Today I read an
#academic paper in which cultural capital is used interchangeably with multiculturalism and intercultural knowledge. I am disappointed in the publish or perish regime.
Today I read an
In making a comment on differences in food cultures within a same geography based on different religion, I found an apology emanate unexpectedly from mother hoping that she was not being sectarian, but could not find the ‘correct’ word instead choosing ‘sexist’.
Definitely brings out the problem with political correctness and the inability to actually talk about difference without feeling like you are treading on eggshells. It should be a concern that people cannot reflect on the difference between being discriminatory instead finding it problematic to appreciate non-homogeneity.
When we were little(r), my mother always told us to look outside the window onto the green grass in the morning. “It improves eyesight”, she said. With only some fail, we would go to the kitchen balcony window and stare outside the grilled windows, pushing either clothes drying in front of us from obstructing our view, or just trying to concentrate on the grass between the black grills. It has been a while since I last did this, but I did so this morning.
I don’t know if my eyesight is better at all. I haven’t lost it, but it seem to work normally. Although I can never tell if different eyes see different things, but I digress. What I do realise when I stare out the window onto a lawn of grass is that if not soothing my eyes, it surely soothes me mentally. How we take for granted these things. I lived in a megacity for 7 years prior to my current place. I barely ever saw green. But when I would go home, a villagesque place, my eyes would have just before thirsted for the luscious green view of paddy fields or just trees and forestscape. When home, I would be quenched. Whether it was being at home that had an influence I could not tell, but my face (my friends in the city city would comment) was always rejuvenated and with hope I strode forward until next I would be delivered to the motherplace. The same almost occurs here. As if a memory, I feel full of promise and hope. In the wretched winters I feel it difficult to cope, but springtime comes around and I seem fine.
This morning, as I peered through my window pane (and the sun finally rises when I say this), I stared at the grass. I remember mother’s words. I remember that my eyes need rejuvenating. And I almost feel like that view is much better than the tears I wanted to shed for missing home.
The shooting at the Charlie Hebdo office has given rise to a spectrum of opinions being expressed. While some consider this effect a direct claim to the Freedom of Speech, what with the range of people commenting, it is commonplace to forget the very concern here: people were killed by other people. This is not justifiable by anyone.
Looking at the variety of responses, we have notice the right going berserk, the left being defensive and a popular online reaction. But what of the fact that, again, people were killed? It brings me to consider the context of these comments. The right to be heard or seen as socially aware and upholding a moral standard. This is what I consider Moral Panic in the global now. Around the world, responses are offered. This is not purely an attempt at a popular social movement, but rather a sort of contention with the idea of presenting as socially aware, as being opinionated. The Moral Panic which I suggest is not one against certain morals, but rather a generic form of offering one’s opinion. Opinion for opinion’s sake. This is the moral confusion (or conviction) of the day.
The globalised individual is aware of their surroundings, extended to the corners of the world, this galaxy, the next and all to come. Perhaps this latter condition is the next step. We will have ethics about how Andromeda should not be interacted with, but then we can have the saviour complex swoop in and suggest needing to extend protection.
Of the many concerns of local self-government/democratic decentralisation, people are subject to the problem of the dominant group’s dictates. Again, I wonder the extent to which we can use the idea of majorities as a validation for that which is correct. Indeed, there is a need to safeguard basic human rights of some peoples. this ought to include disadvantaging aspects. We must recognise that there are certain privileges in society. This is not to discount the fact that those who do gain from privilege are not intentionally bad; instead, we need to rectify the system’s faults. However, we need to look at conditions with some basis for acceptability. I would propose that Article 3 of the UDHR ought to be the first. A right to life must precede an arbitrary condition of “equality”. Of course, this does not imply that minorities such as elite people (which we know is around 10% of people) do not control situations.
This, to me, points to a need to contextualise this concept of ‘justice’. Or perhaps devise a new equation.
Ok, read this article.
“But how do we dance?”, they ask. “We are but mannequins on display, elaborating or possibly just hinting times told, perhaps of rot and decay”.
The view was vivid, the coffee strong. And with a song we hummed along the way down to the shore. The waters behaved.
And the breeze told a story of past times (perhaps it was assumed by the song we sung).
Entangled glamorous contraptions; perhaps not so.
But directed in segments,
onto strange paths.
Then, finally, to rest.
The current idea of globalisation is closely linked to and emerged from the industrial age. The difference lays in the power relations, the violence, through control over spatiotemporal dynamism. This period was a race; in order to get ahead, colonial powers then started to draw out populations from their ‘place’ for the purpose of cheap labour. We may observe this through the way in which migration was promoted during the 1800s in England. Migrants, therefore, appear in vast quantities through this process.
In current times, it is thus strange to observe powers suggest that the movement of people across borders is wrong and will be tackled. It is at this point that we realise its hypocritical nature. When attempts are made to navigate out of non-first world lands, movement is deemed undesired, even illegal. Immigrants become the problem. It is not solely the jobs that apparently will be taken, or the benefits that may be sought. It is the very fact that agency is being used, whether minuscule and run down to its bare essentials such as escaping from a previous land. This agency is what power fears. A challenge, it believes.
It is the nature of power to sustain itself. Be assured that it will do everything to stay this way.