So many of us spend decades of our lives climbing social ladders of societies where competition is high, the dog-eat-dog attitude is the norm, and true friendship and love are devilishly hard to find. We grow stronger in such an environment, wiser in an unhealthy way, and, at the same time, tougher and colder. We are true societal warriors, ready to crush the guy next to us for the benefit of taking his place in the social order.
In the meantime, there are places in the world where we are needed by many people who are actively searching for our help. Many would like to make friends with us and even share their lives with us. However, somehow most of us do not like to look “down” – we are trained to climb, climb all the way to the top. Be like the big players- the highly paid actors, millionaires, doctors, and other great people.
Then, many of us complain of loneliness and coldness among the skyscrapers of Hong Kong, New York or Tokyo not realizing that ultimately we have made the choice to be there, karmically or otherwise. If we really wanted, there are many places where people want us, and often, we can go there and live a life with much less competition and much more acceptance and respect, but many of us simply do not dare to. Or, we are just ashamed to. What will our friends think of us when they see us with those who are poorer than us? In countries that are poorer than ours? Nah!
One of the sources of my feeling inferior to my fellow (wo)men was that I would always compare myself to those above me socially, economically, ethnically and otherwise, while totally ignoring the so many people “below” me in so many places where I would be so much more welcome.
After I hit forty, had a divorce and a near bankruptcy, I finally woke up and began thinking of where I could contribute to the development of the world while at the same time not to become a pauper. It did turn out that one could do both- one really did not need to sacrifice one’s comfort for the sake of serving one’s fellow human being. I also started looking for social life in countries where I felt people would be seeking me out instead of me having to seek them out.
So far, such a balanced life has proven to be a very happy one. When I compare my personal state of mind, and, most important, my present level of happiness to the times when I was living in the concrete jungles of big 1st World cities, thinking only of myself and how I could please the people above me, I always note with satisfaction that, I have, in fact become happier.
So, the lessons that I have learned can be summarized as follows:
1) There are plenty of people in many countries that need you. Find out in which ones, where and go there.
2) Do not worry about not becoming one of the people at the top of the world. That may or may not make you happy. There are still many places where people would like to have you as a leader; and you can serve them and enjoy the same respect amongst them that billionaires have in large industrial world capitals.
3) There are jobs that pay well, but which are still located in places where people need you. You can kill two birds with one stone- make good money and contribute to humanity. There is no need to become a “hippy volunteer”.
Finding a situation like that is easier than one may think. And it may be the best path to follow if one wants to become happy.
***
April 2, 2010
Love market’s singing indicators
When traveling from place to place one becomes exposed to local radio programs be they in a taxi or a car you rent or wherever. If you listen to love songs, I mean, local love songs, you will become aware of an interesting phenomenon- namely, the kind of lyrics and the type of performers change as you move from country to country depending on the particular characteristics of their national “love market”. What I mean is this-in some countries it is mostly girls singing about guys and in some countries, it is mostly guys singing about girls. Example: let’s say, you are in Thailand. If you listen to Thai music on the radio, one of the most frequent love song types seems to be that of a woman who has been abandoned by her male lover. There is often a song or two by a woman who loves a man but who does not know how to attract him.
This indicates the particular characteristic of the Thai ‘ love market’- there seems to be a great number of good girls and the number of ‘worthy’ guys just does not seem to be anywhere near it. In other words- based on the songs you hear there, Thailand is clearly the guy’s market with many available women to choose from.
In the US, a large number of love songs is sung by a young man who is sweet and caring (judging by his voice) and who sings very beautiful things to a girl. Think about such popular songs as “ Nothing’s gonna change my love for you”, most of the love songs by Barry Manilow, and other such very warm and passionate songs-all of which are basically written by a man who is courting a woman. It seems to show that the US is a ‘girls’ market’- guys really need to be sweet and sharp when it comes to courting as competition for women seems to be very keen there.
The funny thing is that when you get to the Philippines, you will get to listen to the same American songs but now they are sung by ‘a girl to a guy’. It shows again that the Philippines is a guy’s market- good guys are hard to get. So, women now sing such American courtship songs to them. One of the most popular songs sung in the Philippines by a lady singer is “I’ll always love you, deep inside this heart of mine” which is sung by a man in the US.
In the UK again, most courtship and heartbreak songs are sung by men. Think about the Beatle’s songs “I wanna hold your hand” and ‘I can’t stand losing you’ by “The Police”. You would be very hard pressed to find a song by a British girl who is singing about losing a guy. I guess the dynamics of the British love market are severely slanted against men.
In Spain, love songs seem to be sung mostly by guys to girls. In Russia, lots and lots of songs are sung by women about unworthy and irresponsible guys and how they do not love them and abandon them. In the neighboring Ukraine, again, the songs are mostly sung by guys courting a girl.
In Puerto Rico, sad songs by an abandoned woman are a rather frequent occurrence on their radio waves. That again reflects the severe economic realities of an Island whose many men leave for greener pastures on the US mainland leaving many local women behind to compete for the few eligible men that stay behind. Since women outnumber men in that US territory, when men choose wives, some women will remain holding the bag and singing such songs. I have yet to hear a Puerto Rican song of the kind of “Oh, baby bay it’s a wild world” in which an America woman abandons her man leaving him singing such a sad and bitter song.
Of course, the above does not indicate that in any given country ‘all’ songs will be either by guys courting women or by women courting men, just that the frequency and the number of either one will be different- their ratios will be different. By counting the ratios you will be able to figure out basically if you will be able to score on their love market or not.
Some songs also indicate the economic realities of certain countries (duh) and how they pertain to the ‘love market’. In Thailand, again, many a song is written by a poor guy who does not seem to have enough money to live a good life which often implies marriage. In that country you need to pay a ‘bride price’ to the family of the girl if you want to tie the knot, and if you have no money or not enough of it, marriage may be something that you will still need to save for, for a long, long time. This is directly and indirectly reflected in the lyrics of the songs. Few if any Thai songs are sung by a rich guy who is courting a girl or who has been abandoned by one. There is just no such thing in that “Paradise for Men’ land.
If you are an international love seeker and are thinking of heading to a country hoping to find some romance in it, it would be a good idea to buy some of their popular song collections and listen to them. If you do not speak the language, ask a native speaker to translate some for you. You will get a good picture of what opportunities will await you there.
It is not the traditional way to determine how well the country will accept you as a potential hunter of their romantic treasures but a rather accurate one. Try it. It may save you from prospective disappointments and heartaches, as well as unnecessary loss of your time and money.
***
This indicates the particular characteristic of the Thai ‘ love market’- there seems to be a great number of good girls and the number of ‘worthy’ guys just does not seem to be anywhere near it. In other words- based on the songs you hear there, Thailand is clearly the guy’s market with many available women to choose from.
In the US, a large number of love songs is sung by a young man who is sweet and caring (judging by his voice) and who sings very beautiful things to a girl. Think about such popular songs as “ Nothing’s gonna change my love for you”, most of the love songs by Barry Manilow, and other such very warm and passionate songs-all of which are basically written by a man who is courting a woman. It seems to show that the US is a ‘girls’ market’- guys really need to be sweet and sharp when it comes to courting as competition for women seems to be very keen there.
The funny thing is that when you get to the Philippines, you will get to listen to the same American songs but now they are sung by ‘a girl to a guy’. It shows again that the Philippines is a guy’s market- good guys are hard to get. So, women now sing such American courtship songs to them. One of the most popular songs sung in the Philippines by a lady singer is “I’ll always love you, deep inside this heart of mine” which is sung by a man in the US.
In the UK again, most courtship and heartbreak songs are sung by men. Think about the Beatle’s songs “I wanna hold your hand” and ‘I can’t stand losing you’ by “The Police”. You would be very hard pressed to find a song by a British girl who is singing about losing a guy. I guess the dynamics of the British love market are severely slanted against men.
In Spain, love songs seem to be sung mostly by guys to girls. In Russia, lots and lots of songs are sung by women about unworthy and irresponsible guys and how they do not love them and abandon them. In the neighboring Ukraine, again, the songs are mostly sung by guys courting a girl.
In Puerto Rico, sad songs by an abandoned woman are a rather frequent occurrence on their radio waves. That again reflects the severe economic realities of an Island whose many men leave for greener pastures on the US mainland leaving many local women behind to compete for the few eligible men that stay behind. Since women outnumber men in that US territory, when men choose wives, some women will remain holding the bag and singing such songs. I have yet to hear a Puerto Rican song of the kind of “Oh, baby bay it’s a wild world” in which an America woman abandons her man leaving him singing such a sad and bitter song.
Of course, the above does not indicate that in any given country ‘all’ songs will be either by guys courting women or by women courting men, just that the frequency and the number of either one will be different- their ratios will be different. By counting the ratios you will be able to figure out basically if you will be able to score on their love market or not.
Some songs also indicate the economic realities of certain countries (duh) and how they pertain to the ‘love market’. In Thailand, again, many a song is written by a poor guy who does not seem to have enough money to live a good life which often implies marriage. In that country you need to pay a ‘bride price’ to the family of the girl if you want to tie the knot, and if you have no money or not enough of it, marriage may be something that you will still need to save for, for a long, long time. This is directly and indirectly reflected in the lyrics of the songs. Few if any Thai songs are sung by a rich guy who is courting a girl or who has been abandoned by one. There is just no such thing in that “Paradise for Men’ land.
If you are an international love seeker and are thinking of heading to a country hoping to find some romance in it, it would be a good idea to buy some of their popular song collections and listen to them. If you do not speak the language, ask a native speaker to translate some for you. You will get a good picture of what opportunities will await you there.
It is not the traditional way to determine how well the country will accept you as a potential hunter of their romantic treasures but a rather accurate one. Try it. It may save you from prospective disappointments and heartaches, as well as unnecessary loss of your time and money.
***
Impressions and Status
I have, on several occasions, read the writings of ladies who were wives of American officers, and who spent a large chunk of their lives accompanying their husbands on their overseas postings. They would describe their lives in Germany, Japan, and other such locations with the most positive of terms. The people were lovely, the cultural experience, overall, was priceless and the hospitality of the local population was unmatched. Everybody was so friendly and welcoming. They had learned some of the local culture and language, too. Then, they went back home after having seen how great people in those countries were, taking with them precious memories that would now last a lifetime.
Of course, they had a great time. They did not stay in a country that was an enemy of the US. Not at the time, at least. Both Germany and Japan had been conquered during WWII and they now very much respect the winner- the American military, that is. The wives, and their army or air force spouses, too, were taken care of by the US government, and had not become a burden on the local economy. The couples and their children, if with them, basically represented Uncle Sam while in those countries, or, at least, this is how many local people saw their role: they were America to them, the powerful, the wealthy, the unbeatable. As such, they were most certainly well treated. It sure had helped again that none of those countries were at war with the US, and that the US bases there were not under attack at the moment. Because if they had been stationed there when a war was going on, they would have had a different impression of the place; that is, if the wives had been allowed to be there to begin with.
Of course, most of the people around the bases were very helpful - they had already gotten used to the presence of the troops and learned to deal with them. Many had even opened businesses there to cater to the military personnel and were now waiting on them hand and foot as these have become a source of income.
These women and their husbands did not have to go into the local community and look for a job. They were not poor immigrants or foreign laborers. They were respectable envoys of a mighty nation. Now, if they had been wives of Turkish workers coming to Germany to make a living and compete with the local labor force for scarce employment, and thus take jobs from the Germans, they may not have been so thrilled about the hospitality of the people. If in Japan, instead of being a robust US military officer, you had been a poor nobody coming alone to look for a job as an English teacher or someone like that, without having the proper connections and introductions, you would have seen a different Japan- a suspicious and mistrustful one, xenophobic and rude. Or, if you had been brought in as a Korean colonial subject to do manual labor for the Japanese Imperial Government, you would not have to say much about the affability and charm of the Japanese people. Most probably you would have thought that you had ended up in the Hades and were now surrounded by devils and other such demons.
Your efforts to fit into the local culture would also be appreciated in different ways depending on your status. A high-ranking officer in the US military who speaks some Japanese or German will be praised for his efforts and very much appreciated. A poor immigrant worker, on the other hand, who is looking for a job there, will probably be told that he has an ugly accent, and that he is dumb, even though he may speak the language much better than the officer. So, depending on one’ s status and what one symbolizes to the locals, one’s impressions of the country will vary. A nation that seems to be populated by cultured and friendly people to one group, will appear to be a hateful hell-hole to others, a place from which they would want to escape as soon they possibly could.
Many places in the world are like that- people there respect whom they see as the powerful, the rich and of high status, even if they had been enemies in the past. However, few there have any regard or even pity for those poorer than they are, and who are coming to the country to do hard work to help their families back home. You will often than not be scorned and treated like dirt. And, depending upon in which category you will find yourself in a foreign country, you will either take with you fond memories of wonderful encounters with a fascinating culture, or seething resentment and even outright boiling hatred of your oppressors. It just depends on who and what you are and what you are doing there.
***
Of course, they had a great time. They did not stay in a country that was an enemy of the US. Not at the time, at least. Both Germany and Japan had been conquered during WWII and they now very much respect the winner- the American military, that is. The wives, and their army or air force spouses, too, were taken care of by the US government, and had not become a burden on the local economy. The couples and their children, if with them, basically represented Uncle Sam while in those countries, or, at least, this is how many local people saw their role: they were America to them, the powerful, the wealthy, the unbeatable. As such, they were most certainly well treated. It sure had helped again that none of those countries were at war with the US, and that the US bases there were not under attack at the moment. Because if they had been stationed there when a war was going on, they would have had a different impression of the place; that is, if the wives had been allowed to be there to begin with.
Of course, most of the people around the bases were very helpful - they had already gotten used to the presence of the troops and learned to deal with them. Many had even opened businesses there to cater to the military personnel and were now waiting on them hand and foot as these have become a source of income.
These women and their husbands did not have to go into the local community and look for a job. They were not poor immigrants or foreign laborers. They were respectable envoys of a mighty nation. Now, if they had been wives of Turkish workers coming to Germany to make a living and compete with the local labor force for scarce employment, and thus take jobs from the Germans, they may not have been so thrilled about the hospitality of the people. If in Japan, instead of being a robust US military officer, you had been a poor nobody coming alone to look for a job as an English teacher or someone like that, without having the proper connections and introductions, you would have seen a different Japan- a suspicious and mistrustful one, xenophobic and rude. Or, if you had been brought in as a Korean colonial subject to do manual labor for the Japanese Imperial Government, you would not have to say much about the affability and charm of the Japanese people. Most probably you would have thought that you had ended up in the Hades and were now surrounded by devils and other such demons.
Your efforts to fit into the local culture would also be appreciated in different ways depending on your status. A high-ranking officer in the US military who speaks some Japanese or German will be praised for his efforts and very much appreciated. A poor immigrant worker, on the other hand, who is looking for a job there, will probably be told that he has an ugly accent, and that he is dumb, even though he may speak the language much better than the officer. So, depending on one’ s status and what one symbolizes to the locals, one’s impressions of the country will vary. A nation that seems to be populated by cultured and friendly people to one group, will appear to be a hateful hell-hole to others, a place from which they would want to escape as soon they possibly could.
Many places in the world are like that- people there respect whom they see as the powerful, the rich and of high status, even if they had been enemies in the past. However, few there have any regard or even pity for those poorer than they are, and who are coming to the country to do hard work to help their families back home. You will often than not be scorned and treated like dirt. And, depending upon in which category you will find yourself in a foreign country, you will either take with you fond memories of wonderful encounters with a fascinating culture, or seething resentment and even outright boiling hatred of your oppressors. It just depends on who and what you are and what you are doing there.
***
My TV told me" We rule the world!"
If you are preparing to go abroad for a short- or long term, and decide to consult the State Department and order any brochures from them that deal with foreign travel, they will be happy to supply you with the most up-to-date information on visas, travel restrictions, and tell you what to do and what not to do in foreign countries. Your passport will also list various travel-related precautions and instructions on a variety of issues with subsequent warnings about things such as dual nationality, and how some foreign countries may consider you a citizen and even impress you in their armed services. They may list countries that you are not allowed to go to, as well. Traveling to foreign lands can often be a complicated process, and going there for employment can be even harder what with some very stringent visa requirements. In order for me to get a visa for Saudi Arabia, for example, I had to supply a stack of documents that was over an inch thick, and it took me six weeks to compile them all.
This is, however, not the picture you get in Hollywood movies and on the mainstream English-language news channels. According to them, America ( and, maybe Britain, as well) rule the world. Americans in these movies are never shown standing in lines at foreign embassies, running around to get medical and police clearances or paying for visas. They are never shown crouching in toilets while collecting their own stool and urine specimens to submit to doctors approved by those embassies as part of their visa medical requirements. They are not portrayed waiting at police stations to get fingerprinted and paying for criminal background checks or filling out long and detailed embarkation cards. They are just shown entering the countries freely and doing whatever they want while being surrounded by people who are falling over backwards to greet them; and, maybe, a small number of enemies who are trying to kill them. These last ones get killed in the end, of course. By Americans and Britons who are allowed to wield guns in foreign countries? Yeah, right!
The Hollywood movie "Quigley Down Under " with Tom Selleck going to Australia was a blatant example of such a simplistic portrayal of international travel. Quigley goes to Oz, gets off the boat without much immigration clearance, swaggers around making snide remarks about the locals and the country, helps out some poor people there and takes on a local villain who always talks about how he had been born on the wrong continent- meaning, he would have much rather been an American than an Aussie. For some reason, there is a rather poor Mexican-American girl from Texas that also travels around Australia with Tom Selleck. It makes it look like he is, in fact, in Texas, only with wild dingoes howling all around him. Neither Quigley, nor his companion seem to be carrying a travel pouch with money, round trip tickets, (which might be required by the Immigration), and/or passports with visa stamps in them. And did Quigley have a gun there? He was shooting it. Without a gun permit? Well maybe that was a long time ago when they probably allowed Americans to bear arms in Australia.
James Bond movies, too, show a Briton in faraway lands who hardly ever goes through immigration formalities, but who shoots his guns right and left, starts explosions, and almost never faces the huge armed forces of the foreign states that he travels to. He just gets in, outsmarts the local police , maybe shoots a few terrorists, gets his dangerous job done, and leaves with a girl hanging on his arm. How does he walk back through their immigration after having killed so many people, even with a diplomatic passport? He does often fly out by plane or helicopter, but crossing another country's airspace, even on the way out, after having detonated so many bombs, can trigger the scrambling of a few air force jets and subsequent shooting down of his aircraft. Especially in some remote countries like Azerbaijan. Don't they have radars? I can think of a number of movies like that. "Bourne Conspiracy" comes to mind. He is shown as living for years in foreign lands ( with what visa, I wonder), speaking some five languages without an accent ( supposedly), even though he does have an accent in some of them (I speak several languages and I could hear it), and, generally, accomplishing his violent missions in such nations with only minimal resistance from the locals. Where are the military of those countries (numbering hundred of thousands if not millions) when he pulls off his feats of arms in front of everybody? And how come I never see such people fill out even one disembarkation card or a customs declaration? At least, in most of such movies, they don't.
OK, ok, maybe it is because they are on secret diplomatic or military missions. Maybe they just carry very special passports which are quietly approved by the local authorities. But the things they do in those countries... my, oh my!
The news also shows US ( and British) soldiers with guns being greeted like liberators by the locals and again, they are never seen at immigration offices waiting in queues to get an extension stamp. Well, maybe they did not need those in Iraq, granted, they are soldiers, and it is a war zone. I hope you, on the other hand, will not think that you yourself will be able to do anything even close to that.
Yup, don't try that at home, especially other nations' homes. Just because the movies portray America and its allies "ruling" the world, and, because in diplomatic and military circles America and its allies can exert significant influence upon many other countries, it does not mean that you, as an individual citizen of the US ( or the UK) are also 'ruling' the world. When you go to visit those countries or work there, you are subject to their visa regulations, and they decide who they want to admit and who they do not want to let into the country. It is fully discretionary as it is their country, after all. They can deny you visa without having to give you any explanation whatsoever. If you do not know the local laws and break them, you can be liable for penalties such as lengthy jail terms and heavy fines. And you may not have the same rights as a local citizen. There may be no jury of your peers, either. The US constitution does not apply in foreign lands. It is as simple as that. When you live in their countries, until you become a citizen there, you are a guest, short- or long term. And you can be declared a Persona Non Grata at any time, too, if they do not like you for some reason or if some well-connected local calls the Immigration on you.
The US State Department knows that very well, and will be happy to supply you with all the information pertaining to your upcoming trip. You need to get informed, keep your head down and follow the rules in those countries. The Hollywood movie makers may have a different version of the world, but it is naive at best. Do not get any ideas from them. The producers and the screen writers most probably have never lived in the countries that they are writing about to begin with.
Some years back, two US tourists arrived at Manila International Airport. They had been drinking and were visibly inebriated. When the Philippine immigration officers asked them for their passports, they began laughing. When the officials asked them for their disembarkation cards which needed to have been filled out on the plane and duly signed, along with the sworn Customs Declaration Form, one of them got angry at the officer and exclaimed: "You are a pain in the a..!". They were probably watching too many movies about how the US liberated the Philippines, and assumed that the Filipinos were now going to unroll the red carpet for them. The officer called for help, the authorites came, they were escorted out of the immigration area and put back on the plane. They were also probably blacklisted and prohibited from ever coming back to the Philippines again. The next day the Philippine newspapers announced the news: " Drunk, boorish foreigners deported." Not drunk "Americans". Drunk "foreigners". So much for "ruling the world".
Another US tourist was probably under the impression that he did not need a visa to get into Australia. He just took the next airplane, landed in Sydney, but was stopped at the Immigration and asked for his visa. You see, Australian visas have to be obtained in advance- they are not given upon arrival. Not to Americans, at least. Please keep checking the State Department announcements for the up-to-date visa requirements by all these different countries because that fellow obviously didn't.
He was refused entry, turned back and put on the next airplane home to the States. Obviously, he thought that if Tom Selleck could just strut into the country, he could do it, too. The Australian Immigration obviously had other ideas.
Even in the countries that are supposed to be US allies, individual US citizens are often not treated differently from other foreigners. In Japan and in Thailand, some bars have a "No Foreigners Allowed" policy. Quite a few hotels and many landlords refuse to admit foreigners in Japan; Americans, or otherwise. Some places in Thailand even have "No Tourists- Thai People Only" signs. That means "Americans” or "Britons" as well. It is their country, they make the rules.
While it may say on the Internet that many nations "do not require visas" of US tourists when they arrive, it is still basically "a visa upon arrival" when they stamp your passport there. So, even if some travel advisory may says "no visa required for a short stay", still, as a tourist, you are on visa, no matter how you look at it.
Americans and Brits have an easier time with visas than citizens of many other countries not necessarily because "the US/UK rules the world", but , generally, because they are citizens of a richer country, and are wanted as tourists in many places. The same can be said about the Japanese and Singaporeans- these do not need "advanced" visas to go to many countries, especially those whose economies are less prosperous than theirs. However, in order to work or live abroad long-term, you need all sorts of permits, visas, medical tests, document verifications; and you will often have to jump through many bureaucratic hoops before you are allowed to remain there beyond a relatively short tourist stay. If you have big money you are welcome as an investor in a great number of countries, but you still need to go through lots and lots of red tape before you can stay there permanently or semi-permanently. You may choose to live on tourist visas, but you will need to be leaving the countries regularly to renew them, and the authorities there one day may simply ask you- "Hey, how come you've been coming here so often? Got any business here?". What will you say to them? I hope you will not say, " I am an American (or British), and we rule the world".
If you, God forbid, break the law and get in trouble in some other country, your embassy may or may not help you. Most of the time they can only visit you and work with the local officials to make sure that laws are being followed when you are brought to justice and, possibly, ask for clemency; but even then, it is iffy. Michael Fay, an American teenager who was arrested in Singapore some years back for vandalizing cars, was sentenced to be caned- the US Embassy took it up with the authorities, but were only able to reduce the number of times he would be hit with that instrument of punishment-the dreaded cane. He still had to undergo the excruciating pain of being struck with that savage stick. And the prohibition against such cruel and unusual punishment may or may not apply in Singapore.
Laws for equality, against discrimination, US nationality- and citizenship laws, and other Western laws often do not apply in other countries. In Islamic lands, the Shariah law rules. Tribal Arabs laws also often rule. One Australian was arrested in Saudi Arabia because his Asian wife had been caught stealing. According to the Shariah law, a husband seems to be responsible for his wife's crimes. Last time I checked, he was still in the Saudi jail. Some people who have children born in Saudi Arabia or in Japan mistakenly think that the children can now qualify for citizenship there. "Well, isn't it like in the US? The kid was born here- he is now a Saudi/Japanese". Oh, no. This is not America. He is not a Saudi or Japanese. It is not that simple. "But in the States..." Well, but you are not in the States now.
Many countries also have agreements that favor citizens of their little group of nations as far as granting visas, residence permits and work permits is concerned. This will include Americans as far as travel to Canada goes, and as far as entering Mexico, but if an American wants to go to Brazil or Paraguay, he needs to apply for a visa. However, an Argentinean can just walk into Brazil without any prior approval. I remember how envious I was of Argentinean citizens while I was at the airport in Sao Paolo in 2005; I had to wait six hours to catch my next flight to Johannesburg and could have just gone on a mini-tour of the biggest city in Brazil, but as a US citizen I could not get through their immigration, while Argentinean passengers were just heading towards the counters and breezing right through them. They were members of the Mercosur economic community, but I wasn't. I felt the same way when I could not just walk across the border with my US passport from Thailand into Laos, while Thais could just cross the bridge over the Mekong and go shopping on the Laotian side with only their ID cards. They were ASEAN members and I wasn't.
Gulf Arabs also form a community called the GCC- the Gulf Cooperation Council. They can usually travel to, work and own property in other member states without much hassle, whereas non-citizens of those countries, including those of us who "rule the world" usually have none of those privileges.
EU citizens can work in other EU member countries, but US citizens would get a much lower priority there, and I was told once that I could only stay for six months when I got into Holland in 2003. The maximum tourist visa I could ever get in most places was six months, period. In some places it was only two weeks. So much for ruling the world by me, a US citizen.
When a person becomes a US citizen through naturalization, he or she is asked to take an Oath of Renunciation stating something along the lines that the person now rejects all other countries and swears allegiance to the US only. The Oath is very solemn and is taken very seriously by the US law. However, these new American citizens, upon return to some of their former countries, soon discover that the oath is often not recognized there, as it is a "foreign" oath. If they had left their old countries without a proper exit visa, had not competed some military obligations, or had not paid some tax to the old government, they can now be liable before the local laws which take precedence over US laws. In simpler terms, US laws and your US citizenship may simply not be valid on the territory of those very much sovereign states. It is no fun sitting in a jail cell somewhere in a country whose citizen you thought you no longer were, wondering why you are here, when, as a US citizen, you are now supposed to be "ruling the world".
In case of the British citizens, especially those who have not been out of Britain much, and even those who have been abroad, quite a few may still be suffering from the "We Rule the World" delusion. True, Britain once controlled one fourth of the world and, about one fourth of the world( a bit less ,actually,) now belongs to the British Commonwealth. A British citizen, is often satisfied with traveling to, and working in English -speaking countries which is, admittedly, a big chunk of the world. However, just one quarter of the Earth covered by the former colonies of the Queen 'does not' the whole world make.
Many former imperial powers have a certain sphere of geo- political and -cultural influence which they exert on their former subjects. The British have the Commonwealth. The Russians have the CIS. The Spaniards have "La Hispanidad". If you watch the English-language news or movies, somehow, a great deal of feature films and news take place in the English-speaking world or where the US/UK are involved militarily. If you watch the French TV, or even the French Canadian TV, there are programs covering events in the Madagascar, Haiti, French Guiana as well as the news from the French-speaking Africa. That is the "La Francophonie", the French "chunk" of the world. Then, the Portuguese TV will show news from Brazil, Macau, Mozambique, and other Portuguese-speaking nations or areas. Portuguese tourists and travelers will also be drawn to other parts of the former empire because of their various cultural and linguistic similarities with Portugal. Spanish TV travels all around the Spanish-speaking world and the Russian TV shows their old empire with Latvians and Uzbeks speaking Russian on TV. If you watch the TV in all those nations all your life you will mistakenly assume: "everybody speaks Spanish, Russian, English, etc., and "we rule the world". Even the Serbian TV probably thinks that they rule a big chunk of the Serbo-Croatian-speaking "world". The Thai TV shows their old empire which used to be Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. "Al-Jazeera" features the Arab World as the center of everything and presents the Arab perspective on things and events as the natural and logical one. Living in such a culturally-linguistic TV bubble, one can understandably think that one's culture 's former imperial possessions do, in fact, cover the entire known world.
I have been aware of people, in many cases Britons, Americans or Australians in Thailand who were writing to the Bangkok Post complaining that, "How can it be that, the bus conductors in this city do not speak any English, how dare they not to?!" Some reportedly got furious with the local immigration officials screaming- “How come you cannot speak English? You need to learn English!” Never mind that Thailand had never been colonized and that it had its own little empire in Asia. I guess these foreigners in Thailand had been watching too many of the “We Rule the World"-variety movies and news on their cable TV.
The same often goes for some Spanish-speakers in the US- having grown up in Latin America many assume that Spanish is the world language. I remember a Honduran lady who came rushing to my place of work in LA carrying an electric bill and fuming- “How come it is not in Spanish?”. Many Spanish speakers in the US live there for many years without realizing that they now need to learn Englsih as Spanish is no longer the language of their world.
So, all these former empires are somewhat guilty of making their subjects believe that, somehow, their territories equal "the world" and that their citizens are involved in the ruling process of the same .
When getting ready to expatriate either for a short or a long time, one needs to do a thorough research on the countries one is going to, not be cavalier about the importance of cultural sensitivity when you travel and realize that one will be a guest there. One needs to prepare to behave as a guest would. If they speak another language there, please buy a phrase book and try to learn a little of the local tongues. If you stay long-term, make an even more serious effort to speak it. Do not ever think that they will respect you as the Ruler of the World. While in foreign lands, their governments and lawmakers will be your rulers and you will be their subject.
Staying humble, polite and patient, keeping a low profile, avoiding conflicts and being mindful of the local laws and culture will go a long way to preserve your well-being, your sanity and your safety there. To paraphrase the famous proverb , “When in Rome, do what Romans allow you to do”. And your trying to rule the world is probably not on their list of permitted behavior.
***
This is, however, not the picture you get in Hollywood movies and on the mainstream English-language news channels. According to them, America ( and, maybe Britain, as well) rule the world. Americans in these movies are never shown standing in lines at foreign embassies, running around to get medical and police clearances or paying for visas. They are never shown crouching in toilets while collecting their own stool and urine specimens to submit to doctors approved by those embassies as part of their visa medical requirements. They are not portrayed waiting at police stations to get fingerprinted and paying for criminal background checks or filling out long and detailed embarkation cards. They are just shown entering the countries freely and doing whatever they want while being surrounded by people who are falling over backwards to greet them; and, maybe, a small number of enemies who are trying to kill them. These last ones get killed in the end, of course. By Americans and Britons who are allowed to wield guns in foreign countries? Yeah, right!
The Hollywood movie "Quigley Down Under " with Tom Selleck going to Australia was a blatant example of such a simplistic portrayal of international travel. Quigley goes to Oz, gets off the boat without much immigration clearance, swaggers around making snide remarks about the locals and the country, helps out some poor people there and takes on a local villain who always talks about how he had been born on the wrong continent- meaning, he would have much rather been an American than an Aussie. For some reason, there is a rather poor Mexican-American girl from Texas that also travels around Australia with Tom Selleck. It makes it look like he is, in fact, in Texas, only with wild dingoes howling all around him. Neither Quigley, nor his companion seem to be carrying a travel pouch with money, round trip tickets, (which might be required by the Immigration), and/or passports with visa stamps in them. And did Quigley have a gun there? He was shooting it. Without a gun permit? Well maybe that was a long time ago when they probably allowed Americans to bear arms in Australia.
James Bond movies, too, show a Briton in faraway lands who hardly ever goes through immigration formalities, but who shoots his guns right and left, starts explosions, and almost never faces the huge armed forces of the foreign states that he travels to. He just gets in, outsmarts the local police , maybe shoots a few terrorists, gets his dangerous job done, and leaves with a girl hanging on his arm. How does he walk back through their immigration after having killed so many people, even with a diplomatic passport? He does often fly out by plane or helicopter, but crossing another country's airspace, even on the way out, after having detonated so many bombs, can trigger the scrambling of a few air force jets and subsequent shooting down of his aircraft. Especially in some remote countries like Azerbaijan. Don't they have radars? I can think of a number of movies like that. "Bourne Conspiracy" comes to mind. He is shown as living for years in foreign lands ( with what visa, I wonder), speaking some five languages without an accent ( supposedly), even though he does have an accent in some of them (I speak several languages and I could hear it), and, generally, accomplishing his violent missions in such nations with only minimal resistance from the locals. Where are the military of those countries (numbering hundred of thousands if not millions) when he pulls off his feats of arms in front of everybody? And how come I never see such people fill out even one disembarkation card or a customs declaration? At least, in most of such movies, they don't.
OK, ok, maybe it is because they are on secret diplomatic or military missions. Maybe they just carry very special passports which are quietly approved by the local authorities. But the things they do in those countries... my, oh my!
The news also shows US ( and British) soldiers with guns being greeted like liberators by the locals and again, they are never seen at immigration offices waiting in queues to get an extension stamp. Well, maybe they did not need those in Iraq, granted, they are soldiers, and it is a war zone. I hope you, on the other hand, will not think that you yourself will be able to do anything even close to that.
Yup, don't try that at home, especially other nations' homes. Just because the movies portray America and its allies "ruling" the world, and, because in diplomatic and military circles America and its allies can exert significant influence upon many other countries, it does not mean that you, as an individual citizen of the US ( or the UK) are also 'ruling' the world. When you go to visit those countries or work there, you are subject to their visa regulations, and they decide who they want to admit and who they do not want to let into the country. It is fully discretionary as it is their country, after all. They can deny you visa without having to give you any explanation whatsoever. If you do not know the local laws and break them, you can be liable for penalties such as lengthy jail terms and heavy fines. And you may not have the same rights as a local citizen. There may be no jury of your peers, either. The US constitution does not apply in foreign lands. It is as simple as that. When you live in their countries, until you become a citizen there, you are a guest, short- or long term. And you can be declared a Persona Non Grata at any time, too, if they do not like you for some reason or if some well-connected local calls the Immigration on you.
The US State Department knows that very well, and will be happy to supply you with all the information pertaining to your upcoming trip. You need to get informed, keep your head down and follow the rules in those countries. The Hollywood movie makers may have a different version of the world, but it is naive at best. Do not get any ideas from them. The producers and the screen writers most probably have never lived in the countries that they are writing about to begin with.
Some years back, two US tourists arrived at Manila International Airport. They had been drinking and were visibly inebriated. When the Philippine immigration officers asked them for their passports, they began laughing. When the officials asked them for their disembarkation cards which needed to have been filled out on the plane and duly signed, along with the sworn Customs Declaration Form, one of them got angry at the officer and exclaimed: "You are a pain in the a..!". They were probably watching too many movies about how the US liberated the Philippines, and assumed that the Filipinos were now going to unroll the red carpet for them. The officer called for help, the authorites came, they were escorted out of the immigration area and put back on the plane. They were also probably blacklisted and prohibited from ever coming back to the Philippines again. The next day the Philippine newspapers announced the news: " Drunk, boorish foreigners deported." Not drunk "Americans". Drunk "foreigners". So much for "ruling the world".
Another US tourist was probably under the impression that he did not need a visa to get into Australia. He just took the next airplane, landed in Sydney, but was stopped at the Immigration and asked for his visa. You see, Australian visas have to be obtained in advance- they are not given upon arrival. Not to Americans, at least. Please keep checking the State Department announcements for the up-to-date visa requirements by all these different countries because that fellow obviously didn't.
He was refused entry, turned back and put on the next airplane home to the States. Obviously, he thought that if Tom Selleck could just strut into the country, he could do it, too. The Australian Immigration obviously had other ideas.
Even in the countries that are supposed to be US allies, individual US citizens are often not treated differently from other foreigners. In Japan and in Thailand, some bars have a "No Foreigners Allowed" policy. Quite a few hotels and many landlords refuse to admit foreigners in Japan; Americans, or otherwise. Some places in Thailand even have "No Tourists- Thai People Only" signs. That means "Americans” or "Britons" as well. It is their country, they make the rules.
While it may say on the Internet that many nations "do not require visas" of US tourists when they arrive, it is still basically "a visa upon arrival" when they stamp your passport there. So, even if some travel advisory may says "no visa required for a short stay", still, as a tourist, you are on visa, no matter how you look at it.
Americans and Brits have an easier time with visas than citizens of many other countries not necessarily because "the US/UK rules the world", but , generally, because they are citizens of a richer country, and are wanted as tourists in many places. The same can be said about the Japanese and Singaporeans- these do not need "advanced" visas to go to many countries, especially those whose economies are less prosperous than theirs. However, in order to work or live abroad long-term, you need all sorts of permits, visas, medical tests, document verifications; and you will often have to jump through many bureaucratic hoops before you are allowed to remain there beyond a relatively short tourist stay. If you have big money you are welcome as an investor in a great number of countries, but you still need to go through lots and lots of red tape before you can stay there permanently or semi-permanently. You may choose to live on tourist visas, but you will need to be leaving the countries regularly to renew them, and the authorities there one day may simply ask you- "Hey, how come you've been coming here so often? Got any business here?". What will you say to them? I hope you will not say, " I am an American (or British), and we rule the world".
If you, God forbid, break the law and get in trouble in some other country, your embassy may or may not help you. Most of the time they can only visit you and work with the local officials to make sure that laws are being followed when you are brought to justice and, possibly, ask for clemency; but even then, it is iffy. Michael Fay, an American teenager who was arrested in Singapore some years back for vandalizing cars, was sentenced to be caned- the US Embassy took it up with the authorities, but were only able to reduce the number of times he would be hit with that instrument of punishment-the dreaded cane. He still had to undergo the excruciating pain of being struck with that savage stick. And the prohibition against such cruel and unusual punishment may or may not apply in Singapore.
Laws for equality, against discrimination, US nationality- and citizenship laws, and other Western laws often do not apply in other countries. In Islamic lands, the Shariah law rules. Tribal Arabs laws also often rule. One Australian was arrested in Saudi Arabia because his Asian wife had been caught stealing. According to the Shariah law, a husband seems to be responsible for his wife's crimes. Last time I checked, he was still in the Saudi jail. Some people who have children born in Saudi Arabia or in Japan mistakenly think that the children can now qualify for citizenship there. "Well, isn't it like in the US? The kid was born here- he is now a Saudi/Japanese". Oh, no. This is not America. He is not a Saudi or Japanese. It is not that simple. "But in the States..." Well, but you are not in the States now.
Many countries also have agreements that favor citizens of their little group of nations as far as granting visas, residence permits and work permits is concerned. This will include Americans as far as travel to Canada goes, and as far as entering Mexico, but if an American wants to go to Brazil or Paraguay, he needs to apply for a visa. However, an Argentinean can just walk into Brazil without any prior approval. I remember how envious I was of Argentinean citizens while I was at the airport in Sao Paolo in 2005; I had to wait six hours to catch my next flight to Johannesburg and could have just gone on a mini-tour of the biggest city in Brazil, but as a US citizen I could not get through their immigration, while Argentinean passengers were just heading towards the counters and breezing right through them. They were members of the Mercosur economic community, but I wasn't. I felt the same way when I could not just walk across the border with my US passport from Thailand into Laos, while Thais could just cross the bridge over the Mekong and go shopping on the Laotian side with only their ID cards. They were ASEAN members and I wasn't.
Gulf Arabs also form a community called the GCC- the Gulf Cooperation Council. They can usually travel to, work and own property in other member states without much hassle, whereas non-citizens of those countries, including those of us who "rule the world" usually have none of those privileges.
EU citizens can work in other EU member countries, but US citizens would get a much lower priority there, and I was told once that I could only stay for six months when I got into Holland in 2003. The maximum tourist visa I could ever get in most places was six months, period. In some places it was only two weeks. So much for ruling the world by me, a US citizen.
When a person becomes a US citizen through naturalization, he or she is asked to take an Oath of Renunciation stating something along the lines that the person now rejects all other countries and swears allegiance to the US only. The Oath is very solemn and is taken very seriously by the US law. However, these new American citizens, upon return to some of their former countries, soon discover that the oath is often not recognized there, as it is a "foreign" oath. If they had left their old countries without a proper exit visa, had not competed some military obligations, or had not paid some tax to the old government, they can now be liable before the local laws which take precedence over US laws. In simpler terms, US laws and your US citizenship may simply not be valid on the territory of those very much sovereign states. It is no fun sitting in a jail cell somewhere in a country whose citizen you thought you no longer were, wondering why you are here, when, as a US citizen, you are now supposed to be "ruling the world".
In case of the British citizens, especially those who have not been out of Britain much, and even those who have been abroad, quite a few may still be suffering from the "We Rule the World" delusion. True, Britain once controlled one fourth of the world and, about one fourth of the world( a bit less ,actually,) now belongs to the British Commonwealth. A British citizen, is often satisfied with traveling to, and working in English -speaking countries which is, admittedly, a big chunk of the world. However, just one quarter of the Earth covered by the former colonies of the Queen 'does not' the whole world make.
Many former imperial powers have a certain sphere of geo- political and -cultural influence which they exert on their former subjects. The British have the Commonwealth. The Russians have the CIS. The Spaniards have "La Hispanidad". If you watch the English-language news or movies, somehow, a great deal of feature films and news take place in the English-speaking world or where the US/UK are involved militarily. If you watch the French TV, or even the French Canadian TV, there are programs covering events in the Madagascar, Haiti, French Guiana as well as the news from the French-speaking Africa. That is the "La Francophonie", the French "chunk" of the world. Then, the Portuguese TV will show news from Brazil, Macau, Mozambique, and other Portuguese-speaking nations or areas. Portuguese tourists and travelers will also be drawn to other parts of the former empire because of their various cultural and linguistic similarities with Portugal. Spanish TV travels all around the Spanish-speaking world and the Russian TV shows their old empire with Latvians and Uzbeks speaking Russian on TV. If you watch the TV in all those nations all your life you will mistakenly assume: "everybody speaks Spanish, Russian, English, etc., and "we rule the world". Even the Serbian TV probably thinks that they rule a big chunk of the Serbo-Croatian-speaking "world". The Thai TV shows their old empire which used to be Thailand, Laos and Cambodia. "Al-Jazeera" features the Arab World as the center of everything and presents the Arab perspective on things and events as the natural and logical one. Living in such a culturally-linguistic TV bubble, one can understandably think that one's culture 's former imperial possessions do, in fact, cover the entire known world.
I have been aware of people, in many cases Britons, Americans or Australians in Thailand who were writing to the Bangkok Post complaining that, "How can it be that, the bus conductors in this city do not speak any English, how dare they not to?!" Some reportedly got furious with the local immigration officials screaming- “How come you cannot speak English? You need to learn English!” Never mind that Thailand had never been colonized and that it had its own little empire in Asia. I guess these foreigners in Thailand had been watching too many of the “We Rule the World"-variety movies and news on their cable TV.
The same often goes for some Spanish-speakers in the US- having grown up in Latin America many assume that Spanish is the world language. I remember a Honduran lady who came rushing to my place of work in LA carrying an electric bill and fuming- “How come it is not in Spanish?”. Many Spanish speakers in the US live there for many years without realizing that they now need to learn Englsih as Spanish is no longer the language of their world.
So, all these former empires are somewhat guilty of making their subjects believe that, somehow, their territories equal "the world" and that their citizens are involved in the ruling process of the same .
When getting ready to expatriate either for a short or a long time, one needs to do a thorough research on the countries one is going to, not be cavalier about the importance of cultural sensitivity when you travel and realize that one will be a guest there. One needs to prepare to behave as a guest would. If they speak another language there, please buy a phrase book and try to learn a little of the local tongues. If you stay long-term, make an even more serious effort to speak it. Do not ever think that they will respect you as the Ruler of the World. While in foreign lands, their governments and lawmakers will be your rulers and you will be their subject.
Staying humble, polite and patient, keeping a low profile, avoiding conflicts and being mindful of the local laws and culture will go a long way to preserve your well-being, your sanity and your safety there. To paraphrase the famous proverb , “When in Rome, do what Romans allow you to do”. And your trying to rule the world is probably not on their list of permitted behavior.
***
The Brito-Boer War
I got to thinking one day about how inconsistent the English language can be with some terms. I will give you one example. Say, with the words about international relations that end in "o". Did you see those? Recently I was reading about "Sino-American" relations. OK, fair enough, it is probably from some Greek or Latin root and it means Chinese- American. Then, I recall once reading something about "Franco-German" relations. Then, there was something about "Graeco-Roman" influence. And then, the "Russo-Japanese" War. However, you never hear about "Amero- Mexican" relations. Or "Canado- British" ties. How come? You have " Indo-Europeans" and you have "Euro-Atlantic", but is there a "Japano- Chinese" something? I do not recall seeing anything like that.
Then, I have so many times heard my British friends explain to me that England and the UK were two different things. I always knew that but, how come they had an "Anglo- Boer" war? And an "Anglo-American" company somewhere. I am sure it was not only "Anglo-land" that was fighting the war, as there was Scotland that was involved in it, and there were many Welshmen participating in it, as well. And, also, there were many Scots, Irish and Welsh in the "Anglo-American" something-something Company, so, if we assume that "Anglo" refers to the Angles- the ancestors of the English, isn't the term somewhat wrong? Now, do we have a word "Celto"? I think if it existed, it would be used in some hyphenised description of some language group. But could the realtions between England and its Celtic neighbors be called Celto-English relations?
This thing about the Anglo- Boer war has always bothered. It seems inaccurate. After all, the Boers openly declared a war on the "British" Empire, didn't they? Not just England. So, those Scotsmen that died at Mafeking; were they fighting for Britain or just for mother England? I think they fought for the Empire. I suggest we rename the war. Maybe it's not too late. So, how do we rename it? And also create a new word that leaves the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish included in all the UK affairs, wars and other things.
Something like "Brito". Yes, it will rhyme with "Fido". "Brito- American" relations. It has a good, positive ring to it, just like the word "bright". Then, we will have to rename the company into "Brito-American" and then, history books will have to be re-written to include a new term:" Brito-Boer War". It sounds fair and logical, doesn't it?
***
I think naturalization is a great thing. It is wonderful if you can go to another country, live there, learn the language and then apply for citizenship. It is refreshing to stand in front of a new flag and give an oath of allegiance. Feel something new, patriotic, and say “ Now I am ( put the new nationality here)".
However, while the official "paper" naturalization is rather simple, the social one is much harder if sometimes not downright near impossible. Take your new compatriots, the “native” people, with their natural human inquisitiveness. They will ask you the same question no matter where you go- the "Where are you from?" question. Unless you are some linguistic genius and have a good musical ear, you will have an accent. Or, if you are of a different ethnic group, you will look different from the majority of people. Your name may also stand out. So, people, I mean people everywhere, will ask you the same thing over and over again: “Where are you from?” Sure, now you can tell them about your new residence in the country, the new town where you live. They will then probably grimace un-satisfied-ly and ask you a more direct , more insightful question that you simply cannot avoid now- “Where are you from, originally?”. Now, this is a tough one. Unless you want to lie, you will have to tell them the truth. So, in social situations, you often, if not always, remain a foreigner. In spite of the oath you took.
The US- Mexican border people usually ask you "What is your citizenship" before admitting you to the US. However, once a border guard there asked me "Where were you born"? After I told him, a mini-interrogation ensued. My family and I had to pull over, pull out our US passports, he had to examine them, asking how my family and I had acquired US citizenship, how long we had been in the US, all sorts of things. I understand the security concern, but for some reason this "born" thing is somehow so important to Americans. There was once a celebration in the news of "American-born" athletes. There are a proud song- "Born in the USA", and "Hello, America, how are you, don't you know that I'm your native son?" . It all shows that the nativist sentiment is quite strong in the US. Then, they wonder why some immigrants are not as patriotic as they should be. How can you be a full patriot if you are not really and truly seen as a 100% citizen because of this "not born here" thing? Something you had no control over but which is somehow often held against you.
The drive for diversity and political correctness in the US sometimes does more harm than good as far as "becoming an American" is concerned . There was once a company in the US that had a very international staff from many different countries. The top manager was so proud of the diversity of the workplace that he had a map on the wall with pins stuck in it indicating where every employee was born. His intentions were good, but if you are a naturalized US citizen, wouldn't you rather just think of yourself as an American now and not have a pin stuck somewhere that ,even with the best of intentions, still says-" He is from another country"?
In France I have heard, the complaint of a lot of people is that even after you become a citizen, they still treat you as a non-citizen. So, I guess, in some places, one should not harbor too many illusions about now belonging there.
In the US it is illegal to ask about birth place on job applications, but in some other countries it is not. When applying for a job you end up putting it. What next? You may be rejected for that job because of that - local people come first. You are not from there, you know. Not originally. And often, people will not ask you "What is your citizenship?" except in passport offices of foreign embassies. They will simply ask you the same "dooming" questions: "Where are you from?" or "Where were you born?"
If people get angry at you for any reason, they may even tell you to “Go back to ( put the name of the country here)!”. Or, in hard economic times, they will tell you that they have to hire ( put the name of your new nationality here) and not "foreigners". If you protest and say " I am not a foreigner, I am a citizen", an answer may come your way- "I mean, a foreigner- not born here!" Such is sometimes the reality of being a naturalized citizen. You may feel like a stepson, not a real native son. Especially if you deal with uneducated "native" people.
Now, it is nice to get a new passport and proclaim with pride: “I am a citizen of ( put the country here)”. However, somehow, not even one country in the world issues a passport that does not have your birthplace written in it. So, if you travel, people that check your passport may start asking you questions, sometimes innocent, but, sometimes, suspicious ones and treat you as a person of that old country, not the new one you are a citizen of. And God forbid if that country has a bad reputation in the one you are visiting. You can be called all sorts of names. Or even refused entry.
In newspapers also, or in any media, in articles about you, they will call you a “( put the name of a country + “ese” or “ian” here) immigrant”. They will call you like that before the naturalization, and after the naturalization. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, you will remain an "immigrant". The US TV newscasters are very fond of that, for one.
I think this is a new item in the area of political correctness that liberals should work on eliminating. In the US, for one, there has once been a positive term " New American" in the press. It should gain more popularity as I have not been hearing it too often lately. The term "first generation American" too, often means "first generation 'born' in the US". This should also change. It should include first generation naturalized citizens, as well.
In the English-language press anywhere they love using the name of the country and the word “born” after it, i.e. Polish-born, German-born., etc. Regardless of your new US-, Canadian or whatever other citizenship. Why do they do that? Is it really that important? Why can't the say a "Canadian national", for one, and a "US national"? Why is this birth thing ( a result of the parents' feelings for one another on the territory of a country that you now owe no allegiance to) so crucial that it needs to be rubbed in all the time- for decades?
Sometimes, they will use something like “Australian-turned-American“, etc. They will also talk about your “homeland” -meaning your old country, not the new one, even though you have taken an oath to reject your old country thoroughly and completely.
Then, also, you hear things like “He is a second generation Iranian”. Meaning: "he is a child of Iranians who immigrated to country X". Let's say your parents are Iranians and you were born in the US. Your parents also became US citizens. Aren't you now a second-generation 'American'? Shouldn’t a “second generation Iranian” be a child of people who became naturalized 'Iranian' citizens in Iran? Another area that the PC people haven’t gotten to yet.
Lots of countries are like that in the way they talk about naturalized citizens. To one degree or another. And few if any of such citizens became presidents or prime ministers of their new country. That is another thing that needs to be changed. Particularly in the US, there is a law that prohibits foreign-born people from becoming President. Say, if someone came from Canada at age 1 and does not know any other country except the US, he cannot become President. However, if someone was born in the US, but left at age 1, and knows very little about it( such as a son of some tourists) he is eligible to become one. I think it is unfair. You have not done anything bad but it is as if people do not fully trust you. Can you ever become a full patriot? I do not think so.
What if there is a Civics class and children are asked what they would do if they were President or Prime-minister? Some kids will feel like they are second-class. Not completely second class, but slightly below the "true citizen", the "born-and-raised-here" one. This must change one day.
Then, there is another thing. In some countries they have censuses that talk about “foreign-born population”, meaning “immigrants“. So, they will dump illegal ones, legal non-citizens, and naturalized citizens into the same category. Makes you feel like you do not fully belong. Whenever a naturalized citizen reads publications that mentions such statistics, his feeling of patriotism for his country often suffers a bit of a setback. How come one is put into the same class with people who are not citizens yet? Didn’t one go through all the requirements for the citizenship tests and all? Didn’t one swear on the Bible his new allegiance rejecting every other country? Don't they trust me?
And did you ever wonder why it is that they call it "citi-zenship"? It is another misnomer, in my view. Shouldn't it be called "countryzenship", or just "nationality"? After all, we do not became members of a "city", but a nation. "Citizenship" is just anouther carry-over from the time of city-states, a very distant period in world history. We have nation-states now.
And is "naturalization" a good term? Like you were "unnatural" before and then became "natural"? Like you were a robot before and now you are a human being? One thing I like about Argentina and Uruguay is that they do not have the term "naturalization"- they call it "nacionalizacion". Immigrants are "nationalized", not "naturalized". Maybe, that is the word that should be used in all the other countries who are generous enough to admit new people as members of their society.
However, one should not discount the positive things of naturalization. In many countries non-citizens cannot own property. This is the reason many people become citizens to begin with. If you want to own land there, become one.
Also, you are legally what your new passport says no matter what people may say. You can vote and qualify for many government jobs; you can now travel abroad on the new passport and take employment in countries whose employers prefer citizens of your new country. So, benefits abound. It is important to concentrate on those, and try and minimize the lingering “Where are you from?" reality.
Lastly, naturalized citizens in the US and everywhere else should unite and work on changing societal attitudes towards them. Black people in America rallied hard to change all sorts of nasty words applied to them to a much more pleasant “African- American”. Maybe naturalized citizens should organize and do the same? But while things have not changed, one should really try and equip oneself with skills and money to counteract the possible discrimination against one. One will need to work harder, study harder. Try and drop that accent. That's just the way it is. Some things take a long time to change.
Above all, naturalization should be seen as a practical tool, not something that can fulfill your romantic aspirations.
***
Then, I have so many times heard my British friends explain to me that England and the UK were two different things. I always knew that but, how come they had an "Anglo- Boer" war? And an "Anglo-American" company somewhere. I am sure it was not only "Anglo-land" that was fighting the war, as there was Scotland that was involved in it, and there were many Welshmen participating in it, as well. And, also, there were many Scots, Irish and Welsh in the "Anglo-American" something-something Company, so, if we assume that "Anglo" refers to the Angles- the ancestors of the English, isn't the term somewhat wrong? Now, do we have a word "Celto"? I think if it existed, it would be used in some hyphenised description of some language group. But could the realtions between England and its Celtic neighbors be called Celto-English relations?
This thing about the Anglo- Boer war has always bothered. It seems inaccurate. After all, the Boers openly declared a war on the "British" Empire, didn't they? Not just England. So, those Scotsmen that died at Mafeking; were they fighting for Britain or just for mother England? I think they fought for the Empire. I suggest we rename the war. Maybe it's not too late. So, how do we rename it? And also create a new word that leaves the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish included in all the UK affairs, wars and other things.
Something like "Brito". Yes, it will rhyme with "Fido". "Brito- American" relations. It has a good, positive ring to it, just like the word "bright". Then, we will have to rename the company into "Brito-American" and then, history books will have to be re-written to include a new term:" Brito-Boer War". It sounds fair and logical, doesn't it?
***
I think naturalization is a great thing. It is wonderful if you can go to another country, live there, learn the language and then apply for citizenship. It is refreshing to stand in front of a new flag and give an oath of allegiance. Feel something new, patriotic, and say “ Now I am ( put the new nationality here)".
However, while the official "paper" naturalization is rather simple, the social one is much harder if sometimes not downright near impossible. Take your new compatriots, the “native” people, with their natural human inquisitiveness. They will ask you the same question no matter where you go- the "Where are you from?" question. Unless you are some linguistic genius and have a good musical ear, you will have an accent. Or, if you are of a different ethnic group, you will look different from the majority of people. Your name may also stand out. So, people, I mean people everywhere, will ask you the same thing over and over again: “Where are you from?” Sure, now you can tell them about your new residence in the country, the new town where you live. They will then probably grimace un-satisfied-ly and ask you a more direct , more insightful question that you simply cannot avoid now- “Where are you from, originally?”. Now, this is a tough one. Unless you want to lie, you will have to tell them the truth. So, in social situations, you often, if not always, remain a foreigner. In spite of the oath you took.
The US- Mexican border people usually ask you "What is your citizenship" before admitting you to the US. However, once a border guard there asked me "Where were you born"? After I told him, a mini-interrogation ensued. My family and I had to pull over, pull out our US passports, he had to examine them, asking how my family and I had acquired US citizenship, how long we had been in the US, all sorts of things. I understand the security concern, but for some reason this "born" thing is somehow so important to Americans. There was once a celebration in the news of "American-born" athletes. There are a proud song- "Born in the USA", and "Hello, America, how are you, don't you know that I'm your native son?" . It all shows that the nativist sentiment is quite strong in the US. Then, they wonder why some immigrants are not as patriotic as they should be. How can you be a full patriot if you are not really and truly seen as a 100% citizen because of this "not born here" thing? Something you had no control over but which is somehow often held against you.
The drive for diversity and political correctness in the US sometimes does more harm than good as far as "becoming an American" is concerned . There was once a company in the US that had a very international staff from many different countries. The top manager was so proud of the diversity of the workplace that he had a map on the wall with pins stuck in it indicating where every employee was born. His intentions were good, but if you are a naturalized US citizen, wouldn't you rather just think of yourself as an American now and not have a pin stuck somewhere that ,even with the best of intentions, still says-" He is from another country"?
In France I have heard, the complaint of a lot of people is that even after you become a citizen, they still treat you as a non-citizen. So, I guess, in some places, one should not harbor too many illusions about now belonging there.
In the US it is illegal to ask about birth place on job applications, but in some other countries it is not. When applying for a job you end up putting it. What next? You may be rejected for that job because of that - local people come first. You are not from there, you know. Not originally. And often, people will not ask you "What is your citizenship?" except in passport offices of foreign embassies. They will simply ask you the same "dooming" questions: "Where are you from?" or "Where were you born?"
If people get angry at you for any reason, they may even tell you to “Go back to ( put the name of the country here)!”. Or, in hard economic times, they will tell you that they have to hire ( put the name of your new nationality here) and not "foreigners". If you protest and say " I am not a foreigner, I am a citizen", an answer may come your way- "I mean, a foreigner- not born here!" Such is sometimes the reality of being a naturalized citizen. You may feel like a stepson, not a real native son. Especially if you deal with uneducated "native" people.
Now, it is nice to get a new passport and proclaim with pride: “I am a citizen of ( put the country here)”. However, somehow, not even one country in the world issues a passport that does not have your birthplace written in it. So, if you travel, people that check your passport may start asking you questions, sometimes innocent, but, sometimes, suspicious ones and treat you as a person of that old country, not the new one you are a citizen of. And God forbid if that country has a bad reputation in the one you are visiting. You can be called all sorts of names. Or even refused entry.
In newspapers also, or in any media, in articles about you, they will call you a “( put the name of a country + “ese” or “ian” here) immigrant”. They will call you like that before the naturalization, and after the naturalization. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, you will remain an "immigrant". The US TV newscasters are very fond of that, for one.
I think this is a new item in the area of political correctness that liberals should work on eliminating. In the US, for one, there has once been a positive term " New American" in the press. It should gain more popularity as I have not been hearing it too often lately. The term "first generation American" too, often means "first generation 'born' in the US". This should also change. It should include first generation naturalized citizens, as well.
In the English-language press anywhere they love using the name of the country and the word “born” after it, i.e. Polish-born, German-born., etc. Regardless of your new US-, Canadian or whatever other citizenship. Why do they do that? Is it really that important? Why can't the say a "Canadian national", for one, and a "US national"? Why is this birth thing ( a result of the parents' feelings for one another on the territory of a country that you now owe no allegiance to) so crucial that it needs to be rubbed in all the time- for decades?
Sometimes, they will use something like “Australian-turned-American“, etc. They will also talk about your “homeland” -meaning your old country, not the new one, even though you have taken an oath to reject your old country thoroughly and completely.
Then, also, you hear things like “He is a second generation Iranian”. Meaning: "he is a child of Iranians who immigrated to country X". Let's say your parents are Iranians and you were born in the US. Your parents also became US citizens. Aren't you now a second-generation 'American'? Shouldn’t a “second generation Iranian” be a child of people who became naturalized 'Iranian' citizens in Iran? Another area that the PC people haven’t gotten to yet.
Lots of countries are like that in the way they talk about naturalized citizens. To one degree or another. And few if any of such citizens became presidents or prime ministers of their new country. That is another thing that needs to be changed. Particularly in the US, there is a law that prohibits foreign-born people from becoming President. Say, if someone came from Canada at age 1 and does not know any other country except the US, he cannot become President. However, if someone was born in the US, but left at age 1, and knows very little about it( such as a son of some tourists) he is eligible to become one. I think it is unfair. You have not done anything bad but it is as if people do not fully trust you. Can you ever become a full patriot? I do not think so.
What if there is a Civics class and children are asked what they would do if they were President or Prime-minister? Some kids will feel like they are second-class. Not completely second class, but slightly below the "true citizen", the "born-and-raised-here" one. This must change one day.
Then, there is another thing. In some countries they have censuses that talk about “foreign-born population”, meaning “immigrants“. So, they will dump illegal ones, legal non-citizens, and naturalized citizens into the same category. Makes you feel like you do not fully belong. Whenever a naturalized citizen reads publications that mentions such statistics, his feeling of patriotism for his country often suffers a bit of a setback. How come one is put into the same class with people who are not citizens yet? Didn’t one go through all the requirements for the citizenship tests and all? Didn’t one swear on the Bible his new allegiance rejecting every other country? Don't they trust me?
And did you ever wonder why it is that they call it "citi-zenship"? It is another misnomer, in my view. Shouldn't it be called "countryzenship", or just "nationality"? After all, we do not became members of a "city", but a nation. "Citizenship" is just anouther carry-over from the time of city-states, a very distant period in world history. We have nation-states now.
And is "naturalization" a good term? Like you were "unnatural" before and then became "natural"? Like you were a robot before and now you are a human being? One thing I like about Argentina and Uruguay is that they do not have the term "naturalization"- they call it "nacionalizacion". Immigrants are "nationalized", not "naturalized". Maybe, that is the word that should be used in all the other countries who are generous enough to admit new people as members of their society.
However, one should not discount the positive things of naturalization. In many countries non-citizens cannot own property. This is the reason many people become citizens to begin with. If you want to own land there, become one.
Also, you are legally what your new passport says no matter what people may say. You can vote and qualify for many government jobs; you can now travel abroad on the new passport and take employment in countries whose employers prefer citizens of your new country. So, benefits abound. It is important to concentrate on those, and try and minimize the lingering “Where are you from?" reality.
Lastly, naturalized citizens in the US and everywhere else should unite and work on changing societal attitudes towards them. Black people in America rallied hard to change all sorts of nasty words applied to them to a much more pleasant “African- American”. Maybe naturalized citizens should organize and do the same? But while things have not changed, one should really try and equip oneself with skills and money to counteract the possible discrimination against one. One will need to work harder, study harder. Try and drop that accent. That's just the way it is. Some things take a long time to change.
Above all, naturalization should be seen as a practical tool, not something that can fulfill your romantic aspirations.
***
Respect and Welcome
A rich man in a poor man's house is always welcome-
A velvet carpet he will have unrolled for him.
No matter how unpleasant he may be or how galsome,
The poor man's house with sheepish smiles will brim.
A rich man in a poor man's land is always greeted-
A fat and burly tourist dollar notes will wave,
And with supreme respect by natives he'll be treated;
Each one is set to do his will just like a slave.
A poor man's daughter will a rich man marry
No matter how ugly, old or fat the man may be.
A lovely maiden, tender as a fairy
To wed the blimp with pleasure will agree.
But in a rich man's home a poor man isn't wanted;
With squeamish grimaces he' ll be received
And treated like a dog, and taunted,
And out the door he lastly will be heaved.
A poor man in a rich man's country isn't cherished;
As one unworthy leper he will be address't,
And so that he may not from hunger perish,
Hard, dirty work he'll do at scornful men's behest.
A rich man's daughter will scrunch up her features
If ever she may face a poor man's son.
Although handsome, a subhuman creature
He'll be to her, a serf whom she must shun.
And thus, depending on your social status
The people will be treating you on Earth.
Respect is something you will not get gratis:
It just depends on your financial worth.
***
A velvet carpet he will have unrolled for him.
No matter how unpleasant he may be or how galsome,
The poor man's house with sheepish smiles will brim.
A rich man in a poor man's land is always greeted-
A fat and burly tourist dollar notes will wave,
And with supreme respect by natives he'll be treated;
Each one is set to do his will just like a slave.
A poor man's daughter will a rich man marry
No matter how ugly, old or fat the man may be.
A lovely maiden, tender as a fairy
To wed the blimp with pleasure will agree.
But in a rich man's home a poor man isn't wanted;
With squeamish grimaces he' ll be received
And treated like a dog, and taunted,
And out the door he lastly will be heaved.
A poor man in a rich man's country isn't cherished;
As one unworthy leper he will be address't,
And so that he may not from hunger perish,
Hard, dirty work he'll do at scornful men's behest.
A rich man's daughter will scrunch up her features
If ever she may face a poor man's son.
Although handsome, a subhuman creature
He'll be to her, a serf whom she must shun.
And thus, depending on your social status
The people will be treating you on Earth.
Respect is something you will not get gratis:
It just depends on your financial worth.
***
The Continental Drift
When I was a kid, the world was simple- it had only six continents- Europe, Asia, America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica. That is what I learned in my Geography class. People living in those areas were, therefore, Europeans, Asians, Americans, Africans, Australians and..Antarcticans, I guess. I mean the ones working at those weather stations. Is this fair? I think so. Then came the news stations, and the BBC and the cable news such as the CNN, and it all changed. Plus, as I traveled around the world, I saw that some people did not see the world in the continental sense but more like a bunch of regions, shall I say? In the Gulf countries, for one, they never talk about themselves as Asians or even Middle Easterners- they are "Khalijees-" the Gulfies", that is.
But cable TV networks again were particularly guilty of muddling things up. "And now, so-and-so is reporting from Asia". Where in Asia? Is she reporting from the other side of the Bosphorus? No, she is in Singapore. So my question is: "How come whenever they report from Asia, it is almost never Turkey or Syria. Or the Russian Far East. "Oh, that's not Asia", some will answer. So, what is it? Turkey is in the Middle East. So is Syria. Isn't the Middle East in Asia? And Turkey, for a long time was called Asia Minor. So, are these reporters in Asia Major now? Did I miss something? "And this is our correspondent reporting from Asia Major, good morning to you all".
The city of Istanbul straddles two continents, and the folks there are proud to be able to walk across the bridge and end up now in Europe, now in Asia. So do many people in Russia and Kazakhstan near the continental divide that goes along the Ural mountains into the Kazakh steppes. Some people have spent their entire lives living in Europe and working in Asia, all while remaining in Turkey, Russia or Kazakhstan. However, according to the BBC, in order to do that you will have to commute not from one Kazakh yurt to another, and not from one part of the Old Constantinople to another, but to fly in a private jet from Paris to Beijing. Kind of expensive and time consuming if you ask me. A Turk can do it for free several times in one day if he wants.
Whenever they talk about Asia they are showing the Thai "nail dancers" or Sri Lankans on elephants. When the CNN "reports from Asia", one sees crowds of people on the streets of Tokyo and Seoul. Does that nullify the Turk's, the Russian's and the Kazakh's bi-continental life experience? According to the BBC and CNN it does, I guess.
If you listen to American news stations talking about the US dealings with "Asians", the only Asian countries will be those where people have black hair, somewhat yellowish skin, and narrow eyes. So, again, the experience of commuting between two continents in Istanbul is erased and ignored. "Yeah, it is "Asia" , maybe, but I never thought about it that way", an average American reporter would probably say.
In the UK, when they talk about the "police looking for two lost Asian teenagers" they mean people from the Indian Subcontinent-Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri-Lankans, etc. This way, the whole continent of Asia in Great Britain has been reduced to about one fourth of its size, as it were. If a Japanese teenager is missing, he/she will be referred to as an "Asian teenager" in the US, but only as a "Japanese teenager" in the UK. Two Pakistani teenagers, on the other hand, missing in New York, will not be talked about as " two Asian teenagers" though. Their eyes are not narrow enough, maybe?
A lot of it is done for simplicity's sake since these are the parts of Asia that provide immigrants and tourists to the two countries of the US and the UK, and these, in turn, dominate the airwaves with their news. Maybe all that a Turk needs to do is switch the channel to the local Turkish news, and again be reminded that Istanbul does, in fact, connect Europe and Asia even though no pagodas, beturbaned maharajas or battling samurais are anywhere in site.
When the BBC and CNN talk about Europe, things get more complicated. Snobbery is probably more of a reason than anything else. There has been some talk on the English language radio and TV about countries like Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia "joining Europe". What do you exactly mean: "joining"?. Shouldn't it be "joining the EU" instead of "joining Europe?" And wasn't it "the EEC"-the European Economic Community before? So, how do these largely political and economic organizations equate to being a whole continent? Where was Latvia before it had joined Europe? Was it in Africa? Oh, you are telling me it was in the Soviet Union? OK, so, you may dislike the Soviet Union and want to exclude it from the enlightened and civilized Europe, so much I can buy, but Latvia became independent in 1989 and then, it "joined" Europe in 2004? Was it in Antarctica those thirteen years? Or did someone dig a moat in 1989 and separated it from the mainland for all those years and then, later, covered the moat with earth so that it would "join" Mother Europe?
Russia is another favorite" victim" of the European and the BBC/CNN snobberies. Pick up any encyclopedia and open up the page where it says "Europe". It will clearly delineate Europe as a huge land area running from the Atlantic, where Spain and Portugal are located, to the Urals in Russia. This way, European Russia covers exactly one half of Europe- its eastern half. So, Russia is, in fact, Eastern Europe. Not so on the English-language airwaves when news is being reported. They are talking about negotiations between "Russia" and "Europe". Many weather maps showing Europe completely exclude Russia or only show a small sliver of it. The huge European expanse stretching from the Carpathian mountains to the Urals has now been semi-officially transferred to Asia. I guess people in Tokyo and Seoul must be rejoicing. Why aren't there any celebrations in the Pakistani neighborhoods in the UK?- Asians have now acquired one half of the European continent. Without any huge military campaigns. Where Genghis Khan, and Kublai Khan have failed, the BBC and the CNN have succeeded. How come such an auspicious event has gone unnoticed and there have been no fireworks in Beijing?
OK, great. So, Russia has now been officially transferred to Asia- check out the CIA World Fact Book. Its location is now listed as Northern Asia although the site does accede that its eastern part is "sometimes" ( wow! how generous! and when is that?) included with Europe. But, gee, whenever there is an Asian political summit, Russia is not invited. How come? Isn't it now the biggest country in Asia? So how come you do not see Putin hobnobbing with the Japanese or lining up for group photos at all these Asian political meets, grinning in unison along with all these other smiling Asian faces. Somehow he is not even invited. Strange.
When the newscasts of the BBC and the CNN talk about Eastern Europe they mean Poland and Hungary. But in Eastern Poland ( and also in Southern Lithuania and in Western Ukraine) there are landmarks- stones and columns and such, indicating the "Geographical Center of Europe". So, how can it be in the center of Europe if it is in the very East of it at the same time?. I am all confused.
I have asked around and the help has arrived. I have consulted a few Britons and they have explained to me that Russia is "a special region". Maybe according to the BBC, again. I guess they think that they rule the world and are divinely authorized to assign new classifications to countries that did not request them to begin with. They have been shifting multi- trillion-ton landmasses with ancient cities and hundreds of millions of people in them, from one continent to another all without the help of even one bulldozer. A truly amazing feat of the British engineering ingenuity, if you ask me.
So, Russia is not a part of Europe or Asia. One said- it is "Eurasia". But wait a minute! Eurasia is an uninterrupted terra firma stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That is the definition that I know. It includes Portugal and China. Now, are you going to tell me that while now Russia is excluded from both Europe and Asia, the "real" Europe, and, possibly, the "real" Asia are now kind of excluded from that "new" Eurasia? I have not heard of many "Eurasian" games being conducted in Beijing or Seoul. I have not heard of the collective Eurasian identity that people would be proud of, except, if they are a mixture of a Japanese mother and a German father. So, Eurasia before was a real continental land area from Lisbon to Kamchatka, but now it is only from the Belarus border to Kamchatka with anything south of Siberia excluded? You got me there. I am totally confused. Who is "passing" these new definitions? Is there like a boardroom somewhere, some "Worldwide Continentalist Definitors Council" that switches and assigns names to continents without asking the residents of those places as to what they call themselves or the place where they themselves live?
Looks like the BBC has moved more landmasses around in just under half a century than the Continental Drift had in three billion years.
But I am not just blaming the BBC or the CNN. I was in working in Thailand in the 1990ies and one Thai university professor has confided in me the fact that she had never considered Iranians and Arabs as "Asians". "Different Asians" she would say. "And their language is like English". I guess to her Thai ears if a language was not tonal like Thai or Chinese, and if people did not have straight black hair and high cheekbones, they were simply not Asians. Asia sure has traveled a long way from the shores of the Bosphorus in a few hundred years. And, according to some people, it never went back there again. In Thailand, they talk about themselves being "the hub of Asia". I guess they decided not to ask people on the streets of Tehran if they would grant them that title. They just went ahead and named themselves "The Great Asian Hub".
A lot of that happened when the world "Oriental" became politically incorrect. It used to be that there was one Asia where all people were Asians. But there was a part of Asia where people had Mongolian-like features. These were called "Orientals". They protested and said" do not call us "Orientals", call us "Asians". The "Great Asian Drift" took place after that, I guess. And hundreds of millions of people had lost their Asian identity.
And look at the Middle East and Africa. First there was a Near East, Middle East and a Far East. Now, many people started complaining about the Eurocentric orientation involved in such definitions, so some geographers have tried to change them- now you were supposed to have South Asia, South East Asia. East Asia or sometimes, North East Asia, etc. "Northern Asia" meaning Asian Russia/Siberia has almost never been used, and "Western" or "West" Asia also sounds strange. When they talk about American troops in Iraq, they never talk about " our involvement in Western Asia". But the words "Near East" have been replaced with "Middle East". Why not the other way around, though? Now it stretches from the Eastern Mediterranean to Pakistan. But how can it be "Middle" if there is no "Near" anymore? Would not it seem more logical if they got rid of the term "Middle East" and replaced it with "Near East"? Why didn't it ever happen? And why is Uzbekistan- Central Asia, meaning it is in the center, but Lebanon is in the Middle East, meaning again it is in some center/middle but why is "their" middle located so far west from the Uzbekistan-style center/middle?
Another arbitrary land shift by newscasters.
Now, Egypt, for example, is almost always talked about as part of the Middle East in various TV discourses and in papers. However, it is in Africa. Many African-Americans proudly see Egypt and its ancient history as something to add to their cultural heritage. So, is Egypt then located in both places? Sinai is, but when they talk about Egypt, they kind of talk about Cairo and Alexandria which are both in Africa. North Africa. So, I guess Egypt has been able to violate the physical law of not being able to be in two places at the same time. When I visited there in the year 2001 I was proud to say to myself that now my feet had stood on the African soil. However, I felt insecure about claiming to anyone that I have, in fact, visited Africa- I had been to Egypt, hadn't I? Still, something was gnawing at me as if saying " Yeah, it is in Africa, sort of , kind of, but it is not in 'real' Africa. It was not until I got to Kenya three years later that I felt that I could now fully say that I had been to Africa. The people around me were black, there were elephants roaming on the savannah- yup, that was Africa. But Egypt? Nah! I would have hard time convincing people back home that I have been to the 'Dark Continent" even though the my feet fully touched it when I was walking down the streets of Cairo.
So, looks like we have several Africas- the real- Sub-Saharan "Black" Africa, the North Africa which may or may not include Egypt, which is part of the Middle East ( and the Middle East is supposed to be in Asia) . The North Africa, which has almost identical Arab people as Egypt but is never included as part of the Middle East in any news, and South Africa, which is a country. And then we have "Southern Africa" which is South Africa and places like Zimbabwe, Botswana, Malawi, etc. But the term NortheRN Africa is almost never used. There is also no WesteRN or EasteRN Africa, just "West" and "East" Africa. Somehow inconsistent, if you ask me. Also, be honest with me, when you hear that there is a bunch of Africans coming to your college party, who do you see? A bunch or Boers or Tunisians? I don't think so. You probably expect the real Africans- the sub-Saharan ones. Just like when you hear that a bunch of Asians are coming, you probably do not mean people that look like Ariel Sharon or Queen Ranya ( sp.) of Jordan.
Now, once we get into the Americas, things get complicated in their own way. Go to a US embassy somewhere South of the US/Mexico border or even visit the US immigration and pick up a "Welcome to the United States of America" brochure. Now, turn it around and there will be a Spanish text on the other side. It says in Spanish: "Welcome to the United States of North America". Wait a minute! What is going on? Mexico was in North America last time I checked. And the name of Mexico is, in Spanish, "United States of Mexico". So, you have two countries in North America and one is titled "United States of America" in English ( and "United States of North America" in Spanish) and another North American country called United States of Mexico? And it is in North America, too? Hmm. I am getting all confused again.
Also, are there now seven continents after all, and not six? Is South America a continent? According to the newscasters around the world it seems to be. To appease some people they are now talking about "the Americas". But are they talking about the two continents or one continent that now goes by this plural name? I guess it became two continents when the Panama Canal was dug out in the jungle, and thus, split America in two. But they also talk about "Central" America quite a bit. So, am I to assume that Central America is part of North America on the northern side of the Canal, and part of South America on the southern part of the Canal which is just a small bit of Panama? And does South America begin on the Panama- Colombia border? It is kind of confusing again. Is Central America treated as a new continent? I doubt it. But then, where is it?
Then, the term "Latin America". Supposedly these are the countries whose people speak languages that are derived from Latin- Spanish and Portuguese. French, maybe. I guess, French Guiana and Haiti, with its French-based Creole, can be included in it, although Haiti is usually put in the Caribbean by the newscasters. Puerto Rico is also part of the Caribbean and so is the Dominican Republic and Cuba. And the Caribbean is what Columbus discovered when he discovered "America". However, since the Caribbean is not really part of South America or North America but only of Latin America, at the time Columbus had discovered it, the people there did not speak any languages that were based on Latin. So, does it thus follow Columbus did not discover America when he landed in the Caribbean, after all? He did not discover South America or North America since most of his American voyages were to the Caribbean. Or did those Caribbean island cease to be America after he had left? No one speaks about them as America anymore. How come?
Maybe, since his sailors were speaking Latin-derived Spanish and he must have muttered some words in his Genovese dialect while walking around the isles, he did discover something which upon his crews' beginning to speak Spanish there, immediately became "Latin" America? All right. I'll go with that. I am not entirely convinced, but I will let it slide for now.
What about Quebec? It is a French-speaking Canadian province although its residents say " I am going to Canada" when they head for Toronto or Montreal. French is a language that is based on Latin. Should we call the Quebecois "Latin Americans", then? They, as Mexicans, are located in North America, but Mexicans are arguably Latin Americans, but the Quebecois are not. How come? I am again confused. And what about the Cajuns and the Louisiana Creoles? Are these Latin Americans? Before they became US citizens, were they seriously considered as such? They sure fulfill the definitions. Or does one have to be a member of an independent country in the Americas to be one? If so, why do they talk about the "Latinos from the Southwest", meaning people from New Mexico or Arizona? Oh, I see, these are "Latinos" but the French speakers are " Latins". OK, I will agree to that. So, then there must be a separate "Latino-America" and Latin America, the first one housing people who speak Spanish and Portuguese and the second housing people that speak any language derived from Latin. So, now we have South America, Latin America and a new "Latino-America"- which includes all the people with names such as Gomez, Lopez or Rodriguez? Some people would like to think that way, I am sure.
BBC and CNN, where are you? I need your help.
The only continent that presents relatively little confusion is Australia. People from there, be they of European or of any other descent are supposedly "Australians". But how come they and the New Zealanders are often invited to all these Asian political and economic summits? Are they Asians, too? Or are they invited in the capacity of observers? And why did some Singaporean officials talk about the Australians "becoming the white trash of Asia"? They are in Asia, you mean? And, recently, there were race-motivated riots in Australia which were described as those between the Lebanese and the "White" Australians. Aren't the Lebanese "white", too? They sure are in many neighborhoods in the US. Ask a few bigoted black guys there and they will describe them by several unflattering terms reserved for white people in the US. In the land of Oz they are not, then? And why were some of those "white" Australians carrying all these Australian flags when they went to beat up on those Lebanese-Australians? Weren't those Lebanese Australian citizens or residents? Weren't many of them born there? Again, strange. I don't get it.
Finally, you still hear the term "Australia and Oceania". Now, where is this Oceania? Some of it, I guess, includes Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. But I once saw a map that had Australia and Oceania 'above' it- i.e. Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Aren't these part of Asia? And if these are part of Asia, how come they are islands that are off-the-coast of Asia? Since Asia is a continent, only a part of Malaysia should be there but the rest of it, along with the Philippines and Indonesia should be in Oceania, not in Asia. But both the Philippines and Indonesia are members of the ASEAN. Strange!
I really and truly give up. I am going to ask the BBC about it. They obviously know better about those things than I do
***
But cable TV networks again were particularly guilty of muddling things up. "And now, so-and-so is reporting from Asia". Where in Asia? Is she reporting from the other side of the Bosphorus? No, she is in Singapore. So my question is: "How come whenever they report from Asia, it is almost never Turkey or Syria. Or the Russian Far East. "Oh, that's not Asia", some will answer. So, what is it? Turkey is in the Middle East. So is Syria. Isn't the Middle East in Asia? And Turkey, for a long time was called Asia Minor. So, are these reporters in Asia Major now? Did I miss something? "And this is our correspondent reporting from Asia Major, good morning to you all".
The city of Istanbul straddles two continents, and the folks there are proud to be able to walk across the bridge and end up now in Europe, now in Asia. So do many people in Russia and Kazakhstan near the continental divide that goes along the Ural mountains into the Kazakh steppes. Some people have spent their entire lives living in Europe and working in Asia, all while remaining in Turkey, Russia or Kazakhstan. However, according to the BBC, in order to do that you will have to commute not from one Kazakh yurt to another, and not from one part of the Old Constantinople to another, but to fly in a private jet from Paris to Beijing. Kind of expensive and time consuming if you ask me. A Turk can do it for free several times in one day if he wants.
Whenever they talk about Asia they are showing the Thai "nail dancers" or Sri Lankans on elephants. When the CNN "reports from Asia", one sees crowds of people on the streets of Tokyo and Seoul. Does that nullify the Turk's, the Russian's and the Kazakh's bi-continental life experience? According to the BBC and CNN it does, I guess.
If you listen to American news stations talking about the US dealings with "Asians", the only Asian countries will be those where people have black hair, somewhat yellowish skin, and narrow eyes. So, again, the experience of commuting between two continents in Istanbul is erased and ignored. "Yeah, it is "Asia" , maybe, but I never thought about it that way", an average American reporter would probably say.
In the UK, when they talk about the "police looking for two lost Asian teenagers" they mean people from the Indian Subcontinent-Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri-Lankans, etc. This way, the whole continent of Asia in Great Britain has been reduced to about one fourth of its size, as it were. If a Japanese teenager is missing, he/she will be referred to as an "Asian teenager" in the US, but only as a "Japanese teenager" in the UK. Two Pakistani teenagers, on the other hand, missing in New York, will not be talked about as " two Asian teenagers" though. Their eyes are not narrow enough, maybe?
A lot of it is done for simplicity's sake since these are the parts of Asia that provide immigrants and tourists to the two countries of the US and the UK, and these, in turn, dominate the airwaves with their news. Maybe all that a Turk needs to do is switch the channel to the local Turkish news, and again be reminded that Istanbul does, in fact, connect Europe and Asia even though no pagodas, beturbaned maharajas or battling samurais are anywhere in site.
When the BBC and CNN talk about Europe, things get more complicated. Snobbery is probably more of a reason than anything else. There has been some talk on the English language radio and TV about countries like Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia "joining Europe". What do you exactly mean: "joining"?. Shouldn't it be "joining the EU" instead of "joining Europe?" And wasn't it "the EEC"-the European Economic Community before? So, how do these largely political and economic organizations equate to being a whole continent? Where was Latvia before it had joined Europe? Was it in Africa? Oh, you are telling me it was in the Soviet Union? OK, so, you may dislike the Soviet Union and want to exclude it from the enlightened and civilized Europe, so much I can buy, but Latvia became independent in 1989 and then, it "joined" Europe in 2004? Was it in Antarctica those thirteen years? Or did someone dig a moat in 1989 and separated it from the mainland for all those years and then, later, covered the moat with earth so that it would "join" Mother Europe?
Russia is another favorite" victim" of the European and the BBC/CNN snobberies. Pick up any encyclopedia and open up the page where it says "Europe". It will clearly delineate Europe as a huge land area running from the Atlantic, where Spain and Portugal are located, to the Urals in Russia. This way, European Russia covers exactly one half of Europe- its eastern half. So, Russia is, in fact, Eastern Europe. Not so on the English-language airwaves when news is being reported. They are talking about negotiations between "Russia" and "Europe". Many weather maps showing Europe completely exclude Russia or only show a small sliver of it. The huge European expanse stretching from the Carpathian mountains to the Urals has now been semi-officially transferred to Asia. I guess people in Tokyo and Seoul must be rejoicing. Why aren't there any celebrations in the Pakistani neighborhoods in the UK?- Asians have now acquired one half of the European continent. Without any huge military campaigns. Where Genghis Khan, and Kublai Khan have failed, the BBC and the CNN have succeeded. How come such an auspicious event has gone unnoticed and there have been no fireworks in Beijing?
OK, great. So, Russia has now been officially transferred to Asia- check out the CIA World Fact Book. Its location is now listed as Northern Asia although the site does accede that its eastern part is "sometimes" ( wow! how generous! and when is that?) included with Europe. But, gee, whenever there is an Asian political summit, Russia is not invited. How come? Isn't it now the biggest country in Asia? So how come you do not see Putin hobnobbing with the Japanese or lining up for group photos at all these Asian political meets, grinning in unison along with all these other smiling Asian faces. Somehow he is not even invited. Strange.
When the newscasts of the BBC and the CNN talk about Eastern Europe they mean Poland and Hungary. But in Eastern Poland ( and also in Southern Lithuania and in Western Ukraine) there are landmarks- stones and columns and such, indicating the "Geographical Center of Europe". So, how can it be in the center of Europe if it is in the very East of it at the same time?. I am all confused.
I have asked around and the help has arrived. I have consulted a few Britons and they have explained to me that Russia is "a special region". Maybe according to the BBC, again. I guess they think that they rule the world and are divinely authorized to assign new classifications to countries that did not request them to begin with. They have been shifting multi- trillion-ton landmasses with ancient cities and hundreds of millions of people in them, from one continent to another all without the help of even one bulldozer. A truly amazing feat of the British engineering ingenuity, if you ask me.
So, Russia is not a part of Europe or Asia. One said- it is "Eurasia". But wait a minute! Eurasia is an uninterrupted terra firma stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That is the definition that I know. It includes Portugal and China. Now, are you going to tell me that while now Russia is excluded from both Europe and Asia, the "real" Europe, and, possibly, the "real" Asia are now kind of excluded from that "new" Eurasia? I have not heard of many "Eurasian" games being conducted in Beijing or Seoul. I have not heard of the collective Eurasian identity that people would be proud of, except, if they are a mixture of a Japanese mother and a German father. So, Eurasia before was a real continental land area from Lisbon to Kamchatka, but now it is only from the Belarus border to Kamchatka with anything south of Siberia excluded? You got me there. I am totally confused. Who is "passing" these new definitions? Is there like a boardroom somewhere, some "Worldwide Continentalist Definitors Council" that switches and assigns names to continents without asking the residents of those places as to what they call themselves or the place where they themselves live?
Looks like the BBC has moved more landmasses around in just under half a century than the Continental Drift had in three billion years.
But I am not just blaming the BBC or the CNN. I was in working in Thailand in the 1990ies and one Thai university professor has confided in me the fact that she had never considered Iranians and Arabs as "Asians". "Different Asians" she would say. "And their language is like English". I guess to her Thai ears if a language was not tonal like Thai or Chinese, and if people did not have straight black hair and high cheekbones, they were simply not Asians. Asia sure has traveled a long way from the shores of the Bosphorus in a few hundred years. And, according to some people, it never went back there again. In Thailand, they talk about themselves being "the hub of Asia". I guess they decided not to ask people on the streets of Tehran if they would grant them that title. They just went ahead and named themselves "The Great Asian Hub".
A lot of that happened when the world "Oriental" became politically incorrect. It used to be that there was one Asia where all people were Asians. But there was a part of Asia where people had Mongolian-like features. These were called "Orientals". They protested and said" do not call us "Orientals", call us "Asians". The "Great Asian Drift" took place after that, I guess. And hundreds of millions of people had lost their Asian identity.
And look at the Middle East and Africa. First there was a Near East, Middle East and a Far East. Now, many people started complaining about the Eurocentric orientation involved in such definitions, so some geographers have tried to change them- now you were supposed to have South Asia, South East Asia. East Asia or sometimes, North East Asia, etc. "Northern Asia" meaning Asian Russia/Siberia has almost never been used, and "Western" or "West" Asia also sounds strange. When they talk about American troops in Iraq, they never talk about " our involvement in Western Asia". But the words "Near East" have been replaced with "Middle East". Why not the other way around, though? Now it stretches from the Eastern Mediterranean to Pakistan. But how can it be "Middle" if there is no "Near" anymore? Would not it seem more logical if they got rid of the term "Middle East" and replaced it with "Near East"? Why didn't it ever happen? And why is Uzbekistan- Central Asia, meaning it is in the center, but Lebanon is in the Middle East, meaning again it is in some center/middle but why is "their" middle located so far west from the Uzbekistan-style center/middle?
Another arbitrary land shift by newscasters.
Now, Egypt, for example, is almost always talked about as part of the Middle East in various TV discourses and in papers. However, it is in Africa. Many African-Americans proudly see Egypt and its ancient history as something to add to their cultural heritage. So, is Egypt then located in both places? Sinai is, but when they talk about Egypt, they kind of talk about Cairo and Alexandria which are both in Africa. North Africa. So, I guess Egypt has been able to violate the physical law of not being able to be in two places at the same time. When I visited there in the year 2001 I was proud to say to myself that now my feet had stood on the African soil. However, I felt insecure about claiming to anyone that I have, in fact, visited Africa- I had been to Egypt, hadn't I? Still, something was gnawing at me as if saying " Yeah, it is in Africa, sort of , kind of, but it is not in 'real' Africa. It was not until I got to Kenya three years later that I felt that I could now fully say that I had been to Africa. The people around me were black, there were elephants roaming on the savannah- yup, that was Africa. But Egypt? Nah! I would have hard time convincing people back home that I have been to the 'Dark Continent" even though the my feet fully touched it when I was walking down the streets of Cairo.
So, looks like we have several Africas- the real- Sub-Saharan "Black" Africa, the North Africa which may or may not include Egypt, which is part of the Middle East ( and the Middle East is supposed to be in Asia) . The North Africa, which has almost identical Arab people as Egypt but is never included as part of the Middle East in any news, and South Africa, which is a country. And then we have "Southern Africa" which is South Africa and places like Zimbabwe, Botswana, Malawi, etc. But the term NortheRN Africa is almost never used. There is also no WesteRN or EasteRN Africa, just "West" and "East" Africa. Somehow inconsistent, if you ask me. Also, be honest with me, when you hear that there is a bunch of Africans coming to your college party, who do you see? A bunch or Boers or Tunisians? I don't think so. You probably expect the real Africans- the sub-Saharan ones. Just like when you hear that a bunch of Asians are coming, you probably do not mean people that look like Ariel Sharon or Queen Ranya ( sp.) of Jordan.
Now, once we get into the Americas, things get complicated in their own way. Go to a US embassy somewhere South of the US/Mexico border or even visit the US immigration and pick up a "Welcome to the United States of America" brochure. Now, turn it around and there will be a Spanish text on the other side. It says in Spanish: "Welcome to the United States of North America". Wait a minute! What is going on? Mexico was in North America last time I checked. And the name of Mexico is, in Spanish, "United States of Mexico". So, you have two countries in North America and one is titled "United States of America" in English ( and "United States of North America" in Spanish) and another North American country called United States of Mexico? And it is in North America, too? Hmm. I am getting all confused again.
Also, are there now seven continents after all, and not six? Is South America a continent? According to the newscasters around the world it seems to be. To appease some people they are now talking about "the Americas". But are they talking about the two continents or one continent that now goes by this plural name? I guess it became two continents when the Panama Canal was dug out in the jungle, and thus, split America in two. But they also talk about "Central" America quite a bit. So, am I to assume that Central America is part of North America on the northern side of the Canal, and part of South America on the southern part of the Canal which is just a small bit of Panama? And does South America begin on the Panama- Colombia border? It is kind of confusing again. Is Central America treated as a new continent? I doubt it. But then, where is it?
Then, the term "Latin America". Supposedly these are the countries whose people speak languages that are derived from Latin- Spanish and Portuguese. French, maybe. I guess, French Guiana and Haiti, with its French-based Creole, can be included in it, although Haiti is usually put in the Caribbean by the newscasters. Puerto Rico is also part of the Caribbean and so is the Dominican Republic and Cuba. And the Caribbean is what Columbus discovered when he discovered "America". However, since the Caribbean is not really part of South America or North America but only of Latin America, at the time Columbus had discovered it, the people there did not speak any languages that were based on Latin. So, does it thus follow Columbus did not discover America when he landed in the Caribbean, after all? He did not discover South America or North America since most of his American voyages were to the Caribbean. Or did those Caribbean island cease to be America after he had left? No one speaks about them as America anymore. How come?
Maybe, since his sailors were speaking Latin-derived Spanish and he must have muttered some words in his Genovese dialect while walking around the isles, he did discover something which upon his crews' beginning to speak Spanish there, immediately became "Latin" America? All right. I'll go with that. I am not entirely convinced, but I will let it slide for now.
What about Quebec? It is a French-speaking Canadian province although its residents say " I am going to Canada" when they head for Toronto or Montreal. French is a language that is based on Latin. Should we call the Quebecois "Latin Americans", then? They, as Mexicans, are located in North America, but Mexicans are arguably Latin Americans, but the Quebecois are not. How come? I am again confused. And what about the Cajuns and the Louisiana Creoles? Are these Latin Americans? Before they became US citizens, were they seriously considered as such? They sure fulfill the definitions. Or does one have to be a member of an independent country in the Americas to be one? If so, why do they talk about the "Latinos from the Southwest", meaning people from New Mexico or Arizona? Oh, I see, these are "Latinos" but the French speakers are " Latins". OK, I will agree to that. So, then there must be a separate "Latino-America" and Latin America, the first one housing people who speak Spanish and Portuguese and the second housing people that speak any language derived from Latin. So, now we have South America, Latin America and a new "Latino-America"- which includes all the people with names such as Gomez, Lopez or Rodriguez? Some people would like to think that way, I am sure.
BBC and CNN, where are you? I need your help.
The only continent that presents relatively little confusion is Australia. People from there, be they of European or of any other descent are supposedly "Australians". But how come they and the New Zealanders are often invited to all these Asian political and economic summits? Are they Asians, too? Or are they invited in the capacity of observers? And why did some Singaporean officials talk about the Australians "becoming the white trash of Asia"? They are in Asia, you mean? And, recently, there were race-motivated riots in Australia which were described as those between the Lebanese and the "White" Australians. Aren't the Lebanese "white", too? They sure are in many neighborhoods in the US. Ask a few bigoted black guys there and they will describe them by several unflattering terms reserved for white people in the US. In the land of Oz they are not, then? And why were some of those "white" Australians carrying all these Australian flags when they went to beat up on those Lebanese-Australians? Weren't those Lebanese Australian citizens or residents? Weren't many of them born there? Again, strange. I don't get it.
Finally, you still hear the term "Australia and Oceania". Now, where is this Oceania? Some of it, I guess, includes Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. But I once saw a map that had Australia and Oceania 'above' it- i.e. Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Aren't these part of Asia? And if these are part of Asia, how come they are islands that are off-the-coast of Asia? Since Asia is a continent, only a part of Malaysia should be there but the rest of it, along with the Philippines and Indonesia should be in Oceania, not in Asia. But both the Philippines and Indonesia are members of the ASEAN. Strange!
I really and truly give up. I am going to ask the BBC about it. They obviously know better about those things than I do
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)