Posts under ‘culture’

I work with a number of Puerto Rican professionals and para-professionals who are mostly second-generation Americans, their parents having migrated to New York City in the middle of the last century (thus the self-chosen moniker “Newyoricans“.

Getting to know the Puerto Rican community, there are many things I find curious and interesting. One of the things I find most curious is the fact that many Puerto Ricans who are second-generation Americans choose to speak only English at home, raising their children as monolingual English speakers. As one of my coworkers recently pointed out, she and her husband—both professional “Newyoricans” whose parents did indeed come to New York in the 1950’s—use Spanish as a “secret language” at home, allowing them to talk about the children and other issues without being understood. While I appreciate the notion of parents having conversational privacy from their children, there is a cultural and economic advantage of growing up bilingual, and my colleague’s children have missed a wonderful opportunity to enter the workforce as fully bilingual and bicultural adults.

Having grown up in a very assimilated third-generation Jewish European-American home, I have asked my parents about the languages spoken in their homes when they were children In New York City. Apparently, their grandparents spoke mostly Yiddish (and some Russian, apparently), also using said languages as “secret codes” to keep the children in the dark. By the time my parents’ generation came of age, the only language used (other than for various popular Yiddish euphemisms and sayings) was English.

My friends in Europe speak many languages based upon the pluralistic nature of modern European society. Their children begin learning English in kindergarten (at least in Holland) and will graduate high school with no less than three languages under their belts, linguistically prepared for the modern economy.

For Latinos here in the United States in the 21st century, being bilingual and bicultural is an economic advantage not to be underestimated. With Latinos poised to be the majority of the country’s population (over Whites, Asians, and African-Americans) by 2050, having facility in both English and Spanish is an incredible boost for any young professional’s resume. How sad that my colleague’s children have to learn Spanish “from scratch” in high school, struggling with the rudiments of the language which they could have had easily instilled in them from birth. Perhaps a genetic disposition for Spanish may be genetically possible, but there is no substitute for growing up immersed in more than one language at home.

But for every rule there is an exception, and I’m sure there are many Latino households where both English and Spanish flow like intermingling streams. The children who are lucky enough to be raised in an environment where fluency in multiple languages is the norm are sure to have a great economic and social advantage as this century matures. I hope that their non-bilingual peers eventually have an opportunity to even the score.

So, you’ve heard about Fair-Trade Coffee, wherein indigenous coffee-growers and harvesters earn living wages via trade practices which honor workers’ rights, human rights, and the inevitable environmental impact of coffee growing, including widespread pesticide and herbicide use. Dean’s Beans, Global Exchange, Equal Exchange, and other progressive companies have catapulted this practice into the mainstream, and Middle America is beginning to understand how its thirst for coffee can fuel worker exploitation and environmental degradation.

That said, places like Starbucks (no link needed—they don’t need free advertising) pay some lip service to fair trade, inconsistently offering one or two fair-trade flavors, but could do a great deal more to support the cause. With their profits through the roof—and a potential move into small restaurants under the Starbucks banner in the near future—the “Evil Coffee Empire” (as it is known in some quarters) could adopt 100% fair-trade practices vis-a-vis its coffee and chocolate, jettisoning recognition of fair trade further into the mainstream. Even though many of their practices are laudable—like employee benefits, socially responsible investing with Calvert,
and attention towards the environmental impact of coffee growing, Starbucks could use its cultural ubiquitousness and name recognition to take Fair Trade to the next level. Perhaps some day they will. That said, I still buy the odd coffee at Starbucks myself, though I always choose a local cafe if one can be found.

Next comes Fair-Trade Chocolate. Like coffee growers and harvesters, indigenous cocoa farmers are often exploited by middlemen and global corporations which ignore human rights, environmental impact, and the need for a living wage. Fueling the worldwide demand for a luxury item—chocolate—is a billion dollar industry, and many families suffer as they try to feed, clothe and educate children on the subsistence wages earned growing cocoa, often the only viable choice in a globalized market that has shut out small independent (and mostly indigenous) farmers. Lutheran World Relief, A Greater Gift, Global Exchange, and many other companies have stoked the flames of consumer activism in the interests of cocoa farmers, and many chocoholics are realizing that their predilection for chocolate does not need to be borne on the backs of indigenous farmers.

On Valentine’s Day of this year, I posted a missive which included a paragraph dedicated to the human costs related to the flower industry. As detailed on DemocracyNow!:

“Approximately 60 percent of all flowers sold in the United States come from Colombia. A third of Ecuador’s yearly production is exported to the U.S. for Valentine’s Day. Flower workers in these countries earn poverty-level wages, work long hours, and suffer significant health problems due to pesticides. The report also finds that over half of women workers in the flower industry in Colombia and Ecuador have been subjected to sexual harassment“.

According to Jobs with Justice, Dole is the sole U.S. wholesaler that owns flower plantations abroad, including 20 in Colombia alone. Dole has reneged on contract agreements, and has periodically fired workers for no apparent legal reason other than workers’ efforts to gain access to living wages and humane working conditions. You can sign a petition at Jobs with Justice’s website to petition Dole to negotiate in good faith.

Failing tackling Dole and other multinationals singlehandedly, what is the earnest consumer to do? Just like with chocolate and coffee, one can make the informed decision to go to reliable sources which offer fair-trade certified organic flowers which are often reviewed by third parties for compliance with agreed-upon standards. The cost is often comparable, and we have never paid more than a few dollars extra by choosing fair-trade. Organic Bouquet is one of many sites where you can buy with a clear conscience, and as usual in these types of endeavors, Google is still your best friend.

So, without wanting to be a nay-sayer or kill-joy, one of my self-appointed missions on this Earth is to be an activist for causes which I feel are in need of attention, are relatively easy to address as an individual consumer, and whose impact can have far-reaching reverberations. If you’ve already ordered your Mothers Day flowers (and I hope by now you have, for your sake!), please take this message to heart and consider buying fair trade the next time you have occasion to order flowers or plants for someone you love.

In this culture where purchases are often only a click away from the comfort of our homes with credit-card in hand, we can easily choose to use the savings on gas from not driving to the store to buy with our heart and our conscience. Of course, we choose our battles carefully in this life, and there are daily decisions that we must make which have far-reaching impacts of which we are blissfully unaware (with a nod to George Orwell).

That said, every choice is an opportunity, and with every opportunity we take to do good in the world, we are contributing to a growing movement towards humanitarianism, environmental awareness, human rights, and a world where all are equally able to pursue liberty and happiness for themselves and their families. Does that chocolate bar effect the life of a Colombian cocoa grower living in the bush? Ask her, and one look in her eyes will answer your question. Consider eschewing Nestles, Hersheys, Maxwell House, FTD, and flowers.com, and spend your money through the filter of your conscience. We’ll all feel better, and some of us will actually live better. What could be a better Mothers Day gift than that?

Commuting more than forty miles round-trip every day, and doing outreach within my city of employ, I come into close contact with thousands of drivers and vehicles each day. Now that I have a hybrid, I am even more conscious of my “carbon footprint”, feeling good about my forty miles per gallon but wishing I could do even more to lessen my impact. A job close to home would be the answer, but it just isn’t in the cards for me these days. Some day, I promise myself, I’ll have a job I can bicycle to.

Living in a car-centered society, one cannot help but notice trends. Despite the upward trend of gasoline prices, there seems to be no downward trend in the purchasing of SUVs. Enormous vehicles—most of which must get atrocious gas mileage—ply the roads in most any city or town. Few, if any, are actually used for either “sport” or utility”. Most seem like oversized and expensive status symbols which, by design, have a deplorable carbon footprint. I have heard that even in Britain, where small cars and environmental awareness are becoming almost de rigeur, SUVs are almost as popular as they are here in the US. A sad commentary on the state of the world, in my humble opinion.

Just the other day, I was in traffic behind a gargantuan SUV which had a nameplate identifying it as an “Armada”. Last I checked, an armada was a group of warships. If automobile companies see the necessity to name a vehicle after something so militaristic and threatening, what could possibly be next? The Toyota Destroyer? As it stands, Hummers—those vehicles truly designed for combat—still tear their way across the American landscape, threatening to crush into scrap metal any Volkswagen or Peugeot that gets in their way. Apropos of SUVs and accidents, my wife and I have been witness—and first on the scene—for two accidents involving SUVs. In both instances, the SUVs were moving at high speeds, struck (and demolished) much smaller cars, and then proceeded to roll over multiple times. Luckily, no one died in either accident, but each SUV was filled with children.

Speaking of Armadas and Hummers, what is it, pray tell, against which we are so fearfully arming ourselves? What is this distance which we feel we must put between us and our breathren? Of what are we afraid? Conversely, are we only looking to create fear in others? Is our national soul so weak, our spirits so diminished by life in the 21st century, that these hunks of metal and plastic must serve as our talismen and protectors?

I remember when I was a teenager and my mother would remark how it seemed so sad and strange how young men needed to race around the neighborhood with loud cars and motorcycles, trying to prove something to an audience which most likely existed only in their imaginatons. My pat response to her was that those cars and motorcycles were penis extensions, allowing young men who were feeling basically impotent within the society to make a statement about something. While “penis extension” may be too simplistic—or crass—”ego extension” may be a more fitting moniker for those contemporarily ubiquitous SUVs. Even as the times seem to be a-changin’, they really never do.

As for the public health aspect of the car and SUV consumer culture (since I always seem to have to slip health in somewhere), we are all aware that safety has been legislated in some states, and seatbelts do indeed save lives every day. Most recently, the governor of New Jersey suffered major injuries when the SUV in which he was a passenger crashed along the Garden State Parkway. Was he wearing a seatbelt? Of course not. And who was the driver of said SUV careening at a languid 90 mph? A New Jersey state trooper, of course. Go figure. If that governor doesn’t become an outspoken proponent of seatbelts and automobile safety, he doesn’t deserve the office he was elected to.

Earlier, I mentioned a “carbon footprint”. Of course, we all burn fossil fuels each day through our daily activities. When our bananas are shipped from Costa Rica to Miami and then trucked to New York for distribution to our local supermarket, the “carbon trail” of those bananas is considerable. If we drive an SUV to that supermarket, the carbon trail is even greater. When most of us flick a light-switch or turn on the washing machine, coal is most likely the fossil fuel from which that electricity is more or less created.

As for the effects of carbon emissions and climate change on respiratory health, we all know that asthma rates are climbing. Smog, fine particulates, industry, vehicle emissions, the scorching of the rainforests, methane from animals for meat production—the causes are myriad. In the inner cities, communities of color are especially hard hit, with rates of respiratory illness skyrocketing. Where do we turn?

As for solutions, there are many places to turn for information and education. So many aspects of daily life are permutated with choices which directly or indirectly impact individual, cultural, regional, and even global health and safety. From one’s choice of vehicle to one’s shopping practices, every day offers opportunities for thoughtful decision-making. How many trips to the store can be consolidated into one, or eliminated altogether? How will that SUV’s gas mileage effect the health of some child in a distant urban center? How many lights do I really need to leave on in my house today?

As a consumer and as a spectator of consumer culture (with a predilection for public and community health), I make my own choices, hoping that they are thoughtful and responsible. I urge others to do the same, to be guided by conscience, and to remember that, in the larger picture, we are all irrevocably interconnected. As far as arming ourselves in vehicles equipped for battle, how about we let our guard down as a society and connect more on the human level? We can’t just live in fear, and we also can’t live like there’s no tomorrow, because at this rate, there just may not be one.

Under my email signature on all outgoing missives, the following quote by Mother Teresa is always attached:

“I have found the paradox that if I love until it hurts, then there is no hurt, only more love.”

On this day of all days, love is the notion we are urged to consider. Of course, being Valentine’s Day, romantic love is assumed to be at the epicenter of such considering, and well it is for many of us. But there are many more forms of love, and they are all worthy of our attention. As well, we also remember those who are bereft, lonely, impoverished, ill, and otherwise lacking love in their lives. Yes, the media deluge us with images of heart and flowers, chocolates and cards, forming the basis of what we think we know love is. However, it is in our minds and hearts where we truly decide the meaning of love, and it is in our relationships with the human and non-human worlds where we externalize our vision of love, manifesting our vision through action.

Many of us wonder how to celebrate love, embody love and partake in cultural norms which bring us and our loved ones pleasure, while still bearing in mind the wider effects of our way of life and the decisions we make as consumers. Flowers, chocolate, diamonds—the things we have been taught to freely associate with love—cannot escape the gravest blemishes when under scrutiny, especially as we use the power of the purse to support the industries that provide them on the shelves of our stores. This is not meant to be a wet blanket on this day. Rather, it is yet another way to love, wherein we remind one another that our choices as consumers have consequences beyond our immediate perceptions. It is in both the small and the large that our actions ripple out into the world.

Today on AlterNet, Courtney E. Martin offers a view of love as activism, asserting that freedom is gained through our choices vis-a-vis relationship, love, and our actions close to home. Also on AlterNet, Julie Enszer describes the subtle ways in which gays and lesbians do (or don’t) reveal their partners’ gender in social situations. She then challenges us on this Valentine’s Day to go the whole day without revealing the gender of our lover in social exchanges, feeling that sense of ambiguity—and occasional discomfort—which is then communicated and felt by the parties on both ends of those conversations.

Meanwhile, on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman presented an expose on the low wages, child labor, and other human rights violations which support the commercial sale of cut flowers in the United States, propagated to a large extent by the Dole Corporation. A sobering dose of reality which, like Blood Diamond, has begun to popularize the notion that consumer goods can fuel conflict, slavery, and indecent treatment of human beings in the name of profit. Furthering our perceived indictment of all things Valentine, even chocolate is not safe from political strife, economic hardship, and humanitarian controversy when considered through the lens of fair trade practices.

Moreover, the V-Day movement strives to end violence against women, with Valentine’s Day designated as V-Day. Describing the movement on their web-site as “a fierce, wild, unstoppable movement and community”, their goal is no less than the complete defeat of violence against women and the victory of human rights and peace.

What, then, you may ask, is a loving yet earnestly concerned Valentine to do?

I would submit that there is no end to what one can do to propagate love while making wise and informed choices. Choosing Fair Trade chocolate and coffee is itself an act of love—towards others, self, and economic equality. Do I always practice such advice, you ask? No, I do not, but continually reminding one’s self of the power of choice is often the first step towards freedom. Further, by treating the women in one’s life with respect, by standing up against their unfair treatment and subjugation, by communicating through actions and words one’s dedication to such a notion—that is a most powerful personal statement.

And the flowers? Sometimes we can’t help ourselves when we buy those lovely bouquets, and none of us can deny the joy and delight on the receiver’s face when presented with the thoughtful sweetness embodied therein. These are all simply choices, and in this consumer society, we all are prey to the whims and winds of the marketplace. If I buy flowers, I will certainly enjoy them, bless the person who picked and processed them, and give them with the love with which they are intended. One cannot live life afraid to act, yet one must also understand that each and every choice we make in life carries consequences often beyond our ken.

On this snowy Valentine’s Day, I am home with my love, workplaces closed, the world moving at a crawl, the icy precipitation confining us happily to our home. Yoga together in the morning, a DVD, a nap, a simple exchange of cards, and a mutual conscious decision to eschew the drive to consume, rather giving each other the gift of time, of space, of presence, of shared love. Although I did donate money to the V-Day campaign in Mary’s honor today, it is not the money changing hands which holds meaning. Intention, of course, is the central force, and through our intentions our actions must naturally follow.

Even amidst a consumer frenzy, be it Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or Mother’s Day, intention and the consciousness behind that intention holds the key. Coupled with right action, there is no end to the love that can be shared, and no end to the satisfaction which we can glean from a life well lived.

Happy Valentine’s Day, from my heart to yours.

Based upon articles and media reports, the debate over evolution—or the lack thereof—still rages around the world. This morning, National Public Radio broadcasted a short piece on the “Turkana Boy”, the complete skeletal remains of a 9-year-old boy discovered on the shores of Lake Turkana, Kenya in 1984. These remains, at 1.6 million years old, are the oldest-known specimen of Homo Erectus, and are poised to be publicly displayed for the first time at Kenya’s national museum in Nairobi.

It appears that the evangelical Christian communities in Africa—specifically in Kenya—are afire with opposition to the theory of evolution, requesting that the Turkana Boy’s remains be relegated to a back room of the museum with a posted caveat that evolution is still only considered a theory. As reported on CNN.com via a report from the Associated Press, Bishop Boniface Adoyo, the leader of millions of African Christians from 35 denominations, has stated that exhibits and scientific reports which support the theory of evolution undermine the church and its teachings. Stating recently that “these sorts of silly views are killing our faith,” the bishop clearly verbalizes the perceived attack on faith which the religious community feels is being waged by the proponents of evolution, as well as the church’s adamant refusal to consider evolution as even remotely possible within the Christian cosmology.

I’m not entirely certain why I was compelled to write about this issue this morning, but it sparked within me a curiosity regarding the intersection—or rather, collision—of science and religion, which frequently pose difficult moral questions. Whether it be evolution, stem cell research, abortion, or family planning and contraception, these hot-button issues test the waters of our culture and its ability to withstand apparently untenable moral dilemmas. Of course, politics plays a role when the government intervenes (take the case of Terry Schiavo, for example), or when political candidates are forced to take a stand on a timely and contentious “moral” issue. (Just what isn’t “moral”, anyway? And in terms of those “value voters” that are ubiquitously discussed at election time, don’t we all cast votes based upon our “values”?)

When discussing evolution and the Turkana Boy, it will be interesting to see how this debate evolves (pun originally not intended). Being neither a scientist nor a theologian, the potential for compromise appears slim from my viewpoint. If the religious community refuses to allow for even the possibility of truth behind a widely accepted and validated theory, compromise and understanding appear beyond reach. And when the scientific community openly derides or mocks the beliefs and faith of the pious, agreement or understanding is further debilitated.

Boycotts of exhibits serve little to inform the public, rather simply fueling further ignorance and division. When children are denied the teaching of evolution—or are encouraged to discount its scientific basis entirely with complete absence of critical thinking—who is truly served? From the point of view of an individual without religious affiliation and raised in a devoutly secular household devoid of all notions of faith (except for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, that is), I am honestly often perplexed by organized religion in terms of its dogmatically held tenets.

Seeing the violence and carnage often waged ostensibly in the name of religious belief or affilation (think Shiite versus Sunni, for instance, or perhaps the Spanish Inquisition), one may be led to believe that religious thought and belief have indeed precluded reason during countless human societies, both modern and historical. I try not to lose my faith in human kind and its ability to embrace dialectically opposed belief systems wherein faith and science can live relatively peacefully, perhaps even with some cross-pollination and intermingling concepts. There is room for both subjectivity and objectivity in most every realm of thought and inquiry, and I’m sure many authors and thinkers have already done a great deal to advance the cause of peace and reconciliation between the two seemingly disparate camps.

Albert Einstein once wrote in a letter dated February 10, 1954: “If God has created the world, his primary worry was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us”. I think his statement still holds true, and I wonder if he would feel that any advancement has been made since his death, or rather that we humans still exist in a miasma of ignorance and mistrust of both one another and the universe at large. As for the Turkana Boy, I have no doubt that the ire his exhibition is creating in Kenya is not about to be dissipated by calls for understanding and acceptance, but I still hope that some incremental change—mind by mind, heart by heart—can contribute to a quiet groundswell of cooperative understanding, even amidst these ages-old questions still begging for answers which will undoubtedly always leave someone disappointed.