Fairfield County Culture Entry #1: Muslims, Terrorism, and a Yahoo page

One day I was skimming yahoo news, bored out of my mind and waiting for school to start so I can go to my awesome APLC class, when I saw an article about the Arab Spring. It was a little story about how it started and its affects so far but when I got the bottom, I can’t say I didn't get mad. In one of the comments by “Americandude74”, it said, “If all the Islams died, we would have a better world”.  Now, rather than blatantly adding to the comments of the other anonymous people over the internet who also felt a little offended (especially at the failed usage of islams), I looked at it from another point of view. Why are so many people, like Americandude74, so ignorant? Why do so many people fail to educate themselves of the entire issue, instead of little segments like “Muslim”, “destruction”, “attack”.

Ironically, the name Americandude74 fits the man perfectly, because all over America we see this same trail of blind anger funneled by media. The new popular series homeland, and the movie Unthinkable, observe a common pattern that only aids in the spreading of these stereotypes. In both these movies, there is a terrorist plot to launch an attack on innocent bystanders. However it just so happens that the terrorist has to be Muslim (a coincidence?) The same Muslim terrorist has to also be from the Middle East (perhaps another coincidence?)

I’m sure as one of my readers; you can see that pattern that’s going on here. Even more intriguing, if singling out Islam as the culprit for terrorist activities was not enough, the ethnicity of these terrorists always happen to be from the middle east.  Many people take the movies as facts and will forever be brainwashed by what happens on the screen.

The yahoo article went on and on about the Arab spring and its consequences, but as we all know, there a typically a few inaccuracies in yahoo articles. The article took the complicated issues of the Arab spring, full of loop wholes and betrayals, and turned it into a piece centered in specifically on how it has the spring has affected oil prices. While this is news worthy, it is nowhere near as news worthy as educating the public on the events that have transpired and the lives that have been sacrificed to gain the freedom we all take for granted.

Many people read this article, and fail to look further into the overwhelming issue that is unfolding in our very own world! They only look into what they want, which would be how much they have to pay at the gallon the next day. The article is simply only written to attract attention and nothing more, its purpose fulfilled the editor goes on to fill the article with fluff.  The pictures in the article lacked emotion and power; it was only a simple picture of a gas sign. It had nothing to do with the war being fought in the Middle East and barely even exposed the issue at hand.  

Alas, this is a yahoo news article, how much can we really expect.

Read More

Fairfield County Culture Entry #3: Batman or Jesus?

Of the more recent superherofilms, by far the most epic could only be the Batman trilogy. Filled with suspense,action, and cool gadgets—the three ultimatums to bring guys to the theaters. Thehandsome Christian Bale with his heroic and rock hard abs aren’t too bad forthe ladies either. As Batman Begins,we learn that Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is the son of one of the richest andmost influential men in Gotham City.

Howeverbeneath all those cool batarangs and roof tops that batman seems to enjoyleaping off, and all the money in his pockets, he’s able to not only portrayhis manliness and power but also his ideals.

BruceWayne, son of the man who’s basically a God-like symbol in Gotham City, whichis evident from the way that the many of the big towers and peering buildingsare named after him. Thomas Wayne, Batman’s father is like a God figure in themovie, making Batman his son, or in the Christian faith Jesus. This cannot be trueras we see the personality and actions of Batman. Of course, during the day,he’s billionaire bachelor Bruce Wayne, able to seduce any woman and obnoxiouslymake it rain, but during the night he’s a man who is a savior to the innocentcivilians of Gotham City from evil. Sounds a bit prophetic to me.

Eventhough the classic ironic theme of a selfless rich man is evident elsewhere insociety, but it is the most well known in Batman.

Here in FairfieldCounty, there lives a great wealth gap. When have we seen the uber cool Batmanlike individual, usually that Bill Gates type of man here in Fairfield Countyfighting crime and saving the lives of innocent civilians from the evil joker? Yeah,not many times before. But the idea of the wealthy actually not being heartlessdwellers in the county appear quite often. Batman acts upon his good naturerather than being a stuck up rich kid and becomes the hero to the people ofGotham, representing the Prophetic idea of how Jesus was looked upon as thegreatest and most influential savior.

Ultimately,we believe that the rich don’t usually “stoop to our level” and usually, albeitselfishly, box themselves into their own world. However, Batman reveals to usthat this theme was rampant and defined the actions of the villain whospecifically tried targeting the rich upper-class who forced those like catwoman to survive on stealing. However Bruce Wayne ironically defies this andshows that stereotypes are not all true and that you cannot simply judge a bookby its cover or a man by the mask he wears. Sometimes you have to walk a milein their shoes to know the difficulties they face.  Bruce’s contradictingcharacters represents something much more deeper, as a rich man his desirescenter around nice cars, beautiful woman, lavishly spending sprees and niceclothing, the society held idea of what any guy wants. However in Bruce’sworld, he does not hold any of these things as value, choosing to live in aprison in the dark crevices of Bhutan (Yea I didn’t know that was a countryeither). 

Bruce issomeone who puts his values above simple materialism, a trait that not manypeople have. 

Apartfrom this we see Batman struck by the words of the district attorney HarveyDent who tells Wayne that “you either a die a hero, or live long enough to seeyourself become a villain,” and for the trilogy this is a turning point. Afterthis, Batman sacrifices himself for the safety of the people of Gotham.

 If someone were to honestly analyze thesociety we all lived in, let’s say an alien, it would probably see a bunch ofmaterialistic bags of water only obsessed with the next Ellen DeGeneres show orthe next new apple product.  However this does not apply to everyone, andthere are plenty of people who value their beliefs over the tangible world,although none of them look uber-cool doing it like our dear Batman.  InBatman, the happy ending is when the villain is locked up and the people of Gothamare safe. Unfortunately Batman never has a happy ending; he is constantlyvigilant of defending the peace, never resting to protect the city--a type offoil character to various societal beliefs that are held in place today. Fromthe selfless rich man to the idealistic young bachelor who devotes his life tofighting crime. I would scoff at anyone who dared try finding anyone like thatin Fairfield County; it’s one of those things that only happen in movies.Although millionaires are galore in this part of America, not many of them makeheadlines devoting their money to good causes; Fairfield County is VERYstereotypical in that sense. But hey, you never know, there could be a Batmanlurking around and leaping off of roof taps with his batarangs. 

Read More

Muhammad's Last Khutbah Outline

here is my outline, which I had to write out because I was not able to post it online.

Read More

We fear, but what else is there?

There have been many influential and inspirational activists who have committed themselves for the sake of what they believe it whether it be fighting for their human rights, or trying to fight against fear; each activist has definitely succeeded in one thing, being an activist. Two particular influential and inspirational activists who dedicated their lives to their work were the wonderful Aung San Suu Kyi and the incredible Malcolm X. Aung San Suu Kyi’s Freedom from Fear speech accentuates the idea of fear playing a great role in the development of a nation and person, while Malcolm X’s The Ballot or the Bullet speech reveals that the white man is the reason behind the oppression of the Black community; it is revealed through these two texts that the oppression and development of individuals are based on fear.

Even though Aung San Suu Kyi and Malcolm X’s speeches emphasize fear as the biggest obstacle for an individual, they both have some differences as well. Suu Kyi believes that “the root of human responsibility [is based on] the concept of perfection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to find a path towards it, and the will to follow that path,” while Malcolm X believes the root of human, particularly the African Americans’ responsibility is to go against the false promises of the white man and get their deserved rights, by going “towards either the ballot or the bullet,” to make that change. Suu Kyi sees action as going against fear that leads to corruption, and Malcolm X believes in going against the apparently “most powerful legislator,” the white man.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s Freedom from Fear speech powerfully underlines the idea that “it is not power that corrupts but fear.”  Suu Kyi believed that fear was the reason behind the development of a nation, but most importantly an individual. Suu Kyi’s quintessential revolution starts in the “spirit, born of an intellectual conviction,” which means that the basis of fear comes from the mind. Suu Kyi says that not only does fear result in corruption, “deviation from the right path,” or “aberration due to ignorance,” fear is also the main obstacle in an individual’s path from doing what’s right. Suu Kyi’s political philosophy supports this idea of fear being the main obstacle to the right path for an individual, which she has ultimately overcome. Malcolm X implicitly states that the reason behind the lack of activism in the Black community was because of fear of the white man. He, like Suu Kyi believes “in action on all fronts by whatever means necessary,” because to overcome fear “merely bodily courage [isn't enough] but absence of fear from the mind” is essential too. Both influential activists believed that fear was the reason behind an individual’s choices to do right, or do nothing. However, both activists’ speeches complement each other in the sense that both believe that fear is the greatest obstacle holding an individual from acting against injustice, whether politically or mentally.     

Read More

Machiavelli vs. Thoreau

Compare and Contrast Machiavelli and Thoreau.

Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian philosopher who was best known for his work The Prince published in 1532; and a philosopher by the name of Henry David Thoreau—known for his Civil Disobedience—were not only philosophers, but incredibly influential people in their time as well as for modern day. Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of being in control and maintaining the stature a Prince has, while Thoreau believes in taking action against what we feel is unjust. However, even though the two philosophies may seem different, they also share similarities with each other.

                However, apart from their similarities, their philosophies also have differences.  Machiavelli believes in instilling fear in his subjects and being at powerful position, while Thoreau believes in nonviolent ways to take action against the government. Machiavelli says that “because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony,” it’s better to be a feared leader rather than a loved one. While Thoreau believes that the government should not be unjust towards its people and what may seem as injustice should be taken action against.  Thoreau thinks of government as “the machinery of society,” and sees the legislators as ones who “contemplate no essential reform[s] in the existing government.” However, Machiavelli has a different thought in mind because he believes that for a Prince to stay in authority and have control over the people, he must “not diverge from the good…but, if compelled then to know how to set about it.” Being so, Machiavelli and Thoreau don’t agree with each other on the level of authority and rules because of Thoreau’s standing up to the government belief, and Machiavelli’s it’s better to be feared than loved theory.

                Machiavelli and Thoreau’s philosophies go hand in hand because ultimately they are both agreeing that the morality of any action is founded only on the results of that action, rather than being founded on the action itself; if someone like a serial killer was punished, it would be justified since it is for the good of the people.  Machiavelli believes that it is better to be fear than loved by your subjects because “love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread punishment which never fails.” Similarly, Thoreau –even though he does not instill fear in his readers—accesses his position in a rebellious manner by influencing the people’s emotions by creating a need to take action against the government, rather than waiting around and  “voting for [something] right, [which] is [like] doing nothing for it.”  However, in a way both philosophers ideas relate back to each other; Thoreau and Machiavelli are both implicitly stating that the consequence of an action is what people should be concerned with, instead of just the action itself. Thoreau talks about the government as a machine, and how people should “consider whether the remedy [to stop the machine] will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law.” Thoreau, backs up Machiavelli’s famous statement, “the end justifies the mean” by saying that if you believe in something to be a successful action, and then do it, but don’t do it for the heck of doing it, rather an individual should break the law to cause a change to occur.

                Therefore, not only do Machiavelli and Thoreau share differential ideologies, but they also share similarities in their philosophies as well. This of course, is why Machiavelli and Thoreau have been successful in their philosophies, even in modern times. 

Read More

Let's have ourselves a bit of thanks!

Thanksgiving: one of America's beloved holidays; beloved for some more than others. Thanksgiving is celebrated by many, usually by inviting family and friends to a wonderful feast in order to, well, give thanks. It's strange how it’s called Thanksgiving, even though it’s more about "giving thanks." Sound like a reverted structure. Don't you think? But nonetheless, it’s a great holiday where anyone and everyone can come together have a happy ol' turkey or chicken; maybe some pie. But regardless of what you're eating, thanksgiving is a time to be thankful for what you have, rather than reminiscing about what you could have. Its not only about eating or visiting family that’s as big as Madea’s. It’s more about being thankful for that food, and that family and all the little things that are usually taken for granted. Thanksgiving is a time to enjoy the little things; like that cousin who always calls the turkey leg even before you can smell the turkey, or your aunt who will take only a small spoon of everything—because she’s on a new “diet”—even though she’s the first one waiting for desert. It’s about your sibling who stuffs their face with food right before your mom comes to the table to say grace, give thanks or maybe make a little speech. How fun! But, at the end of the day, it’s the one holiday—no matter how irritated or tired you get—you remember. You love that annoying uncle who only talks about politics, yes even at the dinner table. You love your grandfather who tells you about all of your mom’s mischievous adventures as a kid, and you absolutely love that you can finally be a complete family, at least once a year. Oh, and of course the Indians. Don’t forget them! 

Read More

Pakistan, United States, and Afghanistan! oh my!

Thesis: The Reluctant Fundamentalist represents the depression and discrimination 9/11 has left individuals of Arab or Muslim descent in the United States and portrays the ongoing tension between Pakistani's and Americans. 

 the trust issues between Pakistan and the United States pre-9/11 and post 9/11, and a clear understanding of the historical point of view of what it felt to be a Pakistani at such a significant and saddening time. 

The current US-Pakistani relationship is short of trust. The two countries have tried to create a stable relationship, especially with the war in Afghanistan, however it is unsuccessful because of the lack of trust. In The Reluctant Fundamentalist, Changez implicitly and explicitly references to the fact that America is shameful for not supporting Pakistan during its conflict with Afghanistan. Especially, since after 9/11, Pakistan had given its highest effort to win the satisfaction of the United States by performing actions like capturing members of Al-Qaeda and allowing the United States to plant military bases in order to attack Afghanistan. Changez says “I was saddened to find it in such a state...This was where I had come from…and it smacked of lowliness” (141). A man, who had seen his homeland change completely, was flustered at the thought that America was doing nothing to help even after Pakistan had aided them in a battle. Throughout the novel, Changez never permanently identified himself as an American, and it came to be of no surprise that a smile was revealed during the 9/11 incident. He had no ill intention towards either country, however because he was so attached to Pakistan from the start, he felt it was like a duty for him to side with his country, instead. This was basically a symbolic way of representing the relationship with the two countries because Changez smile was like the “I know you’re lying” type of smile, which is exactly the main reason behind the problematic countries.

The situation the US and Pakistan is currently in is an accurate representation of the relationship the two countries had during the time period this novel is set in. During the course of The Reluctant Fundamentalist, after 9/11 became a reality Changez depicted the US-Pakistani relationship as one that never had an effective set of rules or policies placed on either country. The way that Changez talks about America in the novel, it’s as if he’s let whatever pride he had in America die alongside with his love Erica. Changez “had always thought of America as a nation that looked forward; for the first time [he] was struck by its determination to look back” (131).  It’s as if Changez knew that United States and Pakistan weren't going to have the best of relations, and so his views on both countries had changed by the way he declared the United States shameful and unhelpful. Changez was mostly accurate in portraying the relationship because it just goes to show how moment or an incident can change everything. Pakistan wanted help from the United States, and in a moment that bond the two countries had was torn.

However, at the same time the portrayal of the US-Pakistani relationships was somewhat inaccurate. Since during the time around 9/11, Changez felt that Pakistan is dependent on support from the United States, and without that support they are feeble. However, Pakistan had not directly called to the United States to come and rescue them in their war against Afghanistan; help was more expected than asked for.  In The Reluctant Fundamentalist there is actually more disagreements between Pakistan and the US however the negative side of the relationship was not stressed during the novel at all. This is the reason it is important to read the novel through a historical point of view, because the disagreements, history, and content becomes clear and understandable. 

Topic Four 

Read More