Protecting Your Ego from Swine Flu

The world health organisation recommends wearing masks to combat the spread of influenza in pandemic settings. Given the deadly nature of swine flu, it's a preventative measure that is particularly pertinent.

Normally, however, most Western folk wouldn't be willing to wear a mask just to prevent getting the flu. It is too dorky, too uncool, and we just don't want to be seen as a loser.

This a real shame, because the normal cold and flu costs the economy millions of working days per year.

In Hong Kong and Japan, it is accepted practice to wear a mask when you are sick, to stop the spread of germs. No one laughs at you or thinks you are a loser; in fact, they are probably grateful that you are being responsible.

Isn't it ironic, in cultures which are supposedly collectivist, and having been described as having an ant-like mentality, people are much less worried about what other people think than in the supposedly-individualist West?


Mind you, there are plenty of things about the individualistic moral and political philosphy that I love. But I don't think it is individualism per se, but our reaction to it.

In an individualist society, everyone is in competition, as individuals, whereas, perhaps, in a collectivist society, everyone feels bound to their duty to serve the common good. This can be seen in the extremely low rates of petty crime in Japan and Hong Kong, for instance. Indeed, a ride on the Tokyo subway is a strange experience due to the lack of graffitti!

Now what's that got to do with wearing a mask? A lot. There are plenty of things that are "smart", but we don't want to do because we will be ridiculed. It is "smart" to ride a bike with a bright orange flag sticking out of your helmet, a bright yellow reflective vest, and flashing lights.

Radio headphones (the ones with the antennae!) were also a good idea.

But of course, no-one wants to be a loser. So we forgo the wise decision and do the stupid thing to be cool.

Ever noticed, by the way, how many stupid things are "cool"? Smoking, drinking to excess, taking unnecessary risks, riding a motorbike without a helmet, streaking at the cricket... the list goes on.

This risk-taking behaviour is also distinctively a male phenomenon. Men are much more likely to take risks; and are consequently more likely to die in motor vehicle accidents and alcohol-related violence and accidents.

What could possibly be the evolutionary advantage in that?

Perhaps it's because risk-taking is a sign of aggression, which is a sign of high levels of testosterone. As we all know, he who has the most testosterone becomes the alpha male, and the alpha male impregnates all the women.

"Get rich, die trying" is the motto. Because even if you die, the women you will have impregnated will be carrying your progeny, so you will have been succcessful, (from an evolutionary standpoint anyway).

But perhaps it's time for a re-think, given that we no longer live in tribal societies (though that itself is debatable). It's no easy task to change people's attitudes of what is cool and what is not; but it does happen. It used to be cool to smoke; but public health campaigns have changed this attitude. It used to be cool for a man to treat his wife as his property; now there are laws against marital rape.

Perhaps one day, we will think it is stupid not to wear a mask when you have a flu. Or to wear radio headphones. Or to carry a backpack on your back with both straps rather than slinging it over one shoulder.

Read more...

Gays, Bikie Gangs and the Church: an Agent of Social Reproduction?

"Why is the church so judgemental?"

It's a question often asked of the church. While Christian doctrine teaches not to be judgemental, historically, "the Church" has engaged in all manner of judgemental practices; from the burning of heretics at the stake, to torture, to the wars of religion in Europe (judgements made about theological rigour).

So why is the church so judgemental?


Implicit in this is an assumption that the church is, indeed, judgemental. But is this the case?

By its very nature, religion is normative; it makes judgement on right and wrong. In Christianity (and Judaisim and Islam), sin is wrong. What should occur is belief in Jesus Christ.

Interestingly enough, the church dishes out its judgement disproportionately to different sectors of "sinners".

Technically, all (including all church attendees) are sinners, so there can be no "worse" sinner, theologically speaking.

However, churches worldwide seem obsessed with one particular issue: sexuality.

Homosexuality, sex before marriage; abortion, condom use, contraception, the cervical cancer vaccine.

What is striking is not the level to which religious zealouts pursue this issue. Rather, it is the complete ignorance of other, seriously pressing issues which one would think are much more pertinant, from a Christian moral standpoint.

Abortion and euthanasia, for instance, may be institutionalised killing; however, so are the death penalty, shoot-to-kill anti-terrorism policies and the military.

On venegeance; Christ's teachings instruct followers to "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemy". Based on these instructions alone, many Christians should have been opposed to the invasion of Iraq and the campaign in Afghanistan. Add to this the loss of civillian life, I think Christians have much more of a moral obligation to speak out and act.

Unfortunately, they are too busy deriding the use of condoms and lobbying against homosexuality.

Why is it with such an attitude of damnation that the church views homsexuality?

SImple: it is a sin, and the church cannot be seen in any way to condone it.

Agreed; if one does indeed consider it sinful, and that it is so "because God says so", fine.

But the same God also says that murder, coveting and greed are sinful.

So how is a Christian to act towards homosexuals? What about prostitutes? He who is without sin, be the first to cast his stone; and condemn to death figures such as Mary Magdalene?

By way of illustration, it is interesting to consider Christian ministry to outlaw motorcycle gangs.

God's Squad is a Christian group that is structured as a bikie gang. Though they may ride Harley-Davidson crotch-rockets and sport wiry beards and tattooed arms, they are (for the most part) law-abiding Christian citizens.

http://gscmc.com/

The point is to bring Christian doctrine to a sector of society known to be sinful in their murder, greed, drug trafficking and money laundering. I have a friend who is part of the club and often tells his congregation all about it. They are praised for being courageous, daring Christians willing to risk their lives for what they believe in.

Now imagine if there were a similar ministry to homosexuals and transgendered peoples. These people have special needs. Why is it, however, that such ministry is condemned in such a damning way by the church? Think of Gene Robinson, Episcopalian (Anglican) Archbishop of New Hampshire.

Here's my proposal:

It's not about doctrine at all, but about social reproduction.

The church imparts to its congregation certain norms, values, practices and morals; this it does through the Bible. Throughout the history of human societies, myths and legends have fulfilled this role (think about Aesop's fables and the Grimm Brothers' stories and the strong moral overtones).

Social reproduction.

Little girls, grandmothers, docile servant girls, handsome princes etc. are exemplified as virtuous; wolves, wicked stepmothers, ugly sisters (wtf?) are cast as contemptable.

This is where Mythology and Christianity collide in the examples of Gay and Bikie ministry, respectively.

For all their sin, bikies exemplify the hypermasculinity in society. Aggression, violence, power, emotional detachment. These are cool: that's what being a "real" man is all about.

People who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, however, are NOT what society would want itself to be like. Hanging them (Iraq) burning them (Medieval Europe), vilifying them (New Hampshire) and the like are fine; but whatever you do, do NOT condone them.

Though I am tempted to look at ministry within the armed forces, I realise I have an incredibly under-developed understanding of this type of ministry, and I really need to have a chat to those who have served as ministers in the armed forces before proceeding.

IN all you say and do: is it for the sake of Christ or for the sake of social reproduction of the status quo?




Read more...

Racial Timebomb or Synergetic Expression? Asian Nightclubs

Nightclubs specifically for Asians. Is that racist? Is it a defence mechanism? What has our society come to?


Two interesting things happened recently.

Firstly, a friend from Adelaide called me. She wanted to interview someone who was in touch with Sydney's "Asian ghettoes". While perhaps not the best person to comment on these ethnic communities in Sydney, I am definitely interested in these issues, and we had a good chat.

"Are ghettoes a good or bad thing?", she asked me.

By definition, I think ghettoes isolate certain sectors of the community by creating barriers between them. But for those who have difficulty adapting to their surroundings, they can be havens. Think of the expat ghettoes across South East Asia, Chinatowns across the world, and Shakespeare's Bookshop in Paris' Latin Quarter.

Later on that week, a friend of mine invited me to an event at an Asian nightclub.

It seems that I've been out of Sydney (or perhaps sheltered in the Northshore of it) for too long to realise they existed, but indeedy, they do.

Questions started firing off all across my brain... Surely it can't be a good thing for a harmonious society.

Just for comparison, if a venue opened up a "White nightclub", there would be outrage amongst the ethnic community.

But perhaps they already exist.

Insider sources have sometimes leaked unofficial codes of entry regarding racial profiling and admixture; and whether certain ethnic groups should be allowed in.

While I don't like to play the victim because it is disempowering, I am also a pragmatist, and I know that if I want to go to certain venues, it's always good to go in a group of at least 50% white people. This is both from experience, and from advice from others.

Why is it, exactly, that Asians need their own entertainment venues? We are not talking Fresh-off-the-boat foreign students, but rather, Australian born-and-bred kids whose parents happen to be of some kind of Asian (or part-Asian) background.

I wonder if a parallel exists in the development of Chinatowns. Part of the reason they began may have to do with the fact that Chinese people were excluded from mainstream society and needed a place where they wouldn't be discriminated against.

A decade after the whole Pauline Hanson episode, does Australian multiculturalism need to refocus and look at what is happening in our society?

Read more...

A Communist Bedtime Story: Why Equality Matters

Okay, so we could go into the whole economics or political economy or social studies into disparities in wealth. That would be boring. Rather, let's do things like look at scenarios and do thought-experiments to figure this out.

Example: Pre-Industrial Era.

People were very wealthy. The problem was, that those were few and far between. If you happened to be an aristocrat in pre-revolution France, for instance, you had the finest foods, best education, fantastic healthcare, threads whose extravagance would put the mardi gras to shame. Problem was: several million starving peasants in the countryside who didn't like that, especially the fact that so much of their hard labour was taxed, going directly into the pockets of these nobles.

Compare that to the current economic crisis in America. Scores of the working-class, proletariat are losing their jobs, meanwhile, if you happen to be the CEO of a failed company, you get a bail-out, and you can give yourself several million dollars in bonuses from that came from the pockets of the tax-paying proletariat in the jobs they USED to have.

Now it's time for a thought-experiment!

If you could choose between earning an average wage in a highly-developed (i.e. wealthy) country, or to be a multi-gazillionaire in a poverty-striken country, which would you prefer?

Let's take some real-life examples:

Australia is a modestly wealthy nation. The per-capita income is about two-thirds that of the per-capita income in America. Nominally, Hong Kong also has a much higher GDP per-capita than Australia. How then, do you explain the huge number of people from Hong Kong wanting to move to Australia?

Another thought experiment. The average person in Australia earns US$37,500 (PPP - 1990 values) per annum. Would you rather be an average person earning that amount in Australia, or a multi-millionaire in: Iraq, Afghanistan or Somalia? I could go on, but I might end up offending people. (No offence to Iraqis, Afghans and Somalis).

I would choose to be the average person in Australia. Why? Because there aren't as many poor people around. It's a sad fact, but when you have poor people around, there's more suffering, crime, violence, prostitution, drug abuse, organised crime, extortion, corruption...the list goes on.

Let's take another thought experiment (can't remember the philosopher who thought this up). You have to create a society, but you don't know where you'll end up. You could be in the richest 10%, or you could be in the poorest 10%. How would you create that society? Would you make social mobility nearly impossible, as was the case in feudal Europe? Or would you allow equal access to healthcare, education and transport (i.e. prioritising public rather than private transport)? How much of an effort would you give to alleviating poverty? That comes as a price, of course; so how much of that burden would be supported by the rich?

The reason is because money is, very often, power. An Australian cop earning the average wage of $37,500 isn't likely to fall for a bribe of $1000 too easily. But for a police officer who earns $2 a day, $1000 is more than his annual income. Think: if an Austraian cop were offered $100,000 in a bribe, would they take it?

Disparities in wealth create a power differential.

When there are less hyper-powerful people in society, it is less likely that they will be able to push their power around, so: democracy is more likely. Because in the ultimate democracy, everyone would have exactly the same amount of power to determine their own future.

So it might sound like I'm being snobbish, saying I don't want to live around poor people. In a sense, yes. But the other way to think about it is that I don't want to live around poor people, SO: how can we pull those poor people out of their abject poverty?

Sadly, even in a place like Australia, there are gross disparities. In Aboriginal health and social & economic wellbeing. But at least the differences aren't as vast as they are in Brazil, South Africa, or China, for instance; where the disparities in wealth are the greatest in the world.

Oh and I'm not really a communist.

Read more...

China: Racist?

This picture reportedly appeared on a Chinese forum:




















And they're not really sure why it's offensive.

According to some of the subsequent comments, the Chinese hate Europe and America, and consider white people to be "albino ghosts" or having a "ghastly palour", and black people to be dirty. Not sure what they think of Arabs...

As has been the trend recently, however, the Chinese have had to learn to cooperate with Africans. Africa has plenty of natural resources that China would like to use for its hyperdevelopment, and is willing to pay Africans a reasonable price (a far more attractive offer than European colonisation).

As a result, the Chinese government is offering scholarships to African students to study...Chinese. So you will find Sudanese students studying in Beijing, who are fluent in Mandarin Chinese.

One such student made a comment on this forum. He commented on the racism that he encountered on a daily basis in China, as a black African. Now, an interesting note that he makes is that he feels people were prejudiced not about his blackness but his Africaness, if that is a word. He notes that Chinese youth are fascinated by the likes of Will Smith, Kobe Bryant and Beyoncé. Why is this?

He reckons that it's a racism of wealth, rather than of colour.

It's interesting, because, now that he mentions it, there are many more examples I can think of where this is the case.

Take my favourite little microcosm; Hong Kong.

Since the British colonised the place, there has been a well-known racial hierarchy, which lingers in modern-day Hong Kong, even though racial discrimination is technically illegal.

At the apex are (or at least, once were) the British ex-pats and westerners. At one point, there were clubs and parks that were reserved for the use of the white race only.

The ethnic Chinese were next on the ladder, and constituted the majority of the population. Once they started becoming wealthy and powerful, they subsequently employed servants to look after them; and a large labour force of live-in maids (au pairs), largely from the Philippines, met this need.

For anyone who has observed the way some Hong Kong Chinese people treat Filipinos, they will know that the former has an assumed superiority, subjugating the latter to subservience.

What strikes me about the attitudes towards Filipinos is that many Filipinos in fact have some European ancestry; mainly Spanish. And yet, they aren't thought of as "Caucasian" by the local Chinese population.

Another rather interesting "ethnic" group are "mainlanders". It's interesting that there is "racism" against them, because they're actually of the same "race". But culturally and socially, the differences are vast: not having had the same educational and economic opportunities as the local population, they are often viewed with disdain.

Add to this mix a thriving South Asian (predominantly Sikh) community in Hong Kong, many of whom have been there for several generations, and are fluent in Cantonese, English and their native language.

According to some early racial theorists, South Asians (Indians, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Sri Lankans) are technically Caucasians. And yet as a Hong Kong Sikh will probably tell you, they get their fair share of discrimination.

On the other hand, the Japanese, whom you'd expect Chinese people to feel negatively towards, occupy a relatively prestigious position on the Hong Kong social ladder. Perhaps not Japanese people as such, but Japanese culture is definitely an influential force in Hong Kong. One only has to walk through Hong Kong's arcades of Hello Kitty and Ultraman mini figurines to understand what I'm talking about.

So what is the driving force behind this prejudice?

Perhaps, as that Chinese-speaking African student noted in the blog, it's a "racism of wealth", which has variously been called class prejudice, or simply snobbery.

I think it explains the Japanese attitude towards mainland China, for instance, and their somewhat different view of Hong Kong. It explains the recent hostility in Britain towards Eastern Europeans. It explains why Japanese businessmen were given "white" status when doing business in apartheid South Africa. It explains the divide between the working-class and upper-classes in England.

It's a class society we live in. For those who don't think so, look at the difference in the travel restrictions for people carrying a European passport compared to a Congolese passport. A Hong Kong passport compared to a mainland Chinese passport. An Australian passport compared to a Japanese passport.

I don't pretend to know how we could resolve this. But a good start may be to examine the concept of the class struggle, and whether striving towards a classless (or at least a socially mobile) society is a good thing.

Oh and we can teach our children not to look down on other people, no matter what their wealth, colour, language or ethnic background.


Read more...