Hello readers. You might have noticed a lack of updates on my part.... unfortunately, a combination of a lack of free time and a lack of inspiration are the culprits. I thought I would update my readers on what's coming up in my life- in case anyone was keeping track.
Late February I went to Guatemala. I encourage you, if you haven't already done so, to check out my facebook profile for pictures- this will also give you a good idea of what I did there.
As for my impressions, I found it very interesting to compare to countries like Morocco and Thailand. These three countries are all quite similar in being "developing" countries with a pretty substantial tourist trade. Guatemala, given its history of civil war and gang violence, probably has the worst reputation for violence among these countries; indeed, I was constantly told to be prudent and guarded. Remarkably, however, I had virtually no problems with touts in Guatemala. This is remarkeable indeed because in Thailand and Morocco, touts ands hustlers are a constant hastle, particularly for the unitiated and in heavily touristed places. Yet there I was, having never previously stepped foot in Latin America and confining myself mostly to the most touristy of areas and..... nothing! Well.... apart from the typical late bus or the cab driver "conveniently" not having change. This, combined with fantastic food, beautiful natural scenery, vibrant cultures (indigenous and mestizo), and, perhaps my favourite part, stunning ancient ruins makes this country, in my eyes, a fascinating destination in which I could have easily spent another month.
Touts aside, I still prefer Thailand to Guatemala. Even though this was not a problem for me, Guatemala DOES have a problem with violence that virtually does not exist in a country like Thailand. Sure, you might be equally as likely to get robbed in some way, but Guatemala has an astronomical homocide rate and guns and machetes are everywhere. Unfortunately, until statistics change, one must always keep up his guard when in Guatemala... even in villages! Guatemala was also relatively expensive..... well, certainly it was cheaper than North America, but prices were much more expensive than Thailand.
The other thing that bothered me about Guatemala was all the gringos (foreigners). Of course, I have no problems with adventerous people exploring something new.... what bothers me is the typology of people doing it. In a country like Thailand, many travellers are young, open-minded Europeans. North Americans are quite rare in Thailand, but when you do find them, they break the mould of the typical North Americans.... not only is it relatively rare for North Americans to go shoestringing, but they normally don't do it in North America. But Guatemala is in the US's backyard.... in fact, Guatemala has a palpable US influence in the landscape that one simply does not see in Morocco or Thailand. From taking shoes off in the airport, to the American fast food chains along the highway, to the petrol priced bizarrely in gallons (and quite expensive!), to the dearth of sidewalk cafés. And similarly one finds the "Ugly American" I try so hard to avoid. You either have self-righteous missionaries or air-con Sheraton tourists- neither of whom I have much connection. From people who think they are enriching the lives of the poor Guatemalans to people who won't touch them, speak to them, eat with them, or even eat their food. In fact, during my flights down, everyone except this one Dutch couple could not understand why a young Canadian/American student would want to spend a week backpacking in Guatemala. You couldn't believe how many people asked, "are you a missionary?". Of course, then I meet Dutch and Germans who understood completely what it was that I was after... (which in itself is not something tangible or even easily expressible in words). .... Then you have what I like to call "Lonely Planet Travellers" - a curious type ubiquitous in almost all of the developing countries I've seen (Burma being the one exception).... these are sloppily-dressed twenty-somethings who feel a self-moral sense of superiority in expressing "solidarity" with the locals in compromising their own personal hygeine and proudly taking the lowest-quality transport, accomodation, and food they can find..... all while, of course, finding any possible opportunity to get stoned. But please stop me before I stereotype too much. :-)
Just days after getting back from Guatemala, I received an e-mail from NUS..... I was accepted with a Research Scholarship.... that means they will completely subsidise my tuition plus give me a $1500 SGD monthly stipend. Needless to say I accepted the offer right away. They will send me an "offer information booklet" in late May, so for the moment I know very little other than that orientation is sometime in early August (around the 3rd).
From early March until now (and most likely for the final two weeks which remain in my undergrad career), I have suffered from a severe case of senioritis....
I officially finish on April 22. After about a week or two between Montreal and New Jersey I will be off to San Diego for about 4 days (7 - 11 May). From San Diego (well, LAX technically), I will fly to Easter Island.... well,with stops in San Salvador, San Jose and Santiago de Chile. I will be in Easter Island from 12 - 16 May. Then I fly back to Santiago, where I will be for one week (or until the 23rd). I will probably travel a bit around Santiago.... but I haven't planned this far yet.
On the 24th of May I will be back in Montreal for my graduation and those sorts of festivities. I will leave Montreal for good on the 30th.
Then I am (presumably) off for my internship in Washington, DC. I say presumably because I haven't heard much about this, other than that I have a background check interview next Tuesday. I will have more details about this as I learn more.
Late July I will be off to Singapore!
That's my life as it stands now. Until next time.....
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Update on the update....
Well.... my so-called Honours Thesis is soon to be kaput. It has gone the way of the Edsol. In other words: I decided to drop it!
The decision came as the reality of completing a thesis for which I lacked a reasonable topic became less and less realistic, given a limited time frame of 2 months.
This is of course a gamble, which could have negative implications for my graduate school aspirations. However, I am banking on the fact that my transcript is otherwise quite strong and of course the alternative- actually completing the thesis- does not seem like a reasonable task, at least not if I want to have any remnants of my santé mentale in April.
This was a decision I made with great humility. I swallowed a great deal of pride in saying that I failed.... that I am incapable of completing this project. Of course, there were extraordinary circumstances which were beyond my control which, I believe, made this thesis a near-impossible task.
The more sobering implication of this decision is not wether it will prevent my admission into Grad school.... but does it reflect my lack of readiness for grad school? This is a daunting question for which I currently lack an answer. One on hand, school- especially this last year- has pretty much depressed me. I am sick and tired of reading overly theoretically and jargon-laden mumbo jumbo which authors have intentionally made excessively wordy and complicated for the sole purpose of establishing themselves as an élite class of intellectual academics. I'm also no longer looking forward to the task of having to create some brilliant project out of scratch- in other words, a thesis. Perhaps most of all, I'm not terribly fond of the life of limitless homework and readings, a life in which if I'm not actively reading something for school, I am sleeping, eating, or commuting between home and school.
Yet a part of me is still naïvely optimistic about grad school. If, as I hope, I get into NUS, it will be a complete change of environment which will hopefully eliminate some of the Canada-blues, caused primarily by the weather, but secondarily by the largely uninspiring food, people, and aesthetics. Secondly, the nature of grad school is fundamentally different to that of the undergraduate degree- no longer will I be a slave in 4-5 classes, and no longer will I have to fabricate some sort of thesis project for which I can't even do my own firsthand research. In fact, even for my Master's degree, I will be able to embark upon which is inevitably every first-year anthropology student'S pipe dream: ethnographic fieldword in an exotic locale, which, for me, means I might be able to return to Mae Sot, Thailand- a community to which I have great emotional attachments.
At the moment, grad school remains part of a distant, only possible future. For now, I have to overcome the rest of my semester, despite my unfortunate failure with the honours thesis, and finish my tenure at McGill with some dignity. It would help, of course, if I could overcome this seasonal depression...
The decision came as the reality of completing a thesis for which I lacked a reasonable topic became less and less realistic, given a limited time frame of 2 months.
This is of course a gamble, which could have negative implications for my graduate school aspirations. However, I am banking on the fact that my transcript is otherwise quite strong and of course the alternative- actually completing the thesis- does not seem like a reasonable task, at least not if I want to have any remnants of my santé mentale in April.
This was a decision I made with great humility. I swallowed a great deal of pride in saying that I failed.... that I am incapable of completing this project. Of course, there were extraordinary circumstances which were beyond my control which, I believe, made this thesis a near-impossible task.
The more sobering implication of this decision is not wether it will prevent my admission into Grad school.... but does it reflect my lack of readiness for grad school? This is a daunting question for which I currently lack an answer. One on hand, school- especially this last year- has pretty much depressed me. I am sick and tired of reading overly theoretically and jargon-laden mumbo jumbo which authors have intentionally made excessively wordy and complicated for the sole purpose of establishing themselves as an élite class of intellectual academics. I'm also no longer looking forward to the task of having to create some brilliant project out of scratch- in other words, a thesis. Perhaps most of all, I'm not terribly fond of the life of limitless homework and readings, a life in which if I'm not actively reading something for school, I am sleeping, eating, or commuting between home and school.
Yet a part of me is still naïvely optimistic about grad school. If, as I hope, I get into NUS, it will be a complete change of environment which will hopefully eliminate some of the Canada-blues, caused primarily by the weather, but secondarily by the largely uninspiring food, people, and aesthetics. Secondly, the nature of grad school is fundamentally different to that of the undergraduate degree- no longer will I be a slave in 4-5 classes, and no longer will I have to fabricate some sort of thesis project for which I can't even do my own firsthand research. In fact, even for my Master's degree, I will be able to embark upon which is inevitably every first-year anthropology student'S pipe dream: ethnographic fieldword in an exotic locale, which, for me, means I might be able to return to Mae Sot, Thailand- a community to which I have great emotional attachments.
At the moment, grad school remains part of a distant, only possible future. For now, I have to overcome the rest of my semester, despite my unfortunate failure with the honours thesis, and finish my tenure at McGill with some dignity. It would help, of course, if I could overcome this seasonal depression...
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Some (sorta) personal updates
Well, I don't like to make my blog very personal, but I thought I'd update my readers with some things going on in my life.
I. My Honours Thesis.
Well, I still believe that doing honours was a huge mistake, and for those McGill students reading this who may be considering this option, I would suggest otherwise (unless you have your thesis topic already thought out!). Of course, I was extraordinarily unlucky with personal issues which kinda destroyed my last semester (which need not be restated here), and then, when I was finally ready to get totally back into it, my Supervisor had to go on medical leave! In words of an advisor I went to see, I am swimming against a "shit stream".
This said advisor is actually one of my profs, and offered on the spot to take over as my supervisor. I guess this is a good thing, as she seems very willing to give guidance to my thesis, and to save it from utter destruction. However, it means that I am in it for the long haul, and I will likely have to completely rewrite everything I've already written. In short, I have one semester to do which is supposed to take two! It doesn't help of course that I just happen to have classes which require an exorbatant amount of readings this semester!
So this means, except for my Reading Week trip to Guatemala (in 4 weeks!), my life outside of school is virtually non-existent.... until, of course, the end of April!
II. Travels
As you could've already inferred, I am going to Guatemala over Reading Week! I am going by myself. Expect pictures on facebook!
I'm also seeing if I can work in a trip to South America / Easter Island sometime in Early May, but this may be tricky. I'll keep you posted!
III. Summer Internship
My most loyal readers may remember that I had the most difficult time finding a job last summer! Remember the big list of over 50 jobs I applied to? It took me until late July to find a job! Well, oddly enough, it's only January, and I've already found work for this upcoming summer! So... drum roll.... I'll be working with the US department of State! It's an unpaid internship of course, but should be an exciting experience. I prefer not to release more details about the job at this moment (I'll likely blog about it over the summer), but in the meantime, I am completing a rather extensive security clearance questionnaire. It would probably be quite unwise for me to mention the types of questions they are asking, but let's just sasy this has taken me quite a long time, and involves more than you might think!
IV. Beyond the summer.... grad school?
THE LIST
1) Nat'l University of Singapore (2 yr Masters): My top choice. An exotic/interesting location... great proximity for my research in Burma / travels in general.... no more winter..... quite generous with the financial Aid. These are all the reasons why I want to go to this school. I have turned in the application and everything, but I will not hear from them until at least around May. I have however had an interview with them (over the phone) back in December, during which they seemed optimistic about my chances.
2) University of Wisconsin-Madison (PhD): Probably my last choice.... but I've already completed the application. I may find out as early as March.... if I found out, it will be a good way to "bribe" the NUS people into letting me know quicker (ie, if UWM accepts me, I may have to let them know by a certain date, which actually may be before NUS would normally inform me of their decision).
3) School of Oriental and African Studies (1 yr taught masters)- University of London. I have not actually completed this application yet, but I will very soon... it's just a matter of me having the time to sit down and come up with some decent statement of purpose. Foruntatley, this application isn't actually due until June!
4) Leiden University - The Netherlands (1 yr taught masters) - See #3.
I was gonna apply to Cambridge, but I decided not to carry on with the application.
So that's where I stand now! Expect an update about all of this oh.... around March or April!
I. My Honours Thesis.
Well, I still believe that doing honours was a huge mistake, and for those McGill students reading this who may be considering this option, I would suggest otherwise (unless you have your thesis topic already thought out!). Of course, I was extraordinarily unlucky with personal issues which kinda destroyed my last semester (which need not be restated here), and then, when I was finally ready to get totally back into it, my Supervisor had to go on medical leave! In words of an advisor I went to see, I am swimming against a "shit stream".
This said advisor is actually one of my profs, and offered on the spot to take over as my supervisor. I guess this is a good thing, as she seems very willing to give guidance to my thesis, and to save it from utter destruction. However, it means that I am in it for the long haul, and I will likely have to completely rewrite everything I've already written. In short, I have one semester to do which is supposed to take two! It doesn't help of course that I just happen to have classes which require an exorbatant amount of readings this semester!
So this means, except for my Reading Week trip to Guatemala (in 4 weeks!), my life outside of school is virtually non-existent.... until, of course, the end of April!
II. Travels
As you could've already inferred, I am going to Guatemala over Reading Week! I am going by myself. Expect pictures on facebook!
I'm also seeing if I can work in a trip to South America / Easter Island sometime in Early May, but this may be tricky. I'll keep you posted!
III. Summer Internship
My most loyal readers may remember that I had the most difficult time finding a job last summer! Remember the big list of over 50 jobs I applied to? It took me until late July to find a job! Well, oddly enough, it's only January, and I've already found work for this upcoming summer! So... drum roll.... I'll be working with the US department of State! It's an unpaid internship of course, but should be an exciting experience. I prefer not to release more details about the job at this moment (I'll likely blog about it over the summer), but in the meantime, I am completing a rather extensive security clearance questionnaire. It would probably be quite unwise for me to mention the types of questions they are asking, but let's just sasy this has taken me quite a long time, and involves more than you might think!
IV. Beyond the summer.... grad school?
THE LIST
1) Nat'l University of Singapore (2 yr Masters): My top choice. An exotic/interesting location... great proximity for my research in Burma / travels in general.... no more winter..... quite generous with the financial Aid. These are all the reasons why I want to go to this school. I have turned in the application and everything, but I will not hear from them until at least around May. I have however had an interview with them (over the phone) back in December, during which they seemed optimistic about my chances.
2) University of Wisconsin-Madison (PhD): Probably my last choice.... but I've already completed the application. I may find out as early as March.... if I found out, it will be a good way to "bribe" the NUS people into letting me know quicker (ie, if UWM accepts me, I may have to let them know by a certain date, which actually may be before NUS would normally inform me of their decision).
3) School of Oriental and African Studies (1 yr taught masters)- University of London. I have not actually completed this application yet, but I will very soon... it's just a matter of me having the time to sit down and come up with some decent statement of purpose. Foruntatley, this application isn't actually due until June!
4) Leiden University - The Netherlands (1 yr taught masters) - See #3.
I was gonna apply to Cambridge, but I decided not to carry on with the application.
So that's where I stand now! Expect an update about all of this oh.... around March or April!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
On Israel vs Hamas
You'd have to be living in a cave not to have heard of the Israel-Hamas conflict which has been taking place in Gaza for the past few weeks. It seems that everyone has an opinion on this.
The fact that such a conflict continues to take place disturbs and upsets me. However, what upsets me equally is how passionately people feel- perhaps ignorantly- towards one side or another.
Personally, I refuse to take a side. This is not, of course, because I don't care. It is partially becasue I'm simply not adequetely educated on the full complexity of the situation. But the biggest reason is that- no matter what any media tells us- there are two sides to the story. In some ways I am sympathetic to the Israelis, due in part to my Jewish background. The fact is the state of Israel has been under constant threat - physical and rhetorical - from certain other entities in the Middle East, among which is Hamas. Israel is, in many ways, acting as any state would - including China, Thailand, Spain, and the US. However, this doesn't necessarily justify their behaviour- and of course the difference in casualties is staggering: the latest numbers have over 1000 Palestinians compared with 12 Israelis; the Palestinians are, of course, for the large part innocent civilians.
My point is not to point fingers or to pick sides. No one can deny the grave humanitarian crisis affecting innocent people in Gaza, but then again, how many options does a state like Israel really have?
My point is that this is a very complex situation, with decades- arguably centuries- of underlying history. It is simply impossible to apprecaite the entirety of this situation, much less if we're sitting on the sidelines in North America. The fact that people have such strong, hateful opinions does not achieve anything and, in my view, only serves to perpetuate this futile and dire conflict. How, you might ask? By imdueing the respective belligerents with more ideological support. What do I mean by "strong, hateful opinions"? As an example, I saw this image with a distorted version of the Israeli flag, with an embedded swastica and the words "fascist state". I find this image deeply disturbing and entirely antithetical towards any endeavour of peace in the Middle East- which, at this point, seems almost an impossibility.
In short, what is my argument? I believe that we, as individuals living far far away from the conflict zone, with little possibility of fully appreciating the reality, ought not to express strong, hateful opinions. I know this will not be a popular idea, but I have several reasons for this:
1) Only very very few of us, if anyone at all, can fully understand this situation. I don't include myself among these people- as my understanding comes only from what I'm fed in Anglo-American media. Even people going through the conflict are fed propoganda from their respective parties.
2) The expression of strong opinions perpetuates the conflict by imbdueing with ideological strength. To this end, the best that we, as Western individuals, can do to help bring about peace in the Middle East is to refuse to pick sides.
3) The two sides in this story, in my opinion, both have a fair and legitimate argument. In other words, there is no clear oppressor. I don't only mean for this exact conflict, but for the underlying contextual conflict. You can point your fingers at either the Israeli Jews or the Arab Muslims- but both sides have their own views of the world that, unfrotunately, don't seem to be mutually compatable..... but to blindly choose one side is unfair and unfortunate.
This is just my opinion. I'm aware that it won't be popular.
The fact that such a conflict continues to take place disturbs and upsets me. However, what upsets me equally is how passionately people feel- perhaps ignorantly- towards one side or another.
Personally, I refuse to take a side. This is not, of course, because I don't care. It is partially becasue I'm simply not adequetely educated on the full complexity of the situation. But the biggest reason is that- no matter what any media tells us- there are two sides to the story. In some ways I am sympathetic to the Israelis, due in part to my Jewish background. The fact is the state of Israel has been under constant threat - physical and rhetorical - from certain other entities in the Middle East, among which is Hamas. Israel is, in many ways, acting as any state would - including China, Thailand, Spain, and the US. However, this doesn't necessarily justify their behaviour- and of course the difference in casualties is staggering: the latest numbers have over 1000 Palestinians compared with 12 Israelis; the Palestinians are, of course, for the large part innocent civilians.
My point is not to point fingers or to pick sides. No one can deny the grave humanitarian crisis affecting innocent people in Gaza, but then again, how many options does a state like Israel really have?
My point is that this is a very complex situation, with decades- arguably centuries- of underlying history. It is simply impossible to apprecaite the entirety of this situation, much less if we're sitting on the sidelines in North America. The fact that people have such strong, hateful opinions does not achieve anything and, in my view, only serves to perpetuate this futile and dire conflict. How, you might ask? By imdueing the respective belligerents with more ideological support. What do I mean by "strong, hateful opinions"? As an example, I saw this image with a distorted version of the Israeli flag, with an embedded swastica and the words "fascist state". I find this image deeply disturbing and entirely antithetical towards any endeavour of peace in the Middle East- which, at this point, seems almost an impossibility.
In short, what is my argument? I believe that we, as individuals living far far away from the conflict zone, with little possibility of fully appreciating the reality, ought not to express strong, hateful opinions. I know this will not be a popular idea, but I have several reasons for this:
1) Only very very few of us, if anyone at all, can fully understand this situation. I don't include myself among these people- as my understanding comes only from what I'm fed in Anglo-American media. Even people going through the conflict are fed propoganda from their respective parties.
2) The expression of strong opinions perpetuates the conflict by imbdueing with ideological strength. To this end, the best that we, as Western individuals, can do to help bring about peace in the Middle East is to refuse to pick sides.
3) The two sides in this story, in my opinion, both have a fair and legitimate argument. In other words, there is no clear oppressor. I don't only mean for this exact conflict, but for the underlying contextual conflict. You can point your fingers at either the Israeli Jews or the Arab Muslims- but both sides have their own views of the world that, unfrotunately, don't seem to be mutually compatable..... but to blindly choose one side is unfair and unfortunate.
This is just my opinion. I'm aware that it won't be popular.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays
Hi folks.
No one consulted me on this, but it seems that sometime between when I was a little boy and now, the default yuletide greeting changed from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays".
This I believe is quite foolish and tacky. I will now outline several reasons why I think we should retain the greeting "Merry Christmas".
1) Why should people get offended by such a positive greeting? It's not like one is saying "I hope you have a lousy day on December 25th". People really need to lighten up. I wouldn't get offended by someone wishing me a Happy Kwanzaa; rather, I would just be mildly amused.
2) Christmas is a civic holiday which affects almost everyone in North American society. Whether Christmas should or not be a civic holiday is another debatble point, but given that it is, 99% of Americans will have a day off, and in this sense the holiday is equivilent to Labour day or Memorial Day (Victoria Day in Canada). But no one seems to mind if you say "happy Labour Day."
3) These days, almost everyone celebrates Christmas. It's part of mainstream American culture and any majority Euro-American would celebrate this holiday. What about the minorities?
a) African-Americans: They are Christians in very large numbers, and I would posit that Black Americans are very likely to celebrate Christmas, and would much appreciate being wished a Merry Christmas.
b) Hispanic Americans: even more heavily Catholic (Christian) than Blacks, I would say that almost 100% of Hispanic Americans celebrate Christmas
c) Native Americans: not that you often see these people, but these days they have in high numbers converted to Christianity and I would suggest a good 60%, if not more, celebrate Christmas.
d) Asian-Americans: 50 years ago, probably very few of them celebrated Christmas, but the globalisation of Christmas coupled with increased Christian conversion amongst Asians (especially Chinese) would suggest that today, large numbers of Asian-Americans (and even Asian-Asians) DO celebrate Christmas.
e) Jews: Traditionally, Jews never did anything for Christmas, as they have their own holiday this time of year (Hanukkah). However, Jews are a very small portion of the US population (about 6 million out of 300- or 2%), and are concentrated mostly in the NYC area. They are also increasingly secular, having embrased aspects of mainstream American culture- including Christmas. It is likely that fully 50% of Jewish Americans, especially the younger generation, celebrate Christmas to some extent. But either way, would they really be offended?
f) Arab-Americans: Well, first of all, there is a sizeable Christian Arab population that, presumably, celebrates Christmas. In fact, only about 20% of Arab Americans are Muslims; this numbers under a half a million for the ENTIRE country.
g) Athiests: OK, well it's unsure how many they number, and presumably they don't celebrate Christmas. IN practice, however, many athiests can appreciate the hibernal (or commercial) aspects of the holiday, and don't mind keeping a Christmas celebration. But if they don't celebrate Christmas, I would imagine they wouldn't celebrate Chanukkah or Ramadan for much the same reason, and i don't think a "happy holidays" greeting would cover them any better.
So what do we have? Most Americans are of European ancestry and celebrate Christmas. The two largest minorities: African-American and Hispanic, also celebrate Christmas in vast numbers, and would doubtfully object to "Merry Christmas". A third minority, Asian-AMerican, is growing in the numbers who adhere to Christmas traditions, to the point where nowadays almost all of them probably acknowledge Christmas in some way. A fourth and oft-ignored minority, native Americans, has embraced Christianity in large numbers, and therefore presumably Christmas.
THere are only three minority groups that could be problemmatic. There are about half a million Arab-Americans who aren't Christian; 6 million Jews, of which I can assume generously that 4,5 million don't celebrate Christmas; and an unmeasured number of Athiests who don't celebrate any holiday anyway, so wouldn't appreciate any Yuletide Greeting. In short, there are about 5 million out of 300 million people (or approx. 2% of Americans) who might actually be offended by the greeting "Merry Christmas".
4) Why Happy Holdays? So, what other holidays are there? Many people would point out New Years. That's legitimate, excpet that it's a full week AFTER christmas. I mean, who says "happy new years" in early December? I figure you have a full week between Christmas and New years with which to say "happy new years", there is really no need to combine the two holidays into one greeting.
Ramadan? Except that it's a) a month long, b) not always coincident with Christmas/December, c) doesn't seem like a holiday to say "Happy _____". Would you say "Happy Lent?". Let's not forget that Muslims are a very small part of America'S population.
Kwanzaa? Ok.... well ignoring for a moment the fact that it's a rather hookey holiday. Kwanzaa is AFTER Christmas, so I don't feel like the two need to be contradictory. Also, Kwanzaa is a holiday for African Americans who are heavily Christian and presumably celebrate Christmas (as well as Kwanzaa).
Hanukkah? This is perhaps the only case. But this is only some years. Some years it's as early as late november and early december, so there need not be any conflict. After all, you don't have to worry about wishing someone a happy Chanukkah 20 days after the holiday is finished.
Basically, either people celebrate Christmas, celebrate no holidays, or once every few years celebrate Hanukkah. If they celebrate Christmas, obviously, MC is an appopritate greeting. If they celebrate no holidays during this time, HH is no better than MC (they are equally bad). If you celebrate Chanukkah, then either it's well before Xmas and does not require a seperate greeting, or someone will accidently tell you Merry Christmas while your actually celebrating Chaunkkah, but in this situation who would actually truly be offended?
So before this becomes too long-winded, I want to wish my readers a Merry CHristmas.... and if you, like me, are also celebrating Chanukkah, then, Happy Chanukkah. And I don't imagine this applies to many of my readers, but happy kwanzaa, and all the rest.
Or, perhaps, I should just say "season's greetings".
No one consulted me on this, but it seems that sometime between when I was a little boy and now, the default yuletide greeting changed from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays".
This I believe is quite foolish and tacky. I will now outline several reasons why I think we should retain the greeting "Merry Christmas".
1) Why should people get offended by such a positive greeting? It's not like one is saying "I hope you have a lousy day on December 25th". People really need to lighten up. I wouldn't get offended by someone wishing me a Happy Kwanzaa; rather, I would just be mildly amused.
2) Christmas is a civic holiday which affects almost everyone in North American society. Whether Christmas should or not be a civic holiday is another debatble point, but given that it is, 99% of Americans will have a day off, and in this sense the holiday is equivilent to Labour day or Memorial Day (Victoria Day in Canada). But no one seems to mind if you say "happy Labour Day."
3) These days, almost everyone celebrates Christmas. It's part of mainstream American culture and any majority Euro-American would celebrate this holiday. What about the minorities?
a) African-Americans: They are Christians in very large numbers, and I would posit that Black Americans are very likely to celebrate Christmas, and would much appreciate being wished a Merry Christmas.
b) Hispanic Americans: even more heavily Catholic (Christian) than Blacks, I would say that almost 100% of Hispanic Americans celebrate Christmas
c) Native Americans: not that you often see these people, but these days they have in high numbers converted to Christianity and I would suggest a good 60%, if not more, celebrate Christmas.
d) Asian-Americans: 50 years ago, probably very few of them celebrated Christmas, but the globalisation of Christmas coupled with increased Christian conversion amongst Asians (especially Chinese) would suggest that today, large numbers of Asian-Americans (and even Asian-Asians) DO celebrate Christmas.
e) Jews: Traditionally, Jews never did anything for Christmas, as they have their own holiday this time of year (Hanukkah). However, Jews are a very small portion of the US population (about 6 million out of 300- or 2%), and are concentrated mostly in the NYC area. They are also increasingly secular, having embrased aspects of mainstream American culture- including Christmas. It is likely that fully 50% of Jewish Americans, especially the younger generation, celebrate Christmas to some extent. But either way, would they really be offended?
f) Arab-Americans: Well, first of all, there is a sizeable Christian Arab population that, presumably, celebrates Christmas. In fact, only about 20% of Arab Americans are Muslims; this numbers under a half a million for the ENTIRE country.
g) Athiests: OK, well it's unsure how many they number, and presumably they don't celebrate Christmas. IN practice, however, many athiests can appreciate the hibernal (or commercial) aspects of the holiday, and don't mind keeping a Christmas celebration. But if they don't celebrate Christmas, I would imagine they wouldn't celebrate Chanukkah or Ramadan for much the same reason, and i don't think a "happy holidays" greeting would cover them any better.
So what do we have? Most Americans are of European ancestry and celebrate Christmas. The two largest minorities: African-American and Hispanic, also celebrate Christmas in vast numbers, and would doubtfully object to "Merry Christmas". A third minority, Asian-AMerican, is growing in the numbers who adhere to Christmas traditions, to the point where nowadays almost all of them probably acknowledge Christmas in some way. A fourth and oft-ignored minority, native Americans, has embraced Christianity in large numbers, and therefore presumably Christmas.
THere are only three minority groups that could be problemmatic. There are about half a million Arab-Americans who aren't Christian; 6 million Jews, of which I can assume generously that 4,5 million don't celebrate Christmas; and an unmeasured number of Athiests who don't celebrate any holiday anyway, so wouldn't appreciate any Yuletide Greeting. In short, there are about 5 million out of 300 million people (or approx. 2% of Americans) who might actually be offended by the greeting "Merry Christmas".
4) Why Happy Holdays? So, what other holidays are there? Many people would point out New Years. That's legitimate, excpet that it's a full week AFTER christmas. I mean, who says "happy new years" in early December? I figure you have a full week between Christmas and New years with which to say "happy new years", there is really no need to combine the two holidays into one greeting.
Ramadan? Except that it's a) a month long, b) not always coincident with Christmas/December, c) doesn't seem like a holiday to say "Happy _____". Would you say "Happy Lent?". Let's not forget that Muslims are a very small part of America'S population.
Kwanzaa? Ok.... well ignoring for a moment the fact that it's a rather hookey holiday. Kwanzaa is AFTER Christmas, so I don't feel like the two need to be contradictory. Also, Kwanzaa is a holiday for African Americans who are heavily Christian and presumably celebrate Christmas (as well as Kwanzaa).
Hanukkah? This is perhaps the only case. But this is only some years. Some years it's as early as late november and early december, so there need not be any conflict. After all, you don't have to worry about wishing someone a happy Chanukkah 20 days after the holiday is finished.
Basically, either people celebrate Christmas, celebrate no holidays, or once every few years celebrate Hanukkah. If they celebrate Christmas, obviously, MC is an appopritate greeting. If they celebrate no holidays during this time, HH is no better than MC (they are equally bad). If you celebrate Chanukkah, then either it's well before Xmas and does not require a seperate greeting, or someone will accidently tell you Merry Christmas while your actually celebrating Chaunkkah, but in this situation who would actually truly be offended?
So before this becomes too long-winded, I want to wish my readers a Merry CHristmas.... and if you, like me, are also celebrating Chanukkah, then, Happy Chanukkah. And I don't imagine this applies to many of my readers, but happy kwanzaa, and all the rest.
Or, perhaps, I should just say "season's greetings".
Monday, December 22, 2008
On Soldier Worship
Ok, so there's something that's really really pissed me off for quite some time now. It's present in Canada too, but it's much much worse in the US. I'm talking about this cult of soldier worship.
During the presidential campaigns, the candidates (especially Republicans) say these things like: America is all about the young men and women fighting for your freedom. But it'S not only politicians: football commentators, news anchors, and even normal people driving their gaz guzzling SUVs perpetuate this cult of soldier worship. And it drives me crazy.
Don't get me wrong: I don't harbor ill feelings towards soldiers. And I would never say that I didn't support our soldiers. But I don't think it's necessary to worship, or even thank them. They are not fighting for my freedom- this is the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever heard. Quite simply, my freedom would be in no way affected in the United States had no soldiers anywhere, particularly Iraq. The only war in recent times that one could even make this argument is WWII- at least then the United States was actually attacked by an identifiable enemy, and faced a continued threat of attack.
You might say, but the US was attacked: 9/11. You're right. So, maybe I can add to this the allied efforts in Afghanistan- it's a minor stretch though because the perpetrators of those attacks weren't affiliated with the Afghan government; they were a rogue group of thugs that is currently disappated, but still present.
That said, the majority of the US troops are currently in Iraq. The Iraq war was not, is not, and hopefully never will be concerned with the freedom of Americans. The US invaded this innocent country on shaky pretences. Even if we accept as beneficial the fact that Sadaam is no longer in power, the idea that this affects average Americans is a total stretch. The notion that Sadaam had any ability to attack the United States is foolish, simply given the technological abilities of the country and its geographical location. Of course, this was 5 years ago, and Iraq is currently in a state of psuedo-civil war, which was incidently caused BY the very American soldiers we're forced to worship. By removing Sadaam from power, the country was placed into a state of anarchy, and the provisional democracy has yet to taken hold in the country. Sadaam was sort of the "glue" that held a very multi-ethnic country together- even if he did so with brutal means.
Alas, it seems futile to debate the relevance of the Iraq war, since these days few people would disagree with me. What I'm debating here is the worship of American soldiers, particularly those in Iraq. So, let me put this into a more organised fashion. Here is why I believe we should neither worship, nor even THANK America's soldiers- in Iraq or anywhere else.
1) No current US military operation is actually related to the freedom of individual Americans- particularly not that in Iraq. A possible argument could be made for Afghanistan; even in the last 100 years, the only other possible instance is WWII.
2) In fact, many of America's soldiers, particularly those in Iraq, are actually RISKING the freedom of Americans. Their invasion and ensuing occupation of the country is a source of hatred to many people; whether justified or not, this hatred indisputably fuels the ideology of fundemantalist terrorists. Ideologically, the terrorists become more powerful and more likely to commit 9/11 like attacks- on US soil. Of course.... I'm not suggesting that we blame US soldiers for this- they are obeying orders. We should blame the people who give the orders.
3) It is not rare to here of rogue soldiers. Abu Grahib is the most publicised example, but how many other cases are there of American soldiers who have raped, murdered, and pillaged? I'm not proposing that this is particularly common, but I don't think it's as rare as the media would have us believe- especially since we DO know about Abu Grahib. What I want to suggest is that Abu Grahib is not an isolated situation. If this is true, these soldiers are actually a symbol of shame and disgrace; one that we, as a country, should collectively and staunchly condemn, rather then praise and laud.
4) I guess people always forget this- but soldiers are employees of the government (ie, the taxpayers) and are doing a job, for which they are duly compensated. They deserve to be thanked no more or less than firefighters, teachers, doctors, construction workers, waiters, plumbers, football allstars, Hollywood actors, and electrical engineers. If you believe that everyone should be "thanked" beyond their compensation, just for doing their job correctly (for which they've already been paid), then go ahead and thank Bob the Soldiers, in addition to Steven Speilberg and Katy Perry. Otherwise, you are perpetuating the cult of soldier worship.
5) This cult becomes an ideological tool for greedy politicians. It is used to distract people from the lunacy of the wars they seek to conduct. It is also used by politicians to create an object of mutual worship, and in so doing forge an articial social bond between them, which helps to perpetuate their own quests for power. In short, this is a brainwashing tool for uneducated individuals to help power-hungry politicians to follow their own self-promoting and self-benefiting agendas.
To summarise: I believe that soldiers are normal people, like you and me. They are susceptible to the physical and psychological risks which accompany military operations. I absolutely believe that they deserve just compensation for their duties; I also believe that they receive just compensation for their duties. Beyond they, I believe they deserve nothing. I will not offer them my worship, nor my thanks. I wish them well; I hope they can see their families soon; I hope their overseas assignment could finish soon; most of all, I hope for their individual mental and physical well-being. Beyond that, I will not thank them anymore than I would thank Zidane. They should be treated as normal people. Those who commit crimes should be judged by a normal court of law. Those who slack off should be appropriately reprimaded. Those who excel should be rewarded and encouraged. I don't care to hear about this achievements during Monday Night Football, or the 6 o'clock local news.
During the presidential campaigns, the candidates (especially Republicans) say these things like: America is all about the young men and women fighting for your freedom. But it'S not only politicians: football commentators, news anchors, and even normal people driving their gaz guzzling SUVs perpetuate this cult of soldier worship. And it drives me crazy.
Don't get me wrong: I don't harbor ill feelings towards soldiers. And I would never say that I didn't support our soldiers. But I don't think it's necessary to worship, or even thank them. They are not fighting for my freedom- this is the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever heard. Quite simply, my freedom would be in no way affected in the United States had no soldiers anywhere, particularly Iraq. The only war in recent times that one could even make this argument is WWII- at least then the United States was actually attacked by an identifiable enemy, and faced a continued threat of attack.
You might say, but the US was attacked: 9/11. You're right. So, maybe I can add to this the allied efforts in Afghanistan- it's a minor stretch though because the perpetrators of those attacks weren't affiliated with the Afghan government; they were a rogue group of thugs that is currently disappated, but still present.
That said, the majority of the US troops are currently in Iraq. The Iraq war was not, is not, and hopefully never will be concerned with the freedom of Americans. The US invaded this innocent country on shaky pretences. Even if we accept as beneficial the fact that Sadaam is no longer in power, the idea that this affects average Americans is a total stretch. The notion that Sadaam had any ability to attack the United States is foolish, simply given the technological abilities of the country and its geographical location. Of course, this was 5 years ago, and Iraq is currently in a state of psuedo-civil war, which was incidently caused BY the very American soldiers we're forced to worship. By removing Sadaam from power, the country was placed into a state of anarchy, and the provisional democracy has yet to taken hold in the country. Sadaam was sort of the "glue" that held a very multi-ethnic country together- even if he did so with brutal means.
Alas, it seems futile to debate the relevance of the Iraq war, since these days few people would disagree with me. What I'm debating here is the worship of American soldiers, particularly those in Iraq. So, let me put this into a more organised fashion. Here is why I believe we should neither worship, nor even THANK America's soldiers- in Iraq or anywhere else.
1) No current US military operation is actually related to the freedom of individual Americans- particularly not that in Iraq. A possible argument could be made for Afghanistan; even in the last 100 years, the only other possible instance is WWII.
2) In fact, many of America's soldiers, particularly those in Iraq, are actually RISKING the freedom of Americans. Their invasion and ensuing occupation of the country is a source of hatred to many people; whether justified or not, this hatred indisputably fuels the ideology of fundemantalist terrorists. Ideologically, the terrorists become more powerful and more likely to commit 9/11 like attacks- on US soil. Of course.... I'm not suggesting that we blame US soldiers for this- they are obeying orders. We should blame the people who give the orders.
3) It is not rare to here of rogue soldiers. Abu Grahib is the most publicised example, but how many other cases are there of American soldiers who have raped, murdered, and pillaged? I'm not proposing that this is particularly common, but I don't think it's as rare as the media would have us believe- especially since we DO know about Abu Grahib. What I want to suggest is that Abu Grahib is not an isolated situation. If this is true, these soldiers are actually a symbol of shame and disgrace; one that we, as a country, should collectively and staunchly condemn, rather then praise and laud.
4) I guess people always forget this- but soldiers are employees of the government (ie, the taxpayers) and are doing a job, for which they are duly compensated. They deserve to be thanked no more or less than firefighters, teachers, doctors, construction workers, waiters, plumbers, football allstars, Hollywood actors, and electrical engineers. If you believe that everyone should be "thanked" beyond their compensation, just for doing their job correctly (for which they've already been paid), then go ahead and thank Bob the Soldiers, in addition to Steven Speilberg and Katy Perry. Otherwise, you are perpetuating the cult of soldier worship.
5) This cult becomes an ideological tool for greedy politicians. It is used to distract people from the lunacy of the wars they seek to conduct. It is also used by politicians to create an object of mutual worship, and in so doing forge an articial social bond between them, which helps to perpetuate their own quests for power. In short, this is a brainwashing tool for uneducated individuals to help power-hungry politicians to follow their own self-promoting and self-benefiting agendas.
To summarise: I believe that soldiers are normal people, like you and me. They are susceptible to the physical and psychological risks which accompany military operations. I absolutely believe that they deserve just compensation for their duties; I also believe that they receive just compensation for their duties. Beyond they, I believe they deserve nothing. I will not offer them my worship, nor my thanks. I wish them well; I hope they can see their families soon; I hope their overseas assignment could finish soon; most of all, I hope for their individual mental and physical well-being. Beyond that, I will not thank them anymore than I would thank Zidane. They should be treated as normal people. Those who commit crimes should be judged by a normal court of law. Those who slack off should be appropriately reprimaded. Those who excel should be rewarded and encouraged. I don't care to hear about this achievements during Monday Night Football, or the 6 o'clock local news.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
On Feminism
Feminism... what a strange issue to write about, especially considering that I'm a guy. I want to set something straight from the start- I have NO problem with feminists or feminism, except what I outline below. Personally, I support complete gender equality, and in my everyday interactions I see women as very much my equals.... different, by equal. I believe sincerely that any woman can accomplish anything that any man can, and vice versa, with the only exception being chidbirth (unless you're like that one guy who used to be a woman and still got pregnant....).
So what's my problem?
First thing.... a lot of times there's a double standard. Let me clarify. Do a survey of the women you know- see how many of them want to be considered as equals. My (non-feminine) intuition would suggest that almost all women DO want to be treated as equals.... and quite reasonably so. In no way would I ever advocate anything less than complete equality for women, and with women outnumbering men in universities these days, women are certainly aiming high.
Yet these very women.... most of whom are ambitious and want all the same opportunities as men.... often have a double standard, especially when it comes to men. Most women- I would posit somewhere between 7 and 8 out of 10- want a man who is a) taller than her, b) willing to make the first move, and c) will pay on (at least) the first date.
Sames reasonable, right? After all, it's always been like this- at least in modern western culture. But why IS this unreasonable in a feminist era?
A) Taller than her = Any girl claiming to be feminist, or wanting to be treated as an equal who insists that her man be taller than her is at best shallow and at worst hypocritical. You might say, but men ARE on average taller than women.... and this is certainly true. But that isn't to say that every man is taller than every woman- obviously this isn't true. And, as opposed to something like level of physical fitness, a man's (or woman's) height is something over which he has little, if any, control. So- we make the assumption that height is UNLIKE weight in that it is pretty much uncontrollable. Women may naturally be attracted to taller men becuase they believe such men are more able to provide them with protection..... fair enough, but that really throws the whole feminist thing out the window, eh?
B) Willing to make the first move = Now, I'm not saying that a man shouldn't be willing to make the first move in the mate-finding process, rather I'm saying that any woman who wants to be treated equally (I'm avoiding the use of the word feminist becuase I think it may have connotations among some ppl), should be willing to take the first movie. Purists would say it's the man's role to do this. Surely it was 100 years ago, but at this time women couldn'T even vote in the US! I think men should make the first move in a patriarchal society, but in a feminist era, this has to go out the window.
C) Pay on the first date = It is my opinion that in almost all walks of life, whoever initiates a certain meeting (let's use the convenient example of a dinner) should pay. This is simple etiquette- the person who asks is putting the asked person on the spot, and the latter may or may not have the means to pay for the dinner; it ought to be the responsibility of the person who initates to cover. I would make an exception to this for friends who go out on a regular occasion.... but with respect to a date, I certainly think that the initator should pay. Of course, it just so happens that usually the initator is a man, and in this case, the man absolutely should pay. But as I said, times are changing, and it is no longer fair for women to force men to make the first move all the time.... and in the case that the woman invites the man, she should pay. Of course, the guy should still offer at least twice to be polite, but she should not let him pay. Otherwise it's a glaring double standard, especially in an era when women typically make as much or more than men (I cite as two examples: my stepmother made more than my dad at the end of their marriage; my mother makes more than my stepfather).
My 2nd problem... the transition has not been made yet. I believe I can categories girls in three rough categories as to where they fall in what I will call "the feminist continuum".
The first category is the traditionalist. Women in this category are old-fashioned, and are willing to have the man in control- he is expected to provide and she is expected to listen. It seems ridiculous, but I think it may be more common than you might think.
On the other extreme is the feminist. This is the woman who believes in complete equality- that a woman can do anything, from becoming president, to playing professional ice hockey, to working in contruction. They also believe that chivalry is dead, and men are not expected, and are infact discouraged from holding the door, etc.
The middle category is where I believe most women fall, and is as I described above: somewhere awkwardly in the middle. Another way to describe it is: having her cake and eating it too.
Now I said my first problem with this feminist revolution is that middle category.... the second problem is the existence of these three categories. The fact is one cannot distinguish these categories on the first impression, and it has become ambigious what the proper role for men is.
Where do I stand? I'd say anywhere but in the middle. If it is my calling to step up and take the lead, then so be it. But, we live in the 21st century and times have changed. I believe that any given woman is as capable at anything as any given man. That includes things of physical strength, and many women have proven that they are capable of being stronger than most men. That includes national leadership, as many women heads of state have done quite well and proven themselves worthy for the position. There is no question in my mind that women are equal. But, not to sound viscious, now that they've gotten their equality, they need to be more responsible for it. Otherwise, they will just be "equal plus", which isn't really equal at all.
So what's my problem?
First thing.... a lot of times there's a double standard. Let me clarify. Do a survey of the women you know- see how many of them want to be considered as equals. My (non-feminine) intuition would suggest that almost all women DO want to be treated as equals.... and quite reasonably so. In no way would I ever advocate anything less than complete equality for women, and with women outnumbering men in universities these days, women are certainly aiming high.
Yet these very women.... most of whom are ambitious and want all the same opportunities as men.... often have a double standard, especially when it comes to men. Most women- I would posit somewhere between 7 and 8 out of 10- want a man who is a) taller than her, b) willing to make the first move, and c) will pay on (at least) the first date.
Sames reasonable, right? After all, it's always been like this- at least in modern western culture. But why IS this unreasonable in a feminist era?
A) Taller than her = Any girl claiming to be feminist, or wanting to be treated as an equal who insists that her man be taller than her is at best shallow and at worst hypocritical. You might say, but men ARE on average taller than women.... and this is certainly true. But that isn't to say that every man is taller than every woman- obviously this isn't true. And, as opposed to something like level of physical fitness, a man's (or woman's) height is something over which he has little, if any, control. So- we make the assumption that height is UNLIKE weight in that it is pretty much uncontrollable. Women may naturally be attracted to taller men becuase they believe such men are more able to provide them with protection..... fair enough, but that really throws the whole feminist thing out the window, eh?
B) Willing to make the first move = Now, I'm not saying that a man shouldn't be willing to make the first move in the mate-finding process, rather I'm saying that any woman who wants to be treated equally (I'm avoiding the use of the word feminist becuase I think it may have connotations among some ppl), should be willing to take the first movie. Purists would say it's the man's role to do this. Surely it was 100 years ago, but at this time women couldn'T even vote in the US! I think men should make the first move in a patriarchal society, but in a feminist era, this has to go out the window.
C) Pay on the first date = It is my opinion that in almost all walks of life, whoever initiates a certain meeting (let's use the convenient example of a dinner) should pay. This is simple etiquette- the person who asks is putting the asked person on the spot, and the latter may or may not have the means to pay for the dinner; it ought to be the responsibility of the person who initates to cover. I would make an exception to this for friends who go out on a regular occasion.... but with respect to a date, I certainly think that the initator should pay. Of course, it just so happens that usually the initator is a man, and in this case, the man absolutely should pay. But as I said, times are changing, and it is no longer fair for women to force men to make the first move all the time.... and in the case that the woman invites the man, she should pay. Of course, the guy should still offer at least twice to be polite, but she should not let him pay. Otherwise it's a glaring double standard, especially in an era when women typically make as much or more than men (I cite as two examples: my stepmother made more than my dad at the end of their marriage; my mother makes more than my stepfather).
My 2nd problem... the transition has not been made yet. I believe I can categories girls in three rough categories as to where they fall in what I will call "the feminist continuum".
The first category is the traditionalist. Women in this category are old-fashioned, and are willing to have the man in control- he is expected to provide and she is expected to listen. It seems ridiculous, but I think it may be more common than you might think.
On the other extreme is the feminist. This is the woman who believes in complete equality- that a woman can do anything, from becoming president, to playing professional ice hockey, to working in contruction. They also believe that chivalry is dead, and men are not expected, and are infact discouraged from holding the door, etc.
The middle category is where I believe most women fall, and is as I described above: somewhere awkwardly in the middle. Another way to describe it is: having her cake and eating it too.
Now I said my first problem with this feminist revolution is that middle category.... the second problem is the existence of these three categories. The fact is one cannot distinguish these categories on the first impression, and it has become ambigious what the proper role for men is.
Where do I stand? I'd say anywhere but in the middle. If it is my calling to step up and take the lead, then so be it. But, we live in the 21st century and times have changed. I believe that any given woman is as capable at anything as any given man. That includes things of physical strength, and many women have proven that they are capable of being stronger than most men. That includes national leadership, as many women heads of state have done quite well and proven themselves worthy for the position. There is no question in my mind that women are equal. But, not to sound viscious, now that they've gotten their equality, they need to be more responsible for it. Otherwise, they will just be "equal plus", which isn't really equal at all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)