Expat Observations from a world traveler 2006 (WARNING: OT & Long)

[momopi_IHB]

Sunday, March 26, 2006

You can't tell them apart, but they can!



When you arrive in a place where for climatic or cultural reasons people look radically different from the way people look in your country, your first impression is- ?They all look the same!?. However, while to ?you? they may look the same, they do not look the same to each other. People in China and India, for example, can quickly determine by facial features what province or part of the country a person is from.



I remember, while living in Thailand, I was showing photos of my Thai friends to other Thai friends and they would remark- ?Oh, a Khmer!? ?And this one is Lao!? How would you know?? I would ask them? ?It is obvious- he has a Khmer face!? ?Look at the way the eyes go and then the lips- can?t you see that?? I would admit that I couldn?t. However, after living in one part of Thailand and then visiting another, I did indeed see what they meant. People did have slightly different features than what I was now used to. The eyes were of a different shape and so were the outlines of the noses and the mouths. The height was also different.? I see now?, I said to myself ?Now I know what Khmers look like?.



In Africa, it is the same thing - people quickly pick out tribes by looking at their faces, but I would have no clue how they can determine which tribe is which so well. They have simply developed an eye to tell different groups apart after having dealt with them for so long and having had so much experience with them.



It is the same in Central America. People from Honduras immediately know if the other person is Salvadoran or Costa Rican, Guatemalan or Nicaraguan. How? By facial features. And also the clothes, the bearing, all before they hear them speak. ?But they all look the same!? To ?you? they do. Not to them.



I remember sitting on a street in Japan with a Japanese friend and she picked out a couple and said ?They are not Japanese!? ?How did you know?? ?The faces and the clothes and the skin color!? I looked at them, but could not tell the difference. They looked completely the same to me, as any other Japanese person would. Even after I had lived in Japan for two years.



And to them we ( and ?there are different ?wes? involved) also look the same. Brits are furious for being mistaken for Americans in Asia. ?Can?t you tell the bloody difference?!? they scream at yet another hapless Asian who dares to ask them the same question they hear all the time ? Are you an American??. And a Lebanese person in Manila is often asked ?what (US) state are you from??. To an average Filipino and another East Asian, the broad distinguishing marks of being an American are white skin and a nose that is not flat. An Iranian fits the bill, too.



However, the Filipinos not only can tell each other apart, but they can also tell various East Asians apart as well. It is very easy for them. But the Caucasians all look the same.

And they look the same to us.



Once in a city in Southern Philippines I was approached by a taxi driver who seemed to recognize me. He smiled at me and told me that he was so happy I had come back. He also said that he was sorry that my wife had left me and remarked that I had dyed my hair very well and that it looked natural. ( I was not married and I had not dyed my hair) I was friendly to him, but I was intrigued since I had not seen the man before. Then he asked me how my trip back to Sweden was. ?Sweden??



?You have got the wrong person!? ?I do not even look Swedish!?? I am short and dark, I look more like a Turk. But to him, I did. Not only I looked like a Swede to him, I also looked indistinguishable from some Swede that he had met before.



And a similar thing but of a different twist would be true with some Japanese. After having been introduced to a Japanese person and made acquaintance with him or her, they would pass me by the next day without as much as saying ?Hello?. ?Hey, Satoshi, don?t you remember me? ? He would look puzzled and I would have to remind him that we had met at a party the night before. It would take him some time to remember. You see, I would have exactly the same face as any other Caucasian to him and picking me from the crowd would be an impossibility.



Not only that. Children of my Asian friends would see President Clinton on TV and say that he looked like me. Some would say that I looked like Paul McCartney. I guess those famous people would provide some ?anchoring? facial features which would then be mentally pasted on faces of all the other Caucasian foreigners they would meet later.



And I guess we are the same way. Our Filipina girlfriend looks a bit like Imelda Marcos to us, and our Japanese friend looks like Hirohito. Those are the ones we know the most.



It takes time to learn to distinguish the subcategories, but you will get the hang of it if you stay in one region long enough. This cannot be said about the natives that you will be living among. They will always mistake you for the larger category that they have most experiences with. So, a German will usually be thought of as an Aussie in Malaysia, an American in Japan, and a Brit in Singapore. He looks like one. And if the German is a female, she will look like Margaret Thatcher. To the locals, that is.

 

[momopi_IHB]

It's climate, stupid!



During the Cold War there was a popular term: ?The North-South Divide?. It used to refer to how rich countries in the North such as the US, Germany. the UK and even the USSR would exploit the poorer countries in the South such as the Congo, Colombia or Cambodia.

.

So, how did the countries in the North become rich in the first place?



There are several not so politically correct theories that claim that under right conditions, countries in the north reach a stage where people cannot live comfortably off the fat of the land, and they start inventing technology. The population is too big, the time in which you can plant and harvest crops is not enough to feed all the people, thus the inhabitants of such places have to become more inventive and creative in order to survive and prosper. They start developing equipment, establishing a personal discipline that is superior to other countries, and then going and conquering them either militarily or through investments, cultural invasions or by loaning them money they cannot repay and plunging them into debt.



Countries in the South remained more backward than the Northern countries because people there did not need to assert themselves as much as the climate is warmer and the land is enough to feed everybody. So, human beings under such circumstances remain the lazy creatures that they are. They will just do the minimal effort to get the minimal result, and then relax and enjoy life. Living in a land that is abundant, full of beautiful women and good friends that lies under a hot (sub) tropical sun near the sea is not a supposedly the best environment to become an inventor or a conqueror.



Or is it so? Some people will point to the highly developed ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome and say that these were not exactly ?cold? countries. Some will also point to the Islamic Empire or the Ottoman empire that was very rich and prosperous while the cold Europe was poor and backward.



One needs to keep in mind though that while climate is a powerful factor, it is not the only factor. Other hardships also influence the people?s power to invent and propel the civilization forward. Overpopulation is one. A good government also needs to be in place to facilitate such progress. In any way, there has to be the right combination of relative freedom of forces of adversity coupled with opportunity to make people reach deep inside themselves and start taking measures towards improving their lot. So maybe it was the overpopulation in those times and not enough food that compelled those countries to develop? I wish to know the truth.



However, the way the world stands now, it does seem that overpopulated countries of the North are much better disciplined culturally than the overpopulated countries in the warmer regions. Try living in Sweden and then go and live in Italy. Try living in Japan and then go and live in Indonesia. You will see that streets are not as clean in the warmer areas, people as a rule come late to business or social engagements, or not show up at all, and there is less general rush as well as overall sense of responsibility than in the north. The North is more organized, cleaner, more highly industrialized with people resembling well-oiled automatons. But they all look unhappy and tense. And wouldn?t you be?



The warmer areas are more devil-may-care, with garbage lying around, the population striking all the time and protesting against the rulers, but the people, by and large, look happy. Their lives are not as stressed-out, there are fewer divorces, there is friendship and good interaction among people. Take your pick. Which on would you prefer?



There are also countries in between such as France, for example, or China. These combine both the qualities of the cold and the warm areas in many aspects of the daily life. There are also countries that are in the warm climate, but which were only recently settled by immigrants from the North- such as Australia, Singapore and Taiwan. There are warmer countries such as Malaysia who were whipped into discipline by British colonial overlords and hard-working Chinese newcomers.



The you have Israel which is ethnically a land populated by Jews, but many of these had lived in Northern Europe and brought a great deal of ideas from there. Hence, it is also a combination of being laid-back and progressive at the same time.



Religion also become stricter as you move from cold to warm. Compare the very liberal countries of Scandinavia, the British Isles and the Netherlands where drugs, pornography and sex are more tolerated to the much stricter states in the South of Europe which had traditional Catholicism ending with yet much stricter Islam down in the Middle East.



The reason may be the way people react to life?s temptations in cold vs. warm climates. I guess a Swede and a Dutchman may not be so sensual to begin with because of a colder climate, and will not need to be controlled as these will, generally, not react as passionately when presented with the opportunity to satisfy their senses be it through sex, drugs, intoxicants or other such stimulants.



The people in warmer climates are more probably more into sensual gratification because of the weather. A Frenchman and an Italian are supposed to be great lovers and an Arab and a Turk are legendarily even more love-crazed. Hence, since the more south you go, the more you need to restrain people from going bananas when presented with temptations, the religion naturally follows the pattern and becomes stricter and stricter ending with the Saudi Arabian variety of Islam where you cannot even look at a woman.



I guess, because in the old times, the male inhabitants of that area were so passionate that the very sight of a woman would make them lose their minds and stimulate sexual aggression on their part strict protective measures had to be instituted to preserve social harmony.



One recalls the famous examples of Italians pinching a girls? buttocks as she walks down the street versus the complaints by the French that when a beautiful woman walks down the street in England, men won?t even look in her direction



I have always suspected that climate has been one of the main variables in the equation. The warmer the climate, the more passionate, friendlier, but lazier the people and the colder, the less friendly, less sensual but more industrious the population. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but by and large, the pattern does seem to hold. At least in this day and age.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Friday, March 17, 2006

Selective do-goodism, a wiser policy



In many societies there have been social and racial divisions that have existed for centuries, if not for millennia. People have learned to live with them and even benefit from them. By appearing in those countries and trying to be a do-gooder, you may violate the fragile social harmony of those countries and upset many people in the process. It may even cost you your safety. The wise expat learns to heed his instincts and acts delicately without becoming a bigot himself in the process.



In some places, there is a very distinct social structure with the poor performing a certain role, the middle class being a certain way, and the rich being and acting in a certain mode, too. If you appear there and try and change those roles, you may bring upon yourself more trouble than you had bargained for. If you start acting like the savior of poor classes, you will often be taken advantage of. The many poor will simply see you as a sucker and a cash cow and try and exploit your kindness. They will be coming to borrow money from you and then refuse to repay it; they will mock you behind your back as a fool that you are to trust the poor and still harbor scorn towards you deep in their hearts because you are not one of them. Also, the local rich may not like the fact that you are in their country making them look bad, and, in some cases, may even dispatch a professional specializing in threatening people. The middle class people will also scorn you because you are sallying yourself by having contact with the lower classes. Soon you may find yourself quite lonely except for an occasional visit by another poor person to hit you yet for another loan that will, most probably, never be repaid.



Your ideas of equality and helping people may not get the welcome that you thought they would.



If you really want to help, do so discreetly and selectively. Contributing to established local charities could be a good way to do it. Also, setting up a business would be another good way. However, becoming a lone benefactor in foreign land may earn you more headaches that you thought.



In other places there are established racial groups; each one with a role and attitude towards another which has, over many centuries, developed into an uneasy, but steady balance. By coming into their societies and trying to liberate

?oppressed races? may backfire on you from both sides. At best, you will be frustrated; at worst you may turn into a bigot yourself even if, initially, you were not one at all. You do not fully understand what is going on and why races there act the way they do. They have a reason to be a certain way and many have grown very comfortable with their place in society. It would be unwise to disturb the delicate equilibrium that exists there, and if you do, all kinds of hellish effects may break loose a lot of which may fall onto your head.



A lot of racism or classism is ,basically, ?culturism? that states that some ethnic/social groups are good for certain professions and certain roles in society and it may not be your place to challenge how things are in that country. A certain ecological system has developed there and you should not try to disturb it. Again, if you want to help, do so as discreetly as possible, teach people self-reliance, and, in the process, watch yourself ? otherwise, you may end up in a heap of trouble.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Expat Discretion



As an expat, you will often be living in certain places where your presence alone may attract uncalled attention from a variety of unwanted elements. Jealous locals, fake business partners, women that want to take advantage of you, prejudiced people who do not like your race or nationality, corrupt police looking for bribes, etc. One has to be on guard at all times as one is not at home and may not know the ropes in a foreign land.



I am by nature a very gregarious, open and friendly person; and I like having many people around me, host noisy parties, have a whole bunch of guys and gals hanging out my house all the time- all these things make me happy. However, after having lived in places where people were of a different race, different culture and different values and modes of behavior, I have learned to appreciate the value of privacy, discretion, low profile and introversion. In some places, you can get beat up just for being a foreigner, have people file a false report on you with the authorities, have them slander you out of jealousy or even accuse you of a crime that you have not committed. And you may not be able to get any help from anywhere as often you are on your own there. After having experienced a certain shade of all the above, I have trained myself to be a quite, polite and discreet person, mindful of my own personal space and living in a sort of a bubble, a private fortress that exists either in the apartment that I occupy, a hotel room or simply dwells in my behavior towards my strange environment.



If there is a party, I am not always eager to go there. I do not know how people will react to having the likes of me there and what they will say. If I am invited to someone?s home, I also think long and hard about going there. And, if there is an outing, and strange people are coming to it, I am cautious, again. The friend who is inviting me may like me, but what about his/her friends? Will they like me, too? I have to think a little bit and assess the situation beforehand. In many cases, I have even chosen to decline an invitation under some pretext. It may be wise not to show up since not all people there may be pleased to see me. I do not know who and what they are and I am in a foreign land. Who knows how I will be treated!



One should not become paranoid either, mind you, but just allow selective entry to anyone who wants to interact with you and place certain conditional restrictions on anyone who comes into your space. One also needs to learn about which places are OK to go to and which are off limits to expats like oneself. In some countries, there are limitations on how deeply you can penetrate the local society and one should be aware of those borders. Ask other expats who have been there longer about those limits but also, do not believe them much either. You may have a whole different destiny in that place from them, so try and find out as much as you can from as many sources as you can. Where are you welcome? Where are you not welcome? Ask some straight questions and get some plain answers. Do not rely on tourist brochures or enthusiastic starry-eyed foreigners alone.



Expat life can be very rewarding, but there is a price to pay. Low profile is of paramount importance. Do not underestimate how crucial it is.



In case of a permanent traveler or resident, privacy, prudence, and discretion are not choices; they are necessities. One needs to be doubly on guard, doubly careful and often doubly sneaky when one is abroad. That is the only way to survive in the turbulent and often tricky world out there.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Fiteen and Fifty



In some English-speaking countries, where English is an official second language, and many documents and business communication in general, is in English, there is an interesting linguistic phenomenon: it is the numerical selling out of the tens and the ?teens? which follows the utterance of the number.



Confused by what I mean? OK, let?s go to Singapore or Malaysia. A taxi driver tells you that ?The ride to the hotel will be ?fif-teeo? dollars. You look puzzled. What is ?fif-teeo??



You mean ?fifty?? ?No, fif-teeo?, One-Five!? ?Oh, I see. You mean fifteen! Now I understand!?



To a Chinese ear there is very little or no perceptible difference between fifteen and fifty. Their language is very syllabic and it emphasizes every phonic pair with s strong stress. So a native Chinese speaker or an almost native speaker of pure Singaporean English still cannot hear the distinction between the two sounds which is very clear to a native American, British or Canadian, Australian speaker.



Fifty- the accent is on the first syllable. The ?y? is now a schwa sound. Fifteen=- the accent is on both syllables. So much is clear. To you, that is, but not to the tens of millions of second language speakers out there to whom the difference was obviously never taught in too great a detail.



?How much is a room here?? ?Eit- Teoow? dollars?. Again, you look puzzled. ?What is Eit-Teeow?? ?You mean eighteen? ?No, Eight-Oh.? ?Eight Zero?. ?Oh, you mean? eighty!? Now I see what you mean. I was confused for a while.?



To many former colonial citizens the quite obvious difference in pronunciation between nineteen and ninety, fourteen and forty is completely lost. The Chinese, the Malays, the Indians and even many Africans are speakers of languages that are either tonal or staccato. They simply cannot distinguish the tens of from the ?teens? as they are spoken by a native. So, thirteen and thirty are pronounced the same. To avoid the confusion, a digital spell out always follows:



?Sir, this cost seven-teeow, one seven, dollars? (ringgits, takas, etc.)



?I can let you have it for ?six-teeow?, zero-six rupees. ?



So, when you are abroad, visiting countries where English is the official second tongue, get ready for the confusion which ensues over the very subtle difference between ??ty? and ??teen? which is almost completely lost on the natives. And if you cannot understand, politely inquire whether they mean one-five or five-zero. Because there is after all a big difference between fifteen and fifty and you do not want to pay extra, do you?

 

[momopi_IHB]

Friday, March 10, 2006

The Mess They Call "Multiculturalism".



Have you ever noticed how the term ?Multicultural? is often applied to the British colonies such as the US, Canada, Australia, and even Malaysia and Singapore, and how few other countries who were not British possessions give themselves such a description? The Soviet Union was a multinational country and so was Yugoslavia but they were never called ?multi-cultural?. Countries in South America have a more rigid class system, but, by and large, the Spanish or Portuguese models have never been called multi-cultural to my knowledge.



I have, on several occasions, come upon a few ultra-right websites who complain that certain elements in America ( such as Jews and Liberals) are aiming at diluting the US "racial purity" by bringing in "non-white immigrants" and turning the US into a multicultural nightmare.



There are, on the other hand, left-leaning groups who glorify multiculturalism and proclaim that it serves everyone's interest to preserve our diversity; that the US has always been a nation of immigrants, and that it should stay that way.



Somehow, I feel that both sides are missing the point, so, being a centrist, I would like to give you my own take on how the much-lauded, much-vilified multiculturalism came about.



When the US was founded, it was primarily an English colony. Because it broke away from England, it sought to do away with a lot of class restrictions of the old society, so, official documents were written and enshrined to create a country based on the principle that ?all men were created equal?. The other principle as important in outlining American social philosophy was the "self-evidence" that people born or naturalized in the United States were, by virtue of that, US citizens.



Other countries were not like that and still aren?t. You can be born in Korea, but if you are not Korean by blood, you are not Korean. That?s just how it is there. You can be born in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi nationality is not given to you because of that. Getting citizenship in those societies is hard, and even if you ever manage to get it, you will still never be one of them in social terms.



In America, these two principles should have been enough to create a veritable melting pot where people would harmoniously and naturally mix with one another and thus create a great American nationality. The same way as it happened in Brazil. However, there were also opposing principles in the US culture of those times which did not allow the One Nation Under God to truly develop, and, instead, lead to several parallel ethno-cultures arising in its place.



1) The birth of the "white" identity.



Most Europeans are not aware of the fact that they are ?white?, and do not think of themselves as ?white?. Germans think of themselves as Germans, and Poles think of themselves as Poles. The British were English, Scottish or Welsh, not "white". The term 'white' originated during the colonial times, when various Western conquerors came upon the shores of continents where people had a darker pigmentation than these colonists did. Still, in many Spanish colonies, the conquistadors thought of themselves more as ?Spaniards? than ?whites?. It was in the English colonies that the 'white' self-nomination became the strongest.



Some of the Founding Fathers, after creating a white ?nationality?, went as far as declaring that only the English were ?white?, and even people like Germans and Swedes were not. I can?t imagine why, though.



This new white "ethnos" took a deep root in the American psyche and became a cornerstone in creating other identities which eventually split America into several new uniquely American "ethnic groups" the likes of which seem to exist as serious ethnic identities in the US and some other British colonies only: the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Asians, etc.



After the Native Americans had been pushed out and the Founding Fathers had a ?white?, mostly ethnically ?English? nation in America, they, very contradictorily to their own plans, did not keep it that way. I guess, becoming wealthy was more important. So, they went ahead and brought slaves from Africa. Why? Well, you see, they faced a ?labor shortage?, and importing the English was probably too expensive. Slaves worked for free. To them, it seems, growing rich by slave labor while bringing thousands upon thousands of captive Africans into the country was more imperative than preserving a newly found ?white nation?. They did not think about what these slaves and their descendants would become in the future, where they would live, how they would change the character of the ?white country? that they had been trying to create. In other words, they had two conflicting desires- one for ?racial purity? and one for profit at another man?s expense, whoever he may be.



Black people from Africa did not think of themselves as Black, either, until they came to America. They thought of themselves by the name of tribes that they belonged to. However, these African identities were completely obliterated and instead morphed into a new ?Black? identity by the virtue of different tribes being dumped together in the New World. They were now called ?Black? by the settlers who were calling themselves ?White?.



Thus, there were now two nations in the US, one Black and one White. When the slaves were finally freed, the two legal principles mentioned before eventually and, after along struggle ?kicked in? in their favor and helped ?adjust their status?- the first one again was that ?all men were created equal?, and the second one was that almost sacred conviction of every American that anyone born in the United States was a US citizen. Following these events, albeit not immediately, a ?Black?, and later?African-American? identity was born.



2) The English snobbery:



The first settlers brought a lot of the Old World, uniquely English snobberies with them. The main one was that anyone who was not English and /or who did not act, speak or look English was somehow inferior. Being an American in those times meant to be ?English?, or, at least, talk and behave like one and have an English name to boot.



OK, it was their country now and they made the rules. This I can go along with. But they again do not practice what they preach and they go ahead and start bringing in boatloads of new immigrants from Europe because they are facing a new labor shortage and need someone to man factories and coal mines. They took advantage of turmoil and hunger on the Old Continent and brought more new, non-English people in.



When the Irish and, later, the Germans, the Italians and the East European Jews arrived, they came up against these merciless English snobberies. Instead of being embraced into a ?melting pot?, many were kept at a distance by the people who had come before them and were not accepted as true Americans for a long time. If you had a non-English name, a foreign accent or, God forbid, spoke a foreign language, and did not behave as the original British settlers, you faced ostracism. You were kept at an arm?s length and treated as an outsider. In addition to that, even after you had children in the US, again, the original settlers would still call them Italians, Irish, Jewish or Polish and continued to discriminate against them for some generations to come.



The reaction of the new native-born Americans was to assert pride in their origin, and hyphenate themselves. ?I am proud to be an Italian- American! ?, ?I am proud to be an Irish-American! ? Such hyphenated pride was often simply a backlash to the snootiness of the first English settlers. The new people were Americans because they were born in the US, but for since because they were not British in origin, they would still be considered not quite American for a long time to come. Hence, they would now form a previously unknown ?dual? identity the likes of which did not exist in the Old World, where either you were German or you were not, or you were an Irishman or you were not. It was simple there. It became complicated in the US. Hyphenation seemed to solve the problem somewhat.



No such phenomenon took place in South America. People there simply became Argentinians, Uruguayans and Panamanians, although many were from the same countries as the immigrants that came to the US.



In North America, on the other hand, many of such groups became encysted in ethnic neighborhoods and special sections of the cities partly because they needed the support of like souls in the new land, and, partly, because those who had come before them discriminated against them



None of these American ethno- identifying terms helped in creating a single American identity, but rather, further paved the way to what we now know as Multiculturalism.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



To give the South American example again, if you take a nation like Chile, you will learn that their national hero was of Irish background and his name was Bernardo O?Higgins. However, he is not known as an ?Irish-Chilean Liberator?; just a ?Chilean? one. In Latin America, they had presidents with names such as Kubischek, and Stroessner and they would just be called Brazilians and Paraguayans, because, in those societies, there was little snobbery against people who were not like the original Spanish ?founders?. They were simply and naturally embraced because they had been born in the country. Mostly, the ethnic background was simply not important. Your money and ability was. That is why many Latin Americans of various immigrant origins cannot understand the US people?s tendency to hyphenate and to be proud of being, say, an Italian -(American), all while not having Italian citizenship, never having been to Italy and not speaking any Italian. Why can?t a person be just an American? they muse. They are not aware of how in the US, the English exclusiveness reverberating through two centuries keeps many people from becoming members of society with only one word to describe them as one would be in so many countries south of the US border.



But let us go back to the US. With all the snobberies and the ?white identity? still in place, the US government surprisingly goes ahead and purchases Louisiana with its very mixed Creole population, then annexes the northern part of Mexico with its mostly mixed ?mestizo? inhabitants, and, later, brings in Hawaii, the Philippines and Puerto Rico under its fold with more ?non-white? people now joining the country in one way or another. Add to that the Chinese and Japanese laborers that were brought in to build railroads, and the appropriation of the territories of Guam, Samoa and the Marianas, and the United States again adds to its population a veritable potpourri of new cultures and identities. Please explain to me the logic: If being ?white? was so important to so many ?original? Americans, why are they bringing in all these cultures that they did not consider as their equals? And, shouldn?t they now become more open-minded to other cultures and ethnicities?





So, thus you now have a cultural dilemma on your hands. How are you going to sort it out? The original principles of the Constitution would again be applied: all people born or naturalized in the US are US citizens and those born or naturalized in US possessions are US nationals. However, because of the unnatural ?white nationality ? which now encompassed all the English descendants as well as other Europeans who by now have been ?Americanized? still in place with all its superciliousness, there is still there the continued stratification and discrimination across all strata of society. The groups who cannot join ?the white nation? form their own divisions based on how they look and how they see each other. Chinese and Japanese become Asian- Americans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans become Hispanic Americans while Italians and Jews join the ?White? or ?Caucasian? group.



(By the way, outside of the English language, the word ?Caucasian? means people from the Caucasus mountains- Armenians, Georgians, Azeris. However, in the US, it means people with ?light skin? having origins in Europe, Middle East and N. Africa now. So the Berbers and Afghans have now joined the English. Kind of inconsistent if you ask me. I often wonder what anthropologists these classifiers have contacted before they coined all these arbitrary terms.)





As a result, all the above groups with the remnants of the Native Americans solidify themselves into a five-race system that is America today.



If you come from another country and move to the United States, you will soon feel the pressure to join one of these ?tribes? and abandon your original identity as a Thai, a Peruvian or a German. No, you do not melt into America. You melt into a White America, a Black America, an Asian or a Hispanic America. There is very little that you can do to fight against this ludicrous system as you are now outnumbered by people who will assign you to one of these groups whether you want it or not. This is how these things developed over two centuries and this is now the official policy of the government, schools and workplace. All thanks mainly to the strange New World phenomenon of ?whiteness? and the English snobberies which have been rolling down the hill and ricocheting against everybody in this country for two centuries resulting in splitting of the US into such five slices.



Yes, it is true. If you are new to the US, and you want to just make friends with all the people there, you will inevitably clash with this Quinto-Tribal structure sooner or later. If, say, you are a Dutchman who came to the US and you wants to associate with Black Americans, date Black girls, or associate with Hispanic Americans and date Mexican-American girls, etc., you will now encounter resistance and be called ?Caucasian?/ ?White?/?Anglo? and often made aware of your new identity even though you had never thought of yourself as anything other than ?Dutch? before.



Politicians and liberal elements exploit this ?Five-Nations in One? divisions to get votes, pitch one group of people against another, while the ultra right elements declare this to be a Jewish conspiracy to obliterate the ?white nation? in order to make America safe for the Jews.



Very few people in the US are trying to forge an American national unity on creating an identity that is just purely ?American? which is how it should be. The reaction to the original rejection by the English of whoever was not like them two hundred years ago keeps boiling in the veins of the American population up until today.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



3) Guilt-ridden Liberals.



The original Protestant culture may have been intolerant, but now, after having understood the ?evil? that has been done to anyone who was not ?white?, a new formula to correct the situation has been devised- forced integration. So, instead of teaching everybody that people should be just Americans and One Nation under God, and that we should all just be nice to our fellow man, the guilt-ridden elements try and correct the past wrongs by simplifying the problem and applying many broad measures across the board while hurting innocent people in the process.



The new philosophy is this- ?We have the following protected species in this country- the African-Americans (never use the horrible word ?Black?!), the Asians (do not use the word ?Oriental?, it is not PC!), the Native Americans (do not say ?Indian?, please!), and the Hispanics which rarely includes Spaniards or Argentineans of German descent. Now, we have to promote these and protect them by law but against whom? Mainly, against the whites. But who are the whites? They are now a bunch of Italians, Jews, Irishmen and other such groups who had been for a long time discriminated against by the English descendants, as well.



They, however, do not seem to get protection in the same way as the above groups. Even if other ?tribes? treat them bad for past slavery and oppression (which the Italian peasants from Sicily did not practice, nor did the Irish, the Jews, or the Scandinavian settlers in Minnesota were ever guilty of). It is unfair, again, but now the wrong people are paying for the dead slave owners? crimes. Some elements among poor whites start forming militias and joining ultra right groups. All while the rich ?whites? really do not care. Which brings us to another stark truth in today?s America.



4) Profit is almost always above racial or national solidarity.



For a long time now, an average white American employer, a ?John Smith? has discovered that hiring a Jose Rodriguez from Mexico costs less than hiring another John Smith from the US. Jose Rodriguez will work for less because his family is often in Mexico, and Mexico is cheaper than the US. $50 a day is a fortune in Mexico. Jose Rodriguez is working hard and is very happy with his job. But the other John Smith, the employee, is complaining that he is not making enough. The Smiths live in the US; not Mexico. School tuition is high, housing is expensive. He wants more money. ?To hell with a fellow John Smith,? says the Gringo employer-?I am hiring Jose Rodriguez who is here illegally. I?ll save money in the process and make a fatter profit.?



In the US, when it comes to money, profit by any means possible often takes precedence over race, nationality, ethnic origin, citizenship or patriotism. Americans will usually hire anybody who costs less. The ?white cause? is now opium for the poor, unemployed, and oppressed rural whites. But the economic reality is still this: an illegal Mexican plumber will come to your house and repair your faucet for $30. An American plumber (often white, but, sometimes, black, Hispanic or Asian) will charge you $200 for the same job.



What will a white American rather have- a white mechanic who presents him with an $800 bill for simple repairs on his vehicle, or an illegal Mexican mechanic who will repair his car for $300 or less? The answer is obvious.



For years, indignant comments have been made about illegal immigrants more than half of whom come from Mexico and Central America with the far-right groups seeing it as a conspiracy to destroy ?the White Race?. Why don?t they address the real culprits who hire these people in the first place? -mostly other white Americans who are only thinking about making money off of cheap workforce. It is not about race. It is about the cost of labor. Before, you could get Europeans to come to the US and work cheaply, but now Europe is richer than the US, and even East Europeans would rather go and work in Germany or Portugal and make Euros than travel to America and make dollars which are now worth less and less. That is the main reason why you do not see so many Europeans coming to these shores anymore.



The Hispanic population in the US will continue growing not because of some preposterous Jewish conspiracy, but simply because Gringo employers will welcome these cheap workers since they make them rich. And, because the US law states that anyone born in the US is a US citizen, the children of these immigrants will be unconditional US citizens in the future. And they will bring their families to join them. Forces of economics are what is shaping the US ethnic demographics, not some fantasy meetings by mythical Elders of Zion in Williamsburg.



Another thing that a ?white? American (or any other American) has also discovered very recently was that outsourcing a job that was meant to go to a John Smith or even a Jose Rodriguez in the US, to a Mr. Singh in India or a Mr. Lee in China was even cheaper. That means more money saved and a wider profit margin. So, what is more important? Hiring a fellow ?white?, or even a fellow American of another ethnic group, or saving more money and becoming rich in the process? The answer again is obvious.



This leaves poorer ?whites? in America angered by the fact that their jobs and wages are being eroded and many of them become resentful of these new workers further keeping America divided. Some join the Skinheads (instead of going to computer schools) and mistakenly rant against people that have nothing to do with the ?Destruction of White America?. Blacks, too, feel the pinch and blame the illegals for stealing jobs instead of placing the blame on American employers who hire such workers. These job-related squabbles further drive the wedge between all these groups in the US, and forever keep America from becoming a One Nation Under God.



This way the divisions among many ethnicities in America based on the original British insular snobbishness, mistrust, jealousy, selfish profiteering, lack of respect for the fellow man, the puttering Melting Pot that melts unevenly and with great interruptions, and the resulting, long-lasting, uneasy Salad Bowl has been given a fancy name of Multi-Culturalism to camouflage its ugliness. The school systems and the government?s unscientific and artificial ethnic classifications further divide people by giving them unnatural identities that have no equivalent in the countries where these people had originally come from.



Somehow we cannot seem to be able to correct the situation by following the Latin American example; we simply cannot teach in schools what many other countries in the Americas teach their kids: ?You are all Panamanians?, ?You are all Venezuelans?or ?You are all Brazilians?. ?You are all Americans? is hardly ever taught.



I guess neither the Founding Fathers, nor their followers ever went down to the many places on the another side of the equator to see that people can actually get along more and become much more of a One Nation Under God without creating a clumsy and unnatural social system that breeds nothing but continuous unhappiness for all concerned.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Friday, March 03, 2006

Non-Accredited US degrees- who are they good for?



As I thumb through major international magazines, I often come upon all these schools that advertise their long distance programs as well as on-campus programs for BAs, MAs and PhDs. They make it a point to convince the potential student that the degrees are legal and approved. And I keep seeing the ads over and over again everywhere I look. I have often wondered- since in the US, accreditation is such a big deal, where do they get the suckers to enroll in all these not-so-valuable educational curricula that are unaccredited?



Many of such schools also advertise on the Net and tout faces of their happy graduates-big smiles and testimonies on how good their programs are. Since I see these ads year after year, they must be attracting quite a few students. But who can they attract?



It is well known in the US that a non-accredited degree can be a time bomb. If you get a BA, MA or Ph D from a school that did not pass the rigorous accreditation requirements by special commissions that does that, your career can be put at risk and you can lose your job. If you try to work in the government sector or for respectful colleges in the US, Canada or the UK, they will not even let you near those places, and you will most probably never get a job there even if you are admitted for an interview.



However, that is not the case when you deal with a number of developing countries such as Thailand or Pakistan or even developed countries such as Japan. In many such countries, there is no American concept of ?accreditation?, and, because the degrees are legal in the US, they add a great deal of prestige and job-finding power to their holders in those countries.



And I am not talking about degree mills. There are quite a few very good universities in the US that are approved and legal, but not accredited. They have good BA and MBA programs and fairly good teachers. Their fees are very low and that is very attractive to many overseas students who cannot afford a traditional US degree from a reputable school.



A Taiwanese student, who wants to be a manager at a private company in his country, will find such a degree a windfall. It shows that he now knows about business, can read and understand English and most importantly, that he studied at an American university. Hired!



The same goes for PhD holders from some obscure Louisiana college which grants such doctorates. They are legal all right, but you cannot get a job with them at most places in the US. However, if you are a Thai citizen living in Bangkok and you apply for a job at a private, say, real estate company in Bangkok, you will often get a good position and your degree will be a big door opener in your society, in general. Thai society, that is. In the private sector, mostly.



Some Japanese and other non-English -speaking First-Worlders, who cannot afford to go to the US to study, also avail themselves of these $4000 diplomas. ?I have a degree from the US? is a potent indicator of one?s competence. Accredited? What?s ?accredited??? Many people would not even know the meaning of the word. American college? Graduated? Speaks English? Welcome!



This way, while the graduates may not become professors at large public universities- these would require an attestation of the document by the US Embassy-, quite a few private companies will generally welcome these American-educated potential employees.



As you travel around the world, particularly the so-called Third World, and visit offices of many a manager there, you will see such degrees proudly displayed on the walls of their offices. Now you know where these schools get their students from.



Incidentally, while there, you will often see US movies playing at their movie theaters with American stars whom you may have never seen before. These are also ?non-accredited? US movies by small-budget studios made specifically for the Third World market. Do not be surprised if your foreign friends start asking you about whether you like a certain actor and you have never even heard his name. They are about as famous in the US as those non-accredited American universities which have, nevertheless, managed to improve the lives of quite a few people. At a fraction of the cost.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Jealousy in the Third World.



Jealousy is a basic human emotion, and it generally manifests itself in situation where one observes other people having things that one does not have, and/or living a lifestyle that one cannot afford to live.



Jealousy is a strong emotion, however; in the First World countries it rarely assumes destructive proportions unless you find yourself among the really poor and deprived underclass which is not the First World mainstream. In the Third World, jealousy can be very powerful since the Underclass is the mainstream, and you as an expat can become its victim if you are not careful enough.



How so? Well, in the First World, opportunities are generally available to a greater percentage of the population than in the developing countries. Student loans, grants, scholarships and other such programs usually enable the person to move from being poor to, at least, becoming middle class. In addition to that, many First World countries are privacy minded- ?Mind Your Own Business!? is the motto there. Also, religions and life philosophies in many a developed country teach people to change and improve themselves and instill in one a spirit of confidence. Therefore, if one becomes jealous of achievements of another, it more often than not serves as a healthy impetus to improve oneself. ?You just wait! Next year I will have a bigger car than yours, and I will buy a house better than yours?. Such a healthy expression of envy is actually good as it makes people work harder, and, usually, many opportunities and resources are in place to help one ?push himself up in the world?.



In many developing nations, that may not be the case. Social classes are much more static and moving from one stratum of society to another is a great difficulty for most people, if not an outright impossibility. There are few scholarships, no student loans or grants and the rich get education, while the poor are destined for only minimal improvement of their lot. In addition to that, many religious and philosophical teachings there, as well as the whole culture are very much focused on preserving the status quo. Being ambitious is seen as a betrayal to one?s proletarian ideals and as a gesture that one is abandoning one?s community of poor people and is trying to become better than others. The rich also see such upstarts as a threat to the hegemony that they hold over the lower classes- a source of labor to them. Therefore, an average poor person in a poor nation may not even conceive of the desire to improve oneself. And even if he/she does, the money that one obtains will swiftly be sucked out of one?s pocket as poor relatives and friends who are not studying, and who do not have good jobs will be there waiting for a handout. Hence, someone who manages to get an education will forever be burdened by a group of other indigent people whom one has to help continuously. Poor people in the Third World often have large families and no money to feed them. A son that got a degree and is working now will see his salary melt away as he now supports a large extended household. His money will be vanishing like water poured into the sand.



Jealousy in the Third World is many times more powerful than in the First one. There, it emanates from people who were never taught that they could in fact develop themselves, take care of themselves and make money. ?You are better than, me? I will destroy you! ? They seethe with the resentment for the rich of their own country and see them as absolute overlords whose lifestyle they can never even remotely hope to achieve. Then, revolutions take place; the former slaves get into the government after destroying the local rich and, in turn, become lords who rule over the poor classes with vengeful cruelty. The paupers become tyrants and the society continues as it was before- the few rich at the top, a huge number of hopelessly poor at the bottom with a tiny ?middle class? which is never sure of its identity and position in society, and which receives a dose of scorn from both the rich and the poor each one thinking it as part of the other.



When a First World expat decides to live in such a developing country, he/she will need to be extremely careful. There have been cases of expats settling in such Third World countries, hoping for a happy life thereafter in a cheap tropical paradise, only to become targets of jealousy and antipathy. They would be caught between the rock and the hard place. The poor would see them as unwelcome invaders who have come to exploit them, and the ruling classes would see them as a menace to their status and the power which they held over the poor.



A rich foreign man with a big car and a beautiful local wife would, on occasions, end up being killed along with his spouse (who would be called a traitor who has sold out to a wealthy foreigner) by the masses of the deprived jealous natives in extreme cases, but most often than not, constantly hit for money by the ?lazy? indigenous neighbors who

never even dream of paying them back. They would end up cheated, overcharged, and often treated with derision by the locals. All based on nothing but intense jealousy.



In some cases, there were expat men who dreamt of opening businesses with their wives and helping the local community. These would be seen as unwanted competition and threat to its domination of some kingpin who would then resort to the services of a local hit man to do away with the foreigner and his wife. Often, both the rich and the poor do not want their status quo to be disturbed in such places. The poor do not like those richer than them to come over, raise prices and steal their women from them, and the moneyed classes do not want the new parvenue to treat the poor better than they do because this way the downtrodden masses will lose their spirit of obedience to those who are well-off.



So what is the solution?



If your fate or choice has landed you in such a place, you will have to do your best to keep a low profile and try to pass yourself off as someone who is just passing through or who is living in the place temporarily even if one remains there forever. If one wants to do business, one should try and do it in larger urban areas which resemble the developing world, and where one can get lost in the crowd. If one decides to live in smaller, more rural places, one should only have small businesses staffed by local people and be as unnoticeable as one can be. Under no circumstances should one sell out all of his possessions back in one?s home country and move to the Third World completely. A base in a solid First World country to which one can revert if things turn sour because of the Third World jealousy must be maintained at all times. And, while you are in the developing foreign land, talk softly, smile a lot, look poor, sometimes even complain about how difficult business is for you, and keep to yourself as much as you can.



Another good thing that many such expats do is starting businesses in tourist areas where they blend in with the endless ebb and flow of tourist crowds. There, they remain largely undistinguishable from temporary visitors and obtain money from sources outside the country. But even there, you always have to be careful. Jealousy may still raise its green head at any time and harm you in ways you may never know.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Religion and Tradition



A lot of strife nowadays is generated by religious intolerance which is a bit difficult for those who come from fairly liberal societies to understand. My observation is that while religious differences are definitely a serious cause, the bigger cause is really in the combination of religion and tradition.



In most societies of the world religion is something you inherit from you ancestors. It is simply a traditional way of viewing the world and your place in it, your relationship with the One you pray to, combined with the explanation of various phenomena and a code for behavior. Most people in the world did not invent the religions they practice. They got them from their forebears. And, unless you live in very liberal cities of the West, few people will be recent converts to a religion. The majority will simply become heirs to the way of worship and the worldly view based on how their parents, the society around them and, often, the governments, dictated that they believe.



If you are born in a country X, and are not a big city in California somewhere, you will probably have very little choice or even desire to acquire or change a religion. The country is of a certain religious denomination, your parents practice it, the inhabitants around you practice it and, in school and at work, most people you meet are practitioners of the same faith. Parents are probably the most powerful tool in transmitting a religion. If you have a child to whom a smiling mother and father bring a certain hallowed book when he or she is very small, and tell him/her that that is the correct way to see the world and that is what a child should follow and be proud of, then in 99% of cases, that is what the child will be. If, then, the parents start taking the child to an official place of worship of that religion, just like their parents did to them, then, of course, the child will grow up to be a good ( put the name of the follower of a religion here). Neither the parents nor the child actually sit down and examine their beliefs. They simply follow the tradition that spans hundreds or thousands of years and trust it to be good.



If one is to experience a particular religious awakening or a desire to radically improve one self, he or she will rarely change religions. Most often than not, he will either get deeper into his/her present religion or, in some extreme cases, change denominations.



When I lived in the Caribbean I saw many examples of people who would say that they 'became' Christians. I would often ask them ?Well, excuse me, what were you before?? "I was Catholic". "Well, isn?t Catholic a Christian, too? They would hem and haw and say, "Well, yes, but not a true one.? I would often hear things such as ?I have studied many religions and I finally understood one profound truth- Jesus is the answer?. Somehow, the tradition would still keep the people in that area within the same "range" of religion even though they would change sects simply because the major sources of spiritual information would be, in their majority, Christian. There would be few if any Buddhist or Taoist temples, few mosques, and knowledge about such faiths would be hard to obtain. Hence, the move from Catholic to Protestant as a major spiritual upheaval. Not much else is available there.



When going to Buddhist countries, I would again witness a similar phenomenon. The country is Buddhist, the temples around are Buddhist, the loving parents who inherited Buddhism from their ancestors teach their children symbols of Buddhism and the child faithfully and trustingly follows what his family, society, schools and friends follow- a Buddhist spiritual tradition. Sometimes, the Buddhist would switch from Hinayana to Mahayana, but rarely move on to other creeds.



Problems begin when you have people who grew up in one religious tradition and who are completely convinced of its total and undisputable truth -their parents and their society, teachers and elders told them that it was so-meet another group of people who had inherited another religious teaching through all the organs in their respective society, and whose view on God, worship and societal behavior differ from the first group. In other words, because of their own unique historical circumstances, the groups are now followers of different dogmas with each group feeling that their teaching is ?natural?, ?correct? and not to be questioned under any circumstances because it comes from books and other sources that are too holy to be challenged.



Each group usually feels prejudiced against the other?s teaching because, just like a foreign language, it does not seem natural to them, and because it is not expected and is strange, it is, therefore, wrong. The other group, that followed its own millennia-old customs will feel the same way about the first group.



Most groups of people will never be able to judge another spiritual teaching impartially and will only be able to compare it to what is normal to them. And their ?normal? belief is, strictly speaking, not theirs as a product of some thought-filled realization, but, again, as a consequence of a habit passed on over many generations. They inherit it from within the environment where it is most prevalent and wide-spread- their country.



The situation is aggravated by the fact that people are by nature social animals, and, belonging to a certain religion gives them a sense of identity. They now fit in with a larger group and they get support and guidance from it. Also, because in many parts of the world, not being part of an official creed invites social and economic ostracism, only a true rebel would ever dare to challenge it, while the ?moral? and ?proper? member of that society will conform to it so that others see him/her as good and civil and worthy of trust and acceptance.



Sometimes you do witness religious tolerance but such forbearance is just that-"You stay there and do your thing, and we stay here and do ours, that thing we have always done, and let's live in peace, but deep inside we know that we are right, but you are all wrong and I hope one day you will realize that".



In addition to that, we have very few people who are really and truly students of another faith even for scholastic purposes. Most would never touch another holy book except their own. Few Christians have read the Holy Koran which nevertheless does not stop them from making "knowledgeable" comments about it. Few peaceful inter-tradition dialogues take place. All this widens the gap of misunderstanding between members of different faiths.



People's affinity for tradition, and the failure to realize that we have other societies on this planet who are also followers of their own holy traditions that were passed on to them by their ancestors, and who also feel that they are right, as well as our tribal preference for people who are closer to us by their traditions is what has been creating so much strife today.



We need to promote more dialogue, more openness and more inter-religious communication. We need to study other religions deeply and objectively. Only then can we hope to have some kind of peaceful coexistence and learn to overcome our mistrust for one another.

 

[momopi_IHB]

http://truthfulinsights.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html



Friday, April 14, 2006

Gringo, Go Back to England!



Somehow, no hateful outburst in America is complete without telling somebody to go back to ?their? country or continent. I have seen many such events happen and heard the same thing from people who have been victimized by such volunteer ?travel advisors? more than once: there is always some bozo who tells someone to leave America and return to his or her homeland. I wish these clowns would provide visas and ticket money every time they attempt to send others on such a trip. How about a job waiting for them there? Can they set one up, too?



This ?travel order? sooner or later affects quite a big variety of people in the US. Some years back, I have seen an African-American lady was involved in a traffic accident with a Hispanic female in LA. Both ladies faced off and started advising each other to begin traveling to all these exciting places, the Hispanic lady was told to go back to Mexico, and the Black lady was, as you would expect, told by the Hispanic lady to go back to Africa.



On another occasion, another African American fellow who was sitting in a Korean fast food place suddenly started telling the Korean cook there to ?go back to China?. When the Korean cook protested that he was not Chinese, the ?travel counselor? proceeded to tell him to go back to Japan. Ouch! Japan wreaked havoc on Korea for so long and now he must go ?back ?there?



Iranian Americans were told to go back to Arabia and Armenians were probably told to go back to Russia. Only that Russia does not like Armenians nowadays. But that is beside the point. It?s just another day in LA?s model multi-ethnic community.



White Americans are just as guilty of giving people orders to leave America for all these exotic destinations as anybody else. Many Asian people in the US, many of whom are US citizens, are routinely advised by some white bigots to go back to Taiwan, Vietnam, China, Japan and a few other Asian countries. Usually, they would get the country wrong and ask a Vietnamese-American to go back to Taiwan. Boat people have tried doing it, but Taiwan does not give political asylum to those as a rule.



As a red-blooded naturalized US citizen, I have been told to go back to my country a few times only that at the time, I simply couldn?t. The country was closed and I would not qualify to get a visa there. Now I could go, but I would be treated as a foreigner, have to apply for a tourist visa and pay for extensions. If I overstay, I will be fined and kicked out. They will send me ?back to the US?. Too bad the person who told me to go there that did not know about it.



But seriously, when I read about the new slogan of ?Gringo, go back to England!? being proposed as the new war cry of illegal alien marchers in California, it was so funny I had to sit down and laugh long and hard. Somehow, it had a deeper philosophical meaning- it showed how fragile everyone was and how insecure. How everyone in America probably wanted to be friends with everyone else, but felt that they couldn?t. It was the last desperate plea, a childish, kindergarten attempt to fight back what they viewed as the last remaining oppressor- the Gringo. Send the Gringo back to England and everything will be fine.



My Slavic mother, who grew up in Uzbek orphanages, and who starved during WWII, and fainted from being hungry so many times when she was growing up that she almost died, was called a ?gringa? on our last journey to Mexico in 2001. To an average Mexican, I guess, she was of exactly the same race and nationality as the Yankee blue-bloods of the New England aristocracy and the cowgirls of Texas. How wonderful! And now my mom needs to go back to England, of all places, I guess. Wow! Now the last thing we need is an authorization from England to take us in. Last time I went there I only got six months at the airport. How about if these illegal demonstrators go to the UK consulate and start marching there asking Her Majesty to accept us? That is where they should be protesting. I would love to live in England.





The American prejudice has finally gone around full circle. It was probably the first time that Gringos were being told to go back to England. First it was the Gringos telling the Blacks to go back to Africa, then those Blacks who were bigoted against Asians and Hispanics would tell them to go back to Asia and Mexico respectively, and now you have all these people now marching in California telling the ?original? US settlers to go back to England. Somehow the cycle has been completed. We are back where we had started. And now we even have a new weapon phrase against white racists, ?Gringo, go back to England!? Funny as heck, if you ask me. Somehow, even in the trying times of the Civil Rights movement, African American activists did not stoop as low as telling the white racists to ?go back to England?. I always wondered why. Maybe the idea seemed too wacky to them.



In most cases though, American citizens cannot go back to England, Africa, Germany, etc. There are some countries that recognize dual nationality, but in the case of the UK, asking them to take it hundreds of millions of ?bloody Yanks? now will be more than preposterous. It will be a legal impossibility in most cases. The same thing with lots and lots of Blacks who were told to go back to Africa. Which country do you want to send them to? Gabon? Cameroon, Senegal? How about Nigeria? How many of these would accept these Americans?



There are people of dual nationality in the US, but by and large, most Gringos do not have it and most will not qualify for it and; therefore, will not be able to ?go back to England?. And if they go as tourists and their visa lapses, the UK Immigration Panel will throw them out. Unless they have a job there, or something.



But I will look into it. Maybe there are some visa programs, and I too, could ?go back? to England. After all, I am a Gringo now. At least, according to the people who were marching in LA on that auspicious day.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Why Immigrants Won't Assimilate



There has been a lot of debate as to why immigrants will not assimilate into the American culture. However, all those who are now assimilated children of immigrants seem to have forgotten how long it took their families to assimilate. I am sure it was not done in 2-3 years or even one generation. But even if they could assimilate rather quickly here are some of the reasons why they are not assimilating as quickly as you may wish they would.



1) Socially, the American society is not very accepting of people with foreign accents (except British colonial, soft North European- Swedish, Norwegian etc,. and a gentle French accent). Learning to speak a language without an accent is a very difficult proposition after the age of 12. If you have an accent, ostracism or mockery is very common. Scorn for other cultures and languages is common, too. Many people do not want to be mocked and ridiculed (do you?), so they stick to their won kind.



I remember in NY, where I used to live it was common for kids not to play with someone whose parents had an accent. This is how bad it can get.



Latin American societies such as Brazil or Argentina are much less so and if you have an accent it is no big deal. Hence, there you have people who came at a more mature age and found a society that is far less suspicious and more embracing. After a person becomes a citizen of Argentina, he is called an Argentinean and that's that. Accent or no accent. But try speaking with an accent to a bunch of working class Americans. Suspicious looks and frowns will abound. And few will see you as an American.



2) The Anglo-Saxon culture of the US is cliquish and not very friendly; socially that is. The laws are very generous and the Constitution is superb. A great friendly government, but many people are very much into their small groups. Breaking into those groups is not an easy task. So, many people just don't bother- they have other priorities.



3) Nativism; "American means: born here!" I remember a very classical example of how it works: I was at work and one employee called me a "foreigner" in an unfriendly way. Actually, this had happened more than once. He had found out that I was not born in the US because I am fluent in many languages and the 'terrible truth' had surfaced. Then, when I answered- "I am not a foreigner, but a US citizen", a pat answer came my way: "I mean a foreigner; not born here". This attitude is very common in the US, although, admittedly, not all people adhere to it- there are some nice people that see you as someone who 'became' an American. But socially, unless you are British or Aussie who turned into an American and have no accent now, you will not really be seen as such.



Just look at the sites that have been organized to stymie Arnold Schwarzenegger?s alleged bid for US presidency.

They are calling him a "foreigner" even though he is a US citizen and took the Oath of Renunciation without which one cannot become one. Such an attitude is 'very' widespread in the US.



There is also an ingrained social way of looking at immigrants. In the American culture people do not ask you "Are you a US citizen?? they ask you ?Where are you from (originally)?". Once you tell them, bingo! You are an immigrant to many (if not most) people. And it does not matter how long you have been in the country and if you are US citizen.



And also, the US media simply loves to attach the title "German- born", "Russian-born", etc. to anyone who was not born in the US. Even if they are US citizens. And God forbid if you do something bad- immediately the word "immigrant" surfaces. Remember Zsa Zsa when she slapped a policeman? The judge was telling her ?It is like you slapped every American!" meaning in a subtle way she was 'not' an American.



In Argentina or Brazil, no. Look at Carlos Gardel- the famous tango composer. He is referred to as an Argentinean even though he was French-born. Few even talk about his foreign birth. But in America, it is an issue. At least one that is worth mentioning.



There is no difference in the popular culture and understanding between a legal immigrant, illegal immigrant and a naturalized US citizen as far as the working masses of the US population go. They are all the same. And then they have censuses of the foreign born population in which the above categories are dumped into one.



4) The class of people that would want to come and live in the US is usually that of people in economic need or refugees. Refugees do not really 'want' to be in the US. Coming was a necessity; not a need. It is just that they were unfortunate enough to be in very bad circumstances, and although they are grateful to the US government for all the benefits, emotionally they are still attached to their country. Add to that the social (not the official) hostility and you have a recipe for multiculturalism.

The other, very poor people may not have the smarts (and the IQ) to go to school and assimilate. Plus you would not want to be a kid with an accent at a US school. I have been one and you are harassed very often and can get beat up. Young American kids can be nasty. You will have no friends, no dates, nothing. Unless of course you are from a popular country such as Switzerland, Australia, the UK, etc. But these are not coming to the US for the most part.



If you had people of ?high class? with means coming to the US from places such as Belgium or the Netherlands, etc, there would not be an assimilation issue- they would all assimilate very quickly. But people from those countries rarely want to come- life is better there than in the US now.



The US immigration quotas favor non-white people from very different cultures for whom the Anglo-based culture is not easy to learn, plus they would not really be accepted into the mainstream even if they wanted to. Racism is still strong- from the whites, the blacks and even other immigrants who had come before them.



5) The US now is not about culture, assimilation, etc. It is mostly about making money. So, people concentrate on that. Prices are high, rents are high. People work to make ends meet. Some work to save for school, cars, apartments, etc. Cultural and language studies are secondary.



Thus, assimilation is left to its own devices and it will take its natural course- two or three generations. Just like it has with most other assimilated immigrants' children whom you see around you.

 

[momopi_IHB]

http://truthfulinsights.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html



Thursday, May 18, 2006

Puerto Rico - How to Eat the Cake and Have it,Too.



I remember that day like it was yesterday. It was July something-something of 1983, and I was about to be sworn in as a new US citizen. I was at a Federal Building in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The building was as American as one can get, US flags all around, signs and all, but what was outside did not fit the parameters of what I expected the US to look like. I was on a Spanish- speaking Caribbean island, and whenever I went outside, and I tried to speak English to the people, they would just shrug and walk by me saying ,?No entiendo ingles?. Because of my light complexion people had been calling me a ?Gringo?, a ?Yankee? and ?Americano?. Once, I was sitting under a tree relaxing when a local passed by me and flipped me the bird. He probably meant that my presence on the island was not welcome. Little did all these people know that they were the ones that were Gringos and I was the one who was not. How ironic!



In some offices at the University where I went to, I saw anti-American posters saying things like ?We Resent the Colonial Yoke? and ?Freedom for Puerto Rico?. There would a picture of Puerto Rico wrapped in chains emanating from an evil country northeast of it. On some buildings, on the way to the court house, there were graffiti in Spanish: ?Long Live Puerto Rico, Free and Socialist!? There was even one that said: ?Yankee, if you do not go, you will die here in Puerto Rico?. To me it was kind of logical: if a person does not go, he will, one day, get old and die where he is. That?s a given truism. I guess they meant ?violent death? by a freedom fighter, a ?Machetero?, though.



They had all been US citizens for almost a century, and I only had a Green Card and was about to become one of them, i.e., a US citizen. But all of this seemed so surreal that up until this day I cannot make heads or tails of it. Was I in the US or what? Whose citizen did I end up becoming?



The court room was half full, and small to begin with. There were no ?Daughters of the American Revolution? waiting outside with doughnuts. The new citizens, maybe thirty of us, many from other Latin American countries even recited poems about their new country in Spanish. By the ?new country? they meant ?The USA?. Still, while it all sounded great, I somehow left with a funny aftertaste in my mouth. I guess, that is what diversity is all about. However, the Puerto Rican style of diversity was even weirder.



At the University of Puerto Rico, where I was taking courses with Spanish being the medium of instruction, people often referred to Puerto Rico as a ?country?. Actually, to most local people, Puerto Rico was simply a nation similar to Cuba and the Dominican Republic. The United States was a foreign country in the eyes of many, if not all, locals. That is why becoming a US citizen there and integrating into a society that was not even English-speaking and completely Latin American was truly bizarre for me. However, many folks were doing just that. There were Middle Easterners who were becoming US citizens and staying in the ?country? of Puerto Rico; many Cubans also opted for that route rather than staying in Miami and then, there was I. I loved Puerto Rico, its people and its vehement culture. But I remained forever confused by its identity.



The official name for Puerto Rico was ?Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?. However, Massachusetts was also a commonwealth, but it was a state of the US, whereas Puerto Rico was not. To add to the confusion was the fact that when the English word ?Commonwealth? was translated into Spanish, it did not become something like ? Riqueza Comun?, but, for some reason, someone came up with the phrase: ?Estado Libre Asociado?, and if you translate it back into English, it reads? ? Associated Free State?. So, it is a state after all or what? I was confused again.



Another thing that I had learned while I was there was the often repeated belief of the locals that while they were American citizens, they were not Americans. I always thought that the two were synonymous, but now there were thousands, perhaps millions of people who would tell me time and time again that they were not Americans even though they had US citizenship. One of my professors at the University of Puerto Rico explained that Puerto Rican was a ?nationality?, a cultural concept, whereas ?American? was ?citizenship?, a political aspect. That is how political science would see it, he would say. He had also related a story to me of how when Puerto Ricans would move to the US, they would be asked on various government forms what their nationality was, they would write PUERTO RICAN in huge capital letters forcing the authorities on mainland to change the question on the form to ?What country are you a citizen of?? giving the people only one choice- to put the letters ?US? in the blank.



In Puerto Rico, they even have a term to describe people of Puerto Rican descent from New York as ?Neo Ricans?, and they rarely if ever see them as Americans. However, when I asked Puerto Ricans on the Island whom they considered Americans, many would say ?a person born in the United States?. For some reason, though, it would be everyone else except the Neo Ricans. Very strange. Say, a person of Irish descent born in the US would be an American to them, but a person of Puerto Rican descent born in the US would not be. It was again very contradictory and very strange.



I asked a librarian in Puerto Rico once what an American name would be, and she answered ?Smith? without blinking. I guess they were still clinging to the old view of America even when America has undergone so much change ethnically and culturally.



Many Puerto Ricans who go to live in the US are routinely asked if they have Green Cards and ?Americanos? who live on the Island are called ?expats?. Why?



I also remember the days when I used to sit at the library of the University and find a leaflet or two on the desk with more and more political appeals to ?Throw Out The Vile Yankees From Our Motherland?. I went to the bathroom then, and stared at another long appeal scribbled on the door of the cubicle by some local revolutionary to ?Throw Out Foreigners From the Country, Burn them by Fire and Brimstone, and Establish a Glorious Republic?.



Having observed all that, I have also noticed that these outbursts were from a vocal but small minority. Most Puerto Ricans were very happy to live in their ?associated free state?, while considering themselves a country, nonetheless, and enjoying the benefits of US citizenship, such as Affirmative Action and visa free travel to most countries of the world, and lots and lots of jobs on mainland. Who said that you cannot eat the cake and have it, too? It has been done in Puerto Rico.



It was a great experience to become a US citizen in San Juan, but I still feel that something was missing from that naturalization ceremony. Maybe I should have done it in a place like Pittsburgh or Toledo, Ohio? I just did not feel as special as I could have. Things were not quite logical all around me. It was too surreal. However, at the same time, having been called a Gringo before and after the ceremony, I did put a spring in my step. I was now a Gringo with full rights. Just like the islanders around me who had been Spanish-speaking Gringos for almost a century now without ever admitting it to themselves or anyone around them.

 

[momopi_IHB]

The Anglo Guilt and Pride



The Anglo Guilt



Former British colonies and Britain itself seem to suffer from some kind of guilt complex. They are constantly trying to make amends for all the bad things they have done to other countries and races. In the process, they can get take advantage by other countries who had done just as many bad things, but who are not feeling guilty in the slightest. China, for example, carried out horrible atrocities in Tibet and Vietnam, but it is not feeling guilty. Neither does Japan. Liberals in America and in the UK for example, have even created a new teaching saying that race does not exist. However, in other countries they do not have such a teaching; they believe in race and practice racism every day. They exclude other races from participation in society, deal with illegal immigrants most harshly (Mexico does that, for example), and devote most of their time to looking out after their national interests. Only the Anglos seem to constantly be saying with a sad mien ?We did this, and we did that? while lowering their heads in shame as other nations just go on with their agendas without ever looking back. Sometimes I wonder if such guilt is useful for all these Anglo-Saxon countries. It would be of some benefit if other nation-states were working on straightening out their record as well, but they aren?t. Either they deny that they had ever done anything bad, or they twist it to make it look like they had done a good thing. Everybody is selfish and shrewd, and looking out for number one. Anglos do too, but not as much. The guilt significantly cripples them. Well, as long as UK and US lead the world, they may have to be doing that, since, I guess, the world must love a guilt-ridden leader.



The Anglo Pride



Along with the guilt there is also a pride and a delusion that comes with it. The gist of it is that an average American, Brit and often a Canadian actually equates the Anglo-Sphere (the part of the world where English is spoken) with ?the world?. In fact, it is possible to circumnavigate the globe and only land, and spend time in English-speaking countries. Let?s say, you will go from Britain to the US, then Australia, and then, on to Singapore, HK, India, the Gulf Arab countries where most people are Indian or Filipinos, and then possibly to Africa where Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana and other such places are English-speaking. Then, one will go back to London. One has been around the world and the world does speak English. At least that is the way it looks. As a result, you may form an illusion that the entire planet speaks English, whereas only 22-25% of it does. Such people who are Anglo- Saxon culturally, by and larg,e do not learn another language when they are abroad, and do not try to assimilate or integrate into other cultures, and find it abnormal when people do not speak English to them. ?What are you, dumb or something?? they are often heard saying to people in countries that were not ?lucky? enough to be colonized by England.



Even after decades of living in Thailand, Russia or Germany, many do not make any effort to learn another language, and somehow feel deep in their hearts that the locals are wrong by not speaking English. The illusion that they have about the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon culture is so deep that it borders on madness.



While rarely trying to assimilate into other cultures, many such cultural Anglo-Saxons nevertheless get raving mad when immigrants to their countries want to preserve their culture and language just like they do when they go abroad. Sorry, but it goes both ways. If an American can live in the Dominican Republic for ten years without learning Spanish and be proud of it, you can expect a Dominican to do the same in the US. It?s only fair, isn?t it?



So, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. When Anglo start respecting other cultures, it should work the other way around, too- those who go to their countries will be making the effort to learn English.



That is if the world is fair, which it never seems to be.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Miscellaneous



1)It never ceased to amaze me how so many Latin American nations see the Spanish language as a national symbol of their country, while, and at the same time, sharing that colonial language of the former European master with others. Shouldn?t the liberators, after a bloody war with the Spaniards to win independence from them, have adopted the local Amerindian languages as the national symbols? After all, in Europe Romanians rightfully see the Romanian language as their national symbol and so do the Hungarians. No one else speaks it. But Spanish? Give me a break!

Language can only be a source of national identity if only your nation uses it; otherwise, it is simply a means of communication, and should not be the cause of foaming-at-the mouth ethno-cultural chauvinism.



2) I have devised a way to enjoy five star hotels cheaply: I arrive in a country, stay at the cheapest hostel there is where I leave my things, and go at night to crash out, and then, I go to a five star hotel and use their facilities: I hang out in the lobby, go to their restaurants and just promenade around the atriums. At some, for a modest fee I can use the swimming pool and the sauna. Then, I hop into a taxi and go back to my fleabag to sleep. Admittedly, not all facilities are available to me at the big hotels, but I still get treated as a VIP in most cases without spending a fortune on the rooms.



3) Sugar-coated books on dealing with the culture shock do not tell you the whole truth, namely, in some countries culture shock can be very unpleasant, and sometimes it can even kill you. I read the other day that a person who goes to another country should expect to be stereotyped, and should not be angry about it. If one is English, they say, one has to expect people to think that he drinks tea; and if one is Japanese, one has to be ready for people to ask him if he can fight the karate style. Not all is so rosy. In some countries, an American can be stereotyped as a CIA agent and shot. In other countries, he can be stereotyped as a sex tourist, and his local wife can be insulted in public and even spat on. The culture shock and stereotyping can take some pretty serious forms at times.



4) Different cultures have different values, and we should not judge other cultures based on values which have been instilled in us since childhood in our own country. Some so- called developed countries place primary importance on technological, business and professional development. Other countries think that developing a harmonious family and friendly relations with people around them is the most important thing. Others yet, think that intellectual and spiritual progress is the most important thing to aspire to. While concentrating on just one such important aspect, it is inevitable that other areas of societal life will become neglected. Thus, many of the so-called First World countries are plagued by general unhappiness, unfriendliness, a high divorce rate and endless loneliness, while the family-oriented countries often have dirty streets, corrupt and inefficient governments, shoddy products, and incompetent services. Intellectual and spiritual nations also suffer from perennially unsolved infrastructure problems and classism. Most countries, therefore, remain incomplete forever. However, since they are used to their incompleteness, and we are not, we always notice what is wrong with them based on our perspective, and they notice what is wrong with us based on their perspective. Both they and we tend to become judgmental and haughty when talking about each other.



5) Diversity is a relative thing and depends on the observer. Therefore, we cannot say that one society is diverse and another is homogenous; we can only say that one society is more diverse than another, but even then, it is hardly a fact, but is more of an opinion. One gives examples of Japan as being a homogenous society, but that is how it looks to the uninitiated outsiders. Inside of Japan, the people think that every person is different in character, behavior and his or her way of thinking. Moreover, Japan has thousands of different religious sects, many political parties that are completely different in their approach to governing, as well as a variety of supposedly different regional characteristics. Moreover, as one Japanese person has remarked to me; Japanese people do not know they are Japanese unless they meet a foreigner.



It is the law of nature that no two things in the universe are completely alike and no two people are completely alike. However, people in any nation can be similar to each other when one compares them to foreigners; while they themselves are often never aware of that.

 

[momopi_IHB]

http://truthfulinsights.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html



Sunday, June 25, 2006

Misc2



While working in the Gulf I have decided to create classifications for the types of money here. There are LVCUs and HVCUs which stands for ?lower value currency units? and ?higher value currency units?. For example, Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait have currencies that are higher than the dollar or the pound- and each one has 1000 smaller units instead of cents. Qatar or the UAE, on the other hand, have smaller units that are lower than dollar or pound. You get 3.60 something for every dollar in the UAE, but $10 will only get you some 3 dinars in Kuwait. So, if you work in the UAE and your salary is say, 15,000 dirhams, you would get some 1500 in Bahrain for doing them same job. Of course, both sums are identical if you translate them into dollars, but somehow I have always felt more comfortable with LVCUs because they made me feel ?richer?. It just felt better to have 500 dirhams in my pocket than 50 dinars. 50 dinars does not feel like much, and you spend it faster because, subconsciously, you probably feel they are ?dollars?. I have also found out that I have been able to save less in HVCU countries than in LVCU countries even though I have had similar salaries.



***



It is useless to try and determine where the ?Center of the World? is on its surface since Earth is a sphere. Hence, the center is somewhere deep underground, and cannot be anywhere on its surface. This does not prevent various nations or cultures from proudly announcing their big cities or some places of significance as ?centers of the world? or even worse as ?capitals of the world?. It does make the locals prefer to stay home, puts a smug smile on their faces and a spring in their step, and keeps hordes of tourists coming. As long you have the means to convince millions that your capital is ?the capital of the world?, they will gladly swallow the myth.

***



Once I was in the Philippines and have observed a group of models checking into a hotel. There was a beauty contest, and I asked one on the girls what it was dedicated to. She said it was done for ?Funds?. I thought it was great that they were doing fund-raising through beauty.



Then, several days later I saw a truck that was taking these girls to the place of the beauty contest and back. It said ?POND?S CREAM?. Filipino people cannot tell the difference between ?P? and ?F? and pronounce a sound that is somewhere in between that really sounds much more like an ?F? to Westerners? ears than a ?P?. So, they actually meant that it was a beauty show for the POND?S beauty cream company.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Discrimination in Japan



Japan is not usually synonymous with racism in Western media, unlike Mississippi or Soweto, but its society is pretty racist nonetheless. However, it is an issue that is rarely studied as openly as the racism in the West, or the one that is perpetrated by Western individuals such as in the US, Canada, S. Africa or the UK. There two main reasons for this:



First, in a place like the US, they have had the historic Civil Rights movement for a very long time. The US has a Constitution that states that all men/people were created equal. It has powerful organizations such as ACLU and AAACP. Also, the US has been bringing many races and ethnicities under its fold and, later, it has been listening to their vocal anti-discrimination protests for decades and changing the laws and the attitudes of its people. Plus there is the Christian guilt thing something that few Asians seem to share.



The same can be said about Canada or the UK- they generally teach their populations that racism is bad. However, in Japan there have been traditionally few minorities, not many powerful civil rights movement, the laws mainly seem to be designed to protect the locals against foreigners, and there is not much racial guilt as part of the culture. Also, the Japanese racism is non-violent- they are, as rule, not burning crosses on your lawn or beating people up. It is expressed more in the form of polite, but firm exclusion. Because the number of foreigners is small, there are no numerous protests, no one million foreigners march on Tokyo and no cry: ?I have a dream!? uttered by a victim of Japanese discrimination in front of the Diet building that is heard all around the world.



Asian foreigners living in Japan who suffer from discrimination do not as a rule protest against it since it is just not the Asian way of doing things. You are supposed to grin and bear it and not admit that you are being victimized. To do otherwise will cause you to lose face.



The second reason is that Western expats in those countries often seem to be reluctant to admit that there is racial discrimination against them. It will make them look like pitiful victims and fools, because only a fool would move to a country where he/she is not welcome. And, after so many decades of Political Correctness, an average Westerner has learned (erroneously) that racism is, generally, a white phenomenon, and all other races are victims of the white man, so how can they be racist? They are probably behaving like that because they a) do not speak English or b) are ?shy? of foreigners or c) are just not very informed. How can a Japanese or any other Asian be prejudiced? We were the ones who had put Japanese Americans in camps and bombed SE Asians. Asians- racist? What are you talking about? Ridiculous!



In fact, all peoples are, to one extent or another, racist, nationalistic, sexist, ageist, economic or intellectual snobs, etcetera, etcetera. What changes as we go from country to country is the degree, the frequency, the intensity, the main targets of, and the way the prejudice is expressed. Most expats will agree on one thing, though- the more cash you have and the higher your status is, the less prejudice you will experience. That, however, means: ?less?, but never ?none?.



So how can prejudice against non-Japanese (and, in our case, non-Japanese teachers) be expressed in Japan? Our social and cash status is not terribly high as a rule.



Well, first and foremost, it is the apartment situation. Basically, one needs to understand that most Japanese landlords will not rent to a foreigner. There are some that do and now, with the advent of the Internet, one can find apartments in Japan by those few agencies that welcome us, gaijin.



Also, the Japanese landlords do not normally hang out a ?For Rent? sign at an apartment building. They go to a ?fudosan?- a real estate agency to help them find tenants. However, try and check out some signs near your local ?fudosan?- you can usually see those that say: ?No Animals, No Prostitutes, No Foreigners.? Lovely, isn?t it?



Your saving grace is that if you look for a job in Japan, your employer will normally provide you with housing. However, if he does not, you will be in for a big shock. I once left an employer and mistakenly assumed that the new one would get me an apartment as he had hinted he would, but he had backed out at the last moment and I was left to my own devices. I was then riding around Tokyo like the African-American guy in the movie ?Roots? who was vainly trying to find a place to stay in the Old American South.



Complaining to Japanese friends does not usually help. Some call to ask their landlords if there is a place and then the landlords say: ?no vacancy? or ?no foreigners? or, as I was told: ?the owner is prejudiced against foreigners?. Again, keep in mind that all those who are not Japanese by blood, race and culture are foreigners. There are no hyphenated Japanese. A naturalized Japanese citizen who is not ?racially? Japanese is still a foreigner.



I did not really know about how things were in Japan and did not know much about agencies that specialized in renting to foreigners. I called all around the Japanese agencies, but had a very poor response. Eventually, I ended up in a ?Gaijin House?, a sort of a small hotel for foreigners where I was paying twice of what my Japanese neighbors were paying, and sharing one kitchen with a bunch of Australians, Brits and an Ghanaian.



So, your lesson number one: when getting or switching jobs in Japan, make sure that the new employer will provide a place to live. However, do not mistakenly think that because everyone is so nice to you (Japanese people are, as a rule, very polite) that you are now ?at home? and can just move into any neighborhood in Japan. You are still an undesirable tenant in most cases.



In all other situations, please look for agencies on the Internet or in English language ?magazines? that provide apartments especially for foreigners. If you start looking for apartments in The Japan Times newspaper, you will often be staring at $20,000 a month places in Shinjuku. Stick with the Web and The Hiragana Times magazine and other expat magazines and do an online search on ?Apartments in Japan?.



Second, there are quite a few bars, hotels, and nightclubs that are for ?Japanese Only?. Just like those ?White Only? places in the US or South Africa in the times of old; except that in the latter case, worldwide outrage had removed those signs, while the Japanese signs are still hanging just like before, and few people care. You see, the Japanese are not white, so it is OK for them to be racist. Plus most UN human rights activists do not read Japanese and do not hang out near such real estate agencies.







(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



The Japanese Onsens, or public baths have also become more and more reluctant to accept foreigners as bathers. The reason is that Russian sailors made some boo-boo at some Onsens in Hokkaido and now all foreigners are marred. Hey, we all look alike to them.



On the main drag in big cities, big department stores, big international hotels and bars on the main street of town or along the tourist trail, everyone is generally welcome, but once you swerve into smaller alleyways, things get funny- either the people are very friendly, or they do not want foreigners and slam doors in your face ? ?Gaijin Dame?- no foreigners allowed. And it does not usually matter if you speak Japanese or not.



Lesson number two: when going to a small bar or a karaoke place or a hotel/onsen in an outlying area, it would be nice to go there with a Japanese person first so that they would introduce you to the locals and ?vouch? for you. It helps if you speak some Japanese, too.



Incidentally, the famed Japanese red light district of Kabuki-cho in Central Tokyo is almost entirely ?Japanese Only?. That goes for most red-light type establishments.



Lesson number three: you may want to fly out of Japan to more welcoming red light districts as in the country you now call ?home? you may have hard time getting into those. I do not know how about if you go there with a Japanese friend. I have never tried.



Now, as far as the employment goes: most commercial language schools in Japan generally prefer younger, Germanic- Anglo-Saxon looking people- the ?real? Americans and Canadians/Brits. For some reason a Mr. Levine and a Mr. Katz qualify. So do most Italians. They are Anglo-Saxon enough to the Japanese eyes.



Now, you may argue and try and explain to a Japanese school owner that a Mohammed Ibrahim Ibn Hattab from London is ?British?, and that a Jose Rodriguez from East LA is an ?American?, but the owner will probably have other ideas. Good luck convincing him.



Lesson four: The less ?Anglo-Saxon? you are in name and physical appearance and the more you are approaching the wrong side of 30, the more professional qualifications you will needs, such as an MA or a PhD so that you could get out of the more business/customer service-oriented establishments and more into the real Academia.



Having said that, I have known of only one Black American who was an ESL teacher at a Tokyo technical school. I am sure Black Americans do find jobs, but it is an uphill struggle in many cases.



Another case would be: naturalized citizens of the US, UK, Canada, etc. This is another category which deserves special attention. The deal is if they are European-looking, and do not have too exotic a name such as Wenceslas Przesidevski, Jose Maria Lopez de Vega or something of the sort, and have graduated from universities in US, Canada, UK etc, there is usually very little problem coming from the Japanese employers or students. The problems, however, may come from the Western staff, who are often the ones hiring you. Since there are no more anti-discrimination laws in effect during the process, a, say, American personnel manager during a job interview can ask you a simple question: ?Where are you from, originally?? And what if you say: Iran? Or Russia? Or Iraq? And you went to the US at age 3? You are often still an Iranian./Russian/Iraqi to your American hirer. And then you will have to fill out an application form that states your birthplace- ouch! In the US it is illegal to ask for that but not in Japan. And they (the Western hirers) may just treat you as the citizen of that old country whose name you have just put on the application. It?s been known to happen.



If you are naturalized non-white person, you will eventually find work but you will have to sieve through a lot of rejections.



Lesson number five: a naturalized Western citizen may face more problems than a native born one, hence, he/she will need to apply at more places and get ready for more rejections than what would befall the latter. And preferably, he/she should get hired by a Western company in the West. But whether in Japan, or in the West, it is all a numbers game. There are plenty of jobs and people find them, it is just that you may have to look a bit harder. And, also, such naturalized citizens are better off aiming higher than mom and pops? Mickey Mouse language schools near one?s local convenience store.



To give credit to Japan for something- as prejudiced as they can be at times, they can also be very hospitable and respectful and welcoming. I had great friends there, people picking me up on the streets and taking me to restaurants and their homes; people meeting me on airplanes, total strangers and all, and telling me that I was now their son and that I should go and visit them as I would visit their parents. So, that is why some call Japan ?the Land of Contrasts ?: either they are very good and helpful, or they are rather unfriendly and prejudiced.



The Japanese are by and large, great people. I like Japan, its food, culture, music and things history. And most Japanese seem to like me and like and admire most foreigners and roll out a welcome mat of the size that few other nations would unroll. However, something happens when they become landlords, bar and red light district/small hotel owners as some xenophobic valve invariably opens up. For some reason, it is easy to get invited to a home and be fed and put up to sleep in the most honorable place in the house ,but it is so hard to find a tiny place to live. Go figure.



All in all please be aware of the above facts and carefully weigh how well you will do in Japan. One needs to be soberly aware of how things are in that country. But also, please keep in mind that Japan is a safe place and most Japanese want to keep it that way. They are also into quality and they want to make sure, in their own ways, that their students get high quality education from whom they perceive to be the ones deserving to transfer such knowledge.



Still, there are plenty of jobs in Japan and more than one million foreigners in Japan, they are employed, have apartments and live there for a long time- some, their entire lives. So, they do it and you can do it, too if you are willing to take a bit of heat at times. The above information is not meant to discourage you, but simply to warn you not to go there with starry eyes concealed behind a pair of rose colored glasses.



<img src="http://sajjadzaidi.com/2007/jan/japanese_only_establishments/onsenyunohanasign.jpg" alt="" />

 

[momopi_IHB]

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Foreign Language Study, A Waste of Time?



I have noticed that over the past 20-30 years or so more and more people speak English, and prefer to use it to communicate with foreigners. Also, what is becoming more and more common is that you have native English speakers who live in non-English speaking countries for decades, and who are doing just fine by using only English. They have friends, do their shopping, attend to legal and bank formalities, and even get lovers and later, husbands and wives, without learning but a few token words in the language of the country. They do so with smug pride and conviction that it is the right thing to do. I can see them everywhere with confident looks and a proudly raised chin. ?I am an American! I speak English!? Upon being asked: ?Do you speak Spanish?? The reply is ?Not a word! ?, followed by another confident rising of the jaw in proud self-reveling. ?Yes, sir?, say the natives and accommodate the speaker for yet another decade. They are used to that. A mono-lingual American/Brit/Canadian/ Australian is simply like that. There is nothing you can do to change him/her. He/She thinks the whole world should speak English. And the whole world just might start doing just that. If you cannot make the mountain come to Mohammad, Mohammad will just have to go to the mountain.



I am an avid foreign language learner, and I seem to be a dying breed since I do not see many like me among the expat crowd in many countries. When in an Arab country, I was the only one studying Arabic, and when in Japan, I was only one of the two poor and lonely blokes studying Japanese. All the others were partying and having the time of their lives. Somehow, while before, people would get mad that foreigners, particularly ?Anglos? would come to their country and not learn the language, by now they have gotten used to it and have begun adjusting themselves to the English speakers, even though, ideally, it is the English speakers who should be adjusting to the cultures of their host countries. However, the accommodating nations have understood that the Anglo pride is incorrigible and now, the illusion that the entire world should speak English that is shared by many native English speakers has stopped being an illusion.



English speakers who have been yelling abroad at the natives who did not understand them, have actually had a very powerful effect on their environment. People have not rebelled, but began speaking English more and more. This way the illusion has become a reality. The world today is becoming more and more of an English-speaking place and foreign languages have become less and less useful for international travelers and residents in other countries. It used to be that if you took up business in 1980ies, you would take French or Spanish along with that. Now, most businessmen speak English, so when you have a negotiation or business correspondence, it is mostly conducted in English. So, why rack your brains over a difficult language since people on the other end will just switch to English anyway? Somehow, the natives have finally accepted the idea that: ?a Brit/American/Canadian, etc. will never learn my language, he/she is too stubborn and too proud and he/she thinks that they are kings of the world and they have money and technology, so we should be learning their language instead?. Many of those who are in fact respectful of other cultures and their languages will be met with English again because of the other 90+% of expats who have imprinted upon the natives the fact that an American will never speak another language.



So, we are questioning the feasibility of spending years learning Arabic, Portuguese, German, etc. if the locals will just speak English to you, anyway. Why bother? I spent years learning Japanese and I am quite fluent in it by now. While I was studying my kanji and my verbs, I would often be puzzled by seeing other Westerners speaking English to the Japanese in a haughty way expecting them to understand and the Japanese doubling over backwards to please them. So, maybe I should be a pompous ass like that, as well? It is true. in some countries, if you speak local languages, people start treating you condescendingly, but once you start speaking English in an authoritarian fashion, people stand at attention treating you like ?The Boss?. So, sometimes I wonder if I have been wasting my time with all these languages as I have seen those who do not do it have a much better time in foreign countries that have been having. In fact, those who do not learn the languages of host nations have many advantages:



1) People treat them as guests; forever. That means: with deferment and respect.



2) They surround themselves with friends who speak only English. That means- cosmopolitan people who appreciate intercultural friendship and communication, who are broad-minded and international and relatively free from bigotry.



3) They do not understand what bad things are being said to them or about them, hence, they are protected from being insulted because they will not understand the insult, anyway. They are seen as cute and helpless by some and attract desire to help and general endearment from the population.



4) Seen as ?powerful? or exotic Westerners, they also attract romantic admirers who will see them as something mysterious and worthy of discovery. I have seen it so many times- in Asia, in particular. American and British guys with Japanese and Thai girls; the girls are speaking in faltering English while falling all over the guys who sound strong and confident and ?in control? by speaking a thunderous TV English. There is an aura of mystique and exoticism that is irresistible and it drives those women wild. The girls play the host and introduce the guy to their country- for tens of years- while learning English in the process. A very effective way to get a lover, if I have ever seen one.



5) As an English-only speaker, you will not have people get truly angry at you since they will not be able to express their anger, and will just keep quiet. And if they do, you will not understand what they are saying, anyway. Your English-only status will effectively put a cushion between you and other people, a respectful distance of sorts. When in Thailand, I saw a couple- a Thai girl who could not speak English and a British man who did not speak Thai. And they seemed blissfully happy. They could not quarrel and were forever discovering each other.



6) You may revel in the illusion that you are a neo-colonialist who is superior to everyone and many people on the outside will feed and share your illusion as it, in fact, is becoming a reality.With the advent of the Internet, English has become even more widespread and will be growing in popularity more and more. Foreign language studies will probably be relegated to scholastic hobbies especially in native English-speaking countries. I think people should not be wasting their time learning other languages outside of a few words to make the natives laugh. They will enjoy life more, have more friends and get more respect from the locals who will be treating them as Gods.



<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3106/2760299324_7a3f97ef87.jpg" alt="" />