CSUDH News

The primary source of news and information about California State University, Dominguez Hills, its students, faculty, and staff.

Expert

New Book Explores the Resilience of the Ancient Maya

By

Ken Seligson with The Maya and Climate Change book in foreground

Throughout human history, civilizations have had to adapt to ever-shifting environments in order to survive—whether sudden, catastrophic climate events, or gradual changes that span centuries. These human-environmental relationships are at the center of The Maya and Climate Change (Oxford University Press, Nov. 2022), a new book by CSUDH Assistant Professor of Anthropology Ken Seligson.

Since 2010, Seligson has worked on archaeological excavations and mapping in the northern Maya lowlands of Yucatán, Mexico. He wanted to research and write a book shifting the focus away from the oft-cited “collapse” of the Classic Maya civilization, and instead toward their centuries of socioecological resilience and adaptation.

“I understand why people are fascinated by collapse, but it’s a disservice and misleading to just focus on the end of the Classic Period,” Seligson says. “The main point of the book was to reach a broader audience and promote the 700 years of human-environment relationships that allowed the Maya to flourish.”

The Classic Maya period, from 200-950 AD, was a period marked by sustained population growth. The Maya’s innovative use and management of natural resources—particularly of water—helped to support burgeoning, sophisticated cities with thousands of inhabitants.

“They had elaborate, complex mechanisms for maintaining water systems,” Seligson says. “They funneled rain into reservoirs, mimicked natural biosystems with plants, and used sand and other minerals to filter the water.”

However, from the late 700s to early 800s AD, climate destabilization began to occur, with increased drying periods and geographical pockets of megadroughts. Though the Maya used mitigating measures to try to preserve more rainfall, many resorted to migration in pursuit of water. Seligson says that Maya in the south moved north, intermingling with northern Maya communities and adapting to different local traditions.

“We tend to think of migration as a modern thing, but people were moving around all the time—and may have been dealing with similar issues we see today with cultural differences,” he notes.

In addition to a changing climate and mass migration, other destabilizers including warfare, political jockeying, and civil unrest marked 750-950 AD, known as the Terminal Classic Period. Seligson resists the use of the word “collapse” as it connotes suddenness, instead referring to this period as one of breakdown and transformation.

“People ask me what happened to the Maya, as if they disappeared—they didn’t,” Seligson says. “There are still more than 7 million Maya people thriving today, it’s just a different sociopolitical system. Like with every civilization around the world, everything is cyclical and nothing lasts forever.”

Seligson acknowledges that parallels can be drawn between the effects of climate change and social upheaval today with those faced by the Maya. However, he points out that Maya people living 1200 years ago may not have considered themselves to be living in a historical time of decline.

“Someone living in 767 or 812 AD could look out their window and see everyday things, like people going to the market,” he says. “They wouldn’t see the broader trends that we can see in hindsight.”

He added that one of the main lessons he hopes we can learn is the importance of “being willing to adapt, and recognizing that life is not going to be the same forever.”

“We have to find ways to make the new reality work.” 

Watch Seligson’s overview of his new book in a talk given to the Archaeological Institute of America.

South Bay Economic Forecast Predicts the Future is Green

By

Group of all panelists at Economic Forecast, with CSUDH staging in background

In spite of uncertainty around interest rates and inflation, the South Bay has reasons to be optimistic over the next year. Such was the mixed economic picture painted in the 2022 South Bay Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook, which was released on Oct. 13 at the 8th annual CSUDH South Bay Economic Forecast, where more than 200 industry leaders gathered on campus to hear about the challenges and opportunities facing the region.   

Developed by CSUDH economics and public policy faculty through the CSUDH South Bay Economics Institute, the report presented an in-depth look at the economic health of key industries in the region, as well as housing trends, unemployment figures, and recession predictions. The Institute’s co-directors, Associate Professor of Public Administration Fynnwin Prager and Professor of Economics Jose Martinez, and Assistant Professor of Finance Jennifer Brodmann, started off the forecast event with a discussion of the report’s findings, including the cooling effect of rising interest rates on the highly competitive Southern California housing market.  

“As of today, demand [for housing] remains very strong,” said Martinez. “That’s what weird for economists, because how do you predict a recession when the economy is doing so well?”  

“It seems like the Fed [Federal Reserve] will eventually get what they want—to control inflation—but that will likely lead to a mild recession. Based on the numbers, that’s what we can forecast.”  

However, it wasn’t all bad news for the South Bay. The panel also discussed the silver linings of low unemployment in the region and high industry investment, productivity, and innovation.  

“We’re really excited for the future of this region,” Prager said.   

The Sustainable Transport Panel at the Economic Forecast
The Sustainable Transport Panel at the forecast.

Moderated by Frank Mottek, of 790 KABC’s Mottek on Money radio show, the South Bay Economic Forecast also included two panel discussions of the greening of the region’s economy. Ralina Shaw, CEO of RSPR Inc., a public relations firm that specializes in representing cannabis start-ups, joined the CSUDH faculty for the Cannabis Panel, which delved into the many regulatory and financial burdens that small cannabis farms and businesses face in trying to become licensed and acquire commercial real estate. Shaw highlighted the need for consumers to patronize small businesses, in order to avoid corporate takeover of the legal market.  

“As a community, the only thing we really can do is fight for better policy and then put our dollars where our values lie,” Shaw said. “If you care about Black-owned businesses and minorities having a space within cannabis, make sure you’re patronizing those businesses.”

View photos from the forecast on SmugMug.

The Sustainable Transport panel then took the stage, with James Dorris of Odys Aviation, Carl Hansen from Coco Delivery, Mike Ramirez from Avanti R&D, Joel Perler from the Port of Long Beach, and David Reich from Los Angeles World Airways at LAX.  

The panelists discussed their shared goals of getting people out of their cars, as well as the need for buy-in and collaboration from government agencies. They also emphasized the importance of increasing California’s grid capacity as more vehicles rely on electricity, and the integral role renewable energies could play in the state’s future.  

Watch the full forecast event below:  

War in Ukraine: Hamoud Salhi Explains the Context, and What the Future Holds

By

Map of EuropeCSUDH Associate Dean of International Education and Senior International Officer Hamoud Salhi discusses the underlying geopolitical causes that have led to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Salhi specializes in international politics and comparative politics with an emphasis on the Middle East and Northern Africa, terrorism and counterterrorism, and political change in the Third World.

Associate Dean Hamoud Salhi

Russia calls the situation in Ukraine a “military operation,” the U.S. calls it an “invasion,” and the public at large and media refer to it as a “war.” What’s in a name? Why are there such differences?

If you watch State Department daily briefings or White House press conferences, you get the impression that this is not a war, but rather an armed conflict—a humanitarian disaster. During his State of the Union Address, President Joe Biden spoke passionately, and at times angrily, about the atrocities committed against Ukrainian civilians. However, he mentioned “war” only once, and that was to describe “Putin’s war” (Biden’s words) in Ukraine, which may not necessarily mean Biden is referring to the current war—the one unfolding right now—because this is not the only war Putin has had in Ukraine.

Russia frames the current situation as a military operation conducted to protect Russia’s legitimate borders. This distinction has become a serious question: it prompted legal scholars to ask whether war is still relevant in international law. Some scholars declared the concept dead, legally irrelevant, and even in decline. However, this is not a mere academic exercise: it has significant practical implications. By calling its intervention in Ukraine a “military operation,” Russia can claim that it is acting within international law and not in flagrant violation of its principles.

Since 2014, Russia has used a version of Customary International Law to insist that Russia has a legitimate right to intervene in Ukraine in the same way the West intervened in Kosovo on March 24, 1999. Russia, in its attempt to circumvent international law, is using procedure (the use of military force) to justify its illegal actions against Ukraine’s state sovereignty.

Per the United Nations Charter, Russia is now engaged in war. But labeling the conflict in Ukraine a war could mean shutting off all contact and relations with Russia. I don’t think the U.S. is prepared to escalate the conflict, because it wants to leave the door open for a political solution. Shutting the door invites further escalation and possibly a third world war.

When did this war begin? We know Russia started sending troops into Ukraine on Feb 24, but some think it started long before.

In the West, this war was launched on February 24, 2022 by Vladimir Putin against Ukraine—a nation whose only crimes are being an emerging democracy, pro-West, and protected by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). However, a purist could label this as the Second Ukrainian War. Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea in February 2014.

Russian leadership views the current conflict as starting long before this year. Some go as far back as 2006, when the U.S. started drawing Ukraine into NATO. Putin interpreted this gesture as directly aimed at Russia. To Russia, the mission of NATO ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991. As a result, Putin interprets NATO’s ongoing existence as a direct threat against Russia’s national and strategic interests.

What are the root causes of this war?

It is important to view this war in its proper context. This is about realpolitik—the national interests of two major superpowers who failed to coexist in Europe because of their diverging and conflicting views. In the middle of these superpowers is Ukraine, which holds a strategic position as a buffer zone for both the U.S. and Russia.

Land-wise, a neutral Ukraine gives Russia a strategic zone to deter what it perceives as a U.S. and European security threat. Russia shares a nearly 1,500-mile border with Ukraine and sees this region as an extension of its national interest. The U.S. has comparable strategic interests in Ukraine and has invested heavily in this region to deter what it sees as Russian imperialism.

According to scholar John Mearsheimer, Ukraine became a de facto member of NATO by December 2021, meaning the U.S. crossed a red line set by Russia. As we know, the U.S. response has been that Ukraine is a sovereign state and Russia cannot dictate how Ukraine aligns itself with its neighbors and internationally.

When will this war end? Will a political solution come soon?

I think we are here for a long while. We are so deep in this conflict that everyone is now looking for a settlement to preserve the status quo or to use a stalemate to regroup. A political solution is possible only to the extent that Putin gets security guarantees, which means a neutral Ukraine. The U.S. is betting on the Ukrainian resistance, and if all else fails, dragging Russia into a protracted conflict that would exhaust its resources and undermine it internationally.