I finished Sam Harris's The End of Faith yesterday. His central thesis is that faith itself - the practice of believing something without proof - is extremely dangerous and ought to end. It was piecewise an extremely scary book. The book emphasizes that it is only by reason and evaluation and discussion of facts that we can obtain knowledge of the world. I have been moving in the direction of these ideas before - as a scientist, of course I believe that reason and "experiment" is the best way to gain knowledge of the world - and my main reason for not being religious is the line of thought in the book. Harris argues that once the truth of a religious text that claims infallibility in all its parts, as they all do, it then follows that one must be a religious fundamentalist in order to follow the religion. In my brief stint with religion, that was what I felt as well - to be logically self-consistent, I would have to be a fundamentalist. At that point, religion conflicted with my sense of reason and ethics, and I considered being moderate.
Harris continues to argue that religious moderates "betray faith and reason equally," in that they invoke secular knowledge as justification to ignore religious directives. As he puts it, religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and religious ignorance. Why don't Christians actually kill everyone who "takes the Lord's name in vain?" Well, because it seems so crazy, right? You can't kill someone just for that, it's very Middle Ages. It runs against our current sense of ethics. But the Bible explicitly instructs Christians to do so. Harris gives the Bible quotes for punishment for breaking the Ten Commandments, for example: Leviticus 24:16 mandates that the punishment for taking the Lord's name in vain is death. I say "Oh god" as an expression of surprise or disappointment fairly frequently. Therefore, under Christian theology, I should be killed. The punishment for working on the Sabbath is also death (Exodus 31:15). If the Bible is the infallible word of God, everyone who's ever worked on a Friday night or a Saturday should be killed. Everyone who's committed adultery should also be killed (Leviticus 20:10). I doubt that any Christian today would advocate actually doing this. (If there are, I am very afraid, give that there is a high likelihood they're in the country that I currently live in.)
The intolerances built into Christianity, paralelled by intolerances in other religions, are to me ethically repulsive. Harris elaborates on this as a central part of showing why religious faith is dangerous. He does an excellent job of showing how beliefs lead to actions, and follows by showing that holding beliefs that compel people to commit murder and other atrocious acts of all magnitudes, which makes religious beliefs dangerous as they all contain ideas that encourage violence. As another example, the Bible also advocates having me killed for being an atheist. In medieval times, the Church logically noted that the Bible has several suggestions for eradicating heresy. Apparently, a literal reading (which is necessary if the Bible indeed is the infallible direct word of God) requires heretics to be killed. Even worse, Deuteronomy requires that anyone refusing to take part in such killings also be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12-13) These parts of the Bible caused the Inquisition, hardly a pinnacle of morality or good for either Christianity, Europe, or humanity at large. The wtich-hunts were caused and enacted similarly, along with persecution of Jews, and as we all know those were equally dark times for humankind.
He also delineates how similar problems plague Islam today. Harris goes through various demands that Islam makes of its adherents that make it virtually impossible for a Muslim who truly believes that the Koran is the infallible word of Allah to live in peace with non-Muslims, as well as that the acts of Muslim terrorists makes perfect sense if one accepts what the Koran and the Hadiths say: "Nothing explains the actions of Muslim extremists, and the widespread tolerance of their behavior in the Muslim world, better than the tenets of Islam." There is much to be said on that topic, but I don't want to type out all of it here. Readers who are interested are recommended to read the book.
In addition to religions, he also takes a side-swipe at secular ideologies that demand the abandonment of critical reasoning and proof. National socialism and stalinism are use as examples of terrifying movements where a key part of the movement was unquestioning obedience to a leader and taking the leader's word as truth.
I could not bring myself to accept large parts of Christianity on moral grounds, and as Harris points out, I was using secular ethics to reject it - and recognizing the strain on my psyche of accepting something without proof and the logical inconsistency in rejecting some religious teachings but not others on non-religious grounds, I could not bring myself to be religious on either ethical nor logical grounds.
Harris does not see religious moderates as benign, however. "The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled." (p. 20, emphasis author's)
Harris also anticipates some counter-arguments, many of which I would have used, in a section entitled The Danger of Wishful Thinking. He writes, "He [Paul Berman] notes that the twentieth century was a great incubator of "pathological mass movements" - political movements that "get drunk on the idea of slaughter". He also points out that liberal thinkers are often unable to recognize these terrors for what they are. There is indeed a great tradition, in Berman's phrase, of "liberalism as denial." [...] Because they assume that people everywhere are animated by the same desires and fears, many Western liberals now blame their own governments for the excesses of Muslim terrorists. [...] Berman observes, for instance, that much of the world now blames Israel for the suicidal derangement of the Palestinians. Rather than being a simple expression of anti-Semitism (though it is surely this as well), this view is the product of a quaint moral logic: people are just people, so the thinking goes, and they do not behave that badly unless they have some very good reasons. The excesses of Palestinian suicide bombers, therefore, must attest to the excesses of the Israeli occupation." (pp134-135) I have to admit, I think like that. I haven't considered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in those terms, but I definetly have considered Muslim terrorists in that light. Surely, they must be crazy in the medical sense, some chemical imbalance or something that makes them different from "regular" Muslims, who surely must be as secular-minded as European Christians.
And this brings me to my great mistake. For most of my life, I have been immersed in a secular environment where going to church other than perhaps midnight mass on Christmas because the candles are pretty, if you can be bothered to sit through a long mass just for pretty candles, is seen as a sign of serious and unusual religious commitment. The kind of religious commitment that might be viewed as a barrier to serving in public office or in the PTA. The kind of religious obsession that might cause people to go through life with a hidden agenda, trying to manipulate people. When I was a kid in the US, my parents went to significant efforts to keep me away from American Christians, despite that they are religious themselves. In Sweden, the Church is most appreciated for maintaining pretty graveyards. My parents are religious moderates, and I suspect rather typical of Nordic Christians. And here is the root of my mistake: Nordic Christians either have substituted large parts of the Bible and previous Church teachings with secular humanism or cede authority on actions to secular humanism. I am completely mystified, for that reason, by the idea that religious people might actually be religious, in the sense that they swallow religious teachings whole. I did not seriously entertain the idea, prior to reading this book, that millions of human beings, millions of educated, otherwise rational human beings, could suspend all rational judgement when it comes to right and wrong. I even found out that the United States is far more religious in the fundamentalist way than I had understood or perceived, again because I could especially not imagine that a well-off, well-educated country could suspend critical thinking when it comes to right and wrong. My lens of the world included - and probably still does a bit - that people are basically secular. I am clearly wrong.
This ties in with another book I read recently called "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" by Susan Moller Okin. The main thesis of the book is that granting group rights to minorities must be very carefully examined, as such rights run the risk of granting minorities rights to oppress women, effectively denying them their rights. That also relates to my experiences this past year with immigrants and expatriates from very sexist cultures in the West. Universal human rights supercede any religion and any cultural tradition. Religion is no excuse for oppression and immoral behavior, and neither is culture. My previous tolerance of intolerance can be dangerous. In protecting my rights as a human being and in being an ethical human being, I must judge faith and culture under the same criteria; neither can be worth respect unless they embrace peaceful, tolerant coexistence.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Irshad Manji's take
As always, pretty funny and to the point. I especially appreciate this:
"To judge the root problem here, let us first determine how the cartoons became an international incident. Last September, these comics ran beside a story about the hurdles encountered by a Danish author in finding someone - anyone - to illustrate her children’s book about the Prophet. Every artist she approached declined the job out of fear of having to contend with Islamist extremists. [...] We Muslims love to lecture about the need to assess touchy matters - such as offensive Quranic verses - ‘in context’. The context in which the Muhammad cartoons first appeared suggests that frustration, not malice, was the motive."
Looks like the illustrators asked to help with the book were right. These riots certainly send the message that one ought to be afraid of the extremists. But just as with 9/11 and the London bombings, we cannot let extremists control our everyday lives with fear. That is giving them power. We - all of us, muslims and non-muslims - cannot let them control what we do.
"To judge the root problem here, let us first determine how the cartoons became an international incident. Last September, these comics ran beside a story about the hurdles encountered by a Danish author in finding someone - anyone - to illustrate her children’s book about the Prophet. Every artist she approached declined the job out of fear of having to contend with Islamist extremists. [...] We Muslims love to lecture about the need to assess touchy matters - such as offensive Quranic verses - ‘in context’. The context in which the Muhammad cartoons first appeared suggests that frustration, not malice, was the motive."
Looks like the illustrators asked to help with the book were right. These riots certainly send the message that one ought to be afraid of the extremists. But just as with 9/11 and the London bombings, we cannot let extremists control our everyday lives with fear. That is giving them power. We - all of us, muslims and non-muslims - cannot let them control what we do.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Freedom
The more I think and read about the cartoons, the more strongly I feel that there can be no case made for that the cartoons should not have been published. The same points are made over and over again in commentaries, and regardless of circumstances basic cornerstones of liberal democracy cannot be sacrificed by Denmark. It is regrettable that people got so upset, but no outsider has the right to tell Denmark to change its system of government, of which the cartoons are a small by-product. If it were acceptable for non-Danish muslims to require Danish press to conform to their ideas of right and wrong, we would have a world of chaos and oppression of all by all. What Denmark does is Denmark's business - and if Danish muslims wish to change their country because of the cartoons, they can, because they are Danish. It it their country to change. However, I suspect that most do not, because by being Danish they most likely also prize liberal democracy just as much as danish atheists and christians.
Neither does Denmark as a whole, which isn't even involved other than indirectly, speak for the entire West. No one has the capacity to speak for millions and millions of people of different cultures, different histories and different languages as a unified voice. As a Western TCK, I am actuely aware of this. There are huge cultural variations within the West, and a commitment to that pluralism is especially prevalent in the European Union, which could not exist without such pluralistic acceptance. Even within every western country, there are regional sociocultural differences of all kinds. A reality of globalization is, as Friedman puts it, that "No one is in charge." Everyone reading this has probably noticed that America and Europe disagree on a lot of policy issues, as well as have different basic value systems in many ways. (Not to mention Americans eat more crap.) There is no monolithic West any more than there is a monolithic set of muslims. The political leaders of Western nation-states do not even really speak for their entire populations, let alone one person speaking for all of the diverse Western countries!
It pisses me right off when people see the West as the US, the UK, Germany, Australia and France - there are many other Western countries that are distinct from the bigger ones! My ancestors were not in any way, shape or form involved with colonialism other then as initial explorers who got pushed aside by the bigger countries. My ancestors did not have anything to do with slave trade, holding slaves, building empires, smallpox, or any of the other atrocities committed by Western nations. They haven't got the bomb now either, they don't fund secret prisons or give guns to rebels they support nor engineer elections abroad. They have no military bases anywhere outside their territories and few within them. I'm not saying they were so noble that they didn't want to. They probably did. But their histories took other paths, because their countries were small and relatively powerless. Just as in the world wars. Finland fought a war of independence, because they did not have resources to do anything else. Sweden sold ore to the nazis because they knew they didn't stand a chance in a fight. Estonia got taken by the Russians because they did not have enough resources to fight them off, and no one assisted them. Poland has been split and occupied many times by neighboring countries. The perspectives of small countries are NOT the same as those of big countries! So how can little Denmark, which few of the people who are pissed probably can find on a map, suddenly be a spokescountry for the West? Small European countries get ignored and confused with each other by non-Euros all the time. I have yet to meet a Chinese who knew off the bat where Finland is. Sweden and Switzerland get confused all the time in both the US and China. I bet you about 1% of both Americans and Chinese know Lichtenstein even exists. But we all have our own national histories, languages, and traditions, which we take great care to distinguish from our neighbors. Part of the reason non-Anglo European countries reacted so strongly to America's stance on Iraq is exactly that - to make it known to both the Americans and everyone else that the US prez and the UK PM do not speak for Europe as a whole as well. We have our own voices, expressed in our own media, and we will use our plural voices to whatever end we think is right. If that doesn't please the US or anyone else, then too bad. We have our own national heroes, our own popular culture, our own fashion and music... our media reflect our debates, in our languages, for the benefit of no one but ourseves and our own democratic process. Small Western countries are not some sort of tack-on onto the larger ones. We do not just follow, we create our own destinies and determine our own actions.
Any Huntington-style reading of what's going on is supplying all kinds of assumptions that are not there. How can there be a fight between two entities that do not exist?
Neither does Denmark as a whole, which isn't even involved other than indirectly, speak for the entire West. No one has the capacity to speak for millions and millions of people of different cultures, different histories and different languages as a unified voice. As a Western TCK, I am actuely aware of this. There are huge cultural variations within the West, and a commitment to that pluralism is especially prevalent in the European Union, which could not exist without such pluralistic acceptance. Even within every western country, there are regional sociocultural differences of all kinds. A reality of globalization is, as Friedman puts it, that "No one is in charge." Everyone reading this has probably noticed that America and Europe disagree on a lot of policy issues, as well as have different basic value systems in many ways. (Not to mention Americans eat more crap.) There is no monolithic West any more than there is a monolithic set of muslims. The political leaders of Western nation-states do not even really speak for their entire populations, let alone one person speaking for all of the diverse Western countries!
It pisses me right off when people see the West as the US, the UK, Germany, Australia and France - there are many other Western countries that are distinct from the bigger ones! My ancestors were not in any way, shape or form involved with colonialism other then as initial explorers who got pushed aside by the bigger countries. My ancestors did not have anything to do with slave trade, holding slaves, building empires, smallpox, or any of the other atrocities committed by Western nations. They haven't got the bomb now either, they don't fund secret prisons or give guns to rebels they support nor engineer elections abroad. They have no military bases anywhere outside their territories and few within them. I'm not saying they were so noble that they didn't want to. They probably did. But their histories took other paths, because their countries were small and relatively powerless. Just as in the world wars. Finland fought a war of independence, because they did not have resources to do anything else. Sweden sold ore to the nazis because they knew they didn't stand a chance in a fight. Estonia got taken by the Russians because they did not have enough resources to fight them off, and no one assisted them. Poland has been split and occupied many times by neighboring countries. The perspectives of small countries are NOT the same as those of big countries! So how can little Denmark, which few of the people who are pissed probably can find on a map, suddenly be a spokescountry for the West? Small European countries get ignored and confused with each other by non-Euros all the time. I have yet to meet a Chinese who knew off the bat where Finland is. Sweden and Switzerland get confused all the time in both the US and China. I bet you about 1% of both Americans and Chinese know Lichtenstein even exists. But we all have our own national histories, languages, and traditions, which we take great care to distinguish from our neighbors. Part of the reason non-Anglo European countries reacted so strongly to America's stance on Iraq is exactly that - to make it known to both the Americans and everyone else that the US prez and the UK PM do not speak for Europe as a whole as well. We have our own voices, expressed in our own media, and we will use our plural voices to whatever end we think is right. If that doesn't please the US or anyone else, then too bad. We have our own national heroes, our own popular culture, our own fashion and music... our media reflect our debates, in our languages, for the benefit of no one but ourseves and our own democratic process. Small Western countries are not some sort of tack-on onto the larger ones. We do not just follow, we create our own destinies and determine our own actions.
Any Huntington-style reading of what's going on is supplying all kinds of assumptions that are not there. How can there be a fight between two entities that do not exist?
Sunday, February 05, 2006
It gets more complicated...
I wanted to see the cartoons for myself, and although I haven't found them yet, I did find some other interesting things...
"Earlier this week, imam Abu Bashir appeared on BBC World showing a caricature of Mohammed with a pig's snout and ears to representatives of the Arabic League. Bashir falsely claimed that the caricature was one of the 12 Jyllands-Posten drawings."
"Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds that they violated our ethical code."
Die Welt has the cartoons, and of course, discussion. I found a very well-written commentary that makes the basic point: "Es gibt kein Recht auf Satireverschonung im Westen." [There is no right to be spared from satire in the West.] Asking for anything else is asking for special treatment. Period.
"In der westlichen Welt regt sich nach anfänglichem Verständnis Widerstand: Die Zeiten der Inquisition will man nicht in islamischer Form wiederkehren sehen." [In the West there is aaccording to initial understanding agreement: we do not want to see the Inquisition return in an islamic form.]
After seeing the cartoons, I see absolutely no reason for getting so upset. It may be my deficient sense of what will offend religious people, but I really fail to see what there is to even demonstrate peacefully about, let alone burning flags and embassies. I am confused and unsettled.
Addition: After thinking about it some more, I think because of Europe's religious past and the atrocities committed, we feel it is very important to be able to criticise religion openly and even harshly if necessary. (And therefore, we are angry that others reacted to violently - it was just a couple of semi-satirical drawings, not even serious - and we reserve the right to be harsh if we need to) Blindly following a leader - any leader - is dangerous. My mother has told me that when I didn't clean my room as our agreement was when I was a kid, she would sigh and think, "At least she doesn't blindly do whatever someone asks of her." We have specific, detailed, historical reasons to be suspicious of religious leaders' motives. After readon those commentaries and Smittenbyu's comment, I think we are seeing contemporary reasons to be suspicious of religious leaders as well.
Addition II: Found a blog written by an Arab-American who gets to the point quickly.
Addition III: Chirac is an idiot. I'm starting to agree with dad. "French President Jacques Chirac, however, focused on the European media, condemning decisions to republish the cartoons as an "overt provocation"." Also, this is the first time Condi's talk appeals to me. That alone makes me worried I'm making a big mistake somewhere. Must read more about what exactly she's saying.... but it's possible she's making good sense for once.
"Earlier this week, imam Abu Bashir appeared on BBC World showing a caricature of Mohammed with a pig's snout and ears to representatives of the Arabic League. Bashir falsely claimed that the caricature was one of the 12 Jyllands-Posten drawings."
"Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds that they violated our ethical code."
Die Welt has the cartoons, and of course, discussion. I found a very well-written commentary that makes the basic point: "Es gibt kein Recht auf Satireverschonung im Westen." [There is no right to be spared from satire in the West.] Asking for anything else is asking for special treatment. Period.
"In der westlichen Welt regt sich nach anfänglichem Verständnis Widerstand: Die Zeiten der Inquisition will man nicht in islamischer Form wiederkehren sehen." [In the West there is aaccording to initial understanding agreement: we do not want to see the Inquisition return in an islamic form.]
After seeing the cartoons, I see absolutely no reason for getting so upset. It may be my deficient sense of what will offend religious people, but I really fail to see what there is to even demonstrate peacefully about, let alone burning flags and embassies. I am confused and unsettled.
Addition: After thinking about it some more, I think because of Europe's religious past and the atrocities committed, we feel it is very important to be able to criticise religion openly and even harshly if necessary. (And therefore, we are angry that others reacted to violently - it was just a couple of semi-satirical drawings, not even serious - and we reserve the right to be harsh if we need to) Blindly following a leader - any leader - is dangerous. My mother has told me that when I didn't clean my room as our agreement was when I was a kid, she would sigh and think, "At least she doesn't blindly do whatever someone asks of her." We have specific, detailed, historical reasons to be suspicious of religious leaders' motives. After readon those commentaries and Smittenbyu's comment, I think we are seeing contemporary reasons to be suspicious of religious leaders as well.
Addition II: Found a blog written by an Arab-American who gets to the point quickly.
Addition III: Chirac is an idiot. I'm starting to agree with dad. "French President Jacques Chirac, however, focused on the European media, condemning decisions to republish the cartoons as an "overt provocation"." Also, this is the first time Condi's talk appeals to me. That alone makes me worried I'm making a big mistake somewhere. Must read more about what exactly she's saying.... but it's possible she's making good sense for once.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
The Cartoons and Cross-Cultural Communication
Yesterday, I was reading opinions on the Danish cartoons on BBC, and had some opinions that I wanted to write in my LJ. I sign on today, open BBC - and am greeted by this:
"Embassies burn in cartoon protest
Syrians have set fire to the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus to protest at the publication of newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. "
Say.. WHAT? I just finished writing a comment in shirou's LJ about the cartoons about whether or not Islam is more violent than other religions... and this really, really isn't the way to convince people that Islam is a religion they can deal with having next door. 1. No torching of embassies, for any reason, will make you look good. Especially, it will not make you look peaceful. 2. Torching of an embassy which isn't involved in the row REALLY doesn't make you look reasonable in any way, shape or form. Hey, look - if you can't keep straight which country you're pissed at, why are you expecting us to give your religious icons special treatment? Who knows if we can even be held responsible for telling them apart? Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, old guys in beards - who the hell knows who's who? Same shit, right? Especially in countries that are so secular.
Which brings me to the point I was thinking of yesterday. I think a root of the cultural miscommunication here is both sides not being able to imagine what living in a country that's very secular/religious is like. My experiences with the US have shown me that many Americans who are themselves secular have learnt, often by fear, to not offend Christian ideas. They have an uncanny intuition for what's going to piss them off, an intuition which I lack - because while I was here, my parents provided a buffer and in Europe, things are secular. Secular in a way I don't think Americans can really imagine, perhaps unless they've been expats for 10-20 years. (Or TCKs, of course, but then they're not American per se either.) If a European prime minister said anything involving "God, "bless", and the name of their country there would be a media frenzy and probably instant loss of re-election. Just for starters. I think in a similar but more extreme way, also supported by some other interpersonal intercultural encounters. I don't think that people who grow up in a socially controlling environment, especially where the control is done under the guise of religion, can imagine what living in an environment where that control is lacking, in this case being freedom of press.
However, that does not mean that both sides are equally confused. Au contraire. A large part of the democratic nation-states are (at least limited) universal human rights and freedom of speech, movement, press, etc. This is especially true in Europe. This has the consequence that we have countries in which all kinds of things get criticized all the time, including by children, by women, by ethnic minorities, by all kinds of people. No one is supposed to have a duty to shut up. Every day, major Western newspapers run political satire drawings. Every day, the leaders of the free world get made fun of by their citizens and each other. In the States, people are more reluctant to make fun of religious figures because it is a very religious country, as mentioned before. However, that is not the case in Europe, where the cartoons were published. One of the comments, by Dr Yunes Teinaz, was "We respect the heroes of other religions and we would expect the same from the followers of other religions and ideologies. No Muslim, for example, is allowed to portray a picture of Jesus." Let me be very clear: Europe cannot be criticizing some religion as compared to its own, because Europe is secular, not religious. I don't believe in either Jesus or Muhammad. Make fun of either, I don't care. Teinaz - and probably many others - are assuming that everyone is religious, which is blatantly untrue in the case of Europe. Just like I've said before: Muslims have a much better case to argue deliberate and unjust exclusion in the US, where Christianity enjoys such a prevalent, accepted and privileged status, than in Europe, where most people are thoroughly secular.
Sometimes the litte, everyday details make things more clear than the grand scheme. I remember standing around with a group of girls in 4th grade on the schoolyard, gossiping. (The kind of thing I eventually always got excluded from, but anyway.) One of the girls said, "Did you know that (name of boy) believes in God??" with that tone that little Swedish girls use when they are socially outcasting someone. (I know that tone very well.) We laughed at how silly he was to believe in something of which there is no proof. Later, in high school, I always knew who in my circle of acquaintances was Christian. It's odd, so you remember. They... go to church. They... pray. Like in the middle ages or something. Even so, they never mentioned it in conversations. If they hadn't admitted to it, (admitted is the word that first comes to mind) I'd never have known. My parents are Christian. I know, because my mother told me once when I was about 14. My parents thought that it was important that I make up my own mind. They asked me to get confirmed so that I would at least know what Christianity was before I rejected it. You will never know that my parents are religious from meeting them. They never say anything to betray it, because to them it is private, to be kept to themselves. I think a large part of it is that they know that if they talk about it, they alienate others - meaning they create conflict, dissonance, problems. They don't feel a need to talk about it, so why cause the problems?
We had religion instruction in school. In the beginning, it was Christianity specifically. The thought behind it was that because Christianity had historically been part of Europe, it was useful to know some of the key concepts and myths of Christianity. That was exactly what it was. In 4th grade, we started building little paper huts in the archetechtural style used in then Palestine around the time of Jesus' birth. We were told that Israel used to be called Palestine, which was news to pretty much all of us. I remember thinking, "why would you want to switch names for the same country?" We were told about the Roman empire a little bit. But we spent a lot of time making the huts. It was fun, because I liked arts and crafts. Later in high school, everyone had to take religion class to graduate. Religion class now being knowing the basic tenents of all major world religions. There was no religious religion class offered, ever, and no one ever mentioned the idea. It did not occur to me that religion might be taught as a religion in schools until I came back to the US. Looking back, anyone in the PTA who had brought something like that up would probably looked like a religious fanatic, trying to brainwash children. That's not wise in Sweden - you will be permanently outcasted for being antisocial for that sort of thing. People will talk, news of your fanaticism will spread.
Hell, you look a bit fanatic for going to church (As in, christian church) regularly, which no one except old ladies who want company does. No one's going to trust someone who's so obsessed with religion to be able to set it aside and be secular when they need to. And this is Europe's historical religion. Muslims may get some more flexibility out of concern that people are not accepting enough of multicultural differences, they may get less because they are Other - I don't know how it all works out, but I do know that religion is not close to Europe's heart. It's not part of people's lives, their concerns, their social undertakings, their thoughts... I know more about Christianity than most of my Euro friends. Laughing at a religious figure or leader is just like laughing at a secular figure or leader. After all - if there is no God, then all power religious figures and leaders hold is just as secular as that which politicians hold. People being religious and supporting one person (male, of course) or other is just like being an ardent political supporter of someone. Your choice, whatever, blah. Won't stop anyone from laughing at satire of that person. The cartoons was drawn and published in Denmark, for amusement of the Danish - and the cultural context in which that happened is not intended to offend muslims. Period.
And then conversely, I'm still not used to the very prominent political role that religion plays in the US. I guess fundamentally, I still hold it for so self-evident that for a non-uniform society to work, it must be secular that I expect religious people to adjust their behavior accordingly. They don't, a significant part of the time. I know I'm not capable of imagining living in an even more religious context, and especially not an extremely sexist and controlling religious context. I have no idea, and for that I am grateful. However, if muslims are anything like American christians, they take offense so incredibly easily on religious matters because the religious is political to them, and hence confusion over what the prime minister of Denmark could do about the row. (To me, clearly, the prime minister cannot and should not do anything to interfere with a newspaper's right to publish whatever the fuck it wants as long as it's not committing a crime.) Well, too bad for both the Americans and the Muslims - you do not have an universal human right not to be offended by people who don't share your religion, or even better, don't have a religion at all. The international community would only have a case to ask something of Denmark if universal human rights are being violated - and they very simply are not. If you don't like the cartoon, don't look at it. If you freak out easily, take some ritalin or something. If you can't handle being made fun of, justly or unjustly, you simply can't handle living in this world. You may be hurt, of course, but burning embassies and calling for the death of the cartoonists is just a little too far. And not to mention... Jyllands-Posten apologized for any unintended offense already. Don't be torching embassies when you got your apology! What else could you possibly, reasonably expect?
"Embassies burn in cartoon protest
Syrians have set fire to the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus to protest at the publication of newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. "
Say.. WHAT? I just finished writing a comment in shirou's LJ about the cartoons about whether or not Islam is more violent than other religions... and this really, really isn't the way to convince people that Islam is a religion they can deal with having next door. 1. No torching of embassies, for any reason, will make you look good. Especially, it will not make you look peaceful. 2. Torching of an embassy which isn't involved in the row REALLY doesn't make you look reasonable in any way, shape or form. Hey, look - if you can't keep straight which country you're pissed at, why are you expecting us to give your religious icons special treatment? Who knows if we can even be held responsible for telling them apart? Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, old guys in beards - who the hell knows who's who? Same shit, right? Especially in countries that are so secular.
Which brings me to the point I was thinking of yesterday. I think a root of the cultural miscommunication here is both sides not being able to imagine what living in a country that's very secular/religious is like. My experiences with the US have shown me that many Americans who are themselves secular have learnt, often by fear, to not offend Christian ideas. They have an uncanny intuition for what's going to piss them off, an intuition which I lack - because while I was here, my parents provided a buffer and in Europe, things are secular. Secular in a way I don't think Americans can really imagine, perhaps unless they've been expats for 10-20 years. (Or TCKs, of course, but then they're not American per se either.) If a European prime minister said anything involving "God, "bless", and the name of their country there would be a media frenzy and probably instant loss of re-election. Just for starters. I think in a similar but more extreme way, also supported by some other interpersonal intercultural encounters. I don't think that people who grow up in a socially controlling environment, especially where the control is done under the guise of religion, can imagine what living in an environment where that control is lacking, in this case being freedom of press.
However, that does not mean that both sides are equally confused. Au contraire. A large part of the democratic nation-states are (at least limited) universal human rights and freedom of speech, movement, press, etc. This is especially true in Europe. This has the consequence that we have countries in which all kinds of things get criticized all the time, including by children, by women, by ethnic minorities, by all kinds of people. No one is supposed to have a duty to shut up. Every day, major Western newspapers run political satire drawings. Every day, the leaders of the free world get made fun of by their citizens and each other. In the States, people are more reluctant to make fun of religious figures because it is a very religious country, as mentioned before. However, that is not the case in Europe, where the cartoons were published. One of the comments, by Dr Yunes Teinaz, was "We respect the heroes of other religions and we would expect the same from the followers of other religions and ideologies. No Muslim, for example, is allowed to portray a picture of Jesus." Let me be very clear: Europe cannot be criticizing some religion as compared to its own, because Europe is secular, not religious. I don't believe in either Jesus or Muhammad. Make fun of either, I don't care. Teinaz - and probably many others - are assuming that everyone is religious, which is blatantly untrue in the case of Europe. Just like I've said before: Muslims have a much better case to argue deliberate and unjust exclusion in the US, where Christianity enjoys such a prevalent, accepted and privileged status, than in Europe, where most people are thoroughly secular.
Sometimes the litte, everyday details make things more clear than the grand scheme. I remember standing around with a group of girls in 4th grade on the schoolyard, gossiping. (The kind of thing I eventually always got excluded from, but anyway.) One of the girls said, "Did you know that (name of boy) believes in God??" with that tone that little Swedish girls use when they are socially outcasting someone. (I know that tone very well.) We laughed at how silly he was to believe in something of which there is no proof. Later, in high school, I always knew who in my circle of acquaintances was Christian. It's odd, so you remember. They... go to church. They... pray. Like in the middle ages or something. Even so, they never mentioned it in conversations. If they hadn't admitted to it, (admitted is the word that first comes to mind) I'd never have known. My parents are Christian. I know, because my mother told me once when I was about 14. My parents thought that it was important that I make up my own mind. They asked me to get confirmed so that I would at least know what Christianity was before I rejected it. You will never know that my parents are religious from meeting them. They never say anything to betray it, because to them it is private, to be kept to themselves. I think a large part of it is that they know that if they talk about it, they alienate others - meaning they create conflict, dissonance, problems. They don't feel a need to talk about it, so why cause the problems?
We had religion instruction in school. In the beginning, it was Christianity specifically. The thought behind it was that because Christianity had historically been part of Europe, it was useful to know some of the key concepts and myths of Christianity. That was exactly what it was. In 4th grade, we started building little paper huts in the archetechtural style used in then Palestine around the time of Jesus' birth. We were told that Israel used to be called Palestine, which was news to pretty much all of us. I remember thinking, "why would you want to switch names for the same country?" We were told about the Roman empire a little bit. But we spent a lot of time making the huts. It was fun, because I liked arts and crafts. Later in high school, everyone had to take religion class to graduate. Religion class now being knowing the basic tenents of all major world religions. There was no religious religion class offered, ever, and no one ever mentioned the idea. It did not occur to me that religion might be taught as a religion in schools until I came back to the US. Looking back, anyone in the PTA who had brought something like that up would probably looked like a religious fanatic, trying to brainwash children. That's not wise in Sweden - you will be permanently outcasted for being antisocial for that sort of thing. People will talk, news of your fanaticism will spread.
Hell, you look a bit fanatic for going to church (As in, christian church) regularly, which no one except old ladies who want company does. No one's going to trust someone who's so obsessed with religion to be able to set it aside and be secular when they need to. And this is Europe's historical religion. Muslims may get some more flexibility out of concern that people are not accepting enough of multicultural differences, they may get less because they are Other - I don't know how it all works out, but I do know that religion is not close to Europe's heart. It's not part of people's lives, their concerns, their social undertakings, their thoughts... I know more about Christianity than most of my Euro friends. Laughing at a religious figure or leader is just like laughing at a secular figure or leader. After all - if there is no God, then all power religious figures and leaders hold is just as secular as that which politicians hold. People being religious and supporting one person (male, of course) or other is just like being an ardent political supporter of someone. Your choice, whatever, blah. Won't stop anyone from laughing at satire of that person. The cartoons was drawn and published in Denmark, for amusement of the Danish - and the cultural context in which that happened is not intended to offend muslims. Period.
And then conversely, I'm still not used to the very prominent political role that religion plays in the US. I guess fundamentally, I still hold it for so self-evident that for a non-uniform society to work, it must be secular that I expect religious people to adjust their behavior accordingly. They don't, a significant part of the time. I know I'm not capable of imagining living in an even more religious context, and especially not an extremely sexist and controlling religious context. I have no idea, and for that I am grateful. However, if muslims are anything like American christians, they take offense so incredibly easily on religious matters because the religious is political to them, and hence confusion over what the prime minister of Denmark could do about the row. (To me, clearly, the prime minister cannot and should not do anything to interfere with a newspaper's right to publish whatever the fuck it wants as long as it's not committing a crime.) Well, too bad for both the Americans and the Muslims - you do not have an universal human right not to be offended by people who don't share your religion, or even better, don't have a religion at all. The international community would only have a case to ask something of Denmark if universal human rights are being violated - and they very simply are not. If you don't like the cartoon, don't look at it. If you freak out easily, take some ritalin or something. If you can't handle being made fun of, justly or unjustly, you simply can't handle living in this world. You may be hurt, of course, but burning embassies and calling for the death of the cartoonists is just a little too far. And not to mention... Jyllands-Posten apologized for any unintended offense already. Don't be torching embassies when you got your apology! What else could you possibly, reasonably expect?
Friday, July 15, 2005
Race and Identity
I'm reading an interesting book called Culture Moves about black identity and culture and how competing visions of it are expressed. It's very interesting, because the US is unique in that it has 'built-in' racial tensions like very few other places. In most other places, race lines conincide with nationality lines, which radically alters the discourse. It's an insight into a part of one of my countries that I cannot direcly experience, but that is such a big part of it that it's not really fair for me to say that I know this country without at least knowing the elements of that.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Deshi Men
Interactions with people have made me think about patterns and deep-seated problems with sexism and very destructive ideas of masculinity. All but one of the deshi men I have had to work with or otherwise be in close proximity to have had obvious sexist opinions, ideas, and concepts, which they have not hesitated to express and act on. If the deshi women I've met have such ideas, they don't push them on me. It is not only degrading, it is also problematic in another way: what is the appropriate way to frame this situation against a background? I think my answer is my moral principle number one: sexism is always immoral, regardless of cultural context. And when the sexists left their countries to come to one of mine, the burden of cultural understanding is on them. I get to do something about this one, because they came to my culture. That's also part of what pisses me off, because these people come to my country and spit in my face. I'm starting to understand how the neonazis and the Republicans can build such support for something really stupid - if enough people feel threatened, they react instead of thinking. I knew that intellectually, but I'm experiencing it emotionally as well. I just want to slap people, because they should know their place - next to me, not above me. Man, if you try to stand above me all you do is make it easy for me to bite your ankles. Cause there will be biting. I'm thinking that deshi men need to be treated like men from the Middle East - proceed with utmost caution until they show themselves to be able to interact with women in a good way.
I'm seriously considering giving automatic bonus credits to Western European men for being more respectful. Thing is, they've pissed me off plenty too.. just not in the same, insanely ridiculously completely unapologetic ways as others. Including American men. I've heard some sick shit come out of the mouths of American men.
And I have to admit... it feels good to think 'go to hell' straight off, because then I don't have to go through the same thing I've gone through for most of this academic year: give them the benefit of the doubt, be polite when they're asses, be polite but curt when they try to make you their mom or try to order you around, and they stay the hell away from them because they're so annoying. Every time here so far. K at Knox was fine - never had any problems with him - but man. Every single deshi guy I've had to deal with more than in passing since then has been a needy, unaware ass of some kind. I'm sick of this shit. I'm sure there are nice guys out there but they're going to have to prove themselves first.
I'm seriously considering giving automatic bonus credits to Western European men for being more respectful. Thing is, they've pissed me off plenty too.. just not in the same, insanely ridiculously completely unapologetic ways as others. Including American men. I've heard some sick shit come out of the mouths of American men.
And I have to admit... it feels good to think 'go to hell' straight off, because then I don't have to go through the same thing I've gone through for most of this academic year: give them the benefit of the doubt, be polite when they're asses, be polite but curt when they try to make you their mom or try to order you around, and they stay the hell away from them because they're so annoying. Every time here so far. K at Knox was fine - never had any problems with him - but man. Every single deshi guy I've had to deal with more than in passing since then has been a needy, unaware ass of some kind. I'm sick of this shit. I'm sure there are nice guys out there but they're going to have to prove themselves first.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Understanding the World
After writing that last post, I realize what exactly feels so incomplete about people with strong convictions about what the world is like - cynics, activists and optimists alike - that don't have a global focus. How can you claim to understand the world when all you've ever bothered trying to understand is a small part of the world? How can you be so sure when you're basing your conclusion on a small, rather arbitrarily selected part of the world and part of all possible human experiences? You may of course restrict your claim to the subset of the world you did consider, but I have yet to meet a person who does so.
To some extent it is human to assume everyone is like us - and on some levels, they are. Everyone can be happy, sad, melancholy, hopeful, distraught, anxious, scared, delighted, humorous, cynical, whatever. The chemicals running through our brains give us a lot in common. But as everyone knows, that's not exactly the end of the story. Circumstances create large variances in what being a human can be like. It just seems like this is a mistake we've made so many times that we should have learnt to spot it by now.
White, straight American men often write as if their experience is the human experience. Then white, straight American women point out that the white, straight American men are forgetting that being a white straight American woman isn't like being a white straight American man. And then black, straight American women point out that being a black straight American woman isn't like being either a white straight American man not a white straight American woman. And so on and so on, ad infinitum. Shouldn't it be obvious that after a few examples like this, you can see a more general pattern? What the world is like depends a great deal on who you are and who you were when you were born and where you were born? And therefore, making a claim to understanding how the world works without having at least tried to consider the range of human experiences is just silly?
Personally, I see the answer to how the world works as a piecewise solution. The differences in human experience are too great to say something in general that is valid for everyone, but if you do it piecewise (maybe groupwise is a better term here), you can have some hope to getting it all in, and different people can explore the different groups. Then when we've gotten the different pieces, we can put them together into some sort of overview, and probably go back to revising our first theories and so on. But the point is that every one of us only experiences one small slice of what being human is like - so how can anyone think they have it all figured out based on their own experiences?
To some extent it is human to assume everyone is like us - and on some levels, they are. Everyone can be happy, sad, melancholy, hopeful, distraught, anxious, scared, delighted, humorous, cynical, whatever. The chemicals running through our brains give us a lot in common. But as everyone knows, that's not exactly the end of the story. Circumstances create large variances in what being a human can be like. It just seems like this is a mistake we've made so many times that we should have learnt to spot it by now.
White, straight American men often write as if their experience is the human experience. Then white, straight American women point out that the white, straight American men are forgetting that being a white straight American woman isn't like being a white straight American man. And then black, straight American women point out that being a black straight American woman isn't like being either a white straight American man not a white straight American woman. And so on and so on, ad infinitum. Shouldn't it be obvious that after a few examples like this, you can see a more general pattern? What the world is like depends a great deal on who you are and who you were when you were born and where you were born? And therefore, making a claim to understanding how the world works without having at least tried to consider the range of human experiences is just silly?
Personally, I see the answer to how the world works as a piecewise solution. The differences in human experience are too great to say something in general that is valid for everyone, but if you do it piecewise (maybe groupwise is a better term here), you can have some hope to getting it all in, and different people can explore the different groups. Then when we've gotten the different pieces, we can put them together into some sort of overview, and probably go back to revising our first theories and so on. But the point is that every one of us only experiences one small slice of what being human is like - so how can anyone think they have it all figured out based on their own experiences?
Personal Belief System Belief #2
Knowledge is not power in itself, but it is the root of power.
If you don't know what's going on, you can never be anything but a pawn at best. Controlling a situation requires understanding what's going and why it's going on as best as you can. Including when the situation you're trying to control is your life situation. If you don't know why things are the way they are now nor how you can change them, you have ceded control of your life to other people, entities and chance.
There is no such thing as too much knowledge or too much thinking. Thinking may not be easy and may be painful, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
If you don't know what's going on, you can never be anything but a pawn at best. Controlling a situation requires understanding what's going and why it's going on as best as you can. Including when the situation you're trying to control is your life situation. If you don't know why things are the way they are now nor how you can change them, you have ceded control of your life to other people, entities and chance.
There is no such thing as too much knowledge or too much thinking. Thinking may not be easy and may be painful, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Sudden Realization
I just really realized something that I've heard said many times while writing a paper about deposition of thin ruthenium films using atomic layer deposition: gender relations really are much more relaxed in the Nordic countries than in the United States. Here, people make things so much more difficult in a very subtle way. And that's what you pick up on in the air, elsewhere too - the more tense everyday gender relations are, the more sexist a culture is.
So now I have to ask myself: If I ever have children, would it be immoral of me to raise them completely outside the Nordic countries, knowing that? Or completely outside wherever I think gender relations are the best, if that isn't the Nordic countries at that point?
So now I have to ask myself: If I ever have children, would it be immoral of me to raise them completely outside the Nordic countries, knowing that? Or completely outside wherever I think gender relations are the best, if that isn't the Nordic countries at that point?
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Photos
I recently set about putting my photos in albums, and as I was sorting through my photos I realized that taking photos is very important when you move.
My pictures of Beijing are of my Beijing. Pictures of my favorite parks, of the walkways I used all the time, of the bike lanes I used to rollerblade on. Pictures of my friends' apartments. Pictures of me and my friends where we used to go hang out, or out on a special occasion. Even things tourists would take pictures of are different - my pictures of Tiananmen are of me and my friends standing together, laughing, in front of the gate lit up at night, a memory of the night we went out together to say goodbye because I was leaving for college. I have a picture of the subway train arriving. I have a picture of my bus, silingsan lu. I have pictures of the little boats on Beihai lake I always loved watching. Other people's pictures will never be the same, and most other people here see Beijing as somthing remote and exotic and not really real in the same way New York is.
I used to feel the same about my parents' pictures of Frostburg when we lived in Sweden. Everyone else's ideas about America came from movies and TV. Their images were of a controversial big country far away. My pictures were of everyday life. My picture of the White House has me riding on dad's shoulders when I was 4. I have pictures of my kindergarten, pictures of our house and of me playing with my friends. No wild car chases and no Beverly Hills 90210, but my America. I still have Christmas tree decorations I made at Beginnings, by Montessori-oriented kindergarten. Now that I'm back, they don't play the same role anymore. Everyone knows what everyday life in America is like, because we're all living it. Now, they're just childhood photos, not exotic childhood photos, but I'm happy I had them when they were something to hang on to almost as proof. Kind of like I hang on to my Beijing photos now.
My pictures of Beijing are of my Beijing. Pictures of my favorite parks, of the walkways I used all the time, of the bike lanes I used to rollerblade on. Pictures of my friends' apartments. Pictures of me and my friends where we used to go hang out, or out on a special occasion. Even things tourists would take pictures of are different - my pictures of Tiananmen are of me and my friends standing together, laughing, in front of the gate lit up at night, a memory of the night we went out together to say goodbye because I was leaving for college. I have a picture of the subway train arriving. I have a picture of my bus, silingsan lu. I have pictures of the little boats on Beihai lake I always loved watching. Other people's pictures will never be the same, and most other people here see Beijing as somthing remote and exotic and not really real in the same way New York is.
I used to feel the same about my parents' pictures of Frostburg when we lived in Sweden. Everyone else's ideas about America came from movies and TV. Their images were of a controversial big country far away. My pictures were of everyday life. My picture of the White House has me riding on dad's shoulders when I was 4. I have pictures of my kindergarten, pictures of our house and of me playing with my friends. No wild car chases and no Beverly Hills 90210, but my America. I still have Christmas tree decorations I made at Beginnings, by Montessori-oriented kindergarten. Now that I'm back, they don't play the same role anymore. Everyone knows what everyday life in America is like, because we're all living it. Now, they're just childhood photos, not exotic childhood photos, but I'm happy I had them when they were something to hang on to almost as proof. Kind of like I hang on to my Beijing photos now.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Beginners and Taking Advice
It was recently suggested to me that a large part of my annoyance with a recent power struggle stems not only from the situation per se but also from the fact that the other persons involved are at a very beginning level of understanding cross-cultural life, despite extensive experience. I've realized that's absolutely right.
I'm sick of people talking about multiculturalism and multi-kulti and tolerance and all that, when only an extremely small minority actually has really thought about it. It's starting to seem like most immigrants and other migrants lack even the most basic intercultural skills, even after decades away from "home." It never occurs to them that maybe they don't get it, so they never will, because they won't try to learn because they think they've got it. And I'm sick of being understanding because they're so incompetent. Why is it my responsibility to always be the one understanding? Why isn't it in part their responsibility to learn?
In part I'm probably bitter because I became oppressively marginalized and these people just keep doing what they've always been doing like they have blinders on. How the hell is that possible? How the hell do you avoid noticing what's being shoved in your face every day? And how the hell can you be so damn sure that you get it? I worry about that almost every day! How can I know? I can't. And so the observation never ends.
Sometimes I just feel like smacking people when they just refuse to notice that their cultural norms and behaviors from somewhere else really don't work. And there just doesn't seem to be anywhere where people generally get it! Americans may be clueless in many ways but no one else seems any wiser when it comes to negotiating difference in their personal lives. Others may have more perspective on themselves as a country, but as members of a culture, not so much. Everyone thinks they do, but I'm lacking evidence that they do, while I have heaps saying they don't. People can spend the majority of their lives in a host country and never get that they don't get it. Some are always worse than others, though, and it would be interesting to see a study of which cultures have the most trouble learning a new one.
I just wish I could talk to someone who sees this too. The European Far Right has nothing to worry about - people can't change even when they want to. The immigrants can't change Europe asnymore than they can change themselves at a core level. The first step to recovery is admitting there's a problem, and everyone is agreeing that there is none.
I'm sick of people talking about multiculturalism and multi-kulti and tolerance and all that, when only an extremely small minority actually has really thought about it. It's starting to seem like most immigrants and other migrants lack even the most basic intercultural skills, even after decades away from "home." It never occurs to them that maybe they don't get it, so they never will, because they won't try to learn because they think they've got it. And I'm sick of being understanding because they're so incompetent. Why is it my responsibility to always be the one understanding? Why isn't it in part their responsibility to learn?
In part I'm probably bitter because I became oppressively marginalized and these people just keep doing what they've always been doing like they have blinders on. How the hell is that possible? How the hell do you avoid noticing what's being shoved in your face every day? And how the hell can you be so damn sure that you get it? I worry about that almost every day! How can I know? I can't. And so the observation never ends.
Sometimes I just feel like smacking people when they just refuse to notice that their cultural norms and behaviors from somewhere else really don't work. And there just doesn't seem to be anywhere where people generally get it! Americans may be clueless in many ways but no one else seems any wiser when it comes to negotiating difference in their personal lives. Others may have more perspective on themselves as a country, but as members of a culture, not so much. Everyone thinks they do, but I'm lacking evidence that they do, while I have heaps saying they don't. People can spend the majority of their lives in a host country and never get that they don't get it. Some are always worse than others, though, and it would be interesting to see a study of which cultures have the most trouble learning a new one.
I just wish I could talk to someone who sees this too. The European Far Right has nothing to worry about - people can't change even when they want to. The immigrants can't change Europe asnymore than they can change themselves at a core level. The first step to recovery is admitting there's a problem, and everyone is agreeing that there is none.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
What I want to do with my life
I want to look forward. I don't want to look toward the past nor toward the sides to see what everyone else is doing. I want to make my own circumstances and make my own life. I want to create my own niche in life. And ideally, I'd like company on the way.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Open letter to migrants to the West
Dear Foreigners From Non-Egalitarian Countries,
I have heard many people say that you shouldn't be allowed to come here. I have heard regular people - not just the extremists on the far right - say that you don't try to fit in here and you create your own communities within our community and don't understand the larger community you are part of. I have also heard people say that you are lazy, that you just want to mooch off of our welfare systems, and that you don't respect women - not those from your countries nor those from ours. I have always thought - and said - that these claims are not reasonable, that most people regardless where they are from are normal, hard-working, honest, respectful people who not only can be part of our societies but can enrich them. I have always thought that open borders make everyone better off in the end.
Both for society at large an in my personal life, I have assumed that a simple model of respect should and is followed. When a minority of people from culture A are trying to live among a majority of culture B, respect is shown for the minority by the majority by being patient with their cultural gaffes and explaining the basis for traditions and manners - by helping the minority understand the majority. Respect is shown for the majority by the minority by the minority trying to adjust and understand the majority.
Basically, I envisioned a simple contract - mistakes are forgiven, because the minority is trying to learn how the majority works, and both try to find common ground so that they can get along. The minority does not have to adjust completely to the majority in every way, but it does have to adjust in key cultural norms and behaviors. The majority does not have to accept all of the minority's cultural behaviors, but some difference in behavior and thought must be tolerated. However, if there is a clash of fundamental values such that the majority and the minority hold mutually incompatible values that are so fundametal that neitherwill give them up, then two options remain. Either then minority must choose to leave, or they must give up those cultural norms after all.
If the minority were refugees, relocation should be attempted, but refugees are a different case from the one that has recently irritated me immensely. When the minority has chosen to come to country B, they have simultaneously agreed to make these cultural adjustments to the country they have chosen to move to. If they have misjudged and realize that their cultural norms are incompatible with the majority's, they still have to adjust if they stay. Just like one cannot rearrange someone else's house to be like one's own when one is visiting, one cannot expect a host country to adjust to your ideas of how things should be run unless you are also prepared to rearrange your country for visitors or expatriates.
It's really very simple: if you choose to come to the West, you have also chosen Westernization. You cannot come here and be the same person you would have been if you hadn't left. For example, if you want a Western education for its academic excellence, you have to consent to cultural Westernization as well. If you try to reject Western cultural norms, you are both not using your experience to the fullest and are being very rude to your hosts, who are not under any moral obligation to let you come to their country. You don't have to bow and say thank you incessantly, but you do have to keep in mind that you are in someone else's home. You don't get to pull the shots. You have to adjust to them, though, when someone else pulls them.
One of the values that absolutely must be respected and practiced every day is egalitarianism. Secular humanism and its values are extremely important in all Western countries (even though American has its own peculiar Christian fundamentalists that reject many humanist values), but out of all its values egalitarianism is the one that underlies almost all human interactions. If you cannot make egalitarianism a value of yours, you should not come to the West at all, or go home if you are already here. The equality of women and men, poor and rich, white, brown, olive, and black, straight and queer, old and young, married and single, powerful and disenfranchised is a value that is completely non-negotiable. Sure, you can find plenty of examples to the contrary. In fact, we have many academic departments studying just how that much principle is violated in practice. But that should also tell you something. No one can argue to justify the discovered violations without being ostracized by society. Once someone says, "You treated me badly because you think I am not equal to that other person", you must defend yourself or accept condemnation by others.
The example that is closest to my heart is equality of men and women. Society has subscribed to egalitarianism for a long time, but it has collectively only slowly realized its logical implications. Women have pointed out for a long time that if all humans are equal, then women must be equal to men in value and humanity and importance, and therefore women must be respected just as much as men are. Or, looking at it from our side, men should be respected just as much as we are. Women have fought for a long time for what is only a logical consequence of a deeply held cultural value. We have been punished harshly physically and mentally for our resistance to mistreatement and abuse by men, but things have progressed. There is still a long way to go, but we can look back and see where we started 300 years ago a long way behind us. I am proud as a woman of my female ancestors, who fought for my freedom. I know my grandmother would be extremely proud of me and my mother, if she were still alive. The world holds so much opportunity for me - so much more than for my grandmother, who was desperately poor in her childhood and had no opportunity for education. I am pursuing a Ph. D. in a male-dominated, high-paying field, I speak five languages, and have legislation and more awareness backing up my right to exist, so to speak.
So, to you who have come to the West: Respect me or go home. I will not put up with your gender roles and your social roles that are based on that someone is always superior. You have no right - no right - to come here and use those values. If you insist on using them - go home. Pack your bags and go home, where you can treat people like shit in peace. Don't you dare come here and think you can talk down to me, order me around and sexually harrass me and call me a slut because you'd do that at home to a woman. When you came here, you agreed to egalitarianism. That it's your "culture" is irrelevant. You agreed to something different when you came here. And if you looked, women where you came from probably have a lot they'd like to change about your culture when it comes to oppression of women, too. Don't you come here and think you're so superior - don't you forget that I don't give a shit who your daddy is, I don't give a shit how much money you have, I don't give a shit how hot you think you are - if you can't treat me with respect, you're getting jack shit back. Simple. Adjust or go home. We didn't have to let you come here in the first place, and you chose to come. Tough shit if you can't handle it.
I have heard many people say that you shouldn't be allowed to come here. I have heard regular people - not just the extremists on the far right - say that you don't try to fit in here and you create your own communities within our community and don't understand the larger community you are part of. I have also heard people say that you are lazy, that you just want to mooch off of our welfare systems, and that you don't respect women - not those from your countries nor those from ours. I have always thought - and said - that these claims are not reasonable, that most people regardless where they are from are normal, hard-working, honest, respectful people who not only can be part of our societies but can enrich them. I have always thought that open borders make everyone better off in the end.
Both for society at large an in my personal life, I have assumed that a simple model of respect should and is followed. When a minority of people from culture A are trying to live among a majority of culture B, respect is shown for the minority by the majority by being patient with their cultural gaffes and explaining the basis for traditions and manners - by helping the minority understand the majority. Respect is shown for the majority by the minority by the minority trying to adjust and understand the majority.
Basically, I envisioned a simple contract - mistakes are forgiven, because the minority is trying to learn how the majority works, and both try to find common ground so that they can get along. The minority does not have to adjust completely to the majority in every way, but it does have to adjust in key cultural norms and behaviors. The majority does not have to accept all of the minority's cultural behaviors, but some difference in behavior and thought must be tolerated. However, if there is a clash of fundamental values such that the majority and the minority hold mutually incompatible values that are so fundametal that neitherwill give them up, then two options remain. Either then minority must choose to leave, or they must give up those cultural norms after all.
If the minority were refugees, relocation should be attempted, but refugees are a different case from the one that has recently irritated me immensely. When the minority has chosen to come to country B, they have simultaneously agreed to make these cultural adjustments to the country they have chosen to move to. If they have misjudged and realize that their cultural norms are incompatible with the majority's, they still have to adjust if they stay. Just like one cannot rearrange someone else's house to be like one's own when one is visiting, one cannot expect a host country to adjust to your ideas of how things should be run unless you are also prepared to rearrange your country for visitors or expatriates.
It's really very simple: if you choose to come to the West, you have also chosen Westernization. You cannot come here and be the same person you would have been if you hadn't left. For example, if you want a Western education for its academic excellence, you have to consent to cultural Westernization as well. If you try to reject Western cultural norms, you are both not using your experience to the fullest and are being very rude to your hosts, who are not under any moral obligation to let you come to their country. You don't have to bow and say thank you incessantly, but you do have to keep in mind that you are in someone else's home. You don't get to pull the shots. You have to adjust to them, though, when someone else pulls them.
One of the values that absolutely must be respected and practiced every day is egalitarianism. Secular humanism and its values are extremely important in all Western countries (even though American has its own peculiar Christian fundamentalists that reject many humanist values), but out of all its values egalitarianism is the one that underlies almost all human interactions. If you cannot make egalitarianism a value of yours, you should not come to the West at all, or go home if you are already here. The equality of women and men, poor and rich, white, brown, olive, and black, straight and queer, old and young, married and single, powerful and disenfranchised is a value that is completely non-negotiable. Sure, you can find plenty of examples to the contrary. In fact, we have many academic departments studying just how that much principle is violated in practice. But that should also tell you something. No one can argue to justify the discovered violations without being ostracized by society. Once someone says, "You treated me badly because you think I am not equal to that other person", you must defend yourself or accept condemnation by others.
The example that is closest to my heart is equality of men and women. Society has subscribed to egalitarianism for a long time, but it has collectively only slowly realized its logical implications. Women have pointed out for a long time that if all humans are equal, then women must be equal to men in value and humanity and importance, and therefore women must be respected just as much as men are. Or, looking at it from our side, men should be respected just as much as we are. Women have fought for a long time for what is only a logical consequence of a deeply held cultural value. We have been punished harshly physically and mentally for our resistance to mistreatement and abuse by men, but things have progressed. There is still a long way to go, but we can look back and see where we started 300 years ago a long way behind us. I am proud as a woman of my female ancestors, who fought for my freedom. I know my grandmother would be extremely proud of me and my mother, if she were still alive. The world holds so much opportunity for me - so much more than for my grandmother, who was desperately poor in her childhood and had no opportunity for education. I am pursuing a Ph. D. in a male-dominated, high-paying field, I speak five languages, and have legislation and more awareness backing up my right to exist, so to speak.
So, to you who have come to the West: Respect me or go home. I will not put up with your gender roles and your social roles that are based on that someone is always superior. You have no right - no right - to come here and use those values. If you insist on using them - go home. Pack your bags and go home, where you can treat people like shit in peace. Don't you dare come here and think you can talk down to me, order me around and sexually harrass me and call me a slut because you'd do that at home to a woman. When you came here, you agreed to egalitarianism. That it's your "culture" is irrelevant. You agreed to something different when you came here. And if you looked, women where you came from probably have a lot they'd like to change about your culture when it comes to oppression of women, too. Don't you come here and think you're so superior - don't you forget that I don't give a shit who your daddy is, I don't give a shit how much money you have, I don't give a shit how hot you think you are - if you can't treat me with respect, you're getting jack shit back. Simple. Adjust or go home. We didn't have to let you come here in the first place, and you chose to come. Tough shit if you can't handle it.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Personal Belief System Principle I
The equality of men and women is universal and not culture-dependent. Therefore, any attempt to legitimize sexism or oppression of women, especially violent attacks on women because of their sex, through cultural norms is illegitimate. Being sexist is universally immoral.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Images of America
America and the consequence of her foreign policy is an insitution of things to talk about, even when something else is the main point.
Ultra Bra - Kahdeksanvuotiaana
Kahdeksanvuotiaana tiesin
että maailma tuhoutuu
kaksintaistelussa suurvaltojen
kahdeksanvuotiaana tiesin
että ihminen murskautuu
silmänräpäyksessä
historiaan
Kävikin niin, että sodat ovat
monimutkaisia kansallisia konflikteja
joissa ammutaan
ja joissa kuolee
aina vähän ihmisiä kerrallaan
joissa kuolee
aina vähän ihmisiä kerrallaan
Kahdeksanvuotiaana tiesin
että maailma tuhoutuu
kaksintaistelussa suurvaltojen
kahdeksanvuotiaana etsin
kartalta kaukaista paikkaa
joka välttäisi
laskeuman
Kävikin niin, että sodat ovat
monimutkaisia kansallisia konflikteja
joissa ammutaan
ja joissa kuolee
aina vähän ihmisiä kerrallaan
joissa kuolee
aina vähän ihmisiä kerrallaan
Kumitossut ja huppari päälläni
otsa kurtussa
löysin Pääsiäissaaret Tyyneltämereltä
myöhemmin tuli ilmi
että juuri sillä merellä tehdään ydinkokeita
missä on Pääsiäissaaret
Translation: When I was eight years old
When I was eight years old I knew
that the world would be destroyed
in a duel between the superpowers
When I was eight years old I knew
that humanity would be crushed
in a blink of an eye
of history
It turns out that wars are
complicated national conflicts
where they shoot
and where a few people
always die at a time
where a few people
always die at a time
When I was eight years old I knew
that the world would be destroyed
in a duel between the superpowers
When I was eight years old
I looked for
a distant place on the map
that would avoid the fallout
It turns out that wars are
complicated national conflicts
where they shoot
and where a few people
always die at a time
where a few people
always die at a time
Dressed in rubber boots and
my forehead wrinkled
I found the Easter Islands in the Pacific Ocean
later I found out
that on the very same ocean they do nuclear tests
where the Easter Islands are
If you're American and hadn't realized this sort of interconnections exist all over, little children far outside your borders have worried about what you will do for a long time. In fact, if you're from any large country, your foreign policy creates reality for eight-year-old kids in a lot of places.
Blur - He Thought Of Cars
Moscow's still red, the young man is dead
Gone to heaven instead, the evening news says he was confused
The motorways will all merge soon, lottery winner buys the moon
They've come to save us, the space invaders are here
He thought of cars and where, where to drive them
Who to drive them with
There, there was no-one, no-one
There's panic at London Heathrow
Everybody wants to go up into the blue
But there's a ten year queue
Columbia is in top gear, it shouldn't snow at this time of year
Now America's shot gone and done the lot
He thought of planes and where, where to fly to
And who to fly there with
Where, there was no-one, no-one
He thought of cars and where, where to drive them
Who to drive them with
There, there was no-one, no-one
So part of the craziness of the modern world is that America just goes nuts with its army. I will not insult my audience by pointing out the obvious connection to current affairs - this song came out on The Great Escape in 1995.
Ultra Bra - Lähetystyö
Panama, Panama, ihana maa
siellä saa palvella Jumalaa
oi lordi, saanko mennä juoksemaan
kohti kaukana siintävää Ameriikkaa
Voi sitä mekaniikkaa, toimintaa
mitä Ameriikka harjoittaa
ei ole muuta valtakuntaa
jossa taivaan valtakunta kajastaa
Panama, Panama, ihana maa
siellä saa palvella Jumalaa
oi lordi, saanko mennä juoksemaan
kohti kaukana siintävää Ameriikkaa
Haluan asua Ameriikassa
haluan kastua Ameriikassa
haluan paisua Ameriikassa
haluan vaipua Ameriikassa
(Translation: Missionary work
Panama, Panama, what a lovely country
you can serve God there
oh lord, can I go running
towards the dimly visible America in the distance
Oh all that mechanics, activity
that America practices
there's no other realm
where the realm of heaven shimmers
Panama, Panama, what a lovely country
you can serve God there
oh lord, can I go running
towards the dimly visible America in the distance
I want to live in America
I want to get wet [or baptized] in America
I want to swell [up and become fat] in America
I want to sink [into the ground or sink down] in America)
Heavy association with fundamentalist Christians. Note to Americans: Europeans don't really use "Lord" about god, certainly not in the Nordic countries, at least. That's an American thing.
Also, public religious expression isn't very socially acceptable. The line of reasoning is, crudely, that people who feel such a compelling need to shout out their religion and their religious beliefs could easily be compelled by said religion to do all kinds of objectionable things, because if you see yourself so strongly in terms of religion you are less likely to consider others and societal harmony. Unlike the US, there are no laws (except for France, now) against religious symbols, prayer, whatever in public places or schools - people will just wonder if you're a bit of a religious nut if you want to be public about your religion.
For devout American Christians, here's a little more explanining for why that is. There's history, of course. People were forced to go to church for a long time. Priests held an extraordinary amount of power, and many of the darkest and most immoral days of Christianity happened in Europe. Freedom from religion is very important, to the point where people want to see signs of it every day, not just in a law book. However, before you feel too sorry for your religious compatriots, (whom, by the way, you may have a lot less in common with than you think in how you interpret your faith) the worry is mostly with respect to Muslims. There have been some spectacularly gruesome crimes committed by male immigrant Muslims from very sexist and socially repressive societies against women in their own families which are at the very least linked up with how Islam is practiced in the country they immigrated from, like honor killings and organized serial rape of women as punishment for being too secular and living like girls in the host country. I don't want to get into what Islam really says and all that, but the common view is that some of it is culture, but that Islam is also culpable because it hasn't condemned the practices to the point of disappearance and because they often invoke "Islamic" ideals of behavior for men and women to explain their behavior (being the most generous to Islam here). So, people get nervous about religious people who can't keep their religion to themselves - you have to wonder what happens behind closed doors.
I guess what I'm saying is that for various reasons, Europeans tend to suspect you might not be able to play fair with others, be understanding toward others who are not like you, that you might have views that are incompatible with the views of society at large, and in the extreme case, not obey the laws of the country, if you insist on public expression of your religion. European Christians seem to have no problem. It's the immigrant Muslims' problem, not your religious compatriots'.
Blur - Magic America
Bill Barrat has a simple dream
He calls it his Plan B
Where there are buildings in the sky
And the air is sugar free
And everyone's very friendly
Well, Plan B arrived on a holiday
He took a cab to the shopping malls
Bought and ate till he could do neither any more
Then found love on Channel 44
La la la la la
He wants to go to magic America
La la la la la
He'd like to live in magic America
With all those magic people
Bill Barrat sent his postcards home
To everyone he'd ever known
They went
"Fifty-nine cents gets you a good square meal
From the people who care how you feel"
Rammstein - Amerika
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar (America is wonderful)
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar (America is wonderful)
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
Wenn getanzt wird will ich führen (When there is dancing, I will lead)
Auch wenn ihr euch alleine dreht (Even when you are turning alone)
Lasst euch ein wenig kontrollieren (Let yourselves be controlled a little bit)
Ich zeige euch wie's richtig geht (I'll show you how to do the steps right)
Wir bilden einen lieben Reigen (We'll make a lovely round dance)
Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (Freedom is playing on all the violins)
Musik kommt aus dem Weißen Haus (The music comes from the White House)
Und vor Paris steht Mickey Mouse (And in front of Paris stands Mickey Mouse)
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar (America is wonderful)
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
Ich kenne Schritte die sehr nützen (I know steps that are very useful)
Und werde euch vor Fehltritt schützen (And I will protect you from missteps)
Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss (And whoever doesn't want to dance right now will in the end)
Weiss noch nicht dass er tanzen muss (Just doesn't know that he has to dance yet)
Wir bilden einen lieben Reigen (We'll make a lovely round dance)
Ich werde euch die Richtung zeigen (I will show you the direction to go)
Nach Afrika kommt Santa Claus (Santa Claus arrives in Africa)
Und vor Paris steht Mickey Mouse (And in front of Paris stands Mickey Mouse)
We're all living in Amerika
Coca Cola
Wonderbra
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
This is not a love song
This is not a love song
I don't sing my mother tongue
No, this is not a love song
We're all living in Amerika
Coca Cola
Sometimes war
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
Just in case any deshis are reading this, the mixing of languages is symbolically important - Europeans are very touchy about anglification of their languages, which is seen as cultural imperialism. Mixing English and an European language upsets people a lot because it's seen as treason and/or "those damned yanks with their damned imperialist ways are here in our back yard!"
Another thing that might need clarification: EuroDisneyland was not a popular project, and it's as far as I know never made a profit. It was at least making losses every year for the first five years or so. It is a symbol of crap imperialist pop culture to a lot of people.
Blur - Look Inside America
Good morning, lethargy
Drink Pepsi - it's good for energy
The bath's on, smoke in the bedroom
Sore throat, and on my neck a nasty bruise
And where it came from
Well I don't know
But we played last night - it was a good show
Got to play a second rate chat show
A nationwide deal, so we gotta go
Jeff from the Company says it'll be alright
Got an ad on KROQ
And there's an in-store tonight
Well I build things up
Then I let them go
Got to get time share on the radio
Look inside America
She's alright, she's alright
Sitting out in the distance
But I'm not trying to make her mine
Looking for America
With its kookie nights
And suicides
TV says its alright
Cos everybody's hung up
On something or other
Stepping off in twenty
So the driver says
I should sleep tonight
But I think I'll watch videos instead
Annie Hall leaves New York in the end
Press rewind and Woody gets her back again
And the whole world could have passed through me
But I don't know that it means much to me
Look inside America
She's alright, she's alright
Sitting out in the distance
But I'm not trying to make her mine
I'm looking for America
With its kookie nights
And suicides
TV says its alright
Cos everybody's strung out
On something or other
And the whole world could have passed through me
But I don't know that it means much to me
Some more explanatory notes to Americans: Your way of denoting radio stations with four wacky letters that are impossible to pronounce and mean nothing is unique to you. In Europe, they have proper names. The national state radio stations are frequently simply numbered: Radio 1, Radio 2, etc (UK), P1, P2, etc (Sweden - short for Program 1, Program 2..) NRK1, NRK2, etc (Norway - NRK is the acronym for the national radio and TV corporation), YLE1, YLE2 (Finland - YLE is short for yleinen=common). Commercial stations pick whatever they like - like NRJ, which sounds like "energie" (= energy in French, but fits better on the car radio LCD displays), or Vinyl 107 (Obviously oldies station), Kiss FM, or Radio Mafia. So, the four letter radio station means it has to be a portrayal of life here, and Europeans hate memorizing the call letters.
Also, soda doesn't come out of the tap in Europe like it almost does here. In fact, it's common knowledge it rots your teeth and it's generally bad for you - so again, the positive connotation to Pepsi is not natural from an European point of view.
Everyone has a relationship or image of America. Like I said.
Ultra Bra - Kahdeksanvuotiaana
Kahdeksanvuotiaana tiesin
että maailma tuhoutuu
kaksintaistelussa suurvaltojen
kahdeksanvuotiaana tiesin
että ihminen murskautuu
silmänräpäyksessä
historiaan
Kävikin niin, että sodat ovat
monimutkaisia kansallisia konflikteja
joissa ammutaan
ja joissa kuolee
aina vähän ihmisiä kerrallaan
joissa kuolee
aina vähän ihmisiä kerrallaan
Kahdeksanvuotiaana tiesin
että maailma tuhoutuu
kaksintaistelussa suurvaltojen
kahdeksanvuotiaana etsin
kartalta kaukaista paikkaa
joka välttäisi
laskeuman
Kävikin niin, että sodat ovat
monimutkaisia kansallisia konflikteja
joissa ammutaan
ja joissa kuolee
aina vähän ihmisiä kerrallaan
joissa kuolee
aina vähän ihmisiä kerrallaan
Kumitossut ja huppari päälläni
otsa kurtussa
löysin Pääsiäissaaret Tyyneltämereltä
myöhemmin tuli ilmi
että juuri sillä merellä tehdään ydinkokeita
missä on Pääsiäissaaret
Translation: When I was eight years old
When I was eight years old I knew
that the world would be destroyed
in a duel between the superpowers
When I was eight years old I knew
that humanity would be crushed
in a blink of an eye
of history
It turns out that wars are
complicated national conflicts
where they shoot
and where a few people
always die at a time
where a few people
always die at a time
When I was eight years old I knew
that the world would be destroyed
in a duel between the superpowers
When I was eight years old
I looked for
a distant place on the map
that would avoid the fallout
It turns out that wars are
complicated national conflicts
where they shoot
and where a few people
always die at a time
where a few people
always die at a time
Dressed in rubber boots and
my forehead wrinkled
I found the Easter Islands in the Pacific Ocean
later I found out
that on the very same ocean they do nuclear tests
where the Easter Islands are
If you're American and hadn't realized this sort of interconnections exist all over, little children far outside your borders have worried about what you will do for a long time. In fact, if you're from any large country, your foreign policy creates reality for eight-year-old kids in a lot of places.
Blur - He Thought Of Cars
Moscow's still red, the young man is dead
Gone to heaven instead, the evening news says he was confused
The motorways will all merge soon, lottery winner buys the moon
They've come to save us, the space invaders are here
He thought of cars and where, where to drive them
Who to drive them with
There, there was no-one, no-one
There's panic at London Heathrow
Everybody wants to go up into the blue
But there's a ten year queue
Columbia is in top gear, it shouldn't snow at this time of year
Now America's shot gone and done the lot
He thought of planes and where, where to fly to
And who to fly there with
Where, there was no-one, no-one
He thought of cars and where, where to drive them
Who to drive them with
There, there was no-one, no-one
So part of the craziness of the modern world is that America just goes nuts with its army. I will not insult my audience by pointing out the obvious connection to current affairs - this song came out on The Great Escape in 1995.
Ultra Bra - Lähetystyö
Panama, Panama, ihana maa
siellä saa palvella Jumalaa
oi lordi, saanko mennä juoksemaan
kohti kaukana siintävää Ameriikkaa
Voi sitä mekaniikkaa, toimintaa
mitä Ameriikka harjoittaa
ei ole muuta valtakuntaa
jossa taivaan valtakunta kajastaa
Panama, Panama, ihana maa
siellä saa palvella Jumalaa
oi lordi, saanko mennä juoksemaan
kohti kaukana siintävää Ameriikkaa
Haluan asua Ameriikassa
haluan kastua Ameriikassa
haluan paisua Ameriikassa
haluan vaipua Ameriikassa
(Translation: Missionary work
Panama, Panama, what a lovely country
you can serve God there
oh lord, can I go running
towards the dimly visible America in the distance
Oh all that mechanics, activity
that America practices
there's no other realm
where the realm of heaven shimmers
Panama, Panama, what a lovely country
you can serve God there
oh lord, can I go running
towards the dimly visible America in the distance
I want to live in America
I want to get wet [or baptized] in America
I want to swell [up and become fat] in America
I want to sink [into the ground or sink down] in America)
Heavy association with fundamentalist Christians. Note to Americans: Europeans don't really use "Lord" about god, certainly not in the Nordic countries, at least. That's an American thing.
Also, public religious expression isn't very socially acceptable. The line of reasoning is, crudely, that people who feel such a compelling need to shout out their religion and their religious beliefs could easily be compelled by said religion to do all kinds of objectionable things, because if you see yourself so strongly in terms of religion you are less likely to consider others and societal harmony. Unlike the US, there are no laws (except for France, now) against religious symbols, prayer, whatever in public places or schools - people will just wonder if you're a bit of a religious nut if you want to be public about your religion.
For devout American Christians, here's a little more explanining for why that is. There's history, of course. People were forced to go to church for a long time. Priests held an extraordinary amount of power, and many of the darkest and most immoral days of Christianity happened in Europe. Freedom from religion is very important, to the point where people want to see signs of it every day, not just in a law book. However, before you feel too sorry for your religious compatriots, (whom, by the way, you may have a lot less in common with than you think in how you interpret your faith) the worry is mostly with respect to Muslims. There have been some spectacularly gruesome crimes committed by male immigrant Muslims from very sexist and socially repressive societies against women in their own families which are at the very least linked up with how Islam is practiced in the country they immigrated from, like honor killings and organized serial rape of women as punishment for being too secular and living like girls in the host country. I don't want to get into what Islam really says and all that, but the common view is that some of it is culture, but that Islam is also culpable because it hasn't condemned the practices to the point of disappearance and because they often invoke "Islamic" ideals of behavior for men and women to explain their behavior (being the most generous to Islam here). So, people get nervous about religious people who can't keep their religion to themselves - you have to wonder what happens behind closed doors.
I guess what I'm saying is that for various reasons, Europeans tend to suspect you might not be able to play fair with others, be understanding toward others who are not like you, that you might have views that are incompatible with the views of society at large, and in the extreme case, not obey the laws of the country, if you insist on public expression of your religion. European Christians seem to have no problem. It's the immigrant Muslims' problem, not your religious compatriots'.
Blur - Magic America
Bill Barrat has a simple dream
He calls it his Plan B
Where there are buildings in the sky
And the air is sugar free
And everyone's very friendly
Well, Plan B arrived on a holiday
He took a cab to the shopping malls
Bought and ate till he could do neither any more
Then found love on Channel 44
La la la la la
He wants to go to magic America
La la la la la
He'd like to live in magic America
With all those magic people
Bill Barrat sent his postcards home
To everyone he'd ever known
They went
"Fifty-nine cents gets you a good square meal
From the people who care how you feel"
Rammstein - Amerika
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar (America is wonderful)
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar (America is wonderful)
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
Wenn getanzt wird will ich führen (When there is dancing, I will lead)
Auch wenn ihr euch alleine dreht (Even when you are turning alone)
Lasst euch ein wenig kontrollieren (Let yourselves be controlled a little bit)
Ich zeige euch wie's richtig geht (I'll show you how to do the steps right)
Wir bilden einen lieben Reigen (We'll make a lovely round dance)
Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (Freedom is playing on all the violins)
Musik kommt aus dem Weißen Haus (The music comes from the White House)
Und vor Paris steht Mickey Mouse (And in front of Paris stands Mickey Mouse)
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar (America is wonderful)
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
Ich kenne Schritte die sehr nützen (I know steps that are very useful)
Und werde euch vor Fehltritt schützen (And I will protect you from missteps)
Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss (And whoever doesn't want to dance right now will in the end)
Weiss noch nicht dass er tanzen muss (Just doesn't know that he has to dance yet)
Wir bilden einen lieben Reigen (We'll make a lovely round dance)
Ich werde euch die Richtung zeigen (I will show you the direction to go)
Nach Afrika kommt Santa Claus (Santa Claus arrives in Africa)
Und vor Paris steht Mickey Mouse (And in front of Paris stands Mickey Mouse)
We're all living in Amerika
Coca Cola
Wonderbra
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
This is not a love song
This is not a love song
I don't sing my mother tongue
No, this is not a love song
We're all living in Amerika
Coca Cola
Sometimes war
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
Just in case any deshis are reading this, the mixing of languages is symbolically important - Europeans are very touchy about anglification of their languages, which is seen as cultural imperialism. Mixing English and an European language upsets people a lot because it's seen as treason and/or "those damned yanks with their damned imperialist ways are here in our back yard!"
Another thing that might need clarification: EuroDisneyland was not a popular project, and it's as far as I know never made a profit. It was at least making losses every year for the first five years or so. It is a symbol of crap imperialist pop culture to a lot of people.
Blur - Look Inside America
Good morning, lethargy
Drink Pepsi - it's good for energy
The bath's on, smoke in the bedroom
Sore throat, and on my neck a nasty bruise
And where it came from
Well I don't know
But we played last night - it was a good show
Got to play a second rate chat show
A nationwide deal, so we gotta go
Jeff from the Company says it'll be alright
Got an ad on KROQ
And there's an in-store tonight
Well I build things up
Then I let them go
Got to get time share on the radio
Look inside America
She's alright, she's alright
Sitting out in the distance
But I'm not trying to make her mine
Looking for America
With its kookie nights
And suicides
TV says its alright
Cos everybody's hung up
On something or other
Stepping off in twenty
So the driver says
I should sleep tonight
But I think I'll watch videos instead
Annie Hall leaves New York in the end
Press rewind and Woody gets her back again
And the whole world could have passed through me
But I don't know that it means much to me
Look inside America
She's alright, she's alright
Sitting out in the distance
But I'm not trying to make her mine
I'm looking for America
With its kookie nights
And suicides
TV says its alright
Cos everybody's strung out
On something or other
And the whole world could have passed through me
But I don't know that it means much to me
Some more explanatory notes to Americans: Your way of denoting radio stations with four wacky letters that are impossible to pronounce and mean nothing is unique to you. In Europe, they have proper names. The national state radio stations are frequently simply numbered: Radio 1, Radio 2, etc (UK), P1, P2, etc (Sweden - short for Program 1, Program 2..) NRK1, NRK2, etc (Norway - NRK is the acronym for the national radio and TV corporation), YLE1, YLE2 (Finland - YLE is short for yleinen=common). Commercial stations pick whatever they like - like NRJ, which sounds like "energie" (= energy in French, but fits better on the car radio LCD displays), or Vinyl 107 (Obviously oldies station), Kiss FM, or Radio Mafia. So, the four letter radio station means it has to be a portrayal of life here, and Europeans hate memorizing the call letters.
Also, soda doesn't come out of the tap in Europe like it almost does here. In fact, it's common knowledge it rots your teeth and it's generally bad for you - so again, the positive connotation to Pepsi is not natural from an European point of view.
Everyone has a relationship or image of America. Like I said.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Blurring of cultural boundaries
Studying French in America is pointing out to me, bit by bit, how much more blurred cultural boundaries are in Europe than probably anywhere else, at the very least as compared to the United States and China. It certainly doesn't seem that way when you're there, because there are plently of things to mark the differences: local traditional cheeses as opposed to imported traditional cheeses, local traditions of design, glassware, architechture as opposed to foreign traditions of design, glassware, and architechture. But right there, the word "foreign" tells me something. Foreign isn't the right word. They're not foreign, they're.. from another European country. Logically, foreign is a completely acceptable choice, but the English word foreign has a feeling of.. far, far away and unknown and not understood. Not self, not familiar, not here.
Of course, Europeans express the idea "from another country" all the time - especially in debates about the EU. So what do they say, then? Well, they sometimes use words that I have to translate with "foreign," but they lack the feeling of far away. In fact, they're often used about things that are very common, very familiar, well-known and here right now. It has more of an essential overtone of origin, often invoked in slogans for intra-national products like "Suosi suomalaista!" (Favor Finnish [products/stuff/whatever]!) They put the focus more on the national rather than the Otherness of the foreign.
So in other contexts than exhorting consumers to pick local products to support local enterprises or farmers, what does one say? Well, European, for example. European as opposed to national. With the general discussions of the relative roles of the EU and nationstates and the on-going transitions toward integration, the relationship between central EU government - the European - and the individual nationstates - the completely Self - is in the back of your mind. Since one can't well mean European as opposed to us, whose country is in Europe but is not European, "European" has come to refer more to European as a whole, as a unified concept, as something more general that any nationstate is part of but no more than that. It is both Self and Other, and so its connotations - the way you feel when you say it - is very different from "foreign."
This type of language usage where region labels are used because there isn't a neat split between Self and Other is hardly new. Scandinavia and the Nordic countries have had passport-free travel for around 50 years between them for citizens of each other's countries, and their histories are heavily intertwined, as are their languages with the exceptions of Finland (Finno-Ugric language tree) and Icelandic (From the same tree as the modern Scandinavian languages, but retains many language features that are dead in the others, making it extremely difficult to understand. Think sort of like middle English). Switzerland has always had language diversity within its borders as well as fierce loyalty to a particular valley, creating both strong ties to the very local (the central government is very weak, and always has been) as well as to other countries via language in addition to the nation-state. For someone in a French-speaking valley in Switzerland, France or Belgium cannot be "foreign" in its English sense, even though they are different countries, there are different accents, and all such. When you already speak the language of a country, it is difficult to feel like a complete outsider the way you can if you can't even separate words out in speech and can't read a single thing. (Similarly, Americans seem to feel more kinship with other Anglo countries for the same reason, but America is far removed from it's sisters in a way people in Europe are not.)
Similarly, it seems that for Chinese, there are foreigners and Japanese. "Foreigner" seems to mean non-east Asian but including southeast Asian foreigners. However, there is a a bigger difference in perception between Chinese and Japanese than there is within Europe. Chinese food is Chinese food, Japanese food is different. Their tea is different. Their manners are different. Their culture is different. Although their histories have intertwined, they have not been as intertwined in terms of languages and movements of people as Europe's countries have been.
Food is, in fact, a good example. Ethnic restaurants in Europe tend to be non-European, like Thai, Chinese, Lebanese, Indian, kebab places, whatever. You won't see a German restaurant in France or an Austrian restaurant in Spain. Why not? Well, why would you want one? Local restaurants will serve dishes technically from all over Europe, in general, and it's just food. Wienerschnitzel is a very unremarkable lunch dish, despite a locality being in the name. Cheese is made everywhere - so buying cheese from France is not really different from buying cheese made in Denmark. For a purist, it may matter in terms of quality, taste, and tradition - but my point is that one does not really register a technically foreign cheese as foreign, it's just cheese. That it comes from all over Europe has more to do with modern cooled transportation than anything else. Wine has no origin, it's just wine. Some regions drink more of it than others, but some regions drink more milk than others. It feels more like a collective regional preference difference rather than Other. It's we. We drink wine, we eat cheese, we eat sausages and mash and coq au vin and moussaka and souvlaki and calamari and veal medallions in marsala sauce and schnitzel and beef stew and borscht. We cook with creme fraiche and roux and gravy and butter and olive oil and cream and tomatoes and herbes de provence and herbes, ce ne sont pas de provence. There are, of course, national and regional dishes - but they are few and not as common as all the dishes that are very similar. Those are the things we lift forward as separating marks, maybe with some things that are predominantly eaten in one region, because you don't notice all the similarities. It's just taken for granted.
In other ways, too, there is much more mixing than elsewhere. Food is relatively shallow; if that was all there was, one could argue America is very integrated with Mexico. What really has struck me in French class, to return to my starting point, is how little my classmates know about France, how foreign it is to them. La Sorbonne, for example. Le Quartier Latin. Expressions like "C'est la vie." But even more than that - l'esprit critique, the political discussions, all that. Still more familiar are some fantasy figures, almost icons, like Pierrot. One of my favorite toys as a small child was a turquoise silk Pierrot with a fine porcelain head and hat, sown to a pale yellow silk moon, crying. I so admired and felt sorry for Pierrot - why was he so sad? And why was he on the moon, all alone? But I envied him for sitting on the moon, something I had never done.
Later, in literature class, I did see a Self/Other split - but between European literature and non-European literature. We studied Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Proust, Brecht, Kafka, Ibsen, Voltaire, Strindberg, Shakespeare, all kinds of literature, poetry, and plays, all of which were considered something that one ought to know if one wants to pretend one graduated high school, because it was your literature. Later in the class, we were more free to pick what to study, and in a collective brainstorm we were naming famous authors and books they've written. I named almost every single American author and book on the board. Most of them no one had ever heard of except the teacher, who clearly considered them unnecessary. No mention of African, South American, Australian, or Asian literature.
Maybe Europe is the birthplace of one type of cosmopolitanism without being aware of it - a lack of black and white distinction between nationstates that is becoming generally integrated into identity conception, so subtly embedded in society that you don't even think about it. People like me do so to a completely different degree, and we do so consciously - but maybe Europeans can be the first people to society-wide identify with more than one nation-state. The circumstances are certainly favorable.
Of course, Europeans express the idea "from another country" all the time - especially in debates about the EU. So what do they say, then? Well, they sometimes use words that I have to translate with "foreign," but they lack the feeling of far away. In fact, they're often used about things that are very common, very familiar, well-known and here right now. It has more of an essential overtone of origin, often invoked in slogans for intra-national products like "Suosi suomalaista!" (Favor Finnish [products/stuff/whatever]!) They put the focus more on the national rather than the Otherness of the foreign.
So in other contexts than exhorting consumers to pick local products to support local enterprises or farmers, what does one say? Well, European, for example. European as opposed to national. With the general discussions of the relative roles of the EU and nationstates and the on-going transitions toward integration, the relationship between central EU government - the European - and the individual nationstates - the completely Self - is in the back of your mind. Since one can't well mean European as opposed to us, whose country is in Europe but is not European, "European" has come to refer more to European as a whole, as a unified concept, as something more general that any nationstate is part of but no more than that. It is both Self and Other, and so its connotations - the way you feel when you say it - is very different from "foreign."
This type of language usage where region labels are used because there isn't a neat split between Self and Other is hardly new. Scandinavia and the Nordic countries have had passport-free travel for around 50 years between them for citizens of each other's countries, and their histories are heavily intertwined, as are their languages with the exceptions of Finland (Finno-Ugric language tree) and Icelandic (From the same tree as the modern Scandinavian languages, but retains many language features that are dead in the others, making it extremely difficult to understand. Think sort of like middle English). Switzerland has always had language diversity within its borders as well as fierce loyalty to a particular valley, creating both strong ties to the very local (the central government is very weak, and always has been) as well as to other countries via language in addition to the nation-state. For someone in a French-speaking valley in Switzerland, France or Belgium cannot be "foreign" in its English sense, even though they are different countries, there are different accents, and all such. When you already speak the language of a country, it is difficult to feel like a complete outsider the way you can if you can't even separate words out in speech and can't read a single thing. (Similarly, Americans seem to feel more kinship with other Anglo countries for the same reason, but America is far removed from it's sisters in a way people in Europe are not.)
Similarly, it seems that for Chinese, there are foreigners and Japanese. "Foreigner" seems to mean non-east Asian but including southeast Asian foreigners. However, there is a a bigger difference in perception between Chinese and Japanese than there is within Europe. Chinese food is Chinese food, Japanese food is different. Their tea is different. Their manners are different. Their culture is different. Although their histories have intertwined, they have not been as intertwined in terms of languages and movements of people as Europe's countries have been.
Food is, in fact, a good example. Ethnic restaurants in Europe tend to be non-European, like Thai, Chinese, Lebanese, Indian, kebab places, whatever. You won't see a German restaurant in France or an Austrian restaurant in Spain. Why not? Well, why would you want one? Local restaurants will serve dishes technically from all over Europe, in general, and it's just food. Wienerschnitzel is a very unremarkable lunch dish, despite a locality being in the name. Cheese is made everywhere - so buying cheese from France is not really different from buying cheese made in Denmark. For a purist, it may matter in terms of quality, taste, and tradition - but my point is that one does not really register a technically foreign cheese as foreign, it's just cheese. That it comes from all over Europe has more to do with modern cooled transportation than anything else. Wine has no origin, it's just wine. Some regions drink more of it than others, but some regions drink more milk than others. It feels more like a collective regional preference difference rather than Other. It's we. We drink wine, we eat cheese, we eat sausages and mash and coq au vin and moussaka and souvlaki and calamari and veal medallions in marsala sauce and schnitzel and beef stew and borscht. We cook with creme fraiche and roux and gravy and butter and olive oil and cream and tomatoes and herbes de provence and herbes, ce ne sont pas de provence. There are, of course, national and regional dishes - but they are few and not as common as all the dishes that are very similar. Those are the things we lift forward as separating marks, maybe with some things that are predominantly eaten in one region, because you don't notice all the similarities. It's just taken for granted.
In other ways, too, there is much more mixing than elsewhere. Food is relatively shallow; if that was all there was, one could argue America is very integrated with Mexico. What really has struck me in French class, to return to my starting point, is how little my classmates know about France, how foreign it is to them. La Sorbonne, for example. Le Quartier Latin. Expressions like "C'est la vie." But even more than that - l'esprit critique, the political discussions, all that. Still more familiar are some fantasy figures, almost icons, like Pierrot. One of my favorite toys as a small child was a turquoise silk Pierrot with a fine porcelain head and hat, sown to a pale yellow silk moon, crying. I so admired and felt sorry for Pierrot - why was he so sad? And why was he on the moon, all alone? But I envied him for sitting on the moon, something I had never done.
Later, in literature class, I did see a Self/Other split - but between European literature and non-European literature. We studied Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Proust, Brecht, Kafka, Ibsen, Voltaire, Strindberg, Shakespeare, all kinds of literature, poetry, and plays, all of which were considered something that one ought to know if one wants to pretend one graduated high school, because it was your literature. Later in the class, we were more free to pick what to study, and in a collective brainstorm we were naming famous authors and books they've written. I named almost every single American author and book on the board. Most of them no one had ever heard of except the teacher, who clearly considered them unnecessary. No mention of African, South American, Australian, or Asian literature.
Maybe Europe is the birthplace of one type of cosmopolitanism without being aware of it - a lack of black and white distinction between nationstates that is becoming generally integrated into identity conception, so subtly embedded in society that you don't even think about it. People like me do so to a completely different degree, and we do so consciously - but maybe Europeans can be the first people to society-wide identify with more than one nation-state. The circumstances are certainly favorable.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Score 1 for null hypothesis
Opinion voiced at panel discussion on global fundamentalisms: Europe isn't seeing a rise in religious fundamentalism in part because Europe doesn't feel as threatened by globalization. One piece of support for my null hypothesis.
One of the things I have the most difficulty understanding and sympathising with in the US is the excessive religiosity and especially the fundamentalism. The longer I've been here as an adult, the more it bothers me. Seems to be a general pattern for people. The mroe of it you see, the less you can stand it. At some point, you being public and vocal about your religion starts, in essence, pushing your religion on me, and I don't appreciate that. Especially, I dislike the idea that I ought to be behaving according to religious morals from a religion I don't believe in. It also sets up the scene for clashes and conflicts. That alone ought to be a good reason to keep your religion private. What you do in private is no one's business, assuming you're not breaking any laws. What you do in public, however, is subject to cultural and societal opinions, ethics, and restrictions. And, as far as I know, no religion considers it holy to self-aggrandize your piety. If you are pious, you can be perfectly pious without anyone knowing about it. If you don't feel satisfied unless you can show off how righteous and pious you are, then that has nothing to do with religion.
I still have trouble understaning why abortion and evolution are so controversial, especially evolution. None of the arguments I've heard explain to me why these issues, why now. The two seem rather randomly picked to me, really. The principles invoked to explain why these two issues are so crucial apply to all kinds of things where there is no similar outrage, and I can't figure out what has led to these two things being singled out for outrage.
I guess I've been gone long enough from Europe to start properly sorting out as an adult what is European. I saw many of the problems and the differences between the countries very clearly, but now I'm starting to see what is truly unique about Europe as a whole. Relative lack of insecurity about globalization is a pretty good trait to have.
One of the things I have the most difficulty understanding and sympathising with in the US is the excessive religiosity and especially the fundamentalism. The longer I've been here as an adult, the more it bothers me. Seems to be a general pattern for people. The mroe of it you see, the less you can stand it. At some point, you being public and vocal about your religion starts, in essence, pushing your religion on me, and I don't appreciate that. Especially, I dislike the idea that I ought to be behaving according to religious morals from a religion I don't believe in. It also sets up the scene for clashes and conflicts. That alone ought to be a good reason to keep your religion private. What you do in private is no one's business, assuming you're not breaking any laws. What you do in public, however, is subject to cultural and societal opinions, ethics, and restrictions. And, as far as I know, no religion considers it holy to self-aggrandize your piety. If you are pious, you can be perfectly pious without anyone knowing about it. If you don't feel satisfied unless you can show off how righteous and pious you are, then that has nothing to do with religion.
I still have trouble understaning why abortion and evolution are so controversial, especially evolution. None of the arguments I've heard explain to me why these issues, why now. The two seem rather randomly picked to me, really. The principles invoked to explain why these two issues are so crucial apply to all kinds of things where there is no similar outrage, and I can't figure out what has led to these two things being singled out for outrage.
I guess I've been gone long enough from Europe to start properly sorting out as an adult what is European. I saw many of the problems and the differences between the countries very clearly, but now I'm starting to see what is truly unique about Europe as a whole. Relative lack of insecurity about globalization is a pretty good trait to have.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Reality, realiteten ja todellisuus
Something even expats seem to have trouble grasping sometimes is that every place on Earth is real. Rather, I'm not saying that people think that some places are made up, but it does seem like many don't understand that everything they hear about, the news they see, it's right in front of someone. If they were that someone, it would be right in front of them.
For example, when you hear about people talking about snow skiing, they're thinking of old memories and resorts they've been to that you can touch, look at, live in, and be part of. If you snow skiied, it would all stand out in 3D to you too: all the smells, the sunlight, the kinds of trees, the cold, the types of snow, the mountains, the effect of the wind on the snow, the snow blowing into the air and into the light and glittering like a million little weightless crystals, the smell of food cooking when you walk into a restaurant... The fact that you've never done it or seen it doesn't mean that it's not real, that people aren't doing it or living it as I type. And anything that's real could one day be part of your life. Anything that is real really exists out there and is part of the collective human experience. Even though you don't deny that it's real - have you really affirmed to yourself that it is? That one day, you could be on a pair of skis, metaphorically speaking?
For example, when you hear about people talking about snow skiing, they're thinking of old memories and resorts they've been to that you can touch, look at, live in, and be part of. If you snow skiied, it would all stand out in 3D to you too: all the smells, the sunlight, the kinds of trees, the cold, the types of snow, the mountains, the effect of the wind on the snow, the snow blowing into the air and into the light and glittering like a million little weightless crystals, the smell of food cooking when you walk into a restaurant... The fact that you've never done it or seen it doesn't mean that it's not real, that people aren't doing it or living it as I type. And anything that's real could one day be part of your life. Anything that is real really exists out there and is part of the collective human experience. Even though you don't deny that it's real - have you really affirmed to yourself that it is? That one day, you could be on a pair of skis, metaphorically speaking?
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Tolerance for the Other
Even though I have tried imagining that I'd lived all my life in every country I've lived in, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that I never have and never will understand completely what life is like when you've only lived in one country. I can project and imagine, and that works well for most people, but then there's those people who are unsettled by change and/or globalization so much that they go to extremes in one way or another, and my abilities to emphathise nearly disappear. And then there's the odd mundane moments I can't imagine life without: I just watched two BBC shows on PBS. An air of... Europeanness came out of my television, and I couldn't imagine what it'd be like not recognizing that so intimately. The same thing used to happen with American shows in Europe. I can imagine not knowing many cultural norms, but I can't imagine not knowing many cultures. So, in this my tolerance comes to an end: when people are assertively close-minded enough, they are Other to me. This puts me in the classic dilemma - should I or should I not try to emphathise? Can I call myself open-minded if I don't? Where does the limit go? I'd say that neo-nazis are past the limit, but what I consider regular religious people are on the right side of the line. The current political situation here and elsewhere is pushing me to define the limit. I'm not sure it can be defined very well at all in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)