I came across these things today for people who are interested in studying Chinese. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how I missed them before but these should be some awesome tools when online and I think these will help to jumpstart my own degrading language skills.
The first is a Taiwanese site that prints the news in Chinese and English side by side. The LibertyTimes will now be bookmarked on my machine and I hope to be able to step through a couple of articles each week. I found out about this site from ChineseHacks which also gave me information on how to convert traditional Chinese to simplified Chinese characters (and vice versa) using a plugin (Tong Wen Tang) available via Firefox, Chrome and Safari. He also showed another plugin from PeraPera-Kun which offers an incredible online dictionary that will help to translate Chinese characters on the web into English.
I've tried them out on my browser (FF 4.0) and am very pleased thus far. If you are serious about wanting to study Chinese online (or at least being able to brush up on it as in my case) for free, these are some pretty cool resources. Rest assured, I will have both LibertyTimes and ChineseHacks bookmarked for future reference!
(11/17/11 - I just discovered that the PeraPera-Kun website changed their domain and I have updated my link here accordingly.)
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Chinese Harmony
I was reading some things today and one of the things that caught my eye had to do with the Chinese desire for social harmony and how strongly the government argues that it cannot permit any protests or disagreement with its method of governance. Whenever an activist or dissident attempts to raise his or her voice about their concerns with things in China (and there is certainly no lack of things to worry or be upset about in China - much like anyplace else on Earth), they are typically hushed up either through intimidation or arrest. The reason for this is that the government is unwilling to tolerate any dissent and would prefer that everyone simply live in harmony with one another. After all, there has been enough chaos and anarchy in recent Chinese history and there is no need to repeat it according to the government.
What the government typically neglects to point out, however, is that all of the disharmony that existed in the recent past is due directly to the government and its actions - most notably by Mao. The Cultural Revolution was orchestrated and directed by Mao (vis-a-vis his intermediaries in the Gang of Four who were subsequently assigned all of the blame after Mao's death so as to preserve Mao's stature) and that is the most grievous example of the social disharmony brought on by the government. This does not include the student protests in 1976 after Zhou Enlai's death, the protests in 1989 after Hu Yaobang's death, the Hundred Flowers campaign and the Great Leap Forward in the 1950's or the numerous bloody purges that took place as a result of Mao's desire for constant revolution to weed out any potential opposition. Furthermore, it is the distinct lack of any critical review of those times, official or unofficial, within China that allows for the ability to learn from those mistakes. Instead, they are glossed over as an unfortunate period of time in which there was much chaos (without probing too deeply into the actual reasons why) and a deep desire to only move forward and develop a deep sense of nationalistic pride.
Unfortunately, the only way in which harmony can truly be achieved is to come to terms with the past and to be able to move past it. Possibly the best example of this would be post-apartheid South Africa which, while not perfect (but what ever is perfect?), offers the vision of what can be achieved when the aggrieved can have the opportunity to reconcile with the aggressors. Perhaps this can never be achieved (after all, one of Mao's stated objectives during the Cultural Revolution was to destroy all of the relationships upon which society was framed) but, if it is not even tried, there can be no hope of ever moving past it and it will forever stain the social fabric of China - let alone prevent any chance at the social harmony that the government preaches ad nauseam at the remotest threat of disagreement.
What the government typically neglects to point out, however, is that all of the disharmony that existed in the recent past is due directly to the government and its actions - most notably by Mao. The Cultural Revolution was orchestrated and directed by Mao (vis-a-vis his intermediaries in the Gang of Four who were subsequently assigned all of the blame after Mao's death so as to preserve Mao's stature) and that is the most grievous example of the social disharmony brought on by the government. This does not include the student protests in 1976 after Zhou Enlai's death, the protests in 1989 after Hu Yaobang's death, the Hundred Flowers campaign and the Great Leap Forward in the 1950's or the numerous bloody purges that took place as a result of Mao's desire for constant revolution to weed out any potential opposition. Furthermore, it is the distinct lack of any critical review of those times, official or unofficial, within China that allows for the ability to learn from those mistakes. Instead, they are glossed over as an unfortunate period of time in which there was much chaos (without probing too deeply into the actual reasons why) and a deep desire to only move forward and develop a deep sense of nationalistic pride.
Unfortunately, the only way in which harmony can truly be achieved is to come to terms with the past and to be able to move past it. Possibly the best example of this would be post-apartheid South Africa which, while not perfect (but what ever is perfect?), offers the vision of what can be achieved when the aggrieved can have the opportunity to reconcile with the aggressors. Perhaps this can never be achieved (after all, one of Mao's stated objectives during the Cultural Revolution was to destroy all of the relationships upon which society was framed) but, if it is not even tried, there can be no hope of ever moving past it and it will forever stain the social fabric of China - let alone prevent any chance at the social harmony that the government preaches ad nauseam at the remotest threat of disagreement.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Grateful Citizen
I was thinking yesterday about how grateful I am to be a citizen of the United States of America. But, being me, I wanted to determine for exactly what I was so grateful. As it turns out, I am grateful for things that may not seem to go together. But it is a crazy patchwork of things that has made this country not just survive, but thrive, in the manner that it has for more than 200 years. Granted, that is a short time in the relative history of many other nations but a sign of the dynamism and wonder that is this nation.
So, what are the things for which I am grateful (as a citizen)? There are three and all are enshrined in the US Bill of Rights (and upheld through the law):
The key part of all three of these things is that they all be practiced in moderation. And herein lies the point of contention with many who inexplicably (at least in my mind) oppose them in given situations. Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have the right to use it on your fellow citizens. Just because you have the right to speak your mind means you should do so without thinking first. And the power of the media should be moderated to ensure that it is not a power unto itself but a moderating force upon those it should report.
It is a delicate balance and there have been, and continue to be, the occasional errors. But, for the most part, it has worked and I am glad and grateful that it does.
(As a side note, I should also mention that writing early in the morning makes it more difficult to recall certain words that I wanted to use but couldn't immediately recall. I reserve the right to edit this post later when I remember the proper words. EDIT - "arbitrary" was the word I was looking for.)
So, what are the things for which I am grateful (as a citizen)? There are three and all are enshrined in the US Bill of Rights (and upheld through the law):
- The right to bear arms (the right, not the obligation)
- The right to freedom of speech (and the right to suffer the consequences accordingly)
- The freedom of the press to monitor the actions of both the government and the people (admittedly, I am an NPR - National Public Radio - fan)
The key part of all three of these things is that they all be practiced in moderation. And herein lies the point of contention with many who inexplicably (at least in my mind) oppose them in given situations. Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have the right to use it on your fellow citizens. Just because you have the right to speak your mind means you should do so without thinking first. And the power of the media should be moderated to ensure that it is not a power unto itself but a moderating force upon those it should report.
It is a delicate balance and there have been, and continue to be, the occasional errors. But, for the most part, it has worked and I am glad and grateful that it does.
(As a side note, I should also mention that writing early in the morning makes it more difficult to recall certain words that I wanted to use but couldn't immediately recall. I reserve the right to edit this post later when I remember the proper words. EDIT - "arbitrary" was the word I was looking for.)
Friday, March 18, 2011
Homeland? Security?
A very short thought but why do those of us in the US now have a department to secure our homeland? Maybe it's just me but I always seem to relate "homeland" to Nazi Germany. Surely that isn't the image that we want to evoke in others with that particular phrase, is it? Not to mention I'm not very certain that they've secured a lot, either. I know my private parts don't feel very secure when passing through one of their checkpoints.
I guess that language and words really do mean a lot; and not necessarily in the right way.
Perhaps we should say that we will defend our country or our nation to the best of our ability and leave the homeland to the past?
I guess that language and words really do mean a lot; and not necessarily in the right way.
Perhaps we should say that we will defend our country or our nation to the best of our ability and leave the homeland to the past?
Thursday, March 17, 2011
War and Demonization
I was recently getting my car worked on at the local dealership and, while waiting, ended up watching some of Fox News. Unlike many people, Fox News does not bother me most of the time; if anything, I view it as the anti-MSNBC. In other words, I recognize that it has a specific editorial bent and watch it with that in mind.
On that particular day, they were covering the recent protests in Egypt and specifically addressing their concerns regarding the possibility that the Mubarak regime would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. With little context other than the repeated use of the phrase "Muslim" Brotherhood expressed in a dark and sinister tone, anyone whose knowledge of the world was garnered only from Fox News (and I know more than a few) would automatically infer that this was bad and therefore to be avoided. Another inferred suggestion was that the US should instead support the Mubarak regime at all costs because it was secular and not based on Islam (not to mention his support of a peace treaty with Israel).
But it is this directly implied reference to the negative aspects of Islam (via the twisted ideology of Islamist fanaticism) with the very term of "Muslim" that provokes a sad reminder of the past - one that has been oft-repeated and still is not learned from. Or, more precisely, it has not been learned from in the context of preventing it from recurring. Unfortunately, those who have learned from it have discerned that it continues to work in spite of its negative historical precedents. The lesson, of course, is that in order to foster a willingness to fight against an enemy, it is vitally important to demonize that enemy. And when I say demonize, I mean to classify your enemy as being less than human, as being not worth consideration or insignificant, as being nothing more than an object to be destroyed. After all, it is always far easier to kill someone when you do not consider them to be human or worth the effort to consider why you should not kill them on someone else's orders. And such a demonization can be done based on ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, religion, national standard, or any other subjective measure; there are no limits to this classification.
The historical precedents within just the last century are staggering when we consider that they still continue today. Hitler and his rabid persecution of the Jews during the 1930's and 40's are perhaps the clearest example - but not the only ones. We also have the persecution of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the massacres of Kosovars by Serbians in the mid 1990's, the slaughter of Chinese, Koreans and other Asians by the Japanese during WWII and the attacks against civilians (perceived to be enemy supporters) in Vietnam by the United States in the 1960's. This does not include other events that could be similarly classified - China during the Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor incidents that occurred under Western colonial rule throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The key factor that all of those times mentioned above have in common is the consistent dehumanization that took place prior to and during each of them. The view that your enemies were lesser than you whether by virtue of color, culture, religion or political bent was the key factor in energizing the supporters of a given leader to be willing to attack, hurt and kill the "enemy". It is easy to want to destroy something that you do not understand - I have an abhorrent hatred of cockroaches and would sooner kill one than look at it and I do have a general understanding of cockroaches. When your enemies are designated as cockroaches, you no longer see them as human and have less compunction about hurting them (this example is particular to 1994 Rwanda and the treatment of the Tutsis). This is reinforced by ensuring a clear separation and delineation of your enemies (such as the Jews in Germany who were forced to identify themselves as such by the wearing of a yellow star) and making certain there is no mixing that might lead to a recognition that your opponents are very similar to yourself. Referring to your enemy in negative stereotypes and not understanding their point of view (the US attitude toward its enemies in Vietnam as well as the Japanese during World War II) leads to an unbridled arrogance that is hard to overcome and bridge the gaps between.
Yet the one way to overcome this sort of demonization is to open the lines of communication between various groups and allow people to be more than just a stereotype. When your only understanding of someone different from you is a stereotype, then it is not difficult to carry that image into a negative portrayal that can easily be twisted into something that inevitably becomes far more dangerous. But the responsibility for breaking through the barriers separating groups lies with everyone - not on the other people. Indeed, when it relies on other people, that is where the path toward demonization begins. Find someone who is different and learn how to prevent those barriers from being erected in the first place.
(Special thanks to FP for editing assistance. Any errors are mine alone.)
On that particular day, they were covering the recent protests in Egypt and specifically addressing their concerns regarding the possibility that the Mubarak regime would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. With little context other than the repeated use of the phrase "Muslim" Brotherhood expressed in a dark and sinister tone, anyone whose knowledge of the world was garnered only from Fox News (and I know more than a few) would automatically infer that this was bad and therefore to be avoided. Another inferred suggestion was that the US should instead support the Mubarak regime at all costs because it was secular and not based on Islam (not to mention his support of a peace treaty with Israel).
But it is this directly implied reference to the negative aspects of Islam (via the twisted ideology of Islamist fanaticism) with the very term of "Muslim" that provokes a sad reminder of the past - one that has been oft-repeated and still is not learned from. Or, more precisely, it has not been learned from in the context of preventing it from recurring. Unfortunately, those who have learned from it have discerned that it continues to work in spite of its negative historical precedents. The lesson, of course, is that in order to foster a willingness to fight against an enemy, it is vitally important to demonize that enemy. And when I say demonize, I mean to classify your enemy as being less than human, as being not worth consideration or insignificant, as being nothing more than an object to be destroyed. After all, it is always far easier to kill someone when you do not consider them to be human or worth the effort to consider why you should not kill them on someone else's orders. And such a demonization can be done based on ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, religion, national standard, or any other subjective measure; there are no limits to this classification.
The historical precedents within just the last century are staggering when we consider that they still continue today. Hitler and his rabid persecution of the Jews during the 1930's and 40's are perhaps the clearest example - but not the only ones. We also have the persecution of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the massacres of Kosovars by Serbians in the mid 1990's, the slaughter of Chinese, Koreans and other Asians by the Japanese during WWII and the attacks against civilians (perceived to be enemy supporters) in Vietnam by the United States in the 1960's. This does not include other events that could be similarly classified - China during the Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor incidents that occurred under Western colonial rule throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The key factor that all of those times mentioned above have in common is the consistent dehumanization that took place prior to and during each of them. The view that your enemies were lesser than you whether by virtue of color, culture, religion or political bent was the key factor in energizing the supporters of a given leader to be willing to attack, hurt and kill the "enemy". It is easy to want to destroy something that you do not understand - I have an abhorrent hatred of cockroaches and would sooner kill one than look at it and I do have a general understanding of cockroaches. When your enemies are designated as cockroaches, you no longer see them as human and have less compunction about hurting them (this example is particular to 1994 Rwanda and the treatment of the Tutsis). This is reinforced by ensuring a clear separation and delineation of your enemies (such as the Jews in Germany who were forced to identify themselves as such by the wearing of a yellow star) and making certain there is no mixing that might lead to a recognition that your opponents are very similar to yourself. Referring to your enemy in negative stereotypes and not understanding their point of view (the US attitude toward its enemies in Vietnam as well as the Japanese during World War II) leads to an unbridled arrogance that is hard to overcome and bridge the gaps between.
Yet the one way to overcome this sort of demonization is to open the lines of communication between various groups and allow people to be more than just a stereotype. When your only understanding of someone different from you is a stereotype, then it is not difficult to carry that image into a negative portrayal that can easily be twisted into something that inevitably becomes far more dangerous. But the responsibility for breaking through the barriers separating groups lies with everyone - not on the other people. Indeed, when it relies on other people, that is where the path toward demonization begins. Find someone who is different and learn how to prevent those barriers from being erected in the first place.
(Special thanks to FP for editing assistance. Any errors are mine alone.)
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Uprisings in the US?
According to the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, yes, they will occur. Of course, he also believes in UFO's and claims to be Muslim so hopefully I will be forgiven if I have a difficult time taking his words at face value. This is, after, the same man who admitted that his incendiary rhetoric "may" have led to the assassination of his former mentor, Malcolm X - though he has been often accused of a far more complicit role in the murder. And this does not even mention his relationship to currently embattled Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi. Yes, it would seem that Brother Minister Loius Farrakhan has a slightly twisted relationship with reality so, while I will not argue that an uprising similar to what is currently engulfing many states in the Middle East is impossible in the United States, I will certainly have a difficult time believing that Mr. Farrakhan has any prescient (and unbiased) views on the issue.
But can uprisings like those in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and others occur in the US (or even in Western Europe)? Absolutely they can! Note that I said they can occur, not that they *will* occur. The reality, as difficult as it may be to admit, is that no nation is impervious to the types of internal strife and difficulties that are now striking the Middle East. They can, however, be sublimated or hidden from general view until they explode into the open. Much as western analysts failed to predict the actual failure of the Soviet Union (though they had predicted ad nauseum that it would fail eventually?!), so, too, did they fail to understand and predict the massive changes now occurring in the Middle East. What had been a relatively stable, if autocratic social and political structure has begun to show just how fragile it truly was. Tunisia and Egypt fell without the sort of repressive crackdown that had been expected. Iran, Libya and Syria have all felt the tremors and moved to crack down either before it could begin in earnest (Iran and Syria) or in a massacre of protesters whose crime was to speak out against the ruling tyranny. Similar protests have occurred in Jordan, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, among others and the response has been varied between seeking to placate the protesters and simply killing them in armed responses.
Some of these nations were stable and educated while others were poor and not as educated. But the one thing that they all hold in common is the lack of accountability on the part of the government. All operate under a form of dictatorship - whether by a singular, titular leader (Qadhafi, Mubarak, Assad), a group (Bahraini Sunnis) or even faux electoral processes (Iran). None operated under the idea of Western electoral democratic ideals where leaders are held accountable to the people under whose name and authority they allegedly rule. Yet, in spite of the many variations that existed within each nation, all now experience the tidal wave of frustration that has risen up in the form of revolutions that seek to improve the lives of the protesters.
It is also worth noting that more than a few countries and organizations throughout the world are also taking note of these protests and their successes and failures. China is very worried about protests there and is clamping down hard on noted activists at the hint of any sign of discontent - even though it seems that they are not leading any charge in that direction. And it seems likely that nations in Central Asia (including Pakistan and other former Soviet republics) are very wary of such a tidal wave of revolution spreading to them.
And this leads us back to the question of whether a similar uprising can occur in the US. While there is certainly a possibility of such a level of discontent that could threaten to erupt into a revolution, it does not yet seem to exist in the US. This does not mean to imply that it could not change but there is not the same level of discontent within a majority of the population that would stimulate such a revolution - however much Mr. Farrakhan may hope to proclaim or incite one. This does not mean there are not problems that cause anger, angst, frustration or other responses as there most certainly are. However, there are other recourses available to the citizens that allow them to vent their feelings without building up to the point of a revolution. In the US, life may not always be perfect or even comfortable all of the time, but pushing down on people until they rise up and explode in anger is not a better solution and that is certainly clear in the Middle East today.
But can uprisings like those in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and others occur in the US (or even in Western Europe)? Absolutely they can! Note that I said they can occur, not that they *will* occur. The reality, as difficult as it may be to admit, is that no nation is impervious to the types of internal strife and difficulties that are now striking the Middle East. They can, however, be sublimated or hidden from general view until they explode into the open. Much as western analysts failed to predict the actual failure of the Soviet Union (though they had predicted ad nauseum that it would fail eventually?!), so, too, did they fail to understand and predict the massive changes now occurring in the Middle East. What had been a relatively stable, if autocratic social and political structure has begun to show just how fragile it truly was. Tunisia and Egypt fell without the sort of repressive crackdown that had been expected. Iran, Libya and Syria have all felt the tremors and moved to crack down either before it could begin in earnest (Iran and Syria) or in a massacre of protesters whose crime was to speak out against the ruling tyranny. Similar protests have occurred in Jordan, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, among others and the response has been varied between seeking to placate the protesters and simply killing them in armed responses.
Some of these nations were stable and educated while others were poor and not as educated. But the one thing that they all hold in common is the lack of accountability on the part of the government. All operate under a form of dictatorship - whether by a singular, titular leader (Qadhafi, Mubarak, Assad), a group (Bahraini Sunnis) or even faux electoral processes (Iran). None operated under the idea of Western electoral democratic ideals where leaders are held accountable to the people under whose name and authority they allegedly rule. Yet, in spite of the many variations that existed within each nation, all now experience the tidal wave of frustration that has risen up in the form of revolutions that seek to improve the lives of the protesters.
It is also worth noting that more than a few countries and organizations throughout the world are also taking note of these protests and their successes and failures. China is very worried about protests there and is clamping down hard on noted activists at the hint of any sign of discontent - even though it seems that they are not leading any charge in that direction. And it seems likely that nations in Central Asia (including Pakistan and other former Soviet republics) are very wary of such a tidal wave of revolution spreading to them.
And this leads us back to the question of whether a similar uprising can occur in the US. While there is certainly a possibility of such a level of discontent that could threaten to erupt into a revolution, it does not yet seem to exist in the US. This does not mean to imply that it could not change but there is not the same level of discontent within a majority of the population that would stimulate such a revolution - however much Mr. Farrakhan may hope to proclaim or incite one. This does not mean there are not problems that cause anger, angst, frustration or other responses as there most certainly are. However, there are other recourses available to the citizens that allow them to vent their feelings without building up to the point of a revolution. In the US, life may not always be perfect or even comfortable all of the time, but pushing down on people until they rise up and explode in anger is not a better solution and that is certainly clear in the Middle East today.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Excuses
(I'm not sure if writing in the early morning is such a good idea but the idea was in my head and woke me up with the need to write it down. Hopefully this is more cogent than I feel at the moment.)
In the last two months, there has been a tidal wave of change in the Middle East. It began with Tunisia, quickly followed by Egypt and now threatens countries all over the Middle East and North Africa (though it is worth pondering if it will stop there). Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Jordan and Yemen (among others) are all threatened with the possibility of regime change. The leadership of those countries are all deeply concerned about the possibility of being toppled and are working to determine strategies that will enable them to stay in power. Those strategies seem to vary from the pragmatic to the "we really do think you're stupid" approach.
Iran, for example, is actually boasting that Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions are based on their own "Islamic Revolution" from 1979 - despite any evidence that they were led by any Islamic organizations (if anything, the Muslim Brotherhood in both nations tagged along once the revolutions were well on their way). Egypt, from the other side of that argument, claimed that its regime was preventing an Islamist takeover. Libya has today claimed that the protests are being staged by hooligans and illegal immigrants! (It's very hard to resist a jab at the "nativist" argument that is so prevalent on one side of the US political spectrum today.) Indeed, each of the leaders, in essence, argues that they must stay in power in order to prevent calamity and disaster should the unwashed masses succeed in overthrowing them.
While it is still very early in both Tunisia and Egypt, there has been no marked change that would propel either nation toward a French Revolution scenario of chaos and anarchy - though it is worth pointing out that there is obvious concern both internal and external to both nations in that regard. If anything, there has been a general happiness at the removal of a tyrannical dictatorship that will hopefully evolve toward a more democratic form in the future. There is no way to know if the same should continue in all cases - statistics alone would indicate that is not likely to be so. Indeed, the violence that has erupted in Libya as Qadhafi struggles to maintain his power seems to point toward a struggle that could explode when/if he does fall. The Bahraini leadership is similarly struggling to maintain its hold on power and has not refrained from violence, either. And the violence used by the regime in Iran actually dates back to the last (disputed) elections and is clearly a sign of the concern that government has over its own internal dissent against otherwise peaceful protesters. But it is easy to argue that the violent upheaval that has begun in those two nations was brought on by a leadership desperate to stay in power and is therefore the chaos they warn against is of the government's own doing and not that of the revolution nor its adherents.
What does seem clear, however, is that the excuses each country's leadership makes for staying in power seem to no longer be working with their respective citizens. And, if history is any indication (and it should be), a government cannot continue when the people have either lost faith in it or lost fear of it. It seems that the "change" that was such a mantra in the 2008 US presidential elections has moved around the world and is more of a force elsewhere than with the man who claimed it as his mantle.
In the last two months, there has been a tidal wave of change in the Middle East. It began with Tunisia, quickly followed by Egypt and now threatens countries all over the Middle East and North Africa (though it is worth pondering if it will stop there). Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Jordan and Yemen (among others) are all threatened with the possibility of regime change. The leadership of those countries are all deeply concerned about the possibility of being toppled and are working to determine strategies that will enable them to stay in power. Those strategies seem to vary from the pragmatic to the "we really do think you're stupid" approach.
Iran, for example, is actually boasting that Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions are based on their own "Islamic Revolution" from 1979 - despite any evidence that they were led by any Islamic organizations (if anything, the Muslim Brotherhood in both nations tagged along once the revolutions were well on their way). Egypt, from the other side of that argument, claimed that its regime was preventing an Islamist takeover. Libya has today claimed that the protests are being staged by hooligans and illegal immigrants! (It's very hard to resist a jab at the "nativist" argument that is so prevalent on one side of the US political spectrum today.) Indeed, each of the leaders, in essence, argues that they must stay in power in order to prevent calamity and disaster should the unwashed masses succeed in overthrowing them.
While it is still very early in both Tunisia and Egypt, there has been no marked change that would propel either nation toward a French Revolution scenario of chaos and anarchy - though it is worth pointing out that there is obvious concern both internal and external to both nations in that regard. If anything, there has been a general happiness at the removal of a tyrannical dictatorship that will hopefully evolve toward a more democratic form in the future. There is no way to know if the same should continue in all cases - statistics alone would indicate that is not likely to be so. Indeed, the violence that has erupted in Libya as Qadhafi struggles to maintain his power seems to point toward a struggle that could explode when/if he does fall. The Bahraini leadership is similarly struggling to maintain its hold on power and has not refrained from violence, either. And the violence used by the regime in Iran actually dates back to the last (disputed) elections and is clearly a sign of the concern that government has over its own internal dissent against otherwise peaceful protesters. But it is easy to argue that the violent upheaval that has begun in those two nations was brought on by a leadership desperate to stay in power and is therefore the chaos they warn against is of the government's own doing and not that of the revolution nor its adherents.
What does seem clear, however, is that the excuses each country's leadership makes for staying in power seem to no longer be working with their respective citizens. And, if history is any indication (and it should be), a government cannot continue when the people have either lost faith in it or lost fear of it. It seems that the "change" that was such a mantra in the 2008 US presidential elections has moved around the world and is more of a force elsewhere than with the man who claimed it as his mantle.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Self-censorship
In China, many people who write online or in any form of media practice a form of self-censorship in order to keep themselves from trouble with the government. And Westerners (in particular) often feel compelled to decry this sort of behavior, stressing that it is impinging upon the rights of the individual. And, in countries that espouse the rights of man within society (rather than society itself), they would likely be right. However, is the right to free speech as free as its supporters within the West claim?
I suppose that depends upon your definition of "free". Certainly you are free to say and write whatever you want with little interference from government intrusion. (Well, ok, I'm sure that Julian Assange would disagree with that assessment. But then again, in the US, he would likely be tried in a court of law that operates mostly outside of the political spectrum. In most other countries, if he were tried in a court of law it would be one where the guilty decision would be pre-determined by the political authorities and then either whisked away to prison or to a speedy execution. And some countries would not even bother with a kangaroo court. But I digress...) However, the opportunity and the ability to say and write whatever you wish is tempered by the very same court of law which has rendered things like libel and slander as offenses which can be punished - rightly so! Furthermore, and this is especially true in an increasingly interconnected world where there can be very little separation between an individual's professional and personal life, there can be very serious consequences to what one says or writes.
There are plenty of examples of people being fired for Facebook or blog posts (this is just one example). People complaining about their employers or even their friends can result in lost jobs or lost friends - there are always consequences. So, most people will choose to limit what they say to a degree so as not to encounter potentially negative consequences. Sure, they have the right to say what they want but most people recognize there are (and, frankly, should be) limits.
So, when criticizing people in China for self-censorship in order to avoid negative political consequences, bear in mind that the same applies in the "free" West - even if not necessarily within the same paradigm. We all do it to one degree or another even if we don't recognize it in the same fashion.
Now I'm off to someplace very private to go complain about my job...
I suppose that depends upon your definition of "free". Certainly you are free to say and write whatever you want with little interference from government intrusion. (Well, ok, I'm sure that Julian Assange would disagree with that assessment. But then again, in the US, he would likely be tried in a court of law that operates mostly outside of the political spectrum. In most other countries, if he were tried in a court of law it would be one where the guilty decision would be pre-determined by the political authorities and then either whisked away to prison or to a speedy execution. And some countries would not even bother with a kangaroo court. But I digress...) However, the opportunity and the ability to say and write whatever you wish is tempered by the very same court of law which has rendered things like libel and slander as offenses which can be punished - rightly so! Furthermore, and this is especially true in an increasingly interconnected world where there can be very little separation between an individual's professional and personal life, there can be very serious consequences to what one says or writes.
There are plenty of examples of people being fired for Facebook or blog posts (this is just one example). People complaining about their employers or even their friends can result in lost jobs or lost friends - there are always consequences. So, most people will choose to limit what they say to a degree so as not to encounter potentially negative consequences. Sure, they have the right to say what they want but most people recognize there are (and, frankly, should be) limits.
So, when criticizing people in China for self-censorship in order to avoid negative political consequences, bear in mind that the same applies in the "free" West - even if not necessarily within the same paradigm. We all do it to one degree or another even if we don't recognize it in the same fashion.
Now I'm off to someplace very private to go complain about my job...
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Random Thoughts
Just dawned on me I had a few other things upon which I wanted to write. Figures that it would happen after I had already written a mostly useless blog entry already today. *sigh*
I don't normally follow a lot of blogs. I obviously pay attention to those from LessThanDot (from a variety of authors - all of whom are very good at what they do and from whom I learn a great deal) and then a few others of friends or the occasional political blog (there is one I still "follow" but I won't list it here because it has become nothing more than a hyper-partisan attack blog from the left - I'll be delisting it soon from my follow list). However, I have recently come across one blog that actually went back to read from the very beginning. http://seeingredinchina.wordpress.com/ is written by a Westerner (I'm pretty sure he's American) who is living in China and he offers his experiences there to allow his readers a different view of a nation and people that most Americans (Westerners) may never otherwise see. I have very much enjoyed reading his point of view because he strives to avoid the common stereotypes of China and instead offers a more nuanced view of the country and its people. From my own experiences in China, I can easily see the author's point of view and appreciate the ability of someone to see beyond the stereotypes. It is very enlightening and I highly recommend this blog as an opportunity to learn more about China beyond the news stories that offer little more than generalized stories about the nation and its people.
Over the last couple of days, I've finished two books. The first was a very positive biography of the Marquis de Lafayette - the hero of the American Revolution. That is a part of history to which I had heretofore not given a lot of attention and his story has now made me curious to do more learning on that subject. The second book I found to be very inspiring and is a highly recommended read for those who want a little perspective on their lives. The Story of My Life by Farah Ahmedi is a wonderful autobiography of a young Afghan girl and the struggles she has gone through - and she is only 17 at the time of the book's publication. Losing her foot at age 7 as the result of a land mine in her native Afghanistan, she weaves a powerful tale of struggle against incredible odds to not only survive but to move forward with her life. She talks about her escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan and thence to the United States of America. Her struggle to deal with her tragic circumstances is both poignant and heart-warming and a reminder of the strength and fragility that we all possess. The fact that she has triumphed as best she can and yet shares her continued concerns for her future life gives an insight that is rarely found in most stories. A quick Google search after I finished the book shows that she continues to succeed as she goes to college and presumably has been able to lead a "normal" life that would otherwise have been unavailable to her. Her story will certainly make me pause and reconsider the next time I have a bad day at the office or at home.
I don't normally follow a lot of blogs. I obviously pay attention to those from LessThanDot (from a variety of authors - all of whom are very good at what they do and from whom I learn a great deal) and then a few others of friends or the occasional political blog (there is one I still "follow" but I won't list it here because it has become nothing more than a hyper-partisan attack blog from the left - I'll be delisting it soon from my follow list). However, I have recently come across one blog that actually went back to read from the very beginning. http://seeingredinchina.wordpress.com/ is written by a Westerner (I'm pretty sure he's American) who is living in China and he offers his experiences there to allow his readers a different view of a nation and people that most Americans (Westerners) may never otherwise see. I have very much enjoyed reading his point of view because he strives to avoid the common stereotypes of China and instead offers a more nuanced view of the country and its people. From my own experiences in China, I can easily see the author's point of view and appreciate the ability of someone to see beyond the stereotypes. It is very enlightening and I highly recommend this blog as an opportunity to learn more about China beyond the news stories that offer little more than generalized stories about the nation and its people.
Over the last couple of days, I've finished two books. The first was a very positive biography of the Marquis de Lafayette - the hero of the American Revolution. That is a part of history to which I had heretofore not given a lot of attention and his story has now made me curious to do more learning on that subject. The second book I found to be very inspiring and is a highly recommended read for those who want a little perspective on their lives. The Story of My Life by Farah Ahmedi is a wonderful autobiography of a young Afghan girl and the struggles she has gone through - and she is only 17 at the time of the book's publication. Losing her foot at age 7 as the result of a land mine in her native Afghanistan, she weaves a powerful tale of struggle against incredible odds to not only survive but to move forward with her life. She talks about her escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan and thence to the United States of America. Her struggle to deal with her tragic circumstances is both poignant and heart-warming and a reminder of the strength and fragility that we all possess. The fact that she has triumphed as best she can and yet shares her continued concerns for her future life gives an insight that is rarely found in most stories. A quick Google search after I finished the book shows that she continues to succeed as she goes to college and presumably has been able to lead a "normal" life that would otherwise have been unavailable to her. Her story will certainly make me pause and reconsider the next time I have a bad day at the office or at home.
When to write
I would say that it is strange that, whenever I have the time to sit down and write, I often cannot think of what to write about. This is a direct contrast to the many other times that I have plenty of ideas upon which to ruminate on this virtual medium - except no access to the virtual medium itself. Most specifically, I find this tends to occur when I drive. And, it seems plainly obvious to me, I am not being distracted by other things (well, other than the act of driving itself) when I drive and can devote time to considering any number of issues. Of course, I also find that I am often driving and thinking because I am listening to NPR which often has stories that cause me to think on a variety of issues. I also find it to be rather engaging for me even if I do not always agree with its editorial slant. But, I tend to only listen to NPR when I am anywhere but in front of my computer where I could put my thoughts to paper (so to speak). From one perspective, that seems like it may actually be a blessing in disguise.
Perhaps I should spend more time in front of my computer when listening to the news. Then I would have subjects galore upon which to write. The only problem, of course, would that this would be a far more political blog. And there are certainly more than enough political blogs in the world - the great majority of them so slanted in their perspective that they serve as only white noise to those who seek more nuanced points of view. No, I guess with this perspective, it is probably just as well that I do not have the ability to actually write the ideas that come to me while listening to NPR. There are enough dumb (political) ideas out there already without me unnecessarily adding to the clutter.
So maybe I should come up with some other things to write on. It is at times like this that I wonder if I should have majored in philosophy instead of political science. At least then, I might be able to ruminate and look smart at the same time.
Perhaps I should spend more time in front of my computer when listening to the news. Then I would have subjects galore upon which to write. The only problem, of course, would that this would be a far more political blog. And there are certainly more than enough political blogs in the world - the great majority of them so slanted in their perspective that they serve as only white noise to those who seek more nuanced points of view. No, I guess with this perspective, it is probably just as well that I do not have the ability to actually write the ideas that come to me while listening to NPR. There are enough dumb (political) ideas out there already without me unnecessarily adding to the clutter.
So maybe I should come up with some other things to write on. It is at times like this that I wonder if I should have majored in philosophy instead of political science. At least then, I might be able to ruminate and look smart at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)