So it just so happens that in the past month or so I've read/seen a lot of things that pose a contradictory view of gender roles in the 21st century world. Unfortunately, my conclusion is confusion. Well.... you'll see soon enough.
Part I: Women
I'm not going to spend too much time on this part, since I feel like this topic gets a wealth of attention in popular media. That is not to say that it is unwarranted attention. I think women are in a precarious position in 21st century North America: they have an unbelievable challenge of balancing careers and domestic duties- to a much larger extent than men. Only in recent years has it become expected for a women to succeed in a career. Let's face it- a woman who doesn't have a respectable and independent career is not seen as positively by society. At the same time.... kinda paradoxically, she is no less expected to be a mother and the primary homemaker. She is at the same time expected to be strong & independent, while being weak and submissive. Admittedly, this puts her in a rather weird position. I'm going to stop this dicussion here, since I feel like many many people have spoken about this extensively, and I really don't have any new or insightful obvservations to add.
Part II: Men
This is something less talked about. I watched this movie in my French class today that made me think: it suggested that the role of men and women were really starting to reverse. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I think there's a lot of confusion. What is the ideal man? I'm not even sure most women could give you a straight answer: should men be gentle and caring (and thus, feminine) or macho and gruff? I feel like a lot of women might say one and mean the other. I also feel like what I aspire to be is not the same as what women look for.
Let me explain this a different way. For the sake of this current discussion, there are two different types of guys: macho (ie, über masculin) and gentle (ie, feminine). Obviously, we all fall on a sort of continuum.... these are what social scientists would call "ideal types", but for the sake of this analysis, I'm going to use them.
Should guys be "macho"? A lot of girls would say yes. After all... they are exciting, strong, manly. The offer the girl what she herself cannot. Yet.... I don't think the 21st century girl really wants a truly macho guy. How many girls want a guy to be physically agressive with her? Do girls really want a guy who is emotionally aloof? Do girls really want a guy with little regard for the law? Do girls really want a guy with a very hairy chest (a very large amount of girls vehemently despise hairy chests)?
So, should guys be nice and gentle? Personally, I kinda wish it was this easy. I try to be nice because I like to be around other people that are nice. Yet girls aren't that simple. A guy who is too nice is spineless and feminine.... and I think most girls would say that, while they may admire him as a friend, an overly nice guy is not attractive.
So where does that leave us? I don't know.... I think we're in an awkward transition phase. We are in a post-liberation age in which women are (in my opinion rightfully) gaining social, legal, and economic equality. In many ways women expect to have the same respect as men. Yet, the change is not yet complete- especially not on the social sphere. Women still expect men to pay on dates (even though they now have almost the same salaries on average). Women still expect men to be stronger and taller than them. Women still expect men to take the first step in the dating process. Yet with traditional courtship rituals being constantly redefined.... it's very hard for men to know when to take the first step.
Part III: Concluding thoughts
The video suggested that it is now harder to be a man than it is to be a woman. In many ways I disagree with that.... after all, women have biological hardships that I don't know the least about. Women also still have to face intense pressures to be pretty and thin. Women still face descrimination - look at Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Yet in many ways, it is a valid point. Men currently have a very ambigious role in society. They have to stradle many very fine lines and be many things at once. Admittedly, I began this entry saying the same thing about women. But I think it's at least equally as difficult for men- especially compared to several generations ago. It is important for men to be strong- but not too strong. It is important for men to be masculin- but not too masculin. Now, it is becoming almost as important for men to be good-looking as it is for girls to be pretty- not quite a fair expectation when women, unlike men, were created to be beautiful. It is still important for guys to take the first step in dating- yet more and more girls close themselves off and make themselves difficult to approach. Similalry, more and more girls just flirt with all their guy friends (something that wouldnt have happened 60 years ago) - which just confuses the guys even more.
I'm not necessarily lamenting these changes.... it's just a gradual transition. Right now we're in a rather confusing stage, and I don't really know what I should aspire to. I don't feel as though there's anything wrong with gender liberation- I just wish it would be more complete. If men are still expected to lead as strongly as before, then they should have the priveleges and all the upper hands as before. If women expect to be treated as equals, then they should act as equals. My personal preference is the latter option becuase i feel that more closely ressembles the situation I've always lived in. Unlike many guys, I totally respect a girl who is strong (physically and emotionally) and independent. I ALWAYS admire a girl with the courage to take the first move. I admire and support women in their higher aspiriations - even if it's more ambitious than my own. (Unless of course this is taken to extreme and becomes an obsession- see my prior entry). I respect a girl who will stand up for herself and stand her own ground. In fact, I would go so far as to say these qualities are desireable and extremely attractive (as long as the women is not overly aggressive and vicious).
As a guy, I think we should be who we are- I don't think we should alter ourselves to some sort of societal ideal. I think niceness and gentless- even if it is feminine- are amazing values. Although I'm not romantically attracted to men, I think these qualities are really what makes a man worth getting to know- worth befriending. I think it is lamentable when a perfectly decent guy becomes a jerk in an effort to be "macho". At the same time, I think a man should be strong. He should be physically robust (ie, take care of himself) and should stand up for himself and his friends.
It almost seems to be that men and women are really starting to look alike. Not, obviously, in physical appearance, but in idealised personality. I don' t think this is a bad thing- just radically different.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thoughts on US Politics (17 February 2008)
A lot has happened since my last entry on this topic, and some of my thoughts have changed slightly, so I thought I would do an update. I'm going to organise this in several parts: 1) My thoughts on the Bush administration- including critcising some attacks against him. 2) My thoughts on Jon McCain and why I don't want him to win. 3) Why I want Obama to win
I. My thoughts on the Bush administration:
Bush is one of those people whom almost everyone either hates or loves. There's little middle ground. The people who love him aren't terribly popular these days- I don't think I have to spend too much time in this article on why Bush has been a really crappy president. Nonetheless, I want to make my opinion clear. The one part of his policy which I believe is utterly horrible and unforgivable, as I have written about in the past, is his approach to foriegn policy. He treats European powers (and the UN) with condescension. This is a problem for the following reasons: it weakens the UN if the most powerful country in the world won't lend it legitimately. The UN could POTENTIALLY be much more effective than it is now, but not when it lacks legitimacy. Secondly, pissing off European allies is not a good strategy just insofar as me might actually need their assistance some day- especially with the economy headed where it is now. It also demonstrates, in my opinion, an utter lack of class and finesse. More importantly, he treats hostile nations with equal hostility. It doesn't take a PhD in Political Science to realise this spells disaster. Bush lacks entirely an important thing called diplomacy. Making no effort to be diplomatic with your "enemies" only spells disaster for the protection of your country. So, actually, instead of keeping us "safe from terror", Bush has done the exact opposite. In order to keep your society safe, you have to negotiate and appease your enemies to such an extent that they don't have a desire to cause harm upon us. Failure to do that will piss them off.... and it's never wise to have people pissed off at you. And for goodness sake, anybody who thinks that the war in Iraq has ANYTHING to do with the war on terror is horribly misinformed and ignorant. In 2001, Iraq was led by a guy named Sadaam Hussein. Admittedly, he was a cruel dictator. But he hated Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and fundamentalist Islam. Hussein himself was in fact a secularist. No 9-11 hijackers came from Iraq. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never threatened the US. Choosing to attack Iraq to end terrorism would be like starting a bacon-cheeseburger diet to loose weight. It simply makes no sense.
Of course, I feel like I'm preaching to the choir so to speak. These days, especially in Montreal (and most parts outside the Southern US), it is increasingly trendy to be anti-Bush. Many people criticise Bush without really having an idea of what they're talking about. I think it's quite nïave to hate Bush without having a reason to. In fact, I can forgive Bush for a lot of things. His economic policies haven't proven to be successful- but his economic plan is not, in my opinion, insanity. It is reflective of a different ideology with its own set of logic to justify it. While a liberal would say that the gov't should spend more on the lower classes, a conservative would advocate the "trickle down effect". It's really difficult to say that either policy is necessarily better, and i see validity in both approaches. In terms of Bush's social policies- I personally don't agree with how he implements them, but his reasoning is quite valid.... and I admit that admire the guy for sticking to his principles.
II. McCain
I'm going to keep my discussion on McCain really short, because I don't feel my thoughts on him have changed much. As a person, I admire him. He seems liek a really cool man- one that I would love to share a beer with. He has been through a lot in his life, and I would even go so far as to call him an American hero. However, what people really fail to understand, is that being a cool person, or even a hero, are definitely not qualifications to lead a country.
III. Why I support Obama
I think I have said this before, but when I look at a candidate, I don't really care so much about past voting record, or different things they've said, or even experience. Each president has SO many people in the cabinet to help him out, and in fact, the Legislative branch of the US government actually has a LOT more power with regards to law-making. Such trivilaties really don't matter to me. What matters to me is their image. I know it sounds superficial, but I think it's really important. The president of the US is much more powerful on an international scale than on a domestic scale... another thing people fail to understand. His/Her domestic policies mean relatively little. After all, it's really the balance of the Senate/Congress that gets things done, and decides what SHOULD be done. Where the US president is really important is in his influence in global affairs. This office is unique in this regard.... what Stephen Harper (PM of Canada) says about XYZ really carries little weight for anyone outside Canada. But, with our world as it is, what the US President says about almost anything seems important to everyone. I'm not saying I think that's the way it SHOULD BE, but the fact is the US is the only remaining super-power in the world, and thus has the most influence.
Another way to think of this is that the President is in a sense like the ambassador to EVERY country. He represents the face of America as seen by everyone - Americans and non-Americans alike. So why does this bode well for Obama? McCain, as respectable as a man I find him to be, is a war hawk. He has been in war and has a very jilted impression regarding the nature of war. I expect that if wins the election, diplomatic relations with eg, Iran, will only get worse. He has a "no bullshit" personality and seems to have little patience. Clinton, while IMO better than McCain, has said that the President should not meet with "hostile" world leaders, lest it would jeapordise the "prestige" of the office. Again, I have a lot of respect for Clinton, and the success she has had thus far in her campaign. I think a lot of her domestic views are fantastic. But as I said, domestically, she would have little power, and to me the far more important thing is foreign policy. Her views on foreign policy don't represent much of an improvement over Bush.
So what about Obama? He has said that in his first year he will commit to meet with ALL of the "hostile" world leaders: including Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad. If he actually does that, it would be amazing! Of course, no one is to say that he WILL... but at least he expresses the desire to do so. I think that's EXACTLY what's needed, and I'm so relieved that a leading candidate has actually expressed interest in this. By ignoring people like the said leaders, the US succeeds only in isolating them further. The US should talk to these nations for several reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above, it lowers the risk of any sort of threats or attacks against the US- which is really the way to make "America safer"- something Bush has clearly failed horribly at. Secondly, by having favourable relations with these nations, their development is promoted. A prosperous Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba is in the interest of everyone. Prosperity = Stability = less liklihood for attacks!
In my humble opinion, the best option by far is Barack Obama for 2008. This is the first time in a very long time that I could actulaly say I almost sort of liked a mainstream candidate. I also very much fear an America under McCain leadership. Clinton I could deal with... but I think her position on foriegn policy is less than fantastic. She is also rather weak in the charisma/rhetoric department, which I think makes her a liability in direct opposition to McCain. And I think, at all costs, we must not have another Republican in the white house.
I. My thoughts on the Bush administration:
Bush is one of those people whom almost everyone either hates or loves. There's little middle ground. The people who love him aren't terribly popular these days- I don't think I have to spend too much time in this article on why Bush has been a really crappy president. Nonetheless, I want to make my opinion clear. The one part of his policy which I believe is utterly horrible and unforgivable, as I have written about in the past, is his approach to foriegn policy. He treats European powers (and the UN) with condescension. This is a problem for the following reasons: it weakens the UN if the most powerful country in the world won't lend it legitimately. The UN could POTENTIALLY be much more effective than it is now, but not when it lacks legitimacy. Secondly, pissing off European allies is not a good strategy just insofar as me might actually need their assistance some day- especially with the economy headed where it is now. It also demonstrates, in my opinion, an utter lack of class and finesse. More importantly, he treats hostile nations with equal hostility. It doesn't take a PhD in Political Science to realise this spells disaster. Bush lacks entirely an important thing called diplomacy. Making no effort to be diplomatic with your "enemies" only spells disaster for the protection of your country. So, actually, instead of keeping us "safe from terror", Bush has done the exact opposite. In order to keep your society safe, you have to negotiate and appease your enemies to such an extent that they don't have a desire to cause harm upon us. Failure to do that will piss them off.... and it's never wise to have people pissed off at you. And for goodness sake, anybody who thinks that the war in Iraq has ANYTHING to do with the war on terror is horribly misinformed and ignorant. In 2001, Iraq was led by a guy named Sadaam Hussein. Admittedly, he was a cruel dictator. But he hated Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and fundamentalist Islam. Hussein himself was in fact a secularist. No 9-11 hijackers came from Iraq. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never threatened the US. Choosing to attack Iraq to end terrorism would be like starting a bacon-cheeseburger diet to loose weight. It simply makes no sense.
Of course, I feel like I'm preaching to the choir so to speak. These days, especially in Montreal (and most parts outside the Southern US), it is increasingly trendy to be anti-Bush. Many people criticise Bush without really having an idea of what they're talking about. I think it's quite nïave to hate Bush without having a reason to. In fact, I can forgive Bush for a lot of things. His economic policies haven't proven to be successful- but his economic plan is not, in my opinion, insanity. It is reflective of a different ideology with its own set of logic to justify it. While a liberal would say that the gov't should spend more on the lower classes, a conservative would advocate the "trickle down effect". It's really difficult to say that either policy is necessarily better, and i see validity in both approaches. In terms of Bush's social policies- I personally don't agree with how he implements them, but his reasoning is quite valid.... and I admit that admire the guy for sticking to his principles.
II. McCain
I'm going to keep my discussion on McCain really short, because I don't feel my thoughts on him have changed much. As a person, I admire him. He seems liek a really cool man- one that I would love to share a beer with. He has been through a lot in his life, and I would even go so far as to call him an American hero. However, what people really fail to understand, is that being a cool person, or even a hero, are definitely not qualifications to lead a country.
III. Why I support Obama
I think I have said this before, but when I look at a candidate, I don't really care so much about past voting record, or different things they've said, or even experience. Each president has SO many people in the cabinet to help him out, and in fact, the Legislative branch of the US government actually has a LOT more power with regards to law-making. Such trivilaties really don't matter to me. What matters to me is their image. I know it sounds superficial, but I think it's really important. The president of the US is much more powerful on an international scale than on a domestic scale... another thing people fail to understand. His/Her domestic policies mean relatively little. After all, it's really the balance of the Senate/Congress that gets things done, and decides what SHOULD be done. Where the US president is really important is in his influence in global affairs. This office is unique in this regard.... what Stephen Harper (PM of Canada) says about XYZ really carries little weight for anyone outside Canada. But, with our world as it is, what the US President says about almost anything seems important to everyone. I'm not saying I think that's the way it SHOULD BE, but the fact is the US is the only remaining super-power in the world, and thus has the most influence.
Another way to think of this is that the President is in a sense like the ambassador to EVERY country. He represents the face of America as seen by everyone - Americans and non-Americans alike. So why does this bode well for Obama? McCain, as respectable as a man I find him to be, is a war hawk. He has been in war and has a very jilted impression regarding the nature of war. I expect that if wins the election, diplomatic relations with eg, Iran, will only get worse. He has a "no bullshit" personality and seems to have little patience. Clinton, while IMO better than McCain, has said that the President should not meet with "hostile" world leaders, lest it would jeapordise the "prestige" of the office. Again, I have a lot of respect for Clinton, and the success she has had thus far in her campaign. I think a lot of her domestic views are fantastic. But as I said, domestically, she would have little power, and to me the far more important thing is foreign policy. Her views on foreign policy don't represent much of an improvement over Bush.
So what about Obama? He has said that in his first year he will commit to meet with ALL of the "hostile" world leaders: including Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad. If he actually does that, it would be amazing! Of course, no one is to say that he WILL... but at least he expresses the desire to do so. I think that's EXACTLY what's needed, and I'm so relieved that a leading candidate has actually expressed interest in this. By ignoring people like the said leaders, the US succeeds only in isolating them further. The US should talk to these nations for several reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above, it lowers the risk of any sort of threats or attacks against the US- which is really the way to make "America safer"- something Bush has clearly failed horribly at. Secondly, by having favourable relations with these nations, their development is promoted. A prosperous Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba is in the interest of everyone. Prosperity = Stability = less liklihood for attacks!
In my humble opinion, the best option by far is Barack Obama for 2008. This is the first time in a very long time that I could actulaly say I almost sort of liked a mainstream candidate. I also very much fear an America under McCain leadership. Clinton I could deal with... but I think her position on foriegn policy is less than fantastic. She is also rather weak in the charisma/rhetoric department, which I think makes her a liability in direct opposition to McCain. And I think, at all costs, we must not have another Republican in the white house.
Mae Sot Withdrawal (15 February 2008)
So you know when you do something/ go somewhere really exciting, and you come back, it's really all you want to talk about. You obsess upon it and annoy people, and eventually, usually within a few weeks, you begin to forget about it. Maybe not forget about it... but it's no longer on the top of the things you think/talk about. This happened to me on my respecitive trips to Spain, Belgium, and Portugal. Not that these three countries were lame (although Spain is the only one I really consider worth returning to...). It's just that... it becomes such a small part of my life that it's no longer the focus of my thoughts, dreams and conversations.
Such is not the case with my past summer. Granted, I was gone for much longer than I spent in any other the aforementioned countries. But, I've been back in Canada for well over 6 months now- and I can assure you that NOT A SINGLE DAY has gone by where I didn't think about Mae Sot, the kids, and/or SEA in general.I would say that this summer was definitely THE defining experience for me, more than anything else so far. In reading my entries from when I was in Asia, and from when I had gotten back, it's really interesting to see my mindset- what I was expecting from the trip, and what I got from it.
I'm not sure whether or not I clearly expressed this in my blog in August, but when I was leaving Asia I was actually excited to come back to Montreal. I felt like I had become a new person. I, for the first time, had a huge sense of self-confidence, and felt ready to return triumphantly to Montreal and tackle all the problems waiting for me there- both dealing with the baggage of a rough Winter '07 semester, and the problems in store for me for the upcoming semester. Now, I kinda feel only 50% of this is still true. True- I have new perspectives in my life. ANd when I first got back to Montreal- September of last year- I was full of self-confidence. Unfortunately, due to a fall semester that was academically my worst yet, and mostly unfriendly people who don't really care about my Asian experiences, my happy-go-lucky optimism was short-lived.
Now, I kinda feel in a rut. I still dream every day that I'm somewhere where I can get cheap & good food, where people stare at me on the street and that I'm the object of many a women's affections, and I don't have so many responsibilities & things to deal with. I guess my expectations of returning to the "west" have not quite been met.... so I feel like I must as well be back there.
I miss a lot of things about SEA. I miss my kids. I miss Mae Sot. I miss being a teacher. I want to go back to Burma, and go to Mandalay and Bagan. I want to go to Cambodia and Vietnam. I want to go back to Malaysia- to the parts of the country I didn't see + to KL again. I want to go back to Bangkok, and spend more time in Bangkok- give it another chance, and get to know it better. I want to go back to Singapore. I want to go back to Hong Kong. Actually, the only country in SEA that I don't really have a huge desire to return to is- in all honesty- Laos. Not that I didn't really enjoy my time there... and not that it wasn't a really interesting country. It was just a bit underwhelming in retrospect. By contrast, hindsight has really improved my impressions of Singapore, Bangkok, and Hong Kong. I couldn't quite explain why. I guess I can compare it to Montreal- and MOntreal seems so lame in comparison.
Anyway... I guess I'm not going anywhere here. I know I don't like to have this blog be personal- and I know I'm not saying anything profoundly relevant to anyone's life. But I was reading my old entries today, and I thought I would just do a long-term follow-up. Oh, and I'm still planning to return in 2009.
Of course, none of this is to say I'm upset with my life in Montreal. I have some awesome friends.... a nice apartment.... awesome landlords. And I'm also very excited for my excursion to Germany and Morocco.
Such is not the case with my past summer. Granted, I was gone for much longer than I spent in any other the aforementioned countries. But, I've been back in Canada for well over 6 months now- and I can assure you that NOT A SINGLE DAY has gone by where I didn't think about Mae Sot, the kids, and/or SEA in general.I would say that this summer was definitely THE defining experience for me, more than anything else so far. In reading my entries from when I was in Asia, and from when I had gotten back, it's really interesting to see my mindset- what I was expecting from the trip, and what I got from it.
I'm not sure whether or not I clearly expressed this in my blog in August, but when I was leaving Asia I was actually excited to come back to Montreal. I felt like I had become a new person. I, for the first time, had a huge sense of self-confidence, and felt ready to return triumphantly to Montreal and tackle all the problems waiting for me there- both dealing with the baggage of a rough Winter '07 semester, and the problems in store for me for the upcoming semester. Now, I kinda feel only 50% of this is still true. True- I have new perspectives in my life. ANd when I first got back to Montreal- September of last year- I was full of self-confidence. Unfortunately, due to a fall semester that was academically my worst yet, and mostly unfriendly people who don't really care about my Asian experiences, my happy-go-lucky optimism was short-lived.
Now, I kinda feel in a rut. I still dream every day that I'm somewhere where I can get cheap & good food, where people stare at me on the street and that I'm the object of many a women's affections, and I don't have so many responsibilities & things to deal with. I guess my expectations of returning to the "west" have not quite been met.... so I feel like I must as well be back there.
I miss a lot of things about SEA. I miss my kids. I miss Mae Sot. I miss being a teacher. I want to go back to Burma, and go to Mandalay and Bagan. I want to go to Cambodia and Vietnam. I want to go back to Malaysia- to the parts of the country I didn't see + to KL again. I want to go back to Bangkok, and spend more time in Bangkok- give it another chance, and get to know it better. I want to go back to Singapore. I want to go back to Hong Kong. Actually, the only country in SEA that I don't really have a huge desire to return to is- in all honesty- Laos. Not that I didn't really enjoy my time there... and not that it wasn't a really interesting country. It was just a bit underwhelming in retrospect. By contrast, hindsight has really improved my impressions of Singapore, Bangkok, and Hong Kong. I couldn't quite explain why. I guess I can compare it to Montreal- and MOntreal seems so lame in comparison.
Anyway... I guess I'm not going anywhere here. I know I don't like to have this blog be personal- and I know I'm not saying anything profoundly relevant to anyone's life. But I was reading my old entries today, and I thought I would just do a long-term follow-up. Oh, and I'm still planning to return in 2009.
Of course, none of this is to say I'm upset with my life in Montreal. I have some awesome friends.... a nice apartment.... awesome landlords. And I'm also very excited for my excursion to Germany and Morocco.
On Niceness (11 February 2008)
In recent months, I've been called "too nice" on several occasions- with a bad conontation. I absolutely do not take offense to this, as I strive to be the nicest, most generous, most caring individual I could possibly be. What I don't understand is why being nice is an anyway bad? When I was growing up, I was always taught to be nice. I remember the old saying "If you haven't got aything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", and I still hold by that. What I want to know, is what announcement did I miss which declared being nice as undesrieable, unattractive, and negative.
It is a well-known fact that a large number of girls, especially those under 25, are attracted to "bad boys", and very much NOT attractive to nice guys. I think the illogic in this is quite apparant, and does not justify much space here. What I cannot comprehend is why being nice is not the goal of everyone? I'm not saying that everyone should go great lengths and incur great personal expense in order to make someone else's day/life in some way happier. But why not just say something nice to someone just to cheer them up.... or why not buy something for a friend/stranger without having any reason to do so.... or do something for someone (make them dinner, do their laundry, do their groceries, &c.) These things take little effort, and I really don't see the negative consequences to them.
Last night I was involved in a conversation I really didn't want to be involved in. We talked about people's looks, which is innocent enough- until it involves people in the conversation.
Before it digressed to that, I noticed something. Each person in the conversation was asked to say what percentage of people were in some way physically attractive. Everyone besides me said 25-30%... I said 75%. My explanation (as I've written in previous entries) is that I look at each and every individual (well.... for the sake of this discussion, only girls) and try to see how they are beautiful. I can see a fair amount of beauty in about 75% of women around my age. I don't want to say another individual is ugly. I have to be realistic and say that some people simply aren't good-looking.... anyone who denies that isn't reallly being honest I think. That's not to say that ugly people, to use such a gross label, are in any way inferior or unworthy. I don't mean to say that at all. Nonetheless, it pains me to consider any other individual as "ugly", and I try to see outer beauty in everyone. Inner beauty is a whole different topic. My perception of a person's looks are not affected by her personality... but to be totally honest, her personality is FAR more important. Ok... that was a tangent.
Anyway.....Everyone else thought that was the most ridiculous thing in the world. In fact, they favoured the opposite approach- particularly the two girls involved in this conversation. They went out of their way to look for the ugliness in everybody, to the point where they went through magazines, and pointed out models and celebrities and exaplained why they were, in fact, ugly. Since when are Mathew McConnahey (sp?) and Kate Hudson ugly??? I think this in and of itself is disturbing. Why must we have this way of seeing it?? What possible gain is there to trying to point out the ugliness in everyone???? It just doesnt go through my mind.
As I said... it was innocent enough when it inolved magazine models.... but then we started talking about people in the conversation. That's when I became really uncomfortable. For personal reasons, I really would prefer not to know how attractive they find me, especially considering how they tear everyone apart- and I chose to stay as much out of the conversation as possible. But the two girls present were pretty mercilious in declaring other people ugly, and explaining specificaly why they were ugly. Now maybe I'm old-fashioned, but except in very rare circumstances, I don't see why any individual should tell any other individual that he/she is ugly. Regardless if it's true, it's a blow to someone's confidence- and it's totally unnecessary. I was told: "you're too nice- that's your problem."
I am not going to discuss the details of this conversation further. I just used this as an illustration of some things concerning me. First of all, why is it that people look for the worst in others? Is it just for fun? Is it because of personal insecurities? I simply don't understand it! I feel happier when I'm around people I see in a positive light. I feel better in the presence of someone I perceive as beautiful. And think about it the other way around..... don't we all want people to look for the best in us? I like to compare it to a hard exam. Most decent profs will try to give you the most amount of points for what you wroten down. They will examine your answers (assuming the exam is not mult choice....), and look for what you said that's of value. Except for sadistic profs, the goal isn't to make you fail... the goal is to give you a reasonable grade (although, admitedly, not often a fantastic grade- but to carry on the analogy, I never said that I think most people are GORGEOUS). I want to make the declaration here that we should all try to look for the best in others for two reasons. FIrstly, to make our own lives easier, happier, and more positive. Secondly, so that we can benefit from the same generous standards,
The second thing concerning me from the above attractiveness conversation is what I said at the beginning of this entry: since when was it unfashionable to be nice. I simply don't understand this. Why could it ever be a bad thing to be nice? I think the fact that I actually care about other people and try to make other people happy is one of the best parts of my personality. I will not change that- not if it meant lots of money or lots of women. I would give up all of those things just to make someone else's day a little bit happier. What I want to know is why is this bad? I think I missed the announcement on that one- and I refuse to accept it. If being nice makes me an ugly person, then call me ugly. I think the postives to being nice far outweigh any alternatives. Alas, I just think that any society in which altruism, tact, kindness and generosity are shunned and considered taboo is pretty messed up. The same goes for individuals who follow along with that. And I don't mean to be judgemental- but this type of attitude causes LOTS of problems for the rest of us. If you're reading this, and you consider being nice a bad thing, I would be interested to hear why you feel like that. Maybe in addition to making me ugly, being nice makes me dumb because I simply cannot understand such mentalities.
Burnt Chocolate Chip Cookies (written 8 December 2007)
About a week ago, some people were giving away baked goods on campus. I'm not quite sure why, but they were offering free, no-strings attached, baked goods. So I decided to grab a chocolate chip cookie- tasty, yet light enough not to ruin an appetite. It was somewhat burnt. But I realised something.... there is something about burnt cookies... especially burnt chocolate chip cookies... that's special. Of all the things you can burn, burnt cookies has a special taste to it. Sure, it represents the baker falling short, and failing in his/her endeavour to make a perfect cookie. Yet, perhaps therein lay the charm. We know that the baker was human, and that the cookie was not mass-produced and/or made by machines. There is a personal touch to it. Despite the fact that the baker obviously screwed up, it still symbolises some sort of personal attachment. Some human being, with a name and a heart, made this cookie for a reason. It almost becomes like a small reflection of that person's soul.
Burnt cookies also remind me of simpler days. Like when your little sister tried to make cookies and burnt them. Who cares? You still ate them and told her they were good- because they were. It's not like burnt cookies are disgusting... you still have all the essential elements of a cookie.
Think about it.... burnt cookies are like something your sister/girlfriend/mom/yourself could make. It reminds me of small towns, of friendly people, of simple days, of selflessness. Burnt cookies aren't made for commerce. At worst, they might have been part of an attempt to have a bake sale... and bake sales usualy fundraise for worthy causes. It's not like someone will sell burnt cookies solely for their own profit.
This stands in contrast to the mass-produced, immaculate, perservative-loaded cookies you find in grocery markets. In this sense, I'm using immaculate in the perjorative sense. They are immactulate in the non-human sense. They are immaculate cookies like ladyboys are immaculate women, only because of the extent and cost of their modifications. It's ungenuine (not to mention unhealthy!). Mass-produced cookies do not have a face to it. You don't know who actually made them, nor will you ever- because they weren't made by human beings. They were made in factories. There's no name or soul to them.... they were made just for corprorate profit. Not becuase a bunch of people wanted to do something nice for loved ones.... not becuase some people wanted to raise money for a geniune cause... not because someone wanted to make someone else's day.
Alas, this entry is more of a personal reflection than a real statement. I don't believe that burnt cookies are the ideal. Objectively speaking, they don't taste as good as well-made cookies (mass-produced or otherwise). But that doesn't mean that they are worth disposing of. There's something about burnt cookies that has a nostalgic quality to it. You know that this cookie wasn't made for the soul endeavour of profit. The cookie, like the individual who made it, is flawed. What is wrong with flaws? While we should all work to improve upon our flaws, we won't ever get rid of all of them. We are stuck with flaws: we might as well celebrate some of them. Let's not turn into a bunch of mindless robots. Yet I fear that's where the future is taking us.
Burnt cookies also remind me of simpler days. Like when your little sister tried to make cookies and burnt them. Who cares? You still ate them and told her they were good- because they were. It's not like burnt cookies are disgusting... you still have all the essential elements of a cookie.
Think about it.... burnt cookies are like something your sister/girlfriend/mom/yourself could make. It reminds me of small towns, of friendly people, of simple days, of selflessness. Burnt cookies aren't made for commerce. At worst, they might have been part of an attempt to have a bake sale... and bake sales usualy fundraise for worthy causes. It's not like someone will sell burnt cookies solely for their own profit.
This stands in contrast to the mass-produced, immaculate, perservative-loaded cookies you find in grocery markets. In this sense, I'm using immaculate in the perjorative sense. They are immactulate in the non-human sense. They are immaculate cookies like ladyboys are immaculate women, only because of the extent and cost of their modifications. It's ungenuine (not to mention unhealthy!). Mass-produced cookies do not have a face to it. You don't know who actually made them, nor will you ever- because they weren't made by human beings. They were made in factories. There's no name or soul to them.... they were made just for corprorate profit. Not becuase a bunch of people wanted to do something nice for loved ones.... not becuase some people wanted to raise money for a geniune cause... not because someone wanted to make someone else's day.
Alas, this entry is more of a personal reflection than a real statement. I don't believe that burnt cookies are the ideal. Objectively speaking, they don't taste as good as well-made cookies (mass-produced or otherwise). But that doesn't mean that they are worth disposing of. There's something about burnt cookies that has a nostalgic quality to it. You know that this cookie wasn't made for the soul endeavour of profit. The cookie, like the individual who made it, is flawed. What is wrong with flaws? While we should all work to improve upon our flaws, we won't ever get rid of all of them. We are stuck with flaws: we might as well celebrate some of them. Let's not turn into a bunch of mindless robots. Yet I fear that's where the future is taking us.
Vegetarians, Vegans and Carnivores (written in Montreal, 2 December 2007)
Hello everybody. What I,m going to talk about in this entry is hardly the most pressing or urgent issue in our world. nonetheless, some people tend to think it is, and it seems that lately I,ve been bombarded with propoganda making me feel bad for eating meat. Of course, everyone has a different opinion, and all the "facts" we're told seem to support contradictory claims, although it seems to be that way for everything.
So, what is a vegetarian? For the sake of this article, vegetarians are those who don't eat any dead animals, but will eat animal products. In other words: no beef, chicken, pork, shellfish, or fish, but will eat eggs and dairy. What is a vegan? People who will not eat any animals product (including eggs and dairy). To complicate things further, there are people who only eat certain things: my mom, for instance, is a vegetarian except that she still eats any seafood. Many people choose to avoid red meat (beef, etc), and lots of people avoid pork for religious reasons.
First, let's talk about vegetarians. Why are people vegetarians? Many different reasons exist. In very few cases the reasons are cultural. As for as my anthropological knowledge goes, cultural vegetarianism is pretty rare (but not unheard of). Most socities have some sort of animal meat staple (although they also may have some taboos). Some people don't eat meat for health reasons, for environmetal reasons, or for ethical reasons. I'm only going to talk about the former three.
Is it healthier to be a vegetarian? I'm not a scientist, nor am I a nutritionist, Evidence seems a bit mixed on this topic. One thing that seems pretty consistent is the difference between complete and incomplete proteins. Our bodies need complete proteins. incomplete proteins, in appropriate combinations, can suffice for complete proteins. However, complete proteins come only from animals and animal products. Plant protiens are all incomplete. That says, a diet containing eggs and dairy still gets the appropriate complete proteins. Vegans, however, don't eat those things. They get their protein from solely incomplete sources. Unhealthy? Maybe. With correct planning, ie, finding the correct combinations EVERYDAY, a vegan diet CAN get the appropriate proteins. Well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are ARGUABLY healthier for a few reasons. Non-meat proteins tend to be lower in saturated fats and contain less harmful chemicals. Of course, saying that would lump all meats together. Fish is widely considered the healhtiest meat: it is very high in protein, and rich in healthy omega fats (but, also potentially rich in polutants). Poultry is also considered very healthy and lean, but usually has the most hormones and chemicals. Pork comes from an "unclean" animal, known to eat rubbish, or whatever else it can find. Red meat is highh in saturated fats and in hormones. Eggs and cheese from factory animals contain these bad things, but liekly in lower concentrations. Plant proteins don't contain them at all... except that they probably contain lots of pesticides. So, what's the answer?? It depends on a lot of things.... where do you buy your meat? If you can find non-factory meat, it would obviously be better. How well do you cook it? Cooking it well-done kills most undesirable things. most importantly, how often do you eat it? Red meat should be consumed less often than poultry/fish. My conclusion is that neither of the three diets are necessarily healthier than the other. It is perfectly possible to be very healthy or very unhealthy in either alternative. Carnivirious diets require less planning, but require more moderation. Vegan diets require a LOT of planning, but deal with less undesirable chemicals. Vegetarian diets are in the middle: still require some planning, and still deal with unnatural .... I don't know what else to call the stuff they use these days.
How about the environmental concern? This one I would probably have to agree with the vegies. Based on the average amount of meat consumed by most North Americans, it is simply unsustainable. Animals, especially in unnatural settings, are not renewable resources to the extent that plants are. Animals also require plant food (some of which could easily go to us). If that wasn't enough, the well-known 10% rule makes it worse. Only 10% of the energy consumed by the animals is consumable by predators. In other words, 90% of everything consumed by the prey (eg, cow, chicken, etc) is lost. I will admit that given the present day circumstances, with the mass production and mass consumption of animal resources, the vegetarian, and especially the vegan lifestyle is more beneficial for the environment. However, in ideal circumstances, meat-eating IS sustainable. That requires, of course, more moderate consumption of meat. If everyone kept their consumption at, say, 180 g a day, things would improve.
How about ethics? I will FULLY admit that the way domesticated animals are treated today is nothing short of APALLING. However, I can't help but to laugh when people talk about "speciesism". Give me a break? Until they start paying taxes and become liable to the court system, I'm not about to grant pigs rights. I don't think there's anything wrong with killing animals for food. Other animals do it. Throughout the history of humanity, almost every culture in almost every part of the world did it (granted they likely ate much less meat than we did today, and likely had much more respect for the creature they slaughtered). Ecologically speaking, we are at the top of the food chain. We are the only species that have built cities and written novels. We have sovereignty over our domain.... it's more about being responsible. Animals are a decent source of protein, and are present, so why shouldn't we eat them? Does that mean we should go hog wild, like we are now? I don't think so. Does that mean that I have problems with a vegetarian lifestyle? Of course not.... JUST PLEASE DON'T PREACH. Please don't make me out ot be an evil person. I respect vegans and vegetarians, especially those who are for environmental reasons. Just please respect me and my decision to eat meat.... albeit moderately. (And because it tastes good!)
One other thing to consider.... this is mostly for our vegan friends, but also for vegetarians. Good luck travelling. Vegetarianism, and espeically veganism, is unheard of in many parts of the world. Sure, you could probably get by in parts of Europe, and India, and a few other random places. But for the rest of the world, good luck. Just my experiences in Thailand/Burma: vegetarianism is unheard of. Almost all meals - even breakfast, contain some form of meat. Occasionally, egg is eaten instead of (or in addition to) meat. But getting your proper protein requirements is trickier for several reasons: the proper types of plant proteins may be obscure, and especially if you don't speak the language you may not find it. It's also disrespectful to the culture, especially when people cook you something over their house. That means, if they cook you dog, it is appropriate to eat the dog! Who would you rather offend? Fellow human beings, or animals that aren't aware of how you feel and are incapable of thinking about you? At least you have the bonus of knowing that that dog was probably not raised in a factory.
My conclusion in a nut shell. Carnivirous lifestyles are healthful and sustainable with selection and moderation. If possible, buy from a source less-likely to be mass-produced. Choose fish/poultry over red meat. Eat in moderation. The same thing does for vegetarians. Yes, you're helping improve the sustainability of animals, but that doesn't mean you should go hog wild, especially with your egg and dairy consumption. Vegans must be especially careful in planning their diets to get appropriate protiens. Whatever option you chose, or whatever variant of an option, rememebr a few things. You should always avoid rubbish food. And you should be respectful of other people. Don't preach at them for eating meat, or don't make fun of them for not eating meat. This is especialy true if you're a guest in another country. If you're a vegan, you're better off not going to many third-world countries, unless you either give up veganism while youre there, or can do it with tact and respect (it helps if you know the langauage). If you're going to make an ass out of yourself, better off not going.... people in third world countries have many things more urgent to worry about.... in some cases, getting enough food period, and you freaking out over eating meat/dairy will just bring shame and loss of face to everyone.
So, what is a vegetarian? For the sake of this article, vegetarians are those who don't eat any dead animals, but will eat animal products. In other words: no beef, chicken, pork, shellfish, or fish, but will eat eggs and dairy. What is a vegan? People who will not eat any animals product (including eggs and dairy). To complicate things further, there are people who only eat certain things: my mom, for instance, is a vegetarian except that she still eats any seafood. Many people choose to avoid red meat (beef, etc), and lots of people avoid pork for religious reasons.
First, let's talk about vegetarians. Why are people vegetarians? Many different reasons exist. In very few cases the reasons are cultural. As for as my anthropological knowledge goes, cultural vegetarianism is pretty rare (but not unheard of). Most socities have some sort of animal meat staple (although they also may have some taboos). Some people don't eat meat for health reasons, for environmetal reasons, or for ethical reasons. I'm only going to talk about the former three.
Is it healthier to be a vegetarian? I'm not a scientist, nor am I a nutritionist, Evidence seems a bit mixed on this topic. One thing that seems pretty consistent is the difference between complete and incomplete proteins. Our bodies need complete proteins. incomplete proteins, in appropriate combinations, can suffice for complete proteins. However, complete proteins come only from animals and animal products. Plant protiens are all incomplete. That says, a diet containing eggs and dairy still gets the appropriate complete proteins. Vegans, however, don't eat those things. They get their protein from solely incomplete sources. Unhealthy? Maybe. With correct planning, ie, finding the correct combinations EVERYDAY, a vegan diet CAN get the appropriate proteins. Well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are ARGUABLY healthier for a few reasons. Non-meat proteins tend to be lower in saturated fats and contain less harmful chemicals. Of course, saying that would lump all meats together. Fish is widely considered the healhtiest meat: it is very high in protein, and rich in healthy omega fats (but, also potentially rich in polutants). Poultry is also considered very healthy and lean, but usually has the most hormones and chemicals. Pork comes from an "unclean" animal, known to eat rubbish, or whatever else it can find. Red meat is highh in saturated fats and in hormones. Eggs and cheese from factory animals contain these bad things, but liekly in lower concentrations. Plant proteins don't contain them at all... except that they probably contain lots of pesticides. So, what's the answer?? It depends on a lot of things.... where do you buy your meat? If you can find non-factory meat, it would obviously be better. How well do you cook it? Cooking it well-done kills most undesirable things. most importantly, how often do you eat it? Red meat should be consumed less often than poultry/fish. My conclusion is that neither of the three diets are necessarily healthier than the other. It is perfectly possible to be very healthy or very unhealthy in either alternative. Carnivirious diets require less planning, but require more moderation. Vegan diets require a LOT of planning, but deal with less undesirable chemicals. Vegetarian diets are in the middle: still require some planning, and still deal with unnatural .... I don't know what else to call the stuff they use these days.
How about the environmental concern? This one I would probably have to agree with the vegies. Based on the average amount of meat consumed by most North Americans, it is simply unsustainable. Animals, especially in unnatural settings, are not renewable resources to the extent that plants are. Animals also require plant food (some of which could easily go to us). If that wasn't enough, the well-known 10% rule makes it worse. Only 10% of the energy consumed by the animals is consumable by predators. In other words, 90% of everything consumed by the prey (eg, cow, chicken, etc) is lost. I will admit that given the present day circumstances, with the mass production and mass consumption of animal resources, the vegetarian, and especially the vegan lifestyle is more beneficial for the environment. However, in ideal circumstances, meat-eating IS sustainable. That requires, of course, more moderate consumption of meat. If everyone kept their consumption at, say, 180 g a day, things would improve.
How about ethics? I will FULLY admit that the way domesticated animals are treated today is nothing short of APALLING. However, I can't help but to laugh when people talk about "speciesism". Give me a break? Until they start paying taxes and become liable to the court system, I'm not about to grant pigs rights. I don't think there's anything wrong with killing animals for food. Other animals do it. Throughout the history of humanity, almost every culture in almost every part of the world did it (granted they likely ate much less meat than we did today, and likely had much more respect for the creature they slaughtered). Ecologically speaking, we are at the top of the food chain. We are the only species that have built cities and written novels. We have sovereignty over our domain.... it's more about being responsible. Animals are a decent source of protein, and are present, so why shouldn't we eat them? Does that mean we should go hog wild, like we are now? I don't think so. Does that mean that I have problems with a vegetarian lifestyle? Of course not.... JUST PLEASE DON'T PREACH. Please don't make me out ot be an evil person. I respect vegans and vegetarians, especially those who are for environmental reasons. Just please respect me and my decision to eat meat.... albeit moderately. (And because it tastes good!)
One other thing to consider.... this is mostly for our vegan friends, but also for vegetarians. Good luck travelling. Vegetarianism, and espeically veganism, is unheard of in many parts of the world. Sure, you could probably get by in parts of Europe, and India, and a few other random places. But for the rest of the world, good luck. Just my experiences in Thailand/Burma: vegetarianism is unheard of. Almost all meals - even breakfast, contain some form of meat. Occasionally, egg is eaten instead of (or in addition to) meat. But getting your proper protein requirements is trickier for several reasons: the proper types of plant proteins may be obscure, and especially if you don't speak the language you may not find it. It's also disrespectful to the culture, especially when people cook you something over their house. That means, if they cook you dog, it is appropriate to eat the dog! Who would you rather offend? Fellow human beings, or animals that aren't aware of how you feel and are incapable of thinking about you? At least you have the bonus of knowing that that dog was probably not raised in a factory.
My conclusion in a nut shell. Carnivirous lifestyles are healthful and sustainable with selection and moderation. If possible, buy from a source less-likely to be mass-produced. Choose fish/poultry over red meat. Eat in moderation. The same thing does for vegetarians. Yes, you're helping improve the sustainability of animals, but that doesn't mean you should go hog wild, especially with your egg and dairy consumption. Vegans must be especially careful in planning their diets to get appropriate protiens. Whatever option you chose, or whatever variant of an option, rememebr a few things. You should always avoid rubbish food. And you should be respectful of other people. Don't preach at them for eating meat, or don't make fun of them for not eating meat. This is especialy true if you're a guest in another country. If you're a vegan, you're better off not going to many third-world countries, unless you either give up veganism while youre there, or can do it with tact and respect (it helps if you know the langauage). If you're going to make an ass out of yourself, better off not going.... people in third world countries have many things more urgent to worry about.... in some cases, getting enough food period, and you freaking out over eating meat/dairy will just bring shame and loss of face to everyone.
Robbinsville, NJ - Luang Prabang, Night train to Bangkok, Hong Kong, Final Thoughts (written Robbinsville, NJ, USA 22 August 2007,*edit 23 May 2008*
Well..... wouldn't you know it, I'm back in North America. It seemed like this moment would never come. I wanted to updated in Hong Kong (for the novelty of it), but I simply didnt have suffecient time. So, this entry will be rather long, but for your convenience, I will break it up into manageable parts. The First part will recount my final days (Luang Prabang, Hong Kong, etc). The second part will talk about my final thoughts on my trip as a whole. So.... enjoy. All pictures from Singapore, Malaysia, Myanmar, Mae Sot, Chiang Mai, and BHSOH CAN be found on facebook (or you can wait until I show them all to you in person). Pictures from Laos and Hong Kong will be up eventually.... perhaps by the end of this week.
Part 1:
A. Luang Prabang
So, having seen pretty much all of the important sites and attractions within Luang Prabang on my first day, I decided to hire a bicycle for my second day in an attempt to explore the area. I was not disappointed. Just a short bike ride outside the tourists quarters unconvers and entirely different Luang Prabang. About 4 km outside the city limites, I found this tiny village (in very scenic countryside). The essense of this village is hard to describe in words, but fortunately, I do have pictures of it. I will never forget, however, stopping for a beer (fyi: Beer Lao is quite good) in this village. I had a horde of little kids staring at me the whole time. I started making faces at them, they started giggling, and then hiding (but still staring at me). That, I think, was the highlight of my time in Luang Prabang.... In my last entry, I might have suggested that I didnt enjoy Luang Prabang. I definitely liked it.... it was an extremely attractive place.... just not as interesting to me as Vientiane (where I wouldve rather spent the extra time).
B. Night Train On Saturday morning,
I flew out of Luang Prabang into Vientiane, where right away I took a cab to the friendship bridge. After immigration and all that jazz, I made it to the Nong Khai train station (this was about 16:00). I was all set for the 18:20 train. It was planned to take a bit longer than I expected. I had red that it was supposed to get into Bangkok around 4:30 am, and their estimation was 6:30. No worries, I thought... my flight isnt until 9:45. I started to get a little worried in the morning, when one of the "uniformed crew members" told me that we were due in Bangkok around 9 am! With Bangkok traffic, and regulations for intl flights, I was sure to miss my flight! I was starting to get really worried.... almost as a God send, I started talking to this Australian monk, who reminded me to save face, and that he had a funny feeling I was going to make my flight. On his advice, I got off the train a stop early- at Don Muang domestic airport- at 8:00. I ran to a cab, gave him 500B and told him to get to the intl airport as fast as he could. He drove like an absolute maniac.... and I was very happy! I told him he was superman. He got me there by 8:30, only for me to find a really long queue. I managed to get my boarding pass, go through immigration and security with only 20 minutes to spare before the scheduled depature time (the boarding pass says you must be at the gate AT LEAST 20 minutes before departure or "you may not be accepted for travel"). Ironically enough, our plane was delayed about half hour.
C. Hong Kong
We landed in Hong Kong around 13:30 local time (an hour ahead of Thailand). But by the time I went through immigration, got my luggage, left my luggage at a left luggage counter, exchanged money, found the city busses, and made it downtown it was about 16:30. So, I made the mistake of staying at the first guest house I found.... not to say it was at all bad (it, in fact, had air-con, which was a very rare luxury for me), but it was extraordinarily expensive. 200 HKD (about 27 USD) for one night. Oh well. My time in Hong Kong was still enjoyable. I found it to be a very modern, cosmopolitan, and clean city- all of which was a welcome change from being in the third and 4th worlds for so long. Some buildings were extraordinarily beautiful and the skyline (especially at night) was nothing short of spectacular. The food was also quite good. It was, however, not especially friendly. Hong Kong is also not the best city to be in alone, or to be in for only 24 hours. I made the most of my time there, and Im definitely glad I spent the day. I didnt get to do much, I spent all my time just wondering around... I wasnt even able to take the famous "peak tram". But, I still enjoyed myself.
Part 2. Conclusions **with additional commentary from 23 May '08**
A. Teaching
Teaching was a great experience, and one that opened my eyes. I saw first hand the situation of the Burmese people, which makes me appreciate it all the more. I felt absolutely touched by the warmth and generosity of the people, and inspired by some of my students. THere is nothing quite like students telling you how much theyve enjoyed your class, and what a great teacher you are, and crying because youre leaving, and living up to your high expectations. That is an unbeatable feeling. I would be lying if I said it was all glamourous. I was given no advice, no curriculum, no guidelines, no class roster: nothing. At first, I was quite awkward ("koyokaya"), and I don't think most of my students really respected me, nor should they have. Even towards the end, with the exception of my grade 9 class I felt like I failed my students. In the younger classes, I was at odds to figure out how best to challenge the students, while still keeping within their ranges.... I never figured that out. Finding something to do for every day, for the whole period occasionally proved challenging. I cant reiterate this enough: for all my grade 3-6 woes, my fantastic grade 9 class more than made up for it. Even in my younger classes, there were still some special people that I will never forget. People whose lives I've touched (Maung Soe, for example) and people who touched my life. And even outside the students, there are the spectuaruly people I met that I will never forget: teachers (Zin Dee, U Cheng, Lwin, Khine Oo Maung), volunteers (Karl, Stefan, Johann), students (Maung Soe, May Dar Li Maung, Sa Nay Tun, Win Thiri Soe, Lwin Lwin Mar, many others), students that weren't mine (Ko Phyo, Yin Shell) and Min Saw Thwin - all of whom I will never ever forget..... some of whom, I may perhaps see sometime in the future. Karl I will surely see again (*edit* I did end up seeing Karl in Jan '08).... Ko Phyo has an uncle in NYC, and plans to come over in 2008. Zin Dee dreams of coming to Canada by 2009, and Lwin Lwin wants to study in Canada. With only 10 weeks, I do feel like I was able to make an impact in the lives of a few people. If perhaps their speaking hasnt improved much, I can gaurantee you that their writing has (especially in grade 9). Besides that, did I change the world? Of course not. I also believe that the kids tought me more than I tought them- which is crucial to understand if you're ever going to do something like this.
B. Travelling
I will try to briefly summarise all the various places Ive seen.... upsides, downsides, and who I think should go.
i. Singapore
Highlights: Very clean, no language issues, very effecient, great food, the Gerber family
Lowlights: almost disturbingly sterile, neighbourhoods arent very interesting (picture 90% of the population living in boring towers that all look the same; the CBD is dead off hours, and thus quite boring), somewhat expensive (23-05-08 edit: only compared to the rest of SEA)
Recommended for: First time visitors to Asia; fussy travelers; clean freaks; people who don't want to learn a new language, food lovers
Not recommended for: Shoestringers; people who like vibrant street scenes, and interesting neighbourhoods; people who want to see an exotic country.
Highlights: Very clean, no language issues, very effecient, great food, the Gerber family
Lowlights: almost disturbingly sterile, neighbourhoods arent very interesting (picture 90% of the population living in boring towers that all look the same; the CBD is dead off hours, and thus quite boring), somewhat expensive (23-05-08 edit: only compared to the rest of SEA)
Recommended for: First time visitors to Asia; fussy travelers; clean freaks; people who don't want to learn a new language, food lovers
Not recommended for: Shoestringers; people who like vibrant street scenes, and interesting neighbourhoods; people who want to see an exotic country.
ii. Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur)
Highlights: Spectacular archetecture; reasonably clean; reasonably low language barriers; vibrant street life; colourful markets; just the right amount of chaos - in my opionion, a very balanced city
Lowlights: Hard to find beer; hard to get around (sprawling city...), pretty bad traffic
Recommended for: Travellers who want only a small dose of chaos; conosieurs of Islamic culture; city lovers; fans of archetecture
Not recommended for: Anti-Muslims; people who dont like hustle and bustle
Highlights: Spectacular archetecture; reasonably clean; reasonably low language barriers; vibrant street life; colourful markets; just the right amount of chaos - in my opionion, a very balanced city
Lowlights: Hard to find beer; hard to get around (sprawling city...), pretty bad traffic
Recommended for: Travellers who want only a small dose of chaos; conosieurs of Islamic culture; city lovers; fans of archetecture
Not recommended for: Anti-Muslims; people who dont like hustle and bustle
Note: These judgements come from only a few hours in KL- which were largely guided by Gerber. Hence, they may not be netirely accurate. That said, I ver much enjoyed KL and really want to go back.
iii. Myanmar (Yangon).
Highlights: Beautiful pagodas; very different from anything in the West; extremely friendly people; quite cheap; surreal effect of being transported back into time; good Indian food; you can send a post card to North America for 4 cents (US); "unspoiled" by Western tourists; no McDonalds, Starbucks, or 7-11s in sight!; decent amount of green space
Lowlights: Dire poverty; oppressive government (no matter how hard you try, any time you go to myanmar you put money into govt coffers), not very clean, major currency issues (exchange rates vary from 450 to 1300- you have to change in the black market), inconsistent electricy (although this perhaps adds to its charm)
Recommended for: open-minded travellers who really want a new experience; people who want to witness first hand the Burmes situation; temple enthusiasts; people who like interacting with locals; travel photographers; shoestringers
Not recommended for: fussy travelers who need luxury; people deeply disturbed by poverty; people who will fall for government traps (ie, staying at govt hotels, etc), people with any sort of health needs
iv. Bangkok (Thailand)
Highlights: Sky train (I can't really think of much else....)
Lowlights: Sex industry; excessive pollution, smog, traffic; not geared towards pedestrians; extraordinarily sprawling; many people living in poverty (squatters; rubbish scavengers); unfriendly locals trying to scam you; difficulties breathing; visually unnattractive
Recommended for: people who speak THai and know their way around the country; people who want to sleep with a 14 year old prostitute; 7-11 enthusiasts
Not recommended for: all sane people who don't meet the above qualifications
v. Chiang Mai (Thailand)
Highlights: City moat + walls; more manageable than Bangkok; somewhat exciting Night Bazaar (although they sell mostly rubbish); somewhat cooler than Bangkok (in terms of weather); surrounding mountainside temple (although its a bit too touristy IMO)
Lowlights: Aboslutely overrun with tourists; a clear segregation of locals and tourists, and no real middle ground; locals seem somewhat jaded; not a whole lot to do; not a very attractive city
Recommended for: people who want to go to Europe in Thailand; market enthusiasts
Not recommended for: people who don't have another reason to go; people who like to see less touristy places
Highlights: City moat + walls; more manageable than Bangkok; somewhat exciting Night Bazaar (although they sell mostly rubbish); somewhat cooler than Bangkok (in terms of weather); surrounding mountainside temple (although its a bit too touristy IMO)
Lowlights: Aboslutely overrun with tourists; a clear segregation of locals and tourists, and no real middle ground; locals seem somewhat jaded; not a whole lot to do; not a very attractive city
Recommended for: people who want to go to Europe in Thailand; market enthusiasts
Not recommended for: people who don't have another reason to go; people who like to see less touristy places
vi. Sukhothai (Thailand)
Highlights: well-maintained park with interesting budhist ruins; comfortable for foreign tourists, but far from overrun
Lowlights: not worth spending much more than a day here (not much else to do....); cheating tuk-tuk drivers (but thats all of Thailand.... and Laos too)
Recommended for: temple enthusiasts; conniseurs of Budhist/Siamese history; people already in Northern Thailand who could spare 1 or 2 days
vii. Mae Sot (Thailand)
Highlights: Somewhat off the beaten track, yet still relatively welcoming too foriegners; a lot of interesting (and mostly illegal) things happening beneath the surface; the charm of a small town; a hub for helping Burmese refugees; ethnically very diverse (Thais, hill tribs, Burmese Muslims, Burmans, Karens, Chinese, Westerners); relatively cool climate; lots of hidden nooks; Westerners are more well respected in a local place like Mae Sot than in Chiang Mai
Lowlights: not yet very modern (unless you have the money for the Central Mae Sot Hill Hotel, or a nice house); major language issues; street dogs; loud roosters; not much at all to do; not too accessible from most of the country
Recommended for: open-minded travelers who want to see a really interesting Thai-Burmese town; people who want to get somewhat off the beaten track- without going too far; people who want to help Burmese refugees; people who want to shop in a Thai market without getting the foreigner price; enthusiasts of Burmese culture + people trying to learn Burmese (or, to a lesser extent, Thai)
Not recommended for: people who demand luxury and Western familiarities (you won't find the latter here- for the most part); people who need to be in a large city; people who get bored easily; people uninterested by street scenes and local cultures
viii. Vientiane (Laos)
Highlights: relatively clean city with lots of nice buildings, monuments, and temples; reasonably friendly locals (except for food vendors and tuk-tuk drivers); world class beer, coffee, and bread (three things I really enjoy- but are lacking in most of SEA); you get a lot of bang for your USD (1 = 9500 kip); can change currency anywhere; can readily use USD or THB anywhere; interesting mixture of archecture; reasonably open to tourists, but far from overrun; have better knowledge of English (and in some cases French) then their Thai counterparts; good markets; clean and decent accomodation
Lowlights: Still a bit of poverty (they are rapdily modernising, but still have a ways to go); tuk-tuk drivers- too aggressive, and overcharge foreigners); generally poor food (except for the aforementioned beer, coffee, and bread)
Recommended for: almost anyone with an open mind; fans of temples and archetecture; beer/coffee/bread lovers; people who love to shop
Not recommended for: really fussy travellers; people who don't enjoy street scenes and taking in the athmostphere (not a WHOLE lot in terms of things to do....); people who don't want to walk (tuk-tuk drivers will rip you off); people who are looking for really good food (alas, you cant live off beer, bread, and coffee)
ix. Luang Prabang (Laos)
Highlights: aesthetically very attractive; French villas and cobblestone streets have an interesting contrast to the multitude of temples; surrounding hills are absolutely stunning; very easy to get around; pretty easy to get off the beaten track and explore the very differnet, but very interesting surrounding area
Lowlights: Again, food is not very good; very much segregation between tourists and locals (you need to make a small amount of effort to see local areas); some locals are a bit jaded (perhaps because the influx of rude tourists); quite lacking in things to do; lacks the vibrancy of Vientiane; temples are similar to each other and REALLY start to blend in after enough of them
Recommended for: temple enthusiasts; people who would find the juxtaposition of French and Lao styles very interesting; people open to exploring the surrounding area; people who love natural scenery; people willing to make some effort to get the most out of the travelling experience (ie, seeking a out a local to talk to him)
Not recommended for: people who need constant entertainment; people uncomfortable with the VAST contrast between tourist establishments (posh hotels; upmarket bistros), and the poverty which plagues 90%+ of the local population; people who are bloddy sick of temples!!
x. Hong Kong
Highlights: food; skyline; clean and modern city; great public transport; reasonably good knowledge of English; attractive natural surroundings
Lowlights: people aren't too friendly (especially not compared to Laos, Myanmar, and Mae Sot); some things (like accomodation) are quite expensive; somewhat overwhelming; hard to travel in alone and without someone to lead you along; cannot properly be covered on foot; suffers from Singapore syndrome: residential neighbourhoods seemed largely vertical and unnatractive; CBD is clean and modern, but disturbingly dead on the weekend; very international city: i felt somewhat like I couldve been in almost any country
Recommended for: people seeking a cosmopolitan, modern, clean city; people who appreciate a fantastic skyline; food enthusiasts
Not recommended for: people looking a quaint, friendly city; shoestringers; people travelling solo and/or with a very limited time (less than 24 hours); people who seek a truly Asian (and not global) city
***Begin Edit from 23 May 2008***
xi. Frankfurt, Germany
Highlights: Very clean, multicultural, navigable, nice architecture, a lot of museums, good public transport, easy (for me) to blend in with local pop and not stand out
Lowlights: Mild language barrier, things mostly closed on Sunday, very expensive, sort of blends in with the rest of Europe
Recommended for: People who love/ never seen Europe; museum enthusiasts; architecture nuts
Not recommended for: people who've already been to a major European city and aren't really interested in seeing it again; shoestringers/backpackers
xii. Marrakech, Morocco
Highlights: Djemaa El Fna; incredibly exotic atmosphere; impossible to be bored; shopping is an art form; close to gorgeous Atlas Mountains; most of the (male) locals speak French (advantage for people who can speak French); good food; mint tea
Lowlights: LOTS of tourists! AN incredible amount of hastle and wanna be scam artists; very easy to get ripped off; relatively expensive
Recommended for: Pretty much everyone. Sometimes a place with too many tourists loses its charm, but Marrakech has so many tourists for a reason: becasue it's fantastic. Being able to speak French/Arabic/Berber helps, as well as keeping an open mind.
Not recommended for: People who are easily culture shocked; people who want to stay somewhere familiar
xiii. Rabat, Morocco
Highlights: Kasbah, clean, modern, much less hastle than Marrakech
Lowlights: lacks the ancient charm of Marrakech; about 1-2 days worth of attractions and not much else
Recommended for: anyone already in Morocco: it would be a shame to go to this country and not see its well-maintained capital
Not recommended for: people not already in Morocco; ie, its not worth going to Morocco JUST to see Rabat
xiv. Casablanca, Morocco
Highlights: Some interesting architecture; very modern
Lowlights: Feels too much like Europe; not geared for the tourist- ie, very few real sites, and not much else to do
Recommended for: people already there for transit reasons (most int'l flights go into and leave Casa)
Not recommended for: anyone else
xv. My favourite? Not a fair question to ask, so I'll break it down into different categories:
Cleanest: Singapore
Dirtiest: Bangkok
Hardest to get bored: Marrakech
Easiest to get bored: Casablanca
Best food: Tied: Singapore and Hong Kong
Worst food: Vientiane
Best Beer: Laos
Worst Beer: Singapore (although I never got to try Moroccan beer)
Most hasstle: Marrakech
Least hasstle: Frankfurt
Cheapest: Rangoon
Most expensive: Frankfurt
Easiest to get by on English: Singapore
Most difficult to get by on English (or French): Mae Sot
Coolest skyline: Tied: Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong
Coolest religious architecture: Rangoon (Shwedegon Pagaoda)
Most developed: Singapore
Least developed: Burma
Where I most want to go back: Mae Sot, runners up: Marrakech, Rangoon, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok
Where I would most like to live: Singapore. runners up: Frankfurt, Hong Kong
Friendliest locals: Rangoon, runner up: Mae Sot
Least friendly locals: Hong Kong
***End edit from 23 May '08***
Part 3. My final remarks
What have I learned? I learned that I am capable of more than I sometimes give myself credit for. I learn that many people will (or will at least try) to live up to challenges they may face. I learned that many poor people don't demand pity- so why give it to them? I learned that people from differnet parts of the world have many of the same likes and dislikes (Football, forinstance, is a great universal language). I learned that, to my frustration, I shouldn't expect anyone in SEA to be punctual or dependable, and that no plan is certain to happen until it happens (as I said in French "on ne sait jamais que qqch va passer, jusque ca passe"). I learned to appreciate certain comforts of the West, while understanding that even in undeveloped countries, people can be happy. I learned that Americans are actually extremely rare (yet still somewhat respected) in SEA- as I was able to stop pretending to be Canadian. I learned that French is actually surpringly useful in SEA (despite what Jon says)- at least in Thailand in Laos. Not, of course, with any of the locals (with very rare exceptions in Laos), but with fellow travelrs- many of which are French (and in some cases in Laos, they were lao repatriated in France). I learned that these experiences do in fact change lives- particulary for those who undergo them. I learned some Burmese, and a few handy things in Thai and Lao (Lao is almost identical to Thai). I improved my chess and checkers abilities. I learned how to effectively teacn English to a class of older, reasonably motivated students.
WHat would I do differently? If possible, I wouldve liked to have spent an entire school year teaching. I wouldve liked to have had a house to myself: so I could host and cook - two of my great pleasures in life. I wouldve liked to have spent a bit more time in KL and in Vientiane. I wouldve liked to have seen more of Myanmar. Besides that.... not much.
Who do I want to thank? A lot of people. Firstly, I want to thank all my readers. I don't know how many of you read my blog, or how regularly you've been reading, but for those of you who have been- thank you! I apprecite it very much. I want to thank all of you who occasionally sent me emails (and even facebook messages)- all interaction was appreciated. I also have to thank my students (especially grade 9), the other volunteers (especially Karl and the Canadian girls), the other teachers (especially Teacher U Cheng; Lwin; and Zin Dee); Min Zaw Thwin; the American missionaries Neill and Diana, for entertaining me on occasion; Gail for hosting Bible study at their place on Tuesday nights. I want to give a special thanks for those of you who gave Jon birthday messages for me, and for Anna who sent me a very nice birthday letter that I only got this week. Thanks also to Sulin for the very much appreciated phone call and her very special birthday card. Thanks to Samara, Keharn, Sulin and Nithum for helping to introduce me to the Burmese situation (this may have been done unintentionally), and for their friendship in general. Thanks to Kathleen for sharing her Mae Sot experiences just before I left. Thanks to "Doctor Caroline" for when she really helped me that day I was sick. Thanks to my family (who will probably never read it)- especially my mom, for her somewhat consistent phone calls. I must however recognise one person in particular. That person is none other than Mr Jon Gerber, who I don't think even reads my blog (thats okay). Besides being an extrmely good friend to me, he has done so much for me, and so much for this trip, that I feel like I'll always be indebted to him. Firstly, he partially inspired me to teach, with his Cambodia film, and many stories. Secondly, he verbally prepared me ad noseum before leaving Montreal. Thirdly, he and his family took me into their home in Singapore- provided me with an exceptionally nice room, went above and beyond in providing for me, and did an overall spectacular job showing me around Singpaore and KL (and Melaka, ML). Fourthly, I was very glad that I went to Myanmar with him.... I witnesed how he interacted with locals in a 4th world Asian setting- and I modeled my future behaviour after that, which I'm sure very much helped me to enjoy Laos as much as I did. Fifthly, he called me more than a few times when I was in Mae Sot.... listening to me rant about my teaching stories, and providing his own input. Sixthly, he and his family sent a very nice package of supplies to me in Mae Sot.... although I didnt really use much of it (to be totally honest), the gesture was still very nice, i did get a little use out of it, and I donted everything to the school- so it was far from useless in the end. Seventhly (wow this is getting high), he gave me a short list of things to do in Hong Kong.... although I wasnt even able to do much of what he recommended (line for the Peak Tram was too long- i wouldnt have been able to do anything else), it was still a very much appreciated gesture. Lastly, the stunt he pulled for my birthday in Rangoon (getting all you guys to send me messages; buying me presents) was something that I will never ever forget.... and I plan to, in some way or another, pay back as best as I can. I really cannot overstate the blessing that this man has been in my life, and how he really, almost singlehandedly, turned this trip of mine into thie most it could be- and a truly unforgettable experience by any stanards. There is someone else I must also recognise: someone who doesnt get enough attention in my blog. I'm referring to none other than God. I am a Christian, but you might not be able to tell from my blog entries, as I tend to stay away from Christian rhetoric. But this masks the fact that GOd has truly been my keeper during this entire trip (not to mention, before and after). Although I don't pray as much as I should, and sometimes i got lackadazical in reading the Bible, I know that He was there for me all along. I had many close calls: the food poisoning, the bike accidents, the nearly missed transport connections; the awkward beginnings in Mae Sot.... yet He was always there for me. He made sure that nothing happened to me, and that I would be able to get everything I could out of my experience. With all of that said, I end this entry, and this series of entries. It has been quite a summer. Once again, thanks for all of those whove been following along. See you all back in Montreal!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)