My good friend Eric made an interesting statement recently after breaking up with his then girlfriend. This was around the same time I was getting engaged. Said he: "I'm convinced dating does not lead to marriage."
This comment flew in the face of a lot of advice I've received from a lot of people I respect, people whose advice I value for a multiplicity of reasons. Over the last few weeks, however, as I have thought about my own experience in the world of dating and relationships and as I have heard more than ever about the romantic lives of my single and married friends, I have come to agree more and more with Eric: the act of dating, especially dating in the micro-culture in which I live, does not lead to marriage.
As a student at a private religious university and an active member of my faith, I am subjected--often on a weekly basis--to comments about dating, courtship, and marriage from professors and religious leaders alike. They seem to have one common goal: marry off as many single students as possible before they leave school. Historically, my school's extracurricular and on-campus activities have been calculated to the same end. Dating (going out on dates) is not only encouraged, it's expected.
As a single male student here, I was expected to invite girls out to eat, to see a movie, to go rock climbing, to go mini-golfing, (this list is endless), .... Furthermore, it was socially expected that I would be ready to report on my weekend's activities at Church on Sunday to any one of my ecclesiastical leaders who might inquire.
And so, for three years after my two-year Church service, I asked girls out seemingly every weekend. I'm the kind of guy who does what's expected of him most of the time, unless I have some reason to believe that by so doing I would violate my personal standards. Since the social expectation seemed to be coming from my religious leaders and mentors, I subconsciously filed away dating under practices "ordained of God."
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World," issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued in 1995, clearly states that "marriage...is ordained of God" (see opening paragraph of the proclamation). On a local level (and seemingly more particularly at my university), local Church leaders have sought to interpret this statement to mean that, by extension, dating is ordained of God.
Dating, in and of itself, does not lead to marriage any more than eating Cheerios for breakfast every day for a year leads to marriage. In fact, "dating" in the way the word is thrown around so nonchalantly in our culture is not acceptable in other cultures. And yet, marriage is a part of virtually every society and culture around the world. So how is it others get married if they don't date the way we do?
Before I continue, I would like to concede that I do feel dating can have a place in developing social skills potentially important in a marriage relationship. Moreover, when we date, we learn much about ourselves.
This should not, however, be construed to mean that these social skills and personal revelations cannot be obtained through any other means. Dating might even be the most effective way to develop these skills in our culture, but I know a lot of antisocial boys and girls that wind up married, even before their gregarious, adventurous counterparts.
The way we use the word "dating" often refers to a series of excursions, often on weekend evenings, almost exclusively with one person at a time. (That is, after all, what makes it a date, right?) These serial encounters force us to step out of our comfort zone, which might include not spending time with members of the opposite sex, especially not one on one time. To these ends, dating can build important social skills required in courtship and eventually marriage.
But it seems like the more couples I meet and the more stories I hear, even and especially from my married and engaged friends at my highly fruitful, marriage-producing university, the less I believe that just going on dates will get people married.
Perhaps the reason for encouraging us to date so much is that in our culture, this seems to be an effective way to help us cultivate these social skills. As for the dating itself leading to marriage, however, I'm not convinced.
While I cannot speak for everyone, in my own personal experience, it wasn't until I gave up on dating the way I felt I was being instructed to that I met and married my wife. During our entire courtship, we only went on a couple "dates." What we did spend time doing, however, was being with each other. We spent hours together just sitting and talking on a blanket on the grass outside our apartment complex. It was completely unplanned and natural. It just happened.
In fact, our first (and only, we joke) real date was one day last summer in the late afternoon when Kaela paid me a somewhat unanticipated visit to give me a CD she had made for me. I popped the CD into my computer and we listened to some great music together, then I informed her I was in the mood for Italian food and wondered whether she might be interested in accompanying me to a favorite restaurant in town. We went and had a great time, but again, it was not planned at all.
It was over the course of a couple weeks, but especially that first evening at the restaurant, that I realized how easy it was to talk to Kaela and how comfortable I was around her. I suppose the rest is history, but there's an important lesson to be learned here, and I suppose it's the reason for all this thought: we will not get married, at least certainly not happily married, until we put aside all the angst of the dating game that so many well-intentioned leaders heap upon us and learn to just be ourselves. It sounds simple, but it's the truth. If you are capable of truly being yourself on a first date you're excited about, all the power to you, but I highly doubt that is the case for most of us. Things just have to happen naturally, and until they do, no one will get what he/she really wants out of a marriage relationship.
And so, dating, as we call it, does not lead to marriage. In fact, I submit it's only when we disarm ourselves and the people we might be interested in "dating" and get down to getting to know each other--really know each other, not just some puppy love kind of know each other--that anything will turn out the way we want it to.
As a matter of fact, if you had approached me a year ago and introduced Kaela to me as a girl I might be interested in dating, I would have politely introduced myself to her, made some small talk, and politely excused myself. In so many ways she wasn't what I was looking for, but getting to know her in the way I did made it clear she was everything I never knew I needed and always wanted and more. She completes me, she understands me, she is patient with me; in other words, she just gets me. Being married to her is better than anything I could have imagined or hoped for out of marriage and yet, I think I could count the "dates" we've been on, both during and after courtship, on one hand.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
My own worst enemy
Does anyone else find it curious how some people are always happy, despite what would seem to be a relatively high level of adversity, while others, living supposedly cushy lives, are completely dissatisfied with life?
I think it might have something to do with a recent observation I've made, at least in the case of myself. I am becoming increasingly convinced that while humans come in all different packages, one common thread among us is the need for adversity and struggle in our lives. If we don't have any, we'll make some, even if it means making some up.
I don't mean to downplay the importance of people who are living truly difficult lives. Certain circumstances are completely out of our control. I'm not sure children starving to death in Africa or Asia (or in any part of the world) would choose to be where they are without the prospect of improving their situation. Now, starving children are an extreme example, but others much closer to home deal with the loss of loved ones, serious illness, or otherwise difficult circumstances beyond their control that most would agree make for a difficult life.
That said, let's take the example of some of the people we might consider living the dream life. Born into wealth and fame, they are the movie stars of the world. Everything seems to be going their way, and where do they end up? Drug addiction, the least-stable romantic relationships in recorded history, and high rates of suicide?
With these extremes in mind, let's consider my own life's experience. I'm a senior at a good university in the United States studying what I want to, and I've even changed my mind a few times. I'm living in a wonderful apartment with awesome roommates and neighbors, and I'm just up the street from my friends' place. I have a car, a computer, and I didn't have to work last term because I didn't want to. Last night, I sat out on the lawn with friends eating dessert and talking until midnight because none of us had anything better to do. All that was after going out to dinner and watching a movie and a friend of a friend's apartment.
And somehow, I feel I'm just getting over what has proven to be one of the more difficult moments of life to date. But when I consider what I've gone through, it's hard to complain about my circumstances. I just completed a 3 month dream job in Europe with excellent compensation, I'm on scholarship at my university, and the possibilities for my future are endless. It's just up to me to decide what I want to do.
Now, I suppose there's a lot I'm not saying about my personal life that factors into the mix, but that's just my point. I feel responsible for my personal life. While there are factors of it I can't change, the way I react to my circumstances is entirely up to me. (I suppose that's true for starving children in Africa too, but I wouldn't dare equate the two.) But rather than focusing on the good things in my life, I focus on the negatives. I expend so much energy trying to make everything just right, rather than sitting back and admiring and enjoying all the good things in life.
I've always tried to convince myself that my perspective was skewed, but I observe people all around me doing exactly the same thing I am; that is, taking the good for granted and focusing on the negative. What if we were to devote our time and energy to the good and just let the bad take care of itself? That sounds idealistic, but the good has no problem taking care of itself while I wallow in the negative. I'm not suggesting civic, personal, or family irresponsibility, but I think we could all do with a little less adversity (or at least what we perceive as adversity) in our lives. Why do we create it for ourselves? Or if we're not creating it, why do seemingly minor negative aspects of life dominate our time and energy?
I think it has to do with what is at our core as human beings. Deep inside each of us is a longing to be something better. Whether that translates to being a saint or just improving our situation, we're all always striving for something better.
What are your thoughts?
I think it might have something to do with a recent observation I've made, at least in the case of myself. I am becoming increasingly convinced that while humans come in all different packages, one common thread among us is the need for adversity and struggle in our lives. If we don't have any, we'll make some, even if it means making some up.
I don't mean to downplay the importance of people who are living truly difficult lives. Certain circumstances are completely out of our control. I'm not sure children starving to death in Africa or Asia (or in any part of the world) would choose to be where they are without the prospect of improving their situation. Now, starving children are an extreme example, but others much closer to home deal with the loss of loved ones, serious illness, or otherwise difficult circumstances beyond their control that most would agree make for a difficult life.
That said, let's take the example of some of the people we might consider living the dream life. Born into wealth and fame, they are the movie stars of the world. Everything seems to be going their way, and where do they end up? Drug addiction, the least-stable romantic relationships in recorded history, and high rates of suicide?
With these extremes in mind, let's consider my own life's experience. I'm a senior at a good university in the United States studying what I want to, and I've even changed my mind a few times. I'm living in a wonderful apartment with awesome roommates and neighbors, and I'm just up the street from my friends' place. I have a car, a computer, and I didn't have to work last term because I didn't want to. Last night, I sat out on the lawn with friends eating dessert and talking until midnight because none of us had anything better to do. All that was after going out to dinner and watching a movie and a friend of a friend's apartment.
And somehow, I feel I'm just getting over what has proven to be one of the more difficult moments of life to date. But when I consider what I've gone through, it's hard to complain about my circumstances. I just completed a 3 month dream job in Europe with excellent compensation, I'm on scholarship at my university, and the possibilities for my future are endless. It's just up to me to decide what I want to do.
Now, I suppose there's a lot I'm not saying about my personal life that factors into the mix, but that's just my point. I feel responsible for my personal life. While there are factors of it I can't change, the way I react to my circumstances is entirely up to me. (I suppose that's true for starving children in Africa too, but I wouldn't dare equate the two.) But rather than focusing on the good things in my life, I focus on the negatives. I expend so much energy trying to make everything just right, rather than sitting back and admiring and enjoying all the good things in life.
I've always tried to convince myself that my perspective was skewed, but I observe people all around me doing exactly the same thing I am; that is, taking the good for granted and focusing on the negative. What if we were to devote our time and energy to the good and just let the bad take care of itself? That sounds idealistic, but the good has no problem taking care of itself while I wallow in the negative. I'm not suggesting civic, personal, or family irresponsibility, but I think we could all do with a little less adversity (or at least what we perceive as adversity) in our lives. Why do we create it for ourselves? Or if we're not creating it, why do seemingly minor negative aspects of life dominate our time and energy?
I think it has to do with what is at our core as human beings. Deep inside each of us is a longing to be something better. Whether that translates to being a saint or just improving our situation, we're all always striving for something better.
What are your thoughts?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination
To my readers:
Alright. I'm back in the States. My latest European adventure was inspirational, but, just like the rest, has come to an end.
Upon my return to the States, I came across a note a friend posted. The following is a paper a couple of classmates (names withheld for privacy--contact me and I'll ask them for permission to share their names if you're interested) and I prepared on affirmative action and reverse discrimination. I post it in response to my friend's comments to the contrary. Please let me know what you think, whether you agree or disagree.
For further reading, I particularly recommend Stanley Fish's article.
Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination
For the first time ever, the US Justice Department is suing blacks for discriminating against whites at the polls. According to an ABC News report, the US Justice Department is using the 1965 Voting Rights Act—a law originally passed to ensure fairness to blacks in voters’ rights—to sue Ike Brown, a prominent African American politician accused of “disenfranchis[ing] whites—challenging their voting status, rejecting their absentee ballots and telling voters to choose candidates according to race” (Tapper & Miller, 2005, para. 5).
While voting rights and affirmative action are not directly related, they deal with the same issue: racism. “Reverse discrimination,” as illustrated by the example above, is one of the byproducts of racial tension in America. Many Americans find this troubling: how is it that while struggling for racial equality we have now looked beyond the mark? The same discomfort arises when considering affirmative action policies currently in place in many job markets and school admissions boards across America.
Stanley Fish (1993), an accomplished literary critic and professor at Florida International University, writes of an experience where he was the victim of reverse discrimination: “I was recently nominated for an administrative post at a large university. Early signs were encouraging, but after an interval I received official notice that I would not be included at the next level of consideration, and subsequently I was told unofficially that at some point a decision had been made to look only in the direction of women and minorities.” He continues, “Although I was disappointed, I did not conclude that the situation was ‘unfair,’ because the policy was obviously not directed at me” (p. 4). Early in the article, Fish argues that
Racism has long been a part of American culture, and black citizens have been dealing with its repercussions from the foundation of our nation, through the Civil War, on through the Civil Rights movement, and even up until today. For a real life example, let us consider a television news special by Diane Sawyer in 1991, where two similar 28-year-old men, Glenn Brewer, who is black, and John Kuhnen, who is white, were followed around St. Louis, Missouri for a day. The men were assigned to shop in the same stores, try to rent the same apartment and apply for the same job, and hidden cameras taped them throughout the process:
Although institutional racism, or segregation, officially ended in the U.S. in 1968, racism still exists in our society, and blacks are still struggling to get ahead. The National Urban League (2005) released a report stating, “Black unemployment remained stagnant at 10.8 percent while white unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent, making black unemployment more than twice that of whites” (para. 4). It also found that "blacks are three times more likely to become prisoners once arrested and a Black person's average jail sentence is six months longer than a white's for the same crime; 39 months versus 33 months" (para. 7). Sharon Smith (2004), a writer for an online socialist magazine, found that in 2004 African Americans made up 13 percent of drug users, "Yet [accounted] for 35 percent of drug arrests and 53 percent of drug convictions. Blacks [were] also 43 percent of those on death row” (para. 7). The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (n.d.) says that an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, far more than will attend college.
Recent studies show that blacks are also at a disadvantage when it comes to education. In 1995 “only 1,455 African Americans received PhDs in the United States. During the same year, 24,608 whites were awarded PhDs” (Ogletree Jr., 1996, para. 4). In 2005, “Thirty percent of white adults had at least a bachelor's degree…while 17 percent of black adults…had degrees” (Ohlemacher, 2006, p A03). In that same year, blacks received the lowest scores on AP examinations compared to all other racial groups.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke clearly to a white world about racism, understood that the country could not just grant blacks their freedom, and then go on with life as if nothing had happened. And most would not consider him to be racist. He once said, “It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps….We must come to see that the roots of racism are very deep in our country, and there must be something positive and massive in order to get rid of all the effects of racism and the tragedies of racial injustice (King, 1968, para. 25-26).”
Affirmative action is an attempt to provide the boots. President Clinton (1995) defined affirmative action as “an effort to develop systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination” (para. 8).
According to this definition, affirmative action is intended to provide opportunities. The Department of Labor (2000) further explains that “placement goals may not be rigid and inflexible quotas” and that “quotas are expressly forbidden.” In other words, if a black man receives a job to fill a rigid placement goal or a quota, the employer is violating the law (para. 6).
Certain critics of affirmative action propose society help those who are in a poor economic state as opposed to granting opportunities based on race or ethnicity. Statistics show, however, that race and ethnicity are strong indicators of poor economic status. In 1992, 46.3% of black children lived below the poverty line compared to only 12.3% of white children. Moreover, blacks make up 10.2% of the workforce but are underrepresented in skilled professions. They make up 3.7% of engineers, 2.7% of dentists, 3.1% of architects, and hold 4.8% of university faculty jobs. Of almost 28,000 degrees awarded in 1992, only 4% were awarded to blacks. (Jenkins, 2001, para. 15)
Furthermore, what is produced by racism and is the consequence of racism cannot be blamed on the group that has been prejudiced. Racism cannot beget racism in that sense. The second term racism must have a different name because it is a different thing. Stanley Fish (1993) likened that idea to assigning the same moral guilt to the Jews that wanted to establish their own nation based on Jewish history and culture after centuries of persecution as to the Nazi’s who killed six million of them during the Holocaust. Fish points out that “only if racism is thought of as something that occurs principally in the mind…can the desire of a victimized and terrorized people to band together be declared morally identical to the actions of their would-be executioners” (p. 1). In the same way that Jews were not racist for seeking their own state as reparations for centuries of injustice, the black man is not racist for taking advantage of affirmative action programs that have been ruled legal and intended temporary, and neither are any who approve of such programs.
The situation immigrants are now facing is similar to what African American’s experienced for a long time. Substandard education, an inferior skill set, and unequal employment opportunities based on citizenship status (illegal, second class) show us what would happen if we stopped affirmative action now without giving it the opportunity to succeed. A recent study showed that immigrant families are worse off than native families and that poverty is getting worse for immigrant families, regardless of race or ethnic lines. Improvements have been made, but we have not gone far enough. The study further showed that the difference is due to native families’ employment and parental education (Van Hook, Brown, Kwenda, 2004, pp. 649-670).
In a 1965 address at Howard University, President Lyndon Johnson described the situation through an analogy where two men—one white and one black—are running a race. Before the whistle blows, the white man kicks the black man, who falls over, hurt and bleeding. The whistle blows, and the white man takes off. The referee calls the race, brings the white man back to the starting line, puts a bandage on the black man’s leg, and then blows the whistle again. Does the black man really have a chance (Kennedy & Jeffrey, 1997, para. 30)?
Every day we deal with race. We can choose how we deal, but we must deal nonetheless. African Americans do not have the opportunities that whites do every time they go into a bank, a car dealership, or even a store in the mall. Affirmative action is meant to give them an equal opportunity to show they can do as well as whites. Any kind of discrimination is wrong, but affirmative action is not discrimination. It is not aimed at whites, nor at men, nor at any other group to try to disadvantage them. It is aimed at granting African Americans the opportunity to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Should affirmative action end? Yes. Should it end now, before it has had the chance to help equalize African Americans in the eyes of the rest of the nation? Not when white men are 33% of the population are 48% of the college educated work force. Not while they are 80% of tenured professors and 99% of the Senate. And certainly not while they are 99.9% of professional athletic team owners and 100% of U.S. Presidents (Jackson, 1998, para. 19). We must allow affirmative action the most time possible to try in some way to make up for creating a nation where to be black more often than not means time served with the Department of Corrections, a disadvantaged life in the pursuit of happiness, and relegation to poverty.
Works Cited
“Criminal Offenders Statistics.” US Department of Justice. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm)
Fish, Stanley. “Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black.” theatlantic.com. Nov. 1993. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199311/reverse-racism)
Goodman, Walter. “Review/Television; Looking Racism in the Face in St. Louis.” 26 Sept. 1991. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DD163DF935A1575AC0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)
Jackson, Jesse L. “Affirmative Action Is Beneficial.” Current Controversies: Minorities. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://find.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010055221&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=byu_main&version=1.0)
Jenkins, Wilbert “Affirmative Action Has Furthered Civil Rights.” Opposing Viewpoints: Interracial America. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University- Utah. 30 Oct. 2007. (http://find.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodID=OVRC&docId=EJ3010148221&source=galegale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=byu_main&version=1.0)
Kennedy, Brian T., and Douglas A. Jeffrey. “A Citizen's Guide to the Affirmative Action Debate.” The Claremont Institute. 1 Jan. 1997. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.491/pub_detail.asp)
King, Jr., Martin L. “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution.” National Cathedral, Washington DC. 31 Mar. 1968. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680331.000_Remaining_Awake.html).
National Urban League. 2005. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.nul.org/PressReleases/2005/2005PR185.html). Ogletree, Jr., Charles J.
Ohlemacher, Stephen (2006, Nov 14). Persistent race disparities found: Minorities still lag in income, education, census data show. The Washington Post, p. A03.
“Placement Goals.” Department of Labor Online. 13 Nov. 2000. United States Department of Labor. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_41/Part_60-2/41CFR60-2.16.htm)
Smith, Sharon (2004). The terrible toll of racism in the U.S. socialistworker.org, Retrieved Nov 15 2007, from http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/491/491_07_RacismUSA.shtml
Tapper, Jake, and Avery Miller. “ABC News: Reverse Racism?” ABC News.Com. 28 Dec. 2005. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1449254)
“The Case for Affirmative Action.” Stanford Magazine. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/sepoct/articles/for.html)
Van Hook, Jennifer, Susan L. Brown, Maxwell Ndigume Kwenda. Demography, Vol. 41, No. 4. (Nov., 2004), pp. 649-670.
Alright. I'm back in the States. My latest European adventure was inspirational, but, just like the rest, has come to an end.
Upon my return to the States, I came across a note a friend posted. The following is a paper a couple of classmates (names withheld for privacy--contact me and I'll ask them for permission to share their names if you're interested) and I prepared on affirmative action and reverse discrimination. I post it in response to my friend's comments to the contrary. Please let me know what you think, whether you agree or disagree.
For further reading, I particularly recommend Stanley Fish's article.
Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination
For the first time ever, the US Justice Department is suing blacks for discriminating against whites at the polls. According to an ABC News report, the US Justice Department is using the 1965 Voting Rights Act—a law originally passed to ensure fairness to blacks in voters’ rights—to sue Ike Brown, a prominent African American politician accused of “disenfranchis[ing] whites—challenging their voting status, rejecting their absentee ballots and telling voters to choose candidates according to race” (Tapper & Miller, 2005, para. 5).
While voting rights and affirmative action are not directly related, they deal with the same issue: racism. “Reverse discrimination,” as illustrated by the example above, is one of the byproducts of racial tension in America. Many Americans find this troubling: how is it that while struggling for racial equality we have now looked beyond the mark? The same discomfort arises when considering affirmative action policies currently in place in many job markets and school admissions boards across America.
Stanley Fish (1993), an accomplished literary critic and professor at Florida International University, writes of an experience where he was the victim of reverse discrimination: “I was recently nominated for an administrative post at a large university. Early signs were encouraging, but after an interval I received official notice that I would not be included at the next level of consideration, and subsequently I was told unofficially that at some point a decision had been made to look only in the direction of women and minorities.” He continues, “Although I was disappointed, I did not conclude that the situation was ‘unfair,’ because the policy was obviously not directed at me” (p. 4). Early in the article, Fish argues that
blacks have not simply been treated unfairly; they have been subjected first to decades of slavery, and then to decades of second-class citizenship, widespread legalized discrimination, economic persecution, educational deprivation, and cultural stigmatization…. When the deck is stacked against you in more ways than you can even count, it is small consolation to hear that you are now free to enter the game and take your chances (p. 1).For Fish, there is more than one way to respond to reverse discrimination.
Racism has long been a part of American culture, and black citizens have been dealing with its repercussions from the foundation of our nation, through the Civil War, on through the Civil Rights movement, and even up until today. For a real life example, let us consider a television news special by Diane Sawyer in 1991, where two similar 28-year-old men, Glenn Brewer, who is black, and John Kuhnen, who is white, were followed around St. Louis, Missouri for a day. The men were assigned to shop in the same stores, try to rent the same apartment and apply for the same job, and hidden cameras taped them throughout the process:
At several stores, Mr. Kuhnen gets instant service; Mr. Brewer is ignored except at a record store, where a salesman keeps a close eye on him without offering any assistance. When they go for a walk, separately on the same street, a police car passes Mr. Kuhnen but slows down to give Mr. Brewer a once-over. At a car dealership, Mr. Kuhnen is offered a lower price and better financing terms than Mr. Brewer. Inquiring about a job at a dry cleaner that has advertised for help, Mr. Kuhnen is told jobs are still available; Mr. Brewer is told, "The positions are taken." Following up a for-rent sign, Mr. Kuhnen is promptly offered an apartment, which he does not take; 10 minutes later, Mr. Brewer is told it has been rented for hours. (Goodman, 1991, para. 1-5)Racism is alive and well in America, but not necessarily in the ways we might think.
Although institutional racism, or segregation, officially ended in the U.S. in 1968, racism still exists in our society, and blacks are still struggling to get ahead. The National Urban League (2005) released a report stating, “Black unemployment remained stagnant at 10.8 percent while white unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent, making black unemployment more than twice that of whites” (para. 4). It also found that "blacks are three times more likely to become prisoners once arrested and a Black person's average jail sentence is six months longer than a white's for the same crime; 39 months versus 33 months" (para. 7). Sharon Smith (2004), a writer for an online socialist magazine, found that in 2004 African Americans made up 13 percent of drug users, "Yet [accounted] for 35 percent of drug arrests and 53 percent of drug convictions. Blacks [were] also 43 percent of those on death row” (para. 7). The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (n.d.) says that an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, far more than will attend college.
Recent studies show that blacks are also at a disadvantage when it comes to education. In 1995 “only 1,455 African Americans received PhDs in the United States. During the same year, 24,608 whites were awarded PhDs” (Ogletree Jr., 1996, para. 4). In 2005, “Thirty percent of white adults had at least a bachelor's degree…while 17 percent of black adults…had degrees” (Ohlemacher, 2006, p A03). In that same year, blacks received the lowest scores on AP examinations compared to all other racial groups.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke clearly to a white world about racism, understood that the country could not just grant blacks their freedom, and then go on with life as if nothing had happened. And most would not consider him to be racist. He once said, “It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps….We must come to see that the roots of racism are very deep in our country, and there must be something positive and massive in order to get rid of all the effects of racism and the tragedies of racial injustice (King, 1968, para. 25-26).”
Affirmative action is an attempt to provide the boots. President Clinton (1995) defined affirmative action as “an effort to develop systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination” (para. 8).
According to this definition, affirmative action is intended to provide opportunities. The Department of Labor (2000) further explains that “placement goals may not be rigid and inflexible quotas” and that “quotas are expressly forbidden.” In other words, if a black man receives a job to fill a rigid placement goal or a quota, the employer is violating the law (para. 6).
Certain critics of affirmative action propose society help those who are in a poor economic state as opposed to granting opportunities based on race or ethnicity. Statistics show, however, that race and ethnicity are strong indicators of poor economic status. In 1992, 46.3% of black children lived below the poverty line compared to only 12.3% of white children. Moreover, blacks make up 10.2% of the workforce but are underrepresented in skilled professions. They make up 3.7% of engineers, 2.7% of dentists, 3.1% of architects, and hold 4.8% of university faculty jobs. Of almost 28,000 degrees awarded in 1992, only 4% were awarded to blacks. (Jenkins, 2001, para. 15)
Furthermore, what is produced by racism and is the consequence of racism cannot be blamed on the group that has been prejudiced. Racism cannot beget racism in that sense. The second term racism must have a different name because it is a different thing. Stanley Fish (1993) likened that idea to assigning the same moral guilt to the Jews that wanted to establish their own nation based on Jewish history and culture after centuries of persecution as to the Nazi’s who killed six million of them during the Holocaust. Fish points out that “only if racism is thought of as something that occurs principally in the mind…can the desire of a victimized and terrorized people to band together be declared morally identical to the actions of their would-be executioners” (p. 1). In the same way that Jews were not racist for seeking their own state as reparations for centuries of injustice, the black man is not racist for taking advantage of affirmative action programs that have been ruled legal and intended temporary, and neither are any who approve of such programs.
The situation immigrants are now facing is similar to what African American’s experienced for a long time. Substandard education, an inferior skill set, and unequal employment opportunities based on citizenship status (illegal, second class) show us what would happen if we stopped affirmative action now without giving it the opportunity to succeed. A recent study showed that immigrant families are worse off than native families and that poverty is getting worse for immigrant families, regardless of race or ethnic lines. Improvements have been made, but we have not gone far enough. The study further showed that the difference is due to native families’ employment and parental education (Van Hook, Brown, Kwenda, 2004, pp. 649-670).
In a 1965 address at Howard University, President Lyndon Johnson described the situation through an analogy where two men—one white and one black—are running a race. Before the whistle blows, the white man kicks the black man, who falls over, hurt and bleeding. The whistle blows, and the white man takes off. The referee calls the race, brings the white man back to the starting line, puts a bandage on the black man’s leg, and then blows the whistle again. Does the black man really have a chance (Kennedy & Jeffrey, 1997, para. 30)?
Every day we deal with race. We can choose how we deal, but we must deal nonetheless. African Americans do not have the opportunities that whites do every time they go into a bank, a car dealership, or even a store in the mall. Affirmative action is meant to give them an equal opportunity to show they can do as well as whites. Any kind of discrimination is wrong, but affirmative action is not discrimination. It is not aimed at whites, nor at men, nor at any other group to try to disadvantage them. It is aimed at granting African Americans the opportunity to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Should affirmative action end? Yes. Should it end now, before it has had the chance to help equalize African Americans in the eyes of the rest of the nation? Not when white men are 33% of the population are 48% of the college educated work force. Not while they are 80% of tenured professors and 99% of the Senate. And certainly not while they are 99.9% of professional athletic team owners and 100% of U.S. Presidents (Jackson, 1998, para. 19). We must allow affirmative action the most time possible to try in some way to make up for creating a nation where to be black more often than not means time served with the Department of Corrections, a disadvantaged life in the pursuit of happiness, and relegation to poverty.
Works Cited
“Criminal Offenders Statistics.” US Department of Justice. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm)
Fish, Stanley. “Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black.” theatlantic.com. Nov. 1993. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199311/reverse-racism)
Goodman, Walter. “Review/Television; Looking Racism in the Face in St. Louis.” 26 Sept. 1991. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DD163DF935A1575AC0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)
Jackson, Jesse L. “Affirmative Action Is Beneficial.” Current Controversies: Minorities. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University - Utah. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://find.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010055221&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=byu_main&version=1.0)
Jenkins, Wilbert “Affirmative Action Has Furthered Civil Rights.” Opposing Viewpoints: Interracial America. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Brigham Young University- Utah. 30 Oct. 2007. (http://find.galegroup.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodID=OVRC&docId=EJ3010148221&source=galegale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=byu_main&version=1.0)
Kennedy, Brian T., and Douglas A. Jeffrey. “A Citizen's Guide to the Affirmative Action Debate.” The Claremont Institute. 1 Jan. 1997. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.491/pub_detail.asp)
King, Jr., Martin L. “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution.” National Cathedral, Washington DC. 31 Mar. 1968. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680331.000_Remaining_Awake.html).
National Urban League. 2005. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.nul.org/PressReleases/2005/2005PR185.html). Ogletree, Jr., Charles J.
Ohlemacher, Stephen (2006, Nov 14). Persistent race disparities found: Minorities still lag in income, education, census data show. The Washington Post, p. A03.
“Placement Goals.” Department of Labor Online. 13 Nov. 2000. United States Department of Labor. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_41/Part_60-2/41CFR60-2.16.htm)
Smith, Sharon (2004). The terrible toll of racism in the U.S. socialistworker.org, Retrieved Nov 15 2007, from http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/491/491_07_RacismUSA.shtml
Tapper, Jake, and Avery Miller. “ABC News: Reverse Racism?” ABC News.Com. 28 Dec. 2005. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1449254)
“The Case for Affirmative Action.” Stanford Magazine. 19 Nov. 2007. (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/1996/sepoct/articles/for.html)
Van Hook, Jennifer, Susan L. Brown, Maxwell Ndigume Kwenda. Demography, Vol. 41, No. 4. (Nov., 2004), pp. 649-670.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Stopping to smell the roses
Well, the semester in Paris is finally over. I'm back in the States at my parents' place in Connecticut, and the hum of the washing machine is lulling me to sleep. If Jeff reads this note, I'm sure he'll understand why the laundry machine is still running at midnight.
My last few days in Paris were a great change of pace from the last few weeks of the semester. Even after leaving for southern France, I was as busy as I've ever been trying to keep up with work and school. I've been running from point A to point B for about 6 to 8 weeks now, and the lack of sleep is starting to catch up with me. I really did try to make the most of my Paris experience, and now it's time to catch up on sleep.
I'm actually looking forward to a relaxed spring term at school for this very reason. After our program ended on the 17th, my grandparents, who are both 82 years old, arrived in Paris for their first visit to France. What a great time my sister and I had showing them some of our favorite places, foods, and things about life in the romantic capital of the world.
When I met them at the airport early Friday morning, I was sure they would want to take a taxi to get them to their hotel in Paris, especially since they had their suitcases with them. They have always had plenty of energy and are in good health, but they still are 82 years old. To my great surprise, they suggested taking a combination of the train and the metro into Paris, which is certainly the cheapest--but by no means the easiest or most comfortable--way to get into Paris.
After hauling their bags across the city and into the hotel, we went out for lunch. Over the course of the next 3 days, my sister and I guided them all over Paris like a couple of college-aged backpackers, visiting the Louvre, Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, Versailles, the Seine... you name it.
Despite the amount of ground we covered, I did notice one thing: their travel speed is much slower than mine. The trucked through the metro stations, but at about half the speed I would have. For some, this might have tested patience, but I was grateful for it. I learned the important lesson of stopping to smell the roses.
You miss so much in life when you're constantly running from place to place, trying to do this, that, and the other. There's been an ongoing debate in my mind the past few months about the appropriation of time. I sometimes have the impression that I could be doing so much more, but I'm beginning to realize that the hastiness required to check off every item on my to do list often leads to missing some of the more savory moments of life.
Does "doing more" mean living a fuller life? I suppose that depends on what we're doing. I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather pay more money for food and eat less of it if it means I can eat better food. We Americans have a tendency to eat to much as it is, so I figure why not just eat better and less?
I'm beginning to think that life is the same way. When we try to do too much, it's almost like we're feeding our faces at the dinner table to rush off the the evening's extracurriculars. Call me old-fashioned, but perhaps a little more time at the table and fun with the family are an order. Why not enjoy food eaten and time spent together?
What I realized when I was with my grandparents was how much of Paris I had missed while I was busy on my way from A to B. For C to D, I'm planning to take the scenic route.
What are your thoughts?
My last few days in Paris were a great change of pace from the last few weeks of the semester. Even after leaving for southern France, I was as busy as I've ever been trying to keep up with work and school. I've been running from point A to point B for about 6 to 8 weeks now, and the lack of sleep is starting to catch up with me. I really did try to make the most of my Paris experience, and now it's time to catch up on sleep.
I'm actually looking forward to a relaxed spring term at school for this very reason. After our program ended on the 17th, my grandparents, who are both 82 years old, arrived in Paris for their first visit to France. What a great time my sister and I had showing them some of our favorite places, foods, and things about life in the romantic capital of the world.
When I met them at the airport early Friday morning, I was sure they would want to take a taxi to get them to their hotel in Paris, especially since they had their suitcases with them. They have always had plenty of energy and are in good health, but they still are 82 years old. To my great surprise, they suggested taking a combination of the train and the metro into Paris, which is certainly the cheapest--but by no means the easiest or most comfortable--way to get into Paris.
After hauling their bags across the city and into the hotel, we went out for lunch. Over the course of the next 3 days, my sister and I guided them all over Paris like a couple of college-aged backpackers, visiting the Louvre, Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, Versailles, the Seine... you name it.
Despite the amount of ground we covered, I did notice one thing: their travel speed is much slower than mine. The trucked through the metro stations, but at about half the speed I would have. For some, this might have tested patience, but I was grateful for it. I learned the important lesson of stopping to smell the roses.
You miss so much in life when you're constantly running from place to place, trying to do this, that, and the other. There's been an ongoing debate in my mind the past few months about the appropriation of time. I sometimes have the impression that I could be doing so much more, but I'm beginning to realize that the hastiness required to check off every item on my to do list often leads to missing some of the more savory moments of life.
Does "doing more" mean living a fuller life? I suppose that depends on what we're doing. I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather pay more money for food and eat less of it if it means I can eat better food. We Americans have a tendency to eat to much as it is, so I figure why not just eat better and less?
I'm beginning to think that life is the same way. When we try to do too much, it's almost like we're feeding our faces at the dinner table to rush off the the evening's extracurriculars. Call me old-fashioned, but perhaps a little more time at the table and fun with the family are an order. Why not enjoy food eaten and time spent together?
What I realized when I was with my grandparents was how much of Paris I had missed while I was busy on my way from A to B. For C to D, I'm planning to take the scenic route.
What are your thoughts?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Friends
This weekend there was a YSA Easter Conference in Paris, France that I was privileged to attend. While in attendance, I had the opportunity to see some old friends. I've been thinking lately about how much work it is to keep in touch, and how it requires active participation by both parties. In today's world, where travel has become so common, we meet a lot of new people in our lives. My life has certainly been no exception. My life has crossed paths with many others.
As a result, I've been thinking a lot about what this word "friend" means, but more importantly about our relationships with others in general. Those of you who know me well are probably already familiar with the introduction I'm about to give on this subject, but I hope you'll humor its repetition in setting the discussion.
My first semester at college was one full of new experiences. I always love a fresh start, of which I had my fair share growing up (I've lived in about 20 or 25 different places, I stopped counting a while ago). As much as I love my friends, I must admit I love the opportunity to redefine myself, to start from scratch. When you live in the same place for too long, you get to know people and they get to know you. When I was younger and even more foolish than I am now (if you can imagine that), I sometimes said and did things that reflected a very different person from who I am. I realize I'm still guilty of this to some extent, but I hope it's a lesser one.
Coming to BYU was just one of these experiences. I was thrown into a setting where I knew no one and no one knew me for all intents and purposes, and I liked that. I arrived several days after everyone else, but everyone was very kind in welcoming me to the apartment complex, perhaps due at least in part to our common Mormon background. The Church has a way of opening us towards others.
I was only at school for one semester before my mission (which was, incidentally, another one of these "fresh starts" I love so much). A few weeks into the semester, as I was walking to campus from our apartment buildings, a girl from my Ward who was walking with us made a comment to the effect of: "You know, I'm glad I have great friends like you guys" to a group of my friends and me. I wasn't quite sure how to take this comment. I remember my response though, and it still holds true. "Are we really friends?" I asked myself. Then I said to her, "You know, as much as I like you and respect you, I don't know that we're friends. I've only known you for a few weeks, we don't really do THAT much together, and my guess is that after this semester, we will fall out of contact and lose touch. I'm not really sure I can call you a friend. An acquaintance, perhaps, but a friend?"
This response shocked the girl and at least startled my friends. I suppose that wasn't the politically correct way to answer that question, but I'm not sure I'd rescind my response today if given the chance. A real friend is someone who'll tell me straight up what he thinks. A friend is someone I can trust. Someone I'll be in touch with in 5, 10, or 15 years, someone about whose well-being I'm sincerely concerned, someone who drops me a line if it's been a while. I could go on, but I think you get where I'm going with this.
The word is of Germanic origin meaning "to love." I suppose we should love everyone in a general sense, as the parable of the Good Samaritan teaches, but I must admit I'm more concerned about my family and my real friends than someone I've only known for a few weeks. Call me self-centered, but that's the reality.
Some might argue this is a battle of semantics. Some might say there's a difference between a friend and a close friend, for example, or a best friend. I suppose most of my arguments could be reduced to semantics, but maybe that's just because my course of study has made me keenly aware of the bastardization of English and language and general. Words don't mean what they used to. Some might argue this is just the inevitable evolution of language, but isn't there something more at stake here? How do I convey the meaning of what I consider a "friend?" Must I resort to qualifying my friends, or is our language becoming so poor as to no longer contain the simple purities of yore? It is said that language perfectly (or nearly perfectly) meets the needs and the culture of its native speakers. For example, as a native speaker of American English, the language should contain the words to express the meaning of the point I'm trying to get across, based on the culture in which I currently live. This scares me even more. Have we removed from our culture the true meaning of friend?
An express example comes quickly to my mind: facebook. Lest you think me a hypocrite, I must confess my appreciation for facebook and all it does. I am a strong believer that facebook is one of the technologies that allows me to keep in touch with my real friends more readily than I might otherwise. It's quite possibly the easiest way for me to check up on others and maintain relationships that might otherwise fall by the wayside. This said, I still think facebook is at least partly responsible for the degradation of the word "friend." On facebook, we become "friends" with people, some of whom we've never met, some of whom we'll never meet in person. We look at the profiles of our friends' friends, and then their friends, and we see we have a few things in common. Without a second thought, we add them as "friends." I'm not going to argue it's impossible to become friends with someone I've never met in real life before, but I will certainly contend it impedes the natural course of events. Perhaps the language, along with the culture, is changing. An argument on what culture means and where that word comes from is another discussion.
And so I've thought about what makes a friend a friend for me. A friend is someone I could call at any time of the day or night if I needed help. Try this test: if you were to call someone you know in the middle of the night because you needed him or her to buy you a plane ticket home for you and put it on his or her credit card, would he or she do it? What about if your grandmother just died and you needed someone to talk to, would you be comfortable letting this person see you as vulnerable? needy? What about if you just made a big mistake and you need some advice, or you aren't sure how to handle a certain situation, could you talk to this person? Moreover, is the person happy to talk to you and honestly concerned about your worry? Is he or she willing to share his or her time willingly to help you, or is the fact that you're calling in the middle of the night really bothersome? Or when you're at work? Or at home? Hopefully, we're good friends that would only make such calls in real emergencies. Hopefully we're making more deposits than withdrawals on such accounts.
When I think about all the people I know (outside my immediate family), I can count on a hand (or two if I were really in a pinch) the people I'd be comfortable bothering in the given circumstances. Maybe I'm just unpopular, but I think it's probably the same for you if you think about it. Putting the people in our lives to these tests might reveal that those closest to you, including your family and those you consider your best friends, aren't really friends at all, at least not in the way we're defining the word.
This is just one test. I could go through more, but I think you get the idea. See if you can come up with your own test.
I hope I haven't offended anyone who considers me a friend. I am fortunate to be surrounded by so many good people. Please know my argument is largely semantic, but also think about who your true friends are. I'd like to think I'm the kind of person who'd be willing to help out more than just a handful of people in a pinch, but that isn't what I'm getting at here. I imagine most of us would be willing to help out a much larger group of people in need than a mere handful. But that isn't what I'm getting at. Whom would you be comfortable calling?
This is just one of a few topics I've been thinking about, but I'm out of time for now.
As a result, I've been thinking a lot about what this word "friend" means, but more importantly about our relationships with others in general. Those of you who know me well are probably already familiar with the introduction I'm about to give on this subject, but I hope you'll humor its repetition in setting the discussion.
My first semester at college was one full of new experiences. I always love a fresh start, of which I had my fair share growing up (I've lived in about 20 or 25 different places, I stopped counting a while ago). As much as I love my friends, I must admit I love the opportunity to redefine myself, to start from scratch. When you live in the same place for too long, you get to know people and they get to know you. When I was younger and even more foolish than I am now (if you can imagine that), I sometimes said and did things that reflected a very different person from who I am. I realize I'm still guilty of this to some extent, but I hope it's a lesser one.
Coming to BYU was just one of these experiences. I was thrown into a setting where I knew no one and no one knew me for all intents and purposes, and I liked that. I arrived several days after everyone else, but everyone was very kind in welcoming me to the apartment complex, perhaps due at least in part to our common Mormon background. The Church has a way of opening us towards others.
I was only at school for one semester before my mission (which was, incidentally, another one of these "fresh starts" I love so much). A few weeks into the semester, as I was walking to campus from our apartment buildings, a girl from my Ward who was walking with us made a comment to the effect of: "You know, I'm glad I have great friends like you guys" to a group of my friends and me. I wasn't quite sure how to take this comment. I remember my response though, and it still holds true. "Are we really friends?" I asked myself. Then I said to her, "You know, as much as I like you and respect you, I don't know that we're friends. I've only known you for a few weeks, we don't really do THAT much together, and my guess is that after this semester, we will fall out of contact and lose touch. I'm not really sure I can call you a friend. An acquaintance, perhaps, but a friend?"
This response shocked the girl and at least startled my friends. I suppose that wasn't the politically correct way to answer that question, but I'm not sure I'd rescind my response today if given the chance. A real friend is someone who'll tell me straight up what he thinks. A friend is someone I can trust. Someone I'll be in touch with in 5, 10, or 15 years, someone about whose well-being I'm sincerely concerned, someone who drops me a line if it's been a while. I could go on, but I think you get where I'm going with this.
The word is of Germanic origin meaning "to love." I suppose we should love everyone in a general sense, as the parable of the Good Samaritan teaches, but I must admit I'm more concerned about my family and my real friends than someone I've only known for a few weeks. Call me self-centered, but that's the reality.
Some might argue this is a battle of semantics. Some might say there's a difference between a friend and a close friend, for example, or a best friend. I suppose most of my arguments could be reduced to semantics, but maybe that's just because my course of study has made me keenly aware of the bastardization of English and language and general. Words don't mean what they used to. Some might argue this is just the inevitable evolution of language, but isn't there something more at stake here? How do I convey the meaning of what I consider a "friend?" Must I resort to qualifying my friends, or is our language becoming so poor as to no longer contain the simple purities of yore? It is said that language perfectly (or nearly perfectly) meets the needs and the culture of its native speakers. For example, as a native speaker of American English, the language should contain the words to express the meaning of the point I'm trying to get across, based on the culture in which I currently live. This scares me even more. Have we removed from our culture the true meaning of friend?
An express example comes quickly to my mind: facebook. Lest you think me a hypocrite, I must confess my appreciation for facebook and all it does. I am a strong believer that facebook is one of the technologies that allows me to keep in touch with my real friends more readily than I might otherwise. It's quite possibly the easiest way for me to check up on others and maintain relationships that might otherwise fall by the wayside. This said, I still think facebook is at least partly responsible for the degradation of the word "friend." On facebook, we become "friends" with people, some of whom we've never met, some of whom we'll never meet in person. We look at the profiles of our friends' friends, and then their friends, and we see we have a few things in common. Without a second thought, we add them as "friends." I'm not going to argue it's impossible to become friends with someone I've never met in real life before, but I will certainly contend it impedes the natural course of events. Perhaps the language, along with the culture, is changing. An argument on what culture means and where that word comes from is another discussion.
And so I've thought about what makes a friend a friend for me. A friend is someone I could call at any time of the day or night if I needed help. Try this test: if you were to call someone you know in the middle of the night because you needed him or her to buy you a plane ticket home for you and put it on his or her credit card, would he or she do it? What about if your grandmother just died and you needed someone to talk to, would you be comfortable letting this person see you as vulnerable? needy? What about if you just made a big mistake and you need some advice, or you aren't sure how to handle a certain situation, could you talk to this person? Moreover, is the person happy to talk to you and honestly concerned about your worry? Is he or she willing to share his or her time willingly to help you, or is the fact that you're calling in the middle of the night really bothersome? Or when you're at work? Or at home? Hopefully, we're good friends that would only make such calls in real emergencies. Hopefully we're making more deposits than withdrawals on such accounts.
When I think about all the people I know (outside my immediate family), I can count on a hand (or two if I were really in a pinch) the people I'd be comfortable bothering in the given circumstances. Maybe I'm just unpopular, but I think it's probably the same for you if you think about it. Putting the people in our lives to these tests might reveal that those closest to you, including your family and those you consider your best friends, aren't really friends at all, at least not in the way we're defining the word.
This is just one test. I could go through more, but I think you get the idea. See if you can come up with your own test.
I hope I haven't offended anyone who considers me a friend. I am fortunate to be surrounded by so many good people. Please know my argument is largely semantic, but also think about who your true friends are. I'd like to think I'm the kind of person who'd be willing to help out more than just a handful of people in a pinch, but that isn't what I'm getting at here. I imagine most of us would be willing to help out a much larger group of people in need than a mere handful. But that isn't what I'm getting at. Whom would you be comfortable calling?
This is just one of a few topics I've been thinking about, but I'm out of time for now.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Use it or lose it
Another splendid Sunday afternoon has left me thinking: why live anywhere the spring hasn’t come by the 1st of March? For that matter, why have a winter at all to necessitate the coming of a spring?
I flirted with the idea of a semester at BYU Hawaii. I don’t know if it’s in the cards for me, but I’d love to make it happen if I could. Even a term would be nice.
I only made it as far south as Lyon this weekend, but that was enough to get temperatures well into the 60s this afternoon. The sunshine in le Parc de la tête d’or (Golden-head Park), along with its fine wildlife collection, made for the perfect setting for a Sunday afternoon stroll. The real kicker, however, was the chance to see all my friends in Lyon from a couple of years ago.
My host brother, David, is leaving on a mission to New York next week. He went to the temple last week for the first time, and I can’t tell you how happy I am to see him ready to depart. He’s grown a lot since I knew him 2 years ago, and I can already see what a growing experience his mission will be for him.
Something struck me today in Sacrament Meeting. Some of you are familiar with the quote from President Monson: “That which we persist in doing becomes easier to do: not that the nature of the task has changed, but that our ability to do has increased” (paraphrased). Today I began thinking about the opposite of that statement. It seems intuitive, but I don’t know that we always internalize it that way. Maybe those purer realists among us get this better than I do. I’m not just talking about getting rusty at a talent, I’m talking intellectually as well.
I was recently informed that the job I had hoped on having this summer was no longer available. Hence, I’m trying to line up work for when I get back to BYU in a couple months. I’ve considered going back to EFY and the MTC (two of my favorite jobs ever), but I’m not sure they’d be as great the second time around. It’s hard to say. I’m sure I’d love the MTC, but I’m not sure they’d take me back. By time I’d start working again, it will have be more than 3 years since I got home. And when I think about it, I’m not sure I’m up to it anymore. It’s been over six months since I left the MTC, and I wonder how good my first lesson skills are. I started wondering how well I still know the Scriptures, and I realized I don’t. It leaves you quickly.
The same thing is happening to me musically. This year, I didn’t sing in the ward choir. I haven’t been using my music theory as much as I used to, even though I’m writing more music. Weird. And I haven’t sung in a quartet for a while either. All things I need to get back into when I get back to Provo. The important point here, though, is that I feel it’s leaving me. I’ve got to get back in the swing of things if I want to keep them.
As for the EFY thing, I wonder how excited 15-year-old participants would be to have a counselor who’s almost 10 years older than they are. (And on the contrary, how excited would I be to have them? Can I still deal with that level of maturity?)
I’d like to think I’d still be excited about both jobs, but can I really commit myself? I remember how much fun they were, but would they be as fun the second time around? How many things are?
Which leaves me thinking, what should I do this summer? Should I stick around BYU? Should I look for an internship somewhere? The last few summers have been exciting and have given me the chance to travel extensively, but is it time to get on with life? I can’t believe I’m asking myself that when I’m only 24. Maybe I just need to lighten up. Or maybe getting on with life, in my case, means traveling more. Shouldn’t I take advantage of my situation (single, no strings attached) to see all I can?
What do you think?
I flirted with the idea of a semester at BYU Hawaii. I don’t know if it’s in the cards for me, but I’d love to make it happen if I could. Even a term would be nice.
I only made it as far south as Lyon this weekend, but that was enough to get temperatures well into the 60s this afternoon. The sunshine in le Parc de la tête d’or (Golden-head Park), along with its fine wildlife collection, made for the perfect setting for a Sunday afternoon stroll. The real kicker, however, was the chance to see all my friends in Lyon from a couple of years ago.
My host brother, David, is leaving on a mission to New York next week. He went to the temple last week for the first time, and I can’t tell you how happy I am to see him ready to depart. He’s grown a lot since I knew him 2 years ago, and I can already see what a growing experience his mission will be for him.
Something struck me today in Sacrament Meeting. Some of you are familiar with the quote from President Monson: “That which we persist in doing becomes easier to do: not that the nature of the task has changed, but that our ability to do has increased” (paraphrased). Today I began thinking about the opposite of that statement. It seems intuitive, but I don’t know that we always internalize it that way. Maybe those purer realists among us get this better than I do. I’m not just talking about getting rusty at a talent, I’m talking intellectually as well.
I was recently informed that the job I had hoped on having this summer was no longer available. Hence, I’m trying to line up work for when I get back to BYU in a couple months. I’ve considered going back to EFY and the MTC (two of my favorite jobs ever), but I’m not sure they’d be as great the second time around. It’s hard to say. I’m sure I’d love the MTC, but I’m not sure they’d take me back. By time I’d start working again, it will have be more than 3 years since I got home. And when I think about it, I’m not sure I’m up to it anymore. It’s been over six months since I left the MTC, and I wonder how good my first lesson skills are. I started wondering how well I still know the Scriptures, and I realized I don’t. It leaves you quickly.
The same thing is happening to me musically. This year, I didn’t sing in the ward choir. I haven’t been using my music theory as much as I used to, even though I’m writing more music. Weird. And I haven’t sung in a quartet for a while either. All things I need to get back into when I get back to Provo. The important point here, though, is that I feel it’s leaving me. I’ve got to get back in the swing of things if I want to keep them.
As for the EFY thing, I wonder how excited 15-year-old participants would be to have a counselor who’s almost 10 years older than they are. (And on the contrary, how excited would I be to have them? Can I still deal with that level of maturity?)
I’d like to think I’d still be excited about both jobs, but can I really commit myself? I remember how much fun they were, but would they be as fun the second time around? How many things are?
Which leaves me thinking, what should I do this summer? Should I stick around BYU? Should I look for an internship somewhere? The last few summers have been exciting and have given me the chance to travel extensively, but is it time to get on with life? I can’t believe I’m asking myself that when I’m only 24. Maybe I just need to lighten up. Or maybe getting on with life, in my case, means traveling more. Shouldn’t I take advantage of my situation (single, no strings attached) to see all I can?
What do you think?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Mr. Hyde is getting the best of me
It's Sunday afternoon, and I'm sitting on a patio chair outside my host family's house in a rural suburb of Paris. The sun is shining brightly: we're currently enjoying temperatures of around 65 degrees. Birds are singing, insects chirping, dogs barking, and an occasional breeze ruffles the leaves of the surrounding trees and bushes. And yet, when I think that yesterday I was on the beach in gorgeous Valencia, Spain enjoying even nicer weather, even this incredible February day in Paris seems just nice at best.
This weekend a group of us from Study Abroad took a trip to Valencia, Spain, a beautiful city on the Mediterranean coast. Forecasts for the past two weeks had predicted rainy but mild weather, and we had accepted that it might not be the sunshine we had hoped for. To our great pleasure, we were sorely mistaken.
The flight arrived late in the evening to clear skies and a beautiful moon. We were cautiously optimistic for some sunny skies the following day. Needless to say we were elated when we arose the following morning to cloudless skies and temperatures already in the sixties.
The day couldn't have been long enough. In my broken Spanish I negotiated the purchase of weekend metro passes, and we made our way to the beach. It was around 10:30 a.m. by the time of our arrival, and I took off straightaway on the Mediterranean hard pack. Something about running on the beach fulfills me.
My pale skin, bleached by the many months under long sleeves, insatiably soaked up the sun, and the sounds of Jack Johnson in accord with the breaking waves served as accompaniment. The fresh smell of sea salt infiltrated my sinuses, and my only regret was having trusted the weatherman enough to pack my umbrella and leave my sunglasses.
After my run, I couldn't resist the urge to dash into the cool Med for a quick dip. The water was cold but refreshing, and it only made the ambient air temperature feel all the warmer. I had to pinch myself as a reminder that yes, I was at the beach in February.
There's something to the beach that always relaxes me. Knowing what I do about myself, I've vowed on multiple occasions to live near the beach. I tend to stress out way to much about life. I take myself and life far too seriously, and something about the beach and the nice weather cuts through all the layers I wrap around most everything and forces me to relax. Is it not, then, important for me to live by the beach?
This is the inner struggle I've been facing for the past few years. Maybe this is just my pride speaking, but I feel that if I put my mind to it, I could be "successful" at many things in life. The trade-off is the quality of life associated with the career path. Some people might be cut out for being doctors. I think I am competent enough to learn the trade, but I'm not sure it's for me.
Fortunately, in society, the variety of interests is as wide as the variety of people. But again, knowing what I know about myself, why shouldn't I find a grad school and finally a job near the beach? Why should I put in the 150-hour work weeks? Is it even worth it? Isn't there more to life than money? I'm sure my opinion on all of these things will change as my circumstances change (when I have a family, when I'm seriously looking at grad schools), but what's wrong with living near the beach if I know it's good for me?
This might seem intuitive to all my friends from California and Hawaii, but I never grew up near a nice beach. Beach days weren't a significant part of my childhood. And yet, every time I'm on a nice sandy beach, there's a new me, a more relaxed me, one where all the troubles in the world just seem to go away, even if just temporarily.
Those who know me as well as I know myself know this about me: there are two personalities inside me, each struggling for control. One side is the responsible, motivated, organized, hard-working Mike. This is the dog I've been feeding almost exclusively for the past 5 years.
The other dog, who ironically seems to be much more productive and efficient with his feed, is the side of me that could live in a shack on the beach for the rest of his life just because it's nice out, the waves are good, the sun is warm, and life is simple. This is the side that plays the guitar, that is fun-loving, spontaneous, and much more relaxed and laid-back (some of you might think of that term as the last one in the world that describes me, and in the context of the past 5 years, I can understand why).
And yet, even when I'm at the beach, I still feel like there's something more I could be doing. What did I do to deserve to be at the beach? Couldn't I be doing something more productive?
The answer I keep coming back to is "no." R&R is an essential part of my productivity. Without it, I'd never be able to work like I do (or at least should;-).
I guess when it comes down to it, then, I could work long weeks, provided I had an occasional out. Just two days away from the big city made a world of difference. I'm already planning my next beach trip.
Now I'd be interested to hear what you think. Should I feel guilty when I'm at the beach? How do you feel when you take some time for yourself? Is it egocentric? Am I wrong, knowing myself, to want to live near a beach? Do you sometimes feel an a struggle between your two halves?
This weekend a group of us from Study Abroad took a trip to Valencia, Spain, a beautiful city on the Mediterranean coast. Forecasts for the past two weeks had predicted rainy but mild weather, and we had accepted that it might not be the sunshine we had hoped for. To our great pleasure, we were sorely mistaken.
The flight arrived late in the evening to clear skies and a beautiful moon. We were cautiously optimistic for some sunny skies the following day. Needless to say we were elated when we arose the following morning to cloudless skies and temperatures already in the sixties.
The day couldn't have been long enough. In my broken Spanish I negotiated the purchase of weekend metro passes, and we made our way to the beach. It was around 10:30 a.m. by the time of our arrival, and I took off straightaway on the Mediterranean hard pack. Something about running on the beach fulfills me.
My pale skin, bleached by the many months under long sleeves, insatiably soaked up the sun, and the sounds of Jack Johnson in accord with the breaking waves served as accompaniment. The fresh smell of sea salt infiltrated my sinuses, and my only regret was having trusted the weatherman enough to pack my umbrella and leave my sunglasses.
After my run, I couldn't resist the urge to dash into the cool Med for a quick dip. The water was cold but refreshing, and it only made the ambient air temperature feel all the warmer. I had to pinch myself as a reminder that yes, I was at the beach in February.
There's something to the beach that always relaxes me. Knowing what I do about myself, I've vowed on multiple occasions to live near the beach. I tend to stress out way to much about life. I take myself and life far too seriously, and something about the beach and the nice weather cuts through all the layers I wrap around most everything and forces me to relax. Is it not, then, important for me to live by the beach?
This is the inner struggle I've been facing for the past few years. Maybe this is just my pride speaking, but I feel that if I put my mind to it, I could be "successful" at many things in life. The trade-off is the quality of life associated with the career path. Some people might be cut out for being doctors. I think I am competent enough to learn the trade, but I'm not sure it's for me.
Fortunately, in society, the variety of interests is as wide as the variety of people. But again, knowing what I know about myself, why shouldn't I find a grad school and finally a job near the beach? Why should I put in the 150-hour work weeks? Is it even worth it? Isn't there more to life than money? I'm sure my opinion on all of these things will change as my circumstances change (when I have a family, when I'm seriously looking at grad schools), but what's wrong with living near the beach if I know it's good for me?
This might seem intuitive to all my friends from California and Hawaii, but I never grew up near a nice beach. Beach days weren't a significant part of my childhood. And yet, every time I'm on a nice sandy beach, there's a new me, a more relaxed me, one where all the troubles in the world just seem to go away, even if just temporarily.
Those who know me as well as I know myself know this about me: there are two personalities inside me, each struggling for control. One side is the responsible, motivated, organized, hard-working Mike. This is the dog I've been feeding almost exclusively for the past 5 years.
The other dog, who ironically seems to be much more productive and efficient with his feed, is the side of me that could live in a shack on the beach for the rest of his life just because it's nice out, the waves are good, the sun is warm, and life is simple. This is the side that plays the guitar, that is fun-loving, spontaneous, and much more relaxed and laid-back (some of you might think of that term as the last one in the world that describes me, and in the context of the past 5 years, I can understand why).
And yet, even when I'm at the beach, I still feel like there's something more I could be doing. What did I do to deserve to be at the beach? Couldn't I be doing something more productive?
The answer I keep coming back to is "no." R&R is an essential part of my productivity. Without it, I'd never be able to work like I do (or at least should;-).
I guess when it comes down to it, then, I could work long weeks, provided I had an occasional out. Just two days away from the big city made a world of difference. I'm already planning my next beach trip.
Now I'd be interested to hear what you think. Should I feel guilty when I'm at the beach? How do you feel when you take some time for yourself? Is it egocentric? Am I wrong, knowing myself, to want to live near a beach? Do you sometimes feel an a struggle between your two halves?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
On Paris, time, and materialism
Wow!
I can't believe how the time goes by. I just realized it's been two and a half weeks since I last wrote, almost three. Much has happened.
First of all, I'm well established out in our little country home here. I am very glad I don't live in the city. I love Paris, don't get me wrong. But just spending the day there is exhausting. It's a very fast-paced life style. I enjoy the sensation of constant motion, but it's nice to come home to a quaint setting at the end of the day for a nice run out in the country.
My classes are wonderful. I only have four of them, which is a blessing, because I also teach four classes. One of the classes never meets. It consists of self-guided walking tours around Paris, and I think it's my favorite class. It is by far the most time consuming, but it's a great way to spend my time. Despite being as busy as ever with school and work, I somehow have more time to do what I want. I'm not quite sure how that works, but it's nice.
I think when I'm in Provo I make my life much busier than it needs to be, or at the very least, I have the impression that my life is busier than it is. I don't know if this is true for the rest of you, but I think it's the way the administration would have it be. Provo is so full of so many "good" things. That's the first time I've ever put "good" in quotes (and there's the second) when referring to the bustle of Mormon activities in Provo, because up until this point I was convinced that's what they were. I'm not so sure any more.
The very first Sunday at Church when my family first moved to Provo in 1992--and I still remember this--someone in our ward said something I will never forget. He said that we often have the impression that all is well in Zion when we're living in Utah, especially in Happy Valley. He said he felt people were largely doing what they should be and trying to do what is right. Satan wasn't going to get us on the big things, he was convinced, but he said that if he could just keep us busy with things we thought were important, he'd have us.
As an eight-year-old, this was a point of view I had never before considered. I had lived in Virginia my whole life where most people were of faiths other than my own. In terms of the quantity of Mormon activities to be involved in, I felt there was a good balance. As a family we were active in our faith, and I grew up with friends and activities both inside and outside the Church. The idea this brother was proposing, that we could have to much Church in our lives, had never entered my mind.
I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Is it possible to have too much Church in our lives? Yes. Too much spirituality? Maybe. I suppose it becomes a semantic argument of how we interpret the word spirituality. I think always keeping a level head involves keeping my principles in mind, which are largely motivated by my spirituality and my inner desire to live a life in line with my precepts, whatever they might be. This is neither the time nor the place to enumerate them, but I think you get the point.
But even my critique of Paris brings me back to Provo: sometimes I find myself more exhausted at the end of a day of trying to do everything I feel is expected of me in Provo than I ever would at the end of a day in Paris. Maybe I just need to get away from Provo a little more, I don't know.
But all this brings us to an interesting point: one of the biggest struggles I face personally is determining what is important in my life. It's simple in theory, but I've struggled applying it.
The more free time I've referred to comes in a variety of settings. One of them is the commute to and from Paris. It's a little over an hour each way by the time you count the bus and the train, so I've had some more time to read and think, but mostly just to think. I've been trying to determine what's important to me in life, but I haven't come to any firm conclusions. I get the impression that whatever I will decide, whether it's here in Paris or at some later point, will be an important key to happiness later in life.
"The pursuit of happiness," as Thomas Jefferson coined it, is a top priority for many, it seems, but who really knows how to go about pursuing it? Besides, what would be happiness for me might not be happiness for my neighbor, so shouldn't we both be going about it in different ways? Who am I to tell anyone how to be happy? I'm convinced there are certain things which are applicable to everyone, but that's another conversation.
Happiness to me is boiling down to managing expectations. That doesn't mean life isn't what it could be or ought to be, it just means I need to pull my head out of the clouds a little more often. As a child, I had unrealistic expectations. I don't think there's anything my mother could have done to live up to what I expected my birthday to be. Parties, candles, friends, gifts, you name it--I needed it all. I've grown out of that now. Sometimes I tell people when my birthday is approaching, and I might even invite some friends over. I'm much happier talking to my family than opening a present, though. There's so much more to life than material possessions and the pursuit of accumulating them. I get much more satisfaction out of going for a run or spending some time with a friend.
And so it's in this spirit of self-evaluation that I lived an event today that made me think about an attitude I have towards material possessions. I feel blessed, and I like to share with others. Whether it's giving someone a ride (or even lending my car), lending someone my tux, or just sharing what I have, I don't see a reason not to share something I'm not using at the time. What good does it do to have stuff sitting around when someone could be using it? I've always felt a feeling of satisfaction from sharing.
Sharing had always served me well, until recently. Some things I've lent out recently never made it back. Even some expensive things. Other things I've lent out have come back in noticeably worse shape than when I lent them.
All this is background for something that happened today at Church. A brother in front of me was struggling to keep his young son quiet during Sacrament Meeting. Nothing out of the ordinary, just the usual wiggles. He turned around and asked the people seated in our row if someone had a pen. I'm down to my last one, as I have lent out the others (some of which never made it back), and I was a little hesitant to give him my pen. I didn't know what he or his son was going to do with it, and the thought of having to find another pen somewhere was not appealing.
And that's when it hit me: does it really matter? What if his son eats the pen and I never see it again? It's a pen! A ten-cent piece of plastic. It doesn't matter. But that got me thinking: what about anything else I own. If someone else breaks it, loses it, damages it, does that matter either? Why do we value the things we do? Because they cost money? Shouldn't we be placing value on what's really important? Material possessions can be replaced. People cannot.
My justification for my hesitation is this. I suppose that in our material possessions, at least those acquired through our work, is invested a little piece of us. Time is another thing we can never get back. If I work for 30 years to pay for a house, there's a part of me in it. I have worked to pay for it. How much harder it is to leave behind!
A ten-cent pen shouldn't bother me, but am I right to be a little more hesitant with more expensive material possessions? Again, why do I value them, and what is it I actually value?
Just some food for thought. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.
I can't believe how the time goes by. I just realized it's been two and a half weeks since I last wrote, almost three. Much has happened.
First of all, I'm well established out in our little country home here. I am very glad I don't live in the city. I love Paris, don't get me wrong. But just spending the day there is exhausting. It's a very fast-paced life style. I enjoy the sensation of constant motion, but it's nice to come home to a quaint setting at the end of the day for a nice run out in the country.
My classes are wonderful. I only have four of them, which is a blessing, because I also teach four classes. One of the classes never meets. It consists of self-guided walking tours around Paris, and I think it's my favorite class. It is by far the most time consuming, but it's a great way to spend my time. Despite being as busy as ever with school and work, I somehow have more time to do what I want. I'm not quite sure how that works, but it's nice.
I think when I'm in Provo I make my life much busier than it needs to be, or at the very least, I have the impression that my life is busier than it is. I don't know if this is true for the rest of you, but I think it's the way the administration would have it be. Provo is so full of so many "good" things. That's the first time I've ever put "good" in quotes (and there's the second) when referring to the bustle of Mormon activities in Provo, because up until this point I was convinced that's what they were. I'm not so sure any more.
The very first Sunday at Church when my family first moved to Provo in 1992--and I still remember this--someone in our ward said something I will never forget. He said that we often have the impression that all is well in Zion when we're living in Utah, especially in Happy Valley. He said he felt people were largely doing what they should be and trying to do what is right. Satan wasn't going to get us on the big things, he was convinced, but he said that if he could just keep us busy with things we thought were important, he'd have us.
As an eight-year-old, this was a point of view I had never before considered. I had lived in Virginia my whole life where most people were of faiths other than my own. In terms of the quantity of Mormon activities to be involved in, I felt there was a good balance. As a family we were active in our faith, and I grew up with friends and activities both inside and outside the Church. The idea this brother was proposing, that we could have to much Church in our lives, had never entered my mind.
I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Is it possible to have too much Church in our lives? Yes. Too much spirituality? Maybe. I suppose it becomes a semantic argument of how we interpret the word spirituality. I think always keeping a level head involves keeping my principles in mind, which are largely motivated by my spirituality and my inner desire to live a life in line with my precepts, whatever they might be. This is neither the time nor the place to enumerate them, but I think you get the point.
But even my critique of Paris brings me back to Provo: sometimes I find myself more exhausted at the end of a day of trying to do everything I feel is expected of me in Provo than I ever would at the end of a day in Paris. Maybe I just need to get away from Provo a little more, I don't know.
But all this brings us to an interesting point: one of the biggest struggles I face personally is determining what is important in my life. It's simple in theory, but I've struggled applying it.
The more free time I've referred to comes in a variety of settings. One of them is the commute to and from Paris. It's a little over an hour each way by the time you count the bus and the train, so I've had some more time to read and think, but mostly just to think. I've been trying to determine what's important to me in life, but I haven't come to any firm conclusions. I get the impression that whatever I will decide, whether it's here in Paris or at some later point, will be an important key to happiness later in life.
"The pursuit of happiness," as Thomas Jefferson coined it, is a top priority for many, it seems, but who really knows how to go about pursuing it? Besides, what would be happiness for me might not be happiness for my neighbor, so shouldn't we both be going about it in different ways? Who am I to tell anyone how to be happy? I'm convinced there are certain things which are applicable to everyone, but that's another conversation.
Happiness to me is boiling down to managing expectations. That doesn't mean life isn't what it could be or ought to be, it just means I need to pull my head out of the clouds a little more often. As a child, I had unrealistic expectations. I don't think there's anything my mother could have done to live up to what I expected my birthday to be. Parties, candles, friends, gifts, you name it--I needed it all. I've grown out of that now. Sometimes I tell people when my birthday is approaching, and I might even invite some friends over. I'm much happier talking to my family than opening a present, though. There's so much more to life than material possessions and the pursuit of accumulating them. I get much more satisfaction out of going for a run or spending some time with a friend.
And so it's in this spirit of self-evaluation that I lived an event today that made me think about an attitude I have towards material possessions. I feel blessed, and I like to share with others. Whether it's giving someone a ride (or even lending my car), lending someone my tux, or just sharing what I have, I don't see a reason not to share something I'm not using at the time. What good does it do to have stuff sitting around when someone could be using it? I've always felt a feeling of satisfaction from sharing.
Sharing had always served me well, until recently. Some things I've lent out recently never made it back. Even some expensive things. Other things I've lent out have come back in noticeably worse shape than when I lent them.
All this is background for something that happened today at Church. A brother in front of me was struggling to keep his young son quiet during Sacrament Meeting. Nothing out of the ordinary, just the usual wiggles. He turned around and asked the people seated in our row if someone had a pen. I'm down to my last one, as I have lent out the others (some of which never made it back), and I was a little hesitant to give him my pen. I didn't know what he or his son was going to do with it, and the thought of having to find another pen somewhere was not appealing.
And that's when it hit me: does it really matter? What if his son eats the pen and I never see it again? It's a pen! A ten-cent piece of plastic. It doesn't matter. But that got me thinking: what about anything else I own. If someone else breaks it, loses it, damages it, does that matter either? Why do we value the things we do? Because they cost money? Shouldn't we be placing value on what's really important? Material possessions can be replaced. People cannot.
My justification for my hesitation is this. I suppose that in our material possessions, at least those acquired through our work, is invested a little piece of us. Time is another thing we can never get back. If I work for 30 years to pay for a house, there's a part of me in it. I have worked to pay for it. How much harder it is to leave behind!
A ten-cent pen shouldn't bother me, but am I right to be a little more hesitant with more expensive material possessions? Again, why do I value them, and what is it I actually value?
Just some food for thought. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Haste: the American tourist's enemy
What a fantastic fortnight I've had! If only the hastiness of our peregrinations hadn't eliminated the opportunities to see some really great things.
We've been traveling around France for the past week as a group, and I traveled around France by myself for the week before, and there was a big difference in the two weeks.
The way I see it, there are two kinds of tourism, both of which have value and, consequently, both of which I'd recommend, for different reasons.
First, there's the kind we might think of when we think of tourism. See as many places as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. This has some value to provide an overview of what a country, state, region, continent has to offer. It is often while we are in this tourist mode that we visit museums, buildings, monuments, art, beaches, and many other things.
But then there's the kind of tourism I'd really recommend, which doesn't fit the term tourism as well. What I mean by this other kind is somewhat more closely related to life as usual. Experience another country, don't just visit it. In our typical American haste we often miss some of the sweetest experiences other cultures have to offer when we visit. Take the train people take to work every day. Understand why people dress they way they do. Read the paper of the country you're visiting. Where do the locals eat? What do they eat? Have you figured that out yet, or are you just visiting the places the locals set up shop to feed/take advantage of the tourists?
My most rewarding experiences traveling have undoubtedly been those when I have forgotten about the all things I need to see and places I need to go and have immersed myself in the culture I'm visiting. My internship in Lyon, where I worked under a French boss, lived with a French family, and made French friends, is an entirely different experience from the three times I have visited France with large groups of Americans.
Experience the culture, don't just pass through it.
We've been traveling around France for the past week as a group, and I traveled around France by myself for the week before, and there was a big difference in the two weeks.
The way I see it, there are two kinds of tourism, both of which have value and, consequently, both of which I'd recommend, for different reasons.
First, there's the kind we might think of when we think of tourism. See as many places as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. This has some value to provide an overview of what a country, state, region, continent has to offer. It is often while we are in this tourist mode that we visit museums, buildings, monuments, art, beaches, and many other things.
But then there's the kind of tourism I'd really recommend, which doesn't fit the term tourism as well. What I mean by this other kind is somewhat more closely related to life as usual. Experience another country, don't just visit it. In our typical American haste we often miss some of the sweetest experiences other cultures have to offer when we visit. Take the train people take to work every day. Understand why people dress they way they do. Read the paper of the country you're visiting. Where do the locals eat? What do they eat? Have you figured that out yet, or are you just visiting the places the locals set up shop to feed/take advantage of the tourists?
My most rewarding experiences traveling have undoubtedly been those when I have forgotten about the all things I need to see and places I need to go and have immersed myself in the culture I'm visiting. My internship in Lyon, where I worked under a French boss, lived with a French family, and made French friends, is an entirely different experience from the three times I have visited France with large groups of Americans.
Experience the culture, don't just pass through it.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Second chances: was Air India worth it?
After 3 days of travel, I have finally arrived at my host family's home in rural France, about 45 minutes outside of Paris. I'm excited for a new semester to begin tomorrow morning, even if it means I have to get up and go to school/work like a real person again. It's been nice to have a month off, but reality has finally caught up to me.
My transatlantic flight was the best to date. I flew on Air India, despite a less than desirable first experience with them about 18 months ago. On the way home in the summer of 2006, I contracted whooping cough from a man seated next to me who didn't stop wheezing and coughing on me for the eight-hour flight. I was gravely sick for the following 8 months.
But I couldn't beat the fare, so I went again with Air India. This time around, I was on a newer 777 with a kind crew and delicious Indian food all the way over the pond.
This second impression made me think: how often do we really give things (or people) second chances? It's also interesting to note how quickly one faux pas can destroy trust that's based on much more previous experience. Just within the airline industry, I boycotted Delta after they didn't allow me to carry a guitar on a plane. I was ready never to fly Air India again if I had similar trouble.
Food is another example. I have never liked tomatoes. For many years, this might have been because somewhere in my mind, I had it in there that they tasted bad. Even years after those childhood recollections, I avoided tomatoes. I periodically tried them, but since I had it in my mind that I wasn't going to like them, it made it difficult to give them a fair chance. Recently, I've been trying to eat tomatoes. I reasoned that if millions (and maybe billions) of people around the world don't just eat them but LIKE them, there must be something to them. (Kim Chi was another nice experience in experimenting with interesting foods.) Tomatoes aren't my favorite food (yet--but then again, neither is Kim Chi), but I have tried to eat more of them.
This idea on first impressions has so many applications. I guess the questions I've been asking myself recently--especially in a new setting with so many people to meet--have been, among others:
1. How do people perceive me when they first meet me? Are their first impressions accurate?
2. Whom have I met recently, and to what conclusions have I come? Or jumped? I suppose only time will tell whether they're accurate.
3. Are we wrong to rely so heavily on first impressions, or does the price of being taken in outweigh the consequence of giving second chances? I'm going to keep thinking about this, so I don't think this is the last time I'll bring up the subject.
Well, what are your thoughts? Have I learned anything from this?
My transatlantic flight was the best to date. I flew on Air India, despite a less than desirable first experience with them about 18 months ago. On the way home in the summer of 2006, I contracted whooping cough from a man seated next to me who didn't stop wheezing and coughing on me for the eight-hour flight. I was gravely sick for the following 8 months.
But I couldn't beat the fare, so I went again with Air India. This time around, I was on a newer 777 with a kind crew and delicious Indian food all the way over the pond.
This second impression made me think: how often do we really give things (or people) second chances? It's also interesting to note how quickly one faux pas can destroy trust that's based on much more previous experience. Just within the airline industry, I boycotted Delta after they didn't allow me to carry a guitar on a plane. I was ready never to fly Air India again if I had similar trouble.
Food is another example. I have never liked tomatoes. For many years, this might have been because somewhere in my mind, I had it in there that they tasted bad. Even years after those childhood recollections, I avoided tomatoes. I periodically tried them, but since I had it in my mind that I wasn't going to like them, it made it difficult to give them a fair chance. Recently, I've been trying to eat tomatoes. I reasoned that if millions (and maybe billions) of people around the world don't just eat them but LIKE them, there must be something to them. (Kim Chi was another nice experience in experimenting with interesting foods.) Tomatoes aren't my favorite food (yet--but then again, neither is Kim Chi), but I have tried to eat more of them.
This idea on first impressions has so many applications. I guess the questions I've been asking myself recently--especially in a new setting with so many people to meet--have been, among others:
1. How do people perceive me when they first meet me? Are their first impressions accurate?
2. Whom have I met recently, and to what conclusions have I come? Or jumped? I suppose only time will tell whether they're accurate.
3. Are we wrong to rely so heavily on first impressions, or does the price of being taken in outweigh the consequence of giving second chances? I'm going to keep thinking about this, so I don't think this is the last time I'll bring up the subject.
Well, what are your thoughts? Have I learned anything from this?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
By the way...
Hello again all. Here I am, it's after midnight, and I'm at my parents' house in Connecticut thinking about my flight tomorrow. I can't believe I'm leaving again. It's going to be a great trip, but I have to admit, I'm going to miss my friends.
I'm at a time in my life of great transition. I enjoy change, but there are sure to be some big ones coming up soon. I'll be graduating, and my friends and I will be headed in different directions. Studies abroad seem to claim one of us each semester, and the prospect of getting the boys back together again lessens with each departure. We're all doing good things, and the good things are taking us down different roads.
Up to this point, this blog has been mainly a travelogue of my trips to Europe. While I still intend to keep you up to date on my journeys, I would also like to make this blog a forum for thought and reflection. I'll be posting some of what I'm thinking, and I'd love to hear your thoughts and reactions. I'm looking forward to a semester of progress, improvement, and fun. Peace.
I'm at a time in my life of great transition. I enjoy change, but there are sure to be some big ones coming up soon. I'll be graduating, and my friends and I will be headed in different directions. Studies abroad seem to claim one of us each semester, and the prospect of getting the boys back together again lessens with each departure. We're all doing good things, and the good things are taking us down different roads.
Up to this point, this blog has been mainly a travelogue of my trips to Europe. While I still intend to keep you up to date on my journeys, I would also like to make this blog a forum for thought and reflection. I'll be posting some of what I'm thinking, and I'd love to hear your thoughts and reactions. I'm looking forward to a semester of progress, improvement, and fun. Peace.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A summary/recap
I've got facebook rigged to import my blog entries as notes now, so you'll be able to read up on things from there.
I'm just getting ready to leave for France. I can't believe that by the end of the week I'll be in Paris. It's going to be quite the trip.
I'll try to post at least once a week. Please keep up and feel free to comment on my posts. I'd love to hear from all of you.
Have an enjoyable semester!
Mike, the Euroscapader
I'm just getting ready to leave for France. I can't believe that by the end of the week I'll be in Paris. It's going to be quite the trip.
I'll try to post at least once a week. Please keep up and feel free to comment on my posts. I'd love to hear from all of you.
Have an enjoyable semester!
Mike, the Euroscapader
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)