6

Today, I had a thought - what if social networking didn't exist? What if we were confined to our homes and our surrounding community and our neighbors down the road, and never ventured anywhere else? What kind of world would we live in if contact between nations, or cultures, or countries simply never happened? Unimaginable.

We live in a world where the world is brought together for us on the computer screen, on the television or in print on a newspaper; we always know whats going on with the others who live hundreds of miles away. We might think that we are locked into our own little society, but this couldn't be any farther from the truth. So, in a world where the world is literally brought to our feet, it's inevitable that we meet thousands of people in our lifetime. And this very idea brought me to Frigyes Karinthy's theory of "six degrees of separation" aka the old social networking.

Six degrees of separation is the idea that everyone in the world is separated from everybody else by six links; think of friend of a friend of a friend of a frie....well, you get the point. It's quite an astonishing and genius idea if you think about it; the idea that a maximum of six people lie between you and some small Asian fisherman catching koi along the Lijang River. Six people.

So, in lieu of my high school graduation and the new chapter of my life unfolding, I'm reminded that our world maybe really isn't as small as we think it is. As I go off to college next year I'm filled with a mixture of apprehensiveness and nervousness. The idea of college still seems so distant to me. But, do not fret readers, I will try to keep-up with my blogging into next year! And while I will inevitably meet hundreds, maybe even thousands, of new people next year, I will keep in mind that my friends and family back at home are not as far away as I think they are.

I'd just like to remind you that the world is not as large and consuming as you may think it is. People often scoff at large international problems as being 'too big' or 'too complicated' to solve. But, remember that the world is right in your backyard; it's not that big. And while you may be sitting reading this blog post on your couch somewhere in Russia, or maybe at a local coffee shop in New York, remember that within five handshakes we could be meeting each other.





Plus, it's kind of comforting knowing that I'm only six introductions away from Brad Pitt :]

Clash of Civilizations vs. Clash of Ignorance

Hi guys! Today, my friend Fatima Hooda will be guest posting on my blog. Check out her blog about happiness. Enjoy!

"One of the most intriguing aspects of human interaction is the existence of diversity.

The existence of diversity is what makes my existence worthwhile and fun-filled, giving me a chance to grow myself. Diversity of everyday life, of perspective, of thought, of tradition, of language, of clothes, of EVERYTHING is what makes life interesting and colorful. If you’re lookin’ for the cheesy metaphor, then here it is: Diversity in life is the tye-dye colors on an otherwise white t-shirt. (Okay, laugh. Just a little. Fine. At least Smile? Okay, maybe not.)

The point is Diversity is strength and color of life. However, it’s a little disturbing to me when others can’t see it this way. In fact, Diversity is looked upon as a potential roadblock. I’m especially concerned with the Samuel P. Huntington’s theory of problems that arise due to “The clash of civilizations.”

Huntington’s main points are summarized in the following quote from his book, The Clash of Civilizations: “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”

I get where Huntington’s coming from. I definitely see the potential problems that may arise when two different people meet, but it doesn’t mean that the problem is that they are from two different backgrounds. The problem is misunderstanding that may be fostered from two different cultures. It’s not the Clash of Culture that’s causing a problem, it’s more the Clash of Ignorance as pointed out by many prominent figures like His Highness Aga Khan IV and elaborated on this blog.

So why does it matter if we call it clash of civilization or clash of ignorance? While arguing those two aren’t the same thing leaves room for much argument, a concrete reason for the distinction is the solution that would follow. If we call our problems a clash of civilizations, then what’s the solution? What do you do about the mere fact that two people are different? Try to force the other one to be more like the other one, or the financially richer of the two?  NO, that is not the answer to solving the problem. The eradication of diversity makes our world less colorful, less natural, and bland...something we definitely don't want to loose.

However, there is a plausible solution to a Clash of Ignorance. Ignorance and Misunderstandings can be eradicated through education of other cultures, languages, thought, tradition and perspective. Granted, it may not be easy-but it does allow for growth, working together, and making life even more colorful than it was.

No matter what the difference may be-difference in thought, difference in religion, difference in tradition- our differences shouldn’t be a reason of conflict, we should strive to make it a pillar of strength."

The very earliest of racial profiling

You probably recognize those little postcards you get from the government asking you to fill out some survey questions about your race, income, age, etc. You fill out those little cards and then send them on their way. Now, imagine yourself living in 1940, when census enumerators would come to your house instead and ask you those questions.

And, prior to 1940, that's exactly what they did. So, instead of conducting survey's via mail-in cards, the government actually sent representatives to go door-to-door and conduct the surveys.

You might think that information collected by enumerators would be just the same as if it were collected by postcard, as it was after the 1970's. However, statistics show there's a big difference between these two collection methods. In one, the enumerators guessed on your nationality, based on their training and instructions. However, on the mail-in surveys, people were asked to self-identify which race they belonged to. The discrepancies between the two methods of identification were striking.

One of the biggest changes was that the the Native American population went up 110%. Secondly, nearly 80% of Puerto Ricans identified themselves as white, as compared to the enumerator-method where only 40% of Puerto Ricans were classified as white.

As Lisa Wade puts it, "Switching from enumerators to surveys meant literally shifting our definition of what race is from a matter of appearance to a matter of identity...The very demographics of the population underwent a fundamental unsettling because of the logistical difficulties in collecting information from a large number of people. Nevertheless, this change would have a profound impact on who we think Americans are, what research about race finds, and how we think about race today"

So readers, how do you think of race? Do you think the way you define yourself and your race is different than how someone else might see you? How so?

A Return to the Civil Rights Movement?

The scenario has been heard before; a suspicious murder, unclear evidence, a victim, and an accused. However, what makes this case unusual is its connection to civil rights.

Early this February, in a central Florida town, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Reportedly, Zimmerman had been following Martin for ‘suspicious’ behavior and as Martin returned from inside a convenient store, the two got into an altercation outside. Zimmerman says he was attacked and claimed self-defense; Martin’s family refutes his claims.

Besides rising fame due to discrepancies in the case and new evidence, the case has risen in the civil rights realm, and has activists using Martin’s case to bring up the role of race in the initial incident. The Pendulum said, “Civil rights groups are now swarming upon this incident, using Martin as a martyr to gain the attention of the continuing profiling of minorities in the country.”

Outcry began after police investigators decided not to charge Zimmerman on the base of self-defense. Rumors circulated that because Martin was African-American and Zimmerman, Caucasian, the decision of the investigators to release Zimmerman was bias. Responding to how race might have played a role in Zimmerman’s release, Velma Williams, a member of Martin’s neighborhood and a member of the black community, said, “People were getting suspicious, saying we knew that was going to happen based on history”.

About a week after the shooting, race riots spurted not only in Sanford, Florida, but in other cities like New York and Washington DC, where the case now resides.

What do you think readers, is Martin’s name being used in vain by civil right protestors? What are your thoughts on racial profiling in the US?

3 weeks to end the conflict in the Middle East

“Close your eyes,” Roy told us. “You’re walking into a garden. You’re the only one there and you come across a box. Open the box,” he said. “Open your eyes. What was inside the box?” Shyly, Fadwa, a 17 year-old Palestinian, said “Birds flew out of my box. I want to be them, because they are free and can go anywhere. I cannot do that.”

This is an example of a daily activity I did in an inter-faith summer program called Hands of Peace (HOP). HOP is an organization dedicated to creating long-term peaceful coexistence among Jewish-Israelis, Arab Citizens of Israel, and Palestinians by bringing together teenagers from the Middle East and those from USA. I was a participant in 2010 and in 2011 I was an “extraordinary leader” or XL that helped supervise the thirty participants.

A typical HOP day began with an ice-breaker and then moved into a three-hour dialogue session about the conflict, coordinated by two professional facilitators. It’s at this part of the program that the teens really begin to bear their souls. It was during the dialogue sessions that I took away an important value – the value of effective communication. During the dialogues, tension and arguments were inevitable, as kids, who were raised hating the ‘other’ side, had to work to understand not only each other, but also what ‘peace’ meant to a region separated by decades of hate and violence. Day after day we confronted problems without the political rhetoric.

After dialogue we did activities as one group; one day we went downtown, another we were at a team building course, and the next we were visiting kids at an inner-city school or listening to a lecture about the importance of dialogue. It’s safe to say that by the end of the HOP program I created 30 new best friends. Through dialogue, activities, ice breakers, and just hanging out, we had all come to understand and appreciate one another – the exact mission of Hands of Peace.
I guess I’ll never really know if those 3 weeks in HOP will contribute to the end of the conflict in the Middle East, but I do know that it helped to create bridges, not tear them down. So, readers, what do you think? Can we use Hands of Peace as a model or blueprint for solving other problems? Does dialogue and communication work to end conflict? Can friendship and trust overcome years of hate and discrimination?

A Marxist approach to affirmative action: Is it racism or is it diversity?

Last week, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case involving affirmative action regarding admissions at the University of Texas; an action that hints at the termination of the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, which ruled it acceptable to take race into account in admission decision at public universities. The cessation of affirmative action in admissions would reduce the number of African American and Latino students, and increase the number of Asian and Caucasian students.

This week in my English class, we’ve examined ways to look at an argument through different lenses. I’ve learned a lot about Marxism over the week, and I’ve discovered that if we apply a Marxist lens to affirmative action, the result is a new and deeper understanding of affirmative action.

Affirmative action officially began in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson hoped to solve socioeconomic imbalances by creating policies that would reduce ethnic tensions and endorse diversity in the education system. The idea behind Johnson’s executive order 11246 was that it would counter the effects of a history of discrimination.

Traditionally, supporters of affirmative action say that it makes things fairer and offers diversity, while opponents argue that you are using racial discrimination to compensate for a history of racial discrimination and there should be no such thing as ‘racial privileges’. But, what Marxists hope to answer is how these ‘socioeconomic balances’ developed in the first place. Marxism helps us look at the root of the affirmative action debate. At its source, affirmative action is simply the shadow of age-old competing values and competing economic classes. As this blog states, “These material conflicts are recast in terms of a clash of values, between social justice and individual responsibility”.

Marxists look at issues in terms of class struggle, and how affirmative action works to improve the plight of the underrepresented minorities and by offering diversity, promotes race equality and encourages political mobilization.

Centuries of struggle between majorities and minorities have produced legislative measures and executive orders that attempt to alleviate the differences between the two varying groups; affirmative action is one example of these measures.

From a Marxist point of view, affirmative action is about sacrificing independent effort in the name of equality. There is a culture clash in the United States that has resulted in ethnic discrimination; affirmative action is the path to unwind years of this inexactitude.

So readers, I hope seeing the affirmative action debate through a Marxist interpretation has shown you not only another side of affirmative action, but also about class struggle and ethnic differences in general. Do you support covert approaches, like affirmative action, to combat ongoing unconscious racism or is there a different way? Could the Marxist’s be on to something, here?
To learn more about affirmative action in the Supreme Court, click here

Power of the Introvert in an Extro-centered World

In a society that champions loud-mouthed, thick-skinned, boisterous, and outgoing personalities, what happens to those of us who are subtle, inner-directed and thoughtful? As a society that pins extroverts against introverts, it’s easy for the quieter, more subdued personalities to be swallowed up by their louder counterparts.

As evidence, scroll through your TV Guide – how many shows are reality ones? Over the past decade, the television industry has seen a rise in reality TV shows, and nearly all of these reality TV shows focus on their loudest cast member (Snooki from Jersey Shore, anyone?). Something in American culture labels those who are extroverts as “good” and “fun” and those who are introverts as “shy” and “boring”.

Well, fellow introverts, it’s time we break the stigma! Author Susan Cain recently published Quiet, a book that explores the power of introverts in a world that can’t seem to stop talking. Quiet describes an interesting phenomenon that Cain has coined as the “Extrovert Ideal”. The “Extrovert Ideal” is “the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha and comfortable in the spotlight”. She describes the introverts’ struggle with the demanding ideals pushed upon them by society.

But Cain delves into the perks of being an introvert, too, and why society needs a balance between both types of personalities. In her blog, Cain says “my book addresses introversion from a cultural point of view. It’s about the age-old dichotomy between the ‘man of action’ and the ‘man of contemplation,’ and how the world would be a better place if we valued the two types equally”. A culture that values both talking and listening, both loud and quiet, both introvert and extrovert, is one that is best able to combat complex problems and crises.

But has extroversion always been a favored trait? According to a blog, by Jim Baumer, it wasn’t until the rise of industrialization and urbanization that people began to prize extroversion and shy away from shyness (no pun intended). He says, “when many Americans were leaving rural regions of the country to come to urban areas, flocking to cities, the need to prove themselves in the corporate setting, in job interviews and on sales calls, made extroversion necessary and something to cultivate. A culture where hustling is paramount requires extroverts”. Call it natural selection, if you will.

However, what saddens me most about the introvert/extrovert dilemma is that so many introverts feel undervalued and feel pressured to become an extrovert. It comes as no surprise then, that in this survey, four out of five introverts say extroverts are more likely to get ahead in their workplace. We have labeled introverts as shy, serious, awkward, and somber individuals, when in fact they are just more contemplative and receptive and are better listeners.

When we look to the corporate and celebrity world we find that many of them are extroverts, but in reality, there are many who are introverts, as well. Bill Gates, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, and Barbara Walters are all famous introverts who made it far without loud, go-getter personalities.

I consider myself an introvert; I don’t shy away from social interactions but I’m not always the one seeking everyone’s attention either. If you’re interested in discovering your introvert/extrovert tendencies take this quiz. Turns out I’m 40% extrovert, 60% introvert. So, fellow bloggers and readers, which type are you? Do you feel there are disadvantages/advantages to being either and introvert or extrovert? Do you think different cultures value one personality type over another?

It’s about time we introverts rediscover our value in an extrovert-centered world and realize the importance of a two-toned world.

Model UN - one weekend to solve poverty

This past Thursday, a group of 20 kids from my school, and I, made our way to the Model United Nations Conference at the Palmer House Hotel in downtown Chicago. Essentially, it’s just what it sounds like – a mock United Nations. Over 2,500 students from around the world divided into 25 committees, with each school/group representing a different country. And the goal: formulate a working resolution in response to an international problem.

I entered the conference very intimidated. Within minutes of the first day of committee, words like “caucus” and “unmod” were thrown around, it’s safe to say I was far from my comfort zone. I was on the Human Rights Council, and our topic of discussion was – International Organizations in solving extreme poverty. Daunting, I know.

Initially, I assumed the best thing all of the delegates could agree on was that extreme poverty needed to be solved. With over 40 countries and nearly 80 delegates, I just couldn’t imagine a resolution that everyone could agree on. With some of the most daunting and rigid personalities I’ve ever met, we worked and debated over policies and amendments and clauses for the next 3 days.

Throughout the meetings, different committees submitted different ‘working papers’ that represented ideas they wished to be added to our final resolution. And with over 7 submitted working papers, 3 potential resolutions, and one-too many delegate raps, we ended up with resolution B3 : clause to end poverty.

If you asked me if this were any way possible at the beginning of the weekend, I would have told you no. However, by Sunday, each and every country could agree on this document in front of us. Each paragraph, clause, sentence, and word had been delicately chosen to accommodate all of the delegations. I was surprised by our resolutions real-world approach and the unanimous decision to pass it. This got me thinking. While although each delegate was not from their actual country, each person stuck by the actual policies and views of that nation. And after 3 days, we had a solution to poverty that might just actually work.

One Book’s Interpretation of the Events in post-9/11 Afghanistan

Commemorating the 10 year anniversary of 9/11, an incident in history that rocked the future of United States foreign as well as security policies, the book Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban, unveils the repercussions on the very country where it seemingly all began – Afghanistan

Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban written by Sarah Chayes, charts Chayes journey inside the country and addresses US foreign policy effects inside the region. Chayes journey in Afghanistan begins after she discovers how naïve and rather ignorant Americans are about Afghanistan. She leaves her job at a radio station in the United States and moves to Kandahar to help run an organization called Afghans for Civil Society, whose aim is to remove local warlords from power.
As David Rhode puts it, “Chayes gained an unparalleled understanding of southern Afghanistan, one of the most important yet least understood fronts in the war on terrorism”. She examines the regions complex culture and through her journey finds her mind and heart attached to the regions, despite the fact that many Taliban members came from there.

Chayes jumps from family to family and finally finds herself in the local library, unearthing centuries of Afghan’s rich political and cultural history. It is here where Chayes examines Americas misunderstanding of Afghanistan, the policies that have sprouted in result to that and the implications on the Middle East as a whole. Her biggest assault towards the United States was its arrogant and ignorant assertiveness it adopted in constructing Afghan foreign policy.

I enjoyed Chayes colorful language and prodigious metaphors, yet I struggled to get through the book after it turned from travelogue to a bureaucratic evaluation of the United States. I wouldn’t recommend this book to a reader looking for some light vacation reading, but if you’re looking for a serious understanding of US foreign policy in Afghanistan, then this book is golden. Many times I was confused and some of the language didn’t make sense. Perhaps if I were in college, majoring in this topic I would have gained more from the reading. On the contrary, I commend Chayes for her brilliant language and determination to understand Afghanistan, especially after 9/11 when Americans generally evoked a taboo over the region.

A dense, but incredibly interesting read.

One of the reasons why I did enjoy this book was because of the incredible optimism and determination throughout it. Despite the fact that many of Chayes American friends admonished what she was doing, she continued to live, breathe, and become a part of Afghanistan. In one interview, she said, “You know this old adage, 'If at first you don't succeed, try, try again'? I think it's wrong. I think it's, 'Even if you know you're not going to succeed, you have to try.' We don't have the right to abandon this struggle.”

"Hey, that's Jesus up there!"

Upon entering school last week, I was greeted by a display of 5 murals by Mexican-American artist, Hector Duarte, exhibited in one of the major stairwells.

Beyond the sheer size of these murals, their image content struck me as well. The largest mural, placed in the center of the stairwell, is a picture of Jesus coming out of a pool of water and headed towards what appears to be the Chicago skyline. The name of the mural is Cristo Migrante.

Initially, I was surprised by the schools decision to put up a picture of Jesus in school, much less one that was nearly 8 feet tall. I was confused, yet appreciative of the schools initiative to bring in a potentially controversial piece of art. In my opinion, a good education challenges you and forces you to question society and yourself.

That night, as I aimlessly scrolled down my Facebook news feed, I stumbled across an interesting status post. It read –
There’s a big Jesus painting over 30ft high in our school. Every heard of separation of church and state?

What ensued for the rest of the night was a cyber-battle consisting of nearly 200 comments from different people’s interpretations on the true meaning of Duarte’s painting. Some argued that Duarte’s painting infringed on personal religious taste, while others reasoned that Huarte’s painting was hardly about religion and rather about the immigrant struggle. For the next few hours phrases like "separation of church and state” and "religious majority" showed up a lot, but soon the comments fizzled out.

However, by the end of it I was still left wondering, what cultural implications does the “separation of church and state” argument have? It seems that the first amendment and the clause of religion is brought up repeatedly in politics and in schools, but at what point does practicing one’s own religion begin to feel like religious intrusion to someone else? Should Duarte's painting be taken as art or does it preach religion?


Readers, I leave it up to you to answer this question.

Restricting the Usage of Language

It’s always surprised me how governments attempt to censor what people say. How can you censor something that is so universal, so common? I mean it’s language! Unless you take my voice-box out or put a padlock over my mouth, I am free to say whatever I like. So, how is it that governments censor what people say? I actually find it quite comical; in reality the government has very little power in restraining language. It seems to me that they are just trying to squeeze out some droplets of authority.

Besides the sheer impossibility of censoring every single word that comes out of every person’s mouth, some governments are still trying to make the feat.

For example, in Pakistan, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, has banned certain words from appearing in text messages. The PTA feels that it is preventing “obnoxious communication”; however, among the 1,600 words outlawed are words as simple as ‘tongue’. To view the list of outlawed texting words, click here (some explicit language).

Charles M. Madigan, of the Chicago Tribune, said, “I think it's hilarious that the authorities in Pakistan believe they can restrain the use of language, even using technology to block messages that contain these words”. Frankly, I agree.

In addition, China has begun to censor web material. Chinese authorities feel that as political tensions rise, they want to control what their citizens read and discuss online. It might seem that tech-savvy computer-ites would find ways around these restrictions, but an intricate mix of technology and plain-old intimidation has ensured that citizens remain oppressed.

But what about language censorship in the good ol’ red, white, and blue? Surprisingly,even here, we censor. While our government hasn't taken to extreme measures like China and Pakistan has, if you’ve ever seen a show on MTV you’ll know that many words are bleeped out. In comedian, George Carlin’s speech on the Seven Dirty Words not allowed on television, he explains why television programs bleep certain words out. While there clearly is a difference between bleeping out some words because they are distasteful and completely stopping search engines if the word ‘democracy revolution’ is typed in, they both are still forms of censorship. Mind you, too, that in America, citizens stand firmly to their right to freedom of speech, so if the government tried to pull a stunt like Pakistan or China, I’m sure there would be immense backlash.

In my opinion, language is a beauty and art and culture. Trying to limit that can only lead to cultural deterioration.

Culture as a Metaphor

“A world ends when its metaphor has died” – Archibald MacLeish

Perhaps MacLeish is right; when we lose our metaphors, we lose our stories, our cultural identity, our heritage, our past, and our ties to the land. When we lose our culture, what do we have left? We no longer have ways of communicating ourselves to the rest of the world. As Jinal Shah puts it in her blog, Constant Beta, “[M]etaphors allow us to dip into our values, histories and mythologies to communicate the value of a brand and connect to our audience”.

A few weeks ago in my English class, we talked about the importance of metaphors, and the role they play in culture. The article, “Metaphors We Live by” by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson explains how metaphors are more than just embedded in language - “Metaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action…We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. Lakoff and Johnson suggest that metaphors influence our everyday functioning.

But why the need for metaphors? Can’t we just explain things in literal terms? I thought about this, and realized how difficult it is to think non-metaphorically. Lakoff and Johnson use the example of an argument as war, to show just how often we use metaphors. This metaphor is revealed in a variety of expressions:

- I’ve never won an argument with him
- They just shot down all of my inputs.
- They’ll wipe you out if they think your strategy is flawed.
- They attacked every weak point I had in my speech.

We don’t just talk about arguments like this; the very things we do in an argument are controlled by the concept of war. The concept of an argument, the activity of an argument, and the language of an argument revolve around the war metaphor.

Metaphors can also be used to understand frame of minds and perspectives. Consider the war in Iraq. Americans understand the war from a western-ideology standpoint that emphasizes political, military and economic interest. On the other hand, Muslims understand the war from a religious and national pride position. The employment of different metaphors in understanding the war could be the reason why neither side understands the other. In this article, by Zoltan Kovecses, he states, “the application of very different frames to the same situation results in incompatible evaluations and actions”.

In addition, metaphors reflect a nation’s values and ethics. We use metaphors to reflect our ideals. This article states, “the variations in solutions to creating a metaphor for culture are related to the complexity of the concept”. The way we communicate ourselves to the larger world audience is done by metaphor. The metaphor that is used often reflects these underlying values of the culture. As Lily I-wen Su puts it, in this article, “Recent studies on metaphor have proved it to be an important language device that reflects the cognitive source of human thinking. These experientialists claimed that metaphors in our languages mirror our ordinary conceptual system”.

Metaphors play a large role in intercultural communication, and help us and reveal ourselves to the international melting pot we know as the world.

Peace through Music: A profile of Daniel Barenboim

"Music is the universal language of mankind" ~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Daniel Barenboim, an Israeli-Palestinian pianist and conductor, has taken Longfellow's words as a way of fostering peace in the Middle East. He has served as a music director in many orchestras and has made numerous recordings. In this article he said, “…I believe that the destinies of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people are inextricably linked," Barenboim said. "We are blessed - or cursed - to live with each other. And I prefer the first."

Barenboim has conducted countless concerts in the West Bank, and in 2007, he was scheduled to play a baroque concert in war-stricken Gaza. Although he received permission from Israeli authorities, he was denied entrance into Gaza at the border, and was told he needed individual permission to enter. A year later, after performing in Ramallah, Barenboim accepted honorary Palestinian citizenship, making him the first Jewish-Israeli citizen to be granted Palestinian citizenship. He hoped his acceptance of citizenship would serve as a model for peace.

Needless to say, Barenboim is revered by many, but loathed by others. I can’t help but think he’s one of the bravest musicians of all time.

After receiving Palestinian citizenship, Barenboim returned to Gaza. According to this post, he gave a speech to the audience about his dual-citizenship, saying “So you see it is possible to be both." He described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one "of two peoples who are convinced they have the right to live in the same little piece of land. Therefore, our destinies are linked”.

Barenboim also recently traveled to Imjingak near Korea’s Demilitarized Zone on the country’s Independence Day. In this video, he said he hoped his efforts would encourage “understanding, patience, courage and curiosity to listen to one another”.

When so many diplomats debate the same topics over and over again around a big oval table, Barenboim has been able to take something that we all understand -music- to promote peace. He has chosen to show the common humanity of all people, even if they are in a war, and remind them of the possibilities if peace is achieved.

The medium that Barenboim has choose is a universal language, and while some still prefer negotiation over noisy cell-phone chatter or fighting over laws and bills, Barenboim remains confident of music’s ability to act as a unifying force. It’s inspiring to see people using different methods of translating reconciliation, whether that is through music or art or humor. When we can find things that we all mutually agree on and enjoy, the idea of peace becomes less distant.

Sure the idea of ‘world peace’ is far-reaching, and although Barenboim’s music isn’t going to stop the wars or end the violence, he represents the voices who want to forge the bridges, not burn them.

Linkage Between Diversity and Business Practices

I read a compelling article describing different ways a business can adapt itself to accommodate marketplace diversity (read the article here). Part of the reason why I was so intrigued was because I just finished one of my college essays, where I talked about the global nature of today’s business world. The business world is no longer local – it’s international. Thanks to technology, border lines cease to exist.

Another interesting part of the article was its focus on adapting a business to fit the new international theme. In the past, I saw making a few adjustments to a business as to reach more foreign investors reasonable, but this post took that to the extreme. It suggested completely re-vamping the traditional styles and structure of business companies, as to accommodate the quickening pace of the global society.

Another article, in USA Today, says that change for business to adapt to the global world is a must. “Today, though, as more multinationals race into the global economy, they're tailoring their diversity policies and practices to the new cultural and business order to a greater degree than ever before.”

Both of these articles made me ask the question, “What is cultural adaptation?” Beyond the business side, do we adapt ourselves, in everyday life, to better accommodate the new global world? My answer to this is yes. I belong to a program called the Academy at my high school, which was founded on fostering a global education and an understanding of the ever-widening global community. In our everyday studies, we incorporate the lessons from other cultures. I think it's important to recognize and understand that the world today is a mix of hundreds of different cultures.

For decades, philanthropists have suggested models on how the world community shifts and changes. One philosopher, Francis Fukuyama has foreseen the world moving towards one international community. In this article, Fukuyama explains his theory of the “homogenization of human culture”. This theory describes the world culture as moving towards one standardized state.

It’s interesting – the measures businesses are taking to accommodate this growing global society. I’m thinking of how I’ve tailored my own life to develop cross-border networking. As Fukuyama said, “it is culture that drives economics”. Perhaps Fukayama would make the best business-man of all.

3 Ways to Immerse Yourself in a Foreign Culture

1.) Become
Don’t hold onto pre-conceived notions, stereotypes, biases, labels or anything else about a culture. Chances are those assumptions aren’t true, and they prevent you from really plunging into the culture. For example, don’t go to France expecting everyone to be snobby and smelly – I’ve been there, it’s not true. The other day, my history teacher brought up one of his previous students, Connor, who had recently visited Vietnam. He talked about Connor’s unique approach to learning and his method of foreign immersion. He had simply gone to Vietnam and became Vietnamese. He didn’t go there as an American traveling to Vietnam, he went there as a blank slate, and returned with a Vietnamese identity. Follow Connor’s take on learning and you’ll find yourself experiencing the real culture, not just the touristic one. Break through the status barrier.

2.)Learn the Language
The saying “lost in translation” really holds some meaning here. In many culture’s, the meaning of one word often doesn’t translate perfectly into another language. Part of the beauty of the language is lost in translation, too - the way certain vowels sound, the rhythm of the words, how phrases roll of the tongue. It’s what I like to call phrase-ology. Can you imagine translating Shakespeare’s “to be or not to be” into Spanish? It’d be “ser o no ser”. It just doesn’t give the same effect, so let’s stick with English on that one. Thus, if you really want to immerse yourself into the linguistic aspect of a culture, learn the language.

3.) Go There
You can flip through pictures and read travel guides all you want, but it’s not nearly the same as actually going there and seeing it for yourself. There’s a certain something that surrounds you when you go to that foreign place. You can try to duct tape pictures all around your bedroom, but I know (I tried to do this with Disney World photos when I was five) that it’s just not the same thing. A lot of the times, it’s connecting with the land and the people that draw you closer to the culture- two things you can’t get from reading books or looking at photos. So duct tape all you want, but you have to go there to get the real thing.

The only way to really see another culture is to immerse yourself in it. Otherwise, the similarities and differences you find between your own culture and another one may just be superficial.

Amanda Knox – United States’ vs. Italy’s reaction

Plastered all over the media this week was the Amanda Knox case outcome. For those of you who don’t know about the case…

In 2007, Amanda Knox was charged with murdering her roommate, Meredith Kercher, in Italy during a study-abroad program. Knox, as well as her ex-boyfriend Rafaelle Sollecito, were convicted in the Italian courts and sentenced to over 25 years in jail. However, their cases were up for retrial this month, and after a highly media-tized hearing, Knox’s conviction was reversed and she added immediately returned to the US.

What makes this case different is the polar opposite reactions of the US and of Italy.

The United States has portrayed Knox as a young American teen, who was caught in a web of confusing testimonials and unreliable evidence that loosely found that she committed murder. She’s been portrayed as a victim and countless interviews from her family sets the response tone as sympathetic and apologetic. Its articles like this that put Knox in that light. US newspapers and magazines have harnessed onto the cliché idea of a young girl separated from her family. Conversely, the Italian response to the Knox case has been anything but positive, especially after she was set free.

American media portrayed Knox as the victim of the unkempt Italian judicial system

On the other hand, Italy sees Knox as a sex-crazed demon who brutally murdered her roommate in an act of rage. How Italian’s really saw Knox was most prevalent when she was released from her re-trial, after being found not-guilty. After she was freed, Italians and news crews stood outside the court room shouting “Vergogna! Vergogna!” (“Shame! Shame!”). Many Italian newspapers have equated Knox to satan.

Italian Media represented Knox as an outspoken, satanist murderer

One thing I find interesting is the role the media has played in the case. It’s all up to the media on how Knox is portrayed and it largely influences how the general public reacts. The US media set the case in one light, while the Italian one did in another.

Conversely, the central issue here may not be the legal case; it’s the difference in cultural priorities and ethics. “In the end, it was the trial of a different culture, a clash of cultures more than a legal case,” said Vittorio Zucconi in La Repubblica. The Knox case represented a larger problem; a clash between Italy and the US. A New York Times article said how Italian's were questioning how Americans perceived them and their justice system. In addition, on an Italian radio station, Il Sole 24 Ore Radio, callers complained how the US media was portraying Italy’s sentencing of Knox in such a harsh negative light, especially since the US has the death penalty.
The Knox case is a prime example of a cultural clash – two cultures seeing the same event through two completely different lenses. Whether these lenses are media-driven, or driven by some other factor, the way in which these two cultures see the case, and see one another has caused a rift.

Why you're here

I used to look at the world, and at history, as a progression towards one ultimate showdown; one battle royal that would decide the fate of the world. Perhaps I had played one-too many apocalyptical video games or perhaps I thought societal differences kept people from ever working together.

However, at the start of high school, I revisited my relatively negative view of human interactions. I discovered that among conflicts were also compromises and cooperation and collaboration. That’s why I’ve decided to write this blog on the ways different societies come together and the ways they grow apart. I’m taking the idea of the ‘melting pot’ and analyzing the interactions between cultures while they are per-say ‘mixing’.

I’d like to formally introduce myself to you now. I’m Victoria, and a senior in high school. I’ve grown up in a relatively sheltered, affluent community and I live with my twin brother and single mom. I have a I’ve always been interested in international relations and the effects communities on each other, which is one of the reasons I’m writing this blog. After high school I hope to study international business in college.

My interest in international relations really began after I participated in a two-week inter-faith summer camp called Hands of Peace. During the program, 15 kids from Israel and 15 kids from Palestine are brought to the United States, where they discuss, with American teens, the conflict back at home. The moment that stands out best in my mind was the last day of the program, when we sat down with our facilitator and he told us to create a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At first his request was met with laughs, honestly, how could he want us, a group of teenagers, to come up with a solution that had been debated for nearly 200 years? After realizing he wasn’t kidding, we began the process. Torn pieces of paper, yelling, crying, frustration, confusion, and passion ensued for the next 3 hours, but by the end we had a tangible solution on the board. Being together for 2 weeks, nearly 24 hours every day, the participants in Hands of Peace had truly become a family. We had been able to put our differences aside and it was at this moment I saw how human understanding and communication could bring peace and resolution.

I hope this blog serves you, my readers, as well. My blog lens is really about the ways different societies see the same event, comparing and contrasting their opinions and the actions that arise from that. In an age of technology, the world moves closer and closer together every day, and the world is prone to more cultural interaction. I’ll be looking at these interactions, the way in which people choose to communicate their opinions and the implications of them. I hope you gain a perspective that you might not be able to gain from just watching the news or reading a magazine. Whether you want to learn about someone else’s side or learn more about your own, here is the place to be.

The world’s mixing out there, let’s go see it.