NOTE: At the time of this post, I have 26 days left in the US. About 12 left in Boston, and the rest in Ridgewood. I want to make the most of each and every day, so I'll be coming up with a bucket list of sorts - not just of things to do but also of people to see. It's not a lot of time, but I'll do my best to see all you people I love and care about dearly.
I've been reciting my Summer itinerary to everyone recently, and thought I might be able to nip some inquiries in the bud by writing out my plans here... even though I know almost everyone who is going to ask me about my summer doesn't even know I have a blog. Whatever. This is just for me then.
Date of departure: June 8th. If anyone wants to see us off (kidding!) Eunice and I be flying out from JFK around 1pm. It'll be a whole year after that until we touch US soil again. We're flying into Hong Kong the evening of June 9th, sleeping there a day, then travelling to Guangzhou the next day. There's a ferry that leaves from a port in Guangzhou, and we'll be taking that ferry to Haikou, the capital of Hainan province. Our hosts, Guo Zhi Zhong and Niu Gui Ping, will meet us at the port, and we'll travel west of Haikou to get to their farm. There we will be picking mangos and burning in the sun for a month, until about July 15th. Then, it's on to Lijiang in Yunnan province.
In Lijiang, we'll be staying with an ex-pat from New Zealand who guides tours around the area. He describes himself as a beer and cheese maker, and it's not exactly clear what we'll be doing for him. One month there, then we're taking a train from Lijiang to Guilin, which is where we'll be spending September through next June. Eunice and I will be teaching English at Guilin University of Electronic Technology.
Planes, trains and ferries. Gonna be covering a lot of distance this summer. This is probably the most ambitious plan I've ever had, and seeing it all out in front of me like this elicits a pretty wide range of emotions. Maybe it's just that I'm listening to The Tough Alliance right now, but I'm feeling more optimistic than anything else. Anyways, this post isn't about feelings; it's about letting you guys know what I'm doing. So there it is.
I'll be posting more in the coming weeks about other China-trip related things: successes, failures, epiphanies, recommendations, parties, existential dilemmas/trilemmas, etc. I might get a little redundant at times, but I'll do my best not to be! I might get a little redundant at times, but I'll do my best not to be!
Much love,
Deniel
Friday, May 13, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Violent Images
College is technically over for me, but I've still got lots to finish. I can't, however, get over this particular conundrum:
There is a debate over whether Obama should release the images of Osama bin Laden's corpse. There is an argument to be made, an argument that existed BEFORE this debate, that the American people are so shielded from the images of war that they are oblivious to the real pain, suffering, trauma, etc. that it generates. If people are so oblivious to these qualities of war- qualities that are an inherent part of any war - they will more readily support wars, whether they are on-going, currently being debated, or in the unforeseeable future. Indeed, when you make war less atrocious, you make it more palatable. This, I believe, is extremely undesirable.
On the other side of the debate, people claim that the frequent exposure to images exposing the more grisly, ugly, and painful elements of war will eventually desensitize us, making us less moved by the images, and thus reducing our general reaction to violence and pain altogether. I'm not sure about the psychology behind this, but it seems a reasonable point to make.
The reason I bring this debate up at all is that one of my true heroes, Jon Stewart, often a voice of reason, cutting through the cacophony of extremist, alarmist, and over-the-top talking heads, has just come out supporting the release of the pictures. He cites, more or less, argument number 1. While I, in some ways, agree with his sentiment, what kind of implication does releasing Osama's picture as the first of these pictures to reveal war's atrocities have? I know it'll please many - I don't know how many minds will be changed by it. I think, all in all, to call for the release of this photo in particular in order to start a trend of more honest depictions of war, is quite an intellectually dishonest claim.
First of all, this was not a product of war. This was the product of a 10 year manhunt; a concerted Navy SEALs operation. This was devoid of so many of the elements of war, that to say it can help the American people decide whether they truly support war or not is just plain wrong. Second of all, Jon has not hidden how personally biased he is by his closeness to 9/11 (both spatially and spiritually). He said this bias precludes him from being any sort of "reasonable" commentator on the subject. And though maybe I should have taken that claim seriously, I can't help but be surprised by his temporary abdication of the role of most reasonable man on television. He's been the mouthpiece of the people who just can't support or abide by the extreme elements in our society, and we've looked up to him for a long time. But here he has justified his foray into extremism by saying it can help the American people decide about war. He has put "reasonable" make-up on his extreme idea, and when he blurs the line he himself has painted, he loses some credibility in my eyes.
So I say no: we can't start to portray a more honest picture of war with the corpse of former public enemy number 1. I don't know how we do portray war more honestly, but this isn't the place start; we're as bloodthirsty as ever, as a nation, and putting that picture in circulation is the last thing that will make us think reasonably.
There is a debate over whether Obama should release the images of Osama bin Laden's corpse. There is an argument to be made, an argument that existed BEFORE this debate, that the American people are so shielded from the images of war that they are oblivious to the real pain, suffering, trauma, etc. that it generates. If people are so oblivious to these qualities of war- qualities that are an inherent part of any war - they will more readily support wars, whether they are on-going, currently being debated, or in the unforeseeable future. Indeed, when you make war less atrocious, you make it more palatable. This, I believe, is extremely undesirable.
On the other side of the debate, people claim that the frequent exposure to images exposing the more grisly, ugly, and painful elements of war will eventually desensitize us, making us less moved by the images, and thus reducing our general reaction to violence and pain altogether. I'm not sure about the psychology behind this, but it seems a reasonable point to make.
The reason I bring this debate up at all is that one of my true heroes, Jon Stewart, often a voice of reason, cutting through the cacophony of extremist, alarmist, and over-the-top talking heads, has just come out supporting the release of the pictures. He cites, more or less, argument number 1. While I, in some ways, agree with his sentiment, what kind of implication does releasing Osama's picture as the first of these pictures to reveal war's atrocities have? I know it'll please many - I don't know how many minds will be changed by it. I think, all in all, to call for the release of this photo in particular in order to start a trend of more honest depictions of war, is quite an intellectually dishonest claim.
First of all, this was not a product of war. This was the product of a 10 year manhunt; a concerted Navy SEALs operation. This was devoid of so many of the elements of war, that to say it can help the American people decide whether they truly support war or not is just plain wrong. Second of all, Jon has not hidden how personally biased he is by his closeness to 9/11 (both spatially and spiritually). He said this bias precludes him from being any sort of "reasonable" commentator on the subject. And though maybe I should have taken that claim seriously, I can't help but be surprised by his temporary abdication of the role of most reasonable man on television. He's been the mouthpiece of the people who just can't support or abide by the extreme elements in our society, and we've looked up to him for a long time. But here he has justified his foray into extremism by saying it can help the American people decide about war. He has put "reasonable" make-up on his extreme idea, and when he blurs the line he himself has painted, he loses some credibility in my eyes.
So I say no: we can't start to portray a more honest picture of war with the corpse of former public enemy number 1. I don't know how we do portray war more honestly, but this isn't the place start; we're as bloodthirsty as ever, as a nation, and putting that picture in circulation is the last thing that will make us think reasonably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)