Tibet: Talk about Barking up the Wrong Tree

A recent article in the Economist rallied against the West for trying to support Tibet's ideas of freedom, while simultaneously trying to foster positive relationships with China, the villain of democracy. The writer of the Banyan article was not far off the mark, but for markedly different reasons than he supposed.

Nestled in the Himalayas, this autonomous region is the highest habitable plateau in the world. Since the 7th century, power in the country was transferred from kings and fiefs, to local lords, creating a vassal state synonymous with Medieval Europe. Representing much of Buddhist culture, this area was often ignored by the bigger powers and for centuries lived in relative isolation from the outside world. Incidentally, China was not the first country to take interest in the area, but why aren't we more surprised when we hear it was Great Britain? Her Royal Highness Victoria Hanover had her sights set high after conquering India, and the intentions of bordering Afghanistan, China, and the Russian Empire were unclear. She preempted them by sending a military expedition into the region, which resulted in Tibetan deaths and the discovery of a country with few resources of importance to Europe. Displeased with the result, Britain backed out and made a treaty with China, basically allowing China unfettered access to the region without interference from British India.

The rest of Chinese-Tibetan history is well known and bears little in repeating. Between the 1959 Tibetan uprising and the brutal Cultural Revolution imposed on not only Tibet but all of China, the region has suffered greatly, with the Western world being the loudest protesters. We spout rhetoric about intolerance and destroying a sacred culture, but are we missing the larger picture?

The crushing of a culture in the attempts for expansion is not a novel idea in history. If manifest destiny means anything to anyone, the first to raise their hands should be America. The Americans tramped their way across their country, killing Native Americans, taking their land, indoctrinating their children, and essentially extinguishing a culture present for over a millennium. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Yet now days, while monetary compensation has been offered and amends have been made, few are loathe to think that America or the Native Americans would have been better off without the advancements of modern medicine, technology, and education that expansionism brought with it. Similarly, China's enforcement of its political will on Tibet is unfortunate, but with it brought the modern world to Tibet, a place still stuck in the middle ages until the 1900's. Comparatively, China has allowed Tibetans to remain in their native region, keep much of the daily culture, language, and way of life. The Native Americans got small pox blankets and forceful removal from their land. No one agrees that subjugation is right, but in terms of quality of life, the Native Americans got the raw deal.

Furthermore, by focusing on Tibet, the Western world forgets that there are others put through the same repression: the Chinese people. Such a narrow focus on Tibet, on the part of celebrities like Richard Gere and Goldie Hawn, as well as many governments, shapes much of foreign policy and international relations. By using Tibet as an excuse to foster bad relations, nothing changes and China continues to have an iron fist. In reality the real human rights crisis is present in every part of the country, not just Tibet, with freedoms being squelched at every turn. The international community needs to broaden their scope or they will miss the opportunity to improve the Chinese political system and create a Free Tibet.

What has happened to Tibet is now a century old, and sitting in the dredges of the past won't establish a happier future. The sole way for the West to create a fairy tale story for Tibet is to create a democratic China, not an impossibility with the increasing financial freedom seen in the economic sector. Only with a Communist-free China will a Communist-free Tibet exist as well.


"Banyan: Going Gaga over Tibet | The Economist." The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Sept. 2010. .

Mention the Word "Islam" and People Go Crying in Fear

Censorship [sen-ser-ship] n. that act of deleting a word or passage of text in one's capacity as a censor.


Censorship has existed in its present form, in terms of hiding information and obfuscating facts, for millenia. The Eastern Bloc severely constrained all matters of "news" in the newspaper. Under Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, weather reports always made the temperatures higher than they were to ensure people went to work every day of the year. The Communist Parties of the present (Re: China, Cuba) not only control the political, but determine what will be revealed to their citizens on the Internet. Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a more violent strategy for dealing with anyone who didn't say what he wanted posted. In Zimbabwe, being a journalist is illegal, and will get you immediately thrown into jail (an effective version of censorship). With the political stance many of these countries establish, it is easily understood how censorship has taken center stage.


Furthermore, its nothing new that religions are involved in the world of censorship either. The Catholic Church made it an inherent part of the early development of the religion. From banning books they find to be against their doctrine to locking up premier scientists of their day (ahem, Galileo) for having scientific thoughts that contradicted church teachings, the Roman Catholics have perfected censorship like a fine art.


But lately, a new form of censorship is creeping up, and its mere presence says something about the global community and fear. In the pre-9/ll world, comedy and political satire were made at the expense of anything worth mocking. Religion was encompassed within that criteria quite readily, and comedians such as Ricky Gervais and Bill Maher had no qualms about bashing it on equal grounds with politics and sex. TV shows have caught on quickly, with The Simpsons and South Park verbally abusing religion as well. You know the religion, it was easily made into a sketch, from Christianity and Judaism to tree spirits of the Native Americans.


The world of Post 9/11 is nigh onto almost a decade, and the perception of religion is changing. Christianity and the former players are still contenders in the world of comedy, but somehow Islam became terrifying to approach. Maybe it's because those following the religion can't appreciate the joke (most are intolerant to if its what they practice anyway), or maybe its because it takes on a more violent streak. Islamic extremism did make an example of the Dutch cartoonist who dared depict Mohammed (an act considered a sin in Islam) by killing him. When Comedy Central's South Park wanted to reveal the humor about the insanity of the Dutch controversy, they were promptly shut down. An American Muslim published a piece online on how Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, were "likely to have this happen to them" with an image of dismembered Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh, killed for creating a film entitled Submission which criticized the treatment of women in Islam.


It's sad that humor and hypocrisy, rife in almost every other aspect of life, has to be censored because of fear of not only intolerance but a slow painful death. It is quite easy to avoid that which offends you, for example, don't look up pornography if you are against the act. Similarly, if seeing your religious figure depicted as a cartoon character/superhero that shoots out flames offends your sensibilities, don't watch it. By creating a fearful presence around your religion, you are not propagating tolerance and acceptance, you are creating fear and loathing (and not just in Las Vegas kids). Just don't be surprised if the Americans come bombing at your local Muslim country's doorstep soon.


Douthat, Ross. "Not Even in South Park?" New York Times 26 Apr. 2010: A23. Print.

Rebuilding Haiti, Or Why Civil Society Must Exist

As the news streamed in, the world gaped. 230,000 dead. 300,000 injured. 1,000,000 homeless. Government buildings were in ruins. The National Palace had broken in half. Every person in the United Nations building had been crushed to death. All this in a place with no firm economy, educational system, or worst of all, medical institutions. Port-au-Prince was in ruins, and was the only place in the country that could sustain the rest of the country. Citizens sat in fear, poverty, pain, and despair.

In the days following the disaster, relief poured in from all angles. The Dominicans were the first to respond, sending water, food, and heavy-lifting equipment. Soon, their efforts were duplicated by Europeans and Americans (North and South). The amount of supplies and monetary contributions were outstanding, billions being raised in a matter of days. Yet, the essential question remained, why did it take a natural disaster that maimed the country permanently to get global attention  to what is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere?

Much of the reason for these quandaries roots back to Haiti's history. Hispaniola was the small island that Haiti and the Dominican Republic sit upon today. Founded in 1697, the French took the western side of the island and renamed it Saint-Domingue, and made it the most successful island nation in Western Hemisphere. Slave labor was heavily employed, and the island was run "brutally efficient", with 1/3 of new African slaves dying within arriving to the island. Their primary export was sugar and has remained thus until today.

In 1793, with abolition talk running rampant through the Americas and Britain, one slave named Toussaint L'Ouverture decided to take matters into his own hands. Starting the first successful slave rebellion that ended in freedom for the colony now named Haiti, L'Ouverture brought real hopes of freedom to the Haitian people. But their history remained rife with problems. The French put the entire debt of the rebellion on the Haitians. No other countries would acknowledge them as a true country, including the US, until 1915. The people were horribly undereducated, most not knowing how to read or do more than tend the sugar fields.

Life did not improve much after 1915 either. The US occupied Haiti for the next nineteen years, until 1934. Politics remained a power play, with the Duvalier family (Papa and Baby Doc) governing the country in a reign of terror for almost thirty years. In 1990, Haiti held it's first democratic election which culminated in the election of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. His politics leaned towards socialism and the United States did not approve, and funded and succeeded in ousting him from power within two years in office. When Clinton came to office, he was able to get Aristide back in office, but Bush supported getting him out again.

Economic policy was worse. It's GDP per capita is about 790 USD, equaling about $2/day per person. US Free Market Trade Policies undercut Haitian farmers trying to make money selling rice and selling them at either deep discounts in the US or selling heavily subsidized US rice in Haitian markets. Haiti's debt has soared to 1.3 billion dollars and it has recently qualified for external debt cancellation by the World Bank.

Interestingly enough, Haiti also has the most aid organizations coming into its country each year of any country in the Western Hemisphere. One would imagine with all this external help, the country would have been able to come out of its endemic poverty and present with modest gains in its economy, yet improvements are minimal at best. My personal belief is that by external organizations coming into the country, Haitian civil society has little to say about what direction the country goes in. Instead of instilling outside ideas and trying to make them work, organizations should focus on empowering the Haitian people with the skills to fix their country. Once the citizens are vested with a personal obligation to their country, innovation and prosperity are soon to follow. Therefore, as the world tries to figure out a solution to the Haiti problem, the real people who should be trying to find solutions are the Haitian people themselves.

Easier said than done though. Resources are limited, food is scarce, rains are torrential, children are malnourished, healthcare is nonexistent, and homes are gone. So its best to plan in a long-term sense: debt cancellation, aid workers, and focus on health & education as a means of moving forward. So much has gone wrong in Haiti's history that it might be time for things to go in the right direction. But I guess the old adage will hold: time will only tell.


Mukherjee, Dr. Joia. "Promises, Promises - What It Will Take to Rebuild Haiti." Editorial. The Huffington Post. 7 Apr. 2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joia-mukherjee/promises-promises----what_b_526971.html

Unbalancing Society: Where are all the baby girls?

This past week The Economist ran a story about gendercide and the declining rate of female births worldwide, more specifically in China and India. I found this story intriguing because its ideologies I have seen within my own family.

My maternal grandparents so badly wanted a boy that they were willing to have four children at the expense of their savings account and my grandmother's health to attain that dream. The saddest thing had to be the day that my youngest aunt was born; my mother said that when she came home from school everyone acted like it was a funeral and no one actually celebrated her sister's birth.

Now these ideas may be cast aside as old fashioned, or perhaps even as a different generation, but as the article points out, that is just not the case. Education and increased money have actually perpetuated this gender preference, instead of negating it. What drives that? My theory rests with cultural stereotypes runnign deep, especially in Asian countries (and yes, India does count as Asia.). As much as education and affluence can do pull the people out of penury and despair, it can also give rise to attaining aspirations that were previously unachievable (such as having that male son/heir). Ultrasounds are only $12; abortions happen dime a dozen. One never has to see their daughter if they don't want to.

Cultural ideologies and community relationships are intertwined in these societies, so to combat them you have to attack the main problem, the reasoning behind it. My aunt thinks its because there is an obscure religious text where it says that fathers of male children will attain Nirvana. Others keep a more paternalistic outlook, seeing the male child as the heir and perpetuation of the family name. Male children don't have dowries and can keep property in their name. But why, in this time when females have increased educational and ownership opportunities, would these things matter anymore?

While The Economist did not posit any suggestions for this, I believe that these concerns may fall further along class lines. Two generations back, the majority of Indians (85%) lived in villages, with less education and growth opportunities than their city counterparts. But as India has progressed from colonial times to the modern age, so have its citizens, heading in droves to cities, occupying slums and various other ramshackle apartments. Their pursuits are of little concern, but their numbers are outstanding, with only 70% of Indians choosing to live in villages in 1991. Those numbers are growing, and with increased opportunities, there is a growing middle class as well. This middle class is only one (less for some) generation removed from the village outlook and mentality.

It is truly unfortunate that children are manipulated this way, but studies show that female Indian children are still better off than their Chinese equivalents, who are often unceremoniously killed upon arrival. The one child policy has left China worse off for the future, featuring staggering statistics of 123 males to 100 female births. Social unrest is imminent, with increasing males and less options for creating families (who will be their brides?), dissatisfied males will look to something to keep them occupied. Maybe China knows this and is excellent at keeping down rebellions (read: Tinamen Square) or they have not considered a future with frustrated young males itching to break out. The possibilities are endless, but all eyes are on China in twenty years.

As for India, the next generation may hold the key to gender stability. Yet, as more people move from villages to the city, there may be periodic pendulum swings in gender ratios as well. Sometimes you can take the person out of the village, but you just can't take the village out of the person.


"Gendercide: The Worldwide War on Baby Girls." The Economist 4 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. <http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15636231&source=hptextfeature>

The Meaning of Work

As part of a Simple Living workshop I am a part of, we have been delving into various aspects of life that do or do not allow us to attain a more simple, happy way of existence. It is a 5 week workshop, meeting every Wednesday at a neighborhood church with people of various backgrounds, old and young, religious and atheist, married and single, working and retired. Our topic last week focused on the meaning of work and from what was said is what I wish to ponder.

My entire life my parents have wanted me to become a physician, so I promptly rebelled against them, opting to try to get into the legal profession. It wasn't until I went to India one summer during college did I feel truly compelled to join the medical profession. My aunt introduced me to a doctor in Bangalore, and I followed other doctors at the hospital he worked at, but one day he decided to take me to a rural town outside Bangalore. There was one government hospital that serviced the ONE MILLION people around it, and when I met the hospital's director, he was so proud of his hospital, working with limited resources and professionals, that was thriving. Thriving was a relative term; patients were sleeping in the hallways, roaches were running down the corridors, and the anesthesiologist showed up maybe 3 days a week, often inebriated, but it was better than nothing at all. The most moving was going into the Obstetrics "ward". The smell was noxious, and bloody sheets lay in the corner. Human suffering was all around me and I felt helpless, and right then the true passion of doing medicine hit me full force. Just because I was helpless did not mean I always needed to be.

I have never expected everyone around me to have the same compelling stories or the same motives for going into medical school, but for a very long time it has irked me that people went into the medical profession for monetary reasons alone. I feel that it in some way it denigrated what I wanted to do with my life. What I realized at last week's meeting was that it was all right if people go into a profession for less than the "right" reasons, because they will still manage to make a difference in people's lives. Maybe the difference just lies in our perceptions of what we do? I will always be overjoyed by being to help people, and for others it might always remain "just a job", and I suppose that's their loss.

As part of our readings, Bronson stresses that wanting to live your dream is important, but if a person isn't sure what that is, it's alright to pursue multiple things. A Hollywood exec hates her life, so attempts to go to medical school, but hates that too. Her life is not over, even though that's what many people would think. The idea that once you go to school for something you must stick with it forever is archaic. America offers us the mobility and opportunities (and federal funding) to pursue that degree in Sociology we might have always wanted. I guess more people need to be told they can do what they like, that having a job can be something to get excited about, because life can be more fulfilling than a paycheck.

The importance of money is discussed as well. Does money make people happy? Well, to a degree, yes. Poverty is never something to be excited about, but after a certain amount, it stops being about feeding one's self and making sure you have a roof over your head, and about what next big fancy thing you can buy, and things in a general sense have not been proven to make people overly happy, except in the short-term. Cultivating relationships, searching to find those things that bring peace to our lives, seeing the world and being blissfully aware, those are things money cannot buy, but often those are things not talked about either.

More people need to be told it's okay to pursue something further, something great enough to live for, to be proud of, to really want to do. As long as you are able to make ends meet and not living in a homeless shelter, the highest salary should not always be of first concern, but contentment and happiness instead. So congratulations to all of those who have found, and for all those still looking? Good luck, I'm on your side.

Bronson, Po. "What Should I Do With My Life?" Fast Company 2003. Print.

A Thousand Miles Begins With A Single Step

Being in a graduate program has actually managed to make a mind thirsty for real education. The undergraduate education allows a varied approach to learning, exposing the student to so many different things that becoming an intellectual is easy and sustainable. Once the graduate world arrives, energies become focused on specific topics, creating an esoteric world that no one, sans the others in your class, could begin to understand.

This blog's creation is merely a way to express a desire to go farther than what is presented to me on paper, but to understand literature, political movements, foreign concepts and ideas, the news, even movies and pop culture. My hopes are to cultivate a real understanding of myself and the human experience in the process. Wish me luck?