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.