This week, I am focusing on the word romance.
Wait!--before you turn on the Barry White theme music, know that this is a commentary on the diversity and commonality of language. In fact, the fact that many readers would simply assume I'm about to talk about peoples' love lives is a testament to the point I will attempt to make: as one word (like "romance") can sometimes demonstrate, the umbrella of new meaning, significance, and societal and cultural history--that languages demonstrate simply by existing as they are--is a testament to how seriously we ought to take the study of language and how intrinsically it is linked to the developments of our collective history.
Alright, back to romance. Well, this may be cheating, but it all began with the word romanz, the name of the language spoken in France (and, due to conquests made by Frankish King Clovis, parts of northern Italy and Spain)as priests responded to the increasingly spoken language of the people, "Roman"--not Latin. This language, "Romance", would not only develop the proto-French that would spawn the langues d'oil (North and Western France and Belgian Wallonia) and langues d'oc (Southern & Southeastern France)--named as such for their different ways of pronouncing Latin "hoc", meaning "yes" in that era--that would entually give birth to modern French, but would also, in its reunion with Nordic languages (that would become Norman, the original language of a very famous Normandie, France) irreversibly change the history of English.
No, English is today not a Romance Language. BUT--linguists still argue today as to whether it is closer to a quarter or a half of English vocabulary words are loaned from the Normans (and, thus, French). (By the way, all these statistics can be found in the fascinating book "The Story of French", by Jean-Benoit Nadeau and Julie Barlow). Famous English writer Chaucer is the descendent of chaussiers (shoemakers); the Norman-English of Old England spoken by kings and, soon, court jesters would actaully give France some of its earlier anglicisms (e.g., the cardinal directions of the compass). Perhaps the only system of language not mutually saturated by each others' tongues was that of the days of the week: English retained its profoundly Norse religious term-influence (e.g., Thursday is Thor's day, Wednesday is Woden's/Odin's day http://www.crowl.org/lawrence/time/days.html). And that's only a few of the seven mostly Norse-related days per week! There is no doubt that with very little exception, Romanz and its linguistic compatriots had a tremendous, ingrained effect on the way the rest of Western Europe describes itself, both linguistically and historically, post-Roman Empire. The very word itself has come to symbolize its orignial meaning and more, displaying the essence of what it is for a word to weave itself through the linguistic and cultural adaptations of various peoples until it becomes a multi-faceted, ineffaceable parola franca.
The word "romance" has come to modify the noun, "language", implying a southwestern European origin; to describe a specific language that developed into the international French of today's world; and to imply love-and-affection-centered stories, movies, music, and certain amiable but hopeless people (no, I don't mean all people of romantic mindsets, but rather the specifically "hopeless romantic" types). And, essentially, the number of meanings to Romance's name are a testament to the utter permeability of our history to the mechanisms and growth of language. In the end, the transformation and retranslation of the word "romance" shows us that one can learn history witout necessarily studying linguistics and the history of communication, but in studying said story of contact and communication, one necessarily hits two birds with the proverbial stone--or, rather, the "pierre", both stone and a well-known French name. Why? Look it up!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
"Tough Love" in the World of Illegal Immigration
In English class we've recently been circling over the subject of when helping becomes hurting. In the example of the Baptist Price family in the novel The Poisonwood Bible, ignorance of native Kikongo cultural customs hurt both the relationship between the two sides (the Prices and the villagers) and the very survival of the Prices themselves.
I've often wondered if the current confrontationalist, fence-building stance of US immigration policy has had this same effect: if, in trying to assure our laws are upheld and that Mexico's agricultural lands and border towns (where most immigrants to the States come from http://www.ackland.org/education/k12/handoutpdfs/Mexico.pdf) remain populated and economically self-sufficient, we have actually hurt our relationship with Mexico and the communities that celebrate the cultures on both sides of the border. I have often tried to think up (assuming I can even slightly comprehend the legal complexity of the issue) an effective, integrationalist reform for our current immigration policy.
I've come up short every time, I assure you. Oftentimes in this subject, two opposing sides essentially come dance around the bare bones of each of their sentiments: "I like Mexicans and they're good for the enrichment of our culture and you're a racist!" or "They're culturally different, they don't pay taxes, and they don't speak my freakin' language! How am I supposed to accept that with open arms?" In my search for a solution to perhaps bridge a gap between these two battling sentiments (in their simplest form), I've often let my own views get in the way. But in the end, we need a way to appeal to both sides, and I think I may have recently stumbled upon at least a shadow of that type of solution.
BBC News published an article in 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7879206.stm) detailing a new tactic used by "La Migra" (US Anti-Illegal Immigration Agents) to prevent migrants from attempting the dangerous borderr crossing. Their method? A CD called "Migracorridos" whose songs emulate Mexican ballads called "Corridos". Their songs' intended message? That the terrible fact of border crossing isn't necessarily the illegality of it, but rather the harm that can be done to the immigrants themselves. Somber messages bear foreboding messages such as: "Cada dia mueren tres personas en la frontera. Nunca es el coyote./ Every day three people die on the border; the coyote is never one of them." Coyotes are alien traffickers who frequently leave immigrants in trucks to die out in the desert after they've collected all their money for the passage. In 2008 alone, 390 immigrants died along the way.
This CD, given its applicability to many border families and anyone wishing to immigrate, has actually been played throughout various Mexican radio channels. The government has not announced publicly that the songs played are their brainchild, but even if they had, the message that many listeners connect to would be the same. In wondering whether or not I agreed morally with this type of solution (aiding both the US's immigration issue and purportedly the lives of Mexican citizens), I first had to get over the fact that the CD's intent is to reduce immigration. It is achieved through a (likely real) veil of sympathy for immigrants, as Agent Rodriguez points out, "What we try to tell them is that this is not worth it, they should think about their families." I'm not sure whether or not the actual driving emotion here is sympathy for the families involved. In the end, we can only take the government's word; in a sense, they have done a noble, albeit covert, deed in using methods of the target culture to try to ameliorate the situation. I'm not sure if this is subtle manipulation or simply another honest reason why illegal immigration should not occur. Again, we as citizens can only "know" what we are told in this case, and it seems to be a rightly justifiable method to me.
Has it worked? Has our government found at least a path towards solving this problem within a sound realm of ethics and respect for the other side? As the article points out, more than one hundred thousand less people were arrested between 2007-2008. Perhaps the song method has died out since then. But at least for now, we can take solace in the knowledge that "La Migra" has not only taken steps to understand its "targets", but would also rather not have targets at all--and to an extent, that drop of arrests by +100,000 shows that they have succeeded. In an issue as complicated as this, success will be very difficult to clearly define. But if your definition of success involves more depth than simply placing a wall between your country and those who desire to make a better life inside of it, then perhaps we are closer to accomplishing immiration reform than we've been lead to believe.
I've often wondered if the current confrontationalist, fence-building stance of US immigration policy has had this same effect: if, in trying to assure our laws are upheld and that Mexico's agricultural lands and border towns (where most immigrants to the States come from http://www.ackland.org/education/k12/handoutpdfs/Mexico.pdf) remain populated and economically self-sufficient, we have actually hurt our relationship with Mexico and the communities that celebrate the cultures on both sides of the border. I have often tried to think up (assuming I can even slightly comprehend the legal complexity of the issue) an effective, integrationalist reform for our current immigration policy.
I've come up short every time, I assure you. Oftentimes in this subject, two opposing sides essentially come dance around the bare bones of each of their sentiments: "I like Mexicans and they're good for the enrichment of our culture and you're a racist!" or "They're culturally different, they don't pay taxes, and they don't speak my freakin' language! How am I supposed to accept that with open arms?" In my search for a solution to perhaps bridge a gap between these two battling sentiments (in their simplest form), I've often let my own views get in the way. But in the end, we need a way to appeal to both sides, and I think I may have recently stumbled upon at least a shadow of that type of solution.
BBC News published an article in 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7879206.stm) detailing a new tactic used by "La Migra" (US Anti-Illegal Immigration Agents) to prevent migrants from attempting the dangerous borderr crossing. Their method? A CD called "Migracorridos" whose songs emulate Mexican ballads called "Corridos". Their songs' intended message? That the terrible fact of border crossing isn't necessarily the illegality of it, but rather the harm that can be done to the immigrants themselves. Somber messages bear foreboding messages such as: "Cada dia mueren tres personas en la frontera. Nunca es el coyote./ Every day three people die on the border; the coyote is never one of them." Coyotes are alien traffickers who frequently leave immigrants in trucks to die out in the desert after they've collected all their money for the passage. In 2008 alone, 390 immigrants died along the way.
This CD, given its applicability to many border families and anyone wishing to immigrate, has actually been played throughout various Mexican radio channels. The government has not announced publicly that the songs played are their brainchild, but even if they had, the message that many listeners connect to would be the same. In wondering whether or not I agreed morally with this type of solution (aiding both the US's immigration issue and purportedly the lives of Mexican citizens), I first had to get over the fact that the CD's intent is to reduce immigration. It is achieved through a (likely real) veil of sympathy for immigrants, as Agent Rodriguez points out, "What we try to tell them is that this is not worth it, they should think about their families." I'm not sure whether or not the actual driving emotion here is sympathy for the families involved. In the end, we can only take the government's word; in a sense, they have done a noble, albeit covert, deed in using methods of the target culture to try to ameliorate the situation. I'm not sure if this is subtle manipulation or simply another honest reason why illegal immigration should not occur. Again, we as citizens can only "know" what we are told in this case, and it seems to be a rightly justifiable method to me.
Has it worked? Has our government found at least a path towards solving this problem within a sound realm of ethics and respect for the other side? As the article points out, more than one hundred thousand less people were arrested between 2007-2008. Perhaps the song method has died out since then. But at least for now, we can take solace in the knowledge that "La Migra" has not only taken steps to understand its "targets", but would also rather not have targets at all--and to an extent, that drop of arrests by +100,000 shows that they have succeeded. In an issue as complicated as this, success will be very difficult to clearly define. But if your definition of success involves more depth than simply placing a wall between your country and those who desire to make a better life inside of it, then perhaps we are closer to accomplishing immiration reform than we've been lead to believe.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Re: "Is Obama's Record Better Than It Looks?"
When discussing the true value of Obama's record since taking office, the question must be asked of those in the conversation: "Where are your expectations?"
There are some people who were uninformed and assumed Obama would turn the United States into a socialist police state. They thus cry wolf every time Obama cites a non-conservative idea of his and complain when he continues a previously conservative-run venture (e.g., the War in Afghanistan) and experiences serious difficulty. There are also some people who wer uninformed to the extent that they believed Obama's presidency would somehow immediately end all their economic and social struggles, just because he represented something other than a conservative white majority. You may have seen such a person here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related
My guess is, she still has to pay her mortgage.
Sweeping generalizations aside, there are specific faults of Obama that everybody had been able to point out. Big businesses have been bailed out, but Main Street (that beautiful, coveted, "real-America" main street) still hurts economically. Around Sept. 23rd, unemployment benefits claims rose by 12,000, topping off at around 465,000 (a message from the Labor Department) http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/23/initial-jobless-claims-still-bouncing-around-a-2010-average/.
By the way, I am certainly not an economics expert and will not attempt to be for this post. But that statistic looks, rather undeniably, less than ideal.
Is it as bad as when "everyone was worried back then," Walt says? http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/28/credit_where_its_due_is_obama_s_record_better_than_it_looks
No. That's my opinion, at least. We have a President who, for the most part, recognizes the need to adapt certain systems to the flow of global events and the trends of the American system (e.g., broken Healthcare), not one who ignores any opportunity for equal cooperation with other nations and rejects the call for acceptance by the nations' growing minorities (e.g., latinos).
Could anyone please join me in contemplating the sheer political awkwardness and mishandling of the Park 51 Islamic Center controversy if it were in the hands of George W. Bush?
But coming back to the issue at hand--the true effectiveness (or lack thereof) in Obama's record--it all depends on your expectations of the President. If you'd hoped he'd reverse Bush's mistakes (if that's how you view them) in these two years, slow down. I'm not sure any leader of such a complicated and vocally contentious political system which influences the votes of one of the most diverse national populations currently in existence could "fix" the multitude of economic, military, and political issues left in Bush's wake. In addition, if you were hoping Obama would be MORE liberal, then you face the fact that things are bad enough as it is with unilateral adversity to Democratic proposals in Congress by Republicans. Politically, no matter how critical of the Bush administration he may get, he cannot afford to let everything Bush-era (closed-door deals with influential industies, big business bailouts) go; the era of the Tea Party, firing up more and more voters, has bereaved him of that luxury.
If you wanted him to be more conservative (somehow, some way), then you are simply out of luck. The man has to stick to some of his political principles.
My questions to Walt are: Are we really to assume that Obama's difficulty in causing sweeping reform shows a lack of impetus on his part to fire on all cylinders? Many people say that he hasn't reached across the aisle enough to ensure the bipartisanship needed for reform. Is that statement valid, when the opposite party would rather dilute and end the reform he's trying to cause in the first place? How does a president expected to follow up on "promised" reform work with a party that, from day one, has refused to cooperate with his proposals on the basis, essentially, that he is a strong Democrat?
There are some people who were uninformed and assumed Obama would turn the United States into a socialist police state. They thus cry wolf every time Obama cites a non-conservative idea of his and complain when he continues a previously conservative-run venture (e.g., the War in Afghanistan) and experiences serious difficulty. There are also some people who wer uninformed to the extent that they believed Obama's presidency would somehow immediately end all their economic and social struggles, just because he represented something other than a conservative white majority. You may have seen such a person here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related
My guess is, she still has to pay her mortgage.
Sweeping generalizations aside, there are specific faults of Obama that everybody had been able to point out. Big businesses have been bailed out, but Main Street (that beautiful, coveted, "real-America" main street) still hurts economically. Around Sept. 23rd, unemployment benefits claims rose by 12,000, topping off at around 465,000 (a message from the Labor Department) http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/23/initial-jobless-claims-still-bouncing-around-a-2010-average/.
By the way, I am certainly not an economics expert and will not attempt to be for this post. But that statistic looks, rather undeniably, less than ideal.
Is it as bad as when "everyone was worried back then," Walt says? http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/28/credit_where_its_due_is_obama_s_record_better_than_it_looks
No. That's my opinion, at least. We have a President who, for the most part, recognizes the need to adapt certain systems to the flow of global events and the trends of the American system (e.g., broken Healthcare), not one who ignores any opportunity for equal cooperation with other nations and rejects the call for acceptance by the nations' growing minorities (e.g., latinos).
Could anyone please join me in contemplating the sheer political awkwardness and mishandling of the Park 51 Islamic Center controversy if it were in the hands of George W. Bush?
But coming back to the issue at hand--the true effectiveness (or lack thereof) in Obama's record--it all depends on your expectations of the President. If you'd hoped he'd reverse Bush's mistakes (if that's how you view them) in these two years, slow down. I'm not sure any leader of such a complicated and vocally contentious political system which influences the votes of one of the most diverse national populations currently in existence could "fix" the multitude of economic, military, and political issues left in Bush's wake. In addition, if you were hoping Obama would be MORE liberal, then you face the fact that things are bad enough as it is with unilateral adversity to Democratic proposals in Congress by Republicans. Politically, no matter how critical of the Bush administration he may get, he cannot afford to let everything Bush-era (closed-door deals with influential industies, big business bailouts) go; the era of the Tea Party, firing up more and more voters, has bereaved him of that luxury.
If you wanted him to be more conservative (somehow, some way), then you are simply out of luck. The man has to stick to some of his political principles.
My questions to Walt are: Are we really to assume that Obama's difficulty in causing sweeping reform shows a lack of impetus on his part to fire on all cylinders? Many people say that he hasn't reached across the aisle enough to ensure the bipartisanship needed for reform. Is that statement valid, when the opposite party would rather dilute and end the reform he's trying to cause in the first place? How does a president expected to follow up on "promised" reform work with a party that, from day one, has refused to cooperate with his proposals on the basis, essentially, that he is a strong Democrat?
Monday, October 4, 2010
Body, Spoken and Cultural Language: Speak Them All Lest You Be Interculturally Mute
The Western, democratic world has all the answers for the rest of the world just as much as the Prices of The Poisonwood Bible do for the Congolese. What exactly do I mean? The fictional Prices, a family lead by a devout, evangelical, Baptist Reverend-patriarch, moved into the 1950's Belgian Congo with the general intent to baptize and save the poor, sinning natives. Then the natives could live their lives with God's love and acceptance; then Reverend Price could be as holy and close to God as possible, a true spreader of the faith.
Peu importe that the Prices could neither speak French nor Kikongo, the true spoken language of the village people. No matter that they took no time to understand the people whom they were planning on converting, that their own survival was more important than providing supplies to the impoverished. Saving the soul was a much more fulfilling act for the Congolese than nourishment, basic supplies, or in-depth understanding and respect anyway, right? After all, "What could we give them? We hadn't given a single thought to them wanting earthly goods, in our planning ahead. We'd only brought things for ourselves." There was no way for young Leah to even communicate: "These children have nothing to do with je suis, vous etes...And from day one I have coveted it bitterly...I imagined myself shouting "We like Ike!""
The human brain can make us do any number of things to oppose the unknown. And, granted, the similarity between young Leah's frustration with the mutual incomprehension and lack of appreciation does not fully complete a comparison between the Prices' mission and the foreign policy of the Western world (namely the U.S.) However, we as a nation can learn from the Prices' travails and missteps. Their provider in the very foreign Congo, Mama Tataba, has left. The chief has openly discouraged all villagers from accepting Baptism from the Reverend. Services are held, but anyone who attends is unenthusiastic or waiting for the meal that will occur immediately afterward. As if, on a larger scale, foreign policy directors and position holders promoting the spread of democracy do not find similar issues on their hands. In the increased search for terrorists in the Pakistani borderlands, a U.S. chopper accidentally killed three Pakistani officers ; the Pakistani government has since closed that border to U.S. troop movement (which is, all the same, expected to be re-opened rather soon). It was a bad mistake, but is something to be understood given the U.S.'s dangerous mission and hefty goal in the region: to uproot and destroy all terrorist threats. The problem here, as with many foreign policy issues, is that countries simply do not speak the same language. I'm not talking about the language that Leah fears little children use to make fun of her ivory, Belgian-like skin (although I plan on discussing literal language barriers in later blogs); I'm talking about the type of bare-bones communication of each other's essential values, desires, and cultures. The U.S. and Pakistani governments' shaky relationship comes from the fact that the U.S. must use Pakistani territory to wage a seemingly endless war against terrorism (an idea), while the Pakistani government seeks to expel terrorists, continue on with its society productively, and simply keep its citizens from getting caught in the crosshairs between political allies with no cultural ties and political enemies with a very similar culture. The fact that Pakistanis on the streets and in government may be worried about the fact that the U.S. is waging a war with no end in sight on their soil does not seem (note: an educated opinion, not claiming to be truth) to be affecting the strategy of American involvement.
Examples of lack of consideration of the other side's essential desires and cultural language of what is truly essential to survive are evident in our recent history. While many Americans and American government see democracy as the ultimate lifeblood of a fruitful societal existence, other cultures, having been oppressed by outsiders (of caste, country, religious sect, etc.) have proven to hold different systems for gaging what they want out of government representation. The United States government's desire to provide democratic rights to all peoples is ideologically noble. All the same, people have, to our surprise, taken these new democratic reigns to steer their governments in a non-democratic, non-secular direction: "The groups with the greatest success at the ballot box have usually been those appealing to nationalist sentiments or, more dangerously, to ethnic identities. In Iraq, despite attempts by American democracy-promotion groups to support new parties and train their leaders, the viable contenders in the current contest, as in 2005, are still the religious parties formed in exile in opposition to Saddam Hussein" ( ).
On a grander scale than the Prices, American government faces an issue in how to best direct its foreign policy in correlation to the views of foreign societies. We offer democracy and/or stabilization (through military involvement) to various regions, and sometimes expect or hope our chosen nations to comply by electing democratic, Stars & Stripes-loving leaders. But to maintain respectful (and thereby successful) relationships with said nations, and to truly represent the ideals of representative democracy, we have to allow them to define themselves through whichever leader they please (assuming the leader doesn't resemble a specific Ahmedinejad or Jong-Il). This is the only way of truly being fluent in a cultural language: having knowledge of a culture's reason for a certain type of government and then learning how to interact with, not dominate, said leader or system. In a world increasingly independent of the whims of U.S. foreign policy, we have to learn to adapt, not resist. The Price family has not exactly learned this lesson, and their status as minority has come to far overshadow their initial status of welcomed royalty.
Yes, it would help if the Prices spoke Kikongo and if all appropriate U.S. foreign relations officers spoke Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Spanish, Mandarin, and/or French. But understanding a nation's needs and how they can pair with (not be overshadowed by) your own country's needs prevents the conflicts of misunderstanding (which is more dangerous than shouting "I Like Ike!" in this big a stage), nationalism, and ideological polarity. And what partnership survives that ordeal?
Peu importe that the Prices could neither speak French nor Kikongo, the true spoken language of the village people. No matter that they took no time to understand the people whom they were planning on converting, that their own survival was more important than providing supplies to the impoverished. Saving the soul was a much more fulfilling act for the Congolese than nourishment, basic supplies, or in-depth understanding and respect anyway, right? After all, "What could we give them? We hadn't given a single thought to them wanting earthly goods, in our planning ahead. We'd only brought things for ourselves." There was no way for young Leah to even communicate: "These children have nothing to do with je suis, vous etes...And from day one I have coveted it bitterly...I imagined myself shouting "We like Ike!""
The human brain can make us do any number of things to oppose the unknown. And, granted, the similarity between young Leah's frustration with the mutual incomprehension and lack of appreciation does not fully complete a comparison between the Prices' mission and the foreign policy of the Western world (namely the U.S.) However, we as a nation can learn from the Prices' travails and missteps. Their provider in the very foreign Congo, Mama Tataba, has left. The chief has openly discouraged all villagers from accepting Baptism from the Reverend. Services are held, but anyone who attends is unenthusiastic or waiting for the meal that will occur immediately afterward. As if, on a larger scale, foreign policy directors and position holders promoting the spread of democracy do not find similar issues on their hands. In the increased search for terrorists in the Pakistani borderlands, a U.S. chopper accidentally killed three Pakistani officers ; the Pakistani government has since closed that border to U.S. troop movement (which is, all the same, expected to be re-opened rather soon). It was a bad mistake, but is something to be understood given the U.S.'s dangerous mission and hefty goal in the region: to uproot and destroy all terrorist threats. The problem here, as with many foreign policy issues, is that countries simply do not speak the same language. I'm not talking about the language that Leah fears little children use to make fun of her ivory, Belgian-like skin (although I plan on discussing literal language barriers in later blogs); I'm talking about the type of bare-bones communication of each other's essential values, desires, and cultures. The U.S. and Pakistani governments' shaky relationship comes from the fact that the U.S. must use Pakistani territory to wage a seemingly endless war against terrorism (an idea), while the Pakistani government seeks to expel terrorists, continue on with its society productively, and simply keep its citizens from getting caught in the crosshairs between political allies with no cultural ties and political enemies with a very similar culture. The fact that Pakistanis on the streets and in government may be worried about the fact that the U.S. is waging a war with no end in sight on their soil does not seem (note: an educated opinion, not claiming to be truth) to be affecting the strategy of American involvement.
Examples of lack of consideration of the other side's essential desires and cultural language of what is truly essential to survive are evident in our recent history. While many Americans and American government see democracy as the ultimate lifeblood of a fruitful societal existence, other cultures, having been oppressed by outsiders (of caste, country, religious sect, etc.) have proven to hold different systems for gaging what they want out of government representation. The United States government's desire to provide democratic rights to all peoples is ideologically noble. All the same, people have, to our surprise, taken these new democratic reigns to steer their governments in a non-democratic, non-secular direction: "The groups with the greatest success at the ballot box have usually been those appealing to nationalist sentiments or, more dangerously, to ethnic identities. In Iraq, despite attempts by American democracy-promotion groups to support new parties and train their leaders, the viable contenders in the current contest, as in 2005, are still the religious parties formed in exile in opposition to Saddam Hussein" ( ).
On a grander scale than the Prices, American government faces an issue in how to best direct its foreign policy in correlation to the views of foreign societies. We offer democracy and/or stabilization (through military involvement) to various regions, and sometimes expect or hope our chosen nations to comply by electing democratic, Stars & Stripes-loving leaders. But to maintain respectful (and thereby successful) relationships with said nations, and to truly represent the ideals of representative democracy, we have to allow them to define themselves through whichever leader they please (assuming the leader doesn't resemble a specific Ahmedinejad or Jong-Il). This is the only way of truly being fluent in a cultural language: having knowledge of a culture's reason for a certain type of government and then learning how to interact with, not dominate, said leader or system. In a world increasingly independent of the whims of U.S. foreign policy, we have to learn to adapt, not resist. The Price family has not exactly learned this lesson, and their status as minority has come to far overshadow their initial status of welcomed royalty.
Yes, it would help if the Prices spoke Kikongo and if all appropriate U.S. foreign relations officers spoke Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Spanish, Mandarin, and/or French. But understanding a nation's needs and how they can pair with (not be overshadowed by) your own country's needs prevents the conflicts of misunderstanding (which is more dangerous than shouting "I Like Ike!" in this big a stage), nationalism, and ideological polarity. And what partnership survives that ordeal?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)