Harry Potter and the ‘Secret Sub-culture’

February 29, 2008 — xanthippa

During a debate, someone raised the topic of ‘Harry Potter’ and how ‘unfinished’ and ‘unsatisfactory’ the last book really was.  One person said that during the series, J. K. Rowling seemed to change the fundamental roles of some of the characters.  It started me thinking…perhaps it may not have started out as such, but, by the end, WHAT was the ‘Harry Potter’ story really about?

Let’s look at it.

We have a young boy, living in an average British suburb, average British house, yet still disenfranchised from all about him.  Without knowing why, he feels different, he does not fit in.  As he grows, he learns he is a part of this very special group of people who live within the British culture, but are different, separate from the mainstream population in so many ways!

This ‘special’ group of people could, at first look, pass for Brits – but were decidedly different.  They believed in different things, behaved differently, dressed differently, yet kept their ‘differentness’ secret from the mainstream.  With their own rules (though their ‘Minister’ did have a ‘quazi-legal’ status with the ‘Muggle’ Prime Minister) and laws, their own separate legal system administered justice among them.

Most of the Brits are not even aware of their separate existence:  and many of the members of this ‘special sub-culture’ live integrated, among regular people.  Yet others live isolated, in whole communities devoted to ‘their kind’ – and it is only in these isolated communities that members of this special ‘sub-culture’ openly practiced their ‘differentness’.

Those who spent their whole lives in these communities often fail to understand even the basic principles or social customs of the greater British society surrounding them.  Not only do they think, act, and dress differently…they can not even be bothered to learn about the rest of the society that surrounded them, even as they consider them as ‘less evolved’ or ‘less special’ than themselves.  They euphemistically refer to ‘regular people’ by the patronizing term ‘muggles’, or by the downright derisive ‘dirty mud people’….

And though they may be self-isolated from the cultural mainstream – having their own beliefs and their own schools where they sent their children – they do keep in close contact with other people of their own kind, who live scattered in secret or isolated communities in other parts of the world….all of them taking care to go unnoticed by their host society.

Hmmm, any thoughts yet?

It gets better.

Within this secretive sub-culture, there was a struggle:  those who were kindly pre-disposed towards the lowly ‘muggles’, those who wanted to ‘get along while being allowed to keep their separate sub-culture’, were battling against a militant group from within.  Led by a mythical, powerful, but hard-to-define and often absent leader, this ‘evil’ sub-sect was downright hostile toward the host culture, killing ‘muggles’ without regard, just to prove their superiority, and murdering any member of their sub-culture who opposed them too loudly….

But that was not all….not only was this sub-sect hostile and militant, it sought to gain total and complete control over the whole of the ‘magical world’ sub-culture.  Nobody knew any longer whom to trust, who was on whose side, who was secretly controlled….and the subtle blackmail and mind-control by the ‘evil side’ could escalate to open intimidation!  The ‘moderates’ kept trying to identify and battle the ‘militants’, only to be infiltrated and betrayed, time after time….

Is this still sounding like the story of a boy who wakes up and realizes he is ‘magical’?

Or does the change of attitudes Ms. Rowling’s book take as the story progresses pass comment on a completely different matter altogether?  A matter we all need to pay attention to, before Voldemort (who, by the way, changes his name from the one he’s born with, when he enters this special ‘sub-culture’) gains complete control over ‘the special community’ and subjugates ‘muggles’ in all the world?

Hmmmm, change a few of the labels, and you might not be looking at a fairy-tale at all!

Posted in human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 14 Comments »

A Soldier’s gift

February 27, 2008 — xanthippa

Most of the world is watching the circus leading up to the US elections, whether they want to or not, because our media is inundated with it.  And, while 0.01% of what they beam at us may actually be interesting, many important things which will impact our daily lives remain barely covered.

OK, OK, so this is happening in Canada….

But, to all you Americans out there, please, pay attention!  Why?  Because more often than not, Canada serves as USA’s political ‘canary in the mineshaft’…  Yet it took months before even the Canadian media raised its sleepy head and, bleary-eyed, began to sip its ‘Timmy’s coffee’ and realize what is actually going on. 

So, if you have missed this story so far, here is a quick recap:

Long time ago, when hippies just began to leave outdoor concerts and started applying their activism to setting up bureaucracies, Canada saw the establishment of these so called ‘Human Rights Commissions’:  each province got one of its own, but to be sure, one overarching ‘Canadian HRC’ was set up as well.  And, as many drug-inspired dreams, while the intent was good … the practice sucked.

And unquestionably, the intent was good.  Really good.  The HRC was to serve as a kind of a ‘small claims court’ for protecting human rights.  People who were not allowed to rent an apartment because they happened to be black, or not served in a restaurant because they were ‘Oriental’ (which had actually happened to my friends in the 1990’s) could go there and get help, without the stress and strain of getting a lawyer and launching an expensive lawsuit.   In other words, the HRC’s were to make sure that justice was not denied to anyone.

But, as the saying goes, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. 

These ‘Human Rights Commissions’, however well intentioned, were drafted up in a bit of ‘purple haze’, with predictable results.  And while it may or may not have been so intentioned, their constitutions’ ‘Section 13’ actually prohibits communication (even private) or anything else “that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt”.  Translation:  Section 13 bans ‘thought crime’!!! 

These HRC’s are not proper courts:  once they receive a complaint, their officers investigate, draft a report with recommendations, and then the HRC announces their ruling.  To show how effective this ‘investigator-prosecutor-judge’ system is, to date, the federal Human Rights Commission enjoys 100% conviction rate…  Hey, what are all these kangaroos doing in Canada?

Currently, there are two very high profile cases under investigation by the various HRC’s. 

  1. The newsmagazine Macleans published an excerpt from Mark Steyn’s book.  This included a quote from an Imam in Norway, where the Imam boasted that the birth rate among European Muslims was very high:  the IMAM used the phrase that the Muslims were ‘multiplying like mosquitoes’….  Decidedly, this is disrespectful:  which is why it is important that we all realize that an Imam would actually say that!  I read that article when it first came out, and the quote was duly attributed.  Yet, a complaint was laid at the HRC against both Macleans and Mr. Steyn for spreading hate against Muslims for printing that quote.
  2. Two years ago, worldwide violence broke out because a Danish paper published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad AND because some Danish mullahs manufactured some even more offensive cartoons and distributed them in the Middle East, claiming them to be part of the ‘Danish cartoons’.  The reactions were vitriolic and violent, people were murdered, churches set on fire, yet very few ‘Western media’ saw it fit to let us know what the subject of this violence was actually about.  In Canada, The Western Standard was one newsmagazine that dared to publish them.  In no time at all, the magazine and its editor, Ezra Levant, were being dragged in front of one of the HRC’s…..and a $100,000 in legal fees later, the Western Standard is only online and Mr. Levant is still trying to defend himself.

Mr. Levant did a very clever thing:  he actually taped his interrogation in the HRC’s modern-day dungeon.  Parts of it are now on YouTube…my favourite ones are ‘Attributes of Free Speech’ and ‘I don’t answer to the state’.  And, I read his blog, where there are many updates on this, as well as other ‘stuff’ about the HRC’s and the state of freedoms in our Western society.

Which is where I came across a letter, written to Mr. Evant, from a Canadian soldier on the front-line in Afghanistan….a true hero.  I must admit, it left me speechless…and touched me in places I thought I had long ago walled off with cynicism.  The soldier has some very deep insights, and though he is not rich, he donated $1,000 of his danger pay to help Mr. Levant’s defence fund!  Please, take a few moments and read that letter….it puts so much into perspective…

Thank you.

Posted in freedoms, human nature, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Holocaust in the UK curriculum

February 26, 2008 — xanthippa

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, but… somebody on the internet is wrong!!!

There is a particularly nasty rumour going about, that the UK has removed the teaching of Holocaust from its curriculum, ‘in order not to offend Muslim students, because they don’t believe in it’.  Please, pass it on:  THAT RUMOUR IS NOT TRUE!!!

Not having had enough time to think through the implications of the rumour itself (I am a very slow thinker), I will not comment on it for now.  Instead, I would like to share with you the questions that occurred to me as I ‘Googled about’ for articles on it.

  1. How can people pass on any ‘tidbit’, but especially one that has such an emotionally charged content, without checking it out???  Form 5 or 6 sources, at least???  Are we (collectively) really that stupid?
  2. How did this rumour even get started?  Now, I do have some suspicions on this one… I lay the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of some journalists (and their appallingly low standards in quality of writing and actually transmitting information) AND those readers who skim, rather read, news articles.  Poor writing and ‘skimming’ instead of reading are a bad combination indeed.
  3. Why would so many people be so ready to believe this rumour?  And though there is an ‘edge’ to this rumour, making it most tantalizing to pass on, the level of hysterics in some of these emails spreading the rumour spoke of genuine worry, so I do think the rumour was believed.

While the first two questions deserve a good hard thinking about, it is the third question that we all need to examine…  

Posted in education, human nature, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Epicurean, Epidurean…paradoxes everywhere!

February 24, 2008 — xanthippa

As far as Greek philosophers go, Epicurus was pretty O.K. 

Contrary to the customs of his era, he allowed women as students in his school.  Though there is absolutely no historical fact to justify this, I would love to think that the legendary Xanthippe (of whom he most certainly knew) and her famous debates versus Socrates, may have influenced him in this.  After all, his philosophy was not really all that far removed from hers (at least, the few little bits of her philosophy that have survived).

But, unlike Socrates, who was busy gazing at the navel of his immortal soul, Epicurus saw humans as having physical, intellectual, spiritual and social needs:  the ideal, then, was to strike a harmonious balance in one’s life.  Frankly, this seems almost too reasonable an opinion to be held by a ‘philosopher’! 

After all, where is the brooding, the derisive scowl at the cares of the world – isn’t that the image the word ‘philosopher’ is supposed to evoke?  I bet his ‘reasonableness’ cost him a lot of ‘pretentiousness points’ among the lofty circles…

 

He would likely have been written off and forgotten, had he not also voiced some very provocative ideas.  Most (though certainly not all) of his contemporaries aspired to the creed of monotheism, describing God in a way modern day Christians would recognize:  omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards mankind, his creation. In the still predominantly polytheistic environment, this idea – coupled with the notion Socrates had taught of the immortality of one’s soul – seemed very deep and mystical.  Yet, Epicurus directed some very pointed questions at this creed…and none of them have been satisfactorily answered as yet!

 

            Is God willing to prevent evil, and not able?

                        Then he is not omnipotent.

            Is He able, but not willing?

                        Then he is malevolent.

            Is God both able and willing?

                        Then whence cometh evil?

            Is He neither able, nor willing?

                        Then why call him God?

                                                –     Epicurus, 341-271 BCE

This is perhaps the most famous group of his questions and has been handed down to us under the name the ‘Epicurean riddle’, or the ‘Epicurean paradox’.  It has been much paraphrased over the millennia, but the above is one of my favourite renditions.

People say that pain can, at times, bring ‘things’ into a sharp focus.  This was true for me, as I deeply questioned every single one of my life’s decisions, whiling away the endless hours of late-stage labour.  Truly, I came to question everything!

And then, it occurred to me:  in order to make people (especially female people) truly comprehend the meaning of the Epicurean paradox, perhaps I could re-phrase it into terms that had more immediate impact on our lives.  It’s almost as if the words came to me of their own volition:

Is God is truly omniscient?  Then He must know the pain of childbirth! 

And if He is also omnipotent, and he did not invent ‘the epidural’ waaaay before inventing this whole childbirth thing, then he is most certainly not benevolent!

I like to think of this as the Epidurean paradox!

I would go on, but I don’t want to belabour the point….

Posted in atheism, human nature, ignosticism, philosophy, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

How we argue

February 23, 2008 — xanthippa

One of the best teachers ever (I’ve had more than my fair share) was my grade 10 English teacher. Yet, he had this one fault that was totally destroying his reputation with the students. Whenever he returned marked tests or materials to us, a long queue would form by his desk and he’d let people bully him into raising their marks! After weeks of working up my courage, I finally waited for him after class and poured my heart out…

His smile totally stunned me! When he saw the look of incomprehension on my face, he explained: “I’m not letting them bully me into anything. I’m teaching them how to use English to prove their point! While they stand in line, they prepare their argument. If they do it well, they earn marks for their oral presentation. English is a living language: it needs to be spoken, with passion. So, I reward a well presented oral argument. But ‘the system’ does not allow me to give marks for this….so I just tack them on to the tests!”

A teacher who actually valued a ‘good argument’! This put things into a brand new light, in one of those ‘paradigm shifts’…

Yet, he forbade me from telling anyone what he’s doing. This really struck me: if they knew they were being tested, the kids would argue differently (if at all) then when they thought they were just arguing!

Ever since then, I paid closer attention to HOW people argue.

Yes, of course, much depends on the person: but even considering the same guy or gal, there is a big difference in how people argue…depending on what is at stake.

And I use the ‘at stake’ to apply in a myriad of ways. Let me break out a few (yes, many overlap, and this list is by no means exhaustive) of these:

The Positioning Argument
The outcome will affect some position (even just a little one) of their life….from a test mark to getting that refund to not getting cheated out of a deal….

The Personal Competition Argument
This could start out as any other type or argument, but grow an edge: now it’s personal! The original issue becomes secondary to beating the other ‘guy’.

The Professional Argument
There is a definite stake in the outcome argument. Yet, it is not personal and the topic does not necessarily represent a deep personal investment.

The Detached Argument
This could be a purely ‘fun’ or ‘no personal stake’ argument, where neither side cares about winning or loosing…the argument is perhaps more closely related to common brainstorming. In other words, neither side has put an emotional stake onto any of the positions discussed, even if the outcome may have an impact. So the many points presented can be examined and debated without the fear of ‘loosing’.

The Scientific Argument
Perhaps it is a special case of the ‘detached argument’, because in a scientific argument, the outcome is not something one has a personal investment in. Yet I think it deserves a separation because it is more rigid, uses words in a more technical way than common speech, and requires very specific type of proof…only objective, scientific proof, to be specific.

The Philosophical Argument
This is another such special case of the ‘Detached Argument’, or at least, can be, because the language may be used in very different ways from common speech. However, the ‘Philosophical Argument’ can easily stray from its ideals and escalate into a ‘Faith Argument’.

The Faith Argument
A very personal argument, which involves one’s beliefs or faith or some deeply-adhered to dogma: very high stakes, deep personal and emotional investment…. These arguments can start very philosophically, and may also end very amicably. However, if the ‘Faith Argument’ escalates, it can become very unpleasant….people are not usually comfortable having their faith/beliefs/dogma challenged. And, if the argument is so structured that loosing it will be perceived as an invalidation of these deeply held beliefs, faiths or dogmas, it might get bitter indeed.

The ‘Look at me’ Argument
Designed not to argue, or win, simply to demonstrate one’s cleverness and/or superiority…

The Dismissive Argument
This is the ‘your argument is so pathetic/unreasonable/unworthy/stupid, I’m not even going to acknowledge it’ argument…. May appear arrogant, but then again, when done well, it can be very effective. By preventing the opposing side from being heard (either by shouting them down before debate starts, or by prejudicing the audience against them), it wins the argument by default. This would be the type of thing debunked by the child’s cry of ‘the Emperor has no clothes’…. if you’re the type of person who’d take an uneducated child’s word for things, that is….

The ‘Smarter than you and I’ Argument
This is a combination of ‘Faith’ and ‘Dismissive’ arguments and something all of its own. In essence, it states that neither person doing the arguing is qualified to evaluate the points presented, but that someone who is qualified (some higher power or intelligence) had made a determination, so that is the only acceptable position. This one is hard to argue against, because one is dismissed on faith…

Perhaps these are somewhat artificial divisions, but they make sense to me. But what is more, I use them as a tool: when I am observing an argument or a debate (like, say, on ConvinceMe.net), seeing HOW the different people argue will tell me a lot… Not only will it say a lot about how the arguing parties relate to the topic under discussion, it also provides an insight into the way the debate is likely to evolve…and how to calm it down (if that would be called for).

Of course, I would never advocate using these observations to heat up the debate….unless it really needed ‘livening up’!

Posted in debate, human nature, language, philosophy. Tags: , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Am I black or am I white?

February 21, 2008 — xanthippa

OK, sounds pretentious, but…what if, one day, you realized that people with whom you identified ethnically thought you an outsider?  A few years back, my (then) neighbour told me she had had to come to terms with exactly that…

 

At that time, my son was still a toddler, and her daughters (only a few years his seniors) thought him a doll.  They would play with him endlessly, and he ate it up:  big girls like me, Mom!  And as is neighbourly, we would often chat as we watched them play.

This lady had many interesting stories.  She was ‘black and proud of it’!  Her origins were Caribbean, but she grew up in North America and derived a lot of her strength and self-identity from the achievements of great leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  She used to get mad when people would use endless euphemisms to avoid saying the word ‘black’ or ‘negro’, demanding that those are beautiful words, and nobody should shame them.  You get the picture.

Her husband was also an immigrant, who came here from Western Africa.  One day, she told me that when they first got married, they decided to visit his family in Africa so that he could introduce her to his parents.  Wonderful, his parents loved her, she loved them, all went better than they had hoped for.  My friend told me she felt newly alive, reconnecting with her (generations removed) African heritage.

Yet, it was there, in that small African village, that she had to face this existential crisis.

One day, she was walking to the market, and the usual crowd of kids were running after her, calling out happily.  After all, they were not used to many visitors from so far away – and they were happy and friendly.  But, by this point, my friend had learned enough of the local language to understand what they were calling out:

“There goes the white lady!” and “The white lady smiled at me!” and so on…

At first she looked around, thinking there must be another visitor:  but no.  In their eyes, she was ‘the white lady’!

My neighbour laughed as she told me this story.  But she added seriously, until that day, she never realized that the lighter shade of her skin would make her appear ‘white’ to black African kids.  And that she kept thinking about this, for years….

Oh, don’t get me wrong:  having re-examined who she was, she came out strong and laughing.  But, next time you look into the mirror, ask yourself: if people suddenly saw you as the opposite of who you think you are, would you be able to come through it laughing?

All of us humans came from Africa at some point…   

Posted in human nature, immigrants, philosophy, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 3: HOW we ought to tolerate

February 20, 2008 — xanthippa

Everyone is calling for ‘tolerance’ these days.  But, really deep down, what do we mean?

It seems to me that there are several different types of ‘tolerance’, and they don’t all mean the same thing.  There is a whole spectrum of ‘tolerance’!  Let me highlight the ‘good extreme’ and the ‘bad extreme’, with the understanding that most of the time ‘tolerance’ – as practiced in our society –  falls somewhere in between the two.  I just hope we’ll try to aim towards the ‘good’ end of the spectrum…  

 

 

The ‘GOOD tolerance’ 

I suspect that is what most of us mean when we say ‘tolerance’.  This form is the ‘respectful tolerance’, and it requires that both sides ‘acknowledge the differences’ and then CHOOSE to respect the choices the others make.

 

That is by no means easy.  All sides (this is never as easy as just two or three sides) have to take the time and effort to actually educate themselves on other peoples’ views and beliefs, then consider each others’ positions objectively, then judge ‘the other sides’ to be worthy of respect….and that is not always possible.  For, how can one truly respect a view or belief which may be contrary to one’s core values?

 

The answer, of course, is with an utmost exercise of self-control and intellectual detachment…but remember, this is one of the extremes, an ideal we ought to aspire to live up to.

 

 

The ‘BAD tolerance’ 

This tolerance is not nice tolerance at all.  It is the dismissive kind:  ‘oh, let them do their thing, we could never hope to civilize them’ kind of tolerance…  ‘Oh, why would we want to bring democracy there, these people are just too backward – they could never understand equality.’  ‘Their women don’t know any different, so why give them ideas of what we live like – they’re just too tribal to change.’  You know, this is the ‘they could NEVER be equal to US’ tolerance….which permeates the separatist and racist underbellies of every society.

 

Not only does it dismiss the side ‘to be tolerated’, it treats people as unworthy of the expectations that one has of the members of a civilized society….  It inevitably leads to the alienation and isolation of the ‘tolerated’ side, socially and eventually economically, forcing them to become second class citizens.  It is dispicable!

This position is difficult to eradicate for two major reasons:  one, it is often deeply held, because it makes the person holding such views feel somehow ‘superior’ and way more ‘special’;  it is also often really hard to recognize, because it is so adept at masking itself…as real, proper, respectful tolerance!

What is even worse is that among those who practice this ‘patronizing tolerance’, there are often despicable busybodies who consider their actions to be noble, a showcase of how tolerant we all ‘ought to’ be, wrapping themselves in ‘the cloak of righteousness’.  These busybodies wreak havoc in many ways. 

One of the most destructive is by appointing themselves the ‘guardians’ of those ‘to be tolerated’.  In this role, they look for ways in which the ‘mainstream culture’ differs from the original culture of the unfortunates whom they’ve decided to ‘shield’, and demands exemptions for them.  This may be from sport-team rules and other minor things to cultural practices, or even to exempt them from some actual laws of the land.  Of course, this may please some of the newest arrivals (or those within the immigrant community who wish to control them), but overall, it denies the newly arrived immigrants the right and the very ABILITY to integrate, bullying them into perpetuating the very cultural practices they are trying to escape from by coming here….

Another extremely destructive thing these ‘busybodies’ do is to bully the mainstream culture into tolerating all kind of excesses perpetrated by some people in the ‘target minority’, into tolerating behaviours unacceptable by our laws and our cultural standards.  This, of course, is done in the name of ‘educating us all’ to the ‘sensitivities’ we must be mindful of when we tolerate these excesses and illegal behaviours….

How could this unwelcome and obstructive meddling do anything but breed resentment on all sides?  How could we all be blind to it?  How could we allow ourselves to be duped and bullied by these busybodies?

It would be naïve to think that we can ever fully get rid of the ‘bad tolerance’…it’s part of our human nature.  But, could we not try to minimize it?  Could we not try to aspire to actually respect each other?  Could we not hope to reach higher on the ‘kind of tolerance’ spectrum?

Gosh, I hope I’m not too naïve for hoping we can!

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 2: What we ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’ tolerate

February 19, 2008 — xanthippa

In order to have a functioning society, we need to agree on a common set of rules according to which we interact with each other.  (I ranted on a bit about this in my ‘Dogged by Dogma’ post.)  Some of these rules are codified into laws, others govern what we consider to be polite day-to-day behaviour.  Though the rules change from country to country, the basic principle remains the same:  without a common set of rules, there is no ‘society’.

We all, as humans, have the innate right to freedom of speech and thought.  So, let’s start by agreeing to tolerate that.  This means not denying it to anyone, even people we disagree with…or people who hold unpopular views.

From the freedoms of speech and thought flows the freedom of religious belief.  That, too, needs to be respected.  Most ‘western’ cultures are pretty good at protecting this one – usually, it is entrenched in the constitution.  But while we may be free to hold every belief we want, and are free to worship every deity (or absence thereof) we choose to, it is essential that we all understand that only those actions and behaviours that are legal under the laws of the land may actually be performed, whether based on religious conviction or not.

It is essential that we recognize that being tolerant of a belief is not the same as tolerating each and every behaviour that stems from it!

If it were, we would all need to tolerate human sacrifice.  And frankly, if we do tolerate illegal behaviour which stems from religious belief, in a very real sense, we WILL indeed be making a ‘human’ sacrifice! 

Asma Jahangir, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, has on many occasions reported that she has seen over and over situations where minority groups within a society demand special rights onto themselves, in name of religious freedoms – only to use these special rights to then oppress its own internal minority.  This kind of abuse of special rights is more common than we would like to think:  Ezra Levan’t has actually posted photos of Robina Butt, a woman who was assaulted by intruders into her own home after she and two other women complained of the financial improprieties at her own Mosque.  It is horrid!

So, let’s be clear.  We must tolerate each other’s beliefs.  

At the same time, we absolutely must not tolerate illegal behaviour, however motivated.  This is as much for the protection of the greater society as for the protection of the individuals within any specific minority.  If someone chooses to self-limit certain behaviours, good on them (provided they do not impact the society as a whole or diminish the rights of other individuals).  If they choose to self-impose rules which preclude them from enjoying certain privileges (such as people who refuse to have their photograph taken must be prepared to give up privileges for which a photo-i.d. is required – say, a driving license), they MUST be also prepared to give up such privileges.  Forcing them to comply with the conditions would be just as wrong as granting these privileges without compliance.

What is more:  not respecting these rules, granting special privileges to some but not others, will mean that the most basic rule of society is broken.  I may be repeating myself, but…without common rules, there is no ‘society’.  Doing so would breed resentment and hostility among various segments of the population…and how could unequal treatment by law not result in just that? 

We all need to keep this in mind the next time we are tempted to exempt one group or another from the laws which must apply equally to all of our citizens.  

Posted in freedoms, human nature, immigrants, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Cultural Tolerance – Part 1: Setting the stage

February 14, 2008 — xanthippa

This is a bit off topic for me – I never planned to write about this.  But, with all the broo-ha-ha stirred up when the Archbishop of Cantebury, Dr. Williams, called for establishing a parallel legal system in Britain, based on Sharia law, my blood started to boil.  I am an immigrant, having come to North America from a non-democratic, non-English speaking country, I have integrated quite successfully.  I volunteer teaching English as a second language.  In the past, I have created ‘stay-at-home’ jobs for immigrant women from more oppressive backgrounds, empowering them and helping them connect with their new society. 

As such, I have had the opportunity to observe this ‘cultural tolerance’ from both sides – as the immigrant and as a member of the cultural mainstream.  And I am absolutely amazed at how basic concepts can become so muddled…to the detriment of both sides. Please, indulge me in this rant on WHAT we should – and perhaps more importantly, what we should NOT – tolerate with respect to immigrants coming to a society from a foreign culture.  This is for the benefit of us, immigrants, as well as us, the host society (I have made the integration successfully, and so feel part of both groups…). 

First and foremost, immigrants come to a new country in order to improve their life and to provide a better future for their children.  Perhaps this is not a universal statement, but I am willing to bet that it comes pretty close.  So, right off the bat, there is something ‘good’ about the new society that we have come to seek. 

When immigrants first arrive, things can be overwhelming:  new language, new surroundings, unknown expectations…because even if you read a lot about your new land, (I memorized the 84 page brochure I got at the Canadian embassy during my interview), things are never quite the same as in the ads.  Some are better, some are worse, some are just different. 

And even for a person who did try to learn English before, being immersed in the language for the first few weeks created incredible fatigue and triggered a unique type of headaches.  I was surprised at how my jaw, cheeks and tongue hurt after hours of flexing my speech muscles into positions they were not used to. 

In situations like this, in the first few weeks, it is very helpful if other immigrants, who had arrived years or decades earlier, from the same culture, speaking the same mother tongue, can help one orient themselves.  It is a relief to ‘tune out’ English for half-an-hour and chat with someone without fishing for every phrase, worrying if a mispronounced word would give offense.  (I’m not joking:  I know a guy who just about got beaten up because when his neighbour invited him for dinner, he tried to compliment his wife on the desert….and mispronounced the word ‘cake’.  Until I explained, he had no idea that cake is not pronounced ‘cock’.) 

It is understandable that the immigrants should form loose communities, offering each other support.  It is also very much appreciated when people in the host community show a great deal of leeway to newly arrived immigrants who are trying to learn the language and culture both.   

The key here is:  ‘newly arrived’ and ‘trying to learn’. 

The problem arises when government agencies, seeing the help new immigrants receive from their fellow ex-patriots, think that they are somehow making things easier on the newcomers if they contract these immigrant communities to help the newcomers settle in.  This gives the immigrant association incredible control over the newly arrived people:  and what’s worse, now money is involved. The money attracts precisely the wrong kind of person:  busybodies who did not integrate into the new society well enough to have a busy career, and controlling the newcomers’ integration gives them the status they could never earn on their own merits.  If you don’t see this for the recipe for disaster that it is, I’m not sure what I could write to make it clear. 

These people boost their self by controlling as much as possible in the lives of newcomers.  And since these do not know any better (after all, the government entrusted this person with their care, so even if they did, it would not help them much), they accept the control – and the often distorted picture of the host culture painted to them so the busybody could retain control.  This officially sanctioned isolation leads to nothing less than ghettoization and actually prevents successful integration of newcomers into society. 

To a smaller degree, this can occur in all places, even without government financing it.  Seeking support at the beginning can trap newcomers in a cycle of obligations that are hard to escape, while preventing them from forming ties outside the immigrant community. I have seen it, felt its pull, and struggled against it.  Till today, I have friends among immigrants from my ethnic background, there is nothing wrong in that.  But I am careful to balance my friends and acquaintances among many backgrounds, keeping myself firmly within mainstream culture.  And while I do volunteer to help newcomers learn English, I never reveal my first language and usually request that they not tell me theirs, either. 

After all, we have left our past behind….   

Coming next: 

Part 2 – WHAT we should and should not tolerate                       

Part 3 – HOW we should and should not tolerate

Posted in about, freedoms, human nature, immigrants, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

And we are…..?

February 12, 2008 — xanthippa

“Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be preferable to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”
                                                            – C.S. Lewis 

So, where exactly does that put us?

Posted in freedoms, human nature, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 2 Comments »
« Older posts