I was in the Sociology department the other day, working on a professor's computer. From the looks of the posters and such around the room, he was obviously a typical flaming elitist academic, but he was a very nice guy. And I say elitist in the real meaning of the phrase, not the Republican anti-intellectualism idea.
Anyways, Tulane has a very good Latin American studies program (2nd in the nation according to some estimates) and there is an upcoming conference on US-Cuba relations here. That was when he let out a comment, which I just found so typical of an elite academic. We were chatting about Cuba and he said something along the lines of," Yeah, I want to get there before the embargo ends and capitalism ruins it all." Smug and stupid.
The professor was obviously talking about the fact that Cuba is stuck in the 1960s. He wanted it to stay there, I suppose, as some kind of museum of the decade. But Cuba is not a museum, it is a country full of people. How many of them do you think like living in poverty, with no opportunities to advance? How many of them like driving 40-year-old cars, because that's all they can get? How many of them like the shoddy quality of products that do reach the island? How many of them like being arrested for expressing their political (or sexual) views? Given the numbers of Cuban emigrants over the last 40 years or so, I'd imagine is not too many.
Clearly, he had an idealized nostalgic view of what Cuba was. I'm sure if he visited, he might be fascinated. However, if he talked with Cubans...and perhaps had to live there for a year with rolling blackouts and the lack of work opportunities it provides, maybe he'd have a different view of it.
1 comment:
As an undergrad the english department printed this bi-monthly paper named "the collegiate post." It was actually pretty good giving very different ideas some exposure. They did an issue on globalization, the main take away was it ruins everything. It even had a terrible article entitled "What would Jesus Buy" which was really just embarrassing. The post didn't get a single article from an economist or econ student.
The next issue carried a stunning rebuttal from an econ professor. My favorite point he made was that some of these anti-trade people are more worried about preserving an anthropological playground for them to enjoy than they are about the standard of living for the native humans.
If given the chance, many many poor in 3rd world countries would leave for America, and though we may think highly of their cultural heritage, it isn't our place to tell them they must value it at the expense of the luxuries we take for granted.
I wish I'd saved the article, it was really good. I've written about a related problem long ago. Steven Landsburg just dealt with an ancillary issue as well - "It would be dishonest for me or anyone else to defend free trade by pointing to its advantages while ignoring its disadvantages. It is equally dishonest to oppose free trade by pointing to its disadvantages while ignoring its advantages."
Well said.
Post a Comment