An End To A New Beginning

My peace 104 class has ended but strangely enough, I am filled with a sense of endless beginnings.

As much as I appreciate all the new things I have learned in this class, I also know that there is so much more I need to learn. Each answer has unlocked many more questions for me.  

"In expanding the field of knowledge, we but increase the horizon of our ignorance."

It is easy to take for granted the opportunity I have here and to forget how lucky I am. 

I am really grateful I get to learn as much as my heart desires. 

I wish such an education for my mother, my sister and all those I care about. 

I will end this semester with one of my favorite poems,

" The woods are lovely, dark and deep,

   But I have promises to keep,

   Miles to go before I sleep,

   Miles to go before I sleep"

 

   -Robert Frost

Just a Question for Today

Do you think making a difference is an overused cliche?

Am I A Reluctant Feminist?

Truth be told, I have wanted to write this piece for a long time. Each time I sit down to write my thoughts on feminism, a certain uneasiness prevents me. I do not have a name for that feeling and I would prefer to keep it that way. In Victor's words, I will dwell in the confusion and appreciate its complexities rather than resolve  the issue by choosing a side.

Yet I know that I could not leave this till the end. Someday, I have to sit down and write this piece. I have to write this because personally, my thoughts on feminism are an important aspect of my own journey in understanding what peace is. I am surprised this is almost coming out as a confession.

Last night, while me and my room mates were sleeping, our conversation steered around Wellesley. At some point, my friend said, almost casually, that Wellesley has helped her to find who she really is. I told her that was rather deep. That made me think about my own understanding of how this place has shaped me. Yes, it has definitely been a positive experience thus far. I have developed a passion for learning. But at the same time, I cannot claim that Wellesley has taken me to the horizon of self-discovery. As of now, what I credit this place is for helping me to become conscious of many things chief of which is a new found consciousness of what it means to be a woman

Many of my friends thought it strange of me to choose a woman's college. They ask me the reason for my decisions. Depending on the kind of people and the rapport I share with each of them, I have come up with wide variety of reasons. This is not to say that I lied. All of the reasons have some truth in it but in isolation, they are not the complete explanation of why I came here. And that is not because I choose not to reveal how I truly feel, it is simply that I myself do not know for sure what is the, so to speak, "real reason". I am not eve sure whether there is such a thing.

I have been uncomfortable with my own identity as a Wellesley woman. As much as I appreciate all that is good in my friends ( indeed, its quite a long list), an impression has settled in my mind that somehow, this identity of a Wellesley woman carries a tad bit of feminism in it. Feminisn, yes, that was my issue. At this point, I must say that my own understanding of a feminist is minimal to say the least. I have never studied the academics of it.

i like the humor in it.

I try to think why I have a problem associating myself with feminism. Two thoughts come to my mind. The first is that feminism seems to be an issue of past. It made sense that many women colleges were built because they couldn't attend other male exclusive places. Women who wants to work could not work so the feminist, correct me if I wrong, fought for equal rights of women and said they are entitled to the same rights. Yes, that is actually quite appealing to me. However, I don't understand the emphasis on feminism when so many of those issues are irrelevant now? I like creating something new and therefore I like future better than the past. For me to be labeled as a feminist almost seems to imply in my mind that I am stuck in the past. I have not moved on with the fact that such issues are not so relevant anymore. Moreover, focusing on the differences between how male and female are treated seems to create a divide than actually solve something. It seems.

But after sitting in this class, hearing about how women are still discriminated, about different views on feminism in terms of social construction, I feel like, issues that feminist fight for are very real. The world is not really that modern. And these are relevant to all of us. So then, I have to ask myself. Was I wrong about feminism? Why am I uncomfortable with such a label?  I come from a society where even if women are free to a large extent, they are also cultural norms that encourages certain etiquette from  women. My grandmother always wanted a male child and does not hesitate to hide her disappointment when I was born. I thought I was different from that. Has my upbringing affected me this much? Have I also been cultured into thinking that certain spheres are just out of women's reach? Is my reluctance a sign of an orthodoxy in me?

Am I a reluctant feminist?

As uncomfortable as it is to ask such questions, I am happy that at least I am conscious about my own prejudice.

I am starting to think that some things can only be learned, it cannot be taught. On top of studying it, I have to live it.

"You know, People in War Also Fall In Love"

Uncertainty and Confusion are my constant companions.
It is the only life I have known so far. There are few things I am sure about.
But one thing that I do know, almost fully, is that literature is my passion.
I worry at times that it has become my indulgent drug but I cannot help myself
from getting moved by the ways in which people can express themselves. Thats how I realize
that Arundhati Roy's political thoughts has such a strong influence on me. Its because she writes well.

Anyways, unlike my normal entries, I do have a point of mentioning about my passionate affair with literature.
I am always up for listening to new thoughts- and more so to new perspectives on old thoughts-but sometimes, when accuracy of the definitions are over-rated and sophistication is all I can hear and appreciate from a lecture ( or for that matter, a reading), I get disillusioned. See, many insightful researches are conducted to create better awareness about issues. Then you must know that as important are your thoughts, so is the expression you use. What is the point of saying complicated ideas if people cannot understand it? And you know what bothers me most, when I know that someone can use something so much more simpler to convey the same meanings. Its not about how many words you know. Its about how many ways you can use the words you know. Thats when literature comes in. Literature frees us from cloak of complications. It gives us WAYS to express complicated thoughts but in simple language. Unfortunately, I find very few people who has authority over such talents.

The speaker that we heard in a TED video in my peace and justice class, to my luck, just happened to be one of them. As an Iraqi war survivor and a founder of Women for Women International, she was urging the audience to see the war from both the frontline and the backline. War is not only about soldiers fighting. It is also about the less visible but equally important faces of people who survive through the wars. She says this story is not about some unknown refugee, with dirty faces and scared eyes. She gives each woman she mentions an identity. That was graceful.

Look how beautiful she is.

Conflict is not only on the battle line. She is challenging our own attitude of "casually treating the casualties of war". Such million people were killed, Oh how interesting. She wants us to look beyond the statistics and look at war from, permit me to use this word once more, humane way.

She asks us beautiful questions. Do you know, people in war also fall in love? That kisd go to school, adults go to work, there are dancing, there are marriages, divorces and life goes on. She talks about a women who in four years of war, opened her music school so that learning continues.I find it provoking. Indeed, life goes on. Those who live must live when they are alive. For them, the living is difficult. They can die from inside. That is the worst- when you die by living. Still, we endure.

And now the important question is who keeps this living going? The Women. Yes. Then why are women not included in the table that matters- that is the negotiating table of peace? When the lives of women are affected so irreparably, dont they deserve a voice? Dont they deserve a seat on the table?Ask yourself.

Rumi

At the end, she leaves us with words of a 13th century Sufi poet Rumi,

" Out beyond the worlds of right doing and wrong doings,
   There is a field.
   I will meet you there.
 
  When the soul lies down in that grass,
  The world is too full to talk about.
  Ideas, language, even the phrase "each other"
   No longer makes any sense."

Here is the link to the talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/zainab_salbi.html

I dedicate this page to TED- for giving wings to ideas worth listening to.

Liberia's Civil War

I am fond of people who have purposes in their life- people who know why they are doing what they are doing. I like them because most of the time, their conviction stands out. They perform better because they believe in the work they do. And that inspires me. The conviction that leads them towards their goals. It does not necessarily have to be something big. In my case, it is mostly individuals who are my inspirations.For example, when my room-mate sits down and creates her art, I see passion in her.I see that this is something that gives her satisfaction. I like feeling inspired. Its like you are temporarily on wings, flapping as hard as you can.

For quite some time, we have been discussing about woman's role in peace-making and peace-building processes. It is a coincidence that in my politics class, we ended up watching a documentary on the role of women peace activists in Liberia's civil war. Just to give you a brief summary, the documentary presented Liberia as a country in chaos. The then President Mr. Taylor and a rebellious faction called LURD fought for power. As each sides gets more violent, the situation erupted into a civil war. Many common people were forced to abandon their home and displaced to slums and roadsides. In this process, the soldiers from both sides took advantage to their greed and inflicted harrassment on women. At this point, the peace activists- whose name has already escaped me but whose face and voice I will not forget- realizes that something must be done to stop the situation. She calls her church to action and cooperates with muslim women. Despite their religious differences, both sides wisely agrees that a bullet does not discriminate on religion. When a woman is killed, they do not see whether she is Christian or Muslim. She was given support my other women of Liberia who decided to play a more active role. They protested on the roads and asks for a peace agreement between the two factions. By bearing the scorching heat and giving up their comforts, they stay on throadsand demands the government to intervene.

Their patience is rewarded when both sides finally decides to form a peace agreement. The peace talks was to be conducted at an African peace summit. The women sends their delegates to make sure that work was done. They sits outside the main buildings and continues to watch over the whole process. Finally, the summit comes to a conclusion and ousts Taylor. A transitional government is put into place. They go back to Liberia and takes part in the political process, campaigns for a better democracy and the documentary ends with a new female president of Liberia thanking the women peace organization.

This is a rather lame summary. However, the documentary reinforces the concept that peace is a process. The women peace activists continues their action for years and years because for them, peace was not merely negative peace, it was also about creating a new environment where democracy can thrive. Moreover, seeing other women work with so much conviction inspired me. When one woman supports another woman, it empowers both of them. By sticking together when it mattered, these women were able to create remarkable changes in their country.

It was a long journey. The odds loomed insurmountable. The easiest option was to give up. In the beginning of the documentary, I asked myself what could these women really do? But when people have purpose and they believe in what they do, the odds can be overcomed. It was a good lesson to myself as well.

" A world that is good for women is good for everyone "

The Raging Grannies of Boston

The grannies came, sang and won my heart.

I am glad I did not miss this class. Because, this is one of the most touching class experience I had at Wellesley. We were joined by Boston raging grannies- a group of older women who have defied stereotypes and became active peace activists. This morning, as I hurriedly went to get breakfast, I met Carter and she told me that the grannies were visiting. I thought that is a rather bizarre event so I decided to check my readings. I was almost late for the class so I quickly skim through the raging grannies article. I came excited because part of me was still unsure of what to expect.

Our class discussion was on war and women. We briefly watched the trailer of Lioness; American women combatants in war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was surprised to learn that in the US, women are legally not permitted to join the combat. Like many other class mates, I assumed that when women join the war, like the Tamil tigers, they are also sent to fight. It made sense to me; somehow that this will hurt men's ego or at least the men who are in the army. As Catia said, many wars are fought with justification to protect women; the idea that feminine women who are supposed to be protected are fighting the war is unsettling to many people. It does not fit into the image of a warrior- strong built and masculine. But we also discussed that war can be good for women. When the WW2 occurred and men left to fight, it was the women of all these countries who ran the workforce. Wars, strangely enough, can be empowering to women. 

Still, I asked myself: Why does women need to acquire masculine qualities to be respected in the society? Why can we not empower the very idea of feminine qualities? These qualities; though not overt has strength in it. Why is elegance only a quality of beauty, why not of strength and respect? 

Anyways, so with topics of war and masculinity versus peace and passivity, we focused on the dilemma that Goldstein articulated, "Activism that brings power in peace versus the concept that peace are for women while war is for men". Interesting, no? With this question, we were joined by the most unexpected group of older women. Actually, I dont want to call them old because I do not like the social connotation that it is associated with aging. The first thing I noticed about them was the way they dressed up. It was almost hippy with all the colorful hats, badges, colorful skits- it was a metaphor of what they stand for. A starking juxtaposition. I also liked the fact that when they talk, they were normal.

I like seeing normal people -people I can relate to- do something special. Often Leaders are put on such high pedastals that they seems too good to be true. But when you see people like yourself achieving great feats, the confidence builds in. Well, well, so the grannies sang us some beautiful songs- songs that have deep political reasonance. Indeed, as we continue our discussion, I realized that many of the grannies possess political maturity- one granny talked about the use of war as a job program-they understand how the laws are passed, how protest are strategically planned- and they talked about facebook and youtube-And the best part, some of then have been to jail and when Catia asked about the experience-she said it was fabulous- all I could do there was sit and smile- it was an inspiring site.

As a closing line, the raging grannies left us with a question to ponder on. Let me widen the circle of ponderers. During the grannies youth, protest movements are mobilised through people and it was the activism that was solid. However, our generation might be activists online but it is hard to point where our efforts go. A letter confirming signature of 5000 people is more effective or say 500 people going to a particular place and protesting? Hm...Good question, no?

Race: The Power of Illusion

In life, you hear things and see things that are so different or new that it completely takes you off guard. Those moments often become turning points in people's lives because it resonates deep within the individual.

I went to class today just like any other day. I knew that we were going to learn about race. It does not feel like a completely new topic even though I have never studied it in a formal setting. That is because race is always part of my consciousness.  I think this is true to some extent for everyone else as well. The fact that I am an Asian is always at the back of my mind. Often it also affects me to see a situation differently as well ( I guess I am wearing my ethnic lens at the time).

But by the end of my class today, I had so many questions in my mind. I was startled by some of the things I saw and some of the things that I have taken for granted. I became aware of the many things I do not know. First of all, I was struck by the fact that Thomas Jefferson, the man who created the founding principles of America, the land of equality is the very man who had 225 slaves at one point. It turns out he was also the first person who gave a theory about race when in Notes on Virginia, he wrote about "a suspicion only" that among the inhabitants of this new land, the Africans seems to be inferior in body and mind". That makes me wonder, did Jefferson really meant it when he said, " All men are created equal" or does he not include certain race as human?

Secondly, Charles Darwin, the survival of the fittest guy also said, "with population influx of South, people will be darker, smaller in stature. Criminal acts will increase and will insanity". I really wonder what kind of science, what kind of logic could that possibly stem from?

Another observation I made that I didn't know about is in early times, social discrimination or status is not based on the color of a person's skin. Religion and economy decides class. But over the time through theories such as the one Jefferson made and the practice of law, this new concept of race and discrimination started to emerge.

 " It does not matter how you look. It matters how people assign meaning to how you look".

Despite my reservations about America's interfering and reckless wars all over the world, I have always associated the American society with a progressive nation. It is moving towards the future and growing up in a third-world country, America always dawned to me as the land of endless opportunities, if you work hard, you can be anyone you want. But it seems that America's newness is a cliche. This country had its own dark history; history of internally displacing people.

I thought it was only blacks who suffered the greatest discrimination. Hearing Ozawa and Thim's case, I really did wonder does America look at the color of your skin to decide allegiance or does it look at the values you uphold and practice? And who are people to blame for the habitants of Dudley street to be economically low when history has worked against them? When the system they live in was a system that discriminates one race over another?

With such more questions, I felt fortunate that I was able to correct many of  my own understanding about Race.

Dudley Street: Yes, You Can

One thing that always bothered me about charity is the psychological effect it has on the people who are helped. I know people who go to developing countries to help have the best intentions in their heart. But imagine you are a child growing up in a poor neighborhood. Adults to whom you are supposed to look up are all failing in their lives. There is nothing people of your kind can do about it. And the only way things seems to change is with the ability of an outsider. Unconsciously yet very firmly, it creates a belief that "those" people are more able than you. That could be true. But then, the kid will not realize the potential within one's community. So long story short, does too much charity disable the mindset of people who are hurt? Does it hurt their self-image? Does it make them question their own ideas? And if it does, will this inhibit them from making a change? If they do deprive them of confidence, that will be disheartening. Because, I am sure, somewhere deep down within each individual, there is always capacity to reach a higher potential. It might take one person longer time to achieve one goal but with persistence and confidence, miracles do happen.

And look what we learned in class today. The Dudley street initiative is a real life miracle story of such a change. Unlike other successful movements,  this initiative was not started by people in business suits, not by politicians, not by money from this and that. It was started by the very people who you see across your streets. With the effort and dedication of local people, Dudley forced many people to change their stereotypes about many things.

I like this spirit. This spirit of fighting back. This fight against repression. Rather than lamenting that everything in life is going wrong and waiting for someone to fix it up, if you stand up and start fighting, it encourages other people to follow your lead. People in Dudley street stood against economic, racial odds to rebuild a community.

These stories reinforces in me the belief that things do change. Maybe, there are not so dramatic as is cliched. Call me an idealist, if you want but I still believe, despite the rationality that works against it, Everything can change. Bringing this belief close to home, I know, somehow, I feel, no I don't think, I feel justice will occur in Tibet. Maybe, we need to think more, sacrifice, be patient and give our best. As long as we don't stop believing in our cause, nobody can change our reality. We are the masters of our own fate.

Bod Gyalo.

I pray for a day when I think of Tibet, it is happiness that comes to my mind. Not sadness, we have enough of the tears. Not frustration, we had enough of rage as well. Happiness. Yes, thats what I pray for.

Michael Chertoff- Future of National Security

Michael Chertoff was the second United States Secretary of Homeland Security under President George Bush and co-author of USA Patriot Act. He talked about challenges facing the US in a long perspective.

During the cold war, stakes were too high for real war to occur. However, a multi polar world will create an unstable world.

What has changed in the last two decades are three things:

First is the globalization phenomenon. There are new international actors who do not act within a certain geographic boundary. There is unity through networking, whether it is for better or for ill. As such, threats cannot be localized anymore.

Second is technological leverage. This affects threats or terrorist acts. Earlier, no country had technology to make war but now with possibility of radiological, chemical, biological weapons- technology has been weaponised and more civilian damage continues to occur. September 11, 2001 had the biggest civilian damage in a day in US history.

Third is the rise of ungoverned space- government are unwilling or unable to control those territories and those territories, in turn has become a Petri dish for terrorism. People can operate freely whether it is piracy or terrorism.

These three features have radically changed how security is perceived. Earlier, the US sees security in two ways. One is through war which is military and defense, other is through criminal violations. Security department’s first job was to see which bucket to put the problem in. However, division between war and criminals no longer exists. These are now integrated and posed a unique challenge. It is no longer a binary issue but rather a spectrum of threats. It challenges us (?) to rethink about legal and organizational structures.

In terms of geography, a place to look at is South Asia. Apart from the Afghanistan war which has provided Al Qaeda with a safe haven, Europeans and Americans are trained in SA and sent back to orchestrate terrorist attacks.

Especially in Afghanistan, real domain over activities of borders needs to be valid. Otherwise, there is threat to the rest of the world. 

Al Qaeda is an umbrella organization which offers to train and finance different groups. So in this new age, it will be networks fighting, so US has to deal through network fighting.

The strategy for short term is through military strike. In a longer time, we need to have an ideological response, looking at prone societies and help build up alternatives.

Taliban will regain if US doesn’t help, Pakistan will become less stable- Al Qaeda’s recruiting will reach optimum.

Danger or threat is also in western hemisphere such as Mexico with drug trafficking. It is a race against time.

Consequential Threats

Major biological terrorism threat/ anthrax/ materials already in nature but how to weaponised?

Cyber security- difficulty of finding answers of security of enemies- structural imperfections- to protect people’s privacy-

He stressed that sometimes, behind the door will work to implement change.

Cool term he said:

NYMTOF: Not in my term of office

Ann Tickner Comes to Wellesley

Ann Tickner came to Wellesley, specifically to our peace and justice class. She gave a talk and since it has so many provoking ideas, I dedicate this journal to her thoughts. 

This is me typing down fiercely so lack of coherence and structure is regretted. Reader apology is asked for the inconvenience.

Since Professor Tickner is primarily an International Relation thinker, she gave an overview of how IR became a course. International Relations is usually taught as a part of political science. It originally began as an interdisciplinary course; to understand why wars occurs and what scholars can do to prevent or end war. While the primary areas of study focused on wars and security, it has since evolved into a study of economics and human rights as well.

 Goldstein became interested in one characteristics of war. All societies have engaged in war, overwhelmingly fought by men but nobody has looked at the question of why is it only men who talks about war, why, despite having 1000 books of war, not one of them links war to masculinity.Not one of them has been curious enough to explore this relation. He reaches the conclusion that war is not due to men's inherent aggression and therefore decides to further analyze the association of war and masculinity.

States go to war for reasons. However, decision makers, who are charged with implementing military policy has been generally men. Why? A heroic citizen warrior has always been a celebrated image in Greek tradition, where manliness is associated with citizenship and warrior. It is still part of our society. For example, to die for one's country is patriotic. Until recently, this "duty" has been denied to women. Military service carries first class citizenship-politicans play up their military service career even if it is not so much relevant and the president of the US naturally becomes the commander of chief. It is interesting to note how Obama fits into the image of a commander of chief.

The discipline of IR has also been field largely populated by men- particularly in security studies, there has been very few women. It is true of peace research as well- a field mainly dominated by men.

Society has a way of defining Gender that illustrates the set of social structure of unequal power.  Masculinity and Men, Femininity and Women where social construction of characteristics-protector, rationality, power are associated with men. The opposite weaknesses are associated with women and femininity. If you are protecting, you are not being protected- opposite yet dependent.. Positive values are part of masculine characters. Individual men and women does not necessarily embody one or other set of characteristics- it is possible for women to display masculinity and men to be feminine- however, it is easier for women to wear pants than men to wear skirts- so this gendered view is not only against women but also against men who are feminine. 

Looking at IR and Security studies, in the beginning of 20th century, there were various school of thoughts within IR. One of them calls themselves REalists, with a capital R. a name chosen by themselves. Most of security studies has been conducted by realists- they discusses power politics- great powers in International systems- they believe that states have to be autonomous and look after themselves- anarchy does not mean that everything is in chaos- it means there is not sovereign body overstating to preside rules- great power ends up prescribing rules- it is almost like a soccer game without a referee- this creates a potential for a dangerous world. 

Realists have a lot of attributes which fits well with masculinity- States also behave in more cooperative ways, but the realists do not talk about that- it gives us a one sided picture of State behavior- Feminists argue that this has real world consequences- the way we study about war affects the way we behave. It is interesting to see that a lot of foreign policy makers has been professors of IR- Kissinger, Rice- they were all Realists- is Something going on there?

The term women is still not in congruent with National Security- women have little of interest- Hilary Clinton is the secretary of State- nuclear arms treaty discussions are led by women- still, national security carries very masculine connotations- argues Clinton has to display masculine character to get into this field.

IR and Gender Studies- Why has feminist theories have a hard time getting together- It is also true that people in women studies are not interested in IR- Because these were two different fields- feminist theories have different goals and draws from different traditions than IR- Realism draws primarily on Inter-state relations- talks of States as individual units in asocial environment- feminist is much more social- starts at the level of individual ( social economic individual)- IR talks more about States than individuals- primary focus of IR is to explain the behavior of states- Feminist is to understand women subordination in order to prescribe strategies to end it- Feminist movement comes out of political realities- IR don’t think improving the world should not be part of theory and focus on behavior of State- Feminist thinks these two are inter-related.

Feminist IR-1980s- feminist theories into the discipline of IR- Ford sponsored conference- well known scholars of IR and some from Feminists- mostly feminists who were trained in IR- Book came out edited by Spike Peterson- launched the field- Ford came back after 10 years- Conference under auspices of Ford- Wellesley is an important place- Keohane-it has grown into a series of

Feminists IR has been questioning concepts of IR- the way it defines it- questions about States and citizens- areas such as global economy, human development- now more feminists look at security- in a different way- they are not talking about wars between states- looking at war at a more micro-level, concerned with what goes on during wars, the impact of war on women and civilian generally- end of cold war, when feminism started- focus on religious and ethno-national conflicts- conflicts with small arms- involve killing of large no. of civilians- feminists have a lot to contribute- because it is about ethnic and religious identities- feminists are suited as they have been studying gender as an identity

Examples: Feminists talk a lot about rape in war- War Crimes Tribunal- Yugoslavia has been first to confess rape as a strategy of war- another issue is military prostitution- Moon called “ sex among allies”- South Koreans clean and making the prostitutes more attractive around US camp to persuade US military to stay at Korea- extraordinary.

What does these stories tell us about the role of the state, the protectors and protected- a lot of today’s world, women killed in huge numbers- whole sense of protectionism needs to be thought through- state as a security – provider- not all states necessarily offer security to its citizens

How does these themes fit into IR- interesting topics- they say it is not really IR-What is and is not IR- not the real business of national security- particularly with aggression and men- worry that feminism are raising good women and bad men. A problem in the discipline- most contemporary feminists reluctant to embrace the simplistic notion of women and peace, if gender is a social construction, this is not taken at face value

Association of women with peace in a passive sense- devalue women-devalue the way we talk about peace- quite often, peace is associated with passivity- unrealistic- so remember the IR Realists- against idealists who are more peaceful- a problem here- peace is non violent struggle for justice- how the passive idea of peace is associated with feminism- IR feminists have new ways of thinking about war and security- useful in conflicts today like ethno-national ways-

IR feminist use the word security differently- usually it is about military- feminists define it in economic and environmental issues- multidimensional- provide security for everyone- Goldstein- he concludes suggesting no men are more aggressive- cant separate biology and social relations- Goldstein- a father of boys- primarily socialization effects  of men and women that affects men’s participation in wars- not optimistic about changing them- it is hard to overcome- harder to overcome than biology-

Definition of Masculinity does change- feminists Cooper- Masculinity and State- different types of masculinity- less warrior like masculinity- linked to globalization- Bill Gates and its sweater- there are other models- in 1990s, emphasis on UN peacekeeping forces- use of military for peace- strikes a different image of what military do- gays in military- this is all tied up.

If we want to think about security in more positive ways- overcome the gender dichotomies- valorization of warrior masculinity-devaluation of conflict resolution- get to the point that comfortable thinking about these things- so that you can be valorized to be a peace maker than to be a warrior-

Changing The World, One Step At A Time

In the last few classes, as I sit listening to my class mates, everyone seems to have a story of conflict to share. Of course the level of conflict and the kind of conflict differs from each other. However, it seems to reinforce that conflict is an inevitable part of human life.

I like to be romantic.
I like to think of myself as a tragic victim.
In this theatre of life, I am the damned.
It sounds romantic to say, " Oh, I am a Tibetan but I have lived all of my life in India".

As I grow up and I meet all kinds of people, I have started to question this romanticism?
Does this mentality inhibit me from acting?
It seems that, at some point, everyone has gone through conflicts. It is not just me.
Conflict is part of being humane.

Today, Victor talked about the Dudley street again. I love hearing real stories because it gives new meaning to the models. If you just stare at the nested egg diagram or lederach triangle, it is so academic. But when you apply this to a real life situation, you develop the curiosity to know more. You appreciate education.

At the end of today's class, I realized something. I realised that whenever we talk of conflict, we are always taking examples of other people. Even with myself, I think the American government's wars are selfish and un-necessary. I think such and such politicians devalues democracy.

But, wait, hold on. Maybe, I should ask myself first. Before pointing my fingers out to the world, I should point it to myself.

Self-criticism is a virtue.

Maybe, we don't really need to change the world as such. It has become such a cliche anyways.
Maybe, what we need is to change ourself.

Maybe, we dont need to go around the world to make a difference.
Maybe, it starts with oneself.
This doesn't sound romantic at all. But seems at times, pragmatism should prevail.

Yes, thats my new thought. " Changing The World, One Step At A Time"

Educating Out of Common Sense

Perhaps it is the teenage rebellion inside me.

Perhaps it is simply a disguise of laziness.

I don't know.
But sometimes, I find myself asking this question over and over gain.
What is the point of education?

Can education prepare us for the life? I doubt.
Does education makes us a better human being? I honestly don't know.

At times, learning disillusions me.
Why do we complicate what is so simple?
Why do we make concepts of universal understanding such as peace and power into complex theories and models?
Is it to help us understand and appreciate the complexities?
Complicating what we feel is not the point of education.
Especially when it seems so unnecessary. When it seems that we can come to the same conclusion, using common sense.

When I think of the times when learning felt really important, it has started with me looking for the learning.
Suppose I have a problem. Then, I think of how I can solve this problem? The quest for answer takes me to education. Unlike what I study, that education stays with me.

But in this world of privileged learning, we learn in the reverse way. We say this can be a possible problem you face and this is how you can solve it. We do this once. And twice. And thrice, until at some point, we lose the touch with reality. At that point, we forget that our learning was supposed to help us. Instead, it seems to educate us out of common sense.

Disillusion is a poison for passion.

But I try to remind myself the words of a very wise teacher.
When Michael Sandler introduced his Justice class, he said,

" Skepticism is a resting place for human reasons, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings, but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. Skepticism can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason.”

The point of education is to awaken that restlessness. It is to estrange us from the familiar; not by supplying new information but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing. The risk is once the familiar turn strange, it is never quite the same again.Self knowledge is like lost innocence.

Indeed, self knowledge is like lost innocence.

I will continue to learn but I must remind myself the point of why I am learning.
So that I will not be educated out of my common sense.


After all, it seems that Common sense, is not really common.

Burqa: A sign of oppression?

I loved today's class. There was one question and the whole dynamic of the class changed.

" Masculinity is valued because conflicts are handled in manly ways. How can we change patriarchy before we change the way conflict is handled?"

 The discussion that followed was so spontaneous. Great ideas were shared and debated. I felt really privileged listening to my class mates who seems to be so passionate and knowledgeable about what we were, are learning.

But the part of discussion that I want to talk more about is the " oppression of women in Middle East".
People around the world see that women in Middle East are often oppressed by their men and have no freedom. There may be cases of such oppression existing. That is not the point. The point is it is not only in Middle East that "such oppression" occurs. Many people see the burqa as a sign of female submissiveness. They see it as something that is forced onto a woman. I was watching Paris Jetaime about few weeks ago. A muslim woman in France is asked by a stranger why she wears the hijab when her hair is so beautiful. Her answer was touching, " For me, my hijab is part of my beauty. When I feel that I belong to certain culture, that to me is beauty." I think it is ignorant and wrong for those of us from outside to assume that burqa is a sign of oppression.

Part of this mentality is forced on by governments for political ends. When US invaded Afghanistan, they made the general public believe that there were on a liberation movement for women ( and to topple the Taliban as well), the white man's burden. Arundhati Roy said, "US govt. was trying to convince the rest of their world that the US marines were actually on a feminist mission...Can we bomb our way to feminist paradise?" The main motive for such publicity is to justify an unjust war. But it also fulfills another mission. The mission to hide real oppression in their own country. No matter how democratic America is, women are still invisible in lots of spheres. I think it is important to reflect on yourself before commenting on others. Innocence is a bliss but it is a dangerous bliss.

I remember Victor saying that often it is important to remind oneself that even if we are using the same language, we might be meaning different things. A little knowledge is dangerous. So even if is out of good will that one goes to help others, it is possible that one might do more harm than help. As such, when Burqa which is symbolic is easily targeted as a sign of oppression, there are other "real" hidden oppression that still exists, maybe not on the other side of the world, maybe it is happening right behind you.

It is important to see the irony and take notice. Take notice and make a change. You do not need to look half way across the world to stop oppression. All great movement starts at home.

On a more general note, I am also struck by how relevant my classes are to one another. Just when Catia was mentioning Enloe, we were studying one of her articles from the book, " banana, beaches and bases". The same discussion about the masculine sphere of politics was brought up in Peace and Justice. On the other side, I was learning the concept of GDP in our macroeconomics class. It is wonderful and encouraging in an academic way. Seeing how all these concepts complement each other truly shows the beauty of a liberal arts education.

A holistic approach to peace

Few things we did in the last class stuck to me.

When we were recapping the debate points, someone said that conflict in our life is inevitable. It is part of being a human. However, conflict does not necessitate to wars.

Secondly, as long as someone is benefiting from other person's loss, wars will continue to happen. That is true. Wars are not just about nation states. It is also a hidden business between leaders, business of weaponry, business of selling sentiments and exploiting grief. These must be brought out in light of revelation. People need to know that when a certain president justifies war by using a cause bigger than themselves, they are blinding the audience. Sometimes, I wonder what is it about politics that ruins everyone? What is so strong and powerful that even the toughest ones need to blend and play the game?

Well, anyways, the last point was how it is important to look at conflict from a holistic approach. I once heard a saying, " little knowledge is dangerous". There is truth in this saying. So many people, innocently and pure heartedly tries to help others giving donations. But who knows whether this money will get to the image of the child they sell to the public? So many people tries to help others without understanding their culture. And so many people don't have the patience to see the real peace work. Technology has made us impatient. We need everything instantaneously.

On a completely different note, I found out that America's biggest critics are the Americans themselves.

 George Bush made the rest of the world love to hate America. It was almost a fashionable dissident view to say how they think America is the biggest terror group. In my high school, I started learning about Weather Underground. America's arrogance was something that bothered many parts of the world. But coming here and sitting in the class, when I hear how American themselves feel the same way about some of their government action, I was um..it struck me strongly. I respect people who tries to understand someone else's culture.

Is War Inevitable?

Before starting my opinion on this very provocative topic, I wanted to share a more general view. When I am asked to write a journal every day, it is in a way challenging. All throughout the day, from one moment to the other, our thoughts continually process and evolve. Most of the time, even if I started thinking about something new, I dont have answers to it. At this age, it is the questioins that seems to drive me towards learning. Similarly as I go to class or randomly observe something related to peace and conflict, it is the burst of new ideas and questions that doesn't necessarily have answers. Being accustomed to the "formal paper writing" of a beginning, a body and a conclusion, it feels strange to leave thoughts without an end, even a temporary end.

Then I remembered a Chinese activist's word. I attended Bridge Conference twice in last semester- it was one of a kind initiative where Tibetan and Chinese students are brought together to learn from experts. As is explicitly suggested from the title of the conference, the purpose was to bridge us. Bridge a new understanding. Bridge a new tie. As he opened the discussion, he said that the Tibet-China issue is something that has multiple dimensions. It can be explored on so many different levels from politics, economics, to environment and what not. So the idea of starting this discussion is not to reach conclusions. The idea of starting this discussion is to keep the interaction going. To keep the process as the emphasis. I liked that.

So coming back, I think it is same with Peace and Justice. It is very hard to come to a conclusion on many ideas , therefore many of the thoughts are incomplete. But as some people say about love, only unfulfilled love is romantic, an analogy can be drawn to studying as well. Only when there is a quest, an unknown path, there is the thrill to go down and explore. While the fact that peace and justice is a relatively new field might not make it very academic in terms of its theories (mentioned in the Cortright book), it also offers us an opportunity to be part of its development, to play an important role in how we shape it. It has not yet been too institutionalized that the flexibility and flow of creativity is exhausted. There is room for more to come. That to me, is exciting.

Now going to the today's class debate, Is War Inevitable? The first answer that came to my mind is NO. Being a pacifist ( but learning what's in a word about pacifism, I guess I am not an absolutist) I always see war as a construction of humanity. Borrowing the anthropologist Mead's word, I was nodding my head when reading about how war is a human invention. On one side, it seems that with what Lorenz said, fighting is a natural human instinct. But the biologist's research seems to be more about animals than about human beings. So I guess his theory of studying on animal cannot be completely transferred to an understanding of human beings, after all we are different from them, even though we are also very similar. Going through many of the central view points, I became even more convinced that war is inevitable, at least intellectually. Even if Mead says violence is innate and we need to release it in some forms, war is not the only option. Even if Alias says we (or more suitably the government) need wars as a necessity to maintain power and control, war is not the only way. At the end, I made two observations.

First, It seems that why are we deprived of choice to choose either yes or no. (yes it is a debate, makes us think) but still, the position "War is inevitable" seems to be on extremity. No, it IS on extremity. In buddhism, we are always encouraged to avoid extremities and tread on the middle path, so I thought um.. there seems to be so many other options that lies between saying yes, war is inevitable or saying no, war is avoidable. Before war comes, there is tension, there is usually power interest, ulterior motives and what not. Personally, I dont have to fall in one of the extremities. The answer to humanity always lies in the nuances- it is both its beauty and curse. This made me come to my second point.

War is not inevitable. It is made inevitable.
Not by people. But by government. Arundhati Roy, one of my favorite writers once said,

People rarely win wars.

This picture is an emotional blinder, I agree. But still, isnt it beautiful?

Government rarely lose them.

I love this expression. Because it gives a new distinct identity between people and government. While government is supposed to be a representative of people, the system and the power corrupts the people at the top ( most of the time). But we as people, we are different. Governments are the ones who make people go to wars because they have financial, political and what not interests which they package in names of patrotism and freedom. This is all bullshit. Seriously. I dont think individually no one would want to kill someone for nothing. I dont think any individual would desire war because what is there to gain from killing? Using the system we live in where it is impossible to point a finger at one person, a system that forces politicians to be indoctrinated with necessity of power notions, war is made inevitable. This is the sad reality.

War is a drug, great movie.

Of all the articles I read, the one that I FELT not think about was the one by Chris Hedges. It's honesty, its bluntness really got to me. Yes, we must understand the attraction of war, what makes soldiers go back to it, over and over again. It was intellectual not in a -this-is-an-intellectual-article-johan-galtung-way, It was personal. It was somehow simple. But it did make me think about the ironies of the world. But hold on, seems like I am again becoming romantic and thinking too much about thoughts rather than actions. STOP. I think this will suffice for today.

Oh yes, I remember,  thats why, education about peace AND education for peace is important. Because, the truth is most people dont really know about wars. Thats why, the government exploits their ignorance. We need awareness, a mind of our own, that can think beyond what people tell us.
Haha..Innocence of a teenager can be so infecting.

Conflict: A Path To Peace?

When I was young and innocent, I used to pray for the end of conflict. I don't care whether it was something as small as a fight with my friend or something bigger as Tibet's struggle to freedom.
For me, conflicts were nasty. It brings out the worst in people. And personally for me,  conflict makes me feel distressed and unhappy.

Over the years since then, my definition of conflict has evolved. From a limited and linear perspective, I have started to see conflict as something circular, dynamic and maybe, even not so bad.

 I went to united world college three years ago. In the beginning,  I was overwhelmed by the diversity of the community. People from so many countries, speaking such different languages, with values and culture distinct and unique, how can I possibly imagine all of it in my mind, leaving understanding behind? How can I live in a place where there is only one person who speaks Tibetan? I worried at nights about the decision I made and the life I chose.

Only God would know that my two years in UWC was to become a turning point in my life. Within those two years, I was continuously challenged by the difference of the community. I started asking myself lot of questions. I started rethinking about the values and beliefs I have. Our difference helped us grow and learn from each other. In the process, it was inevitable that we had "conflicts". Conflicts of interest in room, Conflicts of politics with Chinese. Conflicts of Culture and what not. If I gave up during those times, I would have missed the best part that came afterwards. What happens after the conflict matters. Alot.

Because, despite all the differences I had, I came away learning to appreciate the potential and energy of diversity. Living with such diverse people taught me that difference in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, it is the light in which you look at it and the actions you take on how to handle it.

My first academic definition of conflict was the ABC triangle. Different attitude leads to different behavior which in turn leads to contradiction. Most people thought that yes, this is what conflict is. The end. I did too.

But I realise, with time and tide, like many other important things in life, conflict is more of a process rather than an end.Through conflict, we learn, we grow and we live. When there is difference, there is so much potential to grow because people are always challenging you to think, reflect on why you think the way you do. Conflict in some sense makes you introspective, it makes you ask new questions to old beliefs. And maybe, at the end, this journey will lead us to true peace and pure joy.

Talking About Peace: An intellectual luxury?

Since the class yesterday, my mind constantly thinks about peace.

At Dinner, I met a friend and asked her what she thinks is peace. Her idea of peace is more about emotional well being, the sense of calmness.

I started reading an article called, "Violence is the answer". The prelude was an abstract from George Bush.

"We are fighting a peace war". I started laughing at the absurdity of it. How he has cheapen peace. How the abuse of power leads to abuse of ideals and values.

It is sad how many people associate peace to a form of weakness. That is too harsh. It is something tender, soft, warm fussy feelings. It is about cheesiness.

In the thread of my thoughts, I started remembering what Mao Tsedung Once Said. Intellectuals are people who talk. They do not live in the reality.

I think sometimes, for people who really need peace, they dont have the luxury to analyse peace. ......

To be Continued.

Peace Reflection 1

What is peace?

It seems like a simple question. Almost everybody seems to have an idea, an opinion on what peace means. Yet at the same time, it is near to impossible to come to a definition that consists of all that peace symbolises and contends for. When Victor asked us to write three words that first come to my mind, I almost had a dejavu.

Three years ago, sitting in my high school peace and justice class, I had to answer the same question. I dont remember all the words but one that I do remember was the Dalai Lama. He stood for all that is good and noble in this world. But this simple exercise ( not easy, but simple) gave me another chance to see how my understanding of peace has, lets say, evolved with my growing experiences. Today, I wrote Health, Wealth and Joy.

Still, this does not answer the question. This is not a satisfactory answer to me. Can there ever be a perfect definition?

Peace is elusive. Thats all I could say with certainty. Looking from a different perspective, thats the very reason that draws me to study about these concepts. The mystery hangs heavy in the air. Although generations of people like Johan Galtung has dedicated their life to study peace, it could not be answered. Yet the very fact that these quest continue to excite our mind seems to show how relevant it is to our life.

So Maybe, the answer is not really that important after all. Maybe, it is the process of exploration that matters. Humanity distinguishes itself from Sciences because it is not definite, not exact. Its beauty is in the nuances, in the little bits here and there.

Moving on to the South Bronx story and the incredible discovery or lets say awakening it let to, I became even more convinced of the danger that economy causes. The arrogance of corporate globalization. It seems to me that sadly, money talks. And it talks loud. It shows who has power and who has not. Sadly, those in power are often dehumanized when the greed or just the profit drives them to see human beings as only consumers. What a sad world that would be, to reduce the beauty of that all exists into a market.

And the way it works, their money will protect them. From Jails. From doing what they do. And that too, inconsiderately and ignorantly. What a strange world.