One more thing I jotted that I forgot to mention: the point discussed
at our meeting about Jesus--coming not for political revolution but
effecting it anyway--that tied in more with the overall theme of my
paper than I remembered to point out. It was actually a perfect
example of what I was trying to say: if you seek political change, or
economic change, or religious reform, or societal change, or whatever
else, as an end--*the* end--in itself, and neglect the heart, it is
bound not to work all that well. On the other hand, if you do as Jesus
did and go straight for the heart from the outset, you get political,
religious, societal, and where they intersect with it, economic change,
all as free sides. Not only that, but they will align with the purpose
behind the change of heart all the better.
Kev
2005/01/12
Who Are We? Critical Reflections and Hopeful Possibilities
So I've only re-read the introduction so far, and it was good. But
while I was doodling in class last week, a thought came to me about the
themes of the original paper, so I just wanted to sketch it out here
before I forgot what it was about: Theocracy within a democracy runs
parallel to communism within a system of capitalism, which runs
parallel to servitude to Christ within a system of free will (i.e.,
reality, at least as it appears to us, etc.) In each case the dominant
/outer system allows freedoms which can be used for good or for evil,
and the inner system is one that is chosen, involving an abdication of
certain rights in return for the fulfillment of a higher good, which,
in most cases, tends to turn the pleasures one has a right to pursue
until one is sick of them into true blessings worthy of all thanks.
More to come.
Kev
while I was doodling in class last week, a thought came to me about the
themes of the original paper, so I just wanted to sketch it out here
before I forgot what it was about: Theocracy within a democracy runs
parallel to communism within a system of capitalism, which runs
parallel to servitude to Christ within a system of free will (i.e.,
reality, at least as it appears to us, etc.) In each case the dominant
/outer system allows freedoms which can be used for good or for evil,
and the inner system is one that is chosen, involving an abdication of
certain rights in return for the fulfillment of a higher good, which,
in most cases, tends to turn the pleasures one has a right to pursue
until one is sick of them into true blessings worthy of all thanks.
More to come.
Kev
2005/01/03
The journey continues
I'm going to try posting by e-mail so I don't have to log in. Isn't
technology wonderous?
First off, some apologies. I started reading "Who Are We?" waiting for
my ride home as the holidays began, and after that, the whole thing
fell by the wayside. I guess not thinking about things doesn't make
them go away after all! I knew that.
Sometimes I can think on my feet. It seems to always be about two
hours after I needed to, and such was the case with my meeting with
Len. Unfortunately, I didn't take notes, but here's what I remember of
the things I needed to deal with:
Starting with that last one, I was thrown off by that at the beginning.
Soto wrote about Peru (his homeland) in the book I read, and our group
went to Mexico. If that was a test, merely raising my eyebrows
probably didn't convey the right answer.
Working backwards up the list, I think the question had been, how do I
know that all native North Americans didn't go or aren't going to Hell
for lack of belief in God's Son, to which I responded with something
like "I think that wouldn't be fair, given that they didn't have the
opportunity to know about Him at the time." When I said, "I think," I
was actually plagiarising. I don't have many truly and uniquely
original thoughts. This was actually something that can be confirmed
in the Bible, had I thought about it a bit longer. To those who are
given much, much will be expected (parable of the talents), and in
general, God being fair is certainly a repeating theme. That said, I'm
not judging the natives, but in the same way, I don't think the
Europeans should have, either, for the same reason. Paul talks about
judging only within the church anyway. I can't remember how this whole
issue related to the main discussion unfortunately. :|
The early church in Acts doesn't survive in the form it was in, not
because the way they shared all their possessions was unsustainable,
but because God had other plans. He scattered and strengthened the
church via persecution so it would take hold over a wider area and
spread the Word to more people.
I took the wisdom of GS101 into account on the last page in
acknowledging the very point that was brought up. A system where
economics is God looks like the capitalism and communism of the
twentieth century. But a system that doesn't exist, because God alone
is God, is the system seen in Acts. Everyone gave up their possessions
and shared with everyone else as they had need. This I called
"communism" and tried to say so in a footnote. That is, it's a
framework in which the idea of possession is given little value,
whereas in capitalism, the idea of possession is an inalienable right.
What makes the distinction between the two disappear in either case is
that the twentieth century versions see the effects of evil desires
played out. In the USSR, the communism looked like American capitalism
because it was. Possession was still what counted, otherwise there
could be no notion of or reality to giving museumfulls of gifts to
Stalin, for example, or public servants being better off than peasants.
True communism, as I said, can work within legal capitalism, because it
involves giving up rights--but it all depends on the heart.
Free will has been the subject of many debates, so I suppose I should
not have stated it as a fact and used it as a premise without some
argument for it. I simply have never heard a very convincing argument
against it, especially given a Christian framework. Even without one,
though, no system of law, good and evil, reform, or meaningful life can
make sense without some notion of choice, which implies free will. I
know that good and evil I argued from the other direction, so that
would be circular by itself, but I have yet to meet someone who
believes that we have absolutely no free will and acts with absolute
consistency with that belief (never disciplines his/her children or
pets, has hope, thanks anyone, curses anyone, nor attempt to improve
his/her surroundings). At the very least, that we have the illusion of
free will is indisputable, otherwise no language would have the word
"choose" in its dictionary, and for the reason of the other
contradictions given above. Within a Christian framework, then, there
are many examples to support free will, such as God being just in
punishing the Israelites for their poor choices. I think CS Lewis
explained it well when he pointed out that God must logically have
existed outside of space-time to have created it, and although he
created it knowing exactly what kind of world it would be all along
(including all of our choices), so that in the overall, mind-bogglingly
enormous "big picture" of all of Creation He in some sense made our
choices for us, but that in any fair sense, we are still the ones
making our own choices at each moment while God looks on, seeing all
time at once. He said, to watch a man commit a crime is not to make
him commit it. In other words, as far as we, in our limited
perspectives, are concerned, we have free will, and that is enough for
the purpose of theology.
As for the individualism, I should explain in more depth than I had
room for in my paper, but much of it hinges upon what was said in the
previous paragraph. I certainly believe in community and wish our
society was more like those of the ancient world and various societies
around the world today (such as most mediterranean and oriental
cultures); however, people are still autonomous even while they are
members of communities. They choose to stay alive and act within the
boundaries and framework of the communities they are in. Groups work
because they strengthen and are strengthened by their individual
members. It's Paul's familiar body analogy again. However, that was
beyond the scope of my paper in my opinion, which was just to redirect
attention to God where it belonged, rather than trying to save the
world through means that ignore God or are God-optional for the sake of
the paradoxical religious tolerance pushed from so many paths in our
popular and academic culture.
I hope this clarifies my meaning a little bit.
Kev
-----------------------------------
Kevin Field
"In all your ways acknowledge Him."
-----------------------------------
Food for thought:
When in doubt, do what the President does -- guess.
When in doubt, tell the truth.
-- Mark Twain
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
technology wonderous?
First off, some apologies. I started reading "Who Are We?" waiting for
my ride home as the holidays began, and after that, the whole thing
fell by the wayside. I guess not thinking about things doesn't make
them go away after all! I knew that.
Sometimes I can think on my feet. It seems to always be about two
hours after I needed to, and such was the case with my meeting with
Len. Unfortunately, I didn't take notes, but here's what I remember of
the things I needed to deal with:
- the individual-centric nature of my paper recommending against
individualism - some people disagree that we have free will
- the distinction I raised between communism and capitalism despite
GS101 lectures seemingly to the contrary - what happened to the group in Acts
- responses ("I think") along individualistic lines
- something about Soto and Guatemala
Starting with that last one, I was thrown off by that at the beginning.
Soto wrote about Peru (his homeland) in the book I read, and our group
went to Mexico. If that was a test, merely raising my eyebrows
probably didn't convey the right answer.
Working backwards up the list, I think the question had been, how do I
know that all native North Americans didn't go or aren't going to Hell
for lack of belief in God's Son, to which I responded with something
like "I think that wouldn't be fair, given that they didn't have the
opportunity to know about Him at the time." When I said, "I think," I
was actually plagiarising. I don't have many truly and uniquely
original thoughts. This was actually something that can be confirmed
in the Bible, had I thought about it a bit longer. To those who are
given much, much will be expected (parable of the talents), and in
general, God being fair is certainly a repeating theme. That said, I'm
not judging the natives, but in the same way, I don't think the
Europeans should have, either, for the same reason. Paul talks about
judging only within the church anyway. I can't remember how this whole
issue related to the main discussion unfortunately. :|
The early church in Acts doesn't survive in the form it was in, not
because the way they shared all their possessions was unsustainable,
but because God had other plans. He scattered and strengthened the
church via persecution so it would take hold over a wider area and
spread the Word to more people.
I took the wisdom of GS101 into account on the last page in
acknowledging the very point that was brought up. A system where
economics is God looks like the capitalism and communism of the
twentieth century. But a system that doesn't exist, because God alone
is God, is the system seen in Acts. Everyone gave up their possessions
and shared with everyone else as they had need. This I called
"communism" and tried to say so in a footnote. That is, it's a
framework in which the idea of possession is given little value,
whereas in capitalism, the idea of possession is an inalienable right.
What makes the distinction between the two disappear in either case is
that the twentieth century versions see the effects of evil desires
played out. In the USSR, the communism looked like American capitalism
because it was. Possession was still what counted, otherwise there
could be no notion of or reality to giving museumfulls of gifts to
Stalin, for example, or public servants being better off than peasants.
True communism, as I said, can work within legal capitalism, because it
involves giving up rights--but it all depends on the heart.
Free will has been the subject of many debates, so I suppose I should
not have stated it as a fact and used it as a premise without some
argument for it. I simply have never heard a very convincing argument
against it, especially given a Christian framework. Even without one,
though, no system of law, good and evil, reform, or meaningful life can
make sense without some notion of choice, which implies free will. I
know that good and evil I argued from the other direction, so that
would be circular by itself, but I have yet to meet someone who
believes that we have absolutely no free will and acts with absolute
consistency with that belief (never disciplines his/her children or
pets, has hope, thanks anyone, curses anyone, nor attempt to improve
his/her surroundings). At the very least, that we have the illusion of
free will is indisputable, otherwise no language would have the word
"choose" in its dictionary, and for the reason of the other
contradictions given above. Within a Christian framework, then, there
are many examples to support free will, such as God being just in
punishing the Israelites for their poor choices. I think CS Lewis
explained it well when he pointed out that God must logically have
existed outside of space-time to have created it, and although he
created it knowing exactly what kind of world it would be all along
(including all of our choices), so that in the overall, mind-bogglingly
enormous "big picture" of all of Creation He in some sense made our
choices for us, but that in any fair sense, we are still the ones
making our own choices at each moment while God looks on, seeing all
time at once. He said, to watch a man commit a crime is not to make
him commit it. In other words, as far as we, in our limited
perspectives, are concerned, we have free will, and that is enough for
the purpose of theology.
As for the individualism, I should explain in more depth than I had
room for in my paper, but much of it hinges upon what was said in the
previous paragraph. I certainly believe in community and wish our
society was more like those of the ancient world and various societies
around the world today (such as most mediterranean and oriental
cultures); however, people are still autonomous even while they are
members of communities. They choose to stay alive and act within the
boundaries and framework of the communities they are in. Groups work
because they strengthen and are strengthened by their individual
members. It's Paul's familiar body analogy again. However, that was
beyond the scope of my paper in my opinion, which was just to redirect
attention to God where it belonged, rather than trying to save the
world through means that ignore God or are God-optional for the sake of
the paradoxical religious tolerance pushed from so many paths in our
popular and academic culture.
I hope this clarifies my meaning a little bit.
Kev
-----------------------------------
Kevin Field
"In all your ways acknowledge Him."
-----------------------------------
Food for thought:
When in doubt, do what the President does -- guess.
When in doubt, tell the truth.
-- Mark Twain
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
2004/09/10
Liberation theology conclusion
Well, I went to read the last remnants I hadn't gotten around to in the Boff brothers' Introducing Liberation Theology, when I found my answer (kind of). It's along the lines of what I had called Stance #2, but apparently more refined. Details can be found on pages 82-83, at least in my 1987 edition.
Kev
Kev
Today's Golden Duh Award
I may have a lot of stupid moments of my own--I hope people call me on them for my own good--but this was pretty bad:
Exactly! Hello! Are you expecting the starving masses to buy international plane tickets?
Thanks to CanadaWatch. If my rant is even dumber than what I'm ranting about, please leave a comment.
Kev
Given the fact that protests such as
Quebec City draw a disproportionate
number of relatively privileged white,
educated, middle-class protesters, Fox
and others also seriously questioned
how representative they are of the
masses they claim to represent: "It's
very easy to come and protest in Que-
bec City when you have a full belly."
Exactly! Hello! Are you expecting the starving masses to buy international plane tickets?
Thanks to CanadaWatch. If my rant is even dumber than what I'm ranting about, please leave a comment.
Kev
2004/08/10
I liked Soto's interview better than his book
Neither Mexico nor faith appear in the index of Soto's The Other Path, yet both managed to be baked into the conclusion (p. 233f), except they're not in any context that I'd find useful. Ha! Bummer.
Anyway, the book was pretty interesting, and it does have relevance in Mexico, but we didn't explore red tape and informals that much during our stay, so I have no concrete idea to what extent. I can use his conclusion that governments should get out of the way unless they're doing something useful. I guess I'm going semi-capitalist for now. :) (I still think Acts-like communism is the ideal, but probably also the hardest to hold up for the world for now.)
Kev
Anyway, the book was pretty interesting, and it does have relevance in Mexico, but we didn't explore red tape and informals that much during our stay, so I have no concrete idea to what extent. I can use his conclusion that governments should get out of the way unless they're doing something useful. I guess I'm going semi-capitalist for now. :) (I still think Acts-like communism is the ideal, but probably also the hardest to hold up for the world for now.)
Kev
2004/07/10
Liberation Theology Continued
I'll give you a few quotes so you can understand where I was coming
from.
Pages 24f says:
Okay, sounds good so far, right in line with #3.
The terms "more basic" and "actual" seem to contradict the rest of what
they've been proposing that I could accept along the lines of #3: that
spiritual reality is more real, if anything, than physical
reality (though I believe them to both be equally real--perhaps
relevant is a better word.)
Then this statement:
Which sounds like the kind of thing that would lead me to take Stance
#1, because I hear that line of thinking often from people who don't
believe in "all this spiritual BS", to whom the physical world is all
there is. Furthermore, the statement given to back it up:
...says nothing at all about understanding God affecting or not
affecting one's understanding of the world. On the contrary, I'd say,
as one who is born again outside of the world, that understanding God
is absolutely key to understand the world for what it really is.
The Boffs' next statements, however...
...I would agree with wholeheartedly.
Overall, it seems, I could go with #2 or #3. Some statements stand out
and make me wonder, though, where they're really coming from. Perhaps
these are all just translation issues and I'm nitpicking. Or maybe
they really are "temptations" slipping in from the authors, as their
later words might indicate on pages 64f (emphasis in original, aside
from my selective quoting):
That would make the most sense to me.
It just so happens that a few more points from the same section point
more to #2 than to #3, so while we're at it:
Well, aside from the connotations of "mystical", amen to that last
paragraph.
One unrelated quote comes from page 60, in apparent contrast to the
story of the Christian base community of Cuernavaca we had met with:
I say "apparent contrast" because they're easily reconciled by the word
"generally" in the quote, but that leaves a new question: What makes
Cuernavaca different from the generally true?
I think I'll leave the Boffs at this stage for now and turn to de Soto.
More on that to come...
Kev
from.
Pages 24f says:
Obviously, the prime object of theology is God.
Okay, sounds good so far, right in line with #3.
Nevertheless, before asking what oppression means in God's eyes,
theologians have to ask more basic questions about the nature of actual
oppression and its causes.
The terms "more basic" and "actual" seem to contradict the rest of what
they've been proposing that I could accept along the lines of #3: that
spiritual reality is more real, if anything, than physical
reality (though I believe them to both be equally real--perhaps
relevant is a better word.)
Then this statement:
The fact is that understanding God is not a substitute for or
alternative to knowledge of the real world.
Which sounds like the kind of thing that would lead me to take Stance
#1, because I hear that line of thinking often from people who don't
believe in "all this spiritual BS", to whom the physical world is all
there is. Furthermore, the statement given to back it up:
As Thomas Aquinas said: "An error about the world redounds in error
about God" (Summa contra Gentiles, II, 3).
...says nothing at all about understanding God affecting or not
affecting one's understanding of the world. On the contrary, I'd say,
as one who is born again outside of the world, that understanding God
is absolutely key to understand the world for what it really is.
The Boffs' next statements, however...
Furthermore, if faith is to be efficacious, in the same way as
Christian love, it must have its eyes open to the historical reality on
which it seeks to work.
...I would agree with wholeheartedly.
Overall, it seems, I could go with #2 or #3. Some statements stand out
and make me wonder, though, where they're really coming from. Perhaps
these are all just translation issues and I'm nitpicking. Or maybe
they really are "temptations" slipping in from the authors, as their
later words might indicate on pages 64f (emphasis in original, aside
from my selective quoting):
Let us not pass over the temptations to which liberation theologians
can be liable, temptations pointed out some time ago by critics and--at
least in part--repeated by the magisterium. But at the same time it
should be noted that most liberation theologians take account of these
in their own work. Some of them are:
...overemphasis of political action. It is in prayer and
contemplation, and intimate and communitarian contact with God, that
the motivations for a faith-inspired commitment to the oppressed and
all humankind spring and are renewed.
Overstressing the political aspect of questions relating to
oppression and liberation...
Subordinating considerations of faith to considerations of society in one-sided constructs paying too much attention to class struggle
and too little to what is specifically religious and Christian. This
temptation affects exegesis and liturgy above all.
That would make the most sense to me.
It just so happens that a few more points from the same section point
more to #2 than to #3, so while we're at it:
Absolutization of liberation theology, downgrading the value of
other theologies...
Lack of concern for deepening dialogue with other Christian
churches or with other contemporary theologies...
The way to overcome all these temptations is for liberation theologians
to become ever more strongly imbued with a sense of Christ, being
"those who have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16). They also need to
be firmly linked to the ecclesial community and deeply nourished by the
vigorous mystical sustenance of popular religion and faith.
Well, aside from the connotations of "mystical", amen to that last
paragraph.
One unrelated quote comes from page 60, in apparent contrast to the
story of the Christian base community of Cuernavaca we had met with:
Despite the tensions attendant upon any living body, there is generally
a good spirit of convergence between the institutional church and this
wide network of base communities.
I say "apparent contrast" because they're easily reconciled by the word
"generally" in the quote, but that leaves a new question: What makes
Cuernavaca different from the generally true?
I think I'll leave the Boffs at this stage for now and turn to de Soto.
More on that to come...
Kev
2004/07/08
Boff Bros.
I read a bit more of "Introducing Liberation Theology" today. I'm unsure what to think so far. I think I could have three possible stances:
1) Liberation theology is not really Christian. Though some liberation theologists may be doing the right thing, most of them are using Christianity as an excuse to incite people to political action.
2) Liberation theology is basically Christian, meaning I should support it as another part of the body of the church, even if I am not to get involved in it much further than that, having another function to perform to which I've been called.
3) Liberation theology is the only/the best application of Christianity relevant to our age, or at least better than the one I have now. I should "convert" and get involved much more with it.
In a parallel thread, another vein of Christian teaching, which in recent memory has struck me as truth actually a bit more than the Christian Base Communities in Mexico did (although the language barrier and setting may have been important factors), tends to dismiss liberation theology as in Stance #1.
I myself would default to Stance #2.
As I read the Boffs' work, though, I mainly get the impression of Stance #2, but occasional statements and passages urge me to Stance #3, while other points seem to counter that, leading me to take Stance #1.
Aside from all of this, an argument could probably be made for taking Stance #2 even if Stance #1 is closer to the truth. In the spirit of tolerance and reasonability, this would be taking something fairly decent in the absence of something perfect. Of course, if Stance #3 is the most truthful, then that last statement is pretty insulting, and anybody could rightfully dismiss me as an armchair philosopher. Forgive me while I explore. In the meanwhile, I'm learning to live well with the few people I live closely with.
More soon, hopefully; otherwise, these books will be overdue before I get through them even once.
1) Liberation theology is not really Christian. Though some liberation theologists may be doing the right thing, most of them are using Christianity as an excuse to incite people to political action.
2) Liberation theology is basically Christian, meaning I should support it as another part of the body of the church, even if I am not to get involved in it much further than that, having another function to perform to which I've been called.
3) Liberation theology is the only/the best application of Christianity relevant to our age, or at least better than the one I have now. I should "convert" and get involved much more with it.
In a parallel thread, another vein of Christian teaching, which in recent memory has struck me as truth actually a bit more than the Christian Base Communities in Mexico did (although the language barrier and setting may have been important factors), tends to dismiss liberation theology as in Stance #1.
I myself would default to Stance #2.
As I read the Boffs' work, though, I mainly get the impression of Stance #2, but occasional statements and passages urge me to Stance #3, while other points seem to counter that, leading me to take Stance #1.
Aside from all of this, an argument could probably be made for taking Stance #2 even if Stance #1 is closer to the truth. In the spirit of tolerance and reasonability, this would be taking something fairly decent in the absence of something perfect. Of course, if Stance #3 is the most truthful, then that last statement is pretty insulting, and anybody could rightfully dismiss me as an armchair philosopher. Forgive me while I explore. In the meanwhile, I'm learning to live well with the few people I live closely with.
More soon, hopefully; otherwise, these books will be overdue before I get through them even once.
2004/06/12
Salient Polymaths R Us
Well, not really--I thought this article was going to touch on Illich and de Soto more, but it expounded a strikingly different point of view:
http://www.libertyhaven.com/regulationandpropertyrights/tradeandinternationaleconomics/newliberation.shtml
A few comments. Firstly:
This doesn't take into account the liberated reformers we met with.
Here's a neat lead:
Better yet:
And best so far:
This is over ten years old, yet sounds quite fresh.
Comments to come later hopefully. Gotta leave work now.
http://www.libertyhaven.com/regulationandpropertyrights/tradeandinternationaleconomics/newliberation.shtml
A few comments. Firstly:
The tragedy of the old liberation theology is not only that it penalizes individual enterprise, but that it requires sweeping away all traditional religious structures in Latin America.
This doesn't take into account the liberated reformers we met with.
Here's a neat lead:
...true to Schumpeter's prophecy that capitalism would create many idle critics of the very system that enriched them.
Better yet:
...quoting John Wesley: "Make as much money as you can. Save as much money as you can. Give away as much money as you can."
And best so far:
We live at a time when all respectable churchmen are supposed to be exercising a "preferential option for the poor" and hostility towards the rich. But I submit that the proper Christian attitude is to show a preferential option for human beings, rich or poor, East or West, South or North, without regard for class or condition. And, like Wesley and Schuller, we need to encourage all people to discover the possibilities within them, to become everything God means for them to be. They must start where they find themselves, or where God finds them.
This is over ten years old, yet sounds quite fresh.
Comments to come later hopefully. Gotta leave work now.
2004/06/07
Bonnie Whitlow and Norma General
March 20th, the next "Mexico Day" on my list, I found to be one of the most interesting days of all the trip, but it wasn't located any further away than a little spot on the Six Nations reserve just outside my hometown that I had never been to before.
Most of the day was a presentation by and dialogue with Bonnie and Norma, which was a fascinating reversal for me. Not that I ever evangelise as much as I could or even should, but I'm not usually actively evangelised either, and this definitely was different from discussing things with door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, I had remembered reading about how evangelists going way out of their own culture usually only had a breakthrough when they could find a parallel to some Biblical theme in the culture in which they were working.
I think I already came up with adequate words in an e-mail to Bonnie about a week after our meeting:
(About the parallels, she later gave me a book lead that turns out to be available online too: http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/parker/.)
Anyway, it definitely makes sense that the majority of we who call ourselves Christian would in no way be able to evangelise Six Nations peoples as they were presented to us that day, because they act more Christian than we do. In an interesting twist, I think Western-minded truth-seekers would migrate to Six Nations spirituality (as many do in the vague popular movement toward nature and such), but they would unfortunately probably stop there before coming to the full realisation of the reality of Jesus Christ in the world, because Christians who really are a light in the world are spread, and once one is comfortable in a worldview (even a new one), one usually stops searching. This is how I've spent nineteen years beside a better example of how to live without ever noticing, and could've easily spent nineteen, thirty-eight, or fifty-seven more if not for the inclusion of a meeting with our Aboriginal friends as part of the pre-trip days.
For all we cry about freedom of religion in order to generally supress it in schools, we've done powerfully well at caging it within an aura of irrelevance. The very fact that it's not mandatory where, say, English and math are within our K-12 school system implies to any student that it's not worth studying in order to live more successfully in the "real world." Sure, we were taken on a trip to the reserve in sixth grade or so, and the general sentiment was "that's nice," but we were more interested in whether we'd be back in time to play wall ball before hometime. Contrast that with our three or four trips to App's Mill for ecological education/games once every two or three years, continuing into high school.
Our collective lack of seeking to understand where people are really coming from is why September 11th was hardly more of a shock to me than the second season finale of 24. Unfortunately, of the few who really are seeking to understand, some still are only doing it in order to control. While you can't mandate a good heart, you can stamp out many misunderstandings without too much effort. (This is while we're still within the K-12. After that you have to expend much more effort un-learning first, go on campaigns, buy media attention, and so on. Watch strategies on getting people to stop smoking, and see if it isn't more effective to quit before you start.)
In later entries I'll get to Mexican indigenous peoples. There are many differences, but hopefully this time around I'll see some similarities and balance it out when I write here.
Most of the day was a presentation by and dialogue with Bonnie and Norma, which was a fascinating reversal for me. Not that I ever evangelise as much as I could or even should, but I'm not usually actively evangelised either, and this definitely was different from discussing things with door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, I had remembered reading about how evangelists going way out of their own culture usually only had a breakthrough when they could find a parallel to some Biblical theme in the culture in which they were working.
I think I already came up with adequate words in an e-mail to Bonnie about a week after our meeting:
It was an interesting afternoon last Saturday, because you were evangelising us in the same way some of us seek to evangelise you. I think we can both use each other's evangelism, because you are closer to the truth in some matters and we in others, and it's been God's pleasure to make it this way so that neither of us becomes arrogant thinking that we have all the answers (as your ancestors and my ancestors both thought.) That's not to say that truth is relative, or that parts of the Bible are invalidated by what you say--it's just that you have a better grasp of the spirit behind the letter (again, in some areas more than others) than we do, because we are clouded by our cultural lense.
(About the parallels, she later gave me a book lead that turns out to be available online too: http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/parker/.)
Anyway, it definitely makes sense that the majority of we who call ourselves Christian would in no way be able to evangelise Six Nations peoples as they were presented to us that day, because they act more Christian than we do. In an interesting twist, I think Western-minded truth-seekers would migrate to Six Nations spirituality (as many do in the vague popular movement toward nature and such), but they would unfortunately probably stop there before coming to the full realisation of the reality of Jesus Christ in the world, because Christians who really are a light in the world are spread, and once one is comfortable in a worldview (even a new one), one usually stops searching. This is how I've spent nineteen years beside a better example of how to live without ever noticing, and could've easily spent nineteen, thirty-eight, or fifty-seven more if not for the inclusion of a meeting with our Aboriginal friends as part of the pre-trip days.
For all we cry about freedom of religion in order to generally supress it in schools, we've done powerfully well at caging it within an aura of irrelevance. The very fact that it's not mandatory where, say, English and math are within our K-12 school system implies to any student that it's not worth studying in order to live more successfully in the "real world." Sure, we were taken on a trip to the reserve in sixth grade or so, and the general sentiment was "that's nice," but we were more interested in whether we'd be back in time to play wall ball before hometime. Contrast that with our three or four trips to App's Mill for ecological education/games once every two or three years, continuing into high school.
Our collective lack of seeking to understand where people are really coming from is why September 11th was hardly more of a shock to me than the second season finale of 24. Unfortunately, of the few who really are seeking to understand, some still are only doing it in order to control. While you can't mandate a good heart, you can stamp out many misunderstandings without too much effort. (This is while we're still within the K-12. After that you have to expend much more effort un-learning first, go on campaigns, buy media attention, and so on. Watch strategies on getting people to stop smoking, and see if it isn't more effective to quit before you start.)
In later entries I'll get to Mexican indigenous peoples. There are many differences, but hopefully this time around I'll see some similarities and balance it out when I write here.
2004/06/05
Another book lead
I was just reading through this to refresh my memory, and besides the ending revealing the possibly (once again) dangerous assumptions (i.e., about economics and about spirituality) behind the view presented, I did find this intriguing quote and book lead:
I'll have to get a hold of that and some Illich or other liberation theology and see how the two reconcile. (Everything reconciles in the end.)
I'm still at a loss for deciding in which direction to present in September.
My other book, The Other Path, was written for Peruvians, but I was amazed when it spread beyond Peru to all of Latin America and became a Latin American best seller. And then it started going to other developing countries, and one of the other countries it went to was Indonesia. And I was also thrilled because my publishers in Indonesia were the extreme left-wing press, which I thought was interesting.
I'll have to get a hold of that and some Illich or other liberation theology and see how the two reconcile. (Everything reconciles in the end.)
I'm still at a loss for deciding in which direction to present in September.
2004/06/02
Poverty
"To be continued." Proof positive you shouldn't stop for dinner when you're on a roll. But I knew that already from the red-haired inmate with the beard in The First Circle.
Just in case I go way off the philosophy bent and more into the poverty end of economics: I was tossing most of my long-term todos today that had expired, and I came across the Fraser Institute's student essay contest (topic: free trade's relation to poverty), and thought I'd take a look at their suggested bibliography:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:wwCB5vqxSaEJ:www.fraserinstitute.ca/studentcentre/files/Resource_Guide03.pdf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(In HTML to make it easy to copy and paste to check out addresses.)
Weighing these articles against what I learned in GS102 last term and read in that Canada Watch special was interesting, to say the least. I think that I have a few leads:
a) I need to continue in mathematics, otherwise I cannot have an opinion either way on some of what the WTO says. Some of the stats calculations they do look familiar, but some I've never heard of. On the other hand, you need not have passed grade twelve mathematics to see that their newer "more comprehensive" development index is heavily flawed when there are negative changes for a number of countries in every area besides technology (the heavyweight champion of categories), yet every country's overall index comes out with positive change. If technological prowess isn't leading to improved education, health care, GDP, etc. for a particular country, how could it possibly outweigh those categories in a so-called Human Development Index on "its own merits"?
b) I need to keep in mind the power of primacy and recency, and be more objective. Both sides of the globalization issue have fun with the stats to some degree, both sides ignore some key issues of the other, and both sides seem to ignore the spiritual side of the equation (at least when talking about the "real" issues) altogether.
c) It might be worth exploring the idea that free trade might actually be the best way to go (for everyone), provided that social considerations are put first, and that it's not selectively applied as it is now, with Northern states bullying the South into "one-way free trade" by allowing just enough of the particular protectionist element to have it both ways.
d) Mexico is way more important in all of this than my old dim thought debris might've had me guess.
I'll have to get back to you on those some day.
Just in case I go way off the philosophy bent and more into the poverty end of economics: I was tossing most of my long-term todos today that had expired, and I came across the Fraser Institute's student essay contest (topic: free trade's relation to poverty), and thought I'd take a look at their suggested bibliography:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:wwCB5vqxSaEJ:www.fraserinstitute.ca/studentcentre/files/Resource_Guide03.pdf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(In HTML to make it easy to copy and paste to check out addresses.)
Weighing these articles against what I learned in GS102 last term and read in that Canada Watch special was interesting, to say the least. I think that I have a few leads:
a) I need to continue in mathematics, otherwise I cannot have an opinion either way on some of what the WTO says. Some of the stats calculations they do look familiar, but some I've never heard of. On the other hand, you need not have passed grade twelve mathematics to see that their newer "more comprehensive" development index is heavily flawed when there are negative changes for a number of countries in every area besides technology (the heavyweight champion of categories), yet every country's overall index comes out with positive change. If technological prowess isn't leading to improved education, health care, GDP, etc. for a particular country, how could it possibly outweigh those categories in a so-called Human Development Index on "its own merits"?
b) I need to keep in mind the power of primacy and recency, and be more objective. Both sides of the globalization issue have fun with the stats to some degree, both sides ignore some key issues of the other, and both sides seem to ignore the spiritual side of the equation (at least when talking about the "real" issues) altogether.
c) It might be worth exploring the idea that free trade might actually be the best way to go (for everyone), provided that social considerations are put first, and that it's not selectively applied as it is now, with Northern states bullying the South into "one-way free trade" by allowing just enough of the particular protectionist element to have it both ways.
d) Mexico is way more important in all of this than my old dim thought debris might've had me guess.
I'll have to get back to you on those some day.
2004/05/29
Post-trip trip-up
The post-trip meeting was something like I might've expected--a couple people missing, an atmosphere of a sad semi-goodbye mixed with celebration and fond memories--but there were two surprises: Jonathan gave a good exercise and a book lead for learning about liberation theology, and we discussed utopias. The latter threw me for a loop, because I was unprepared to deal with the preconception that utopias are obtainable. The exercise we did was based upon that, and I had no concise way to challenge it for everyone--interestingly, much in the way (which I happened to have not experienced yet) people were telling that telling others about the trip was met without reception. That is, you'd go to tell about the meat of the trip (which I'm still trying to define), and people's eyes would glaze over. They would rather hear about how the weather and the water was. Well, I did feel that, but surprisingly, it was trying to explain to my group-mates that none of the things they were listing under Utopia were causes--even circular ones--but merely effects or symptoms.
The "true" utopia (juxtaposed against our Western consumerist-bent "false" utopia) was based on the Jon Sobrino quote we were given: "[T]hat everyone have the basics of life, enough to eat, have a home, have health, to not be despised." You may ask what the harm is in working for such an ideal. As I'll get to, the last ten years of my life have been a discovery of the fact that and reason behind why such utopias aren't meant to be.
The next part of the quote leads in well: "The only thing that stands in the way of this true utopia is the false utopia." I disagree.
Please sit back down while I explain. There's no doubt that the false utopia stands in the way of those characteristics Sobrino and our groups gathered under the heading of the "true utopia". The contention lies in the word "only". If that crucial part of his statement was true, then by all means, I would wholeheartedly agree with the entire scheme of working towards such a utopia.
The two utopias here can be distilled much further than a North-versus-South or individualistic-versus-communal matchup, but I should warn you that when we do, we're getting to the real heart of the problem, which changes those boundaries somewhat: sin.
When I tried to explain to our sub-group that a true change of heart--that is, seeking communion with God constantly--is what a real utopia is, and that all the other pure things we imagine about utopias would flow naturally from this state, I got some blank stares, and one person told me that you can only say that if you're really spiritual.
I hate to interrupt with a pair of quotes from the disappointing Matrix: Reloaded, but it was the only part of the movie that I liked, and it applies directly:
This is why I do not expect to have to secularize my thinking in order to have a discussion, especially about things such as utopias and what it means to truly live. All too often people see having faith in faith (to paraphrase Willard) as acceptable--even a cultural positive--but actual faith in God as something religious that must be kept private.
It's dangerous to ignore the spiritual reality behind the world, writing off belief as Mere Christianity, as one of the wiser of our twentieth-century writers put it.
Better yet, as it was put to me more recently, working towards a secular humanistic utopia such as this is like stapling fresh fruit on a rotting tree. (Oh, if I were a political cartoonist...)
...
To be continued.
The "true" utopia (juxtaposed against our Western consumerist-bent "false" utopia) was based on the Jon Sobrino quote we were given: "[T]hat everyone have the basics of life, enough to eat, have a home, have health, to not be despised." You may ask what the harm is in working for such an ideal. As I'll get to, the last ten years of my life have been a discovery of the fact that and reason behind why such utopias aren't meant to be.
The next part of the quote leads in well: "The only thing that stands in the way of this true utopia is the false utopia." I disagree.
Please sit back down while I explain. There's no doubt that the false utopia stands in the way of those characteristics Sobrino and our groups gathered under the heading of the "true utopia". The contention lies in the word "only". If that crucial part of his statement was true, then by all means, I would wholeheartedly agree with the entire scheme of working towards such a utopia.
The two utopias here can be distilled much further than a North-versus-South or individualistic-versus-communal matchup, but I should warn you that when we do, we're getting to the real heart of the problem, which changes those boundaries somewhat: sin.
When I tried to explain to our sub-group that a true change of heart--that is, seeking communion with God constantly--is what a real utopia is, and that all the other pure things we imagine about utopias would flow naturally from this state, I got some blank stares, and one person told me that you can only say that if you're really spiritual.
I hate to interrupt with a pair of quotes from the disappointing Matrix: Reloaded, but it was the only part of the movie that I liked, and it applies directly:
"[Gosh darn] it, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!"
"My beliefs do not require them to."
This is why I do not expect to have to secularize my thinking in order to have a discussion, especially about things such as utopias and what it means to truly live. All too often people see having faith in faith (to paraphrase Willard) as acceptable--even a cultural positive--but actual faith in God as something religious that must be kept private.
It's dangerous to ignore the spiritual reality behind the world, writing off belief as Mere Christianity, as one of the wiser of our twentieth-century writers put it.
Better yet, as it was put to me more recently, working towards a secular humanistic utopia such as this is like stapling fresh fruit on a rotting tree. (Oh, if I were a political cartoonist...)
...
To be continued.
2004/05/27
York U Link
Just so I can read tidbits on break, I thought I'd throw this up here. I've been meaning to read it for a long while now:
CanadaWatch issue on Mexico
CanadaWatch issue on Mexico
Frontierishness
Maybe I wasn't thinking of the frontier thesis after all, but I might've been. I was flipping through my journal today, and noticed the first spot besides downtown K-W that I thought it might've applied to: the Tepotzlán social activists who were the only ones in Latin America to successfully prevent a golf course from moving into their neighbourhood. After the battle, though, she had told us, the unity of the city's people waned due to the lack of a common enemy, despite the fact that during the battle, their tactics had been "80% fiesta, 20% politics," with many a spontaneous city-wide celebration to keep spirits up and united.
I'm not sure which direction I'll be heading in for the GS310 research paper--I guess I'm right on schedule, then. It might be nice if I can somehow combine the two areas I've been exploring so far--real change only coming from the inside and thriving only under pressure--into some coherent and interesting topic to explore, but it's possible I'll do something else entirely.
I'd better look up this Illich fellow's writings too.
I'm not sure which direction I'll be heading in for the GS310 research paper--I guess I'm right on schedule, then. It might be nice if I can somehow combine the two areas I've been exploring so far--real change only coming from the inside and thriving only under pressure--into some coherent and interesting topic to explore, but it's possible I'll do something else entirely.
I'd better look up this Illich fellow's writings too.
2004/05/24
Suerte ser fuerte
Yes, we're lucky to be strong, and it rhymes in Spanish. Some day I may title a poem that.
Anyway, aside from these handy post-trip reflections, I'm thinking of doing just highlights (in terms of ideas, etc.) of each day, rather than the whole thing, and then cleaning up and reflecting on the actual journal entries I made as I'm typing them in here.
For today, though, here's my "impact statement" as Jonathan requested:
I really had to cut that down to fit it into a short paragraph.
It's good to read a lot. Everyday life helps confirm the truths you learn. Such was the case with Lee Strobel's "A Case For Christ" during the trip, and Dallas Willard's "The Divine Conspiracy" is going much deeper to that end as I relive the trip through each book's lens.
Anyway, aside from these handy post-trip reflections, I'm thinking of doing just highlights (in terms of ideas, etc.) of each day, rather than the whole thing, and then cleaning up and reflecting on the actual journal entries I made as I'm typing them in here.
For today, though, here's my "impact statement" as Jonathan requested:
I can't say that this trip has helped me discover myself, or the world, so much as that it has confirmed and highlighted truths that were being revealed to me elsewhere, filled in some details where before there were none, and allowed me the privelege of becoming part of a new group of friends. To me, the overall shape of the world, for better or for worse, has remained the same: Mexico and Canada, like any two countries, truly are a part of "one world." This trip has helped an old truth sink in and start to well up: Problems start to dissolve only when there's a change of heart. And once something wells up, it starts to overflow through every medium possible.
I really had to cut that down to fit it into a short paragraph.
It's good to read a lot. Everyday life helps confirm the truths you learn. Such was the case with Lee Strobel's "A Case For Christ" during the trip, and Dallas Willard's "The Divine Conspiracy" is going much deeper to that end as I relive the trip through each book's lens.
2004/05/22
Skepticism
I'm starting to wonder whether this trip was worth it. This type of feeling may be part of those phases that we go through reacting to our own culture when we return to it, but maybe not. You see, I've never really felt like I was a part of Canadian culture. I could identify at times with the anti-American aspects of it, until I realized that, much like the smallest-scale psychologies that make it up, a culture tends to hate in other cultures that reality which it hates most in itself. Hypocricy and the hatred of it pervade the human race from what I've seen so far.
What does this have to do with Mexico? Well, if anything significant was to be gleaned from it, from my perspective, it would only be confirmation of things already known. The thing I'm talking about in this instance is the wisdom that problems "over there" (be that across an ocean, across the US, or across our backyard fences), are rarely caused or solved entirely over there. The interconnections of our world, even before the recent acceleration in the direction of globalism, are more significant that our individualistic Western minds tend to suspect. We, and especially our corrupted ideas of the ideal or realistic way of life, reach out: at first to a known and controllable distance, but soon to a never-to-be-known and uncontrollable area do they spread, like slick gossip. Good ideas, in contrast, almost always must be consciously fought for. With that in mind, the objects of our daily fights speak volumes to our priorities. Generally, we go to work, and if our fight is anywhere, it's there--for accomplishment, efficiency, and monetary profit. When we get home, we relax, and let the media fill us with apathy (if we fought well at work) or depression (if work is fruitless, and no longer a battle). When I would hear "Affect or be affected," I used to think, "Try learning with humility instead," which should easily exceed your recommended daily intake of irony for today. Affect or be affected is an attitude that doesn't have to do with asserting oneself or being generally rebellious, but with protecting oneself from the demons of this world, and rebelling against our patterened ways of absorbing their will into ours.
"Two Countries, One World" is a pretty accurate description, I would say.
P.S. Thanks for putting up with my skeptical (looking back, pretty nonsensical) intro. It was easier to start exploring that way.
What does this have to do with Mexico? Well, if anything significant was to be gleaned from it, from my perspective, it would only be confirmation of things already known. The thing I'm talking about in this instance is the wisdom that problems "over there" (be that across an ocean, across the US, or across our backyard fences), are rarely caused or solved entirely over there. The interconnections of our world, even before the recent acceleration in the direction of globalism, are more significant that our individualistic Western minds tend to suspect. We, and especially our corrupted ideas of the ideal or realistic way of life, reach out: at first to a known and controllable distance, but soon to a never-to-be-known and uncontrollable area do they spread, like slick gossip. Good ideas, in contrast, almost always must be consciously fought for. With that in mind, the objects of our daily fights speak volumes to our priorities. Generally, we go to work, and if our fight is anywhere, it's there--for accomplishment, efficiency, and monetary profit. When we get home, we relax, and let the media fill us with apathy (if we fought well at work) or depression (if work is fruitless, and no longer a battle). When I would hear "Affect or be affected," I used to think, "Try learning with humility instead," which should easily exceed your recommended daily intake of irony for today. Affect or be affected is an attitude that doesn't have to do with asserting oneself or being generally rebellious, but with protecting oneself from the demons of this world, and rebelling against our patterened ways of absorbing their will into ours.
"Two Countries, One World" is a pretty accurate description, I would say.
P.S. Thanks for putting up with my skeptical (looking back, pretty nonsensical) intro. It was easier to start exploring that way.
2004/05/20
Skip it
You know, looking back at two posts ago, I think maybe I shouldn't be bothering to expand my notes so much, when I have two weeks' worth of them to go through. Instead I'll just read them over again and focus more on the analysis and what I wrote about in journal entries at the time, like that frontier theory interjection.
Actually, I went and looked at my HCNOA1 notes, and there was nothing on the frontier thesis, but I do distinctly remember reading about it in that course's textbook. Google me:
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1112/38501
It seems that frontier theory is alive and well after all. Yet Winn's conclusion is much the same as denouncers' were a hundred years ago, with an added twist:
"[I]t is clear that no place on this planet qualifies as a frontier anymore. If there is to be a chance for the future, then we must find it above the sky. Up is where hope lives."
Here he's talking about space programs. I would like to explore the idea of a Christian frontier--which could last until the end of time--and whether it fits his criteria or not, but it's time to go to work.
Actually, I went and looked at my HCNOA1 notes, and there was nothing on the frontier thesis, but I do distinctly remember reading about it in that course's textbook. Google me:
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/1112/38501
It seems that frontier theory is alive and well after all. Yet Winn's conclusion is much the same as denouncers' were a hundred years ago, with an added twist:
"[I]t is clear that no place on this planet qualifies as a frontier anymore. If there is to be a chance for the future, then we must find it above the sky. Up is where hope lives."
Here he's talking about space programs. I would like to explore the idea of a Christian frontier--which could last until the end of time--and whether it fits his criteria or not, but it's time to go to work.
2004/05/15
Older journal entries
Here's another piece of the puzzle. It may be damaged and incomplete, but I thought it would be better to post than to hold back.
2004/03/05 - Interestingly enough, de Soto was mentioned in yesterday's Toronto Star, which I only got around to reading today. He apparently is advising Prime Minister Martin to step outside the norm of Western commitment to world poverty (i.e., hardly any), in the form of encouraging the formalization of property rights in developing countries and the availability of capital to small businesses and would-be investors. Apparently 90% of the economy in some countries is underground, because of a lack of laws surrounding most economic transactions and methods of business. This makes sense enough, but what about the merits of group-based ownership and the limits of the consumerist/capitalist system when it spreads to the world? Already the West is getting worried as it becomes cheaper and more effective to outsource tech jobs (such as Web programming) to the Third World than it is to employ locally. If we really think we're on top because we're better, we wouldn't be scared of such a thing. If all 6 billion of us were university-educated professionals, would there be enough room? How long would the environment survive?
2004/03/04 - Researched Latin American economic situations, and found an interview with Hernando de Soto, the author of a book describing how Latin America's current problems were America's 150 years ago. An interesting quote that contrasts the Lubicon Cree stories from GS102 was this: "We know that when you started organizing territory on lines of sovereignty and giving away to your Indians, it doesn't work. People eat other people's sovereignty. Property rights, those are more respected." On the other hand, he is also of the view that Western democracies are "good" and that that's why the West is wealthy. That's a bit off the deep end if you ask me. Maybe our democracies are better than the Latin American democracies he describes, but we're wealthy because we historically got lucky and, wanting to stay on top, crushed those below.
2004/02/23 - Picked up a book written in 1976 by an American University student as a PhD dissertation. I wish I had the same material from a Mexican or Canadian perspective--the author very much sees our two countries as "dependent" upon the US, which is as arrogantly oversimplified as the common belief that "immigrants take up all the jobs".
2004/02/22 - Left
2004/02/21 - Dinner at Carioca to celebrate Dad's birthday (early).
2004/02/20 - Spanish cartoons, stomach weirdness
2004/02/19 - Went to further mall (saw Alain again)
2004/02/18 - Met Alain
2004/02/17 - Second city tour, bartered and got ripped off at Barra de Navidad, tried coconuts, etc., fancy dinner, daquiri; went over the Sierra Madre hills to Colima (pop. 500k); Gabriel guide: VW car plant now Nissan & Chevy; VW hubcaps embedded in road as speedbumps; volcano active; coconut shack: bought banana chips and tobasco sauce, and drank some coconut water (kinda bland, not bad); saw magé (silver cactus the roots from which tequila is made) plantation (guard siesta-ando!); watermelon stands; same products here as Hawaii (same lat.): coconut (green or yellow), fresas, papayas, limes (limónes), mangos, peppers, bananas, pineapple, coffee, sugar cane, grapefruit, manzanas, y naranjas; Colima Liberty Square (w/old prison)--cathedral in service in middle of weekday; went to an UNAM-lead archaeological dig La Campana: sacrifice pits (to volcano gods), low pyramids, walls, stands; museum of Alejandro Ranjel Hidalgo w/paintings (stippled, very detailed and colourful), "Jake" statues (fat dog), and other artifacts from the dig; lunch with mariachis, lime-salt heat solution, excellent tortillas and quesadillas and tacos and enchiladas, G's point about putting the glass down silently (unlike Ciudad M.); real estate guys gave us their card on the street; "magnetic hill";
2004/02/16 - City tour #1, no good books, Hectours' Roberto (BA in geography; hectours.com): drove around rich people's houses; up to summit of peninsula; many new five-star resorts and world-class golf courses popping up for a half-Am, half-Mex audience (Mex esp. on weekends as a break from work in other cities); many mansions for famous actors of Western nations; up to port; downtown shopping; trains; VW;
2004/02/15 - Today, Mary, my sister Jenn, her boyfriend Dan, my mom and dad, and my aunt, uncle, and I left for Manzanillo, one of the largest trading ports in Mexico.
2004/02/09 - I actually bumped into Abe at another event, this time visiting UW with a friend who was in town, but I didn't get to talk to him much, because it was really loud. Hopefully I'll get to connect with him at some point.
2004/02/06 - We had our first study tour meeting today, which was somewhat interesting, mostly because I got to meet everyone who's going on the trip. There's quite a variety of backgrounds and motivations involved, which is excellent, but I also noticed that only one person admitted to be going on it "for a vacation". I say "admitted" because even though we are there to learn and to have our lives changed, anything that gets us away from our mundane daily existence over here, even if it's hard work, is still a vacation in my opinion. As Mary would tell me (contrary to what my parents might), vacations are not synonymous with relaxation. Anyway, the level of knowledge about Mexico in the group seemed to be mostly based on media stereotypes and tourist views, with only a few people having experienced it outside those realms. It sounds like the group will be an excellent one with which to experience this trip.
2004/02/05 - Unfortunately, Abe wasn't at Feeding Frenzi. The event is actually being cancelled for now due to a lack of funding, so if I see him again, it won't be there for at least a few weeks. I did meet some interesting people in the kitchen, though--a woman who used to have a management position at Ten Thousand Villages, which I have still yet to check out, and a man who was raised in Thailand by his missionary parents. I also talked with Matt, whom I had met the week before also, over dinner about the problem of homelessness, which I had recently become directly entangled with. I know there are many cynics and many whose hearts seem to outweight their wisdom when it comes to helping out the homeless, and I know that there are reasons for both. This makes me wonder about what the proportion of non-poor cynics to (maybe not-so-)poor scam-artists/actors/untrustworthies is. (I doubt it's possible for mere humans to get an accurate statistic on that.) All of this also lead me to the question many ask--why worry about "over there" when are problems here are so bad? If we attacked spiritual problems here rather than physical ones, wouldn't it start to solve physical problems here and over there? What do we do in the meanwhile? On the other hand, thinking that way will never allow for more of the kind of healthy bilateral links Lappé and Lappé have found all around the globe. Aside from goods and physical resources, what do Canada and Mexico have to offer each other?
2004/02/04 - Today I poked around for another hour and a bit looking at the various Mexico-Canada connections written about on the Internet. Much of it is very economy-centred, and at least half of it mentioned or focused on NAFTA in some way. I remember from when we went to Manzanillo last year how our boat tour guide said that there's hardly any poverty or crime in the city, not because it feeds on tourism, but because primarily it is Mexico's second largest trading port (or perhaps the second largest on the west coast--I can't remember at the moment), so everyone has a job, be it menial or managerial. On the other hand, Mexico, from the typical Canadian perspective, is synonymous with a hot climate, very high poverty, and cheaply-made goods. What made and makes Manzanillo succeed where, for instance, other Mexican coastal cities or even Newfoundland--in some ways--have failed? Would it be feasible to apply the same "success formula" to many other cities, or does the model necesitate a rich/poorish/impoverished divide?
2004/01/29 - Tonight at a church-meal gathering for students ("Feeding Frenzi"), I met a guy named Abe, whose family moved up here from Mexico when he was little to escape the extreme poverty. I can't remember the city he came from, but it wasn't one I had heard of before. He was student-age, but was looking for a job (to get by, it seemed) rather than an education and a climb up a corporate ladder. I hope to talk to him more next week to get to know him (and his story) better.
2004/01/20 - During a lull in copyediting at The Cord, I was finally able to dig around on the Internet for more information on the Summit and Canadian-Mexican ties. I found that Canadian news sites tended not to care, whereas L.A.-based and other southern area news sources had some information, but the main focus was still on how Fox and Martin were at least perceived in their own countries as Bush puppets. One name came up that was worth looking into--Señor Gaëtan Lavertu, Canada's ambassador to Mexico. Sites in Spanish and English that mentioned him also mentioned general trade relations between the countries that sounded much like those between Canada and Jamaica.
2004/01/13 - I picked up a newspaper today, as my new schedule allows me to do three days a week without inconvenience, and there were many stories about the featured Summiit of the Americas. Other than Mexico being mentioned as the host country, the only mention I found about anything Mexican was that President Fox and his wife had a nice dinner with our Prime Minister earlier in the week, and this was buried in a tiny article at the bottom of page 6. All of the feature articles talked about Martin and Bush and how there was a lot of hoopla and no real changes. What happened with Mexico? Hopefully I'll get some time to research this this week online. I'm sure I'll find something in an unknown independent journal (or certainly at least a Mexican source) somewhere.
2004/03/05 - Interestingly enough, de Soto was mentioned in yesterday's Toronto Star, which I only got around to reading today. He apparently is advising Prime Minister Martin to step outside the norm of Western commitment to world poverty (i.e., hardly any), in the form of encouraging the formalization of property rights in developing countries and the availability of capital to small businesses and would-be investors. Apparently 90% of the economy in some countries is underground, because of a lack of laws surrounding most economic transactions and methods of business. This makes sense enough, but what about the merits of group-based ownership and the limits of the consumerist/capitalist system when it spreads to the world? Already the West is getting worried as it becomes cheaper and more effective to outsource tech jobs (such as Web programming) to the Third World than it is to employ locally. If we really think we're on top because we're better, we wouldn't be scared of such a thing. If all 6 billion of us were university-educated professionals, would there be enough room? How long would the environment survive?
2004/03/04 - Researched Latin American economic situations, and found an interview with Hernando de Soto, the author of a book describing how Latin America's current problems were America's 150 years ago. An interesting quote that contrasts the Lubicon Cree stories from GS102 was this: "We know that when you started organizing territory on lines of sovereignty and giving away to your Indians, it doesn't work. People eat other people's sovereignty. Property rights, those are more respected." On the other hand, he is also of the view that Western democracies are "good" and that that's why the West is wealthy. That's a bit off the deep end if you ask me. Maybe our democracies are better than the Latin American democracies he describes, but we're wealthy because we historically got lucky and, wanting to stay on top, crushed those below.
2004/02/23 - Picked up a book written in 1976 by an American University student as a PhD dissertation. I wish I had the same material from a Mexican or Canadian perspective--the author very much sees our two countries as "dependent" upon the US, which is as arrogantly oversimplified as the common belief that "immigrants take up all the jobs".
2004/02/22 - Left
2004/02/21 - Dinner at Carioca to celebrate Dad's birthday (early).
2004/02/20 - Spanish cartoons, stomach weirdness
2004/02/19 - Went to further mall (saw Alain again)
2004/02/18 - Met Alain
2004/02/17 - Second city tour, bartered and got ripped off at Barra de Navidad, tried coconuts, etc., fancy dinner, daquiri; went over the Sierra Madre hills to Colima (pop. 500k); Gabriel guide: VW car plant now Nissan & Chevy; VW hubcaps embedded in road as speedbumps; volcano active; coconut shack: bought banana chips and tobasco sauce, and drank some coconut water (kinda bland, not bad); saw magé (silver cactus the roots from which tequila is made) plantation (guard siesta-ando!); watermelon stands; same products here as Hawaii (same lat.): coconut (green or yellow), fresas, papayas, limes (limónes), mangos, peppers, bananas, pineapple, coffee, sugar cane, grapefruit, manzanas, y naranjas; Colima Liberty Square (w/old prison)--cathedral in service in middle of weekday; went to an UNAM-lead archaeological dig La Campana: sacrifice pits (to volcano gods), low pyramids, walls, stands; museum of Alejandro Ranjel Hidalgo w/paintings (stippled, very detailed and colourful), "Jake" statues (fat dog), and other artifacts from the dig; lunch with mariachis, lime-salt heat solution, excellent tortillas and quesadillas and tacos and enchiladas, G's point about putting the glass down silently (unlike Ciudad M.); real estate guys gave us their card on the street; "magnetic hill";
2004/02/16 - City tour #1, no good books, Hectours' Roberto (BA in geography; hectours.com): drove around rich people's houses; up to summit of peninsula; many new five-star resorts and world-class golf courses popping up for a half-Am, half-Mex audience (Mex esp. on weekends as a break from work in other cities); many mansions for famous actors of Western nations; up to port; downtown shopping; trains; VW;
2004/02/15 - Today, Mary, my sister Jenn, her boyfriend Dan, my mom and dad, and my aunt, uncle, and I left for Manzanillo, one of the largest trading ports in Mexico.
2004/02/09 - I actually bumped into Abe at another event, this time visiting UW with a friend who was in town, but I didn't get to talk to him much, because it was really loud. Hopefully I'll get to connect with him at some point.
2004/02/06 - We had our first study tour meeting today, which was somewhat interesting, mostly because I got to meet everyone who's going on the trip. There's quite a variety of backgrounds and motivations involved, which is excellent, but I also noticed that only one person admitted to be going on it "for a vacation". I say "admitted" because even though we are there to learn and to have our lives changed, anything that gets us away from our mundane daily existence over here, even if it's hard work, is still a vacation in my opinion. As Mary would tell me (contrary to what my parents might), vacations are not synonymous with relaxation. Anyway, the level of knowledge about Mexico in the group seemed to be mostly based on media stereotypes and tourist views, with only a few people having experienced it outside those realms. It sounds like the group will be an excellent one with which to experience this trip.
2004/02/05 - Unfortunately, Abe wasn't at Feeding Frenzi. The event is actually being cancelled for now due to a lack of funding, so if I see him again, it won't be there for at least a few weeks. I did meet some interesting people in the kitchen, though--a woman who used to have a management position at Ten Thousand Villages, which I have still yet to check out, and a man who was raised in Thailand by his missionary parents. I also talked with Matt, whom I had met the week before also, over dinner about the problem of homelessness, which I had recently become directly entangled with. I know there are many cynics and many whose hearts seem to outweight their wisdom when it comes to helping out the homeless, and I know that there are reasons for both. This makes me wonder about what the proportion of non-poor cynics to (maybe not-so-)poor scam-artists/actors/untrustworthies is. (I doubt it's possible for mere humans to get an accurate statistic on that.) All of this also lead me to the question many ask--why worry about "over there" when are problems here are so bad? If we attacked spiritual problems here rather than physical ones, wouldn't it start to solve physical problems here and over there? What do we do in the meanwhile? On the other hand, thinking that way will never allow for more of the kind of healthy bilateral links Lappé and Lappé have found all around the globe. Aside from goods and physical resources, what do Canada and Mexico have to offer each other?
2004/02/04 - Today I poked around for another hour and a bit looking at the various Mexico-Canada connections written about on the Internet. Much of it is very economy-centred, and at least half of it mentioned or focused on NAFTA in some way. I remember from when we went to Manzanillo last year how our boat tour guide said that there's hardly any poverty or crime in the city, not because it feeds on tourism, but because primarily it is Mexico's second largest trading port (or perhaps the second largest on the west coast--I can't remember at the moment), so everyone has a job, be it menial or managerial. On the other hand, Mexico, from the typical Canadian perspective, is synonymous with a hot climate, very high poverty, and cheaply-made goods. What made and makes Manzanillo succeed where, for instance, other Mexican coastal cities or even Newfoundland--in some ways--have failed? Would it be feasible to apply the same "success formula" to many other cities, or does the model necesitate a rich/poorish/impoverished divide?
2004/01/29 - Tonight at a church-meal gathering for students ("Feeding Frenzi"), I met a guy named Abe, whose family moved up here from Mexico when he was little to escape the extreme poverty. I can't remember the city he came from, but it wasn't one I had heard of before. He was student-age, but was looking for a job (to get by, it seemed) rather than an education and a climb up a corporate ladder. I hope to talk to him more next week to get to know him (and his story) better.
2004/01/20 - During a lull in copyediting at The Cord, I was finally able to dig around on the Internet for more information on the Summit and Canadian-Mexican ties. I found that Canadian news sites tended not to care, whereas L.A.-based and other southern area news sources had some information, but the main focus was still on how Fox and Martin were at least perceived in their own countries as Bush puppets. One name came up that was worth looking into--Señor Gaëtan Lavertu, Canada's ambassador to Mexico. Sites in Spanish and English that mentioned him also mentioned general trade relations between the countries that sounded much like those between Canada and Jamaica.
2004/01/13 - I picked up a newspaper today, as my new schedule allows me to do three days a week without inconvenience, and there were many stories about the featured Summiit of the Americas. Other than Mexico being mentioned as the host country, the only mention I found about anything Mexican was that President Fox and his wife had a nice dinner with our Prime Minister earlier in the week, and this was buried in a tiny article at the bottom of page 6. All of the feature articles talked about Martin and Bush and how there was a lot of hoopla and no real changes. What happened with Mexico? Hopefully I'll get some time to research this this week online. I'm sure I'll find something in an unknown independent journal (or certainly at least a Mexican source) somewhere.
2004/05/12
The Wild Wild... Downtown Kitchener
You can follow along if you'd like.
Okay, I've got a half hour. Let's see how well I can recount good old February 6th.
Hmm... I didn't even write anything down that day. It was just the introduction. We also learned a new pedagogy called the Circle of Praxis, which I later found (via Google) is used in various schools about the globe. We also found out that we knew very little about Mexico, probably along the lines of Talking to Americans but in a different direction.
On to March 6th, then, the day we walked around downtown Kitchener and met with some organizations there to examine the issues of the core. Here's what we were told by Mr. Schreiter, through my lense, of course:
There are crises in downtowns all over Canada. They are the threshold of change. 60% of downtown workers are professionals, 20% work in entertainment, and 20% work in the service industry. Normally the service industry has a much larger slice of the pie, and the solution seems to be to get more people living downtown to attract more services.
As a city experiences urban sprawl, downtowns diminish. The private sector doesn't usually help prevent this, but libraries, schools (of any level), and public markets do.
The Kitcher Downtown Business Association's independent, non-profit role, like that of most similar organizations in other downtowns, is to promote safety and rejuvination of the downtown. It approves or denies liquor licences and such, juggling the night club scene with senior care facilites and homeless support. It co-ordinates with a group of forty businesses that employ the homeless. This may seem to attract problems, but the group is ready to meet the challenges head-on, using an outreach profile out of Vermont. (Did I write that down right?)
This kind of program being in place removes the dilemma of choosing between being heartless by not giving to panhandlers (or otherwise helping them out) and giving them money that they're more likely than not to spend even more irresponsibly than oneself. We're told to tell them that panhandling is illegal, but that they can find something much more fulfilling at The Working Centre just down the street.
To be continued...
Okay, I've got a half hour. Let's see how well I can recount good old February 6th.
Hmm... I didn't even write anything down that day. It was just the introduction. We also learned a new pedagogy called the Circle of Praxis, which I later found (via Google) is used in various schools about the globe. We also found out that we knew very little about Mexico, probably along the lines of Talking to Americans but in a different direction.
On to March 6th, then, the day we walked around downtown Kitchener and met with some organizations there to examine the issues of the core. Here's what we were told by Mr. Schreiter, through my lense, of course:
There are crises in downtowns all over Canada. They are the threshold of change. 60% of downtown workers are professionals, 20% work in entertainment, and 20% work in the service industry. Normally the service industry has a much larger slice of the pie, and the solution seems to be to get more people living downtown to attract more services.
Hold on--St. George, just north of Brantford, has tons of people, and very few services. They have to come into Brantford for everything. Back to you, Kev.
As a city experiences urban sprawl, downtowns diminish. The private sector doesn't usually help prevent this, but libraries, schools (of any level), and public markets do.
Here is where the idea first clicked to me that perhaps this is something like the frontier theory I learned about in OAC North American history. I'll have to look up my old notes (what the heck, I may even try <awestruck voice>the Internet</voice>), but by the end of the trip, I again recalled this idea, and it seemed to have recurred in enough places to be worth exploring in an academic paper. I see urban sprawl as the frontier, with the downtown being left behind to decay in its ruts, except where fresh academic thinking is keeping it closer to the cutting edge in a decreasingly physical sense. How the public market bit fits in is unclear at the moment.
The Kitcher Downtown Business Association's independent, non-profit role, like that of most similar organizations in other downtowns, is to promote safety and rejuvination of the downtown. It approves or denies liquor licences and such, juggling the night club scene with senior care facilites and homeless support. It co-ordinates with a group of forty businesses that employ the homeless. This may seem to attract problems, but the group is ready to meet the challenges head-on, using an outreach profile out of Vermont. (Did I write that down right?)
This kind of program being in place removes the dilemma of choosing between being heartless by not giving to panhandlers (or otherwise helping them out) and giving them money that they're more likely than not to spend even more irresponsibly than oneself. We're told to tell them that panhandling is illegal, but that they can find something much more fulfilling at The Working Centre just down the street.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)