You know, I don't like to be negative. In my opinion, unwarranted negativity towards self or others is unnecessary in most situations, and personal attacks should almost always be kept to yourself. Lashing out is unproductive and frankly annoying, even to myself.
And that extends to my politics; if a politician hasn't done something egregiously wrong (like cheat on his wife or exhort/bilk the public out of lots of money illegally), I see no reason to hate him, unless what he's done is directly opposite to what he's claimed or promised (such as being a family values guy and having an affair). Using personal attacks is both pointless and demeaning. Pointless because if it's such a big issue it'll sink your opponent without your input. Demeaning because for goodness sake, wading into the mud of personal attacks and negativity is like a fight in a grade-school sandbox; nobody wins, and it lowers respect (self and otherwise) among everyone involved.
No, I prefer positivity in politics; don't demean others, build up yourself. Don't personally attack others; extol the virtues of your viewpoint. You shouldn't build up a campaign of demonization against an opposing political viewpoint, instead build a narrative of prosperity and happiness if the people chose your path. Say "Look at what I have done" and "Look at what I will do", rather than "Look at what my opponent is".
Everybody knows that politics in the US are screwed up, and one of the reasons is that we're so negative towards each other. In our politics, personal attacks (even if true) fly like candy from a pinata; every gets some. So why don't we collectively take a deep breath and stop flinging mud at each other; we're humans, not animals. Build up ourselves and our friends/allies; don't claim that our opponents are one step away from a demon.
It irritates me that those on the right AND left feel the need to negatively attack each other; have criticism sure, but don't say, accuse an opponent of being a fascist, or of imposing a twisted will upon your city/state/country. It's annoying, demeaning to all involved, and boring.
Just a quick post, but I felt I should say this.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
"Soft" Nationalism?
So after reading many, many articles about nationalism, patriotism, jingoism, and otherism, I've been thinking for quite a while about an interesting concept that I call "soft nationalism". It is both completely separate and closely intertwined with "hard" nationalism.
Simply put, soft nationalism is great pride in ones culture or ethnicity within the confines of a chosen nation. An advocate of soft nationalism does not want to separate from her nation; to the contrary, she takes great pride in her nation and wants it to be great.
Now, what sets a soft nationalist apart from a hard nationalist? A soft nationalist wants to promote her culture within her chosen nation; she wishes to have a fusion of her culture and the culture of her nation. A soft nationalist wants to promote the study of her culture, and how it figures into the history and culture of her nation. Take, for example, Hispanic-Americans; only a fringe few (like the Aztlan crowd) want to split off from the United States; the typical Hispanic-American simply wants to see her culture fused (not assimilated) with "regular" American culture. They do not want their culture to be forgotten; they want to highlight and promote Hispanic culture within the nation of the United States. Looking at modern Europe, there are similar trends of soft nationalism; Anglo-Indians, for example. They want to be a part of the United Kingdom, they want to British citizens, and they want to share in the British culture. Yet, they treasure their Indian ancestry and culture. They like to continue and elevate a few of their old traditions. Anglo-Indians want their contributions and their English and Indian fusion way of life to be preserved and promoted.
"Hard" nationalists are different. Hard nationalism is, by definition, more hardline and rough. It advocates separation of a culture from a nation that does not share the same culture. It advocates creation of a new or old nation. Hardline nationalism sees no virtue in sharing a nation with another culture; it seeks to enforce one, separate culture upon whatever authority or population it can lay claim to.
Both hard and soft nationalism have their merits; soft nationalism is less aggressive, more multicultural within their chosen nation, and more willing to reach a compromise. Hard nationalism, by contrast, is more aggressive, more devout, and less willing to tolerant attacks on itself. Both can allow a culture (or fusion of cultures) to last for centuries; depending on the situation, hard nationalism can force by sword and shout the survival of their culture and nation. In other situations, the hard nationalism can antagonize neighboring cultures so much that the hardliner portions of it are crushed into dust, forgotten by all and only propagated by meaningless traditions that those enacting them have forgotten the reason for.
Soft nationalism can likewise create a smooth, frictionless culture anchored within a nation and tied to its future. On the other hand, soft nationalism can lead to old traditions dying; the largest culture in a nation can swallow up the culture trying to coexist with it; who proudly lays claim to a fusion of German and American culture anymore, for example?
What is interesting to me (regarding hard and soft nationalism), is that soft nationalism seems like it is on the rise. Nations are no longer expanding in size or actively exporting their culture. Instead, soft nationalism is leading to a rise in fusion cultures; for example; a French-Algerian boy once restricted to being French culturally is able to learn about his ancestors in French school, to celebrate the fusion of Algerian and French culture that is in his blood. Once, he would either have to give up his Algerian culture and assimilate or become a hardline nationalist that demanded only Algerian culture. Now, he will be able to fuse both cultures together. Of course, part of the price of soft nationalism is that the descendants of same French-Algerian boy might lose their identity as Algerians, and not even remember that they once held both cultures tight to their identity. They might not celebrate the Algerian part of their French-Algerian culture! Or a German-Pole (from Silesia in Poland) might become only just a Pole, completely omitting their German heritage.
Again, sorry for the rambling, its just an interesting concept, and though I'm sure its been discussed before, I never had thought of a term for it until recently.
Simply put, soft nationalism is great pride in ones culture or ethnicity within the confines of a chosen nation. An advocate of soft nationalism does not want to separate from her nation; to the contrary, she takes great pride in her nation and wants it to be great.
Now, what sets a soft nationalist apart from a hard nationalist? A soft nationalist wants to promote her culture within her chosen nation; she wishes to have a fusion of her culture and the culture of her nation. A soft nationalist wants to promote the study of her culture, and how it figures into the history and culture of her nation. Take, for example, Hispanic-Americans; only a fringe few (like the Aztlan crowd) want to split off from the United States; the typical Hispanic-American simply wants to see her culture fused (not assimilated) with "regular" American culture. They do not want their culture to be forgotten; they want to highlight and promote Hispanic culture within the nation of the United States. Looking at modern Europe, there are similar trends of soft nationalism; Anglo-Indians, for example. They want to be a part of the United Kingdom, they want to British citizens, and they want to share in the British culture. Yet, they treasure their Indian ancestry and culture. They like to continue and elevate a few of their old traditions. Anglo-Indians want their contributions and their English and Indian fusion way of life to be preserved and promoted.
"Hard" nationalists are different. Hard nationalism is, by definition, more hardline and rough. It advocates separation of a culture from a nation that does not share the same culture. It advocates creation of a new or old nation. Hardline nationalism sees no virtue in sharing a nation with another culture; it seeks to enforce one, separate culture upon whatever authority or population it can lay claim to.
Both hard and soft nationalism have their merits; soft nationalism is less aggressive, more multicultural within their chosen nation, and more willing to reach a compromise. Hard nationalism, by contrast, is more aggressive, more devout, and less willing to tolerant attacks on itself. Both can allow a culture (or fusion of cultures) to last for centuries; depending on the situation, hard nationalism can force by sword and shout the survival of their culture and nation. In other situations, the hard nationalism can antagonize neighboring cultures so much that the hardliner portions of it are crushed into dust, forgotten by all and only propagated by meaningless traditions that those enacting them have forgotten the reason for.
Soft nationalism can likewise create a smooth, frictionless culture anchored within a nation and tied to its future. On the other hand, soft nationalism can lead to old traditions dying; the largest culture in a nation can swallow up the culture trying to coexist with it; who proudly lays claim to a fusion of German and American culture anymore, for example?
What is interesting to me (regarding hard and soft nationalism), is that soft nationalism seems like it is on the rise. Nations are no longer expanding in size or actively exporting their culture. Instead, soft nationalism is leading to a rise in fusion cultures; for example; a French-Algerian boy once restricted to being French culturally is able to learn about his ancestors in French school, to celebrate the fusion of Algerian and French culture that is in his blood. Once, he would either have to give up his Algerian culture and assimilate or become a hardline nationalist that demanded only Algerian culture. Now, he will be able to fuse both cultures together. Of course, part of the price of soft nationalism is that the descendants of same French-Algerian boy might lose their identity as Algerians, and not even remember that they once held both cultures tight to their identity. They might not celebrate the Algerian part of their French-Algerian culture! Or a German-Pole (from Silesia in Poland) might become only just a Pole, completely omitting their German heritage.
Again, sorry for the rambling, its just an interesting concept, and though I'm sure its been discussed before, I never had thought of a term for it until recently.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Some thoughts on Libya.
So as the civil war in Libya starts winding down, I've got some thoughts about it.
The Libyan Civil War was really the first modern war (civil or otherwise) that I paid any attention to; I recall the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I was too young to follow them closely. They're only a shadow in my memory. Libya, however, is clear and bright in my mind. I can recall the important events (as I watched the fight closely from the beginning), the decision-makers, the controversies, the quotes about it, even the equipment used in the conflict. I can remember the articles from all different points of view talking about the conflict. Libya seems to be the conflict that will shape my future views on war, whether I want it to or not.
The first thing I learned from Libya is that even nowadays, the smallest decisions can cause the most incredible things to happen. It's funny, really. In 1914 Franz Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian nationalist, sparking a war bigger than any the world had seen before, and now, almost a century afterwards, a Tunisian fruit-seller named Mohamed Bouazizi sets himself on fire, sparking one of the biggest waves of revolutions and protests since 1848 (which was called the Year of Revolutions). Side note: It's a bit frightening to look at 1848 and see the parallels in the "Arab Spring" of 2011, only Middle-Eastern instead of European. The smallest decisions by the lowliest of figures can shake the very foundations of the world.
The second idea I've discovered is that covering fire is a godsend to the underdog in a war. The Libyan rebels (now considered by most of the world to be the rightful Libyan government and people) were outclassed in many, many ways by Mommar Gaddafi's forces. The pro-Gaddafi forces at the beginning of the war were better equipped, better skilled, had more experience in combat, had a stronger position, and had better morale. All of that didn't matter as much when bombs rained from the sky like a reversed London Blitz.
The third thing I've found is that people who haven't been trained in any kind of combat for roughly 40 years can't pick up military skills at the drop of a hat. Beyond suppressing insurrections and small-ish, low intensity wars, Gaddafi's army doesn't have too much experience either, but it still has much more experience than the National Transitional Council (formerly rebel) forces do. Besides the defected former Gaddafi regiments, the NTC guys have only been at this for about half a year, so it makes sense that they have to learn how to fight properly as they go. It isn't surprising that they're making many, many mistakes.
The fourth interesting fact that I've seen is how different parts of a country and its people react to the crumbling of a regime. Some Libyan cities (Benghazi in particular) revolted when they had their first chance. Others waited for their dictator to be distracted by the first revolters. Others were publicly loyal until the NTC tanks and jeeps rolled into their cities, revealing themselves to be wholeheartedly supportive of the opposition forces. The way the people reacted is a fascinating observation itself. Some secretly deserted Gaddafi when he turned his back, others refused his orders openly and trumpeted their opposition to him. Yet others waited until the NTC forces managed to siege major cities successfully. A few ran to the NTC only when Gaddafi had no chance to hunt them down. And a few hardliners only hardened in their loyalty to the deposed dictator. And throughout it all, suspicion mounts against those who take too long to desert Gaddafi. Before his shady death, General Younis of the NTC forces was under the suspicion of NTC forces that thought he only fled the dictator to set himself up in a coup, Gaddafi-style.
All in all, the Libyan Civil War/Revolution has been very well documented, and with all its twists and turns it is an excellent study into how modern-day wars can operate. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan, those wars were predictable from the start. Libya, however, reads like a novel, and is informative while still being interesting. It would be better if it wasn't needed at all (if Gaddafi stood down), but as it is, I think it was a needed revolution; not only for the Libyan people to show their desire for freedom, self-worth, and democracy, but also a revolution that gives a lesson to the world in terms of changing the paradigm for the Middle East.
The Libyan Civil War was really the first modern war (civil or otherwise) that I paid any attention to; I recall the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I was too young to follow them closely. They're only a shadow in my memory. Libya, however, is clear and bright in my mind. I can recall the important events (as I watched the fight closely from the beginning), the decision-makers, the controversies, the quotes about it, even the equipment used in the conflict. I can remember the articles from all different points of view talking about the conflict. Libya seems to be the conflict that will shape my future views on war, whether I want it to or not.
The first thing I learned from Libya is that even nowadays, the smallest decisions can cause the most incredible things to happen. It's funny, really. In 1914 Franz Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian nationalist, sparking a war bigger than any the world had seen before, and now, almost a century afterwards, a Tunisian fruit-seller named Mohamed Bouazizi sets himself on fire, sparking one of the biggest waves of revolutions and protests since 1848 (which was called the Year of Revolutions). Side note: It's a bit frightening to look at 1848 and see the parallels in the "Arab Spring" of 2011, only Middle-Eastern instead of European. The smallest decisions by the lowliest of figures can shake the very foundations of the world.
The second idea I've discovered is that covering fire is a godsend to the underdog in a war. The Libyan rebels (now considered by most of the world to be the rightful Libyan government and people) were outclassed in many, many ways by Mommar Gaddafi's forces. The pro-Gaddafi forces at the beginning of the war were better equipped, better skilled, had more experience in combat, had a stronger position, and had better morale. All of that didn't matter as much when bombs rained from the sky like a reversed London Blitz.
The third thing I've found is that people who haven't been trained in any kind of combat for roughly 40 years can't pick up military skills at the drop of a hat. Beyond suppressing insurrections and small-ish, low intensity wars, Gaddafi's army doesn't have too much experience either, but it still has much more experience than the National Transitional Council (formerly rebel) forces do. Besides the defected former Gaddafi regiments, the NTC guys have only been at this for about half a year, so it makes sense that they have to learn how to fight properly as they go. It isn't surprising that they're making many, many mistakes.
The fourth interesting fact that I've seen is how different parts of a country and its people react to the crumbling of a regime. Some Libyan cities (Benghazi in particular) revolted when they had their first chance. Others waited for their dictator to be distracted by the first revolters. Others were publicly loyal until the NTC tanks and jeeps rolled into their cities, revealing themselves to be wholeheartedly supportive of the opposition forces. The way the people reacted is a fascinating observation itself. Some secretly deserted Gaddafi when he turned his back, others refused his orders openly and trumpeted their opposition to him. Yet others waited until the NTC forces managed to siege major cities successfully. A few ran to the NTC only when Gaddafi had no chance to hunt them down. And a few hardliners only hardened in their loyalty to the deposed dictator. And throughout it all, suspicion mounts against those who take too long to desert Gaddafi. Before his shady death, General Younis of the NTC forces was under the suspicion of NTC forces that thought he only fled the dictator to set himself up in a coup, Gaddafi-style.
All in all, the Libyan Civil War/Revolution has been very well documented, and with all its twists and turns it is an excellent study into how modern-day wars can operate. Forget Iraq or Afghanistan, those wars were predictable from the start. Libya, however, reads like a novel, and is informative while still being interesting. It would be better if it wasn't needed at all (if Gaddafi stood down), but as it is, I think it was a needed revolution; not only for the Libyan people to show their desire for freedom, self-worth, and democracy, but also a revolution that gives a lesson to the world in terms of changing the paradigm for the Middle East.
Friday, September 9, 2011
My Generation: Generation Sparse Snarkers
Looking at all the news and browsing through various internet forums (where people of all persuasions hang out; rich, poor, white, black, Latino, Asian, conservative, liberal, religious, secular, calm, hotheated, fringe, comfortably mainstream), and I've come to a conclusion: My generation (the Millenials, 90s, and very late 80s children) is a generation of very austure, penny-pinching comedians. A generation of moneyless mockers. Of pocket-change parodists.
Now, why do I think this? Because the first part (of being poorer than their parents and being forced to make great financial sacrifice; we are the generation coming of age in the almost mythic (in a cultural sense) "Great Recession", the Depression for the new century. We are, more than any generation in 70 years, forced to elevaluate the cost of our finanical decisions. Of course, those middle-aged adults already in this situation face the same decisions, but, like the generation coming of age before the Greatest Generation, they don't comphrend the full cultural signifiance of the Great Recession.
The comedian side of this generation is a bit harder to realize; it's only when you realize the figures that Generation Sparse Snarkers seem to idolize that you understand. What does this generation respect? Not experience or ideology; that is the refuge of the older generations. This generation respects Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the like, comedians all. Many of this generation go to comedians for news; they respect the integrity and news-telling skills of the unserious over the professional journalists. Even the political pundits inject satire into their politics nowadays, just to be admired by this generation.
And our heroes of the past are no different; who do we respect and why? Who from history is popular right now; certainly not those who built stability or great empires. No, we respect historical leaders with a sense of humor; Winston Churchill's witty dismissal of those who accussed him of being a drunk, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt when they satrizied their opponents, Harry Truman when he used his rough manner to mock his opponents, and those similar to these jokester presidents. We don't pay as heavy attention to their actions (though we still do look at what they actually did), and focus rather on their comedic talent.
Even our music, in some cases, gravitates to the "poor/disadvantaged comedian"; new forms of folk, hip-hop, rock, rap, punk, and country music are becoming popular, and rather than complain about what they do not have, these new music artists take aim at those that are perceived to have too much. The older music that does the same thing as this new music has been embraced in much the same way. For example, I personally have started to listen to The Dead Kennedy; their fierce satirical lyrics appeal to me, and fit my generation's woes, even though they are decades old.
So yeah, I think the culture of my generation is of austerity and comedic wit. I feel that we feel these things are the things that define our generation. I feel this is how our generation will be seen by future generations.
Now, why do I think this? Because the first part (of being poorer than their parents and being forced to make great financial sacrifice; we are the generation coming of age in the almost mythic (in a cultural sense) "Great Recession", the Depression for the new century. We are, more than any generation in 70 years, forced to elevaluate the cost of our finanical decisions. Of course, those middle-aged adults already in this situation face the same decisions, but, like the generation coming of age before the Greatest Generation, they don't comphrend the full cultural signifiance of the Great Recession.
The comedian side of this generation is a bit harder to realize; it's only when you realize the figures that Generation Sparse Snarkers seem to idolize that you understand. What does this generation respect? Not experience or ideology; that is the refuge of the older generations. This generation respects Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the like, comedians all. Many of this generation go to comedians for news; they respect the integrity and news-telling skills of the unserious over the professional journalists. Even the political pundits inject satire into their politics nowadays, just to be admired by this generation.
And our heroes of the past are no different; who do we respect and why? Who from history is popular right now; certainly not those who built stability or great empires. No, we respect historical leaders with a sense of humor; Winston Churchill's witty dismissal of those who accussed him of being a drunk, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt when they satrizied their opponents, Harry Truman when he used his rough manner to mock his opponents, and those similar to these jokester presidents. We don't pay as heavy attention to their actions (though we still do look at what they actually did), and focus rather on their comedic talent.
Even our music, in some cases, gravitates to the "poor/disadvantaged comedian"; new forms of folk, hip-hop, rock, rap, punk, and country music are becoming popular, and rather than complain about what they do not have, these new music artists take aim at those that are perceived to have too much. The older music that does the same thing as this new music has been embraced in much the same way. For example, I personally have started to listen to The Dead Kennedy; their fierce satirical lyrics appeal to me, and fit my generation's woes, even though they are decades old.
So yeah, I think the culture of my generation is of austerity and comedic wit. I feel that we feel these things are the things that define our generation. I feel this is how our generation will be seen by future generations.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Could a Polynesian Governor beat racism in Utah?
Look; its no secret; Utah has serious problems with racism. Latinos (especially undocumented immigrant Latinos) are demonized, insulted, and accused of conspiracy (what with the anchor baby stuff and such). Just recently, there was a big fuss over a Utahn impersonating a police officer in order to catch a Hispanic man who was speeding; and wouldn't you know, the cop impersonator asked about the man's citizenship before anything else (the Hispanic man was a Brazilian college student, by the way). "Minuteman" anti-Hispanic groups are increasingly popular in Utah.
Arabs, though not especially targeted here in Utah, have the same racism and religious bigotry directed towards them here as in the rest of the United States. This is despite the fact that the majority Mormons here in Utah should really know better than to persecute a religious minority.
Blacks facing racism in Utah, well, uh, I shouldn't need to really explain that, beyond pointing out that the majority Mormons might have seen the disbarment of blacks from the priesthood as an excuse for further racism. I have to give props to the LDS church leaders, however; in the early years of Utah as a state, they spoke out against the Klu Klux Klan and prevented it from gaining a hold here. But that alignment against the KKK didn't prevent racism against blacks from appearing here in Utah.
Asians (especially Indians) get the generic conservative American treatment; that of mocking their accents and resenting that Asia is slowly growing in economic and political importance.
Native Americans are really just ignored here in Utah, which is a form of racism in itself, I suppose.
But to point out the reason for the title of this post, there's two ethnic minority groups Utahns, especially Mormon Utahns, absolutely adore. Jews and Polynesians.
Utahns adoring Jewish folks is fairly obvious; Utah was colonized by Mormons, and we Mormons believe ourselves to be a sort of "cousin" to Jews, religiously. We try to pattern ourselves after Jews, and are fiercely pro-Israeli. A Mormon who isn't pro-Jewish is more of an oddity than a Mormon who is. Heck, we call ourselves things like "Israel" and "Zion". Even the non-Mormons in Utah tend to have similar views about Jews. Utah is a very positive place to be a Jew, in my opinion. You'll get Mormons trying to convert you, of course, but they won't do it as aggressively as they try to convert other groups, and more often than not, Mormons will be actually interested in Jewish culture, since our theology makes us perceive ourselves as related to Jewish folks.
A more interesting oddity is the presence of Polynesians in Utah. Because the story of Utah is, as always, intertwined with the story of Mormonism, we'll need a little background info. Mormons and Polynesians having good relations with each other began in 1851, when George Q. Cannon went to Hawaii as a missionary. A little later in 1865, the prophet Brigham Young sent a letter to the Hawaiian King Kamehameha V, detailing the church's teachings, and affirming his belief that Polynesians (Hawaiians, Samoans, Maoris and Tongans included) were related to the civilizations in the Book of Mormon. That belief has been held by Presidents of the Church (and quite a few members) rather consistently for decades.
Nowadays, Polynesians have a huge population of LDS members; 1 in 4 people living in American Samoa are Mormon, 17% of Tongans belong to the Church, Hawaii has roughly 70,000 members, and Samoa itself has nearly 13% of it's population professing the LDS faith. All in all, Polynesians have quite enthusiastically embraced the LDS church. Thousands have even moved to Utah after becoming Mormon.
And of course, good relations with the Mormon Church breeds good relations with the Mormon populace; some of our most popular LDS movies feature Polynesians, Utah (specifically Mormon Utah, but it seems to be bleeding over to the non-Mormons) has co-opted bits and pieces of Polynesian culture (especially the haka), and some of the top tourist sites for Mormons have been Polynesian cultural centers.
I'll provide some further anecdotal evidence for this curious love of Polynesians by Utahns; in 12 years as a (white) Utahn, I have never heard an unkind word said about a Polynesian because of his race, and I have never heard of a white-on-Polynesian hate crime, or vice-versa. The worst I have heard is just gentle jokes about how Polynesians eat a lot more than white people, and how physically fit Polynesians are. I've never even heard insinuations that Polynesians shouldn't participate in intellectual tasks because of their physical attributes. If anything, white Mormons try to emulate Polynesians when around them. Furthermore, I have never seen a Mormon ward (basically a congregation) in Utah without a Polynesian family, and I have always seen that family being one of the most popular family. Racism against Polynesians definitely exists, but it's quite subtle, and you have to look very hard to find it.
So there you have it; Jews and Polynesians are the most beloved minorities in Utah. Mormons especially love both groups. So, bringing this very long rant back to the beginning of this post, Utah has problems with racism. But, like in any state, a highly influential minority public figure could fight effectively against entrenched racism without being accused of patronizing minorities, like a white would be accused of doing. The very fact that Utah had a Jewish governor in the past effectively extinguished any lingering racism towards Jews in Utah, for example.
This is all horribly disorganized in my head (and probably has tons of bad grammar), but I've already pointed out the incredible racism Utahns have towards most races. I think that a person who became Governor of Utah could very effectively use his/her status as Governor as a sort of "bully pulpit" to beat down racism in Utah through word, law, and personal example. As I explained, normally, most minorities in Utah would be looked down upon for being a minority, even though they'd be better able to fight racism. Even if a minority became Governor, they'd have massive nativist/racist resentment against them for fighting against that racism. A Polynesian Governor however, would be able to avoid both the trap of being perceived as a patronizing white, AND the trap of simply being a minority Utahns dislike. Therefore, I think a strong, anti-racism Polynesian Governor will be Utah's best bet to beat racism in Utah.
Just a very long, rambling thought. My next post will be better written than this; I've just had an "off" day for writing.
Arabs, though not especially targeted here in Utah, have the same racism and religious bigotry directed towards them here as in the rest of the United States. This is despite the fact that the majority Mormons here in Utah should really know better than to persecute a religious minority.
Blacks facing racism in Utah, well, uh, I shouldn't need to really explain that, beyond pointing out that the majority Mormons might have seen the disbarment of blacks from the priesthood as an excuse for further racism. I have to give props to the LDS church leaders, however; in the early years of Utah as a state, they spoke out against the Klu Klux Klan and prevented it from gaining a hold here. But that alignment against the KKK didn't prevent racism against blacks from appearing here in Utah.
Asians (especially Indians) get the generic conservative American treatment; that of mocking their accents and resenting that Asia is slowly growing in economic and political importance.
Native Americans are really just ignored here in Utah, which is a form of racism in itself, I suppose.
But to point out the reason for the title of this post, there's two ethnic minority groups Utahns, especially Mormon Utahns, absolutely adore. Jews and Polynesians.
Utahns adoring Jewish folks is fairly obvious; Utah was colonized by Mormons, and we Mormons believe ourselves to be a sort of "cousin" to Jews, religiously. We try to pattern ourselves after Jews, and are fiercely pro-Israeli. A Mormon who isn't pro-Jewish is more of an oddity than a Mormon who is. Heck, we call ourselves things like "Israel" and "Zion". Even the non-Mormons in Utah tend to have similar views about Jews. Utah is a very positive place to be a Jew, in my opinion. You'll get Mormons trying to convert you, of course, but they won't do it as aggressively as they try to convert other groups, and more often than not, Mormons will be actually interested in Jewish culture, since our theology makes us perceive ourselves as related to Jewish folks.
A more interesting oddity is the presence of Polynesians in Utah. Because the story of Utah is, as always, intertwined with the story of Mormonism, we'll need a little background info. Mormons and Polynesians having good relations with each other began in 1851, when George Q. Cannon went to Hawaii as a missionary. A little later in 1865, the prophet Brigham Young sent a letter to the Hawaiian King Kamehameha V, detailing the church's teachings, and affirming his belief that Polynesians (Hawaiians, Samoans, Maoris and Tongans included) were related to the civilizations in the Book of Mormon. That belief has been held by Presidents of the Church (and quite a few members) rather consistently for decades.
Nowadays, Polynesians have a huge population of LDS members; 1 in 4 people living in American Samoa are Mormon, 17% of Tongans belong to the Church, Hawaii has roughly 70,000 members, and Samoa itself has nearly 13% of it's population professing the LDS faith. All in all, Polynesians have quite enthusiastically embraced the LDS church. Thousands have even moved to Utah after becoming Mormon.
And of course, good relations with the Mormon Church breeds good relations with the Mormon populace; some of our most popular LDS movies feature Polynesians, Utah (specifically Mormon Utah, but it seems to be bleeding over to the non-Mormons) has co-opted bits and pieces of Polynesian culture (especially the haka), and some of the top tourist sites for Mormons have been Polynesian cultural centers.
I'll provide some further anecdotal evidence for this curious love of Polynesians by Utahns; in 12 years as a (white) Utahn, I have never heard an unkind word said about a Polynesian because of his race, and I have never heard of a white-on-Polynesian hate crime, or vice-versa. The worst I have heard is just gentle jokes about how Polynesians eat a lot more than white people, and how physically fit Polynesians are. I've never even heard insinuations that Polynesians shouldn't participate in intellectual tasks because of their physical attributes. If anything, white Mormons try to emulate Polynesians when around them. Furthermore, I have never seen a Mormon ward (basically a congregation) in Utah without a Polynesian family, and I have always seen that family being one of the most popular family. Racism against Polynesians definitely exists, but it's quite subtle, and you have to look very hard to find it.
So there you have it; Jews and Polynesians are the most beloved minorities in Utah. Mormons especially love both groups. So, bringing this very long rant back to the beginning of this post, Utah has problems with racism. But, like in any state, a highly influential minority public figure could fight effectively against entrenched racism without being accused of patronizing minorities, like a white would be accused of doing. The very fact that Utah had a Jewish governor in the past effectively extinguished any lingering racism towards Jews in Utah, for example.
This is all horribly disorganized in my head (and probably has tons of bad grammar), but I've already pointed out the incredible racism Utahns have towards most races. I think that a person who became Governor of Utah could very effectively use his/her status as Governor as a sort of "bully pulpit" to beat down racism in Utah through word, law, and personal example. As I explained, normally, most minorities in Utah would be looked down upon for being a minority, even though they'd be better able to fight racism. Even if a minority became Governor, they'd have massive nativist/racist resentment against them for fighting against that racism. A Polynesian Governor however, would be able to avoid both the trap of being perceived as a patronizing white, AND the trap of simply being a minority Utahns dislike. Therefore, I think a strong, anti-racism Polynesian Governor will be Utah's best bet to beat racism in Utah.
Just a very long, rambling thought. My next post will be better written than this; I've just had an "off" day for writing.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Prosperity Gospel? That's not my Gospel.
So there's a thing called the "Prosperity Gospel". It's a specific religious movement that claims essentially that if you're rich and Christian, you are blessed by God, no matter how you got your money, and how many people you stepped on. And here's the thing, if you're poor, then apparently God hates you.
No, really. This insane idea that the rich, rather then being blessed with their riches so that they can have the opportunity to help the less fortunate, are divinely ordained to do whatever they darn well please with their money is an actual, mainstream idea. The worst part? It's teamed up with the proponents of "small government". Y'know, those folks who are always saying things like "keep the government outta my money". The prosperity gospel kooks have teamed up with (some, not all) of the libertarians, leading to an absurd mindset that the government taxing your money is not just inconvenient, but an actual sin. That God would rather you spend your money on selfish and personal whims, opposed to helping people through social programs.
And like I outlined earlier, the Prosperity Gospel sanctifies the rich. It literally gives them a higher position than the poor. Combined with libertarian philosophy, it leads to some ugly things. Like the constant suspicion of the social programs designed to help the poor. Somehow, someone who is poor is expected to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty, and if they can't do that even through hard work, being forced to rely on the social safety net, that is a personal failing. Think about that. If a hard-working teacher (with say, several kids) cannot provide for herself and her family, than it is a personal failing on her part. Yet, a rich man, born into wealth (or born poor, we're not picky here), and never having to work as hard as the teacher is seen as somehow morally better, simply because he is rich and the teacher is not.
Those programs designed to uplift the needy, and the taxes required to pay for them are regarded as godless. Yes, they are called "SOCIALISM!". Taking from the deserving! God blessed the "hard work" of the rich by giving them riches! Those poor folks didn't become filthy rich on their own, so they do not deserve any contribution from those blessed with more! The poor soul searching for a job, forced to rely on unemployment benefits? GODLESS PARASITE! Those blessed with more shouldn't have to give of themselves for this wretch! The single mother, trying desperately to put her children through school so they can have a better life than she does? WHY, THAT'S RIPPING MY MONEY (of which I have a hundred times of what I'm being asked to pay) AWAY FROM MY DESERVING HANDS!
MY MONEY. DESERVING. MY MONEY. MINE.
How utterly vile. I reject this gospel of the rich and the stiff-necked. I throw away this caring for gold and Mammon.
I follow the gospel of helping the poor and the needy. I hate to throw Mormon scriptures out on the drop of the hat, but here's Mosiah 4:16: "Also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish."
Oh; that's pretty clear on helping the needy. How about those that don't do so? Oh, look, Mosiah 4:17-18: " 17: Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart into him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just. 18: But I say unto you, O man, whosoever do this hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done, he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."
Oh. So you shouldn't withhold your substance either. Okay. But we Mormons are a weird folk, what does the Bible, the cornerstone of Christian theology, say about this? "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he shall also cry himself, but shall not be heard." Proverbs 21:13.
Oh, well how about the New Testament? From Jesus himself; "He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." Luke 3:11.
Oh, well, let's just say you hate the Book of Mormon, but love the Doctrine and Covenants. "Wo unto you, rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls, and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgement, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!" D&C 56: 16.
First, I love the phrase "canker your souls". Canker sores are really painful on the mouth, so imagine how bad one on the soul would be. Second, right then. All the major scriptures have the gospel of helping the poor and condemning the rich (I don't have my trusty Quran ready, but seeing as how it's got charity as one of it's five pillars, I'm guessing it says something similar).
And that's not even including the grisly fates of the greedy in the Bible.
Right then. So who is really in charge of this "Down with the poor, I want my riches" gospel? Who are the kind of people that enthusiastically support this? Who recognizes this selfish, miserly philosophy as God's word?
Not I. Not the holy scriptures. So who's really behind this "MINE IS THE GLORY" gospel? What sort of selfish, bitter spirit of a person would want this?
Think about that.
(Side note: for those religious folks that hold the libertarian view that "oh we can fix it all by privately giving to charity, despite all the problems within completely private charity; even good government can't do it because government is bad"; think about the great and wise kings and rulers in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. What were they known for? For their wisdom and kindness in supporting the needy, right? Well, they certainly didn't use their own money; so who's money did they use? They of course used everyone's money. They were the government, and they used taxes/tribute money. And yet they helped the poor.)
No, really. This insane idea that the rich, rather then being blessed with their riches so that they can have the opportunity to help the less fortunate, are divinely ordained to do whatever they darn well please with their money is an actual, mainstream idea. The worst part? It's teamed up with the proponents of "small government". Y'know, those folks who are always saying things like "keep the government outta my money". The prosperity gospel kooks have teamed up with (some, not all) of the libertarians, leading to an absurd mindset that the government taxing your money is not just inconvenient, but an actual sin. That God would rather you spend your money on selfish and personal whims, opposed to helping people through social programs.
And like I outlined earlier, the Prosperity Gospel sanctifies the rich. It literally gives them a higher position than the poor. Combined with libertarian philosophy, it leads to some ugly things. Like the constant suspicion of the social programs designed to help the poor. Somehow, someone who is poor is expected to "bootstrap" themselves out of poverty, and if they can't do that even through hard work, being forced to rely on the social safety net, that is a personal failing. Think about that. If a hard-working teacher (with say, several kids) cannot provide for herself and her family, than it is a personal failing on her part. Yet, a rich man, born into wealth (or born poor, we're not picky here), and never having to work as hard as the teacher is seen as somehow morally better, simply because he is rich and the teacher is not.
Those programs designed to uplift the needy, and the taxes required to pay for them are regarded as godless. Yes, they are called "SOCIALISM!". Taking from the deserving! God blessed the "hard work" of the rich by giving them riches! Those poor folks didn't become filthy rich on their own, so they do not deserve any contribution from those blessed with more! The poor soul searching for a job, forced to rely on unemployment benefits? GODLESS PARASITE! Those blessed with more shouldn't have to give of themselves for this wretch! The single mother, trying desperately to put her children through school so they can have a better life than she does? WHY, THAT'S RIPPING MY MONEY (of which I have a hundred times of what I'm being asked to pay) AWAY FROM MY DESERVING HANDS!
MY MONEY. DESERVING. MY MONEY. MINE.
How utterly vile. I reject this gospel of the rich and the stiff-necked. I throw away this caring for gold and Mammon.
I follow the gospel of helping the poor and the needy. I hate to throw Mormon scriptures out on the drop of the hat, but here's Mosiah 4:16: "Also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish."
Oh; that's pretty clear on helping the needy. How about those that don't do so? Oh, look, Mosiah 4:17-18: " 17: Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart into him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just. 18: But I say unto you, O man, whosoever do this hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done, he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."
Oh. So you shouldn't withhold your substance either. Okay. But we Mormons are a weird folk, what does the Bible, the cornerstone of Christian theology, say about this? "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he shall also cry himself, but shall not be heard." Proverbs 21:13.
Oh, well how about the New Testament? From Jesus himself; "He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." Luke 3:11.
Oh, well, let's just say you hate the Book of Mormon, but love the Doctrine and Covenants. "Wo unto you, rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls, and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgement, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!" D&C 56: 16.
First, I love the phrase "canker your souls". Canker sores are really painful on the mouth, so imagine how bad one on the soul would be. Second, right then. All the major scriptures have the gospel of helping the poor and condemning the rich (I don't have my trusty Quran ready, but seeing as how it's got charity as one of it's five pillars, I'm guessing it says something similar).
And that's not even including the grisly fates of the greedy in the Bible.
Right then. So who is really in charge of this "Down with the poor, I want my riches" gospel? Who are the kind of people that enthusiastically support this? Who recognizes this selfish, miserly philosophy as God's word?
Not I. Not the holy scriptures. So who's really behind this "MINE IS THE GLORY" gospel? What sort of selfish, bitter spirit of a person would want this?
Think about that.
(Side note: for those religious folks that hold the libertarian view that "oh we can fix it all by privately giving to charity, despite all the problems within completely private charity; even good government can't do it because government is bad"; think about the great and wise kings and rulers in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. What were they known for? For their wisdom and kindness in supporting the needy, right? Well, they certainly didn't use their own money; so who's money did they use? They of course used everyone's money. They were the government, and they used taxes/tribute money. And yet they helped the poor.)
Monday, June 13, 2011
So, Metal music.
Finally, a non-political post. Hurrah!
Anyway; those who know me personally know that I am a HUGE metal fan. I love metal, from slow, melodious doom metal, to funky progressive metal, to my favorite, makes-you-want-to-punch-a-dragon POWER METAL. In my eyes, metal is not a Satanic mismatch of evil lyrics, screaming/growling, and violent themes, unless the metal band specifically goes for that set of themes (admittedly, some do that, and I prefer not to listen to them). Metal, like all music, is simply intended to evoke a emotion out of a listener. To me, metal's greatest strength is it's ability to do that. I have alternatively cried, laughed, pondered, and gone out to do something with my life after listening to metal.
The themes used in metal are almost as intriguing as its ability to inspire emotion. One day you could listen to a band singing about fighting dragons and elves, another day you could listen to a band about the legends of ancient Egypt, on a third day you could listen to a technological-based album, and on the fourth day you could hear another band sing about how great it is to be a pirate. I have never seen such a diversity of themes in any kind of music besides metal. The writers for metal bands have such a variety of thoughts on various matters that you can point to a group of bands and say "they're the pirate metal guys", to another group and say "They're the guys who did albums about Lord of the Rings", and to a third group and say "They do Viking Metal". All of this, and it is still fundamentally the same kind of music.
All in all, I think metal taps into an energy that most kinds of music leave alone. Sure, hip-hop/rap can tap into the energy of hating injustice/growing up, classical can tap into a sense of majesty, country can tap into a sense of the laid-back attitude of rural regions, and other sorts of music can tap into their kinds of energy, but I think metal is alone in capturing the idea that music can not only tell a story, but be a book in music form, evoking whatever emotions the author wants you to feel. Metal can switch between emotions, and I feel other genres of music cannot.
So there's my thoughts on metal. I'll leave you to to a link to the metal band Sonata Arctica's cover of "Wind Beneath My Winds", which I think nicely proves my point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5pY-_e8znE
Anyway; those who know me personally know that I am a HUGE metal fan. I love metal, from slow, melodious doom metal, to funky progressive metal, to my favorite, makes-you-want-to-punch-a-dragon POWER METAL. In my eyes, metal is not a Satanic mismatch of evil lyrics, screaming/growling, and violent themes, unless the metal band specifically goes for that set of themes (admittedly, some do that, and I prefer not to listen to them). Metal, like all music, is simply intended to evoke a emotion out of a listener. To me, metal's greatest strength is it's ability to do that. I have alternatively cried, laughed, pondered, and gone out to do something with my life after listening to metal.
The themes used in metal are almost as intriguing as its ability to inspire emotion. One day you could listen to a band singing about fighting dragons and elves, another day you could listen to a band about the legends of ancient Egypt, on a third day you could listen to a technological-based album, and on the fourth day you could hear another band sing about how great it is to be a pirate. I have never seen such a diversity of themes in any kind of music besides metal. The writers for metal bands have such a variety of thoughts on various matters that you can point to a group of bands and say "they're the pirate metal guys", to another group and say "They're the guys who did albums about Lord of the Rings", and to a third group and say "They do Viking Metal". All of this, and it is still fundamentally the same kind of music.
All in all, I think metal taps into an energy that most kinds of music leave alone. Sure, hip-hop/rap can tap into the energy of hating injustice/growing up, classical can tap into a sense of majesty, country can tap into a sense of the laid-back attitude of rural regions, and other sorts of music can tap into their kinds of energy, but I think metal is alone in capturing the idea that music can not only tell a story, but be a book in music form, evoking whatever emotions the author wants you to feel. Metal can switch between emotions, and I feel other genres of music cannot.
So there's my thoughts on metal. I'll leave you to to a link to the metal band Sonata Arctica's cover of "Wind Beneath My Winds", which I think nicely proves my point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5pY-_e8znE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)