Al Gore. A name popularly associated with the much needed efforts to protect the Earth. He was an environmental activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. His documentary- An Inconvenient Truth, won appraisals and even an Academy Award. The Live Earth Concert in 2007 also aimed to spread the message of saving the Earth with the aid of celebrities performing and spreading the message. Much controversies and debates had rose from the two significant events. Many had pointed out that the rubbish and litter that was left behind by the spectators of the concert and the massive use of energy to support the concert are both ironic to Al Gore’s message of saving the Earth. The New York Times also reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film. They argued that some of Al Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. Conflicting viewpoints included the climate changes, effects on the melting of ice sheets and the relationship between temperatures and carbon dioxide which led to global warming. These, inevitably undermined the activist’s reputation and more significantly, his aims. Whatever the case, Al Gore’s attempts should be applauded. He managed to cause an impact on the global community and set them thinking about their ways of life-exactly what a sociologist wanted!
Sernau’s reading on “How much can a planet take” and “Promotheus’ fire or Pandora’s Box” already emphasized how capitalism created an ever growing demand of production and the ever going on search for efficient or new ways and new resources to satisfy that demand. The process had led to huge wastage of resources such as plastic and electronic materials which cannot be easily recycled, leading to the destruction of our ecology, and thus, the Earth. Hence, it can be seen that the sociologist’s concerns and aims matched that of Al Gore’s. Thus, we should be grateful that the former vice-president of US managed to convey our concerns to the global population. However, there is a subtle difference between the concerns of the sociologist and Al Gore. The sociologist would believe that the destruction of our habitat would be due to the capitalist belief that the nature is like a resource (an object) which they could exploit, just like what they did to humans too. A sociologist would argue that the poorer nations tended to be the ones contributing to the most destruction as they have no other resources to depend on. Both points were not presented by Al Gore.
However, looking back on Al Gore’s background, he came from a fairly well-to-do family. He had reputable parents and holds a degree from Harvard University. He must be fairly rich to run electorate campaigns. Furthermore, he was born in the US-a country that has long passed the age of the Industrial Revolution where industries contributed most to massive pollution of waters and the air, as seen presently in China. Al Gore and those from developed countries, all thus had the privilege to be concerned about the ecology. The developing nations or those engaging in industrialization do not have this privilege as their path to economic development or even survival would be threatened. They’ll never be able to catch up with the West, which they looked upon with envy and jealousy. So why would they compromise development with environment? This is what Marx termed as the greed of capitalism.
The greed of one to wealth accumulation blinded him from the problems of the ecology which he derives his basic resources from. The painful awareness of the difference between the poor nations and the rich compelled the poor to catch up, using whatever means, to satisfy their greed and is seen as the end to their misery. In this case, how would The Earth Summit and similar programmes be effective when the focus is only on reducing the process of destruction without detailed look into the context of the developing nations? How would preservation of the ecology be effective without eradicating capitalism? To ask the developing nations to stop exploiting the ecology is equivalent to asking the super rich in the developed countries to stop using cars, plastics, electronics materials etc. The rich had found it difficult to compromise their ways of living, so why is it that the poor must do so? To just simply point out the devastating impacts we had done to the Earth, like in the case of Al Gore, and getting people to stop their ways of life which contributed to destruction is not enough. We need to change the mindset of the people on what is deemed as their ideal standards of living and getting them to reflect what is really necessary for them so that they minimizes exploitation of the nature. For the developing nations, we have to help them find better means of production that minimizes destruction of the nature and provide them with the resources and knowledge to acquire and use such means of production. With technology came greater means to destroy the nature, yet as technology is created by the needs of humans, technology can be used to save the Earth too. It only depends on the individuals’ purpose and willingness to achieve the aim. Saving the Earth needs global concerted efforts, but it cannot be achieved if exploitation of the poor is still largely ignored.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Technology & Global Society: When Technology & Globalization meets Terrorism…
Terrorism has been around for centuries. Feudal lords used it as a means to put off opponents and gain resources. Hitler and Stalin used terrorism to wipe out opponents and control the people. However, terrorism first shocked the whole world when the Twin Towers collapsed in New York City in 2001. The formidable America was undermined. The horror and fear gripped people from different nations as the media from all over the world rushed to report, and perhaps exaggerate their own views, on the incident. People believed, or have been politically and socially engineered to believe, that it was the act of the notorious Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda. With that, the US justified itself into an invasion of Afghanistan, where they believed Osama is hiding and to remove the Taliban regime of Afghanistan too.
Osama had led terrorist attacks too in Tanzania, Kenya and more, prior to the September 11 attack. He didn’t like the ideologies of capitalism and globalization which had allowed the West to rise as the powerful and rich. He believed that a Sharia ruled state like that of the Taliban’s should be the model for the Muslim countries.
Osama was born in Saudi Arabia, which was not colonalized by the West (unlike Afghanistan), but was also caught in the capitalist system which was so often associated to the West. As seen widely, the capitalist system led to pursue of personal gains and wealth. Individualism was also part of what the system spreads. All these are opposed in the Islamic-ruling state. All these threatened the very rule of the Muslim States and the very teachings of the Quran, as Osama, a firm believer of Sharia thought.
After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increased emphasis on the use of machines for mass production. To drive the machines which were created to suit human needs (or maybe the people in the West’s needs), energy, particularly, oil, was in high demand. With technology, humans knew how to extract oil and were able to find places where oil could be tapped- the Middle East countries, including Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. With the capitalist mindsets, the Middle East countries turned into countries specializing in tapping and selling oil. That meant importing of western technologies to extract the oil and the entrance of the western MNCs into the Middle East. This further affirms the mindset that capitalism is the best way to seek profits and better living standards. Globalization is setting its foot in Middle East too.
However, the capitalist system created economic and social gaps between the people in the Middle East. As only the political elites have control of the oil reserves, not everyone can benefit on the oil trade. Worse, with the advent of technology, people can see that the West is better off than they were, despite the profitable oil trade. Satellites, cables, television programmes, radio broadcasts or even just the presence of the Western traders in the Middle East made it more convincing that capitalism was the best, the Western ways of living were the best. All these threatened the Islamic religion which most of the Middle East countries embraced for centuries. Some, like Osama, saw the trend of losing the Islamic traditions and spread of globalization as undesirable.
Eventually, to revive Islam and throw out the “Western invaders”, Osama believed in Jihad and justified the use of violence and human suicide bombers for the “greater good of the future”. That had led to the September 11 and him being termed as a terrorist. But like what Prof mentioned, the irony is that if Osama rejected the ideals of the West, he certainly did not reject the use of weapons created by the West to achieve his means.
As said, terrorism has a long history. What caused terrorism to take a new face today is due to the advent of technology. Till today, we still can’t track down Osama and other terrorist leaders. Terrorist ideals can be spread on the Internet, reaching to anyone in the world, and the website would be closed after a day or so, leading checks to be ineffective. Funds can be channeled for terrorism purposes without even needing to state that it is specifically for a terrorist group, again, rendering checks useless. All the security checks embraced by countries against terrorism had led to high levels of unhappiness among people too-wasting of time, invasion of privacy and prejudices against all Muslims.
Capitalism had lead to search for more profits globally. With technology came the increased mobility of people yet also the painful awareness that some of us are excluded in the capitalist system, and thus at a disadvantage and in misery. The spread and exchange of culture that came along when people interact more led to discomfort about others’ culture, leading to fundamentalism which terrorism founded on. Terrorism, armed with technology, is getting more difficult to contain and control. In this trapped cycle, whose fault would it be? Capitalism, technology, globalization or just humans’ need to feel superior?
Osama had led terrorist attacks too in Tanzania, Kenya and more, prior to the September 11 attack. He didn’t like the ideologies of capitalism and globalization which had allowed the West to rise as the powerful and rich. He believed that a Sharia ruled state like that of the Taliban’s should be the model for the Muslim countries.
Osama was born in Saudi Arabia, which was not colonalized by the West (unlike Afghanistan), but was also caught in the capitalist system which was so often associated to the West. As seen widely, the capitalist system led to pursue of personal gains and wealth. Individualism was also part of what the system spreads. All these are opposed in the Islamic-ruling state. All these threatened the very rule of the Muslim States and the very teachings of the Quran, as Osama, a firm believer of Sharia thought.
After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increased emphasis on the use of machines for mass production. To drive the machines which were created to suit human needs (or maybe the people in the West’s needs), energy, particularly, oil, was in high demand. With technology, humans knew how to extract oil and were able to find places where oil could be tapped- the Middle East countries, including Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. With the capitalist mindsets, the Middle East countries turned into countries specializing in tapping and selling oil. That meant importing of western technologies to extract the oil and the entrance of the western MNCs into the Middle East. This further affirms the mindset that capitalism is the best way to seek profits and better living standards. Globalization is setting its foot in Middle East too.
However, the capitalist system created economic and social gaps between the people in the Middle East. As only the political elites have control of the oil reserves, not everyone can benefit on the oil trade. Worse, with the advent of technology, people can see that the West is better off than they were, despite the profitable oil trade. Satellites, cables, television programmes, radio broadcasts or even just the presence of the Western traders in the Middle East made it more convincing that capitalism was the best, the Western ways of living were the best. All these threatened the Islamic religion which most of the Middle East countries embraced for centuries. Some, like Osama, saw the trend of losing the Islamic traditions and spread of globalization as undesirable.
Eventually, to revive Islam and throw out the “Western invaders”, Osama believed in Jihad and justified the use of violence and human suicide bombers for the “greater good of the future”. That had led to the September 11 and him being termed as a terrorist. But like what Prof mentioned, the irony is that if Osama rejected the ideals of the West, he certainly did not reject the use of weapons created by the West to achieve his means.
As said, terrorism has a long history. What caused terrorism to take a new face today is due to the advent of technology. Till today, we still can’t track down Osama and other terrorist leaders. Terrorist ideals can be spread on the Internet, reaching to anyone in the world, and the website would be closed after a day or so, leading checks to be ineffective. Funds can be channeled for terrorism purposes without even needing to state that it is specifically for a terrorist group, again, rendering checks useless. All the security checks embraced by countries against terrorism had led to high levels of unhappiness among people too-wasting of time, invasion of privacy and prejudices against all Muslims.
Capitalism had lead to search for more profits globally. With technology came the increased mobility of people yet also the painful awareness that some of us are excluded in the capitalist system, and thus at a disadvantage and in misery. The spread and exchange of culture that came along when people interact more led to discomfort about others’ culture, leading to fundamentalism which terrorism founded on. Terrorism, armed with technology, is getting more difficult to contain and control. In this trapped cycle, whose fault would it be? Capitalism, technology, globalization or just humans’ need to feel superior?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Population & Health: Foreigners working in Singapore- a contract which benefits both?
The Singapore government has always stressed that Singapore is a “tiny little red dot” that has no natural resources and that our most valuable resource is the people. Thus they justified that we have to move towards a knowledge- based economy to remain competitive in the world wide economy. However, Singapore has shown a disappointing trend of decreasing birthrates- with a fertility rate of merely 1.29 in mid 2008. The government, on the basis that we lack sufficient number of talents due to the declining birthrates, justified itself for easing migration rules, allowing the influx of foreigners to gain access to our tiny little land so as to fill the missing gaps Singaporeans created ( due to low birth rates and thus less talents produced). I termed the new trend of increased foreigners in Singapore as a contract as I believe that (in a more depressing sense) both the foreigners and Singaporeans are just out to make use of each other. For Singapore, obviously the influx of foreigners can fill the voids of low-wage jobs, which Singaporeans refused to do, and of those of the higher end jobs like science research, which Singaporeans lacked the specialized knowledge as compared to the foreigners. For the foreigners, Singapore seemed to be an attractive stepping stone which they can: get jobs at a higher wage, gain access to the better education system here to improve their own knowledge and thus get a better job, avoid high taxation, political and social strife and much more. And when they fulfilled their aspirations, perhaps, they’ll just pack and leave to search for even better prospects that could come along with their acquired better status. It seemed to be a contract that worked for both, yet I doubt it is actually “very beneficial”.
Due to view of knowledge as a valuable resource worldwide and perhaps also our PAP’s successful policies, education levels had increased tremendously as compared to the colonial times. Singaporeans are now equipped with knowledge and skills to escape from menial labor jobs. However, the country still needs people who are willing to do menial jobs in the factories, construction sites etc. Coupled with the increased acceptance of women into the workforce (to make up for the lack of labor too), domestic helpers are also needed to help Singaporean women juggle with the demands of an employee and a housewife. Thus, we see the trend of Filipinos and Indonesians working as maids. Bangladeshis and people from China filled up the jobs at the factories and construction sites. On the surface, it seemed well- jobs are filled so that the economy functions as usual and Singaporeans, being “multiracial”, should be able to tolerate and accept these foreigners. However, in reality, it is quite the opposite. We were enlightened by the media of horrifying maid abuses that shocked us. We, Singaporeans, thought to be a “civil society” by our government abusing maids like barbarians. Maids, thought to be docile, abuses our infants and elderly. Foreigner male workers raped our women, sometimes even killing them. Suddenly Orchard Road, supposedly for the “higher-class” to shop, became filled with loud chatter and giggles of Filipinos. Suddenly, our neighborhood grass patches began to be filled with Bangladeshis drinking, littering and talking loudly till the middle of the night. Suddenly, the public transport systems are filled with loud Chinese conversations with unfamiliar accents and slangs. All to the irritation of Singaporeans. Hence, we tend to view these “intruders” in negative light. We do not like them. We stereotype them. We make jokes out of them. So much for being “civil” and “multiracial”.
Sadly, actually these foreigners may hold white-collar jobs equivalent as us, self-assumed “superiors” over the foreigners. Yet, they are exploited to do “dirty” jobs, jobs of a lower status than us. They are not viewed as Singaporeans socially, or lawfully. They hold temporary work permits, which means they are denied the rights and benefits of a citizen. They are not provided with subsidies in, especially healthcare, when they are exposed to the more demanding menial and dangerous jobs. Worse, they receive much lower salaries too. They, left their closed ones for our country, tolling long hours for meager salaries. They, appearing in every aspect of our lives, using and eating the similar things we do, are however denied basic rights, social acceptance and government assistance. Even if they are not physically hurt by their jobs or our acts, how we ostracized them will undeniably hurt their psychological health.
Perhaps, it is our fault. Fault of the human nature to believe in ethnocentrism, believing that we are “superior” and refusal to step out of our own comfort zone to accept their differences. It may be the fault of the forces of globalization and capitalism too. Yet, less explicitly, there may be too much assumption on the part of the Singapore government that we can accept and integrate the foreigners into our lives (or was it a deliberate left-out so that we can justify the exploiting the foreigners?). In any sense, it is not a win-win contract. It is a lose-win contract with the foreigners at the losing end due to our exploitation and ostracizing of them.
Due to view of knowledge as a valuable resource worldwide and perhaps also our PAP’s successful policies, education levels had increased tremendously as compared to the colonial times. Singaporeans are now equipped with knowledge and skills to escape from menial labor jobs. However, the country still needs people who are willing to do menial jobs in the factories, construction sites etc. Coupled with the increased acceptance of women into the workforce (to make up for the lack of labor too), domestic helpers are also needed to help Singaporean women juggle with the demands of an employee and a housewife. Thus, we see the trend of Filipinos and Indonesians working as maids. Bangladeshis and people from China filled up the jobs at the factories and construction sites. On the surface, it seemed well- jobs are filled so that the economy functions as usual and Singaporeans, being “multiracial”, should be able to tolerate and accept these foreigners. However, in reality, it is quite the opposite. We were enlightened by the media of horrifying maid abuses that shocked us. We, Singaporeans, thought to be a “civil society” by our government abusing maids like barbarians. Maids, thought to be docile, abuses our infants and elderly. Foreigner male workers raped our women, sometimes even killing them. Suddenly Orchard Road, supposedly for the “higher-class” to shop, became filled with loud chatter and giggles of Filipinos. Suddenly, our neighborhood grass patches began to be filled with Bangladeshis drinking, littering and talking loudly till the middle of the night. Suddenly, the public transport systems are filled with loud Chinese conversations with unfamiliar accents and slangs. All to the irritation of Singaporeans. Hence, we tend to view these “intruders” in negative light. We do not like them. We stereotype them. We make jokes out of them. So much for being “civil” and “multiracial”.
Sadly, actually these foreigners may hold white-collar jobs equivalent as us, self-assumed “superiors” over the foreigners. Yet, they are exploited to do “dirty” jobs, jobs of a lower status than us. They are not viewed as Singaporeans socially, or lawfully. They hold temporary work permits, which means they are denied the rights and benefits of a citizen. They are not provided with subsidies in, especially healthcare, when they are exposed to the more demanding menial and dangerous jobs. Worse, they receive much lower salaries too. They, left their closed ones for our country, tolling long hours for meager salaries. They, appearing in every aspect of our lives, using and eating the similar things we do, are however denied basic rights, social acceptance and government assistance. Even if they are not physically hurt by their jobs or our acts, how we ostracized them will undeniably hurt their psychological health.
Perhaps, it is our fault. Fault of the human nature to believe in ethnocentrism, believing that we are “superior” and refusal to step out of our own comfort zone to accept their differences. It may be the fault of the forces of globalization and capitalism too. Yet, less explicitly, there may be too much assumption on the part of the Singapore government that we can accept and integrate the foreigners into our lives (or was it a deliberate left-out so that we can justify the exploiting the foreigners?). In any sense, it is not a win-win contract. It is a lose-win contract with the foreigners at the losing end due to our exploitation and ostracizing of them.
Urbanization: Tokyo- Urbanization solves all problems?
If Singapore was “extraordinary” (the term associated with it since it gained independence), I believe Japan, or more explicitly Tokyo, would be a “miracle” after World War Two. Japan was transformed into an economic superpower, second to the America, after the war. It was touted as the safest country with the lowest crime rates as compared to other industrialized nations, and Tokyo was considered relatively safe. It has one of the world’s fastest mode of transport- the bullet train. It is one of the leading countries in technology, games, manga, music and movies, and continuously exports its own culture via these means. Many attributed these successes to the policies implemented to General Macarthur, who was in charge of rebuilding Japan after the war. However, being skeptical, I doubt that Japan is so perfect and flawless. Hence, I’ll be looking at the pressing implications of urbanization on Japan’s megacity, Tokyo.
A capitalist market often comes along with urbanization. The market has no doubt done exceedingly well for Tokyo, transforming Japan into an economic superpower. However it contributed to the high suicide rates due to stress too. The Health Ministry report said 81 people committed suicide or tried to commit suicide because of stress at work in fiscal year 2007. Some of the workers had worked about 160 hours of overtime a month, it said. A typical work week in Japan is 40 hours. Fewer than half of workers take their paid annual leave; there is a mountainous 7.2 billion yen of unpaid overtime; paternity leave remains frowned upon; 41 per cent get less than six hours sleep; and working yourself to death is so ingrained that it is recognized by the courts and honored with a special word, karoshi. Worse, many Japanese regard suicide as a show of sincerity to expiate their shortcomings, and view it as an act that would restore honor (this partly arises from the samurai spirit and culture too) to their name, their family, or organization. Teenagers are not excluded from this too. Recently a 14 year old killed herself by mixing laundry detergent and cleaning fluids, releasing noxious fumes into the air and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of people from their homes. Teenagers commit suicides due to the competition to get into the prestigious University of Tokyo or largely because they were being bullied by classmates. Observers say the youngsters may have been taking their cues from the adults, since there is no “wrong” for the adults to commit suicide.
Tokyo is characterized by high costs of living and turning into “MacWorld” too- the teenagers are unduly concerned about acquiring branded stuffs like Gucci, Armani, Mac cosmetics and more. Prostitution has a benefit to young women. With just the sacrifice of their body and without much excessive labor, they can make a great amount of money. A young girl working behind the counters at a fast-food restaurant would make about seven or eight hundred yen an hour. In comparison, she could earn 40 to 50 times that amount by having sex, or even by just spending time, with an older man (Schreiber 84). The money is a significant appeal. Girls brought into police custody from a 1994 police round-up of several date clubs said, "they were not poverty-stricken, but wanted the money to buy expensive clothes" (Moffett, "Strange Moves" 30). In Japan, sex and sexual relations are not viewed as moral issues as they often are in the Western countries and in the United States in particular. Japanese have traditionally viewed sexual relations as a natural phenomenon, "like eating, to be enjoyed in its proper place" (Morrison 1). Thus, prostitution is widely accepted as a natural component and even a necessity in society. This "acceptance" of prostitution in Japanese society can be observed in their very relaxed laws against sex with children and prostitution, which says that it is legal in Tokyo for men to have sex with children as young as the age of twelve. Similarly, under an Antiprostitution Law in Japan, prostitution is deemed illegal, but in effect it is permitted to exist so long as authorities can control it (Morrison 3).
In all, it can be seen that suicide and teenage prostitutions have cultural roots and is coupled with relaxed laws on these two areas too. But it cannot be doubted that due to urbanization, it created a very competitive society in Tokyo where costs of living is extremely high too. To maintain livelihood, one has to keep his job. If everyone work long hours and remain competitive, every individual is compelled, willingly or unwillingly, to do so too, under peer pressure. And when one submits to pressure, it is not surprising that his will to live in a very stress environment is undermined. Due to globalization and trade, branded stuffs find its way to Tokyo too. They represented trend in the fashion-conscious state, thus it is no surprise teenagers are attracted to them. Yet, as teens, they do not have the monetary means to acquire these products. The capitalist system somehow encouraged an individualist character and fuels consumerism. Hence, teens may find nothing wrong to acquire something they wanted, even if it meant selling their bodies. Therefore, though urbanization brought benefits to Japan, it contributed to issues that are intertwined with other factors, and these issues may not be healthy in the views of others. Japan, is not free of problems due to urbanization too.
References:
· “Suicide rate takes a worrisome jump”. Edwin Karmiol. 1999. http://www.atimes.com/japan-econ/AH04Dh01.html
· “Suicides in Japan directly linked to work-related stress increases”. MARI YAMAGUCHI.2008. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4923254
· “Overworked Japanese feel the strain”. Deborah Cameron. 2006. http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=55
· “Prostitution in Japan: A Young Body Worth a Profit”. Nguyet Thu Nguyen. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H17/nnguyen/cof.html
· “Spate of ‘detergent suicides’ hit Japan”. 2008. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/01/detergent.suicide/index.html
A capitalist market often comes along with urbanization. The market has no doubt done exceedingly well for Tokyo, transforming Japan into an economic superpower. However it contributed to the high suicide rates due to stress too. The Health Ministry report said 81 people committed suicide or tried to commit suicide because of stress at work in fiscal year 2007. Some of the workers had worked about 160 hours of overtime a month, it said. A typical work week in Japan is 40 hours. Fewer than half of workers take their paid annual leave; there is a mountainous 7.2 billion yen of unpaid overtime; paternity leave remains frowned upon; 41 per cent get less than six hours sleep; and working yourself to death is so ingrained that it is recognized by the courts and honored with a special word, karoshi. Worse, many Japanese regard suicide as a show of sincerity to expiate their shortcomings, and view it as an act that would restore honor (this partly arises from the samurai spirit and culture too) to their name, their family, or organization. Teenagers are not excluded from this too. Recently a 14 year old killed herself by mixing laundry detergent and cleaning fluids, releasing noxious fumes into the air and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of people from their homes. Teenagers commit suicides due to the competition to get into the prestigious University of Tokyo or largely because they were being bullied by classmates. Observers say the youngsters may have been taking their cues from the adults, since there is no “wrong” for the adults to commit suicide.
Tokyo is characterized by high costs of living and turning into “MacWorld” too- the teenagers are unduly concerned about acquiring branded stuffs like Gucci, Armani, Mac cosmetics and more. Prostitution has a benefit to young women. With just the sacrifice of their body and without much excessive labor, they can make a great amount of money. A young girl working behind the counters at a fast-food restaurant would make about seven or eight hundred yen an hour. In comparison, she could earn 40 to 50 times that amount by having sex, or even by just spending time, with an older man (Schreiber 84). The money is a significant appeal. Girls brought into police custody from a 1994 police round-up of several date clubs said, "they were not poverty-stricken, but wanted the money to buy expensive clothes" (Moffett, "Strange Moves" 30). In Japan, sex and sexual relations are not viewed as moral issues as they often are in the Western countries and in the United States in particular. Japanese have traditionally viewed sexual relations as a natural phenomenon, "like eating, to be enjoyed in its proper place" (Morrison 1). Thus, prostitution is widely accepted as a natural component and even a necessity in society. This "acceptance" of prostitution in Japanese society can be observed in their very relaxed laws against sex with children and prostitution, which says that it is legal in Tokyo for men to have sex with children as young as the age of twelve. Similarly, under an Antiprostitution Law in Japan, prostitution is deemed illegal, but in effect it is permitted to exist so long as authorities can control it (Morrison 3).
In all, it can be seen that suicide and teenage prostitutions have cultural roots and is coupled with relaxed laws on these two areas too. But it cannot be doubted that due to urbanization, it created a very competitive society in Tokyo where costs of living is extremely high too. To maintain livelihood, one has to keep his job. If everyone work long hours and remain competitive, every individual is compelled, willingly or unwillingly, to do so too, under peer pressure. And when one submits to pressure, it is not surprising that his will to live in a very stress environment is undermined. Due to globalization and trade, branded stuffs find its way to Tokyo too. They represented trend in the fashion-conscious state, thus it is no surprise teenagers are attracted to them. Yet, as teens, they do not have the monetary means to acquire these products. The capitalist system somehow encouraged an individualist character and fuels consumerism. Hence, teens may find nothing wrong to acquire something they wanted, even if it meant selling their bodies. Therefore, though urbanization brought benefits to Japan, it contributed to issues that are intertwined with other factors, and these issues may not be healthy in the views of others. Japan, is not free of problems due to urbanization too.
References:
· “Suicide rate takes a worrisome jump”. Edwin Karmiol. 1999. http://www.atimes.com/japan-econ/AH04Dh01.html
· “Suicides in Japan directly linked to work-related stress increases”. MARI YAMAGUCHI.2008. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4923254
· “Overworked Japanese feel the strain”. Deborah Cameron. 2006. http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=55
· “Prostitution in Japan: A Young Body Worth a Profit”. Nguyet Thu Nguyen. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H17/nnguyen/cof.html
· “Spate of ‘detergent suicides’ hit Japan”. 2008. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/01/detergent.suicide/index.html
Globalized identity: Homosexuals, do they have a commonly accepted identity?
Some argued that due to globalization, local and traditional cultures are giving way to the Western liberalist ideals. Western ideas may, and normally does, come into conflict with religious and traditional beliefs. Hence, these Western influences may be seen as undesirable and as a threat to one’s identity. However, in my opinion, if globalization is eroding cultures worldwide, it is not putting a stop to our long disdain against the homosexuals. I also feel that the homosexuals, being ostracized and discriminated against, do not really have an identity.
I do not deny that due to the spread of Western ideas such as democracy, freedom of choice and freedom of speech, we are more willing to accept the homosexuals. We are enlightened by psychologists that there is nothing wrong being a homosexual. But, I feel, that does not mean we are integrating them in our lives. We still tend to stereotype them, viewed that they are “unnatural” and make jokes about them. In social, political and religious aspects, we are still denying them an identity as long as we do not view them as equals to heterosexuals. To me, discriminating against them is no difference from the unequal treatment resulting from racial discrimination. True, homosexuals may have good economic status, received good education and better opportunities than compared to, maybe, the minorities in a country, but they are not viewed as the “normal” people that fall into the common social norms. They are still marginalized in the three aspects I mentioned above. If they have an identity, it would be a hybrid of the resistance and project identity.
The two largest religions around the world, Islam and Christianity, do not accept homosexuals- they are the outcasts, just like those in the Indian caste system. The Bible state specifically that homosexuality is not acceptable in God’s eyes. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22). The Islamic Sharia laws, too, view homosexuality as a crime and is forbidden in most Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Homosexuality is also not encouraged in most religions like Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and more. Those who firmly believe in their religions will not accept the homosexuals. They are socialized by religions to reject the homosexuals.
The rejection of homosexuals can be further justified, and hence encouraged, via political laws. In Singapore, Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalizes homosexual sex. Homosexuals are also denied the right to purchase public houses since same-sex marriage is banned in Singapore. The Indian Penal Code, too, punishes anyone who has voluntarily committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal (now, a homosexual is regarded as an equal to an animal here, so a homosexual is inferior being?). In Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, northern Nigeria and Sudan, same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty. Even if death penalty is not legitimized in the countries, the government can incorporate jail terms, fines or even whipping as punishment. In the Taliban era, public execution is legitimized (homosexuals may be punished by letting a wall collapse onto them. If they survive the impact after 30 mins, they are deemed forgiven and given treatment). Homosexuals are also legally persecuted in communist China. Such laws further justify (if religion did not) the act of ostracizing and discrimination against the homosexuals. The laws further enhanced our beliefs that the homosexuals are the “untouchables”, and deserved to be treated unfairly.
Professor mentioned that religion and politics themselves serve as very powerful tools to legitimize the “correct” identity, and this identity can be further used to justify their acts. In dealing with homosexuals, politics and religions are intertwined, thus creating an even more powerful force to justify our unfair treatment towards the homosexuals. This may be the main reason why we are unwilling to integrate the homosexuals in our social lives. We think it is “right” to view them as weirdos, unnatural beings, and thus denying them the right to be our equals (equal here do not mean allowing positive discrimination, it just means as a “normal” human to me).
Hence, even though homosexuals have better opportunities in some countries (namely the Western countries which are more willing to acknowledge the rights of homosexuals to live as equals), socially, they are still very deprived of the freedom to live like a “normal” person. To me, this is not much difference to say the minorities or even the terrorists, because it is basically the same fundamental deprivation- the right to be treated as equal, “normal” or “the majority” that caused them to be without a recognized and approved identity.
References:
Ø The Discrimination Against Homosexuals in the Christian Church. Emily Holland. http://www.fatalistic.net/kouri/discrim.html
Ø Indian Penal Code. http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S377.htm
I do not deny that due to the spread of Western ideas such as democracy, freedom of choice and freedom of speech, we are more willing to accept the homosexuals. We are enlightened by psychologists that there is nothing wrong being a homosexual. But, I feel, that does not mean we are integrating them in our lives. We still tend to stereotype them, viewed that they are “unnatural” and make jokes about them. In social, political and religious aspects, we are still denying them an identity as long as we do not view them as equals to heterosexuals. To me, discriminating against them is no difference from the unequal treatment resulting from racial discrimination. True, homosexuals may have good economic status, received good education and better opportunities than compared to, maybe, the minorities in a country, but they are not viewed as the “normal” people that fall into the common social norms. They are still marginalized in the three aspects I mentioned above. If they have an identity, it would be a hybrid of the resistance and project identity.
The two largest religions around the world, Islam and Christianity, do not accept homosexuals- they are the outcasts, just like those in the Indian caste system. The Bible state specifically that homosexuality is not acceptable in God’s eyes. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22). The Islamic Sharia laws, too, view homosexuality as a crime and is forbidden in most Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Homosexuality is also not encouraged in most religions like Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and more. Those who firmly believe in their religions will not accept the homosexuals. They are socialized by religions to reject the homosexuals.
The rejection of homosexuals can be further justified, and hence encouraged, via political laws. In Singapore, Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalizes homosexual sex. Homosexuals are also denied the right to purchase public houses since same-sex marriage is banned in Singapore. The Indian Penal Code, too, punishes anyone who has voluntarily committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal (now, a homosexual is regarded as an equal to an animal here, so a homosexual is inferior being?). In Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, northern Nigeria and Sudan, same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty. Even if death penalty is not legitimized in the countries, the government can incorporate jail terms, fines or even whipping as punishment. In the Taliban era, public execution is legitimized (homosexuals may be punished by letting a wall collapse onto them. If they survive the impact after 30 mins, they are deemed forgiven and given treatment). Homosexuals are also legally persecuted in communist China. Such laws further justify (if religion did not) the act of ostracizing and discrimination against the homosexuals. The laws further enhanced our beliefs that the homosexuals are the “untouchables”, and deserved to be treated unfairly.
Professor mentioned that religion and politics themselves serve as very powerful tools to legitimize the “correct” identity, and this identity can be further used to justify their acts. In dealing with homosexuals, politics and religions are intertwined, thus creating an even more powerful force to justify our unfair treatment towards the homosexuals. This may be the main reason why we are unwilling to integrate the homosexuals in our social lives. We think it is “right” to view them as weirdos, unnatural beings, and thus denying them the right to be our equals (equal here do not mean allowing positive discrimination, it just means as a “normal” human to me).
Hence, even though homosexuals have better opportunities in some countries (namely the Western countries which are more willing to acknowledge the rights of homosexuals to live as equals), socially, they are still very deprived of the freedom to live like a “normal” person. To me, this is not much difference to say the minorities or even the terrorists, because it is basically the same fundamental deprivation- the right to be treated as equal, “normal” or “the majority” that caused them to be without a recognized and approved identity.
References:
Ø The Discrimination Against Homosexuals in the Christian Church. Emily Holland. http://www.fatalistic.net/kouri/discrim.html
Ø Indian Penal Code. http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/IndianPenalCode/S377.htm
Democracy and Human Rights: Is Iraq ready for democracy?
We are all familiar with the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Americans invaded Iraq despite the United Nations’ decision against it. The Americans ousted the notorious Saddam Hussein- a tyrant of all atrocities to his own people. In this paper, I shall not attempt to judge the decision behind the invasion (it has happened) but rather whether Iraq is ready for democracy and whether the people are for democracy.
President George W. Bush insisted that Iraq was ready for democracy. He mentioned that “There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom”.[1] Perhaps, in the key categories such as per capita income, literacy, male-to-female literacy ratio, and urbanization, Iraq’s numbers are comparable to those of many other states that have enjoyed real progress in the transition from autocracy to democracy, such as Bangladesh, Kenya, and Bolivia. [2] But for the people, I doubt, are ready to accept democracy.
In my opinion, maybe, initially, they were rejoicing for the invasion by the Americans. It represented a way out of Saddam’s rule and atrocities. It meant the end of misery. However, even with the death of Saddam, the people of Iraq are beginning to feel that perhaps it is better to remain in Saddam’s rule. Why? It is because America had failed to deliver the promises it had said or was expected of them.
Democracy generally, meant freedom and the granting of basic human rights to all. However, after the invasion, the citizens saw a wave of instability. Three months after the end of the war, Iraqis express a growing sense of disappointment in the new, American order—or, to be more precise, the lack of order. There is no dictatorship, but there is also no electricity, work, safety, or government.[3] Under the Americans, invasions of privacy and insecurity compounded the atrocities that were committed during Saddam’s rule such as the frequent raids, rapes and robberies. Their lives were turned upside down. Everyday, they witness deaths, experience injuries and intolerant behaviors towards even the innocent. What kind of life is that supposed to be? If that kind of misery is imposed onto anybody, including the Americans themselves, it is not difficult to see why the Iraqis are beginning to detest the American invasion. Nobody will want that kind of life where you, already having no basic necessities and human rights, do not know when you will be the next victim of death. The below extract will only add on to my claim that the citizens resented the invasion: (“Americans took over Iraq in three weeks but they have not been able to restore the electricity in three months. What kind of power is that? They promised us democracy, but where is the government?” asks a citizen. He says that the soldiers sometimes venture into the old part of Baghdad where he lives, Abu Safijan, but they do not talk to the people, do not ask about their needs and wishes. “We hate Saddam, but under his rule it was safe, at least,” adds his 70-year-old mother. “Once you could have slept in a bed set outside the house. Now, our daughters are afraid to walk to school. The gangsters rob, rape, and shoot,” the old woman laments. All around us children laugh and shout, “Saddam Ali Baba! Bush Ali Baba!” which is to say that both are thieves, each as bad as the other. ) Even children regard President Bush as an evil equivalent to Saddam. How is one able to expect the people of Iraq to accept the American invasion and the spread of the ideals of democracy? To them, democracy has failed. It was even better under Saddam’s era! They are rejecting America, and thus rejecting democracy. So what if specialists feel that Iraq, as a country, has the foundations to build a democratic country? The people, too disappointed with the aftermath of the invasion, had, in their hearts, rejected democracy. In this case, so what if there is a new democratic government imposed onto them? They will not find it appealing and may even find means to topple it. In all, the Americans had lost the hearts and favor of the Iraqis, which by the rules of democracy, is essential for building a democratic country.
[1] Democracy in Iraq? Feb 23, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/democracy_2-27.html
[2] Democracy in Iraq? THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2003. http://www.twq.com/03summer/docs/03summer_bymanpollack.pdf
[3] Iraq, Three Months After the War. July 10, 2003. http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1361.cfm
President George W. Bush insisted that Iraq was ready for democracy. He mentioned that “There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom”.[1] Perhaps, in the key categories such as per capita income, literacy, male-to-female literacy ratio, and urbanization, Iraq’s numbers are comparable to those of many other states that have enjoyed real progress in the transition from autocracy to democracy, such as Bangladesh, Kenya, and Bolivia. [2] But for the people, I doubt, are ready to accept democracy.
In my opinion, maybe, initially, they were rejoicing for the invasion by the Americans. It represented a way out of Saddam’s rule and atrocities. It meant the end of misery. However, even with the death of Saddam, the people of Iraq are beginning to feel that perhaps it is better to remain in Saddam’s rule. Why? It is because America had failed to deliver the promises it had said or was expected of them.
Democracy generally, meant freedom and the granting of basic human rights to all. However, after the invasion, the citizens saw a wave of instability. Three months after the end of the war, Iraqis express a growing sense of disappointment in the new, American order—or, to be more precise, the lack of order. There is no dictatorship, but there is also no electricity, work, safety, or government.[3] Under the Americans, invasions of privacy and insecurity compounded the atrocities that were committed during Saddam’s rule such as the frequent raids, rapes and robberies. Their lives were turned upside down. Everyday, they witness deaths, experience injuries and intolerant behaviors towards even the innocent. What kind of life is that supposed to be? If that kind of misery is imposed onto anybody, including the Americans themselves, it is not difficult to see why the Iraqis are beginning to detest the American invasion. Nobody will want that kind of life where you, already having no basic necessities and human rights, do not know when you will be the next victim of death. The below extract will only add on to my claim that the citizens resented the invasion: (“Americans took over Iraq in three weeks but they have not been able to restore the electricity in three months. What kind of power is that? They promised us democracy, but where is the government?” asks a citizen. He says that the soldiers sometimes venture into the old part of Baghdad where he lives, Abu Safijan, but they do not talk to the people, do not ask about their needs and wishes. “We hate Saddam, but under his rule it was safe, at least,” adds his 70-year-old mother. “Once you could have slept in a bed set outside the house. Now, our daughters are afraid to walk to school. The gangsters rob, rape, and shoot,” the old woman laments. All around us children laugh and shout, “Saddam Ali Baba! Bush Ali Baba!” which is to say that both are thieves, each as bad as the other. ) Even children regard President Bush as an evil equivalent to Saddam. How is one able to expect the people of Iraq to accept the American invasion and the spread of the ideals of democracy? To them, democracy has failed. It was even better under Saddam’s era! They are rejecting America, and thus rejecting democracy. So what if specialists feel that Iraq, as a country, has the foundations to build a democratic country? The people, too disappointed with the aftermath of the invasion, had, in their hearts, rejected democracy. In this case, so what if there is a new democratic government imposed onto them? They will not find it appealing and may even find means to topple it. In all, the Americans had lost the hearts and favor of the Iraqis, which by the rules of democracy, is essential for building a democratic country.
[1] Democracy in Iraq? Feb 23, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/democracy_2-27.html
[2] Democracy in Iraq? THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, SUMMER 2003. http://www.twq.com/03summer/docs/03summer_bymanpollack.pdf
[3] Iraq, Three Months After the War. July 10, 2003. http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1361.cfm
Friday, September 19, 2008
War and terror: Rwanda- an aftermath of the World Wars?
Rwanda, a country infamous for its 1994 genocide. The genocide shocked the world with a total death toll of about 800,000 to 100,000. At the first sight, it is difficult to connect the link of the genocide as an aftermath for the two World Wars or even the Cold War. Most would only view it as a result of social inequality and discrimination. However, in my own opinion, the genocide is still considerably linked to the ideals and policies favored by the majority during and after the wars.
Before the wars, Rwanda was a colony under the Germans. After World War II Ruanda-Urundi became a United Nations (UN) "trust territory" administered by Belgium. Both the Germans and Belgians maintained the old system of monarchy in Rwanda. Under that system, the some Tutsi minorities were considered the upper class as compared to the Hutus majorities. But basically, there is no real difference between a Tutsi and a Hutu. If a Hutu has enough wealth, he can move up the social ladder, and be considered as a Tutsi. However, what created the unhappiness between the people was that under both colonies, the Tutsis were favored and given the white-collar jobs. The Germans even helped the Tutsis put down a rebellion of Hutus in the northern part of Rwanda who did not wish to submit to central Tutsi control. Even worse, the Belgians abolished the local posts of traditional chiefs’ positions. In doing so they stripped the Hutus of their limited local power over land. The Belgians, in doing so, may had the initial idea of incorporating the western way of bureaucracy and abolishing what they thought was inefficient traditions. But by doing this, it showed the Hutus that the Tutsis are favored, and created resentment. This showed that foreign ideas may not suit a country, even if the ideas worked for others. And, after the wars, there was an anxious attempt to spread America ideologies to prevent failing nations from falling to the hands of communism. This may also contribute to the oversight of the Belgians of the real problems in Rwanda, thus exacerbating the painful awareness of the social inequalities between people.
Furthermore, it was during the Cold War which the ideas of democracy was most advocated. The ideas of democracy may have contributed to the wave of Pan-Africanism that swept through Central Africa, including Rwanda. Anti-colonial sentiment and ideas of unity and equality for all may be the aftermath of the ideologies spread in the Cold War too. The Hutus became even more aware of the inequality that existed between them and the Tutsis. Hence, when the Tutsis pressed for independence and upset the Belgians, the Hutus were favored. The new power given to the Hutus threatened the long withstanding superiority of the Tutsis. The Hutus, repressed in history, had the chance to vent all their unhappiness on the Tutsis, and this was allowed by the Belgians. This resulted in the genocide and a Hutu-dominated-one-party-state in Rwanda. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the need for independence and equality, as influenced by the ideologies after the wars, could have lead to the genocide.
Also, nationalism reached its peak during the World Wars. Nationalism is a powerful tool in unifying people, as mentioned by the professor in the lecture. It is also used by the state to justify its interests and exerts its power. In Rwanda, this can be seen best during the rule of President Juvenal Habyarimana, who used his power and the concept of nationalism to bring hatred and fear against the Tutsis. The violence was justified in Rwanda by him, just like the violence that was justified in the wars by the respective leaders. With justification, people do not see any wrong in committing the atrocities they did in Rwanda. Killings, rape, torture, were justified to create fear in their enemies and also as “revenge” against their enemies. It was normalized through the manipulation of the concept of nationalism and state control- a product of the wars.
In all, I’m not trying to say that it was due to the ideologies or policies spread during and after the World Wars or Cold War that lead to the Rwanda Genocide. However, these ideologies and policies, after being intertwined with Rwanda’s long history of social inequalities and discrimination, have exacerbated the friction between the two groups. And along with other factors, like the UN’s inabilities to solve the problem, the genocide occurred, much to the horrors felt by the rest of the world.
Before the wars, Rwanda was a colony under the Germans. After World War II Ruanda-Urundi became a United Nations (UN) "trust territory" administered by Belgium. Both the Germans and Belgians maintained the old system of monarchy in Rwanda. Under that system, the some Tutsi minorities were considered the upper class as compared to the Hutus majorities. But basically, there is no real difference between a Tutsi and a Hutu. If a Hutu has enough wealth, he can move up the social ladder, and be considered as a Tutsi. However, what created the unhappiness between the people was that under both colonies, the Tutsis were favored and given the white-collar jobs. The Germans even helped the Tutsis put down a rebellion of Hutus in the northern part of Rwanda who did not wish to submit to central Tutsi control. Even worse, the Belgians abolished the local posts of traditional chiefs’ positions. In doing so they stripped the Hutus of their limited local power over land. The Belgians, in doing so, may had the initial idea of incorporating the western way of bureaucracy and abolishing what they thought was inefficient traditions. But by doing this, it showed the Hutus that the Tutsis are favored, and created resentment. This showed that foreign ideas may not suit a country, even if the ideas worked for others. And, after the wars, there was an anxious attempt to spread America ideologies to prevent failing nations from falling to the hands of communism. This may also contribute to the oversight of the Belgians of the real problems in Rwanda, thus exacerbating the painful awareness of the social inequalities between people.
Furthermore, it was during the Cold War which the ideas of democracy was most advocated. The ideas of democracy may have contributed to the wave of Pan-Africanism that swept through Central Africa, including Rwanda. Anti-colonial sentiment and ideas of unity and equality for all may be the aftermath of the ideologies spread in the Cold War too. The Hutus became even more aware of the inequality that existed between them and the Tutsis. Hence, when the Tutsis pressed for independence and upset the Belgians, the Hutus were favored. The new power given to the Hutus threatened the long withstanding superiority of the Tutsis. The Hutus, repressed in history, had the chance to vent all their unhappiness on the Tutsis, and this was allowed by the Belgians. This resulted in the genocide and a Hutu-dominated-one-party-state in Rwanda. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the need for independence and equality, as influenced by the ideologies after the wars, could have lead to the genocide.
Also, nationalism reached its peak during the World Wars. Nationalism is a powerful tool in unifying people, as mentioned by the professor in the lecture. It is also used by the state to justify its interests and exerts its power. In Rwanda, this can be seen best during the rule of President Juvenal Habyarimana, who used his power and the concept of nationalism to bring hatred and fear against the Tutsis. The violence was justified in Rwanda by him, just like the violence that was justified in the wars by the respective leaders. With justification, people do not see any wrong in committing the atrocities they did in Rwanda. Killings, rape, torture, were justified to create fear in their enemies and also as “revenge” against their enemies. It was normalized through the manipulation of the concept of nationalism and state control- a product of the wars.
In all, I’m not trying to say that it was due to the ideologies or policies spread during and after the World Wars or Cold War that lead to the Rwanda Genocide. However, these ideologies and policies, after being intertwined with Rwanda’s long history of social inequalities and discrimination, have exacerbated the friction between the two groups. And along with other factors, like the UN’s inabilities to solve the problem, the genocide occurred, much to the horrors felt by the rest of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)