From the NY Times:
"China Fences In Its Nomads, and an Ancient Life Withers" (article)
These programs are reminiscent of the criminal acts where the United States government forced Native Americans off their ancestral lands onto reservations, often with false promises and broken treaties, most likely at the point of a gun.
I will be explicit, because certain readers from certain countries don't get it and assume that past crimes commited by my country somehow exonerates careless people who commit similar crimes a century and a half later. So I apologize if this cultural reference is glaringly obvious to students of American history, or basically any student of how we have treated indigenous communities, but hey, some societies haven't had to face up to this issue yet, so let's be clear: just because the Americans did this in the 1800s does not make it right. It was wrong then, and what the Chinese government is doing to rural nomads now is likewise extremely problematic.
Resettlement through force, coercion, or deception is wrong. Fully-informed consent is key. "Fully-informed" means that people understand the long-term impacts on their lives, livelihoods and communities, and "consent" means they have the choice to say yes or no, free from the threat of violence or other state-enforced repercussions.
In addition to pirating "ecological science" to back up what is in actuality a program of social control with the false veneer of "development", there are other substantial problems.
The Chinese government doesn't have a good record on resettlement, whether it's urban or rural. At this time, every program in this mould should be treated with the skepticism it deserves.
The speed of resettlement is not a virtue. Take it slow so people can adjust and so you can fix the f-ck ups that inevitably happen with large-scale transformation of human societies. What you're trying to do in a single-generation is uproot an entire way of living that has developed over centuries. On balance, which mode do you think has the weight of evidence on its side?
The fact that sub-standard housing and evaporating benefits await these people speaks to the lack of commitment to actual social outcomes. Resettling people is not a short-term task to be completed, and the people forgotten. If you care about "development" you must recognize that it is a long-term process and you should actually monitor communities to ensure their success.
Meanwhile, save the "development" rhetoric. You do not get to decide on behalf of others what "development" looks like. It is extremely paternalistic, and the fact that participation is virtually nil means that priorities are decided without the communities who are most impacted and have the most stake in the outcome. This is development that happens "to" people. It is not engendered from within the community, quisling collaborators notwithstanding. It is a shockingly imperial mindset.
Overall, this type of program smacks of judgement about "lesser" races and dismissiveness about others' lifestyle choices. Who are you to judge if they are fundamentally "developed" or not? Whether the needs of communities and individuals has been met? Talk to them if you care about them; otherwise admit that their human welfare is not the primary purpose of this venture.
It also shows a profound lack of creativity -- "let's shove them into buildings" -- instead of deploying the range of possible technologies that can keep people who wish to be there on their lands, living different lifestyles, with access to modern medicine and education, while giving them the agency and wherewithal to keep unique traditions and practices still alive.
Ignorance is not an excuse. To ignore history, ignore domestic academics, ignore outside voices, and to pointedly ignore the very people who you claim to be "helping" requires immense mental acrobatics to maintain such a solipsistic silo. Couldn't some of that energy put into deflecting criticism, skimming off funds, and suppressing dissent be put into listening?
Monday, July 13, 2015
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Hope Less
A Vox piece lays bare the growing futility, bordering on human impossibility, of restraining warming to 2°C. Physically it still might be doable, but would require a greater-than-Herculean effort to shift the political-economic-and-technological dimensions of society at massive scale. It's a pretty horrifying read, but deep in our hearts, we knew this was probably the case.
"If only we would take concerted action!" "If we would act with a greater sense of urgency!" These are the lines mouthed by climate activists, environmental leaders, and millennial climate hopefuls, repeatedly deployed on an apathetic public and a static government.
As the article posits, the essential goal of containing warming to 2°C hasn't really changed for quite a while. For example, since the IntroSem on "Climate Change: Drivers, Impacts, Solutions" with Chris Field back in 2004. Was the goal of 2°C too shrill of a cry back then? I don't think so. The threat of climate change wasn't overstated. Indeed, every passing year has revealed more and more research that ought to jolt us into action. However, more than a decade later, we may be in rather worse shape, in terms of the "business as usual" curve.
Perhaps the future holds more promise with better technologies. Alternatively, it's possible we are simply hosed if 2°C is still the line we're trying to hold.
That's why the international conversation has moved on to adaptation (and maybe even reparations), instead of purely focusing on mitigation any longer. Sorry, folks! That's actually where the article doesn't quite get it right: there's been a quiet admission of realism, as adaptation takes a larger and larger role in the climate change negotiations.
"If only we would take concerted action!" "If we would act with a greater sense of urgency!" These are the lines mouthed by climate activists, environmental leaders, and millennial climate hopefuls, repeatedly deployed on an apathetic public and a static government.
As the article posits, the essential goal of containing warming to 2°C hasn't really changed for quite a while. For example, since the IntroSem on "Climate Change: Drivers, Impacts, Solutions" with Chris Field back in 2004. Was the goal of 2°C too shrill of a cry back then? I don't think so. The threat of climate change wasn't overstated. Indeed, every passing year has revealed more and more research that ought to jolt us into action. However, more than a decade later, we may be in rather worse shape, in terms of the "business as usual" curve.
Perhaps the future holds more promise with better technologies. Alternatively, it's possible we are simply hosed if 2°C is still the line we're trying to hold.
That's why the international conversation has moved on to adaptation (and maybe even reparations), instead of purely focusing on mitigation any longer. Sorry, folks! That's actually where the article doesn't quite get it right: there's been a quiet admission of realism, as adaptation takes a larger and larger role in the climate change negotiations.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Fight for Utopia
Even in imagining the future, there are retrograde forces attempting to limit the participation of diverse communities. They aim to narrow our vision and suppress our collective dreams.
This should not stand. Exclusionary individuals have become the forces of tyranny that science fiction would have us question and rebel against. They might cloak themselves in the language of freedom ("Stop the PC police" "Take back the genre from the left!") but in reality use fear, intimidation, and hatred to achieve their intolerant aims. It is essentially a human story old and new.
As Kameron Hurley notes in a piece in The Atlantic, science fiction and fantasy have "grown dramatically, and last year, work by women and people of color from a diverse range of publishers swept the Nebula Awards in addition to the Hugos." As a response to this evolving cultural phenomenon, "why are so many fringe groups escalating their protests in gaming, in comics, and in the science-fiction community? ... it’s no coincidence that many of the people block voting these awards are the same ones sending death threats to women and people of color, sending SWAT teams to the addresses of critics, and hijacking accounts and identities to try and silence those creating more inclusive stories."
"It's only science-fiction," some members of the public might cry. "What's the big deal?" Hurley challenges the reader to ask: "Why should it matter that there was a block vote led in large part by a group whose most vociferous leader wants to disenfranchise entire groups of people?"
"The truth is that our wars of words and narrative matter, especially those that tell us what sorts of possible futures we can build—and groups like Gamergate, Sad Puppies, and Rabid Puppies understand this. The author Ursula K. Le Guin said it best in her National Book Award acceptance speech:
This should not stand. Exclusionary individuals have become the forces of tyranny that science fiction would have us question and rebel against. They might cloak themselves in the language of freedom ("Stop the PC police" "Take back the genre from the left!") but in reality use fear, intimidation, and hatred to achieve their intolerant aims. It is essentially a human story old and new.
As Kameron Hurley notes in a piece in The Atlantic, science fiction and fantasy have "grown dramatically, and last year, work by women and people of color from a diverse range of publishers swept the Nebula Awards in addition to the Hugos." As a response to this evolving cultural phenomenon, "why are so many fringe groups escalating their protests in gaming, in comics, and in the science-fiction community? ... it’s no coincidence that many of the people block voting these awards are the same ones sending death threats to women and people of color, sending SWAT teams to the addresses of critics, and hijacking accounts and identities to try and silence those creating more inclusive stories."
"It's only science-fiction," some members of the public might cry. "What's the big deal?" Hurley challenges the reader to ask: "Why should it matter that there was a block vote led in large part by a group whose most vociferous leader wants to disenfranchise entire groups of people?"
"The truth is that our wars of words and narrative matter, especially those that tell us what sorts of possible futures we can build—and groups like Gamergate, Sad Puppies, and Rabid Puppies understand this. The author Ursula K. Le Guin said it best in her National Book Award acceptance speech:
'We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art—the art of words.'In culture today, "much of the stuff you see in film, television, comics, and and children’s cartoons got its start inside the inspired, disruptive halls of science-fiction and fantasy literature." Thus, the literary (and extra-literary) clashes in science fiction are actually a fight for reality, a fight for our society's future.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
信仰 What Binds Us
There is something about belief.
There is something about piety.
There is something about piety.
There is something about reverence.
There is something about faith.
I recently began reading "The Book of Chinese Beliefs," a tome that focuses not on classical philosophy, but on everyday beliefs—and the resultant customs and rituals—of Sinic communities in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and China itself. To describe these phenomena requires more than simply demarcating norms and detailing cultural quirks, as any commercial guide to "Get along in China!" might do. Such a task involves more deeply exploring the world view that lies underneath these features.
As I walked outside the apartment and glanced at the backdrop of buildings, I realized I might really like Hong Kong. The air there is thicker with belief: 神仙—spirits, fairies, and deities—swirl through the sky, making their presence known in daily life. The atmosphere of the city is suffused with the round clouds of Chinese folktales.
There is a greater sense of a common cultural identity, manifesting itself in millions of small interactions on the street each day. Despite Hong Kong's built modernity, people are also religiously observant, geomantically oriented, pious in a way. They believe.
There is a greater sense of a common cultural identity, manifesting itself in millions of small interactions on the street each day. Despite Hong Kong's built modernity, people are also religiously observant, geomantically oriented, pious in a way. They believe.
Perhaps this is why I feel distant in Mainland China. If all we care about are material goods and commerce, then life would feel somewhat empty and hollow. I would feel that these are not my people, but simply a group of human beings with whom I am currently in contact. Hong Kong, in contrast, feels more authentically Chinese. Despite the Western trappings, there are still bolts and bloodlines of Chinese piety.
What makes a people? What connects us is a common cosmology. If we do not have the same beliefs—whether it is Confucian thought or Chinese mythology—then what binds us together? We have nothing tying us except a fleeting similarity in language (recall that Mandarin is a constructed language from the 1900s) and perhaps a measure of ancestral DNA. However, shared ancestry matters not only because of blood and bone, but because we jointly worship and revere the ancestral dead—and we jointly celebrate our lineage, and all the responsibilities this entails. Material conditions are not enough to make a people. At the end of the day, it is belief.
While the Norse gods have disappeared and Egyptian deities evaporated from the world, the Chinese pantheon today is still alive and well. One finds meaning, solace, and community there. It does not mean we all get along, or that we are all friends; but it does mean we operate from the same code. (Some call this belief system Chinese folk religion. Perhaps it is not quite the same as the transcendent "world religions" that have the power to cut across societal lines—across nation and race—but that is a discussion for another time. Still, in order to find religion, we must first have religiosity: a belief in higher powers, a belief in the unknown.)
As described in The Book of Chinese Beliefs, one expert geomancer (feng shui practitioner) decried that he did not have any disciples because no young people wished to learn this art, which had been taught by master-to-disciple for generations. His own father had studied in a famous 風水 school in China from a highly-regarded woman philosopher. The arrest of culture is tragic, and this passage conjured in my mind an even greater tragedy: when wholesale culture destruction and discontinuity was visited upon the country by the Cultural Revolution. One kills Chinese culture and Chinese identity by stopping the transmission of belief.
One sees value in old ways, then, if authenticity and belief are important parts of identity. For those who believe, if the Imperial household is indeed a bridge to Heaven (and/or the Spirit World), it is not only worthy of allegiance, but of our devotion. It is not simply an act of loyalty and patriotism to defend and follow the Emperor; it is an act of reverence.
Today, there may not be an Emperor in China, but encounters with deities and the principles of feng shui still hold currency among Sinic populations in many places: Hong Kong, Taiwan, San Francisco, Canada. It is this cosmology that undergirds these places and that holds generations together. It is the everyday practices of family; the social logic, habits and principles; and also the sense, the act, the affirmation of believing.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Is neo-analog the new neo-classical?
My friend posted the following article, which notes that 30% of photographers using actual film are younger than 35. He included the interesting proposition that our generation, and those that come after, might be able to revive newspaper and book sales with our nostalgia-trending dollars.
I whole-heartedly support this concept, and can even see a glimmer of a future where this comes to pass, not just because of 懷舊, but because these media offer a distinct and valuable experience that grounds what we encounter every day.
The goal of young people is not to stop progress and revert back to older, inefficient ways of doing things. We are, after all, not Luddites. At the same time, we are not so enamored with digital, nor as impressed by it as our elders might be. Folks our age rarely go "Wow!" when looking at a web offering. More often, the response is, "That's a great use of this tool. I knew someone would be capable of pulling it together—how awesome!"
Growing up digital, having things available online is run-of-the-mill. (Yawn!) We have expectations for computing services, and at the end of the day, they are simply the basic implements we believe ought be there. Air, check. Water, check. Wi-fi, check. In contrast, print is nostalgic, charming, and most significantly, tangible.
Cameras, wood instruments, printed books; we are reconstituting interactivity by re-acquiring the tools of creation, or by finding new means of consumption, paired with imagination. It offers an interactive experience (as digital does), but also serves a method of reconnecting with the physical world.
It is not simply the novelty of surrounding oneself with old objects—though there is pleasure in that too—but we are not hoarders of antiques. Objects do not qualify simply due to their age, if they are inutile. They must be tools of creation, or agents and products actively linked to a process that is ongoing today—something living, generative, still alive.
Why could this movement succeed? It's about pleasure, not work. We don't expect of the analog the same things we ask for in our workaday computer tools. Instead, books and newspapers recall another kind of culture, representing different times, ethos, and experiences. They are a welcome and enjoyable respite, as we otherwise stream through lives defined by 0101010.
What makes analog work?
Two other questions I'm pondering
It's not a wholesale return to older forms. We do want old things, but we want old things that work better than old things. Moreover, I'll wager that we want old things that seem old, but that still fit into a digital ecosystem. Real Instagram cameras. Better fixie bikes. Instantly updating print newspapers. Cue steampunk.
My only question is if we odd hybrid children—of the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s—are filling a unique gap. Will children born completely in the digital age have the same desire to navigate back to the past? Or is it only because our generation is a bridge, having had analog toys in childhood and only acquiring tablets and smartphones in our adolescence. Perhaps new 21st century children still will seek out the analog, if the experience is at all like being released into nature after being cooped up in a city all one's life: it's deeply resonant because it serves a human need.
I whole-heartedly support this concept, and can even see a glimmer of a future where this comes to pass, not just because of 懷舊, but because these media offer a distinct and valuable experience that grounds what we encounter every day.
The goal of young people is not to stop progress and revert back to older, inefficient ways of doing things. We are, after all, not Luddites. At the same time, we are not so enamored with digital, nor as impressed by it as our elders might be. Folks our age rarely go "Wow!" when looking at a web offering. More often, the response is, "That's a great use of this tool. I knew someone would be capable of pulling it together—how awesome!"
Growing up digital, having things available online is run-of-the-mill. (Yawn!) We have expectations for computing services, and at the end of the day, they are simply the basic implements we believe ought be there. Air, check. Water, check. Wi-fi, check. In contrast, print is nostalgic, charming, and most significantly, tangible.
Cameras, wood instruments, printed books; we are reconstituting interactivity by re-acquiring the tools of creation, or by finding new means of consumption, paired with imagination. It offers an interactive experience (as digital does), but also serves a method of reconnecting with the physical world.
It is not simply the novelty of surrounding oneself with old objects—though there is pleasure in that too—but we are not hoarders of antiques. Objects do not qualify simply due to their age, if they are inutile. They must be tools of creation, or agents and products actively linked to a process that is ongoing today—something living, generative, still alive.
Why could this movement succeed? It's about pleasure, not work. We don't expect of the analog the same things we ask for in our workaday computer tools. Instead, books and newspapers recall another kind of culture, representing different times, ethos, and experiences. They are a welcome and enjoyable respite, as we otherwise stream through lives defined by 0101010.
What makes analog work?
- interactive, not passive, experience
- physical element
- taps into imagination/creativity: tools of creation (or at least the product of such)
Two other questions I'm pondering
It's not a wholesale return to older forms. We do want old things, but we want old things that work better than old things. Moreover, I'll wager that we want old things that seem old, but that still fit into a digital ecosystem. Real Instagram cameras. Better fixie bikes. Instantly updating print newspapers. Cue steampunk.
My only question is if we odd hybrid children—of the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s—are filling a unique gap. Will children born completely in the digital age have the same desire to navigate back to the past? Or is it only because our generation is a bridge, having had analog toys in childhood and only acquiring tablets and smartphones in our adolescence. Perhaps new 21st century children still will seek out the analog, if the experience is at all like being released into nature after being cooped up in a city all one's life: it's deeply resonant because it serves a human need.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Disrupt away, oh Silicon Friends!
"Rah-rah Stanford, it's so great! F-ck Cal, their protestors are full
of hate! We love tech, it's just so awesome—let's build more apps,
that's the way to innovate!"
A group of protestors rushed into the auditorium where tech investor Peter Thiel was speaking as the event neared the Q&A portion of the night. In an unfortunate bit of reporting by The Daily Cal, where the reporter didn't quote any of the protestors, we have a succession of three Berkeley students decrying the intrusion (emphasis added):
According to one UC Berkeley student in the audience, “It was disrespectful for them to disrupt Mr. Thiel." Is it disrespectful because we worship him? Maybe it's disrespectful for Silicon Valley brogrammers to disrupt people's neighborhoods, livelihoods, and lives. It was very disappointing to see the lack of support in the UC Berkeley crowd to the moment—and an insensitivity to the "people-matter" zeitgeist of recent months (also here). This is UC Berkeley we're talking about, the home of the Free Speech Movement, for cryin' out loud! Protest, public debate, cracking open tough issues to force public discourse—that's a central part of the campus identity. Instead, we see a crowd of UC kids lapping at the feet of technologists, insisting that social activists be thrown out.
In this particular situation, it appears that a good number of Berkeley folks have become part of the unfeeling tech crowd, or aspire to join the ranks of the "entrepreneurs." The sentiment seems to be something akin to, "Let's run the poor people out of town. They should just 'train themselves' to work in the new economy after all ... and who the hell are these rioters complaining about 'systemic' issues? They should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get out of the way, they're blocking my tech bus." These sycophantic Berkeley kids are metaphorically sucking Stanford's **** [I suppose I could rephrase that using the more PC "lapping at Stanford's bowl."]
How disturbing! I wish they were proud of who they are, because we need alternatives: other modes of development, different definitions of achievement. Don’t all come worship at the altar of tech. The world deserves better. You are better.
After all, this is the Berkeley where last night, two architecture and engineering students were talking to me about the Global Poverty & Practice minor, which requires students to go out into the world and work with NGOs in the field to gain practical experience with poverty alleviation and development. Do you know how amazing that is?
(By the way, I’m not against Stanford—I teach there, and I have great love and appreciation for this institution that is my home. It’s just that in some respects, the university is not living up to its ideals—its own professed values, the dream of this place.)
As for the following freshman—I'm sure he'll proud of that quote in 4 years: “I can’t believe that (the protesters) thought that this was a politically acceptable way (to protest) ... It made me very angry, because some of the people (in the audience) came because they’re just trying to make an impact on the the world." And clearly none of the protestors care about making an impact on the world, they are just no-good anarchists who need to mind their own business? Or are you just annoyed they don't believe in the same vision for the world? Perhaps we just gotta let the brogrammers get to work innovatin' and changin' the world.
The lack of appreciation for Cal's spirit of protest, rebellion and refusal to politely stand by while authorities crack down or systematically oppress minorities, vulnerable populations, and the weak and outcast ... THAT is far more offensive.
Perhaps these students come from households where they didn't talk about politics, and are going to Berkeley to be computer engineers. But the good thing is that by being in that ferment, they'll learn and pick up a thing or two about social justice. My own sensitization to issues of social justice was greatly heightened when I began visiting Berkeley semi-regularly in 2013. The folks there helped to sharpen my awareness of these issues and how they can be part of our everyday lives, in how we speak and interact, not just something that happens at the ballot box.
I used to be so proud of Stanford and Silicon Valley—that unlike Wall Street, we could innovate, put creativity and people first; that we could care about society and still succeed in the world. But now, we have occupied the role that Wall Street formerly did in the public imagination—a rancidly disappointing outcome. With the uncaring brogrammers, the oblivious techies, the misogyny, the self-arrogating privilege that comes with wealth but without social responsibility ... it’s really sad, because we were supposed to be better.
As for the "Berkeley" students: you're barking up the wrong #tree. I didn't think I'd see the day when you were on your knees in front of Palm Drive. You can't respect yourself enough to realize that you are inheritors of a unique and proud tradition. On the eve of the Free Speech Movement's fiftieth anniversary, you've bought into something else entirely.
Don't. Please awaken to the spirit of your home. We need you.
A group of protestors rushed into the auditorium where tech investor Peter Thiel was speaking as the event neared the Q&A portion of the night. In an unfortunate bit of reporting by The Daily Cal, where the reporter didn't quote any of the protestors, we have a succession of three Berkeley students decrying the intrusion (emphasis added):
“We honestly didn’t think the protests would interfere,” said Pierre Bourbonnais, president of the Berkeley Forum and former marketing manager at The Daily Californian. “It’s pretty unimaginable and unfortunate. I’m in support of free speech, but this is not the right venue for that. I’m very disappointed.”First of all, some caveats: I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on Peter Thiel or his political views. He actually comes from an earlier generation of tech entrepreneurs, though he is now an investor in the current startup scene. The protestors appear to have taken advantage of the visibility of the event to put a spotlight on Ferguson and the treatment of African Americans by police, though there were reportedly also shouts of "No NSA, no police state," perhaps a reference to his role in founding Palantir. However, in this particular situation, the protests—and more tellingly, the student reactions—provide a commentary about "the tech sector" more broadly. In this standoff, Thiel serves as a totem of the the warped shape things have taken in Silicon Valley in recent years.
“I can’t believe that (the protesters) thought that this was a politically acceptable way (to protest),” said Jacob Bergquist, a UC Berkeley freshman. “It made me very angry, because some of the people (in the audience) came because they’re just trying to make an impact on the the world.”
... “we feel that it was inappropriate for them to come in and disrupt an event,” said Jonathan Lin, a UC Berkeley junior. “It was disrespectful for them to disrupt Mr. Thiel."
According to one UC Berkeley student in the audience, “It was disrespectful for them to disrupt Mr. Thiel." Is it disrespectful because we worship him? Maybe it's disrespectful for Silicon Valley brogrammers to disrupt people's neighborhoods, livelihoods, and lives. It was very disappointing to see the lack of support in the UC Berkeley crowd to the moment—and an insensitivity to the "people-matter" zeitgeist of recent months (also here). This is UC Berkeley we're talking about, the home of the Free Speech Movement, for cryin' out loud! Protest, public debate, cracking open tough issues to force public discourse—that's a central part of the campus identity. Instead, we see a crowd of UC kids lapping at the feet of technologists, insisting that social activists be thrown out.
In this particular situation, it appears that a good number of Berkeley folks have become part of the unfeeling tech crowd, or aspire to join the ranks of the "entrepreneurs." The sentiment seems to be something akin to, "Let's run the poor people out of town. They should just 'train themselves' to work in the new economy after all ... and who the hell are these rioters complaining about 'systemic' issues? They should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get out of the way, they're blocking my tech bus." These sycophantic Berkeley kids are metaphorically sucking Stanford's **** [I suppose I could rephrase that using the more PC "lapping at Stanford's bowl."]
How disturbing! I wish they were proud of who they are, because we need alternatives: other modes of development, different definitions of achievement. Don’t all come worship at the altar of tech. The world deserves better. You are better.
After all, this is the Berkeley where last night, two architecture and engineering students were talking to me about the Global Poverty & Practice minor, which requires students to go out into the world and work with NGOs in the field to gain practical experience with poverty alleviation and development. Do you know how amazing that is?
(By the way, I’m not against Stanford—I teach there, and I have great love and appreciation for this institution that is my home. It’s just that in some respects, the university is not living up to its ideals—its own professed values, the dream of this place.)
As for the following freshman—I'm sure he'll proud of that quote in 4 years: “I can’t believe that (the protesters) thought that this was a politically acceptable way (to protest) ... It made me very angry, because some of the people (in the audience) came because they’re just trying to make an impact on the the world." And clearly none of the protestors care about making an impact on the world, they are just no-good anarchists who need to mind their own business? Or are you just annoyed they don't believe in the same vision for the world? Perhaps we just gotta let the brogrammers get to work innovatin' and changin' the world.
The lack of appreciation for Cal's spirit of protest, rebellion and refusal to politely stand by while authorities crack down or systematically oppress minorities, vulnerable populations, and the weak and outcast ... THAT is far more offensive.
Perhaps these students come from households where they didn't talk about politics, and are going to Berkeley to be computer engineers. But the good thing is that by being in that ferment, they'll learn and pick up a thing or two about social justice. My own sensitization to issues of social justice was greatly heightened when I began visiting Berkeley semi-regularly in 2013. The folks there helped to sharpen my awareness of these issues and how they can be part of our everyday lives, in how we speak and interact, not just something that happens at the ballot box.
I used to be so proud of Stanford and Silicon Valley—that unlike Wall Street, we could innovate, put creativity and people first; that we could care about society and still succeed in the world. But now, we have occupied the role that Wall Street formerly did in the public imagination—a rancidly disappointing outcome. With the uncaring brogrammers, the oblivious techies, the misogyny, the self-arrogating privilege that comes with wealth but without social responsibility ... it’s really sad, because we were supposed to be better.
As for the "Berkeley" students: you're barking up the wrong #tree. I didn't think I'd see the day when you were on your knees in front of Palm Drive. You can't respect yourself enough to realize that you are inheritors of a unique and proud tradition. On the eve of the Free Speech Movement's fiftieth anniversary, you've bought into something else entirely.
Don't. Please awaken to the spirit of your home. We need you.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Oldies but goodies
Though we live in an age of iPhones and iPads, from time to time, I still think about the music devices from our youth: CD players. This was how we carried songs in our pocket, after the Walkman started to fade from the scene.
It's not about nostalgia. This device generates very different sensations. There's something very solid and immediate about having your music on a CD. Though services like Pandora or Spotify promise limitless access, perhaps you don't really need "the whole world of music" at your fingertips. Even if it's somewhat winnowed down with dedicated music devices like the iPod, which has limited storage, there are still too many choices and endless scrolling.
With the CD, you choose an album and settle down to comfortably listen to it. I like the sensation of pushing "forward" or "reverse" on a player; it feels more real, more responsive. There are a set number of tracks, either as part of an artist's selection, or one that you have assembled yourself with a CD mix. Like a book, listening to the CD is a complete experience: it has a finite beginning and an end.
I listened to the new Taylor Swift album 1989 on my CD player, during a BART ride yesterday. It was satisfying. At risk of seeming old school, I think I might walk around with this as my music player for the foreseeable future.
It's not about nostalgia. This device generates very different sensations. There's something very solid and immediate about having your music on a CD. Though services like Pandora or Spotify promise limitless access, perhaps you don't really need "the whole world of music" at your fingertips. Even if it's somewhat winnowed down with dedicated music devices like the iPod, which has limited storage, there are still too many choices and endless scrolling.
With the CD, you choose an album and settle down to comfortably listen to it. I like the sensation of pushing "forward" or "reverse" on a player; it feels more real, more responsive. There are a set number of tracks, either as part of an artist's selection, or one that you have assembled yourself with a CD mix. Like a book, listening to the CD is a complete experience: it has a finite beginning and an end.
I listened to the new Taylor Swift album 1989 on my CD player, during a BART ride yesterday. It was satisfying. At risk of seeming old school, I think I might walk around with this as my music player for the foreseeable future.
Sunday, December 07, 2014
Everyone Else is Doing It
The New Republic is an amazing publication, and its gutting seems to be a tragedy. It didn't really have the same updated web presence that The Atlantic, The Wire (RIP), plus some of the new media outlets (Vox, 538) did, so perhaps it was in need of a bit of a digital boost. (Anecdotally, The TNR's voice was absent from my social media, factoring in a lot less on my Facebook feed than the above publications, or even traditional outfits like The New York Time and The Guardian. But when you made your way to the site, the pieces featured there were exceptionally thoughtful, gracefully crafted with a real seriousness and meticulousness.) I just wish this attempt at transformation could have been done in a way that respects the venerable tradition and intellectual vitality of the publication.
I'm tired of the fetishistic "Silicon"izing of everything. We need to stop bowing dow and worshipping "digital" and the Valley, and start thinking about how we fit into a larger ecosystem—of society, of values—and how we shape the deep, underlying, humming song of the world, not just the flashy surface.
Let's stop conforming to someone else's paradigm shift, and start making our own: one that has a true ethical core. The role of media isn't to get clicks—that's instrumental, not a raison d'etre. The role of media is to change thinking—to build an educated citizenry, provide truthful reporting, while pushing back against falsehoods, giving voice to the voiceless, to engage and provoke, to be both a gadfly and a pillar, to be the relentless critic and the sagacious teacher ... It is to create a collection of insights, and a world view (or many world views) ... It has a mission, and it keeps our democracy rolling. Fine, maybe not all media—the world has its gossip rags and its polemics. But this it The New Republic, for God's sake. Can we not let it do its job? Can we not nurture these writers and support them as they carry out a spectacularly pro-social mission of opening minds, challenging assumptions and inspiring more critical thinking?
If you have fabulous wealth from the Second Web Era, you would think you could purchase your way out of that life—to transcend. Instead, this dude—and dude really isn't a wrong appellation for someone of our Internet-fueled generation—is buying into the world of Internet hype. He is embodying the social media generation instead of finding a way of stepping up and rising above. He isn't interested in evolution, but retrogression. It's worse a violation than any "old media" outfit could ever commit of being limp or anachronistic, because this generation is supposed to be better than that. There are greater expectations, we should show more promise, because we know, because we are digital natives. He's sinking down to the level of the extant world, not looking into what could be. He's accepting status quo, when the status quo is meaningless "disruption". He never asks those around him, whether it's his immediate circle of friends, his band of writers and employees, or his wide assemblage of of readers and society at large, to do anything other than conform. Instead, he could be inviting us all to do better.
With this outcome, The New Republic has given up the opportunity for new technology mavens to build a true partnership, friendship, alliance with the world of old and imagine a joint future together. A publication is not only its public face, nor the archive of articles, but the ensemble of people who write, build, shape and paint it, as well as the long heritage that has built its reputation, its character, its place in the cultural sphere. He's taken hostage the palace, and instead of reimagining-while-preserving, he's dynamited the tower, collapsed the chapel, leveled the walls and gates, so we all fall down the crevasse to a newly "flat" future. It will be a long time before we rebuild an architecture so elegant as that, and the city landscape will be the poorer for it.
This episode reminds me of the hutong-demolishing, resident-evicting, temple-bulldozing attitude—that cultural theft carried out by the skyscraper-and-condo building developers. They suffer from a narrowed field of vision, and what at the end of the day amounts to a real lack of imagination. The attitude seems to be that "everyone else is doing it," and so we must do the same to survive.
"Everyone else is doing it." That's what you want to do with our cultural heritage? "Everyone else is doing it." That's the best response you can give? From the intellectual heirs and beneficiaries of Silicon Valley—once the heart of innovation—I expected better. New shopping mall indeed.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Waiting for 包公 to visit the earthly world
Horrific story of police and judicial system malfeasance in China, from The Washington Post. In this piece, a group of former law enforcement officials who have witnessed and experienced abuse—and tried to do something about it—were sacked or jailed, and subsequently persecuted when they tried to press their cases. It's deeply unfair, revealing the darkness of a system rotting from the inside.
If only 包青天, Lord Bao, the historical judge renowned for fairness and ethics, could descend from Heaven and put a halt to the corrupt and unethical officials who are currently stacking the "justice" system.
The article and even some of the petitioners seem resigned to the fact that the petitioning won't achieve anything in the end. The local forces have all the power, and personal patronage linked with political insider status run the game. "It won't change," seems to be the message. If so, then we really need a divine clean sweep to dismantle this broken system.
If only 包青天, Lord Bao, the historical judge renowned for fairness and ethics, could descend from Heaven and put a halt to the corrupt and unethical officials who are currently stacking the "justice" system.
The article and even some of the petitioners seem resigned to the fact that the petitioning won't achieve anything in the end. The local forces have all the power, and personal patronage linked with political insider status run the game. "It won't change," seems to be the message. If so, then we really need a divine clean sweep to dismantle this broken system.
Sunday, October 05, 2014
Hong Kong democracy debate also a question of the Chinese Diaspora
The Wall Street Journal recently published two pieces on the different responses of older generations of Hong Kongers and the youth of the city.
China’s World: The View on Protests From Old Hong KongA Walk to the Past: Some Veterans Remember Having a Lot Less Say in City’s FateIn Hong Kong, a Family DividedAfter Pro-Democracy Protests, a Son Faces Arguments at Home
According to a community elder in the first article, "there’s freedom to work and freedom to live. 'How can people criticize?'"
Perhaps that was enough for our parents' or grandparents' generation—but it's not enough for people coming of age today. Those who came before struggled, bled, and worked themselves to the bone to give us, their 後代, a better future.
But what does a "better future" mean? It means we have an opportunity to become ourselves. We have a choice of being anything we want to be—doctors and lawyers, artists and designers, or even politicians and social activists. To love whomever we want to love. To lead a life that matches our principles and values and our vision for society.
Their struggle was, in large part, about economic security—something elusive when they were growing up in developing country (literally Third World) conditions. That is why so many of them chose to immigrate to the United States, Canada, Australia, or other countries in search of jobs and opportunity.
However, going abroad wasn't just an economic decision—it was also about human dignity. They worked hard to provide for us, not just so we could live comfortably, but also so we could choose our own future, in a way they might not have been able to. They had to take secure jobs (hi there, engineers!) and work long hours. They had to look for stable income to support a family. They had to stay silent and not express themselves fully. They had to make the conventional and "safe" choices—often under authoritarian threat and political monitoring in Nationalist-ruled Taiwan, or colonial disdain in British-ruled Hong Kong, or immense social pressure in LKY's Singapore, or outright persecution in Maoist China. All this just to live in peace and safety, and have a shot at life.
Now, because of their struggle and sacrifice, we-the-next-generation have the ability to make different choices.
These debates about democracy, activism and social change are not only an issue among Hong Kong's citizenry, though they are literally at the front lines of battle. These debates are manifested between Chinese generations— old and young, parent and child, foreign and native-born—all around the world. It is the ongoing transition from traditional culture to modernity, the ever-present question of the Diaspora, of immigrant families, of pioneering generations, whether in the 19th century, or the 20th, or the 21st.
It is why all of us in the Diaspora must watch what happens in Hong Kong. It is why we should care about the fate of Taiwan's democracy, or whether Singapore fully liberalizes and empowers its opposition. It's why we must be concerned with what happens in China itself. In every Sinic community around the world, the same questions resonate. These struggles and negotiations happen on a daily basis, in the family unit, but also in society more broadly.
Today, I sincerely believe that our parents support us in working for and achieving a better future, because we all ought to have the right to choose.
It's not just about choosing political leadership, though that might be part of the equation. It's about the right to go to the streets. The right to ask for change. It's about having greater agency over the life we wish to live. That right was not available to them. Some would prefer to call this ability to choose a "privilege"—something belonging only to the wealthy or the connected, to those who need not fear social repercussions. However, just because this right was denied to our parents and grandparents does not diminish its worth. It means we ought to cherish it all the more.
Their gift to us was to open a door, to point us toward something different: a world that is less subject to social pressure or familial coercion or political suppression. A world that is freer and truer, that is more benevolent and caring. A world that lets us be who we wish to be.
In our own ways, whether through street protest, or volunteering in the community; through the creation of literature and art, or through political engagement and voting, we can move our society toward that dream. It is not just for us; it is for our 後代 too.
We've been given the opportunity to look upon a better future. We would be remiss not to struggle for it.
Thursday, October 02, 2014
Rhetoric & Reframing
In Larry Diamond's TIME magazine article about the peaceful demonstrations in Hong Kong, he notes that:
Of course, the outcome in Hong Kong is a deeply meaningful issue, and there will obviously be implications for liberalization on the Mainland. But could there be some utility to backing off the rhetoric of "make-or-break", "pivot-point", "history in the making" and reframing this as a kind of "business as usual"? Then Xi Jinping will have more space to maneuver. He can grant concessions without seeming weak. He can back down and negotiate without seeming to capitulate to a fundamental threat to the CCP.
On the other hand, diminishing or removing the spotlight from Hong Kong could simply be an invitation for the Beijing (and its HK proxies) to crush the demonstrations by force. Beyond the immense courage, determined conviction, and sheer decency shown by the protestors, there is an additional protective halo of international media coverage, which will amplify the business and economic costs for Beijing should it resort violence.
Finally, another random thought is that while the CCP and itsshock troops People's Armed Police may have practiced intensely for Tiananmen-style demonstrations in China itself, all that preparation and war-gaming goes out the window when the massive protests are taking place in Hong Kong—a society with free speech and free press, and importantly, people used to regularly taking to the streets,to assemble in an orderly fashion and express their dissatisfaction with poor governance.
(Excerpt) Message to People in Hong Kong and Democrats Worldwide (source)
"The mammoth protests that have gripped Hong Kong for the past several days have implications far beyond this Special Administrative Region of more than 7 million people ... the youth-led demonstrators have posed the most serious challenge to the authority of the Chinese Communist Party since the massacre in Tiananmen Square 25 years ago."As momentous and unprecedented as these events are, if the goal is to create a framework for negotiations that helps to reach a democratic resolution without the use of force, I wonder if it is helpful to be using cataclysmic terms that presage the end of the Communist Party. (Maybe that fear is precisely why they don't want Hong Kong to be free?)
Is it possible to reach a more desirable outcome if we lower the stakes and start calling this a "local issue" or a "small thing" with few implications for the CCP? If Hong Kong's fate—in this particular pitched battle, or in general—is seen as "not such a big deal," not an existential threat, then it will be easier for Xi to back down. He will not have to take a hard line because it's ostensibly small potatoes—something on the margin that people shouldn't pay too much attention to.
Of course, the outcome in Hong Kong is a deeply meaningful issue, and there will obviously be implications for liberalization on the Mainland. But could there be some utility to backing off the rhetoric of "make-or-break", "pivot-point", "history in the making" and reframing this as a kind of "business as usual"? Then Xi Jinping will have more space to maneuver. He can grant concessions without seeming weak. He can back down and negotiate without seeming to capitulate to a fundamental threat to the CCP.
On the other hand, diminishing or removing the spotlight from Hong Kong could simply be an invitation for the Beijing (and its HK proxies) to crush the demonstrations by force. Beyond the immense courage, determined conviction, and sheer decency shown by the protestors, there is an additional protective halo of international media coverage, which will amplify the business and economic costs for Beijing should it resort violence.
Finally, another random thought is that while the CCP and its
—————
Also check out Prof. Diamond's video remarks about the democracy movement, including messages directly addressed to the people of Hong Kong and to democrats worldwide:
Remarks on Hong Kong's Pro-Democracy Movement (source)
Remarks on Hong Kong's Pro-Democracy Movement (source)
(Excerpt) Message to People in Hong Kong and Democrats Worldwide (source)
The Goddess Returns
Do you know why a 17-year-old boy can rattle Beijing? Because the force of truth flows behind his words. Because his cause is just, so he can rally the public. Because when he speaks, he gives voice to an entire generation that believes in democracy and universal suffrage—that basic human rights are fundamental values that cannot be bought or sold.
Joshua Wong, a 17-year-old student activist, has been at the center of the democracy movement
that has rattled the Chinese government’s hold on this city. (Source: Carlos Barria / Reuters)
Sixty-year-old men in Zhongnanhai are quaking because of a child. They call him radical, crazed, deranged, extremist. In their flurry of condemnation, they fail to see the walls of calm, peaceable, everyday people who stand up beside him, coalescing into a broad tidal wave of humanity.
These old, tired, brittle men stand atop the fearsome machinery of state control. They threaten violence—wield brutal power. Yet they fear today the goddess of victory, carried aloft by wings of truth.
Oh this goddess! She wears the cloak of democracy and raises the shield of freedom. Her hair shines with human solidarity; her eyes become beacons of liberation.
Oh this goddess!—who bears the torch of sincere and idealistic hope, blazing forth the memories of history, eliciting our most humble sense of gratitude.
Welcome back, goddess! You had gone for 25 years, but we are glad to see you astride the earth once more. Protect our brothers and sisters. Ferry them to freedom and safety. Let them and their democratic dreams take flight.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Write
1:20 AM and pounding it out. My currency is words; I draw the world with language. Breathe in, breathe out.
Emotional volleys arcing through the air, targeting me in their searing blaze—they fade into dim sparks. They are held at bay because I refuse to obey the twisted logic of enforced guilt.
I know who I am and I do my job. I do it well.
This moment of victory will remain aloft; it soars into the light of the sun. The clouds are my friends and they shield me from harm. The wind carries my weight and cleanses my skin.
We fly away from you and your foul slings and arrows. They fall back onto yourself. I will not torture myself with your barbs. I will not allow myself to harm myself by allowing your toxic worry to infect me. No credence.
I fling you away, I brush you away, your words are dust and crumble and dissipate.
Sunday, September 07, 2014
Concluding IWHHR
Dear IWHHR Community,
Congratulations! We are now at the end of our course. This week, Professor Murray concludes with a final tea time, commenting on Week 8: Aging and giving reminders about how you can receive a Statement of Accomplishment from Stanford University for completing this course. We encourage you to continue building our community at internationalwomenshealth.org after the end of this online class.
Statement of Accomplishment
As Anne announced in Tea Time, while the class "closed" on September 4, we have given you until 11:59 PM PST on September 10 to turn in all written work for the class. Click on "Requirements to Receive a Statement of Accomplishment" on our Course Info page. That downloadable PDF file will list the different items needed to obtain a Statement of Accomplishment from Stanford University.
In our class materials, there is a section labeled "Submit Writing Assignments (Statement of Accomplishment)." That is where you should submit all your written work for the SoA (in addition to other places you may have shared it. Check your completion of the different SoA elements by clicking on "Progress" at the top of the page.
Congratulations! We are now at the end of our course. This week, Professor Murray concludes with a final tea time, commenting on Week 8: Aging and giving reminders about how you can receive a Statement of Accomplishment from Stanford University for completing this course. We encourage you to continue building our community at internationalwomenshealth.org after the end of this online class.
Statement of Accomplishment
As Anne announced in Tea Time, while the class "closed" on September 4, we have given you until 11:59 PM PST on September 10 to turn in all written work for the class. Click on "Requirements to Receive a Statement of Accomplishment" on our Course Info page. That downloadable PDF file will list the different items needed to obtain a Statement of Accomplishment from Stanford University.
In our class materials, there is a section labeled "Submit Writing Assignments (Statement of Accomplishment)." That is where you should submit all your written work for the SoA (in addition to other places you may have shared it. Check your completion of the different SoA elements by clicking on "Progress" at the top of the page.
Post-Course Survey
Please be sure to take our post-course survey. We want to hear your voice and find out what went well, and how can we improve this course. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Bonus Talkabouts
We had wonderful attendance at the Talkabout session last week. We may offer future Talkabout sessions so you can connect with other participants in the IWHHR community even after the course concludes.
It has been a distinct pleasure interacting with you through this online experience, and we hope you will take what you learned about international women's health and human rights, and apply these ideas in your own community. Please also be sure to stay in touch with us at www.internationalwomenshealth.org.
Sincerely,
Anne Firth Murray, Kevin Hsu, and the IWHHR Team
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
So that's Paternalism
It dawned on me today: sometimes, the Chinese government (or its Hong Kong cronies) acts like a really terrible Asian parent. The father insists that he knows best, and the kids need sit down, be silent, and obey. Suddenly, the phrase "Asian paternalism" is starting to make sense!!!
As an Asian American son of immigrants—as part of that generation living at the intersection between the old world and new, between tradition and modernity—the deep need for cultural negotiation really hits home.
Maybe that's why the CCP's rhetoric and actions (and also the present HK government, and sometimes the KMT in its less democratic moments) are particularly offensive. It's also why the Asian American community needs to care about these issues. This isn't happening to some far-off country to which you have no ties; it affects your homeland, and it affects the discourse for future generations of 華人, people of Chinese descent: both 華僑 and 華裔.
How you speak to your children; how they view their heritage, their culture, their linguistic upbringing; how they relate to their family history—all of that will be impacted by the polity, and the narrative, and the image of one's ancestral homeland.
P.S. Mayoral elections in Shenyang would be extremely entertaining. (Real elections, not rubber-stamping.) I just can't get it out of my head that this kind of contest will happen in the future, with active campaigning, lively speeches, and open polls. It's going to be a carnival!
As an Asian American son of immigrants—as part of that generation living at the intersection between the old world and new, between tradition and modernity—the deep need for cultural negotiation really hits home.
Maybe that's why the CCP's rhetoric and actions (and also the present HK government, and sometimes the KMT in its less democratic moments) are particularly offensive. It's also why the Asian American community needs to care about these issues. This isn't happening to some far-off country to which you have no ties; it affects your homeland, and it affects the discourse for future generations of 華人, people of Chinese descent: both 華僑 and 華裔.
How you speak to your children; how they view their heritage, their culture, their linguistic upbringing; how they relate to their family history—all of that will be impacted by the polity, and the narrative, and the image of one's ancestral homeland.
P.S. Mayoral elections in Shenyang would be extremely entertaining. (Real elections, not rubber-stamping.) I just can't get it out of my head that this kind of contest will happen in the future, with active campaigning, lively speeches, and open polls. It's going to be a carnival!
Pondering Democracy in Hong Kong
From The Diplomat today comes an article on "The Battle for the Soul of Hong Kong." Though dramatic, it's not too hyperbolic, because it truly is a question of self-determination or allowing outside powers to dictate the fate of one's own society. As I was reading the piece and its characterization of the different actors, questions about the motivation(s) of the Hong Kong government and rationales for/against democracy piqued my interest.
The government can choose a moderate path with an eye on a sustainable outcome by respecting public opinion for greater rights and participation; or it can ram through its own decision, at the behest of Beijing, and continue a policy of slowly suffocating Hong Kong and its people's aspirations. It's just too bad the government won't pay attention to what the citizens want, and will likely insist on its own approach.
Doesn't it kind of sound like terrible Asian parenting? Where the father insists that he knows what's best, and the kids need to be quiet and obey? Where the mother won't even listen when the kids try to explain why the decision being forced on them isn't necessarily the right one? Where the parents don't even bother explaining or give patronizing answers that are more like self-fulfilling prophecies? And now I'm getting angry ... but more on this visceral reaction later.
A leader of Hong Kong who stands for the people would be regarded as a popular hero. S/he would go down in the history books as the woman or man who stood up to Beijing. We'll see if anybody has the guts. It's like Yanukovych in Ukraine: he had the opportunity to be the visionary leader who transcended his Moscow-oriented instincts and brought Ukraine fully into Europe, according to the popular will. Instead, he kow-towed to Putin, resulting in massive unrest and democratic protest (unfortunately followed by civil conflict goaded by Russia).
By the way, if you say, "Hong Kong people aren't _____ enough to elect their own leaders" you should probably check with the HK students at your nearest British or American university and see if they're _____ enough. Otherwise, you are in effect denying your peers the very rights you have as an American. Just try telling them that to their face.
In this day and age, there's a growing consensus that democracy and universal suffrage are the only legitimate means for governments to be empowered. (I'm pretty sure in the aftermath of any multilateral intervention, the UN would have to set a timetable for democratic elections. International missions would simply not be able to authorize dictatorship. The resistance from governments across the world would be fierce on purely normative grounds; even dictatorships have to pay lip service to democracy.)
Even if we're being pragmatic about the chances of success for democracy and only wish to selectively apply it in societies "ready" for it to take root, Hong Kong is not even a marginal case. It's highly-developed, well-educated, has extensive experience with rule of law and civil liberties, features amazing infrastructure and municipal services; enjoys a strong court system and an active counter-corruption agency; and is internationally oriented. The warning klaxon goes off: if not here, then where? If not at this level of development, then when? It should have a functional government and, one would suspect, a relatively orderly democracy.
In these situations, there wouldn't be chaos or violence unless the authorities force things to the extreme—when they undercut the moderates by refusing to listen or negotiate, when radicalization is the only outlet left. Why would you go down that road when you could have a smart, safe landing through measured, effective liberalization with hope at the end of the road? That is, unless you think suppression is a long-term solution, and democratic aspirations can be regularly tamped down, bought out and co-opted, or eliminated. In that rather cynical future, the government doesn't just believe it can manage the demand for political participation, but has convinced (deluded?) itself into thinking it can fundamentally alter norms and construct a mindset where public voice no longer manifests, and where democratic values no longer matter.
At the local level, at least, participation matters. It increases patience and buy-in. How much more important for that to happen at the national level, where broad social consensus is even more important to weave identity and hold a polity together.
The government can choose a moderate path with an eye on a sustainable outcome by respecting public opinion for greater rights and participation; or it can ram through its own decision, at the behest of Beijing, and continue a policy of slowly suffocating Hong Kong and its people's aspirations. It's just too bad the government won't pay attention to what the citizens want, and will likely insist on its own approach.
Doesn't it kind of sound like terrible Asian parenting? Where the father insists that he knows what's best, and the kids need to be quiet and obey? Where the mother won't even listen when the kids try to explain why the decision being forced on them isn't necessarily the right one? Where the parents don't even bother explaining or give patronizing answers that are more like self-fulfilling prophecies? And now I'm getting angry ... but more on this visceral reaction later.
A leader of Hong Kong who stands for the people would be regarded as a popular hero. S/he would go down in the history books as the woman or man who stood up to Beijing. We'll see if anybody has the guts. It's like Yanukovych in Ukraine: he had the opportunity to be the visionary leader who transcended his Moscow-oriented instincts and brought Ukraine fully into Europe, according to the popular will. Instead, he kow-towed to Putin, resulting in massive unrest and democratic protest (unfortunately followed by civil conflict goaded by Russia).
By the way, if you say, "Hong Kong people aren't _____ enough to elect their own leaders" you should probably check with the HK students at your nearest British or American university and see if they're _____ enough. Otherwise, you are in effect denying your peers the very rights you have as an American. Just try telling them that to their face.
In this day and age, there's a growing consensus that democracy and universal suffrage are the only legitimate means for governments to be empowered. (I'm pretty sure in the aftermath of any multilateral intervention, the UN would have to set a timetable for democratic elections. International missions would simply not be able to authorize dictatorship. The resistance from governments across the world would be fierce on purely normative grounds; even dictatorships have to pay lip service to democracy.)
Even if we're being pragmatic about the chances of success for democracy and only wish to selectively apply it in societies "ready" for it to take root, Hong Kong is not even a marginal case. It's highly-developed, well-educated, has extensive experience with rule of law and civil liberties, features amazing infrastructure and municipal services; enjoys a strong court system and an active counter-corruption agency; and is internationally oriented. The warning klaxon goes off: if not here, then where? If not at this level of development, then when? It should have a functional government and, one would suspect, a relatively orderly democracy.
In these situations, there wouldn't be chaos or violence unless the authorities force things to the extreme—when they undercut the moderates by refusing to listen or negotiate, when radicalization is the only outlet left. Why would you go down that road when you could have a smart, safe landing through measured, effective liberalization with hope at the end of the road? That is, unless you think suppression is a long-term solution, and democratic aspirations can be regularly tamped down, bought out and co-opted, or eliminated. In that rather cynical future, the government doesn't just believe it can manage the demand for political participation, but has convinced (deluded?) itself into thinking it can fundamentally alter norms and construct a mindset where public voice no longer manifests, and where democratic values no longer matter.
At the local level, at least, participation matters. It increases patience and buy-in. How much more important for that to happen at the national level, where broad social consensus is even more important to weave identity and hold a polity together.
Sunday, August 03, 2014
Making, Moments
Perhaps taking Polaroid shots is a kind of "making," a bit of physical creation in a mostly-digital world. Hold the artistic work in your hands. Cradle the tools of production and of imagination. It's not just "media"—it's the thing itself. There's something lyrical in there being only one of an object, and then pressing your fingertips against it.
The idea of an "image" is so different today than in any preceding century. Images in the cloud are ubiquitous, universally accessible, perhaps expected to last forever. In contrast, physical things are linked to a moment, emblazoned with now. In this Age, the logic of permanence has been turned on its head: by the very fact that something is corporeal, it is consequently more ephemeral. An object can be worn away by the elements or eaten by flames. It can be lost to history. It can disappear in time.
The idea of an "image" is so different today than in any preceding century. Images in the cloud are ubiquitous, universally accessible, perhaps expected to last forever. In contrast, physical things are linked to a moment, emblazoned with now. In this Age, the logic of permanence has been turned on its head: by the very fact that something is corporeal, it is consequently more ephemeral. An object can be worn away by the elements or eaten by flames. It can be lost to history. It can disappear in time.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Another Land
Arriving in Los Angeles, it feels like I’ve stepped into another era. The architecture, the boulevards, the landscaping and form—low-slung walls expanding away from you toward the horizon. It’s an age of trains and motorcars, but with an overlay of modern convenience, as if we brought digital technologies back into the 1950s.
Outside Union Station, a golden boy in tank top, shorts, and sunglasses leans back against the handrail. Classic SoCal. A girl waits for the stoplight in an open-backed blue dress. It's cut like a bathing suit and covered in white polka dots. Everyone looks sun-kissed. She smiles easily, her wavy, brown hair playing in the breeze.
I drift down the street in the afternoon heat. The air is filled with Hollywood, as if we were standing on a constructed set. The building facades simultaneously cry artifice and craftsmanship.
I reach the cafe where cool respite awaits. Standing ahead of me in line: an Asian male mixing earrings and dyed hair with a v-neck sweater and boat shoes. What planet is this?!
Urth Caffe: brick and tile, the room daylit up to the rafters, bordered by a turquoise and ruby art deco fireplace. No one here is on their laptop. Siri, I don't think we're in NorCal anymore!
Though I’m wearing a respectable shirt with a collar above skinny jeans and canvas shoes—a veritable half-step up in Silicon Valley, the land of the hoodie—I feel positively frumpy amid the smooth lines, fitted curves, and flowing fashion.
The cafe pipes in operatic music, interspersed with an occasional salsa groove. It is unabashedly dramatic!
When I inquire about wi-fi, the server says they have it but it might broken. He seems unconcerned.
The smiles are sunlight: radiant and bold.
Outside Union Station, a golden boy in tank top, shorts, and sunglasses leans back against the handrail. Classic SoCal. A girl waits for the stoplight in an open-backed blue dress. It's cut like a bathing suit and covered in white polka dots. Everyone looks sun-kissed. She smiles easily, her wavy, brown hair playing in the breeze.
I drift down the street in the afternoon heat. The air is filled with Hollywood, as if we were standing on a constructed set. The building facades simultaneously cry artifice and craftsmanship.
I reach the cafe where cool respite awaits. Standing ahead of me in line: an Asian male mixing earrings and dyed hair with a v-neck sweater and boat shoes. What planet is this?!
Urth Caffe: brick and tile, the room daylit up to the rafters, bordered by a turquoise and ruby art deco fireplace. No one here is on their laptop. Siri, I don't think we're in NorCal anymore!
Though I’m wearing a respectable shirt with a collar above skinny jeans and canvas shoes—a veritable half-step up in Silicon Valley, the land of the hoodie—I feel positively frumpy amid the smooth lines, fitted curves, and flowing fashion.
The cafe pipes in operatic music, interspersed with an occasional salsa groove. It is unabashedly dramatic!
When I inquire about wi-fi, the server says they have it but it might broken. He seems unconcerned.
The smiles are sunlight: radiant and bold.
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
Taiwan's Invention: Instant Noodles
I didn’t realize someone Taiwanese invented instant noodles. WHAT?!?? This is the most mind-blowing factoid I've come across this week, as this creation has changed culinary history. Instant ramen noodles (泡麵) have filled the bellies of countless students and constitute a steady source of calories for hungry workers on a budget.
As the Wall Street Journal notes, "Since they were invented in 1958 by Momofuku Ando, a Taiwanese immigrant to Japan, instant noodles have become a beloved food item, both in and outside of Taiwan."
Image via the Los Angeles Times
I was alerted to this fact by an article talking about the latest ramen craze in Taiwan: combining pudding with instant noodles. As someone who mixes/matches flavors, this seems perfectly tasty to me!
Choosing Sides
When she's taking a break from her gig in Los Angeles, one of the presidential teenagers has been touring West Coast schools. According to media reports, "Malia Obama was spotted taking in a tour of the UC Berkeley campus and may have also visited Stanford."
There's an interesting opportunity here: if she went to Berkeley, she could learn more about social justice and a culture of activism. She’d experience what it’s like to have to navigate, struggle, and succeed at a public institution of higher education. Maybe she could then help create conditions in this country where the culture of the UC is representative of our national ethos.
Mom might want her to go to Princeton: resist!
Indeed, one source claims she made it clear Berkeley compared very favorably with Stanford. If so, good for her! Stanford needs to get a good kick in its complacent, self-satisfied memorial arch once in a while.
There's an interesting opportunity here: if she went to Berkeley, she could learn more about social justice and a culture of activism. She’d experience what it’s like to have to navigate, struggle, and succeed at a public institution of higher education. Maybe she could then help create conditions in this country where the culture of the UC is representative of our national ethos.
Mom might want her to go to Princeton: resist!
Indeed, one source claims she made it clear Berkeley compared very favorably with Stanford. If so, good for her! Stanford needs to get a good kick in its complacent, self-satisfied memorial arch once in a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)