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.

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.

But You Speak the Language

I woke up this morning and for no reason whatsoever thought about a situation that seems to occur quite often.

It goes like this. I tell someone, when I compare myself to my other Asian American friends, I feel less Asian than they are. Sometimes I go so far as to say, I don’t feel very Asian at all.

And then my audience inevitably goes, but you speak the language! (Both of them, nonetheless…)

And then I fire, but there are others who speak as well or better than me.

But then they have this great comeback: you can read and write.

And somewhere along the line I give up. I really shouldn’t, but I think opening my eyes this morning was like opening my eyes to something I never thought about.

I think, when I’m around other Asian Americans, it’s precisely because I can speak the language and read and write, that I don’t feel very Asian.

Here’s why. I think I’m generally more direct when I communicate with people. I have my moments of “sweep it under the rug”, but who doesn’t? Thing is, if I’m tired of something I’ll speak up. Sure, I’m all about diplomacy and tact, but I’m not afraid to tell people what I think.

The catch? This is only true in English.

The moment I revert to Chinese, it’s like my thinking changes. Sentences get put together in completely different ways. While I’m still probably more direct than your average Hong Konger, my speech is surprisingly, vague.

In other words, I think because I feel I have a pretty strong grasp of the Chinese language, I’ve put everything about me that is Asian, into a mental computer that only fires up when I flip the Chinese language switch. And vice versa about English. So, while some of my friends have found satisfaction in this Asian-American niche (where they bleed indignation when asked “do you feel more Asian or American?”, to which their answer is, NEITHER YOU IGNORAMUS), I find myself going from one to the other. I am one, or the other, and sometimes both, but never really feel like I belong with this high-identity, special and neither AA crowd.

Back to the point. When I’m with my Asian American friends, we always speak in English–there’s no point in using any other language except to crack a joke. Since I’m using English, my Asian side is neatly tucked away. Therefore, when I’m around said Asian American friends, I feel less Asian.

It’s like a geometry proof. Only less concrete and infinitely more magnetic in terms of hate mail.

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.

Having a Heart for the Poor

Some people have a heart for the poor. It can never escape their minds as they go about their day that even if they make a measely $30,000 a year they’re already deep into that top, coveted bracket of the richest 10% of the world.  They remember that every day 30,000 kids will die from starvation. Countless others die from disease, and still more will die from prolonged wars somewhat in part fueled by our corporate greed with ten degrees of separation.

Some go to Africa to build better infrastructure. Some go to India and China teach, maybe hand out some Bibles. Some go to develop clean drinking water systems. Others go to Western governments and lobby for these things.

Some people have a heart for the poor. I think, and I can’t say for certain, I might have a heart for the rich.

I have no scientific evidence or statistically significant data beyond anecdotal stories here. Only what my gut is telling me, and I have yet to run across anything that has challenged my gut feeling.

If anyone stabily living in the developed, so called “Western” world, is deeply rooted in the top 10% richest on the planet, then I would guess, that they also live in the top bracket for most depressed and unhappy.

It’s a shocking and perhaps overly bold statement, even for me, but the more I learn about our developed world, the businesses that run it, the governments that run it, the systems and ideals that run it, the more come away feeling that these people cannot be happy.

We’ve become a people that have overemphasized, to the point of mortgaging our own life and society away, our own selves, that somehow we are so important that the world spins on the axis of  our self. Like we have somehow managed to destroy our own soul in the quest for our notion of wealth, comfort, and life. Cultures change, societies change, people change, and so the concept of a 9-5 job isn’t wrong by any means; the concept of searching for our life’s purpose must be worldwide and one of those eternal questions that someone asked thousands of years ago standing where I’m sitting right now, but only in the Western world do we have the physical and material means to ignore that question. Only we have a billion forms of entertainment, the  supposed antidote to the working world. Only we could turn something potentially good like the Internet–something with the power to keep us connected–into a poison that hampers our ability to connect with each other physically as each generation grows not knowing what a life without text messaging is.

I suppose caring for the poor is actually easier. Yes, it requires more mental and physical work, but how does one dedicate their life to changing the modern day world? How do you go about deciding that one will change the lives of the BMW owner for the better? How do you even go about doing such a thing?

For the Christians who read this, I’ll take this one step further. What percentage of America do you think is really Christian? Who lives out their life in a way that God intended? I don’t think that percentage is that high. If it were, our country couldn’t possibly look the way it does now. That said, why don’t we feel the need to do anything about it?

PR 101: The Customer Always Wins

If I ran a country it would be a mandate that everyone work a shitty ass job that nobody ever “dreams about”. It’d be a required course in high school and you’d have to take it every year. And then after you graduate from college you’d take it again before doing whatever else your life “calls” you to do. You could have the option of being a garbage collector, waiter, plumber or a checkout attendant at a supermarket.* And those would be just the basic courses.

And if after college someone still doesn’t get it drilled into their head that they don’t get to look down on anybody–no matter how low their job is perceived to be–they’d take a remedial course, at something like future SAT research.

This bothers me about our culture: we’re always having people serve us. It doesn’t matter if we’re eating at a restaurant, buying movie tickets, taking the bus or receiving mail. Someone is there making the world spin for us.

Okay, it’s not inherently a bad thing, but when you combine that with the idea that as customers we somehow deserve something, we start treating people less like people and more like invisible slaves who have no life of their own and should be unnoticed anyway. The people behind the desk, waiting on tables, standing behind the counter, the people who pick up our trash…they’re just lowlifes who deserve to be looked down upon aren’t they?

It’s like they exist solely to serve us; they’re all supposed to be there as if somehow we’re better than them because we’re the ones doing their “boss” a favor since we’re the ones paying for something.

You know what? It’s true. We are the ones paying for something and they’re the ones who are supposed to deliver. That’s their job.

But that doesn’t mean we get to be put ourselves on a high rocker and be an ass about it. Nobody gives a wooden nickel how important you think you are, when you’re at a restaurant you don’t get to throw a tirade at the waiter because he somehow got your order wrong.

I can’t think of a good way to end this, suffice to say, give some people some respect. They deserve it more than you do your 44.7% cooked steak.

* “fail” note: I realized I fell into my own trap of labeling these jobs with the amazingly graceful and positive tag of “shitty ass.” My point (I would think, obviously) is not to demean those jobs, but was to be overly biting in how I believe the general perception of these jobs is unfair.

“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.

Unreal Parenting

I’m not sure if what I just saw really happened.

I was on a train with a friend going to eat dinner, when nearby there’s this little commotion going on. I didn’t pay much attention (I’ve learned to mind my own business in big cities where everything happens), but thankfully my friend did. Apparently a mother was sitting across from her maybe 6 year-old son, chewing him out. And once the train made it’s last stop, she charged right past us and out the door, leaving the kid behind.

“Did that mom just leave her kid behind?” my friend asked me.

We figured that would be impossible. They must have had no connection and what my friend probably saw was just a woman chewing somebody out on a phone.

Until we hit the gate where you swipe a card to exit the station. And the kid starting yelling, “Mom!” The woman was already gone.

We exited, but stuck around to see if the kid got any help. After a couple minutes we went downstairs outside of the station to see if this weird woman was there. Well, she was there, but she wasn’t waiting. Apparently she had gone somewhere else, and was walking back to the station, and then just stood there outside, downstairs, waiting for her kid who she couldn’t see.

My friend and I went upstairs to talk to the security guard, who was attending to the kid, and we told them there was a woman waiting downstairs.

Almost end of story, until the security guard took the boy to his mom. We watched from far off to avoid getting into trouble, and then the security guard took the boy back up to the station. Because apparently the mom had the boy’s ticket card and he still needed to pay to exit the station. And she stood there. Waiting. She didn’t go back up with them.

Really? Did she just scar this 6 year old? I mean I’ve never parented a kid myself but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say…what the hell woman?

*shakes head…