It's an odd thing to read an article earlier today, on how some people consider body piercing - in particular, ear piercing - child abuse. Never has it crossed my mind that anyone would even considered that, which makes it rather astonishing to me.
On second thought, one can perhaps argue that it's not unlike the parents' decision to have their child circumcised. Afterall, it's a decision made on the child that cannot be undone, which my husband and I have decided positively for our son.
But my daughter was a bit different in this case. I never consider piercing her ears. Afterall, there is no real reason for it. Unlike my son, in which the circumcision decision is fundamentally one of hygiene, there's no reason why my daughter would need to pierce ears. Afterall, I didn't have my own ears pierced until I was in my mid 20s, when I know full well what I'm getting into, and decide that this is something I'm going to like for the rest of my life (and I still very much do). Perhaps my daughter sees it that I have my ears pierced, and it looks cool. Perhaps it could also be due to the fact that she wants to try the different earrings of mine.
I have resisted letting her making that decision. The same goes with sporting long hair. She has wanted long hair and piercing her ears very very early on, probably starting when she's around 3. I have told her, she's not getting any of these, unless and until she knows how to take care of herself. This includes how to handle the hygiene side of things properly. It's much harder for a child to wash their hair, particularly when it gets longer. The same goes with pierced ears and the earrings. Afterall, they have to be cleaned often. She has to be aware of the earrings getting caught by the hair. And even small things like, don't play around the earrings because they can get loose and be lost. I need her to learn this because I'm not going to let her wear just any earrings. I'll give her gold earrings, with much less chance of infection or irritation to her skin, and I don't want to have to keep buying gold earrings for her, if she keeps losing them. The other thing I taught her about choosing an appropriate pierced earrings is that, the stems must not be too thick, and it should not be too heavy. It should be so comfortable that you don't even feel its existence, rather than giving you pain and headache. She learns all these well.
Lucky for me...or rather, for her...she's turned out to be very responsible and cognizant of all these. She learns to shower by herself since she's 6. A few months after she starts doing that, in which I can make sure that she clean herself well every time, I let her grow her hair longer. One time we're traveling when she's 5, and we went by a jeweler store, she has her ears pierced as well. I must admit, she's much braver than most adults during the process. Not once did she even wince. She's been so happy with her earrings that she would not change to other earrings, even though I bought her more than a dozen different gold earrings. Now that she's outgrowing all those kiddie gold earrings, I'll probably have to give them away or sell them.
I would be very reluctant condemning other parents in piercing their children's ears. Some culture does it automatically. There are so many Indian families who do that to their girls when they are babies. Traditionally, Chinese families did that too, although very few do that these days, at least not in the urban cities. My mom certainly never did that on me or my sisters. And I've learnt from her the bad lessons about choosing the wrong kind of earrings. My mom used to get infections all the time since she's allergic to everything except 24k gold earrings, and she has had heavy, thick-stemmed earrings which widen the pierced holes so much that she can't wear tiny stud earrings anymore, since the studs will fall through the holes. It's not something that I would want to happen to myself or my daughter.
So, there you have it. It isn't really that bad to have your (or your child's) ears pierced. But you have to know what you're getting into. And you'd better make sure it's something you would want to live with...for life.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
On the importance of a good-fitting bra...
Much can be said of the importance of a good-fitting bra. It's one of the most personal things for a woman that guys will never understand. (Men only see bra as some sexy object that is meant to be taken off when the sex starts.)
Interestingly, my sister would also emphasize of the importance of good quality toilet paper. Afterall, we use it so often everyday, and no one wants a chafed butt. Ah, but that's another story for another day...
Back to the point on bra, I was reading an interesting article on Sydney Morning Herald about bra, how important it is to have a good-fitting bra, the variety of bras available, etc. Much fuss is made out of it, like the variety of bra, and how to choose a bra. But to me, it only comes down to two questions: is it comfortable, and is it appropriate?
On the question of comfort, I've lived my earlier life wearing ill-fitting bra when I was growing up. There's no under-wire. They were hand-me-downs that are loose-fitting (since my big sis are all bigger than I am in body size and boob size), and they don't hold shape. The idea back then was, as long as the bra prevents the showing of the nipple, that's good enough. Worse still, the straps were always slipping off my shoulder which was a constant nuisance. In short, I hate them.
I've been complacent for so long since I have been doctrinated into thinking that all bras are like that, or that women have to suffer through it, much like period cramps every month. I never knew better.
I remember, the first time I realize there's other option was when someone mentioned to me about sport bra. What caught my attention was the cross-shoulder strap that would not slip. I thought I found my savior.
The problem with sport bra is that, they lose elasticity pretty quick. Perhaps it's the earlier invention of sport bra, and the fabric just wasn't very good (even though I paid good money for it). With sport bra, the shoulder straps no longer slip down my shoulder which is a great relief. But after a short while, the bra itself would start sliding upwards. I found myself having to pull my bra down every so often which is a new nuisance. I blame my small boob size for the problem, rather than the bra. I don't know better.
My second epiphany came, when I was carrying my first child. With the hormonal changes in my body, my boob suddenly went up two sizes, both in inches and in cup size. I find it almost impossible to have to pull the sport bra on/off me, given the increasing bulk of the baby in my stomach. And then, someone suggests this radical idea to me: I should give under-wire a try.
It's radical to me because it's almost counter-intuitive. With the baby growing in size, perhaps the last thing I would want is to put wire between my breast and my stomach. Wouldn't that hurt the baby, I had thought. What I really need back then is the support to my breast that is getting heavy, so that I can focus on carrying the baby. And, of course, I know now, that it won't hurt the baby one bit.
I can't tell you how much of a difference to me, when I first tried on an under-wired bra, it's like night and day. It's so comfortable because it provides the kind of support to my breast that I've never experienced before. And the padding helps protect my increasingly sensitive nipples from rubbing against the clothing.
I never look back because I've found what I've always needed. You might ask, don't you want to try this, or that? I'd say, I know what I want now, and what I have now is comfortable to me. That's what I need.
As to the question of appropriateness, I'd say, get me a few different colors, and I'm good to go.
Do I really need 300 different varieties of bra? I highly doubt it. Sure, there will be occasions when I wear halter and strapless dress. All I need is simply a variation of my padded under-wired bra when I can easily remove the straps; and I'm good.
So, there you have it. It took me decades to get to this point. And the solution is so simple: I just need under-wired padded bra. It's almost like a no-brainer, much like having wings in sanitary pads to prevent leakage. Why does it take the industry so long to come to this?
But then, different people might have different needs and wants. Some people who have big boobs would probably hate padded bra because they don't want their boobs to look any more bigger than they already are. Some people love lace; some people hate it. (I personally hate lace. It's not comfortable, and it's mostly just for show...to the guys.) Some people don't like bra at all. That's all well and good, as long as you find what you need/want...and I'm happy to say, I've found mine. :)
Interestingly, my sister would also emphasize of the importance of good quality toilet paper. Afterall, we use it so often everyday, and no one wants a chafed butt. Ah, but that's another story for another day...
Back to the point on bra, I was reading an interesting article on Sydney Morning Herald about bra, how important it is to have a good-fitting bra, the variety of bras available, etc. Much fuss is made out of it, like the variety of bra, and how to choose a bra. But to me, it only comes down to two questions: is it comfortable, and is it appropriate?
On the question of comfort, I've lived my earlier life wearing ill-fitting bra when I was growing up. There's no under-wire. They were hand-me-downs that are loose-fitting (since my big sis are all bigger than I am in body size and boob size), and they don't hold shape. The idea back then was, as long as the bra prevents the showing of the nipple, that's good enough. Worse still, the straps were always slipping off my shoulder which was a constant nuisance. In short, I hate them.
I've been complacent for so long since I have been doctrinated into thinking that all bras are like that, or that women have to suffer through it, much like period cramps every month. I never knew better.
I remember, the first time I realize there's other option was when someone mentioned to me about sport bra. What caught my attention was the cross-shoulder strap that would not slip. I thought I found my savior.
The problem with sport bra is that, they lose elasticity pretty quick. Perhaps it's the earlier invention of sport bra, and the fabric just wasn't very good (even though I paid good money for it). With sport bra, the shoulder straps no longer slip down my shoulder which is a great relief. But after a short while, the bra itself would start sliding upwards. I found myself having to pull my bra down every so often which is a new nuisance. I blame my small boob size for the problem, rather than the bra. I don't know better.
My second epiphany came, when I was carrying my first child. With the hormonal changes in my body, my boob suddenly went up two sizes, both in inches and in cup size. I find it almost impossible to have to pull the sport bra on/off me, given the increasing bulk of the baby in my stomach. And then, someone suggests this radical idea to me: I should give under-wire a try.
It's radical to me because it's almost counter-intuitive. With the baby growing in size, perhaps the last thing I would want is to put wire between my breast and my stomach. Wouldn't that hurt the baby, I had thought. What I really need back then is the support to my breast that is getting heavy, so that I can focus on carrying the baby. And, of course, I know now, that it won't hurt the baby one bit.
I can't tell you how much of a difference to me, when I first tried on an under-wired bra, it's like night and day. It's so comfortable because it provides the kind of support to my breast that I've never experienced before. And the padding helps protect my increasingly sensitive nipples from rubbing against the clothing.
I never look back because I've found what I've always needed. You might ask, don't you want to try this, or that? I'd say, I know what I want now, and what I have now is comfortable to me. That's what I need.
As to the question of appropriateness, I'd say, get me a few different colors, and I'm good to go.
Do I really need 300 different varieties of bra? I highly doubt it. Sure, there will be occasions when I wear halter and strapless dress. All I need is simply a variation of my padded under-wired bra when I can easily remove the straps; and I'm good.
So, there you have it. It took me decades to get to this point. And the solution is so simple: I just need under-wired padded bra. It's almost like a no-brainer, much like having wings in sanitary pads to prevent leakage. Why does it take the industry so long to come to this?
But then, different people might have different needs and wants. Some people who have big boobs would probably hate padded bra because they don't want their boobs to look any more bigger than they already are. Some people love lace; some people hate it. (I personally hate lace. It's not comfortable, and it's mostly just for show...to the guys.) Some people don't like bra at all. That's all well and good, as long as you find what you need/want...and I'm happy to say, I've found mine. :)
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
On the callousness of the younger generation and the use of web...
I was in college when the internet started booming. Usage was mostly among those on campus and academia. I remember how irc was still such an innocent place where 99% of us on the channels were just college students. My first job in IT didn't even have internet access. There was no need to because the web was still in its infancy and there wasn't much out there that was useful to search. It's so unlike what it is these days. So much information is out there, and so much of my life is conducted on the web, that I cannot fathom if I don't have my broadband access for even just one day. Still, I don't considered myself "hooked". As much as irc was addictive, I was only hyperactive on it for maybe six months; in fact, I was almost completely off of irc within a year. Afterall, most of my irc friends have either graduated or moved on with their real life. After a while, I come to realize that those who stayed on in irc for years are losers or bums in real life, like one of the guys from UT whom I talked to often have been on irc for close to 10 long years! To be sure, he's actually quite a funny guy on irc and he's quite popular too, but I seriously doubt if he can conduct or present himself the same way in real life, which would account for why he's hooked on irc for so long.
I digress again. Where was I...
Ah yes, I meant to write about the callousness of the younger generations these days and on how they use the web or conduct themselves. We know cyber-bullying is all over the place these days. Today, I read the article on this loser bum 21-year-old who took video of himself singing to elementary school kids, then replaced his song with sexually explicit lyrics, and posted the clip on the web and youtube. One can only sigh at the total cluelessness of these younger kids (albeit in his early 20s now), and their lack of civility. The town in Michigan wants to hang him high and dry, as a showcase of how the law will come down on them with a potential heavy sentence of 20 years and more. This dude has no lack of supporters. Apart from the usual cohort of the free-speech crowds who want everyone to do whatever whenever wherever, there are those who come out in support of him, saying he hasn't really "hurt" anyone...or has he?
I can't disagree with the last argument more. The same can almost be said, of passing child pornography on the web. Afterall, it's just the streaming of binary bits of 0's and 1's. But in his so doing, he's explicitly associating very young kids to sexual references that would and should never have happened in real life. The litmus test of this is, if he would not do it in person, believing that singing sexual explicit songs in front of young kids is inappropriate, why would he edit the clip, linking the two?
Surely we know the heavy sentence is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. But if we don't do something outrageous, the younger generations will never wake up to the potential grave consequences that their actions on the web warrant.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the free-speech argument. Those people are mostly nuts, arguing for criminals for the sake of arguing.
I digress again. Where was I...
Ah yes, I meant to write about the callousness of the younger generations these days and on how they use the web or conduct themselves. We know cyber-bullying is all over the place these days. Today, I read the article on this loser bum 21-year-old who took video of himself singing to elementary school kids, then replaced his song with sexually explicit lyrics, and posted the clip on the web and youtube. One can only sigh at the total cluelessness of these younger kids (albeit in his early 20s now), and their lack of civility. The town in Michigan wants to hang him high and dry, as a showcase of how the law will come down on them with a potential heavy sentence of 20 years and more. This dude has no lack of supporters. Apart from the usual cohort of the free-speech crowds who want everyone to do whatever whenever wherever, there are those who come out in support of him, saying he hasn't really "hurt" anyone...or has he?
I can't disagree with the last argument more. The same can almost be said, of passing child pornography on the web. Afterall, it's just the streaming of binary bits of 0's and 1's. But in his so doing, he's explicitly associating very young kids to sexual references that would and should never have happened in real life. The litmus test of this is, if he would not do it in person, believing that singing sexual explicit songs in front of young kids is inappropriate, why would he edit the clip, linking the two?
Surely we know the heavy sentence is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. But if we don't do something outrageous, the younger generations will never wake up to the potential grave consequences that their actions on the web warrant.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the free-speech argument. Those people are mostly nuts, arguing for criminals for the sake of arguing.
On Pauline Hanson the aussie bigot...
I cringe every time I see Pauline Hanson's name in the news, and there is no shortage of it. From her burst onto the aussie political scene with the One Nation Party using the small town of Ipswich in Queensland, to her speech blatantly full of bigotry and racism, to her fall from grace (as if she ever was) with convicted fraud charges, to the dismantle of One Nation, to her abandoning of Australia moving to Britain, to her return to Australia after discovering the supposedly greener pasture in Britain is no better than that in Australia, to her attempt to reinvent herself for a comeback to politics in Sydney this time.
To a very small extent, I feel sorry for this woman who has exhibited nothing but ignorance. This small-town fish-and-chip shop owner rode the wave of voter nervousness and xenophobia towards each succession of migration population. Never once did she pause to ponder her own status in Australia as a migrant herself. Afterall, the aborigines are the true indigenous Australians; everybody else (the Brits, the whites, the Chinese, the Indians, and now those from the middle eastern descent) is just another migrant to this blessed land we called home. I'm sure Hanson would argue that she is not a first-generation migrant, so she can be regarded as an Australian. We could argue too, that the same can be said of a large majority of the aussie populace that falls in this category. The fact that she is white and her forefathers who once came from Britain does not entitle her any more an Australian than anybody else who has pledged allegiance to the country. If anything could be said of her forefathers, one could argue that they were most likely once convicts and criminals. Chinese, who are quick to disparage her too, would easily dismiss her as her "thief" look; but I'm not going to go there.
So, what do I make of her latest comeback attempt? I can only think of the word pathetic. After her attempt to ditch Australia to move to Britain, thinking that Britain should be more "pure" than the multi-cultural Australia, she must have thought that she would find more familiar grounds and cohorts there. Afterall, they still have the royals! I'm sure she has conveniently failed to acknowledge the fact that the class system (or at least the concept of it) of the Brits is still quite alive and well. It's not surprising that the Brits did not embrace her and her radical racial views. She would, in fact, find more brown faces (eg. those from India) in UK than in Australia. And, the Britis don't have that good a medicare system as Australia.
I can only hope that the Australian voters in NSW see through the fraud in this Hanson character, and vote with their feet. To allow her back in the Senate is only going to give her a legitimate platform to vent and rant, which can never be good for Australia as a whole. I, for one, am going to vote against this woman, when the time comes.
To a very small extent, I feel sorry for this woman who has exhibited nothing but ignorance. This small-town fish-and-chip shop owner rode the wave of voter nervousness and xenophobia towards each succession of migration population. Never once did she pause to ponder her own status in Australia as a migrant herself. Afterall, the aborigines are the true indigenous Australians; everybody else (the Brits, the whites, the Chinese, the Indians, and now those from the middle eastern descent) is just another migrant to this blessed land we called home. I'm sure Hanson would argue that she is not a first-generation migrant, so she can be regarded as an Australian. We could argue too, that the same can be said of a large majority of the aussie populace that falls in this category. The fact that she is white and her forefathers who once came from Britain does not entitle her any more an Australian than anybody else who has pledged allegiance to the country. If anything could be said of her forefathers, one could argue that they were most likely once convicts and criminals. Chinese, who are quick to disparage her too, would easily dismiss her as her "thief" look; but I'm not going to go there.
So, what do I make of her latest comeback attempt? I can only think of the word pathetic. After her attempt to ditch Australia to move to Britain, thinking that Britain should be more "pure" than the multi-cultural Australia, she must have thought that she would find more familiar grounds and cohorts there. Afterall, they still have the royals! I'm sure she has conveniently failed to acknowledge the fact that the class system (or at least the concept of it) of the Brits is still quite alive and well. It's not surprising that the Brits did not embrace her and her radical racial views. She would, in fact, find more brown faces (eg. those from India) in UK than in Australia. And, the Britis don't have that good a medicare system as Australia.
I can only hope that the Australian voters in NSW see through the fraud in this Hanson character, and vote with their feet. To allow her back in the Senate is only going to give her a legitimate platform to vent and rant, which can never be good for Australia as a whole. I, for one, am going to vote against this woman, when the time comes.
What makes an American american, or French french etc...
I just came back from Australia, the other adopted country of mine, and have been having some soul-searching. I read, with interest, the New York Times article on the French president Sarkozy wanting to erect some museum that is sufficiently monumental to his presidency. Like much of everything else he pursues, his ambition meets with ridicule. Given the rich culture in France, Sarkozy is surprisingly shallow, much like the scandalous Italian prime minister Berlusconi who is another joke and laughing stock.
Scandals and jokes aside, the latest Sarkozy pursuit prompts me to think of what makes a French french, or American american, or Australia australia. During my stay in Australia, this is consistent a theme of discussion (more like debate) in both news and documentary. In countries where multi-culturalism is supposed to be celebrated, how far back does one have to go before claiming to be part of that culture?
In Australia, it always starts with the painful history of the harsh treatment of the aborigines by the whites, which no one disputes about by now. Notwithstanding the 1992 Keating apology, I don't think the Australian aboriginal culture has ever made it to mainstream, or become part of the cultural fabrics of the country. Acknowledging its existence is one thing, but incorporating it into the overall culture is quite a different matter. I would venture that most, if not all, impression of the Aussie culture is one of sunshine, blue sky, relaxed laid-back surfer dude. Even the outback lifestyle, albeit all the interests and documentary on SBS, is more a spectator sport. One only needs to look at the tourist numbers going to Gold Coast, versus those venturing to the outback to acknowledge that fact.
I would hope to think that I'm a fairly open-minded person, to the point where I would correct and argue with my parents when they were making jokes about the aborigines looking like monkeys whenever they are featured on TV. Afterall, I teach my kids that one should never judge a book by its cover, so too should I walk the walk and talk the talk, to the point where I would not tolerate bigotry, even in words, however benign it might be. The aborigines have as much rights as any other Australians in the country. To the extent in which the recent migrants like those well-to-do ones from China who move up the economic and academic ladder much faster than the aborginal bums, and in their subversive collective contempt to anyone who are less fortunate than they are, it's something smack of low taste, to say the least. But when I am to be honest to myself, I find that I'm unable to truly claim that I've embraced the aborigines as fellow Australians. Perhaps it's because I rarely see any aborigines at all in Sydney proper, and I rarely have time to venture outside of my comfort zone.
The same can be said of America or France or even Britain, and elsewhere. These countries have embraced migrants from other countries. America is perhaps a more successful story, as a melting pot of various cultures, perhaps due to its sheer size and volume, compared to Australia. Still, post 9/11, no one is foolish enough not to notice the backlash against the muslim community. In fact, the same undercurrent is happening in Australia where there are suburbs considered to be invaded and even taken over by different ethnities like the Chinese (eg. Hurtsville) and the Middle East crowds (eg. the recent "land of the falafel" remarks over inner west in Sydney). It'll take a long time, if ever, for Australia to truly and wholeheartedly embrace the middle eastern culture. The chinese is a slight different matter since they are rich and can spend right now, and they are generally not as aggressive as the those from the middle eastern regions, thereby evoking less resistance in Australia in general.
Much like Keating apology, Clinton has made his landmark apology to blacks back in 1997 in acknowledge the wrongs. And of course there was also the big fuss - and such a big deal was made of it - of having a black president (Obama) elected in America for the first time, no matter that he is only half-black and for the most part, he looks and acts no different than any other white progressive presidents like Bill Clinton. Symbolism is all there is.
For all those, can we still celebrate multi-culturalism? It's a decidedly positive first step, that we should come to acknowledge the existence of others, all men being equal. It sounds all like some academic exercise. But if one is the examine the history of a country, both past and present, since history is a living and evolving concept, why would people get so offended by Sarkozy's proposal in evoking its Christian past? Perhaps if one posts the question in a more balanced way, that history, both past and present deserve to have their voice to heard, it might not be such a big deal. I would hope that one does not gloss over the difficulty and struggle, like the riots and clashes that happened in the past due to all the cultural struggle. Somehow though, people tend to use historical references to suit their current needs, like the comparison of the Crusades and the struggle between Islam/Christianity countries in the centuries past.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a more personal front, I often ponder what message I should send to my kids. Afterall, they are more like citizens of the world, having three different nationalities (and the passports to show for it). Does it make them any less American, or Australian, or Chinese, as any other who live in these countries all their lives, much as my kids do, but yet *look* like one? Does it make them less Australia or American because they do not look cauasian? Ethnicity is a rather abstract concept to the kids. There was once some classmates of my kids pointed out to her (with no malice) that she is chinese, rather than american. That is just so wrong, I have explained to her back then. It's such a teaching moment that I have to seize on, to make my kids understand that they are no less american, or australian, or chinese, than any of their peers, simply because they look different, or eat different kinds of food. It is something that I find myself revisiting with them since moments like this recur so often, sadly or not.
Scandals and jokes aside, the latest Sarkozy pursuit prompts me to think of what makes a French french, or American american, or Australia australia. During my stay in Australia, this is consistent a theme of discussion (more like debate) in both news and documentary. In countries where multi-culturalism is supposed to be celebrated, how far back does one have to go before claiming to be part of that culture?
In Australia, it always starts with the painful history of the harsh treatment of the aborigines by the whites, which no one disputes about by now. Notwithstanding the 1992 Keating apology, I don't think the Australian aboriginal culture has ever made it to mainstream, or become part of the cultural fabrics of the country. Acknowledging its existence is one thing, but incorporating it into the overall culture is quite a different matter. I would venture that most, if not all, impression of the Aussie culture is one of sunshine, blue sky, relaxed laid-back surfer dude. Even the outback lifestyle, albeit all the interests and documentary on SBS, is more a spectator sport. One only needs to look at the tourist numbers going to Gold Coast, versus those venturing to the outback to acknowledge that fact.
I would hope to think that I'm a fairly open-minded person, to the point where I would correct and argue with my parents when they were making jokes about the aborigines looking like monkeys whenever they are featured on TV. Afterall, I teach my kids that one should never judge a book by its cover, so too should I walk the walk and talk the talk, to the point where I would not tolerate bigotry, even in words, however benign it might be. The aborigines have as much rights as any other Australians in the country. To the extent in which the recent migrants like those well-to-do ones from China who move up the economic and academic ladder much faster than the aborginal bums, and in their subversive collective contempt to anyone who are less fortunate than they are, it's something smack of low taste, to say the least. But when I am to be honest to myself, I find that I'm unable to truly claim that I've embraced the aborigines as fellow Australians. Perhaps it's because I rarely see any aborigines at all in Sydney proper, and I rarely have time to venture outside of my comfort zone.
The same can be said of America or France or even Britain, and elsewhere. These countries have embraced migrants from other countries. America is perhaps a more successful story, as a melting pot of various cultures, perhaps due to its sheer size and volume, compared to Australia. Still, post 9/11, no one is foolish enough not to notice the backlash against the muslim community. In fact, the same undercurrent is happening in Australia where there are suburbs considered to be invaded and even taken over by different ethnities like the Chinese (eg. Hurtsville) and the Middle East crowds (eg. the recent "land of the falafel" remarks over inner west in Sydney). It'll take a long time, if ever, for Australia to truly and wholeheartedly embrace the middle eastern culture. The chinese is a slight different matter since they are rich and can spend right now, and they are generally not as aggressive as the those from the middle eastern regions, thereby evoking less resistance in Australia in general.
Much like Keating apology, Clinton has made his landmark apology to blacks back in 1997 in acknowledge the wrongs. And of course there was also the big fuss - and such a big deal was made of it - of having a black president (Obama) elected in America for the first time, no matter that he is only half-black and for the most part, he looks and acts no different than any other white progressive presidents like Bill Clinton. Symbolism is all there is.
For all those, can we still celebrate multi-culturalism? It's a decidedly positive first step, that we should come to acknowledge the existence of others, all men being equal. It sounds all like some academic exercise. But if one is the examine the history of a country, both past and present, since history is a living and evolving concept, why would people get so offended by Sarkozy's proposal in evoking its Christian past? Perhaps if one posts the question in a more balanced way, that history, both past and present deserve to have their voice to heard, it might not be such a big deal. I would hope that one does not gloss over the difficulty and struggle, like the riots and clashes that happened in the past due to all the cultural struggle. Somehow though, people tend to use historical references to suit their current needs, like the comparison of the Crusades and the struggle between Islam/Christianity countries in the centuries past.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a more personal front, I often ponder what message I should send to my kids. Afterall, they are more like citizens of the world, having three different nationalities (and the passports to show for it). Does it make them any less American, or Australian, or Chinese, as any other who live in these countries all their lives, much as my kids do, but yet *look* like one? Does it make them less Australia or American because they do not look cauasian? Ethnicity is a rather abstract concept to the kids. There was once some classmates of my kids pointed out to her (with no malice) that she is chinese, rather than american. That is just so wrong, I have explained to her back then. It's such a teaching moment that I have to seize on, to make my kids understand that they are no less american, or australian, or chinese, than any of their peers, simply because they look different, or eat different kinds of food. It is something that I find myself revisiting with them since moments like this recur so often, sadly or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)