KH's topic on Hope and Prejudice calls for the dichotomy of the several operative words. Oppposite hope is fear; opposite prejudice is understanding, to paraphrase the original posting of this topic.
The third setting which KH call "open mind', stated simply being conscious and unprejudice, to my understanding, may have at least two constructions. First, it maybe constructed as an approach not having to take one side or the other. Another construction is being receptive whilst taking side but is not dismissive of the opposing vievs.
My question is - is there really the third setting as proposed? Seemingly, open mindedness is semantically inconsistent with the state of prejudice. To the opponent, each particular view held is itself a view held with prejudice. That leaves really only 2 settings: either prejudice (whether with my side or the other side) or open mindedness.
It follows that the possibility of agreeing to disagree requires everyone or at least the majority concerned to be open minded. Otherwise, being open minded in a society is a form of opposition to individual or societal prejudice conditioned by experience, perception or simply imagination or even ignorance. All these, as KH correctly observed, are attributed to ethnicism, nationalism, political ideology and I must stress, religion.
Prejudice is inevitable is undisputable. Peoples are brought up in a different setting, live a different life experience. Globaliszation and internet have so far unable and unlikely to be able to lead all of us to a life through a common life experience and the eventual adoption of a common value and creed (presumably this reduces prejudice but not able to exterminate it - seen from the American history and human history at large.)
It is perhaps not inappropriate to state that prejudice is a natural condition of human being. Therefore, any attempt to conquer it or overcome it, as you pointed out, is courageous and is to be applauded.
I question the existence of the third setting but I definitely agree with the proposition that against fear and prejudice, we must take side in favor of hope and in favor of being open minded (as much as possibe) and that we must start with ourself.
(My concession for the third setting is the setting of indifference, in addition to the dichotomical setting of prejudice against the setting open mindedness.)
Turning to Suadad's article. Her experience at the airports, at the UN HQ's entrance are not too different from many others who passed through the US's immigration check point. It is more of a difference in degree rather than in kind. It is therefore not difficult to empathize with her.
Suadad, through her examination of her own prejudice, she yields a sentiment of hope for understanding and acceptance of diversity. She spoke admiringly of New York, yet she dislike washington. The irony of America is really, it is itself a contradiction, a large country with pockets of open-mindedness as well as many pockets of prejudice. This is the same as in life, in every hope there are seeds of fear and in every fear there are seeds of hope. Hope and fear are intertwined.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Hope and Prejudice
Talking about hope and prejudice.
One of the best advise I got, was to meet everyone thinking that he/she is on "my side". We all have a switch inside us that cloud our meeting with anyone and anything new. One side of the switch says "my side" and the other says "other side". There are many names for it: higher energies vs lower energies, better-selves vs worse-selves, hope and understanding vs prejudice which is a fear-based reaction.
The switch can be moved consciously or un-consciously, for there is a third setting, called "Open Mind" which is merely to be conscious and unprejudiced. Whether the setting was , I believe that inner switch pretty much define the experience and our world at that moment even before anything happens. Whatever happen in our inner selves determines our outer experience.
I came across this thoughtful, observant and poignant article this morning. Yes, its a story about a short trip but the real journey is through the mirror by which she reflected on her own prejudices and pre-conceptions and those of others. And I quite agree with a lot of her observations about my current little home town (including that of the UN security).
Just looking at our own prejudices is a courageous act that few people care to do, because human conditioning is dominated by the ego working hard to justify our own views and to debunk that of others. That is the original sin of most strains of ethnicism, nationalism and most ideas, I.E. that as we learn more about our place in the world (in otherwords the typical process of growing up) the more we stand isolated, special and unique from others. That is how everyone has prejudices and it is easier said than done to move our 'switch' even as far as "Open Mind". And we need to be vigilant because the moment we are not consciously guarding our "switch" we can get infected by the fears from others around us and from within ourselves. KY's earlier posting about Obama's muslim connection comes to mind, because when you think about it, "Change" should only come from hope, and hope means welcoming a "difference" to the present, and to welcome difference means being keeping the switch to "myside" in the face of troubles.
http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/america-an-iraqis-first-impressions/
June 27, 2008, 7:34 am
America - An Iraqi’s First Impressions
By Suadad al-Salhy
Suadad al-Salhy is an Iraqi reporter who recently joined The New York Times in Iraq. In May she was one of five Iraqi journalists who visited the United States on a reporting tour organized by the State Department to learn about ‘How America’s Middle East Policy is Formulated.’
--------------------
I went to America in May to participate in a reporting tour about American foreign policy in the Middle East. I recorded many personal impressions about that visit, but the important one is that there are dual standards.
In America everybody obeys the law, they do not consider doing anything else. They stand in line when they need to buy something. They obey road instructions, cross the street in the determined area, pay their taxes, and so on, much more than in my country.
By comparison many American soldiers in Iraq have no idea about our laws. Often it seems that they do whatever they want, the same minute. When I ask Americans about this, they say that American soldiers will submit to the rules when they go back to their country. But when they deal with Iraqi people they don’t seem to think about anything. They don’t seem to realize what will happen when they shoot Iraqis or put their sons in jail. Many American soldiers in Iraq don’t seem to stop and ask themselves the rules they needs to know to control their actions.
Ordinary people in America are very kind and cooperative and ready to help you. You do not find that among Arab people. When I needed to know information about the way to a restaurant or some place, they would leave whatever they were doing and stand for 10 minutes making telephone calls for me until they found the information that I wanted. No-one there leaves you without help, even when he has no idea about what you are looking for. Here in Iraq we have no time to do that. Maybe I have two or three minutes for someone, but no more than that.
There are no similarities between American soldiers in Iraq and Americans at home. Which means you cannot prevent yourself from loving them — and hating them too. I can’t understand how Americans are so nice over there, and many of their soldiers are bullies and aggressive.
I think the difference is maybe because of the stress. People in America are very relaxed. Here, they deal with many Iraqi people as an enemy. Their reactions are very fast, they often don’t stop to decide: “Are you an enemy or a friend?” All the time they deal with Iraqis people as enemies or threats.
Most ordinary American people who we met on our visit had no idea about what is happening in Iraq. All they know is that “it is hot”. That’s all. I expected them at least to know something about where their soldiers are now living.
If my country had soldiers living somewhere I would need to know where they were going and what they were doing there. And when they were coming back.
Actually that surprised me, But there is another thing which surprised me more than that. Poor people in America are more interested than the rich ones to know about the conditions of life in Iraq. They asked me how we are living there, how we are dealing with our security problems and what we are thinking about the future.
We met many American journalists and they always asked: “Do you expect any change in American foreign policy in Iraq after the American election?” And our answer was always “No.”
This is from my experience. As an adult I lived with the foreign policy of George Bush I and then Clinton and then George Bush II. There was no change. George Bush I always dealt with Iraq as a threat. When we went into the Clinton administration we didn’t feel much difference with the pressure on Iraq, but it became slow and more quiet. Bush II went quickly into the hell hole and he took us with him.
In Washington D.C. particularly, people are very interested in themselves and their clothes. I did not expect that. Maybe because the American people who I met in Iraq were not well-dressed. And they looked terrible.
I liked New York more than Washington D.C., Virginia and Michigan. I felt it is a warmer city, the people, buildings, streets are more friendly. I thought there are no borders between you and other people in New York. I felt I could deal with them, I could talk to them. I did not feel a stranger. When I spoke to them in New York I was even released from fear about the weakness of my language. Maybe because everybody there has the same problem.
I missed that feeling in Washington. Everyone in my group thought this. I thought the high buildings in New York would scare me. Actually nothing happened like that, I loved everything there. I spent my time walking and walking and walking. I am falling in love with the Central Park garden, the Broadway street and the Times Square. I thought these places were representative of New York’s pulse more than the Freedom Statue.
I am veiled. To get from Iraq to America I had to fly from Baghdad to Jordan to Britain to Washington. There were difficulties at Heathrow and Dulles airports. I faced problems everywhere with security. Every time they asked me to take off my jacket. I refused, and I told the rest of my group that if they insisted I would rather go back to Iraq. So the security guards would send me off to do more searches, X-rays or be searched by women.
They asked me to do the same thing before getting on the ferry to the Freedom Statue and before we entered the statue.
This made me angry, but much more when we went to the United Nations building in New York. They let American women through wearing their jackets without being searched but they asked me. When I refused they asked other people to search me, more than once.
I felt at that time that I would cry. I expected it to be different at the United Nations. Is the U.N. an American building, or for everyone in the world? The security people didn’t know who I was or where I was from. They were just looking at my covered head, that is all.
One of the best advise I got, was to meet everyone thinking that he/she is on "my side". We all have a switch inside us that cloud our meeting with anyone and anything new. One side of the switch says "my side" and the other says "other side". There are many names for it: higher energies vs lower energies, better-selves vs worse-selves, hope and understanding vs prejudice which is a fear-based reaction.
The switch can be moved consciously or un-consciously, for there is a third setting, called "Open Mind" which is merely to be conscious and unprejudiced. Whether the setting was , I believe that inner switch pretty much define the experience and our world at that moment even before anything happens. Whatever happen in our inner selves determines our outer experience.
I came across this thoughtful, observant and poignant article this morning. Yes, its a story about a short trip but the real journey is through the mirror by which she reflected on her own prejudices and pre-conceptions and those of others. And I quite agree with a lot of her observations about my current little home town (including that of the UN security).
Just looking at our own prejudices is a courageous act that few people care to do, because human conditioning is dominated by the ego working hard to justify our own views and to debunk that of others. That is the original sin of most strains of ethnicism, nationalism and most ideas, I.E. that as we learn more about our place in the world (in otherwords the typical process of growing up) the more we stand isolated, special and unique from others. That is how everyone has prejudices and it is easier said than done to move our 'switch' even as far as "Open Mind". And we need to be vigilant because the moment we are not consciously guarding our "switch" we can get infected by the fears from others around us and from within ourselves. KY's earlier posting about Obama's muslim connection comes to mind, because when you think about it, "Change" should only come from hope, and hope means welcoming a "difference" to the present, and to welcome difference means being keeping the switch to "myside" in the face of troubles.
http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/america-an-iraqis-first-impressions/
June 27, 2008, 7:34 am
America - An Iraqi’s First Impressions
By Suadad al-Salhy
Suadad al-Salhy is an Iraqi reporter who recently joined The New York Times in Iraq. In May she was one of five Iraqi journalists who visited the United States on a reporting tour organized by the State Department to learn about ‘How America’s Middle East Policy is Formulated.’
--------------------
I went to America in May to participate in a reporting tour about American foreign policy in the Middle East. I recorded many personal impressions about that visit, but the important one is that there are dual standards.
In America everybody obeys the law, they do not consider doing anything else. They stand in line when they need to buy something. They obey road instructions, cross the street in the determined area, pay their taxes, and so on, much more than in my country.
By comparison many American soldiers in Iraq have no idea about our laws. Often it seems that they do whatever they want, the same minute. When I ask Americans about this, they say that American soldiers will submit to the rules when they go back to their country. But when they deal with Iraqi people they don’t seem to think about anything. They don’t seem to realize what will happen when they shoot Iraqis or put their sons in jail. Many American soldiers in Iraq don’t seem to stop and ask themselves the rules they needs to know to control their actions.
Ordinary people in America are very kind and cooperative and ready to help you. You do not find that among Arab people. When I needed to know information about the way to a restaurant or some place, they would leave whatever they were doing and stand for 10 minutes making telephone calls for me until they found the information that I wanted. No-one there leaves you without help, even when he has no idea about what you are looking for. Here in Iraq we have no time to do that. Maybe I have two or three minutes for someone, but no more than that.
There are no similarities between American soldiers in Iraq and Americans at home. Which means you cannot prevent yourself from loving them — and hating them too. I can’t understand how Americans are so nice over there, and many of their soldiers are bullies and aggressive.
I think the difference is maybe because of the stress. People in America are very relaxed. Here, they deal with many Iraqi people as an enemy. Their reactions are very fast, they often don’t stop to decide: “Are you an enemy or a friend?” All the time they deal with Iraqis people as enemies or threats.
Most ordinary American people who we met on our visit had no idea about what is happening in Iraq. All they know is that “it is hot”. That’s all. I expected them at least to know something about where their soldiers are now living.
If my country had soldiers living somewhere I would need to know where they were going and what they were doing there. And when they were coming back.
Actually that surprised me, But there is another thing which surprised me more than that. Poor people in America are more interested than the rich ones to know about the conditions of life in Iraq. They asked me how we are living there, how we are dealing with our security problems and what we are thinking about the future.
We met many American journalists and they always asked: “Do you expect any change in American foreign policy in Iraq after the American election?” And our answer was always “No.”
This is from my experience. As an adult I lived with the foreign policy of George Bush I and then Clinton and then George Bush II. There was no change. George Bush I always dealt with Iraq as a threat. When we went into the Clinton administration we didn’t feel much difference with the pressure on Iraq, but it became slow and more quiet. Bush II went quickly into the hell hole and he took us with him.
In Washington D.C. particularly, people are very interested in themselves and their clothes. I did not expect that. Maybe because the American people who I met in Iraq were not well-dressed. And they looked terrible.
I liked New York more than Washington D.C., Virginia and Michigan. I felt it is a warmer city, the people, buildings, streets are more friendly. I thought there are no borders between you and other people in New York. I felt I could deal with them, I could talk to them. I did not feel a stranger. When I spoke to them in New York I was even released from fear about the weakness of my language. Maybe because everybody there has the same problem.
I missed that feeling in Washington. Everyone in my group thought this. I thought the high buildings in New York would scare me. Actually nothing happened like that, I loved everything there. I spent my time walking and walking and walking. I am falling in love with the Central Park garden, the Broadway street and the Times Square. I thought these places were representative of New York’s pulse more than the Freedom Statue.
I am veiled. To get from Iraq to America I had to fly from Baghdad to Jordan to Britain to Washington. There were difficulties at Heathrow and Dulles airports. I faced problems everywhere with security. Every time they asked me to take off my jacket. I refused, and I told the rest of my group that if they insisted I would rather go back to Iraq. So the security guards would send me off to do more searches, X-rays or be searched by women.
They asked me to do the same thing before getting on the ferry to the Freedom Statue and before we entered the statue.
This made me angry, but much more when we went to the United Nations building in New York. They let American women through wearing their jackets without being searched but they asked me. When I refused they asked other people to search me, more than once.
I felt at that time that I would cry. I expected it to be different at the United Nations. Is the U.N. an American building, or for everyone in the world? The security people didn’t know who I was or where I was from. They were just looking at my covered head, that is all.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Justice Ian Chin versus Dr. Mahathir
The Malaysian judges have been subdued for a very long time since the infamous Judiciary Crisis in 1988 where the Lord President together with 3 other Federal Court judges were dismissed.
What ensued from then until recently has been the darkest era for the history of Malaysian justice administration. Separation of power is encroached upon by the executive and judiciary independence is compromised by crude parliamentary process and political moves.
The recent Royal Commission report shed some lights into how judicial appointment and promotion are brokered via a network of well-connected lawyer, businessmen and politicians.
Shortly thereafter, Justice Ian Chin of Kota Kinabaru High Court made explosive disclosure of how the former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir was bullying the judges. Dr. Mahathir via his blog made his characteristic defence and counter attack.
Not to be outdone, Justice Ian Chin, took the occasion of an election petition, made the following remark in the note of proceeding : http://www.kkhighcourt.com/WongHuaSeh/Notes.pdf.
The last 15 pages is a recommended reading to all who are concerned with the health and future of justice administration in Malaysia
May JUSTICE prevails!
What ensued from then until recently has been the darkest era for the history of Malaysian justice administration. Separation of power is encroached upon by the executive and judiciary independence is compromised by crude parliamentary process and political moves.
The recent Royal Commission report shed some lights into how judicial appointment and promotion are brokered via a network of well-connected lawyer, businessmen and politicians.
Shortly thereafter, Justice Ian Chin of Kota Kinabaru High Court made explosive disclosure of how the former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir was bullying the judges. Dr. Mahathir via his blog made his characteristic defence and counter attack.
Not to be outdone, Justice Ian Chin, took the occasion of an election petition, made the following remark in the note of proceeding : http://www.kkhighcourt.com/WongHuaSeh/Notes.pdf.
The last 15 pages is a recommended reading to all who are concerned with the health and future of justice administration in Malaysia
May JUSTICE prevails!
First Chinese President for a non-Asia nation dies
Before Alberto Fujimori, an Asian by descent, was elected as the Peruan President in 1990. The honor of first Asian by descent to become the head of state in South America goes to Arthur Raymond Chung, a Chinese Hakka, who dies at the age of 92.
Chung was the first president of the Republic of Guyana, formerly British Guinea. He was made the ceremonial head in 1970 after the socialist government of this South American republic ceased it ties with Britain.
Chung was a barrister (Middle Temple) by training and had a distinguished record as a high court judge before he was recruited by Prime Minister Forbes Burnham to serve as the president from 1970 to 1980.
After retiring in 1980, Chung split his time between England and Guyana and largely kept out of the public eye.
This is an remarkable achievement by a Chinese in Guyana. According to Wikipedia, there is only 0.19% of over 700000 population is of Chinese descent. This blog always promote the cause of meritocracy and we are hearterned to see an ethnic minority is judged by his peers on his merit and creed and not by his color and religion.
We pay tribute to this illustrious Hakka, Arthur Raymond Chung.
Chung was the first president of the Republic of Guyana, formerly British Guinea. He was made the ceremonial head in 1970 after the socialist government of this South American republic ceased it ties with Britain.
Chung was a barrister (Middle Temple) by training and had a distinguished record as a high court judge before he was recruited by Prime Minister Forbes Burnham to serve as the president from 1970 to 1980.
After retiring in 1980, Chung split his time between England and Guyana and largely kept out of the public eye.
This is an remarkable achievement by a Chinese in Guyana. According to Wikipedia, there is only 0.19% of over 700000 population is of Chinese descent. This blog always promote the cause of meritocracy and we are hearterned to see an ethnic minority is judged by his peers on his merit and creed and not by his color and religion.
We pay tribute to this illustrious Hakka, Arthur Raymond Chung.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Barack's another Islamic Connection
Maybe the GOP could launch another veiled attack against Barack Obama, besides being related to Indonesia, he is also related to another Muslim country, Malaysia via his brother-in-law.
It was reported that Barack's half sister, Maya, is married to a Malaysian Chinese man. Of course, most Malaysian Chinese are not muslim. The fact of the matter is those uninitiated would not have cared for this small detail.
By the way, the report that Barack campaign is distancing itself from the muslim supporters in USA didn't go down well with many muslim supporters. There maybe political consideration for doing so, but this is not the CHANGE the fair-minded ask for.
Barack, you are out there to lead the change, and not to succumb to the uninformed, uneducated prejudice or to the religious or racist bigotry not uncommon in the America.
It was reported that Barack's half sister, Maya, is married to a Malaysian Chinese man. Of course, most Malaysian Chinese are not muslim. The fact of the matter is those uninitiated would not have cared for this small detail.
By the way, the report that Barack campaign is distancing itself from the muslim supporters in USA didn't go down well with many muslim supporters. There maybe political consideration for doing so, but this is not the CHANGE the fair-minded ask for.
Barack, you are out there to lead the change, and not to succumb to the uninformed, uneducated prejudice or to the religious or racist bigotry not uncommon in the America.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sir Donald Tsang forgets politics
Hong Kong is indeed a unique place. Her mini constitution, the Basic Law, even make provision to allow foreign national to hold governmental office up to pretty senior level. For instance, up to 20% members of the legislative council maybe foreign national holding HK permanent residency.
Many senior judges and senior governmental officers of the current administration are either non Chinese themselves (this make them even less likely to become Chinese national) or they are Chinese who are themselves not exclusively Chinese nationals.
This phenomena is unique because China doesn't allow for dual nationality.
Partly it is a legacy of the history. Had it not the "one country two systems" conceived by the Deng Xiaoping, this would have been unthinkable.
The recent controversy regarding the deputy political secretaries and political assistant nationality is actually an easy one to solve and there is no question that Tsang administration scored an own goal.
One nationality defines one political allegiance. It is therefore apt that a political appointee shall owe allegiance to the polity of which he wishes to serve. The argument that the Basic Law doesn't prohibit such an appointment is simply a legal one and that alone doesn't make it political appropriate.
Tsang administration should be minded to have Taiwan as a constant reference to avoid making political mistake. It was not too long ago that Ma Yin Jeou's green card was made such a huge issue in the last Presidential election.
Many senior judges and senior governmental officers of the current administration are either non Chinese themselves (this make them even less likely to become Chinese national) or they are Chinese who are themselves not exclusively Chinese nationals.
This phenomena is unique because China doesn't allow for dual nationality.
Partly it is a legacy of the history. Had it not the "one country two systems" conceived by the Deng Xiaoping, this would have been unthinkable.
The recent controversy regarding the deputy political secretaries and political assistant nationality is actually an easy one to solve and there is no question that Tsang administration scored an own goal.
One nationality defines one political allegiance. It is therefore apt that a political appointee shall owe allegiance to the polity of which he wishes to serve. The argument that the Basic Law doesn't prohibit such an appointment is simply a legal one and that alone doesn't make it political appropriate.
Tsang administration should be minded to have Taiwan as a constant reference to avoid making political mistake. It was not too long ago that Ma Yin Jeou's green card was made such a huge issue in the last Presidential election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)