Racism III

I *think* this is my third post on racism, but I can't be sure. Anyway.

My first term in English is almost over, and I gotta say, the range of profs for English are quite varied. Of course, most are ignorant of all topics aside from English, but one or two have theological backgrounds, which add some validity to their claims of religious context for older works (like Chaucer and the yet-to-take-place reformation).

A bit ironic then, that the prof with the thinnest veil on his religious beliefs is also the most biggoted one of all my classes this term.

I first met him individually two weeks into the term, because of my late registration into classes. I had wanted to see what I could do to catch up, and what other work needed to be done. We also spoke briefly about my personal life history, and of his religious beliefs. And even though I regularly talk to him after class to ask certain questions, he seems to refuse to acknowledge me in class. It's as if I'm invisible.

And true, it's not like we fought a war together, so it's understandable that he wouldn't remember me, but at the same time, my presence in class is strong enough that I should register on his radar more prevalently than certain other persons. And apparently I'm not the only one.

One time, when he was systematically forcing the entire class (moving along the rows) to answer questions, he noticed an asian girl (who ALWAYS has been sitting beside a vocal keener in the class, whose name the Prof does know). "Are you new to this class?" he asks, as if she had never been to lecture before.

This older caucasian professor often gives stories of his "friends", but always takes care to mention their ethnicity. Why is that important? And is it even appropriate to be telling someone else's lifestory RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM, even if you don't name them?? "Some of you may have noticed the Sudanese who was here last class. She's the one I've mentioned before, who ____".

And it's obvious that he doesn't acknowledge his racism; intellectually he knows it's wrong (or at the very least, socially unaccepable), but emotionally he seems to lack the actual thought to see people as being equal.

Other things about him bug me, but I'll mention that in another post.

Originality and Individuality

Everybody is unique. (At the very least, on a genetic level, but let's be optimistic and assume that on a personal level they're unique as well.) Some people, however, seem to care more about their uniqueness than others. And then, of course, there are those who are content to be one of the crowd, the faceless, nameless collective.

I think, given my level of self-awareness, it's sufficiently fair to say that I'm a pretty unique individual. My sense of fashion isn't average, nor are my interests, my use of language, my posture, my personality, etc...

And maybe it's because of this degree of uniqueness that people always try to find similarities between me and other people they encounter. Which, in itself, is fair enough. Everybody relates everybody they know to other people they know in order to better archive a mental/social map of their friends.

But is it really necessary to make that remark to other people? I find that there's a thin line between "I think you would get along with another friend of mine because of ____" and "Wow. You remind me so much of this other person". The first is neutral; the second offends the individuality of the person.

For several years now, people have always been reporting to me these sightings of alleged lookalikes that they encounter on the street, or in school or wherever. It's even better when these sightings occur on facebook, and the lookalike ends up looking worse than you do. Then you start to wonder how your friends see you anyway.

I don't mind categorizing people [mentally], but I do take issue with trivializing people. There's a difference between saying "You're a science student, and therefore would likely have a better idea of what constitutes an allele" and "You're a science student, and therefore must suck at language".

So in future, if you find that I echo someone else in your life, or some fictional character, take care that your expression of this observation or yours stays at that level of observance instead of threatening the individuality of the person.

Garrgh.

Dis-eased

Interestingly enough, the current word "disease" used to come from "dis-ease" as in "not at ease; uncomfortable". It was then expanded and redefined to mean the disorder or abnormal condition of the body or its parts.

Anyway. It's 1:25am right now, and I've been at school for the past 40 minutes. A noisy ruckus woke me up at around 22:00, and it persisted through 00:30am, so I figured I'd get some work done at least, and some peace & quiet at school.

And now that I'm at school, I truly am at peace. Only problem is, I'm oddly unmotivated to do my work now. I suppose I require some level of frustration in order to function.

Halfway through the three-act play I should have read last weekend. Hopefully this weekend I'll remember to do some proper work, finish my readings, and start some essay drafts.

Too Rich for Words

This is too funny.

Yesterday afternoon, my prof sends an email to our class, telling us about a plot summary he's posted on the course website (probably predicting accurately that none of us have bothered to read the book over reading week).

From experience, I tend to prefer online notes, if only because they know how to justify text, and play with margin settings. My dear of prof, on the other hand, will use a million spaces to get a word onto the next line.

So, I naturally drift to sparknotes.com, the seemingly staple for student research. I read their synopsis, then later go to the course website and download the .doc of the prof's summary. It was exactly the same.

Now, one could generously assume that the professor made a contribution to sparknotes.com, lending the site a bit more credibility, but knowing the prof, I'm willing to guess that he probably just pulled the summary from the website, pasted it into MS Word, and then posted that onto the course website.

Seems like a full novel though; I'll have to properly read it this week...

I always try to end these posts with a fun fact, but nothing's coming to mind at 7:51am. Oh well. Oh! I know! I'm getting a laptop this week! Brand-new from Dell. Inspiron 1525. With a fancy, swirly pattern instead of the dull monochrome colours. Even if solid colours *do* make the laptop look more professional. lalala...

Ha-Ha Happy

Why do people laugh? One anthropological theory says that perhaps it was originally a sort of alarm system, alerting the other lemurs (or whatever we were), that there was no real danger; false alarm, etc. Although I don't completely support this theory, I can see the logic in it. Often, after a false scare, we tend to react in laughter, partly to ease ourselves, and partly to ease those around us.

But laughter is a response to many things. Humour is the dominant source in our modern culture, and the other possible causes (nitrous oxide, for example) tend to be discounted immediately.

However, there is yet another form of laughter -- that of happiness and celebration. People laugh when they're happy. But people don't seem to get that whenever I laugh. Is my laugh particularly malicious or something?

Anyway. If you hear me laugh at something you say, it means I'm entertained. I'm not the sort who would [openly] laugh at someone else's idiocy or ignorance. Unless it's already been established that I *really* don't like the person. Then maybe. hrmm....

Fun fact of the day: I've secretly had astigmatism for a while (in the order of years), but the Chinese optometrists didn't bother to mention it to me. Or didn't bother to test for it. The cheap bastards. And they wonder why North Americans are so hung up on proper procedure and regulations.

Cohabitants

One thing I was reminded of when I moved back to University, was getting used to living with new people. Different living habits, sleeping schedules, standard of hygiene...

There should be some sort of national health service announcement regarding the dangers of listening to amplified lower frequencies for extended periods of time. The number of males who voluntarily (and I assume ignorantly) decrease their hearing everyday might benefit from such intelligence. And there might be a revolution in the theatre industry as well! Then everybody will be able to go see movies at reasonable volumes.

On the subject of people though, I'm often seeing how others interact with each other. So far as I can currently imagine, there are three basic types of people: those who inspire, those who encourage, and those who disgust. Of course, this is all relative to a given individual, so results will vary between people. :)

After watching various videos of Kenneth Williams on youtube, I started to think about my own relationship with my friends. I'm conscious and aware of the sort of person I am -- at least, to the people I know. The ultimate person seems to be he who can draw the best qualities in people. Someone who is filled with light or bright or some sort of positive energy. It draws people toward him, and he can in turn cause others to do things better.

And then there's me. I either build delicate bonds between people I deem "worthy" (usually through some merit of information or interest), or I sever all possible modes of conduct with those I deem "undesirable" (generally those who lack any intelligence or ability).

But it is this classic character flaw which usually draws supporters from the bad guy (me) to the hero (whoever my arch-nemesis might be). Knowing this, I wonder how I can possibly change to be more accepting of people. After all, mere tolerance does nothing. It seems to be a popular byword in American politics when describing the improvement between ethnic groups, but I think *acceptance* is really the word they're looking for. The idea isn't to merely build an immunity to the foreign influences of the differing groups, but the find a way to integrate them all into a grand national community.

Meanwhile, Valentine's Day is soon upon us. Wo ist mein Herz?

Mid-English

As most readers of this blog should know by now, I'm back in school, with a view to change majors into English, and currently taking 6 courses (which in my school is 120% course load).

Having little experience with Uni English, and being a sort of outsider, as well as joining late, I had some reservations and doubts about whether I'd be able to succeed or not. But now, about a third into the term, I can confidently say that my expectations are totally reversed. My 4th-yr brit. lit. course isn't too bad, so long as I keep on top of my readings and pay attention in class (and since the profs are cool, I don't have a disinclination to attend lectures). And I suppose that's generally true for any course. I'm surprised by the number of people who still don't maintain their readings, even into 3rd or 4th year. Sorta makes one wonder the sort of people in business or politics who're expected to read these hundred-page reports about policy.

One thing that really struck me was the huge difference in ethnic distribution between my math classes of 1st-yr, and of my current English classes. In math, there was usually somewhere between 50~80% asian (although, oddly enough, in the advanced courses, there were more caucasians, most of european birth). I was sorta used to seeing the diversity; it was like being in Toronto, or high school. But now with the English classes, I'm back to being a stark, visible minority. Some of the profs I've talked to seem to have held some reservations about me joining their classes, from some sort of subconscious reservations about having non-native english speakers in their class. (Is my voice really that nasally!?!? I'm wondering if I subconsciously soften my voice by making it more nasal as a sort of respect, versus a regular gruffer voice which I'd reserve for friends. ....Although my voice isn't really gruff to begin with...)

It's fun though. Speech errors are much less common in class, and dialects are more subtle. One thing I have to watch out for that I never needed to in math, are the angry lesbians. They seem to have some sort of vendetta against male-kind. As if they could ever hope to regress into asexual, single-cellular organisms. "Sorry toots, you're stuck with us!"

Alright. 7am. Time to go to school!

Fancy and Finery

Intro to English Lit. Prof was remarking on the different ways in which those in the sciences and those in the humanities work and think. And while I agree that there are certainly trends in the behavioural patterns between those of either camp, I don't think that stressing such differences, even if to say that it's better to have both, is beneficial. It is only because we continue to label and pigeon-hole people into these territories that separatists continue to perpetuate the rift between the two realms. Human beings have an inherent Grand Unifying Mind, which would allow them to be equally successful in either field. As far as I can make out, both schools require the same sort of logic. I sincerely fail to see where the approach to one is different to the other. Anywhoo..

Another curious affect I've noticed from taking my crazy 6 courses of English Literature, is how trivial and hollow certain forms of entertainment become. I can't watch shows without analysing the character relations, and how they might echo certain themes in the not-yet determined motifs in the storyline. I blame British Literature 1885-1918.

Meativore?

Apparently, for most people whom I don't directly inform, my preference for meat (in either sense of the term) has been constantly questioned. "Is he vegetarian or not? I could have sworn I've seen him eat a hotdog before... But it might have been a veggie dog." And also, "He says he's fruity... does he really know what that means? Also, is it normal for a guy to make gay jokes about himself so often?"

As for the dietary preference, I've apparently exuded a vegetarian-type personality long before I made the decision to actually be vegetarian. (But contrary to belief, I'm a practical vegetarian, instead of the moral vegetarian; I abstain for health reasons, not out of any sentiments of kinship with the lower mammals.) But then, I'll also eat organic meats.

So what would this imply for my other preference? "40% gay" to go with my "80% vegetarian"? Unfortunately, you'll not get a straight answer here! (no pun intended)

I will, however, share a little secret: my ambiguity for the latter is intentional. Why? Two reasons: (1) it keeps undesirables away, and if confronted with one, I can always use the plausible excuse that I run the other way (or is it "swing" the other way?); (2) it's a cheap preliminary way to keep only the friends who wouldn't be so insensitive as to only forge friendships over something so superficial. (Can't really do much about the looks though. Although I'd only consider getting contacts 'cause glasses fog up too much when I go out/inside in winter, as now.)

Chaotic Conformity

What is morality without religion? Or better stated, what does it mean for something to be intrinsically "good" or "bad" when we assume that living things are just fact without a predetermined value?

Now, that's a very broad topic, and one that seems to be warmly debated between a/theists. So let's look at a relatively neutral and local example: "it's fine as long as it doesn't hurt or affect anybody else".

On the surface, this seems like a pretty fair statement. What I do to myself is my business, and as long as my blood-splattered remains don't stain your carpet, what matter is it to you that I took my life? Or how does it hurt your business if I lie and claim to be older in order to contribute to your business in sex/booze/drugs? No skin off your nose, as it were.

But when you really think about it, it's quite a loaded (and tall) statement to make. Just by being in the observable vicinity of others, you affect them. Your appearance and behaviour can cause people to fall into rapture or seizure, to drool or convulse. A random act of kindness has the power to lift a stranger from the pits of oblivion and obscurity, and a clumsy word might incur a hundred-year wrath. When you're faced with these possibilities, how can you possibly claim to have knowledge of the extent to which you affect others? And to that end, how can you possibly justify any questionable actions that you take?

In theory, the safest route would be isolate yourself from society and hope to stem all impressions you leave on society. But the neighbouring kids would gossip about the crazy old man down the street, or the "haunted" house. But that's kind of a waste of a life, so you may as well go out there and do the best that you can.

Having said that, we finally come to my main point: social norms. When we talk about affecting people, we can legitimately extend this to include social instruction and public conduct. Shaking hands and speaking greetings are some pretty direct modes of interaction with others. But, people being different, and certain individuals being more negatively impressionable than others, do we have a right to instruct them on their errors? Do we have the position or authority to tell them that they should smile, or shower?

If we don't, we're technically tacitly approving certain rude or offensive behaviours. So if everything we do already affect the people we're in contact with, we may as well go all out and actively mend the broken cogs in others' social mechanics.

As a tutor of pre/teens, this means I have the prerogative to correct any socially unacceptable behaviour. I only wish my students weren't so violent. :'(