Haters Don't Hate

Hate is a strong word, especially when used against your own prime minister. In a democracy, people have the right to criticize government, but criticism should be constructive, and beneficial towards the country. When people criticize for the sake of criticism, society stops moving forward, and we can never progress.

Let's not be pessimistic cynics, but rather optimistic realists. When something has happened, we cannot reminisce about what it was like before, or how life would have been better if it had not happened. When some challenge presents itself, we shouldn't complain, but rather find solutions.

I understand that many people don't like Harper, and I don't understand why. Sure, Harper may have his faults, but hate is beyond what is necessary to condemn his actions. We did elect, please remember, so that means that as a country, we have decided that Harper is the best choice for our future. We, as the people of that country, should stand behind the decisions of our fellow countrymen. Only when a country unites in both ideology and practice, can that country ultimately progress and become a stronger nation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for constructive debate. Debate is absolutely necessary for the best selection of options, but when that debate becomes too focused on just attacking people and knocking people down, then I would rather not hear it. That's hate.

Why do haters all gotta hate?

I just think that since Harper got elected, let's try to make the best of it. There will always be those poeple who whine and complain, but let them do that. We're stuck with him for 4 years. We can either make the best out of those 4 years or b*tch and moan about it for 4 years. The choice is yours.

What say you?

Lord of the Flies - A Silent Critique

Based on the novel by William Golding, the 1990 film adaptation of the Lord of the Flies is somewhat an American-centric take on the whole issue. Directed by Harry Hook, and scripted by Sara Schiff, this second screen adaptation of the Lord of the Flies provides an interesting twist to the story. This adaptation follows the basic concept of young schoolchildren reverting to savagery when marooned on a desert island. The twist lays in that the group of British schoolchildren, present in both the novel and the first adaptation, is replaced by a group of American Cadets. Furthermore, the pilot survives the crash, unlike the fate of the pilot in the novel.

The film stars several relatively unknown actors; those of Balthazar Getty (as Ralph), Chris Furrh (as Jack), and Danuel Pipoly (as Piggy). None of these actors give a particularly outstanding performance, thus failing to bridge the hiatus between literature and film. The violent inner struggles and so-called loss of innocence so enshrined in the novel, failed to present itself to the viewers of this film adaptation. Perhaps it is the actors' unfamiliarity to the situation, both physically and mentally. Physically, the young actors were far from home, filming on a remote island in Jamaica. Mentally, the young actors most likely had no established preconceptions concerning the vices of murder, avarice, and want. In their performance, they seemed incapable of portraying the necessary emotions to create atmosphere. The relatively static performance by the other supporting characters further damage the coherent presentation of the film.

In comparison with Brook's 1963 film, is seems that the second screen adaptation trivializes the themes and intensity of Golding's cult novel. The ineffectiveness of this film may be attributed to the fact that it is only a short 90 minutes in length. Although many a misled soul has argued that this film proved more dynamic and interesting to watch, the trade-off was a loss of the build-up of suspense and accuracy of content. Characteristic of American films, with its more happy-go-lucky nature, content that was harder to digest was often omitted. Take for example Golding's focus on the loss of innocence. In Golding's novel, and even in Brook's 1963 adaptation, much more emphasis was put on the cruel and gruesome nature that the boys had slowly taken on. It was almost as if the boys had themselves become the living reincarnation of Lucifer, each and one of them. Their innermost rage, fear, and cruelty was unleashed on one another, and led to many unspeakable crimes. Due to the undiscriminating nature of the American film audience, and the drive for higher ratings, this relatively deeper substance was cut from the film. The adult-like cruelty of Golding's boys was replaced with the boiled-down version; something akin to mere school-yard bullying. It seems almost impossible to present to the film audience of the 1990's that a group of boys would become savages. Remember that this was the age of conformity, obedience, and yuppie suburbia. The audience did not want to see it, and so the producers did not show it.

The length of the film was just not enough to cover the breadth of the novel. Whereas the novel developed every nook and cranny into canyons and streams, the film merely filled them with sand. The main characters were not completely developed. Over the course of the film, Simon did not have the many close-ups necessary to complete his image as the Jesus figure. Jack's ambition seemed only half-hearted, and Piggy's rounded-ness seemed more noticeable than his intellect. Ralph however, seemed to be the biggest disappointment. Whereas Ralph came across as the perfect and natural leader in the novel, he seemed like a frail and nervous kid in the film. His dominance failed to show through, and greatly undermined his symbolic stance as an arbiter of society. Needless to say, there was even less time to develop the supporting characters. Sam, Eric, Roger, and countless other characters seemed merely static throughout the whole film. Rather than being the dynamic catalysts and distractors making the novel exciting, the other characters were only briefly shown. Overall, they were more like 2D figures than the 3D dynamic characters they were supposed to be.

All in all, the film was not horrible to watch as a supplementary resource. Although the relevance and quality of production is questionable, the main themes of Golding's “Lord of the Flies” were carried out with reasonable assurance.

A Declaration of Rights and Liberties

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all individuals, no matter age, race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation, are granted certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, democratic governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

If a democratic government is one by the people, for the people, then democratic education should be one by the students, for the students. Schools, indeed, are places of learning, undertaken by the student. When the student has no power to influence decision, then he is rendered a majority ruled by the minority. By definition, such concentration of power, and lack of self-determination thereof, renders the democratic education non-existent; instead erecting a bureaucratic oligarchy, and intrusion on the enumerated right of Canadians to have the right to a democratic form of government. In all respects, the school board and respective administrations become the microcosmic representation of government.

Students are often disregarded as equal members of society. The inherent truisms which grant inalienable rights and liberties should be applied across the board, regardless the age, race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation of persons. We no longer live within the bounds of archaic thought, which dictates that there exists first-rate and second-rate citizens. The established precedent for Civil Rights legislation and judicial endorsement of civil liberties affirms our belief that all men, women, and children, receive equal protection under the law.

We see as inherent those rights and liberties found in the freedom of speech and press, the freedom of religion, the freedom of assembly, the right of privacy, the right of procedural due process, and all other enumerated rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Should the basic rights of students be infringed upon, then it is the right of the students, it is our duty, to reevaluate the institution of education, and check the powers of arbitrary despotism. It is indeed our duty to ensure that the enlightened values of democracy, upon which this great nation was built, be not engulfed by such bureaucratic and authoritarian values. Let the foundations of this nation, where the voice of the people is heard, ring loud and true.

On the one hand, the Ministry of Education wishes to help the students become productive adults; mature citizens able to make the best decisions for the best outcome of our nation. When students turn 18, we are expected to file our first tax return reports, and make wise decisions with our ballot. We are expected to demonstrate involvement and not apathy towards society.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Education refuses to treat students with the respect and trust prescribed to responsible adults. We are not given the chance to make any decisions which would make a significant impact in effecting change. Even the student government, which is supposed to emulate government, is not given any legislative powers; except the power to decorate for dances, and the power to adhere to administration.

The school is essentially a microcosm for the greater community in which we live. Like the greater community in which we live, there is the government, and there is the governed. The government consists of teachers and administration, while the students are collectively known as the governed. Let it be known that we do not wish to argue the importance of such government. Without it, the schools could never function. However, we believe that a moderation is needed; in that we the students must be allowed to take a larger and more active role in the decision-making of our education.

How can we be expected to make the right decisions for the future of our nation when we have never been taught to do so? In fact, we have been taught to bow down to administration and teachers, and to never question the decisions of such figures of authority. Many students believe that teachers are always right, which can be attributed to the suspensions and other punitive measures handed out to students who dare challenge that authority. As some students have had the misfortune to hear, the principle's decision is an “executive-order” and it is “final.”

After having suffered through the trials and tribulations of such a system, can we still be expected to uphold the democratic traditions of our country, and be believers of equality throughout? Once such ideals of obedience and conformity are ingrained into our ideologies, it is extremely hard to get rid of. Then, contrary to popular belief, the lack of voter turnout at elections may not be due to ethnic loyalties, immigrant groups, or apathy, but simply that students who have now become “adults,” are unsure of how to act. There was simply no precedent. Why should one who has spent much of his life believing that his words and actions can effect no change to one institution, exhaust the time and energy to effect change to another institution, which he sees as simply a parallel to the afore-mentioned institution?

A conch-shell blares -- not the crashing waves

A conch-shell blares -- not the crashing waves

Ralph's greatest will

Can't put a stopper to heat knaves

That just now jungle simmered still.

An awe came over Piggy!

The figure twisted with grace,

Then quivered out of shimmering waters

Into the palm-tree lined lagoon.

It will not stir to action,

This desolate mound of dirt;

The island contents to be without,

While cool, uncivilized No

Nods from the solemn boys,

Nods from giggling babes,

Decades of civilization destroyed between

The conch-shell and small men.

Asian-Keener-Fail: A Foray Into Values

In a democratic society which boasts capitalism as the predominant economic framework, equal footing is impossible to achieve. Although many a politician has purported a platform of universal equity, North American society today still bears witness to large disparities in education, health, and socio-economic status. The byproduct of such a fundamental societal model, the backlash, if you will, is the existence of an extremely competitive society, with the individuals of the populace all vying for a position in the elite minority.

It is only natural to ask, therefore, whether the incessant drive for better grades – better known as “keening” to today's youth – is this an evil Asian value (a view commonly espoused by teachers, friends, and neighbors) or merely the byproduct of the inherent struggle to survive in a Western, Capitalist society? It should be universally recognized that no matter how frequently equality is purported by our judicial, legislative, and executive branches, it simply does not exist. It may not even have to foray into the potentially sensitive issues of racism, but simply be due to factors such as language and cultural barriers. Honestly, what American company would want a socially awkward Chinese man working as VP of External Affairs, no matter how amazing his credentials? So, is this whole episode of “Tiger Parenting” and the Asian drive to do well in school, merely because of cultural background, or is it more likely the unconditioned response of a racial group to maintain sustenance in a wholly alien environment? Are the values of hard-work and the drive to better one's life a solely Asian value, or is it rather deeply ingrained in the American dream? Have Asians merely taken on the American values of yesteryear?

To implement a familiar model, that of the high-school, it seems as if a certain Asian population is found culprit of said action. Our beloved U-Hill is home of the U-Hill Eagles, but also home to much of the known convicts charged with “keening.” Let's face it, most of us at U-Hill try to do well in school, sometimes even in excess. Some say that it is driven by the ubiquitous forces of the Tiger Mom or Dad. Others believe that it is part of “Asian culture.”

I have to admit that in many Asian families, a heavy emphasis is put on education. That hardly espouses the breadth of a culture though. It is an attitude, found in varying amounts in every family, and every society. This emphasis on education is often referred to as an value. It is an unconditioned response that has developed over time to become what it is today. Some have a sixth sense, able to detect supernatural frequencies. Yet for others, the senses of taste, touch, and smell are supplemented by a need to do well in school. The “school” sense.

But why is it that this quality seems to be most prevalent among Asian students? Well, the most obvious answer is because in many schools, there are A LOT of Asians. In schools with a more balanced demographic distribution, keening is less prevalent, and so less noticeable. The race for grades and emphasis on education have become integral parts of Asian life; and very well has been for the last few decades. Competition in Asia is far more intensive than in North America. In cities with ten times more people than whole countries, the dividends of resources become even more scarce. It did not evolve into a part of the culture like KimChi or Chinese Folk-dance did. It came to being as a tool for survival. In earlier times, if one was not literate, his outlook for life would become deplorably bleak.

Enough with the pity story you say. This is North America, you should let your children date, be creative, and enjoy all of these wholesome North American ideals. Put aside all of your worries, and come bask in the rain of freedom. This is Korea, China, or Japan anymore. There's no need to worry about competition; we have all the resources you need! Sure, it was tough in Asia with all that competition, but this is North America now. Surely you can discard your weird traditions and values and conform to our society?

To this I beg to oppose.

The development of North American society is not unlike that of Asia; it is underscored by the competition of a large group of people for a relatively limited amount of resources, whether it be land, political capital, or economic gains. Unlike other socio-economic models, such as communism, capitalism inherently brings with it the unequal distribution of wealth.

When all is said and done, capitalism is really a fundamental ideology where a select few people are afforded great opportunity, but the rest become delegated to lives of squalor. Once again, in such a society, there only exists a limited amount of resources, or supply, but there is an endless demand for the limited supply, which will ultimately will result in the price-raising of each item of supply. This is known as “raising the bar.” When the bar is raised, demand will drop. The price of each unit of supply will be raised until the terminal result reaches market equilibrium. As more and more people are entered into the pool of demand, the supply must increase to meet that demand. However, more often than not, the supply does not increase. With the economy in stagflation, the amount of jobs available are decreasing at monumental rates. The number of students being accepted into top notch universities does not increase much either. What this creates, is essentially more competition, as the bar is raised; the price for supply is inflated. Essentially, jobs require higher credentials, and access to good education is becoming increasingly difficult and competitive.

Education is really the fundamental building block to achieving success further in life. If you are a musician, you need musical guidance. If you are an artist, the Rhode Island School of Design might not be a bad choice. If you are an athlete, collegiate basketball may be a great place to start. I think in the past, we have too much restricted our definition of education to this race for academic success. Education is learning, and learning is all around us. Therefore, how can one say that an emphasis on education is bad?

It is precisely this “Asian emphasis” on education which has caused much debate and controversy over the last few years. Why is it that Asians seem focus excessively and solely on academic achievement? It is because education has taken on an increasingly vital role to security in life.

In the past, one would attend a grammar school, and then move on to vocational school or a community college. Nowadays, a high-school diploma cannot realistically help someone hold down a steady job; except maybe at MacDonald's. We are moving towards a much more profession-oriented society, and without a professional skill, one will find it extremely hard to earn a decent living. The 4-year bachelor program becomes almost mandatory – even though it is not considered a responsibility of the government – to achieve job stability and a comfortable life later on. And then there are even more tiers; the M.A's, J.D's, P.h.D's and all that good stuff.

In this increasingly competitive society, the odds don't really stack up for the Asians. First of all, Asians have to overcome languages barriers, cultural barriers, and racial barriers. Universities often implement a quota system, where each racial group is proportionately represented on campus. As horrible as it may sound, there are many more qualified Asians being rejected, simply because too many Asians are working hard and doing well academically. However, as there is a quota system, many qualified Asians are being rejected in lieu of not-so-qualified students of other racial groups. This already creates a lot of pressure for Asian students vying for that top-spot college. In the workplace – even though we would like to think that there is no discrimination – employer discrimination often results in minority groups not being able to land that job. Often, Asians have to work a few times harder to receive the same rewards.

This is just the nature of a new environment. No matter how integrated into North American Asians become, Asians will still be judged by the color of their skin. Resources are reserved for the elite, and the Asians can never hope their old money grandparents to help them become that.

Although there are many Asian parents are guilty of pushing their kids to the limit, and not allowing them enough freedom, most Asian kids in North America want better grades for themselves, and not for their parents. The whole “you bringg shame to famerry” routine is getting old for a stereotype. As much as we love that, it only draws upon the very extreme cases of “Asian parenting.”

Going back to the crux of this examination; is keening a wholly Asian value? Is it only to be found in Asian culture? The answer is simple; of course diddly-dump no. The drive to do well in school – one which U-Hillians observe/practice on a daily basis – is the result of competition. Because of that competition, one must set the bar higher. One must set up higher expectations, and meet those expectations. In any society, no matter Western, Oriental, or Middle-Eastern, there inherently exists a battle for resources; leading to the inevitable struggle to climb higher on the societal ladder. In every racial, ethnical, or societal group, there are those people with the afore-ascribed values. It should not be something that is ridiculed or denounced. In the right amount and direction, these values are the key to success.

This value of striving for betterment of oneself should not be so foreign to the American sub-continent. Since the establishment of Jamestown and the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 1700's, Americans have always been fervent believers in the virtue of hard-work, and self-reliance. John Winthrop preached to the settlers aboard the ship Arbella, that the settlement would become a “city-upon-a-hill,” one that the world would look up to. This later translated to Thomas Jefferson's dream of building a republic consisting of self-reliant yeomen. Some of the other founding fathers, such as Benjamin Franklin, promoted the ideal of the self-made man. In one word; individualism.

The rights, freedoms, and livelihood of the individual is put above all else. This concept is also a major driving factor behind manifest destiny, the belief of inherent entitlement. People were encouraged to relocate westwards for a better life, a better future. When it was felt that the British had infringed upon their rights to individualism, modern day Americans instigated revolution against their oppressors, while others fled to Canada. Since then, American politics has been an unending struggle. First, the separation of church and state; then the battle between federalism and state-power; and finally the sectional battles of political parties representing different economic regions. The secret force behind all this however, is not an elite Semitic control group, or the Illuminati, but rather the ambitions of the individual.

It seems therefore, that the usage of this value in the right dose and in the right way can indeed benefit us. But still, when this value is exercised by the ordinary Asian, it is criticized left and right. Sure, Asians maybe push themselves too hard, but I believe that if that drive comes from within, and not from the family unit, it still concurs with the fundamental values that the American sub-continent was built on.

It seems as if the Asians of today have taken on the American values of yesteryear. Such pride attributed to the values of rugged individualism and the self-made man, has been lost by much of the society, save a select few. I am a disciple of Benjamin Franklin's self-made man. I don't know about you, but I want to achieve academic success because I am me, and not because I am Asian. This “keener, keener, Asian fail” has become an annoying stereotype. I mean, I went to the hairdresser one day, and she said I was smart. I swear, all I did was hang my coat. If hanging one's coat could now define one's intelligence, I am definitely going out to get a nice coat.

Personally, I feel that the whole hype about Asian kids and Tiger parents is completely blown out of proportion. I am sure that many of my fellow students at University Hill Secondary School want to do well in school because it fulfills their goals, and not because of their parents. I am sure that those who do well in school, can also find the time to go out, have fun, and enjoy life.

The Acronym FOB: Politically Correct?

Personally, I believe that a person has the right to call himself whatever the hell he wants, including FOB, but I would question his self-respect.

This term seems to be thrown around quite a bit these days, especially among the Asian population of Vancouver. I have to say that I have never heard this term used in the US. Even more so, the fact that it is being so commonly used accounts for peoples' ignorance to the history and actual meanings of the word. While superficially, it may be used to just "describe" a person who is fairly new to a certain culture, and so becomes an outcast in terms of social convention.

The reason for it being termed "Fresh Off the Boat" and not off an airplane or train, is that it alludes to the Triangular trade of the late 16th century. During that time, cash crops from the American colonies, such as sugar and molasses, were brought to Europe. European goods, namely from England, were brought to Africa, where they were traded for slaves. Yes, slaves. The slaves were then brought to the American sub-continent, and the cycle would start all over again. Although slavery was finally outlawed in the 19th century, the pain and suffering of these Africans – the cultural ancestors of today's African Americans – were never forgotten. These Africans were often captives of war, and treated as commodities once they were put on boats. The conditions on the boats were horrible, with outbreaks of cholera, malaria, and other diseases inevitable. The slaves were only led onto the deck for an hour of exercise, and the spaces below were cramped. The people essentially had to wallow in their own filth throughout the trans-Atlantic journey that would often take up to 3 months to complete.

I don't know about you, but I feel pretty sick hearing the conditions that these people had to live in. Of course their living standards on the American plantations did not improve much, but that's another story for another time.

So really, to say that someone came “Fresh Off the Boat,” is extremely rude and derogatory. It is condescending, and inherently implies that the person is of a lower level than you are. In our society, we don't rank people, at least not officially. People are seen as equal, and so there is no social hierarchy. To deem someone to the lowly standards of a slave stepping off a slave ship, is therefore a crime; a heinous insult at that.

Bottom-line, I hope that people have sufficient language skills to use other descriptions for new immigrants to a country. Otherwise I wonder how they get the notion that they should be differentiated from the "FOB's," so to speak.

A Response to Racism

It is not so much the failure of the community to deliver the message of racial equality, but rather that there is no racial equality to declare. Although we tend to want to believe that we are all nice and civilized people, and the warm sentiments of equality and black children holding hand with white children are just so fuzzy and happy, the harsh reality is that there is no such thing as racial equality.

Well, I guess racial equality can only be achieved under two contexts. The first being that one is looking from a purely legislative and judicial viewpoint. Currently, we are supposed to be nice to each other and all equal in the eyes of the law. However, that is not always true, but I won't get into that here. The second paradigm to which racial equality could possibly exist is conundrum of mixed babies everywhere. If we were all "Icecubes" (Icelandish-Cubans) or "Jindus" (Jewish-Hindus), then we might truly be racially equal.

Although I desperately wish for a day when racism and xenophobia becomes extinct, it seems that I will never live to see the day. We pride ourselves on being different. After all, North American culture is one revolving around individualism. However, it is in our preoccupation with our individualism that we become increasingly occupied with conformity and becoming the same. Although this sounds like a direct contrast, it is often true. We care about standing out and being different from others, but at the same time, we hope to fit in. Once we achieve the end-goal of fitting in, we move on to criticizing all those who don't. They are labeled as outcasts, and subjected to unorthodoxly cruel treatment.

To respond to a question of why Asians are seen as a new threat, and a comment on how people of many different cultures having lived in Vancouver for so long, I believe that it is the failure of the many ethnicities of Canada to stand up for their rights. People are animals at heart. Animals recognize force, and only force. When they sense that another animal is getting angry, they will back off. Look at the prevalent racism throughout America's history. Until 1964, the African Americans of America were harshly discriminated against. And how were they able to achieve civil equality? Through protests; some peaceful sit-ins, others violent rampages. They were finally recognized as peoples. But it was not through this alone. The most important factor is that they were able to get political recognition. Politicians finally realized that the black population's support would garner a huge support base, and the passing of a Civil Rights Legislation would for sure insure many votes for the party.

I think that political parties are already starting to reach out to the ethnic "minorities" of Vancouver as they become more like the majorities. For example, I received a mandarin Christmas card from Stephen Harper, which shows that they are really working to get votes from the ethnic populations.

I don't know if it is politically correct to say that Asians are seen as a threat. It is merely that Asians are gaining more and more status, both socially and especially economically. After all, he who has the gold, makes the rules. It is therefore true that the West views the rise of Orientalism as potential incursion on their traditional power base. It is more a discomfort with the rise of a new power. The West is slowly adjusting with the discomfort of sharing and the gradual transferral of global hegemony to countries such as China. When a country has bought over 10% of your debt, it is hard not to feel the strains.

I agree with what was said, in that people will always fear who or what they don't understand. It is much easier to alienate people than to embrace and accept them. This is the main premises for racism; that and hatred of course. And Nazis. :)