Throwing it Away

I attended one of Hong Kong’s “best” international high schools. Every pamphlet, every brochure, every bit of blurb on our polished website screamed out that we were an institution of worldly, intelligent kids who were getting the best education money could buy. The students were a diverse bunch; almost ten percent of them were of mixed races, and the glossy photos in our yearbook showed off how they hailed from all over the globe. We had excellent, modern facilities, people said. We had a world-renowned teaching staff. We followed an intense, rigorous International Baccalaureate program that not only pushed us academically, but also encouraged our appreciation of the ever-changing world around us. To crown it all, the parents of these lucky kids proudly paid for one of the highest tuition fees in the city.

See, a large portion of families in our school community weren’t made up of typical soccer moms or insurance salesmen. Instead, our school attracted the cream of the crop. I never met more sons and daughters of CEOs and tycoons as I did in history class at school. I never saw as many Mercedes and BMWs in one spot as I did around our campus after school let out. The amount of money that flowed into our famous, prestigious, and rather exclusive institution yearly was enormous. This leads one to wonder what sorts of kids get such an opportunity, and how such an education benefits them.

Around a year ago, I had a casual talk with my friends over lunch in the cafeteria. The topic of conversation turned to current nuke magnets, and America’s involvement in the Middle East; to my surprise, only one of my friends (in a group of five present) knew who Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was, or had even heard of the name. I tried to explain how important he was in world politics today, but was met with blank stares. Curious (and worried), I asked them if they knew anything at all about Iran’s relationship with the United States and the rest of the world, and why people around the globe are currently concerned with the president’s military and ideological stance. After giving me no sign of knowledge on the subject whatsoever, they told me irritably: “Look – that stuff doesn’t really matter here. You don’t need to know it. Who cares?”

This isn’t an isolated incident, but rather a common example of how I’ve found students in the school I attended to be incredibly ignorant and apathetic towards what goes on in our world today. I don’t religiously pore over newspapers myself; I read the news online for about ten minutes each day. I don’t find it important for high school students to be able to recite the names of everyone in the British Parliament, or list the current number of soldiers in each Somalian faction. I am annoyed at, however, the girl in my class who thought that SARS was spread by birds (living in Hong Kong, no less). I am annoyed at the guy who proudly yells out in the hallway that he “doesn’t like Bush; that’s why [he] is a member of the Democratic Party.” I am annoyed by the people I overheard in class claiming that Osama bin Laden was the president of Iraq, I am annoyed by my classmates who had never heard of the World Trade Organization, when a massive anti-WTO riot occurred right in the streets of Hong Kong in December 2005.

A line needs to be drawn. How can students in a world-class school, with every available opportunity to learn, be so uncaring of current affairs? Surely, a school community of such social repute should not tolerate this kind of ignorance? Shouldn’t this school, a place of (expensive) education make some sort of effort to open its students’ eyes to what world-changing events go on today?

I’m not blaming the school itself, because it is hard to pinpoint blame on any specific factor for a student’s ignorance. In all honesty, even worse than the widespread ignorance I’ve seen is the widespread apathy. Many students seem to believe in the myth that it is best continue living life in a shell, and therefore simply do not care about what goes on around them.

The result: a mass of undereducated youth whose parents believe in a good education. Ironically enough, these are the families who pay enormous amounts of money in the name of learning, when the students themselves actively avoid it. It is this myth that “apathy is okay” that causes the peers I’ve known to waste their opportunities and dismiss the world that will eventually shape how they must live their lives.

The N-Bomb

In a recent television episode of South Park on Comedy Central, Randy Marsh competes on the game show Wheel of Fortune and manages to get to the final round, where he must solve one last word puzzle. He is given the category, "People Who Annoy You." As contestants normally do on the show, Randy picks several letters in addition to letter hints already given to him until he is left with the letters, "N_GGERS." At this point, Randy is sure that the solution to the puzzle must be the dreaded N-Word, and isn't sure what to do. Obviously afraid of offending people, he says to the host, "Well, I know it [the answer], but I don't think I should say it!" With 30,000 dollars on the line and all his friends and family watching on television, he decides to take the plunge and yells out what he thinks is the answer: "N*GGERS!"

It turns out that the answer is actually "NAGGERS." Randy is publicly humiliated for his utterance of the N-word in front of millions of viewers on national television (in addition to getting the answer wrong), and subsequently is teased and abused whereve he goes as the "n*gger-guy." Because of that one wrong answer, he is immediately condemned in society.

But in a broader sense, how exactly would a person in Randy's position be treated in the real world? What exactly would he be accused of doing wrong? What sort of cultural label would modern society slap onto his chest? It can be safely assumed that some sort of public outrage would result from the N-Word being spoken on television. It can also be safely assumed that some portion of people would be offended and infuriated by such a person's (we'll call him Randy) actions. Hypothetically speaking, it's hard for any of us to imagine a world where the use of the word or other such sensitive words would escape scathing public condemnation, let alone criticism.

What crime did Randy commit, however? Randy didn't say the word to offend anyone, or to attack anyone, or to avocate some racial standpoint. He knew its potential for controversy and was reluctant to say it at all. He was aware that despite his complete unintention to hurt any group of people, our culture today has made the N-Word such dangerous ground that I've chosen not to write out the full word in this blog. In the end, Randy's only "crime" was to make the specific phonetic sounds that comprise the N-Word.

The N-Word was originally offensive because it suggested that the speaker held the same derogatory, racist beliefs as those who coined the word a long time ago. It became an insult, a way to express hate and cruel intentions towards a group of people. The N-Word then understandably became offensive to people when used in verbal attacks.

Modern culture, however, have pushed the N-Word taboo to new heights. The mere public utterance of this word, in many cases, is pretty much verbal suicide, an invitation for condemnation and social disdain. Most importantly, the actual circumstances for using the word are often overlooked. The initial public reaction will never focus on why the word was said, merely whether or not it was said in the first place. This is where an initially understandable resentment towards racism starts going beyond reason. Essentially, saying the N-Word in public will not cause people to attack you for being racist, but just for saying the word itself.

One the one hand, it can be argued that certain words have almost universally-understood meanings, and that some of these words should never be used because they will "undoubtedly" hurt people no matter what circumstances they are used in. I agree that language generally should not be used in a hurtful way, as a pointed attack towards other people. I agree that people who use word like the N-Word with malicious intent deserve our criticism and reprimands.

On the other hand, it is ridiculous to me to condemn a word itself, instead of condemning the offensive ideals that the word usually expresses. In the end, a word is merely a set of phonetic sounds. What counts are the ideas behind them.

Imagine an objective television documentary were to be made about the history of the word "N*gger," in which the word itself is said again and again. Once again, there are people who condemn such "offensive" language. But is it really offensive if the show was merely made to educate? Is it offensive if not used to attack someone? I don't think so. Anyone can say the word "idiot." I could write "idiot" all over the wall, and I wouldn't receive much criticism (besides that regarding vandalism). On the other hand, the circumstances change once I call another human being an "idiot." Then, it becomes an insult, an offensive gesture.

Modern myth promotes the idea that certain words are dangerous just as words themselves, and that we should punish those who use them. What I think we should be punishing instead are the malicious ideas and beliefs that cause hate and conflict between different people.

Getting the Facts Right

Another video that I have a problem with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri6ySOHoDfk

This video is taken from a live television news broadcast. The section comments on what the anchors report to be a new "fashion" amongst young people today. According to the news report, "Emos," or "Emotionals" are merely teenage kids who strive to achieve social acceptance by doing the apparently extreme and dangerous actions characteristic of the "Emo fashion." They purportedly cut themselves and attempt suicide in order to become more popular and advance up teenage social ladders.

There are two issues at hand here that both confuse and frustrate me. The first concerns the news agency's credibility and the qualifications of whoever was hired to do research for this episode. Without even knowing any of the genuine background knowledge regarding emo as a musical genre, a logical viewer should be able to pick out the suspiciously far-fetched statements highlighted in the news report. Let's face the facts: These reporters are telling us that kids are trying to kill themselves so that they can be of higher subsequent social status. Does that really make sense, even to a hormone-fueled adolescent?

Logic, of course, is only the first shot to be fired at this terribly misinformed news report. Plain facts show how incredibly far-off the reports are. The word "Emo" does not refer to a suicidal teenager. It is not the apt term for the social currency in the purported Internet quiz circles. It is not even a noun. If the news agency had gotten their facts right, they would have realized that "Emo," or "emotive hardcore," was a spinoff of the hardcore punk musical movement back in the 1980's.

My appreciation of and interest in the genre aside, I find it saddest how the news report seemed to jump to the conclusion that the "Emo fashion" is a menace that must be contained. Surely, if the news agency must warn parents about one thing, shouldn't it be the possibility of self-inflicted injuries themselves, instead of long hair and black clothing? Isn't it a bit late to have finally publicly announced that teenagers inflict pain on themselves and attempt suicide (for a wide variety of reasons)? Isn't it a bit presumptuous to automatically connect this damaging behavior (that has been around for centuries) to quirky fashion or Internet braggadocio, when common sense suggests that there are deeper, more serious causes of self-inflicted injuries?

It appears that the mass media has once again taken the path of least resistance. Obviously, threats are more easily publicized when they are easily seen. It's almost too convenient to red-flag typically angsty teenagers who happen to show off their ubiquitous angst by dressing differently and listening to depressing music. By ignoring how teenagers are typically unsettled anyway and that depressing music has existed for centuries, the media capitalizes on changing trends and misinformed parents by creating these myths. This isn't the first time it's happened. First it was Elvis, then flower power, then punk rock, then skateboarding, then video games, and now it's "Emo," whatever that means. A new myth is created with every passing generation so that adults can pin their kids' emotional turmoil on some sort of visible threat.

For the lack of a better conclusion, I don't see this trend ending anytime soon.

Link didn't work

This one does.

http://www.albumoftheday.com/facebook/

(It still doesn't work, for some reason. Just type the URL instead of clicking on it)

Keeping Secrets on the Internet (of All Places)

http://www.albumoftheday.com/facebook/

Please watch the video above before reading.


According to the narrator in the video, "What happens on Facebook [should stay] on Facebook." By this, I'm guessing she means that the information that people voluntarily upload onto the internet should not be available for free access by strangers who use the free service. The video claims that many people around the world access information found in Facebook profiles. Such people include people who happen to earn a living working at certain corporations, and people who happen to work in the United States Government. The narrator proposes that information on Facebook profiles be contained, so that none of these people can use such information to carry out their jobs.

The proposal is pretty amusing. There is absolutely no accessible data on Facebook that was not intentionally uploaded by the user in the first place. Even if researchers in the government ever found Facebook to be a reliable source of true-to-life, useful data (unlikely), they probably already have more accurate ways of finding out where you go to school, your adress, your phone number, etc. Complaining about millions of people on the Internet looking at information that you posted yourself is sort of like pulling your pants down in front of a crowd and complaining that people are staring at you.

I'll look past the ridiculous belief that those accessing the massive public network of computers called the Internet should be forced to stop peeking. More interesting (tragic) is how the video jumps on the modern mythological bandwagon called, "Fuck the System." By specifically mentioning people who work for the government or certain large corporations, the video appeals to the modern youth's tendency to desperately look for something to rebel against. As people who work for corporations naturally earn money for their work, they are deemed evil and targeted as authoritarians who strangle youthful freedom. Note that no law-abiding Facebook user would ever be hurt by the government looking at their profile page, or hurt by said corporations earning money. Facebook users continue to be offered an entirely free internet service, with which they can voluntarily share information if they choose to do so. Despite this, many (like the video's creator) decide to complain anyway, because if someone working for the government is doing internet research, he or she must be up to no good.

This is all made possible by popular mythology, and a culture of youth who take services for granted. Instead of utilizing and appreciating the efforts of one particularly successful college student, millions of Facebook users have enthusiastically complained about everything possible. The Mini-Feed was often claimed to be too revealing (addictive), although people knew that they could stop posting information at any time. Advertisements on Facebook were accused of being tools of evil corporations trying to earn profit (of all things) off of consumers. By now, it is easy and popular to complain about "The System" and its influence on the Internet. It is easy and popular to look up at "The Man" and yell at him, while amusing yourself with embarassing pictures that a friend recently posted.

The modern America is a land of complaints and petitions, of lawsuits and pride. The mythological image of standing up defiantly in front of corporate and authoritarian giants will not disappear anytime soon.