Calling down the thunder

In my book, there’s not much worse than talking down to somebody while masquerading as helping them.

This is especially true if you’re praying.

I mean, how insincere must you be to–after passing a condemning voice of judgment–say, “I’ll be praying that God opens your eyes.”

You just simultaneously slung mud on someone’s face since their eyes are clearly “not open,” and made yourself look oh so holy because you’re praying for said person’s soul. Sick.

I remember once I was at a meeting preparing for a conference we were holding. We were having some issues over how we were going to actually lead the small group sessions, one person, we’ll call him ‘A,’ suggested we do mock groups. Two people, ‘B’ and ‘C,’ adamantly said we just pray about it and be done with it. They argued it’s about our heart, about leaving things in God’s hands. ‘A’ said yes, but we should also take steps of our own to prepare. I’d say they should’ve just started yelling at each other. That would have been better.

But no, they decided to be super implicit about it. That if ‘A’ really had faith he’d just let it go and pray. You could feel everyone else in the room rustling and unsure of whether or not to step in. Then ‘A,’ surprisingly, had the guts to defend himself. You would have thought they would have jumped up and just got into a brawl. That also would have been better. At least they would have admitted their issues.

But no, the group decided to pray and end the meeting. And of course, ‘B’ and ‘C’ raised their hands like the good poster children they just created for everyone to see.

And they prayed that God would show everyone what was really important, that we wouldn’t worry about the things ‘A’ worried about. Well, maybe they didn’t mention ‘A’ by name, but they might as well have.

I wanted to get up and leave. I think if I was in that situation today, I probably would.

It’s dishonest. And to do it in the name of prayer, I don’t even know what to call that.

Immigrants and Parasites

You know those feelings, the ones that other people have that you can understand, but can’t really connect with? Not so much sympathize, or even empathize, but actually feel on a personal level?

Today, feelings that people have against immigrants finally went across intellectual lines and connected with me in a concrete way.

I was visiting a family friend the other day as a gesture of goodwill towards and also from my mom. It dawned on me, that this 80+ year old lady I saw lives in a nice suburban house by herself, has never worked, speaks less English than I do Korean, and will never pay a single cent of tax except when she buys groceries, and that’s only when she doesn’t buy food items.

She’s also an American citizen, thanks to her children who immigrated, and so is entitled to government funded Medicare, Social Security, and other elderly necessities. She gets $800+ a month just by being here. She just had surgery; 100% reimbursed by the government.*

And of course, when I say the government, I mean you, me, and anyone else who pays taxes.

If this situation weren’t disingenuous enough, one more thing. She doesn’t own the house she lives in; her daughter does. Because if she herself owned it, the government would realize she has a financial asset, and therefore isn’t entitled to nearly as much money.

I can understand that there are times when people immigrate to other countries, they want to bring their elderly relatives because they’re the only ones left in their home country. This isn’t the case. Said lady has plenty of relatives in Taiwan (where she also gets retirement benefits…) and even makes it a point to go back once a year for a month.

This lady isn’t the only person I personally know who does this. It would be out of character to go into a tirade about people who have never worked for a penny in their life in America and taking all of our resources.

But let’s be real about this. There are people who are struggling to make pennies every day, who work with all their energy and can barely find enough to eat. When they get injured, they stay injured for fear of medical bills. It’s a tragedy, that our money instead goes to people like my family friend, and not those who really need it.

I don’t want to say it, but there really is some truth, that there are immigrants who come here to do little but take advantage of what the country offers.

* – Interesting case of pseudo-socialism, which should silence anyone who thinks our current medical system is already government-hands off.

Sovereignty! And What Gets Lost.

A friend asked me point blank the other day: do I think Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang should be a part of China?

I usually try to avoid straight answers to questions like these, if only because once you give an answer, you’re instantly grouped into either Sinophiles or China-bashers (i.e. Westerners hell bent on interfering with China’s internal affairs), when the reality is, my opinion, and most people’s at that, is infinitely more complex than any ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer could ever hope to articulate.

Here’s some of what I think. It doesn’t really bother me–on all three counts–whether or not the rest of the world officially recognizes China as a whole or its disputed parts. I personally don’t need the world to admit that there is only one China and therefore it is a great civilization. I don’t need Taiwan to successfully secede in order to feel like China got a lesson it deserved. And I certainly don’t need to hear things about “respecting our sovereignty” and worrying about other countries trampling over my identity.

I prefer to focus on two things: the actual people of these disputed territories, and the others who get lost in the cracks of these superfluous debates.

The first is somewhat obvious. What is actually good for the people of Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang? What will help them live?

It’s the second point, the people who get lost in the middle, that bothers me. There’s a country south of China called Laos. It’s poor, developing, and relies on foreign aid to sustain its people. Story goes, Taiwan used to send millions of tons of rice to them. Laos would send a thank you note back, Taiwan sends another batch, rinse wash repeat. Now, Taiwan won’t do it. Because Laos won’t send a thank you note to the Taiwanese government. Because that could anger China who sees recognition of Taiwan’s government as a threat to itself. The people of Laos need the rice, and they’re not getting it, and when they’re spending their days looking for ways to eat, I guarantee they’re not thinking about, “Hm, who do I support? China, or Taiwan?”

Taiwan used to send aid to the few countries that did recognize Taiwan. The ones that changed their mind, well the aid stops going.

In other words…this has become just a game. A game where food and aid have become the bargaining chips of countries interested in flexing their political muscle to, do what again? Get recognition of identity and land. Nobody really wins, but of course, people lose, even–and especially those who have no vested interest in the game.

Illusions of Cultural Exchange

I’ve been reading a controversial, and also old book–The Clash of Civilizations. You may have heard of it. It was referenced too many times in either classes or other conversations for me to just look it over, so here I am, reading again.*

One concept in particular I’ve been brooding over is this: all humankind defines themselves by what they are not. In other words, I’m nice and not mean, funny–not boring.

The idea is most clearly seen when people of different backgrounds come into contact. When an Iranian and an American meet, they exchange cultural ideas. The question is, does coming into contact make the more alike (therefore diffusing potential tensions), or more different (solidifying their differences)?

I can see arguments for both sides. Let’s look at the USA, a country of many ethnicities, and compare it to say, South Korea, which is…well, predominantly Korean. The position of what I’ll call, real cultural exchange, is that because America is such a mix of cultures, we’ve become a group of people whose own identity is becoming more blurred, more mixed, and less concrete. We don’t simply belong to the culture we grew up with, we’ve changed over time due to the people we meet. Someone referenced once, look at all the little “towns” in major American cities; Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Saigon, Japantown, the list goes on. All there, sharing ideas, blurring lines of identity, and making everyone better off for it.

But that example, is also a case for the opposite: when people of different cultures meet, they might come into contact with other ideas, but they don’t accept them. In fact, they identify more with who they already are, especially now that they have found something that they are not. Again, people define themselves by what they are not, so the theory goes.

So in the case of metropolitan diversity, the example begs a question. Exactly who frequents these “towns”? Do those of Latino descent go to Chinatown? What about Indians in Japantown? Why do “towns” exist in the first place? Shouldn’t the idea be we don’t segregate ourselves according to our culture and create blocks in the middle of a city? City in a city?

Or another more personal anecdote. In International-House at UC San Diego, the idea is to create a place where people all around the world gather, mix, and share. While I was there, I saw the opposite. The Asians gathered, the Europeans gathered, and when the few crossed lines? Awkward, so the stories go. People’s identities were reinforced, not blurred, and didn’t do away with the “I’m not like them” mentality.

One more story. During the election primaries of last year, many people though the metro, integrated areas would be the most open to the idea of a black president, and that backwater, homogenous states (e.g. Idaho), would be completely against it. In cases it turned out to be the opposite.

On some level, I think some of both happens, which unfortunately means its hard to come up with a sociological framework in which to box people into. But on a global level, especially with the global exchange of information, are we becoming a more united people through the sharing of ideas, or even more iron-clad in the identities we already are, and of those closest to us? While I’m in realist mode, I’m inclined to think that unfortunately the latter is true; looking at China and how the internet and increasing information flow has made the Chinese in many cases more persistent in their belief that Westerners are out to get China than the other way around. Fortunately, I don’t think it has to stay this way–things can be improved.

* – I actually finally read my dad’s novel, which is a personal accomplishment. This getting back to reading is a good thing I think. There’s also this funny but super irreverent book on the Bible I’m looking at. More on that later.

Trade, not Aid

I read an interesting TIME article (that was also old, thanks to the waiting room at the doctor’s) whose main premise was that the new way to look at Africa is to do business with them and forget the charity: trade, not aid. Their words.

I haven’t done too much research or thought very hard about this myself, so I can’t say I’m behind the idea, but on some level–and perhaps only in the imaginary world of ideals–it must ring true.

Sometimes, I wonder if those of us who have money, ever think about how the people we are donating money to feel about receiving our charity. There’s a book out there called Dead Aid that speaks about this very issue: aid needs to stop, business is the way to go, and the book has caused a huge wave of support, and quite lot of backlash. But the fact that it has generated such support means something; some Africans, on some level, are tired of being viewed treated as people who must be subject to the charity of other. It’s humiliating, annoying, and to some truth, downright doesn’t work.

So it doesn’t surprise me, that of all countries, China is the one that is pouring investment into the region, building infrastructure, and establishing trade agreements. Yes, it is in China’s interests, Africa is rich in natural resources, but it also illuminates a core belief of Chinese culture: saving face.

China understands that charity can be humiliating, that it makes you look like you cannot do things by yourself, that somehow, your life is worthless and at its core, simply requires you to live off of others.*  China also doesn’t enlist the superstars like Bono or depend on the soundbites of their president to be the face of Africa to their people.

Sometimes we get caught up in the idea of charity so much, we care more about charity on our end of the stick. Do we ever ask, how does the person I’m giving this to feel? If it makes them worse, then what’s the point? You’re just giving them money to feel better ourselves.

I don’t have any answers about Africa, and I’m sure that aid is still very much necessary (probably more so on the NGO level). But there’s the old Chinese*2 saying:  give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

What does that look like in a real-world context? What does it mean to “teach Africa to fish?” We can keep giving them aid; we can also start trading with them, have them build their own businesses and companies, and treat them with some real respect.

We all need help sometimes; we all also need to believe in ourselves. Healthy balance is key, and somewhere along the way, I think with regards to Africa, we fell a bit off center.

* – Sometimes in life, this is true; you do need the help of others. China gets this too, and you don’t need to look further than the 5/12 earthquake of last year to see that.

*2 – Again, another reason why China at least understands this conundrum better than we do. Whether or not what they’re doing is making it better, well we’ll see.

Dehumanizer

You know what’s the best way to train a soldier? Drill into his head the fact that his enemy, is just that–an enemy; not a living, breathing human with a backstory, relationships and dreams.

You also want to know what’s the best way to feel good about putting a murderer in the chamber or on the chair? Tell yourself, and everyone else that he’s a cold-blooded killer.

The best way to rile up morale against those who want to have an abortion? Tell the world that they are nothing more than baby killers.

The best way to deal with people with that strange attraction towards others of the same sex? Call them names.

How about the best way to dismiss someone else’s choice for president? Explain away that said person is a liberal. Or a conservative. Or tag them with whatever social consciousness you want to group them with.

You want to know what’s the best way to deal with a living, breathing, tied to family members and friends, person with a unique set of beliefs that simply don’t align with yours?

Box them in. Make them concrete. Tag them with names.

Make them the enemy. They might as well not be people anyway.

“A Christian Mistake”

I have a lot on my mind, but this article by Jim Wallis, covers a few thoughts of mine more coherently and with more punch. I added the bold part at the end. More from me later.

***

In ominous red and black, last week’s Newsweek cover carried the headline, “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.” The magazine’s cover story by editor Jon Meacham provoked a wide array of reactions from across the spectrum. Whether Meacham is ultimately correct in his observance of these trends and his interpretation of their meaning is yet to be seen. The 1966 Time magazine cover that asked “Is God Dead?” could not have foreseen the development of religion in American public life over the past 40 years, and we shouldn’t expect any more from Newsweek. What the latter cover has accomplished is to raise questions vital to both the health of the Christian tradition and for the public discourse of our nation.

The question that struck me and the one I began to address in a short piece for Newsweek was that of the role of religion in public life and politics. Here’s what I had to say:

The Religious Right was a Christian mistake. It was a movement that sought to implement a “Christian agenda” by tying the faithful to one political option — the right wing of the Republican Party. The politicizing of faith in such a partisan way is always a theological mistake. But the rapid decline of the Religious Right now offers us a new opportunity to re-think the role of faith in American public life.

Personally, I am not offended or alarmed by the notion of a post-Christian America. Christianity was originally and, in my view, always meant to be a minority faith with a counter-cultural stance, as opposed to the dominant cultural and political force. Notions of a “Christian America” quite frankly haven’t turned out very well.

But that doesn’t mean a lack of religious influence — on the contrary. Committed minorities have had a tremendous influence on cultures and even on politics. Just look at all the faith-inspired social-reform movements animated by people of faith. But Martin Luther King Jr. did not get the Civil Rights Act passed because he had the most Bible verses on his side but because he entered into the public square with compelling arguments, vision, and policy that ultimately won the day. Those faith-inspired movements are disciplined by democracy, meaning they don’t expect to win just because they are “Christian.” They have to win the debates about what is best for the common good by convincing their fellow citizens.

And that is best done by shaping the values narrative, as opposed to converting everyone to their particular brand of religion. Rather, they are always looking for allies around their moral causes, including people of other faiths or of no religion. The story of Christianity in America in the coming decades will be defined by a multicultural shift as well as a generational one. “New” evangelicals and Catholics, along with black, Hispanic, and Asian churches will now shape the agenda. But also included are the millions of Americans who say they are “spiritual but not religious,” finding homes in non-traditional churches, mega-churches that teach that true religion is found in care for “the least of these.” Making a real impact on the values and directions that a democracy will choose is, perhaps, a more exciting kind of influence than relying on the illusory and often disappointing hopes of cultural and political dominance.

Barack Obama stirred the pot around this exact question recently with his comment at a press conference in Turkey that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” This statement is not a new one for Obama. He expressed it clearly during a 2006 speech to a Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference. He explained his position this way:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

Condoms Don’t Kill People…

But they sure do help–by giving them HIV. Or that’s what the Vatican would have you believe.

I understand why they made that (paraphrased) statement a couple days ago, more accurately that condoms are never a good thing and actually do cause AIDS by the indirect means pushing people to have more sex.

They’re the Vatican; they have to come out and set some moral standards because if they condoned condoms, they could potentially be condoning what most people use condoms for: have sex outside of marriage. The Vatican could never condone that. Which is too bad, because in keeping this stance (which in some ways is downright selfish), the Vatican has managed to hurt the very people they want to help.

Let’s role-play here. You’re standing in front of a fancy hotel with a condom in your pocket. An unmarried, young couple runs up the stairs, holding each other and laughing hysterically. One of them asks you, “Excuse me, do you have a condom? We’re gonna have sex and I forgot mine.” Are you going to give them the one in your pocket? Or refuse them on the basis of moral standard?

The above situation by itself is absurd, but take it or leave it, situations tantamount to this example do exist around the world: brothel houses, prostitution rings, and yes, many places in Africa.

We have a choice here. Cling to our standard: never promote condoms because it encourages people to have sex by taking away some of the potential negative consequences. This isn’t a baseless line of reasoning; no would one deny that everyone would eat more junk food if it didn’t make you fat, give you diabetes, hurt your body.

But this isn’t an ideal world, and to cling to ideals when they clearly aren’t applicable or downright fail, is to do a grave injustice to your neighbors and friends. The Vatican has shown that on their list of priorities, idealism and a vocal standard are more important than the lives of people.

People have sex and don’t use condoms and are much more likely to spread HIV–or people have sex and do use condoms and HIV decreases.

Given those two situations, I know what I’d choose.

Taking Stereotypes to the World

As a greenhorn to the hostel, I must admit a cool thing about them is you meet all sorts of people, from everywhere, either just passing through for a day or have been here for many months. Most of them are cool, though I wouldn’t put it past annoying people to roll around and completely destroy someone else’s vacation.

I met an African American lady who was staying for a day on her way to teach English in South Korea. As newcomers to Taipei, we decided to trek out together seeing some sights, while engaging in lots of discussion, mostly surrounding our traveling experiences and how different countries viewed African Americans.

She had an interesting barometer for measuring her like for different countries: her amount of love for a country was reversely related to how much she was stared at. Apparently Hong Kong*, Japan and Taiwan scored high. Korea didn’t fare so well, and unfortunately China, specifically Shanghai, was the bottom of the barrel. Then again, when people talk about you, stare at you, and take pictures of you, it’s hard to play devil’s advocate. Which surprises me, it’s Shanghai. Then again, it’s China.

I learned two things from spending that day with her: America isn’t done with race, not yet. I knew this, but it brings new meaning to you when you hear even more distressing facts about an already dire situation.*2 African Americans followed in stores? Black women never going missing because they’re never reported? Crash isn’t quite the amazing movie about race that everyone said it was?

The second thing was slightly more revealing. I’ve always known that media portrayal of African Americans, or any race for that matter, was far from fair and true, that it would damage the way all Americans might view their fellow neighbors. It never dawned on me though, that as the number one exporter of all kinds of media, we would also in some seemingly devious fashion also be the number one exporter of cultural stereotypes to the rest of the world.

This lady told me, she spoke with local Koreans about their views on Black people, and to her dismay, they revealed that in many ways, what they believe about all Black people is what they see them do in our movies. Barring any possible exaggeration on her part…how tragic. We’ve done a great disservice to African Americans in our own country. Apparently, we’re also risking ingraining our biases into the minds of everyone else.

While I don’t put it past any other country to be able to differentiate between archetypes in American movies and real people they might meet, Americans can come across real counterparts to media figures everyday and still succumb to media portrayal. I wonder what it’s like for those who cannot interact with those they see on screen; those, who their only exposure to African Americans is the man from the ghetto, looting, killing, and being everything that many African Americans are not.

“It is hard being Black and a woman, Dan.”

I told her I would never deny that.

* – Though she did relay an unfortunate story about being followed in a shop by an employee, who she proceeded to yell at because she couldn’t believe that Hong Kongers, suffering from equal Black hysteria, would be like Americans and believe all Black-skinned humans are prone to theft. I kindly told her this happens to everyone in Hong Kong. She felt better after that.

*2 – I’ve spoken with African Americans before, but never anyone from the South.

Resident Evil 5: African Safari

Gosh, what a breath of fresh air it is to not talk specifically about political issues. Well, almost.

As a small videogame nut, I do make an effort to stay up to date with the news of the videogame world. I guess it’s fitting that I bring up an issue that is sowing the seeds of uneasiness which could very well blossom into an ungodly upheaval by March, when a certain videogame releases.

I’m of course, referring to Resident Evil 5, the fifth iteration of the Resident Evil franchise, a series rooted in survival horror and has recently evolved into more of an action horror genre.

The series stars several protagonists who must survive against hordes of infected humans turned zombies. So what’s the big deal?

This iteration happens to be set in Africa. Because of its African setting, most of the zombies happen to be black. You star as white-man, Chris Redfield.

See the issue?

Lots of gamers had risen to the defense of Resident Evil 5 with a multitude of arguments:

-The team that made the game actually went to Africa to do primary research, and so this game is merely staying true to their first-hand observations.
-If you starred as a black character killing white zombies, nobody would give a wooden nickel. It’s unfair and a double standard to single this instance as racist.
-People who call this racist live in the past.
-It’s just a videogame.

I think that this issue exists goes to show despite how far we’ve come in terms of race relations, just how far we–as a whole world–have yet to go. Let me get this out there: I do not think this game is racist, but it is still guilty of something substantial–insensitivity.

Let’s lay some background first. The game is made by Capcom, a Japanese company famous for other titles like MegaMan, Marvel vs. Capcom, Zack & Wiki and others. Before we continue, let’s review an important fact: Capcom is a Japanese company. Capcom isn’t some company made up of overseas white Americans trying to secretly live out their unfulfilled ambitions of enslaving Africans. They are a Japanese company. They were not involved in Europe’s colonialism nor the slaves who were brought from Africa to America.

In other words, this isn’t an issue to the Japanese. Period. How can I be so sure? Look at previous titles. Resident Evil 4 starred another white character in Spain, fighting against…Spanish zombies. To the developers at Capcom, moving the setting to Africa meant an equally logical choice; make the zombies black.

It is also common on Japanese TV to have people to over-the-top impersonations of famous celebrities, including blacks, and in the USA would never be aired because it would be racist. Because with our history and our context, it is. But for them it is not. They do not inhabit the same historical context that we do.

Their fault then is, they didn’t do their homework. All Resident Evil games have been released worldwide, and as such, they must be mindful of the entire world as their audience. They didn’t realize that making the game this way could set off a potential firestorm because they are unaware of the history of race relations in other countries.

No one intended this game to be racist. But intentions can often be irrelevant in many peoples’ eyes, and unfortunately Capcom’s lack of diligence and thorough thinking make this game about as insensitive as they come.

If we lived in a vacuum this wouldn’t be an issue. But history and context exist together and they do affect how we view the world. Videogames are not just videogames.