face of decency. It is exactly this kind of outdated, backward thinking that has held science back on countless occasions throughout history. How are we supposed to move forward when people constantly doubt hard evidence? If theories of gravity, the shape of planets, and space exploration were all scrapped, the science community would fall back hundreds of years. This is the same effect politicians have when they doubt climate change — something scientists have confirmed but many individuals still doubt. Instead of accepting science and moving forward based on its findings, people choose to deny evidence and hold the world back. Regarding theories that doubt the authenticity of the Holocaust, few things are either more insulting or dangerous. Claiming the Holocaust never occurred, apart from being grossly anti-Semitic, eliminates historical precedent for modern issues like Trump’s idea to ban Muslims from the United States. If Trump’s theory stood alone, it might appear to be an extreme but fairly harmless idea. With the knowledge of how Jewish and Japanese people were victimized due to similar policies in WWII, one knows Trump’s idea must never come to fruition. To act as though the attacks of 9/11, one of America’s most significant tragedies, were implemented by its own leaders is not only virtually baseless, but it also ignores the issues that really matter, like America’s faulty foreign policy. To point out real, palpable issues is one thing. To promote discord and hatred of establishment is another. The year 2016 has come, and while the country is in a better economic state than it has been in years, there is a rising level of misinformation underfoot that threatens to destroy centuries of progress. With widespread xenophobia and alarming statements being made by politicians, it has been impossible to ignore the tremendous wave of ignorance that has been sweeping across the United States recently. The last thing the country needs right now is even more ignorance, especially from people like musicians who have significant influence over the American youth. It is important now more than ever for Americans to filter what they hear through several layers of common sense and human decency. With strong enough collective sense of mind, the youth can outlast this unfortunate wave of ignorance and go on to change the world for the better. For most of my life I’ve had a problem with Barbie. When I was very young, Barbie’s straight, blonde hair was a representation of the characteristic I would never have. I spent most of my childhood trying desperately to get my dark, curly hair to do what Barbie’s did. When I hit my preteen years and developed into a short, scrawny nugget of wise-cracks and crooked teeth, my beef with Barbie transformed. I no longer wanted just Barbie’s hair. I desperately wanted her hair and her body. I saw my flat-chested body as something bad or shameful. As an adult and a feminist, I looked back at Barbie as a representation of the size-ist society in which we live. I saw Barbie as a problem because it taught girls that only one body type was attractive. There have been efforts throughout the years to make girls’ toys more inclusive of all body types. The Bratz dolls portrayed a body type so cartoonish no girl could ever think to want it. But those fashion dolls only further exacerbated the problem. American Girl Dolls were great representations of what real girls look like but they’re far too expensive to be considered a good replacement for the staple that Barbie has become in modern American homes. Recently, a new doll that was shaped like a standard 13-year-old American girl with light skin and dark hair called Lammily started being produced. Lammily had the benefit of having a “realistic body type” but lacked the diversity that Barbie dolls offered. As a woman who is slowly but surely getting closer to the day I get to have children, I’ve always been a little worried about Barbie. I worried that my future daughters would want Barbie dolls but, as a feminist, I would feel that they shouldn’t have that image of what is attractive in their minds. I worried that I would do the same thing my mother did when I asked for Bratz dolls as a young girl. I worried that I’d say no to my daughter getting a toy so iconic to American childhood. But now Barbie has a new line of dolls, The Fashionistas, and they are game changing. The Fashionistas will be available this spring in many different shapes and sizes. According to the Barbie website, “the line includes 4 body types, 7 skin tones, 22 eye colors, 24 hairstyles, and countless on-trend fashions and accessories.” There are options of curvy, tall, petite, and original. There will be 7 curvy, 7 tall, and 7 petite dolls with varied hair colors, facial features, complexions and eye colors. Within the “original category,” Barbie will be producing 12 different dolls, 6 of which will portray women of ethnicities other than Caucasian. Barbie has officially expanded what we teach our children to see as beautiful. Granted, these four new body types don’t necessarily encompass all body types. But now, when parents buy their daughters Barbie dolls, they can get a doll that more accurately reflects who their daughter is and how she’s shaped. The Fashionista Barbie dolls won’t fix the epidemic of body shaming and eating disorders that plague our nation and our society. But they are a sign of a move in the right direction. This year, Barbie is releasing new, diverse body types in their dolls. Next year, who knows, we might start to see a change in the people we see in media. With these new dolls will come a generation of women who are affirmed in their bodies instead of insecure because of the dolls’ influence in their childhood. With this change comes an expanded understanding of what is considered beautiful in our culture. When considering sustainable development, it is necessary to think about environmental conditions and their effects. Quality environmental conditions serve as a base to sustainable development. Without environmental conditions that allow people to meet their basic needs — that is, biological and physiological needs and security — it will be difficult, if not impossible, to focus on developing a more sustainable future. To reiterate, the International Institute for Sustainable Development defines sustainable development as development that meets pressing present needs and leaves the natural environment well intact so future generations can sustain themselves. The International Institute for Sustainable Development said the definition extends into “the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given.” As many who attempt to better the conditions of the world’s poor have learned, this is not only challenging, but also infinitely complex. Nevertheless, if one operates under the assumption that developing countries want to be developed (a fundamentally Western assumption), is sustainable development only relevant to democratic states? Not necessarily, but it appears good governance and rule of law are critical to sustainable development. Environmental conditions aside, successful sustainable development has occurred where there has been strong governmental structures able to support the weight of sustainable development. Thus, more horizontal accountability (inter-governmental relationships, such as checks and balances) seems to be more effective than vertical accountability (government-civilian relationships) where sustainable development is concerned. The fundamentals of sustainable development have long been part of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, and building off the goal of global environmental security, the UN created 17 Sustainable Development Goals to reach by 2030. These encompass most all the factors that could lead to thriving environmental conditions. Between now and 2030, it is up to individual states to meet these goals. If countries do not meet these goals, the repercussion is disappointment at best followed by a more rigorous set of development goals. However, I am still concerned that sustainable development — and the fundamental environmental quality necessary to foster sustainable development — is fundamentally Western and thus democratic. Granted, many developing countries have significantly lower carbon footprints, due to their lifestyle, and even due to their government, even if that government is authoritarian or semi-authoritarian. These are the countries that often pay the environmental price for the Western countries, a price that frequently goes unnoticed. This is a different can of worms, though. Differences in government, and even more importantly, culture, will make the 17 Sustainable Development Goals particularly difficult for some countries to meet. A peoples’ culture, which often defines gender roles and use for the land (both of which are mentioned in the Sustainable Development Goals), is not something that can be changed in 15 years, let alone 50 years. Yes, it is true that quality environmental conditions must preside in a country before transitions to sustainable development can be considered; however, it is also true that the concept of sustainable development appears to be a democratic ideal, and one industrial countries in particular need to heed. The conflict between these two ideals is pervasive, and I look forward to seeing the social, governmental and environmental complexities of sustainable development unfold in the coming years. Green issues affected by quality, culture Barbie gets real about body image The problem with B.o.B’s flat-earth rant on Twitter Conspiracies hold back real progress Have any opinions of your own? ! Visit us online at theconcordian.org, or follow us on Twitter: @ConcordianPaper You can also submit opinions online or at concord@cord.edu or to FPO 214 All letters MUST bear writer’s name, year in school, telephone number, major/minor and title (if applicable). Interested in writing for The Concordian? Contact concord@cord.edu for information.
|
|---|