Women, China, and The Male Superiority Complex
I am by no means a player or ladies man. That being said, I have met my fair share of women and my time in China was somewhat of an eye opener.
First, Beijing is huge and second, Chinese girls seem not to care that much about infidelity. In general, people do not wear wedding rings and their relatio1nships are often ‘open’. It has become very common throughout Asia for women to not marry as they feel it interferes with their careers. In large cities, married couples often live in separate apartments and spend their weekends together, their weeks apart. With increased divorce rates in the west and an ever-increasing expected life-span, one has to wonder about the relevance of marriage or monogamy in our modern world.
In our globalized, industrialized and commercialized world – we come into contact with more information, products and people than ever before. As an individual, I have met more people from different backgrounds than my parents or their parents or their parents before them.
This increase in social meetings should mathematically lead to more sexual meetings. Globally, the average person has 3.5 sexual partners in their lifetime, this statistic is more elevated in the industrialized world and even more so in urban centers. Short of the obvious disease argument, what is fundamentally wrong with having more relationships?
One could argue this behavior is morally wrong and god may indeed send me to hell. Yet, morals are simply rules set down to help guide an individual through the trials and tribulations of life. In reality, they are more of a guide than a strict ‘rule’. As long as you do no harm onto others – what is wrong with your actions? Perhaps I am young, untainted by love and simply acting on primal animal instincts; not unlike a child. In the film Wedding Crashers the main character states, “One day we will look back on all this and say, we were young and stupid” and contrary to Vince and Owen (the actors in the film), I am young.
It does not feel that bad misleading girls about my age, 28 or 25 depending on circumstance; though untrue, their hesitance to engage is based on a false social constraint – so the lie is really to their benefit. While that logic may indeed be tenuous, the scariest thing about male-female relationships is the conquest aspect.
Men tend to regard getting laid as an accomplishment, akin to a good grade at school. It is an ego booster and a way of demonstrating their manliness. In many instances, the conquest of a night out on the town is more rewarding than the actual sex, which tends to be mediocre with any first time partner. Truthfully, with the right pick-up techniques, nearly any girl is obtainable. Seminars and books concerning the pursuit of carnal pleasure are easily accessible; techniques such as Neuro Linguistic Programming, Hypnosis and associative behavior have been molded into guides to pick-up women.
Online forums (such as The Lay Guide discuss techniques, successes and failure. This modern devotion to conquering the opposite sex is perhaps the clearest demonstration of the male’s primal need to sleep with women, regardless of ‘love’. The recent book The Game, lays out techniques and societies devoted to picking up women and dealing with various situations. Yet, the conclusion of the book falls into line with the old adage of love persevering over the hollow existence of bachelorhood.
At my high school, my Athletics director had a stone on his desk with the saying “Winners Never Quit and Quitters Never Win”. Besides the fact that may be really cheesy and rhetorical, it is pretty damn accurate. In China or other non-western countries, this applies even more so. Not so much because the Chinese are inherently promiscuous – rather it is the increased confidence of foreigners. Most westerners obtain an air of superiority upon their arrival – they are more experienced, wealthier and worldlier than the vast majority of the local population.
These characteristics make the men much more confident in their abilities and their lack of integration with the local society dramatically reduces their concern for rejection or failure with local women. I have met numerous foreigners who claim to not be able to meet locals, they are no less wealthy or western – they simply do not extract that air of confidence from their relative (yet false) superiority. Let me make it clear: this colonial white-man-knows-all-attitude is disgusting; completely wrong and more harmful than most people tend to think. Yet, this confidence is what distinguishes the alpha males from the pack.
The book Confession of an Economic Hitman is the biography of an individual with very little economic background. He rose quickly to the top of the pack by delivering his presentations and reports with all the confidence in the world. Veteran economists and bankers would eventually accept his conclusions, though loosely based, because of his level of confidence.
On same level, many women enjoy a man who is cocky, arrogant and full of himself – all superficial demonstrations of confidence. Someone who is confident, relates to our basic desire of being told what to do, how to do it and when to do it. The degrees of confidence are of course varied and over-confidence can destroy someone. However, it is usually, though not always, the confident who rise to the top; they really are form of social father figure.
Our social drowning of information, products and people is part of the reason America has leaned towards one-liners and tough talking leaders such as George W. Unfortunately, the modern corporate machine has killed the feminist movement by introducing bootie shaking hoes, gangsta pimps, and male athlete superstars. Just as a society yearns for stability and guidance, so do many women. The few places where woman take a more prominent role in society are outside North America – Asia primarily, Continental Western Europe, and Africa. In many ways, the future of Africa seems to lie with the women; the men have been unable to reform their societies and crime continiues to plague their countries. The women, on the other hand, have been at the centre of most of the positive community work. Similarly, in Asia, the women play a central role in the workplace and are less pone to fall into the submissive role.
A woman who does not have a strong desire to be independent as the centre of her personal values is of no interest to me. Someone who cannot intellectually stand on their own two feet is going to be no more than a passing pretty face.
One of the original posts that put me on this subject is a thread on SinoSplice about Chinese-Western relationships and the accompanying social views: Sinosplice Post
Here is the comment I posted in relation to the above-mentioned article:
Ummm… Well I think that first post is a little over the top. Most of these women are just trying to escape their horrible situations, and if that means getting with some old dude then that’s what they do. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but rather inevitable. And the idea that they cannot love each other is a little silly. You definitely get mixed responses from the local population when they see a white man (regardless of age) with a Chinese girl. Certainly, an old white dude with a young girl elicits more stares. But there is not shortage of people trying to set me up with Chinese girls. That being said, the chinese girls that I do see are not interested in money or a visa. When I first got to China, I thought that would be the case, but in the case of the
young chinese girl – white guy situation; I genuinely feel that the chinese girl prefers the white dude because of various things that are more prevalent in western culture. I have had so many chinese girls tell me they really do not like chinese guys and would love to be with a foreigner.
This country has much bigger problems than old white men picking up young women. Concentrate on human rights, environmental issues and distribution of wealth rather than on issues that feed your nationalistic fever – which will eventually destroy this place, just as it did to Germany, USSR, …
Cool Blog, keep up the good work.
I think my comment was a general overview of my findings. To break it down in a more organized manner, people typically view Chinese girls with white men as girls who want one of the following:
1. A Visa/Passport
2. Money
3. Status
While this is pretty true when you see an old white man with a young Chinese (read under developed country) I do not feel it applies to an equal age couple. In general, the women are attracted to the foreigners confidence, his worldly experience and his association with the ‘hollywoodian’ male ideal. What is that Hollywood style and why would they be attracted to it?
Now, having read the book, The Red Queen Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, I am event more confident that human sexual relations are precarious at best. Men conquer and women want the strongest man for their genetic superiority – even if this means marrying someone less strong for the benefits of child rearing and then cheating on them with someone more powerful (read rich) or good looking (read hot).
The peacock theory is well explained and can be extrapolated to why the type of girls that are found attractive today are. The peacocks that are coveted are the ones with the brightest feathers, longest tales and most elaborate bodies. All of these characteristics are detrimental to their survival in the wild – they slow them down and make them more visible to predators. So why would female peacocks want such features for their offspring?
Simply put, they want these bright feathers for their offspring because they see other females are attracted to these features. Thus, if their kids do not have long tails and bright feathers, the future generation of females will not chase after their sons. There are other theories that add onto this logic, but it does have some merit towards explaining why gangsta pimps are in style and why trends catch on.
The argument goes further to say that all our actions, down to our platonic relationships are demonstrations of our genes desire to propagate with as many people as possible. Yet, while at the same time ensuring that the genes are not propagated in vain and that the children go on to live successful dominant lives. There is no point in trying to summarize the book, its innumerable examples and brilliant conjectures – best that you take a look at it yourself.
So, it is your genes that push you towards promiscuity and dominance – don’t fight it.
I am by no means a player or ladies man. That being said, I have met my fair share of women and my time in China was somewhat of an eye opener. In China I was seeing four good-looking girls on a methodical rotation; and let me tell you, it was great. This task was remarkably easy and was never in jeopardy of failure.
First, Beijing is huge and second, Chinese girls seem not to care that much about infidelity. In general, people do not wear wedding rings and their relationships are often ‘open’. It has become very common throughout Asia for women to not marry as they feel it interferes with their careers. In large cities, married couples often live in separate apartments and spend their weekends together, their weeks apart. With increased divorce rates in the west and an ever-increasing expected life-span, one has to wonder about the relevance of marriage or monogamy in our modern world.
In our globalized, industrialized and commercialized world – we come into contact with more information, products and people than ever before. As an individual, I have met more people from different backgrounds than my parents or their parents or their parents before them.
This increase in social meetings should mathematically lead to more sexual meetings. Globally, the average person has 3.5 sexual partners in their lifetime, this statistic is more elevated in the industrialized world and even more so in urban centers. Short of the obvious disease argument, what is fundamentally wrong with having more relationships?
One could argue this behavior is morally wrong and god may indeed send me to hell. Yet, morals are simply rules set down to help guide an individual through the trials and tribulations of life. In reality, they are more of a guide than a strict ‘rule’. As long as you do no harm onto others – what is wrong with your actions? Perhaps I am young, untainted by love and simply acting on primal animal instincts; not unlike a child. In the film Wedding Crashers the main character states, “One day we will look back on all this and say, we were young and stupid” and contrary to Vince and Owen (the actors in the film), I am young.
It does not feel that bad misleading girls about my age, 28 or 25 depending on circumstance; though untrue, their hesitance to engage is based on a false social constraint – so the lie is really to their benefit. While that logic may indeed be tenuous, the scariest thing about male-female relationships is the conquest aspect.
Men tend to regard getting laid as an accomplishment, akin to a good grade at school. It is an ego booster and a way of demonstrating their manliness. In many instances, the conquest of a night out on the town is more rewarding than the actual sex, which tends to be mediocre with any first time partner. Truthfully, with the right pick-up techniques, nearly any girl is obtainable. Seminars and books concerning the pursuit of carnal pleasure are easily accessible; techniques such as Neuro Linguistic Programming, Hypnosis and associative behavior have been molded into guides to pick-up women.
Online forums (such as The Lay Guide discuss techniques, successes and failure. This modern devotion to conquering the opposite sex is perhaps the clearest demonstration of the male’s primal need to sleep with women, regardless of ‘love’. The recent book The Game, lays out techniques and societies devoted to picking up women and dealing with various situations. Yet, the conclusion of the book falls into line with the old adage of love persevering over the hollow existence of bachelorhood.
At my high school, my Athletics director had a stone on his desk with the saying “Winners Never Quit and Quitters Never Win”. Besides the fact that may be really cheesy and rhetorical, it is pretty damn accurate. In China or other non-western countries, this applies even more so. Not so much because the Chinese are inherently promiscuous – rather it is the increased confidence of foreigners. Most westerners obtain an air of superiority upon their arrival – they are more experienced, wealthier and worldlier than the vast majority of the local population.
These characteristics make the men much more confident in their abilities and their lack of integration with the local society dramatically reduces their concern for rejection or failure with local women. I have met numerous foreigners who claim to not be able to meet locals, they are no less wealthy or western – they simply do not extract that air of confidence from their relative (yet false) superiority. Let me make it clear: this colonial white-man-knows-all-attitude is disgusting; completely wrong and more harmful than most people tend to think. Yet, this confidence is what distinguishes the alpha males from the pack.
The book Confession of an Economic Hitman is the biography of an individual with very little economic background. He rose quickly to the top of the pack by delivering his presentations and reports with all the confidence in the world. Veteran economists and bankers would eventually accept his conclusions, though loosely based, because of his level of confidence.
On same level, many women enjoy a man who is cocky, arrogant and full of himself – all superficial demonstrations of confidence. Someone who is confident, relates to our basic desire of being told what to do, how to do it and when to do it. The degrees of confidence are of course varied and over-confidence can destroy someone. However, it is usually, though not always, the confident who rise to the top; they really are form of social father figure.
Our social drowning of information, products and people is part of the reason America has leaned towards one-liners and tough talking leaders such as George W. Unfortunately, the modern corporate machine has killed the feminist movement by introducing bootie shaking hoes, gangsta pimps, and male athlete superstars. Just as a society yearns for stability and guidance, so do many women. The few places where woman take a more prominent role in society are outside North America – Asia primarily, Continental Western Europe, and Africa. In many ways, the future of Africa seems to lie with the women; the men have been unable to reform their societies and crime continiues to plague their countries. The women, on the other hand, have been at the centre of most of the positive community work. Similarly, in Asia, the women play a central role in the workplace and are less pone to fall into the submissive role.
A woman who does not have a strong desire to be independent as the centre of her personal values is of no interest to me. Someone who cannot intellectually stand on their own two feet is going to be no more than a passing pretty face.
One of the original posts that put me on this subject is a thread on SinoSplice about Chinese-Western relationships and the accompanying social views: Sinosplice Post
Here is the comment I posted in relation to the above-mentioned article:
Ummm… Well I think that first post is a little over the top. Most of these women are just trying to escape their horrible situations, and if that means getting with some old dude then that’s what they do. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but rather inevitable. And the idea that they cannot love each other is a little silly. You definitely get mixed responses from the local population when they see a white man (regardless of age) with a Chinese girl. Certainly, an old white dude with a young girl elicits more stares. But there is not shortage of people trying to set me up with Chinese girls. That being said, the chinese girls that I do see are not interested in money or a visa. When I first got to China, I thought that would be the case, but in the case of the
young chinese girl – white guy situation; I genuinely feel that the chinese girl prefers the white dude because of various things that are more prevalent in western culture. I have had so many chinese girls tell me they really do not like chinese guys and would love to be with a foreigner. This country has much bigger problems than old white men picking up young women. Concentrate on human rights, environmental issues and distribution of wealth rather than on issues that feed your nationalistic fever – which will eventually destroy this place, just as it did to Germany, USSR, … Cool Blog, keep up the good work.
I think my comment was a general overview of my findings. To break it down in a more organized manner, people typically view Chinese girls with white men as girls who want one of the following:
1. A Visa/Passport
2. Money
3. Status
While this is pretty true when you see an old white man with a young Chinese (read under developed country) I do not feel it applies to an equal age couple. In general, the women are attracted to the foreigners confidence, his worldly experience and his association with the ‘hollywoodian’ male ideal. What is that Hollywood style and why would they be attracted to it?
Now, having read the book, The Red Queen Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, I am event more confident that human sexual relations are precarious at best. Men conquer and women want the strongest man for their genetic superiority – even if this means marrying someone less strong for the benefits of child rearing and then cheating on them with someone more powerful (read rich) or good looking (read hot).
The peacock theory is well explained and can be extrapolated to why the type of girls that are found attractive today are. The peacocks that are coveted are the ones with the brightest feathers, longest tales and most elaborate bodies. All of these characteristics are detrimental to their survival in the wild – they slow them down and make them more visible to predators. So why would female peacocks want such features for their offspring?
Simply put, they want these bright feathers for their offspring because they see other females are attracted to these features. Thus, if their kids do not have long tails and bright feathers, the future generation of females will not chase after their sons. There are other theories that add onto this logic, but it does have some merit towards explaining why gangsta pimps are in style and why trends catch on.
The argument goes further to say that all our actions, down to our platonic relationships are demonstrations of our genes desire to propagate with as many people as possible. Yet, while at the same time ensuring that the genes are not propagated in vain and that the children go on to live successful dominant lives. There is no point in trying to summarize the book, its innumerable examples and brilliant conjectures – best that you take a look at it yourself.
So, it is your genes that push you towards promiscuity and dominance – don’t fight it.
Published on December 7, 2006Ellie Weisel, Man of the 20th Century
I just saw Ellie Weisel give a speech in Montreal. I had read his book Night, which is an account of his experience in and around Aushwitz.
He was 15.
You can find my review Here.
I expected to be impressed by Mr. Weisel, but his discourse, logic and poetics simply blew me away. He was the most well spoken individual I have ever heard. He pleaded for hope, patience and caring. All war is bad, all hate is bad, all death is bad. Only through dialogue and genuine efforts of understanding, will we be able to overcome our differences.
Ellie Weisel mentioned that life is not made up of years, but rather moments. There is not much I can say that would add to what he said, so here are a few of my favorite moments during the speech (which was in French):
Ne laisse pas son espoir devenir le désespoir d’un autre
Don’t let your hope become the despair of another
Les politiques c’est comme la guerre, on sait très bien comment commencer, mais on ne sait pas comment arrêter.
Politics is like war, we all know how to start, buit no one knows how to stop
L’indifférence est un problème central au monde
Indifference is a fundamental problem in the world
Ne tolérer pas les gens, ça suppose une grande arrogance; plutôt, il faut respecter les gens, les idées, les religions, tout.
Don’t tolerate people, it presupposes an arrogance of superiority; instead, respect them, their ideas, their religion, everything.
In response to how an educated nation like Germany went down the path of fascisim :
Peut-etre la science de la propagande a depaser l’education
Maybe the science of propaganda passed the level of education
Les fonctions d’un individu sont remplaçables, mais pas l’individu. Un individu n’est jamais remplaçable.
A person’s functions are replaceable, but not the person. No individual is replaceable.
Ellie Weisel’s Foundation is found Here
Published on November 15, 2006A Distant Pinch of Remorse
I recently read ‘Night’ by Elie Weisel. The book recounts his horrific experience, at the age of 16, in and between concentration camps during World War II. The book is as efficient as the death camps. He concisely outlines his suffering, human nature and what men do in the face of the most horrific crimes ever committed.
What comes to mind most when reading such a tale is how much I cannot relate to it. I have never suffered. I have never worried about food, shelter, or safety. In many ways, the book is pure fiction to me. I am not denying the crimes – I have been to concentration camps in Germany, I have visited the Anne Frank museum in Amsterdam, and I am Jewish. In this life of privilege and comfort, how can we even begin to imagine the situation?
Permit me to depart for a moment from this dramatic example; I have tried to put myself in the same mind frame I had when I was in China, when I was 20, or even 6 months ago. I felt that considering it was my mind – only in a different state – I should be able to re-constitute the state of mind that I had and gain the same outlook on life that I previously had. I have yet to succeed. Which leads me to the idea: If I cannot reconstitute my life outlook from the very recent past, how can I possibly understand the mind frame of a holocaust victim, third world citizen or someone from the inner city? Is it impossible? And if so, what implication does this have for our capability to empathize with our fellow man.
No easy answers, no easy answers.
Published on October 5, 2006Guns, Germs and Happiness
The question of what is important in life is perhaps as unsolvable as any of the large philosophical issues. However, it remains of interest to try and decipher what humans want, need, and what society actually encourages them to do. Should we place work over pleasure? A job over a family? Of course, most people will say that we need to balance the two necessities, but where is that balance to be placed? Europeans take three times as much vacation as their American counterparts – yet their economies keep running and there is a general pleasantness to being and living on the Continent. Despite their smaller homes, smaller cars, and smaller roads – they outlive Americans, Canadians, and Australians. In fact, if we looked at the hours spent on the job, Europeans are more efficient than Americans. There was a recent rating of countries according to their “happiness factor”; unsurprisingly, developed economies were not at the top of the list – though Europe did top the developed world. The index can be found here:
So should we value a new car every year or spending more time with our children? Of course the choice is never as clear as that. Increased industrialization means more jobs and technology. Technology generates comforts like heating, clean water, and medicine to help us live longer and more comfortably. Which, leads to the point that everything is connected. You cannot go to work without a mode of transportation – which likely pollutes; causing harm to the environment, you, your family and your neighbor. Without relying on the overused adage of the Butterfly Effect and Chaos theory, we need to start appreciating the connections between our actions and the planet’s reaction. So where to draw the line? I think it becomes important to identify what truly enhances our lives and what is simply consumption for the sake of consumption.
In my humble opinion, advertisement and marketing should be, by and large, banned. For the vast majority of people, it incites them to purchase, consume and dispose of items they would not have otherwise acquired – all of which leads to more work. This cycle is what drives capitalism and is one of the main reasons that communism failed – not that I am espousing Marx’s flawed theory. A well-known (but fake) story is of how NASA spent millions of dollars to create a pen that worked in the zero gravity environment of space. In the vast emptiness of space there is no gravity to push the ink downwards and onto the paper. These millions of dollars devoted to R&D produced an impressive engineering feat. More importantly, the money created prototypes, reports, testing facilities, and jobs; feeding the fire of capitalism. The communist Russians used a pencil.
I recently read “Lost Horizon”, written in the 1930s by James Hilton. In this novel, a Tibetan monk of European origin simply stated, “Laziness in doing stupid things can be a great virtue”. This simple statement illustrates what is needed in society – a hesitance to work for the sake of work. On a similar note, it is said that the Army looks for a certain type of person to become officers: lazy, but very smart. The antithesis, hard working and stupid, is detrimental to the Army or private employer. Someone who continues to work without stopping to think whether what he is doing is worthwhile is a horrible thing. Though of use to the tyrant, he is of little use to himself or humanity. On the gates of the concentration camps in Fascist Germany, it stated quite simply, “Arbeit Macht Frei”, or “Hard Work will set you Free”. This statement is quite true – work will set you free. Free from family, free from philosophy, free from emotion, free from creativity and consequently, free from humanity. As a society we must start to realize what kinds of work are needed and what type of work can be avoided.
One will counter argue that unnecessary work is necessary to keep the economy growing and technology improving. Any meddling by social scientists (though I do not believe in that term) and politicians invariably leads to lower production and less “wealth”. To a certain extent this remains valid, but only when we look at wealth in the form of bricks of gold. You can have wealth of emotions, wealth of thought, and wealth of experience – none of which count towards your nations GDP. Waste and consumption of mindless junk – now largely produced in Asia – seems like the underlying cause of pollution (of both the mind and body) and the now-so-chique Global Warming.
Again, a common argument will be, “go tell a poor African or Chinese that they were better off without electricity and running water”. I would never claim that to be true, rather the thrust of my argument is that we must avoid waste so that we can provide for the truly needy. I do not know the numbers, but the quantity of food thrown out by North American restaurants, grocers and consumers on a daily basis is likely sufficient to feed the entire needy population of Africa, South America and Asia. In fact, during my time in Asia, I experienced the “new” wealth of China. In The People’s Republic of China, it is very typical for the nouveau riche to demonstrate their wealth by ordering three times more food than could possibly be consumed by the dinner party. In a country that was starved to death for 50 years, this ability to purchase and throw out is the ultimate demonstration of wealth.
More worrying than the simple tasteless gesture is the illustration of the have-not’s perception of wealth. The Chinese perceive wealth as an ability to waste – and sadly, in most cases throughout the world, this relationship holds true. How can we possibly change this engrained sociological trend? I do not know. Yet it certainly starts with education. All elementary schools should teach moderation and respect for the environment alongside English and Mathematics. We need to create a society of humility, emphasizing respect for the planet and our fellow man.
In the words of American Psycho character Patrick Bateman,
“Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.”
Indeed Mr. Bateman. Yet, the true moral of American Psycho is that the truly wealthy are so rich they can throw out human lives – not just food.
The question of what is important in life is perhaps as unsolvable as any of the large philosophical issues. However, it remains of interest to try and decipher what human’s want, need, and what society actually encourages them to do. Should we place work over pleasure? A job over a family? Of course, most people will say that we need to balance the two necessities, but where is that balance to be placed? Europeans take three times as much vacation as their American counterparts – yet their economies keep running and there is a general pleasantness to being and living on the Continent. Despite their smaller homes, smaller cars, and smaller roads – they outlive Americans, Canadians, and Australians. In fact, if we looked at the hours spent on the job, Europeans are more efficient than Americans. There was a recent rating of countries according to their “happiness factor”; unsurprisingly, developed economies were not at the top of the list – though Europe did top the developed world. The index can be found here:
So should we value a new car every year or spending more time with our children? Of course the choice is never as clear as that. Increased industrialization means more jobs and technology. Technology generates comforts like heating, clean water, and medicine to help us live longer and more comfortably. Which, leads to the point that everything is connected. You cannot go to work without a mode of transportation – which likely pollutes; causing harm to the environment, you, your family and your neighbor. Without relying on the overused adage of the Butterfly Effect and Chaos theory, we need to start appreciating the connections between our actions and the planet’s reaction. So where to draw the line? I think it becomes important to identify what truly enhances our lives and what is simply consumption for the sake of consumption.
In my humble opinion, advertisement and marketing should be, by and large, banned. For the vast majority of people, it incites them to purchase, consume and dispose of items they would not have otherwise acquired – all of which leads to more work. This cycle is what drives capitalism and is one of the main reasons that communism failed – not that I am espousing Marx’s flawed theory. A well-known story is of how NASA spent millions of dollars to create a pen that worked in the zero gravity environment of space. In the vast emptiness of space there is no gravity to push the ink downwards and onto the paper. These millions of dollars devoted to R&D produced an impressive engineering feat. More importantly, the money created prototypes, reports, testing facilities, and jobs; feeding the fire of capitalism. The communist Russians used a pencil.
I recently read a book entitled “Lost Horizon”, written in the 1930s by James Hilton. In this novel, a Tibetan monk of European origin simply stated, “Laziness in doing stupid things can be a great virtue”. This simple statement illustrates what is needed in society – a hesitance to work for the sake of work. On a similar note, it is said that the Army looks for a certain type of person to become officers: lazy, but very smart. The antithesis, hard working and stupid, is detrimental to the Army or private employer. Someone who continues to work without stopping to think whether what he is doing is worthwhile is a horrible thing. Though of use to the tyrant, he is of little use to himself of humanity. On the gates of the concentration camps in Fascist Germany, it stated quite simply, “Arbeit Macht Frei”, or “Hard Work will set you Free”. This statement is perhaps not as untrue as one might think – work will set you free. Free from family, free from philosophy, free from emotion, free from creativity and consequently, free from humanity. As a society we must start to realize what work is needed and what type of work can be avoided.
One will counter argue that unnecessary work is necessary to keep the economy growing and technology improving. Any meddling by social scientists (though I do not believe in that term) and politicians invariably leads to lower production and less “wealth”. To a certain extent this remains valid, but only when we look at wealth in the form of bricks of gold. You can have wealth of emotions, wealth of thought, and wealth of experience – none of which count towards your nations GDP. Waste and consumption of mindless junk – now largely produced in Asia – seems like the underlying cause of pollution (of both the mind and body) and the now-so-chique Global Warming.
Again, a common argument will be, “go tell a poor African or Chinese that they were better off without electricity and running water”. I would never claim that to be true, rather the thrust of my argument is that we must avoid waste so that we can provide for the truly needy. I do not know the numbers, but the quantity of food thrown out by North American restaurants, grocers and consumers on a daily basis is likely sufficient to feed the entire needy population of Africa, South America and Asia. In fact, during my time in Asia, I experienced the “new” wealth of China. In The People’s Republic of China, it is very typical for the nouveau riche to demonstrate their wealth by ordering three times more food than could possibly be consumed by the dinner party. In a country that was starved to death for 50 years, this ability to purchase and throw out is the ultimate demonstration of wealth.
More worrying than the simple tasteless gesture is its illustration of the have-not’s perception of wealth. The Chinese perceive wealth as an ability to waste – and sadly, in most cases throughout the world, this relationship holds true. How can we possibly change this engrained sociological trend? I do not know. Yet it certainly starts with education. All elementary schools should teach moderation and respect for the environment alongside English and Mathematics. We need to create a society of humility, emphasizing respect for the planet and our fellow man.
In the words of American Psycho character Patrick Bateman,
“Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.”
Tru Dat Mr. Bateman. Yet, the true moral of American Psycho is that the truly wealthy are so rich as to be able to throw out human lives – not just food.
Published on July 13, 2006Taegukgi, Film, Civil War and the Human Mind
Tae Guk Gi is an epic Korean War movie that I believe is one of the greatest war movies ever. It tells the story of two brothers who are sent off to the Korean War. The older brother takes the riskiest missions available in the vain hope that he will be able to send his younger brother home. The war destroys their family and their country. This film is one of the goriest war movies I have seen and a large portion of it is devoted to battle scenes. This begs the question, how much violence in a war movie is too much and how much is too little.
Nota Bene: If you want an in-depth review of the plot, the following site is pretty good: Click Here
A war movie is a war movie because it concerns war. Despite the obvious redundancy of that comment, there is little doubt that battle should be the main thrust of the film, but we must concern ourselves with two aspects of the depictions of battle scenes: 1. Their length vis-à-vis the film’s length and 2. Their depth, meaning the goriness and proximity to a true battle scene. I firmly believe that both elements must be adhered to to the point of the audience thinking it may be slightly too much. If there is any hope of conveying the horrors of war to a popcorn munching audience, the audience must at the very least be made to feel uncomfortable. If the battle scenes are too ‘light’ then the audience may come across with a sugar coated version of the front lines. At the same time, overly gruesome scenes can turn an audience off the more human aspects of war – broken minds, broken families and broken lives.
The next thing that this film does, which I believe is very important, is its presentation of the war for what it was: a terrible civil war backed by foreign powers. Fighting on home soil is something that all North Americans and some Europeans are out of touch with. I have always maintained that it is entirely different to send your armies off to a foreign land as opposed to having the mortars and bullets landing near your childhood home. In civil war, it is the civilians who suffer the most. Families are torn apart, homes are destroyed and friends turn on each other. This film is probably the first one that really shows a civil war.
After watching it for a second time, there is an important scene at the beginning, which foreshadows all that is to come. The soon-to-be wife of one of the brothers shows a bag of barley, which she obtained at a communist rally. She states that it is impossible to get good food and that “she would kill for food like this”. That’s what civil war is. Rarely is it about political ideology or great injustice, more often than not, people switch sides, turn on neighbors and commit unthinkable crimes for food and land. Ideologies and racial tension are the symptoms of resource shortages, not the other way around. A closer look at Rwanda, Sudan, and other conflicts often demonstrate how a few evil people take advantage of a weakened country to manipulate it to their ends.
Another main reason that this film remains so powerful is due to its two main characters. The film revolves around their love and hate for each other. The human mind cannot conceptualize large-scale events very well. We cannot imagine the size of the planet, the atmosphere, the universe, war or genocide. Of course, when we are told for the first time that six million Jews were gazed by the Nazis, we sit back and realize what evil humanity is capable of. However, try and imagine six million unique faces, their families, their fear and innocence and we simply draw a blank. Just as computers have technical limitations, so too does the human brain. We have a limited capacity to imagine and place unique items. Numerous studies confirm this truth; notably, the vast majority of the population can only place six musical tones in order, above six tones, we begin to mess them up and cannot properly arrange them.
This of course does not apply to the musically inclined, but it does apply to most people. On the same note, the majority of the population has difficulty seeing large events on their full scale. For that reason, a story that follows the plight of one person or a single family is much more powerful than a documentary about the entire conflict. On a personal level, I was much more deeply touched when I visited the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam than when I visited the concentration camps in Germany. This film conveys to the full extent the sacrifices that one family member makes to the other in the context of a large conflict and the consequent destruction of his humanity.
One last point that is worthy to be retained from this film is how far we, and the Koreans, have come. In a little of fifty years, South Korea has become a top technological and economic power. The atrocities of this war are unthinkable to today’s youth and we should be thankful for our ignorance. War is perhaps the worst aspect of humanity’s power and must be avoided. Appeasement is not the solution, but education, communication and cooperation is. Communist China has become an international powerhouse out of its own will, full-blow war was not needed to destroy Soviet Russia, India slowly developed its own potential, South Korea is exactly the same geographic dimensions as before the war and the few African countries that are doing okay are the ones which were not privy to colonialism or foreign aid. Political change can only be brought about from the inside and foreign intervention has never worked. For that reason, the Iraq war cannot and will not be brought to a promising conclusion anytime soon. The people of the country are the ones with the keys to success and no foreign power, no matter their might, can overcome that.
This film remains very important because it demonstrates the particular atrocities of a civil war from the perspective of the people who lived it, not the foreign saviors or criminals.