What is truth and what is not? Truth is relative. It is relative to the person who tells it. It is relative to the person who lives it. It is relative to the person who hears it. It is relative to the person who observes it. Yet we spend our lives in search of the truth. The truth about life or any other subject.
Two people can watch the same event and their recollection of the event two minutes later can be completely different. It is true in almost any facet of life one chooses to consider. Politics, sports, a simple walk down the street - all can result in a different interpretation of events. The interpretation is not provided by the event itself but by the history and personality of the persons involved. Experience itself provides context which, in turn, provides new context for the next event. So it seems reasonable to wonder if the very shape of our lives is determined from the very first experience we have. Thus, from the very first experience, the next experience and the remaining ones that follow all contribute to a certain world-view that is the summation of our experience. And the sum of each person's existence then creates the world as a whole. A world that is then broken back down to determine each event from the perspective of each individual contributing to it.
To get an idea on how context is provided to determine where the truth lies, consider the events of September 11, 2001 - a world-changing event to which most people can relate. To the great majority of Americans, regardless of political, racial or cultural affiliation, it was considered a terrible tragedy easily comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Their context was one of shock and surprise combined with the sadness, loss and anger that followed at the attacks. Indeed, it could be argued that a great many people throughout the world shared those same feelings and interpreted that day in much the same way. Yet, there were obviously a number of others who viewed the attacks as justified for actions undertaken by the American government. Their reactions were more similar to a sense of justice and humbling of a great nation and its citizens. There may have been a sense of revenge for those who felt wronged by America and the sense of retribution. Either way, the same event was observed and interpreted in different ways by different people with different experiences that offered a different context through which to view it.
It is important to note here that the sense of right and wrong or good and bad are very loose terms when it comes to truth. Truth is a series of facts presented subjectively to an audience whose interpretation of that same presentation will often be different than what is intended.
To say that truth wears many faces is a cliche. But cliches, often like stereotypes, obtain that status because there is a basis in truth. Funny, isn't it?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Who's the racist?
Like more than a few other politicians and Hollywood celebrities before him, former President Jimmy Carter has alleged that those who oppose President Obama (or, in this case, his desired policies on health care) oppose him on the basis of race. And, as is to be expected, the breakdown of how his comments were interpreted depends upon to whom you listen. Liberal interpretations suggested that there was truth behind his statement while conservative readings implied that it was an outrage to suggest that any opposition to the president was based solely on racism. Rational discussion with nuance, context and perspective seems to be out the window - as it so often does when the conversation turns to race in America.
President Carter, who has never been hesitant to speak his mind on any subject since losing his re-election bid in 1980, has done a disservice to the increasingly heated political debate in the US. His criticism was relating to the actions of US Representative Joe Wilson during President Obama's speech to Congress the previous week but the implication was that a lot of the criticism of President Obama is based on his ethnicity. Frankly, while people will choose to believe or disregard based upon their own world-view, his assertion is impossible to prove one way or another. Essentially, he is assigning motive to action - it is a logical fallacy. To put it another way, it would be the same as arguing that because we see the sun go over us each day, from the eastern to the western horizon, it is therefore true that the sun must revolve around the earth. Needless to say, that was a belief several hundred years ago that has been subsequently disproven. But how to disprove Carter's assertion? Or, for that matter, is it possible that his assertion may actually be true? The answer, as usual, lies somewhere in between.
Is there racism in America? Certainly! And that racism is not limited to white racism against blacks but extends from each racial group to other ethnicities. It is both subtle and overt. And it is typically based on stereotypes that are difficult to break when there is limited exposure to others different from oneself. But the racism that exists today in America is not the overt racism of 50 years earlier when specific laws were in place that prevented any sort of true integration and there was nowhere near the cultural and ethnic diversity - let alone the opportunities to travel and learn - that are available today. The generations that have grown up since the 1960's are not always familiar with the struggles of the earlier generations that fought for the rights that they often take for granted. Indeed, there is a generational struggle that is taking place between those who fought for equality in their youths and those who are able to take advantage of that growing equality today. But it is the younger generation who helped to elect the first black president in US history and can see it as the next progression in a much larger struggle for self-determination that is not based upon the color of one's skin.
But therein lies part of the issue with Carter's comments. As people rightly condemn whites (or others, for that matter) who perpetrate negative stereotypes about blacks, there is little outcry regarding Carter's harsh stereotyping of those who oppose President Obama - mainly whites according to Carter. If you oppose the president, it is because he is black. Yet there are a large number of people who oppose the president and his policies for a great many reasons other than the fact that he is black. It is not unreasonable to argue that many of his opponents are such not because of the color of his skin but because of the political party that he represents or the policies he hopes to put in place. But, by using a wide brush to paint the president's opponents as racist, Carter has only exacerbated the issue. The discussion can no longer be a rational conversation on the issues at hand but about how white Americans are racist against a black president. And it is a rational conversation that is needed between people, both individually and in large groups, that is needed in order to begin to address the specter of racism in America. Adding to that the fact that few Democrats are disputing Carter's comments only lends credence to a belief that the comments are simply a political ploy to be used against the opposition. And, to be fair, the Republican silence and support of Representative Wilson following his egregious breach of protocol during President Obama's speech to the Congress is another example of political play. (Of course, when Republicans are correctly lambasted for pandering to Southern whites during the Civil Rights era, they are racist. But when Democrats ridicule and demonize conservative blacks for being conservative - code word for Republican - no one speaks of the hypocrisy or double standard.)
Racism is still an issue in the US and will likely continue to be so for a while. It is not an easy subject to resolve, particularly given its rough history in the country. But when it is used as a political tool to further one's agenda or to damage one's opponent, then it will only further exacerbate the problem because both sides will feel demonized and neither will feel particularly inclined to rationally discuss the issues. Instead, it will be left to ferment just under the surface of daily life until another event sparks the raw emotions that remain unhealed.
President Carter, who has never been hesitant to speak his mind on any subject since losing his re-election bid in 1980, has done a disservice to the increasingly heated political debate in the US. His criticism was relating to the actions of US Representative Joe Wilson during President Obama's speech to Congress the previous week but the implication was that a lot of the criticism of President Obama is based on his ethnicity. Frankly, while people will choose to believe or disregard based upon their own world-view, his assertion is impossible to prove one way or another. Essentially, he is assigning motive to action - it is a logical fallacy. To put it another way, it would be the same as arguing that because we see the sun go over us each day, from the eastern to the western horizon, it is therefore true that the sun must revolve around the earth. Needless to say, that was a belief several hundred years ago that has been subsequently disproven. But how to disprove Carter's assertion? Or, for that matter, is it possible that his assertion may actually be true? The answer, as usual, lies somewhere in between.
Is there racism in America? Certainly! And that racism is not limited to white racism against blacks but extends from each racial group to other ethnicities. It is both subtle and overt. And it is typically based on stereotypes that are difficult to break when there is limited exposure to others different from oneself. But the racism that exists today in America is not the overt racism of 50 years earlier when specific laws were in place that prevented any sort of true integration and there was nowhere near the cultural and ethnic diversity - let alone the opportunities to travel and learn - that are available today. The generations that have grown up since the 1960's are not always familiar with the struggles of the earlier generations that fought for the rights that they often take for granted. Indeed, there is a generational struggle that is taking place between those who fought for equality in their youths and those who are able to take advantage of that growing equality today. But it is the younger generation who helped to elect the first black president in US history and can see it as the next progression in a much larger struggle for self-determination that is not based upon the color of one's skin.
But therein lies part of the issue with Carter's comments. As people rightly condemn whites (or others, for that matter) who perpetrate negative stereotypes about blacks, there is little outcry regarding Carter's harsh stereotyping of those who oppose President Obama - mainly whites according to Carter. If you oppose the president, it is because he is black. Yet there are a large number of people who oppose the president and his policies for a great many reasons other than the fact that he is black. It is not unreasonable to argue that many of his opponents are such not because of the color of his skin but because of the political party that he represents or the policies he hopes to put in place. But, by using a wide brush to paint the president's opponents as racist, Carter has only exacerbated the issue. The discussion can no longer be a rational conversation on the issues at hand but about how white Americans are racist against a black president. And it is a rational conversation that is needed between people, both individually and in large groups, that is needed in order to begin to address the specter of racism in America. Adding to that the fact that few Democrats are disputing Carter's comments only lends credence to a belief that the comments are simply a political ploy to be used against the opposition. And, to be fair, the Republican silence and support of Representative Wilson following his egregious breach of protocol during President Obama's speech to the Congress is another example of political play. (Of course, when Republicans are correctly lambasted for pandering to Southern whites during the Civil Rights era, they are racist. But when Democrats ridicule and demonize conservative blacks for being conservative - code word for Republican - no one speaks of the hypocrisy or double standard.)
Racism is still an issue in the US and will likely continue to be so for a while. It is not an easy subject to resolve, particularly given its rough history in the country. But when it is used as a political tool to further one's agenda or to damage one's opponent, then it will only further exacerbate the problem because both sides will feel demonized and neither will feel particularly inclined to rationally discuss the issues. Instead, it will be left to ferment just under the surface of daily life until another event sparks the raw emotions that remain unhealed.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The truth?
In an authoritarian nation, the truth is often relative and typically only available from official sources. However, in the age of the internet, where information can be quickly disseminated to and obtained from multiple sources, the official government line is only one of many. This is often to the chagrin of the powers that be. In China, there is a burgeoning online community who have taken it upon themselves to present the news that is not presented in the official media. In this unofficial media, there have been several instances where justice for the ordinary 老百姓 has been obtained through outing egregiously corrupt officials which has caused the government to arrest or otherwise punish them in order to maintain social order, among them the recent case of Deng Yujiao.
But there is also reason to worry about the power and even the validity of these anonymous online vigilantes. Truth can wear many faces and it is not often easy to know the exact circumstances of any given event. Another event that has been compared to Deng Yujiao is that of Yan Xiaoling. But there appears to be doubts on both sides of her death. Clearly, many in the Chinese blogosphere seem convinced that the local government is hiding those who are believed to have assaulted and murdered her. But, as the link indicates, there also appears to be a case to be made that her death was an unfortunate accident. The point here is not to verify the truth behind this incident as much as it is to point out the power of the internet as a place to both gather and disseminate information. Conspiracy theories are rife on the internet - as evidenced by the fact that googling 9/11 conspiracy returns a mere 12, 200,000 results - but a great majority of the population of the US believes that 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into the Twin Towers.
This is due in large part to an open and free media. However, when there is only one official source of news and it is largely dismissed by a majority of the population, then the ground is fertile for the rumors that create the very social instability that it is allegedly designed to prevent. Whether the rumors are right or wrong, the fact that few will believe the official media leaves the opening for alternative forms of reporting and commentary. And those are far more difficult to control than a more formal media element.
But there is also reason to worry about the power and even the validity of these anonymous online vigilantes. Truth can wear many faces and it is not often easy to know the exact circumstances of any given event. Another event that has been compared to Deng Yujiao is that of Yan Xiaoling. But there appears to be doubts on both sides of her death. Clearly, many in the Chinese blogosphere seem convinced that the local government is hiding those who are believed to have assaulted and murdered her. But, as the link indicates, there also appears to be a case to be made that her death was an unfortunate accident. The point here is not to verify the truth behind this incident as much as it is to point out the power of the internet as a place to both gather and disseminate information. Conspiracy theories are rife on the internet - as evidenced by the fact that googling 9/11 conspiracy returns a mere 12, 200,000 results - but a great majority of the population of the US believes that 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into the Twin Towers.
This is due in large part to an open and free media. However, when there is only one official source of news and it is largely dismissed by a majority of the population, then the ground is fertile for the rumors that create the very social instability that it is allegedly designed to prevent. Whether the rumors are right or wrong, the fact that few will believe the official media leaves the opening for alternative forms of reporting and commentary. And those are far more difficult to control than a more formal media element.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Mourning Chaucer
I learned earlier today that a friend of mine, who I'll refer to here as Chaucer (I am the only one who ever called him that in an inside joke on his actual name), passed away yesterday afternoon. Chaucer was only 28 and a good man. We worked together for several years and remained friends after I left the company. I had actually seen him a few times in the last few weeks. Once to take him out for lunch for his 28th birthday and again just three days ago. He was not feeling well when I saw him on Wednesday but there was no clue that it would be the last time I would see him. I sent him an email on Thursday to ask if he was feeling any better and he responded late that the doctor had discovered a blood clot in his leg. I did not see the email until Friday morning. I sent him another email but never heard back from him. I spoke with a mutual friend on Friday afternoon to see how he was doing but by then (though we did not know it at the time), he had died.
The news started to filter out today when people started posting memorials on his Facebook page. It was a frantic afternoon today as friends were calling to confirm the news. Shock prevailed - and it still does.
Chaucer was a good man (it's hard to believe that I am referring to him in the past tense). He had a good sense of humor and could take a joke - which is a good thing because I am not above making very inappropriate comments at usually inappropriate times. He was often the victim of my pranks and never openly objected to them or my running commentary. He loved his music and was always generous with sharing his CD's when he thought I might enjoy listening to them. I enjoyed asking him for stories about "Band Camp" (a reference to the movie American Pie) and the things he did with his weekly travels to band competitions during the summer time. When he complained about how tired he would be at the office after a weekend at a competition, I pointed out to him that it was voluntary and all he had to do was not sign up for them again. So, of course, after listening to him complain for the first year about it, he signed up again the following summer. It was a running joke for the rest of the time we knew each other.
When he joined the company, it was my job to help and mentor him to develop as a programmer. He had an open mind and wanted to learn. He did not mind criticism and never took it personally on the rare occasions I had to give it. He wanted to learn from his mistakes and was always very personable. Rarely did anyone have a cross word about him personally. He was always open to people, friendly and had a positive attitude.
My favorite memory of him relates to Star Wars. Our entire team did the interview process with each of the candidates (and, on a side note, I like this idea when hiring someone to work on a team). On the day that Chaucer came in for his initial interview, I was not there so he had to come back another day to interview with me individually. We talked both about work-related issues and inconsequential matters - this gave me an idea about both what he knew and how he was as a person as well as how he might be to work with. My final question - which always made my boss cringe - was whether he had seen Star Wars. Sorry, but if you are going to work in a technical position, you absolutely must have seen the movie. He assured me he had. I liked him and felt he would be a good addition and gave my recommendation to my boss, too (the rest of the team had already approved him). Perhaps only a month or two after he had started working, we were talking about something and I made a reference to something in one of the original movies. Chaucer missed it completely. It was then that I found out he had only seen Episodes I, II and III - he had never seen the original trilogy! Not only had he never seen them, he had never even HEARD of them! I was floored! He had lied to me! From then on, whenever I could fit it into a conversation, I made reference to him lying about Star Wars with the joking inference that he was just a liar trying to get ahead in the world - something that was obviously untrue. I should point out that I did bring in my copy of the movies for him to watch the next day and he did watch them, so at least he would get all future references to the movies.
There is much more to say but it is still difficult to come to grips with his premature death. I only hope that his family and friends will know how good a man he was. I will treasure his memory and mourn his loss.
Goodbye, Chaucer.
The news started to filter out today when people started posting memorials on his Facebook page. It was a frantic afternoon today as friends were calling to confirm the news. Shock prevailed - and it still does.
Chaucer was a good man (it's hard to believe that I am referring to him in the past tense). He had a good sense of humor and could take a joke - which is a good thing because I am not above making very inappropriate comments at usually inappropriate times. He was often the victim of my pranks and never openly objected to them or my running commentary. He loved his music and was always generous with sharing his CD's when he thought I might enjoy listening to them. I enjoyed asking him for stories about "Band Camp" (a reference to the movie American Pie) and the things he did with his weekly travels to band competitions during the summer time. When he complained about how tired he would be at the office after a weekend at a competition, I pointed out to him that it was voluntary and all he had to do was not sign up for them again. So, of course, after listening to him complain for the first year about it, he signed up again the following summer. It was a running joke for the rest of the time we knew each other.
When he joined the company, it was my job to help and mentor him to develop as a programmer. He had an open mind and wanted to learn. He did not mind criticism and never took it personally on the rare occasions I had to give it. He wanted to learn from his mistakes and was always very personable. Rarely did anyone have a cross word about him personally. He was always open to people, friendly and had a positive attitude.
My favorite memory of him relates to Star Wars. Our entire team did the interview process with each of the candidates (and, on a side note, I like this idea when hiring someone to work on a team). On the day that Chaucer came in for his initial interview, I was not there so he had to come back another day to interview with me individually. We talked both about work-related issues and inconsequential matters - this gave me an idea about both what he knew and how he was as a person as well as how he might be to work with. My final question - which always made my boss cringe - was whether he had seen Star Wars. Sorry, but if you are going to work in a technical position, you absolutely must have seen the movie. He assured me he had. I liked him and felt he would be a good addition and gave my recommendation to my boss, too (the rest of the team had already approved him). Perhaps only a month or two after he had started working, we were talking about something and I made a reference to something in one of the original movies. Chaucer missed it completely. It was then that I found out he had only seen Episodes I, II and III - he had never seen the original trilogy! Not only had he never seen them, he had never even HEARD of them! I was floored! He had lied to me! From then on, whenever I could fit it into a conversation, I made reference to him lying about Star Wars with the joking inference that he was just a liar trying to get ahead in the world - something that was obviously untrue. I should point out that I did bring in my copy of the movies for him to watch the next day and he did watch them, so at least he would get all future references to the movies.
There is much more to say but it is still difficult to come to grips with his premature death. I only hope that his family and friends will know how good a man he was. I will treasure his memory and mourn his loss.
Goodbye, Chaucer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)