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.