In the age old problem of racism in America, between blacks and whites, it wasn’t only an issue of whites trying to leverage superiority over blacks in order to use them, but was also people identifying themselves as white in order to belong to the label appropriated such a position. So historically, when new groups came into the United States questions of association were raised. And, old issues of whom to identify as neighbors and countrymen were left aside in order to pursue a new, more comfortable life in the United States. One such story can be seen in an LA Times article, which demonstrates the presence of labels to identify with and not against as a clear and present reality.

With immigrants subscribing themselves to notions of whiteness, they are choosing, as the author of the above-linked article says, to rid themselves of their past. My discussion is focused on man and not skin color, but the notion of skin color is also a means of defining oneself against the other.

Moving back to the last discussion in yesterday’s article about encountering an unknown person, I think it is clear that how we react in this situation tells us a little bit about who we are. And, the three levels of physicality, spirituality, and mentality provide levels of association through which we can engage in conversation and avoid awkwardness. The aforementioned discussion of skin color relates to belonging and association in the physical sense, and it is clear why one might be inclined to self-associate in such a way.

The problem with heading in the direction physical, spiritual, and mental associations as our universal associative method, I think, is in its inevitably developing a notion that one’s own “belonging” is the rule of thumb. As people, the wisest of us have always been those who knew that they in fact knew not. Similarly, we grow as people by learning about and encountering others, so using our own desire to belong to explore the world will clearly create divides, rifts, and only underscore a reality of conflict that could have just as easily become a reality of appreciating differences.

Here, I find it necessary to elaborate on why I chose my fellow man as opposed to man alone. My neighbor invites notions of proximity and, similarly, my countryman inevitably promotes nation, even if one is a child of two nations and a citizen of a third. However, simply put,  man is an extremely vague word, and the natural progression from neighbor to countryman requires that what follows from countryman be a personable or intimately identifiable word, fellow man.

With that said, returning to belonging, it needs to be understood that many people see stereotypes and labels as divisive institutions in our language(s) and ways of viewing the world. But, I would like to point out that such uses of labels and the like are uniting the members of each group together even while they divide the people into two groups. Therefore, people who identify with certain groups see not the divisive nature but the inclusive nature and how they belong within a certain group.

Fellow man, however, is an associative tendency based on belonging to not a specific group of people, but the human collective. Why should we identify with the human collective and not specific groups or labels which befit us and give us comfort? The answer is that we should identify with labels and groups if they provide comfort for us as individuals, but always remember that, as a group, we are a part of the human collective. That is, no mo matter who we are or what we do, together we form the human collective and so fellow man includes all and, consequently, should represent all.

Now, these words might sound highly idealistic, but I’m not talking about creating a new human rights or redefining how your neighbor, your countryman, or your fellow man should think, nor am I talking about the generic person. Rather, I am talking about you. We, as individuals, cannot break free from our own divisive labels until we acknowledge what it is we believe in and what it is we would like.

Fellow man’s job is not a simple task. Since, as a human collective, we are also responsible for the Earth, its inhabitants, and so on. As long as we trifle with differences that should be appreciated, we will create an unending stagnation.

Differences that divide, however, do exist. These can come in the form of election-time issues such as abortion and homosexuality. The debate on these issues is eternal, but learning how to debate with etiquette is a task we all need to learn. One excruciatingly sad example is that there have been numerous cases of Pro-Life activists murdering doctors performing abortions in cold blood. Yes, fervor in one’s beliefs is important, but Pro-Life means supporting not only the life of an unborn child, but also the life of all people. For Christians, the rule was always turn the cheek, so it is devastating to find that labels can incite such self-contradictory actions in people.

Fellow man is the identifying factor with which all people need to start. However, the most important piece to the puzzle is that relationships, ideas, and change always starts from within. So, remember, that the most important starting point is none other than oneself. We are all fellow man to humanity, and we should act accordingly. This doesn’t just mean affording privilege to all people, but also means taking on the responsibility of such ideas–taking care of the environment, living in a more harmonious manner, and taking care of the have-nots.

When practicing change in oneself, it’s not about showing others how one has transcended one’s old self, but by inspiring–note: inspiring, not verbally inculcating–in others the same ideas. This can only be done by example. Historically, all great men (yes, it still means mean and women) did such things.

So, let’s become the fellow man of others.

Stories gradually increase of life extension and living years longer,
yet, within us, it is only a few moments that feel long and, for a lifetime, linger.

In the [insert my age] years I have lived, I have had the opportunity to describe a variety of people as “my neighbor.” My countryman, of course, has remained a word used by me to refer to my fellow Americans; that is, citizens or residents of the United States of America. And, my fellow man is of course referring to humankind. [Mind you: countryman and man are both referring to a genderless concept unless specified otherwise.]

Human rights are discussed as universal rights afforded to all people falling under this category of fellow man. But, constitutional rights tend to be those afforded to all people under countryman. And, the last set is rights of the person–decided personally, to each his own; executed socially, based on social convention; and upheld privately, between and among the individuals involved–to be afforded to all people under neighbor.

However, these categorizations could be understood arbitrarily, in other words, useless in practicum. At the same time, human being and citizen might appropriate a clearer and more concrete image in the minds of most; my conversation is not about these words, but rather about my neighbor.

Although I grew up in the United States, it was not a simple birth to eighteen then college experience. I have had the experience of moving quite many times as a child, and so this word neighbor holds great significance for me, one representing the variety of people I allude to above. And, one neighbor I can recollect clearly is a person who was my neighbor while my family and I lived in a townhouse complex in the Southeastern United States.

As I was growing up, I spent a lot of time in the shadow of my brother, a very comfortable shadow. I eventually outgrew my brother, but that is besides the point. This story also takes place while comfortably passing through life in my brother’s shadow, which provided an adequate but safe view of the external world.

My brother and our neighbor. Well, I was included in this group. We were fairly good friends. We both lived on the side facing the wilderness away from the road in a four-family townhouse. That wilderness which faced our homes would soon change and is now home to a large complex of homes.

Our neighbor had a lot in common with us; he was a kid. He and his mom lived next door to my brother, my parents, and me. Despite religious, skin-color, and background differences, we got along quite well. I have many memories of the three of us playing a game involving throwing a ball against our home in what would become a fascination for handball years later in New York.

There was a family just a few-minutes walk away who was closer culturally and so on, yet the closeness we felt with our neighbor, or that which my brother felt and I accordingly emulated, was real. His mother, I think, was an archeologist, and she gave us rocks and different but interesting objects as presents all the time. I believe my family also gave them presents, but my memories are full of how people have touched my life, not the other way around.

When we decided on our move to New York, this family was sad to see us go (if I remember the story correctly), and it was a sad farewell indeed.

In the United States, to watch a game between the Eastern Conference Champions versus the Western Conference Champions (NBA Finals) you would think the country were divided. The same can be said for a Subway Series (NY Mets versus NY Yankees, MLB). So what does a countryman mean?

Questions of war; justifications for particular views on foreign and immigration policy; and matters concerning citizens of “our” state versus those of the “other” state, or just the “other,” that which is not a part of “us”; seem to indicate that a national, “country,” consciousness is defined or understood in contrasting oneself, a citizen of a certain nation, to the other, a specific or generic association to a nation that is not one’s own.

I do not necessarily agree with the above description. Especially when we consider real situations of how associations between people of the same country change. Yes, we as people often define ourselves in contrast to the other, but the relevance of such a characterization is not apparent except out-of-country.

In college, where I studied a hard science but had one of my minors in an area studies, I had ample experiences with people of various ethnic, socio-economic, and cultural backgrounds. This included many non-U.S. born or raised people.

There were two non-U.S. ethnic groups I was concerned with, the Japanese and the Arabs. People who knew me in college know this very well. And they serve well as examples of countryman.

First, the Japanese. In Japan, people tend to keep to themselves. Coming to and then having to adjust to the United States, for most, is a big hurdle. The social culture is quite different and people adjust at different speeds. Most importantly, is the issue of relationships. As in the United States, people who share similar interests, have a similar background–childhood friends, family friends, friends of friends–or those working together tend to become friends or at least associate with one another often.

These same people who in Japan would not befriend one another became a group of 10-15 people who were very friendly with another. Now, it can be said that international studies share certain bonds; my mother reminds me of this, her having experienced this during her postgraduate education in the United States.  But more than international, the word national comes to mind, sharing origins from the same country. This group of students spoke Japanese, and certainly welcomes Americans and other who spoke Japanese, but this represented their identity in the U.S., Japanese.

The Japanese were not isolating themselves as much as they were understanding their situation, finding a place to feel at home, and keeping themselves open to many experiences. My point here is their association with another as Japanese, a relationship and concept that would NOT have been explored in the confines of their home country Japan.

Second, the Arabs. Similarly, the Arabs found themselves in a situation being labeled as different, but “Arab” signifies a group or people of an area not a nation. All the above examples of the Japanese can be correlated to the Arabs, except that the unique feature of the Arabs was that they were a collection of people from the Arab states or Arab-speaking countries. Their countrymen were not necessarily from their country but from their greater Arab homeland.

While the Arabs maintained some national pride among one another, their greater cohesion under the name Arab was apparent and their use of the Arabic language congruent to that of the Japanese. Most of these people, too, would not have been in such close relationships had they met in their respective countries.

With both groups, the idea of countryman becomes the same as neighbor. Neighbor is someone who lives next door or is in the neighborhood and differences become starting points to learn about one another, not points of conflict. The first definition of countryman defined in opposition to the other countries or defined to demonstrate one’s loyalty, views, and so on. This definition is divisive, prejudiced, and manipulative.

One can say that neighbors are brought together by a common interest, an interest in preserving, or creating, a neighborhood identity, in looking after a neighborhood, or just in the overall state of a neighborhood–schools, lifestyle, social culture, problems, etc. In this way, it might appear to be a cohesive factor, but neighbors also function as friends, as my childish, but relevant, story should demonstrate.

Countryman is oft defined through a similar lens when people are overseas or in contexts where their countryman are easily identifiable against a non-countryman majority or simply a strong presence of non-countryman collective. So, the countryman is a neighbor to his fellow countryman in a foreign country or in the presence of a non-countryman.

Now, with these strange ideas of countryman, neighbor, and their connection, there is the question of fellow man. Where does man fall into the picture? Is it man contrasted against animal? Man against nature? . . . I am no philosopher and have no place defining this, but for the sake of my now, probably excessively, long piece I would like to present this idea to help us overcome our own internal prejudices, not stereotypes; biases, not classifications; and labels, not identities.

Human rights are an issue that did not dawn on man in the 2oth century as man conquered nature and heralded over the world with his might. Human rights have and always were an issue in societies; it is only that the language used to connote and define it was different. Human rights are the rights not that each man should enjoy, but those each man affords to the other and is obligated by virtue of being born man [note: remember to read: man OR woman] to receive them himself.

However, what is my fellow man? People have used, manipulated, and monopolized phrases like “human,” “man,” “woman,” and so on to further their own purposes, but that is irrelevant here. I would like a definition for my fellow man not a definition meaningless on its own as are those which are created with ulterior motives.

If you have watched ID4 [Independence Day, starring Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, and Bill Pullman], then you would remember the President of the United States’ (Bill Pullman) speech about rising together as mankind. It is certainly cheesy, but amusingly enough he discusses issues which world civilizations have espoused to their empires, especially at the fringes, identification as a member of something larger. Man should not identify solely with locality or nation, but should instead stand firm together identifying as a larger union of men [again, man=human NOT man=male].

Again, these ideas of unity, standing together, associating with a certain group, aligning with a particular identity are all relevant to the previous discussions. With neighbors it seems clear, but countrymen require alienation as foreigners and men require cataclysmic wars [there have been times when one group of people would insinuate or explicitly proclaim, not the inhumanity which describes characteristics and traits, but the non-humanness (I used human!) of the "other" and justify its actions or proceed to ally others with itself].

This discussion could be extended to man versus woman in the realm of gender, but it is most relevant in its appeal in identifying another person as my fellow man. The story I have for this discussion is based less on the ID4 discussion above and more on the notion of strangers, a story of identification and realization.

What do you do when you meet a stranger? We often try to find similar features, characteristics, or interests. That is, we investigate them physically, spiritually, and mentally:

If this person looks like me, then there is probably a connection somewhere there and awkwardness is well avoided.

If this person acts like me, then there is probably a chance to have an interesting conversation and we will probably get along.

If this person has interests similar to mine, then we have something to talk about and it won’t be awkward.

And with that, I leave you to ponder what it means to try and associate oneself with the other based on physicality, spirituality, or mentality; and tomorrow I will address man, hopefully, demonstrating the true meaning of man and not our desire to belong.

We accept our brethren with the beauty we see in them,
yet we have trouble to take from the stranger what lies within.

Click this link to read the article at BBC (there’s a video too)

If you’re in London, check it out:
1001 Inventions

Reading my blog every half a year to a year that I update it, you might have noticed that I have discussed the topics of history and history of science in earlier posts. When it comes to these areas, I am no scholar, but I’ve had the pleasure of hearing scholars and scholar-hopefuls speak on the subject. And, the chicken or his cousin is a discussion of coping with different histories. A modern equivalent of this would be a patent office deciding whose creation was first, since the invention is the same but its date of conception, design, creation–in this case, materialization–etc affect how one determines if it was the chicken or his cousin who invented ahead of the other. I invite those friends of mine who work in the patent office or have knowledge of their practice to share on its particular methodology here, since the 20th century has seen a standardization in documenting inventions.

Let me tell you:  I am no expert in chickens. But, as with most things, concerns and consternation that arise when the origin of something one has created is doubted can be quite heart wrenching. And these situations are not limited to inventions or to our contemporary society. How we see history, how we understand the development and advancement of knowledge, and, most importantly, how we digest what people claim about these aforementioned can be subconsciously controlled.

Take the example of Gutenberg:  do you know the word in its larger significance, not merely in its presence in the name of the Gutenberg project? It’s pre-Project Gutenberg fame hails from Johannes Gutenberg and his fame related to the printing press, the Gutenberg press, of the 15th century.

First question, was he the first? This would be mostly a historical question to most. But, it is technical, since didn’t the Chinese have something for their characters? How should we understand them?

Second question, how are the histories and knowledge, in this case, technical knowledge, related? Were the so-called printing machines of ancient China and Europe different from the printing press?

So, the question of the chicken or his cousin remains vague. How we address it depends on our own views of the world, the histories that support its many viewpoints, and our own culturing as to its current state-of-being.

The problem lies in our unrelenting nature to see the significance of the question and remain entrenched in “who was first,” as though order of invention is important and affords the first superiority over the second, third, and so on. The story of what came first, the chicken or his cousin, in my humble opinion, is to teach us how to think appropriately and not how to claim divisively.

The easiest way to think about the chicken and his cousin is to first think of oneself as the main player, the frontrunner, and the situation might appear clear. But, to then change roles and become the cousin, one should see that perspective and standpoint clearly affect one’s comprehension of what to consider fact.

As they say, history is his story and he is the victorious one, but fact is not decided by the number of people believing something. So, next time we think of history, let’s look at not the privileged, and normally, pertinent first, but the relevant whole story. Learning only about the chicken will teach us a fact, or at least an understood theory, but learning about his cousin will teach us the world and its never-ending interconnectivity.

Had we been the privileged few who ado in the crowd of nothing,
we would certainly have passed mindlessly over the knowledge of living.

The world is old and in it have existed differences,
so why can we not accept our clashes as isolated instances?

Why do we punish the innocent and motivate the wrong,
increasing our weakness and pretending we are strong?

Why does the heart falter in fear at rejection,
yet bask in its consequential dejection?

How can we stand together as a nation,
if individually we tiptoe in indignation?

Why do we ignore the value in what we have got,
only justly appraising that which was but now is not?

A lingering soul is not healed by revealing,
nor is a proud spirit maintained by concealing.

An English article can be found at:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090705a9.html

Japanese articles can be found at:
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/0703/OSK200907030157.html

etc…

I will write more once I know more.

Why do I look like an oil tycoon who bought a Japanese company?

Yes, sometimes we even work weekends in Japan…

I have not updated this blog, but there are a lot of updates needed.

In any case, while Ramadan was not as spiritual as I would have hoped, I must say that it has by far been the month of this year.  In all honesty, with a month like Ramadan, it just makes you wonder why you wouldn’t want to fast. …well, besides your stomach’s complaints.

From Japan.

This will be an interesting one.  And, I hope, a very productive and developmental one.

By the period of the Bakumatsu, 1850s Japan, two woodblock prints had published and circulated within the world of ukiyo-e. While the prints appear pictorially beautiful and aesthetically call the attention of any reader to look closer, the prints lie shrouded in the mystery. The Inshoku yôjô kagami and, its counterpart, the Bôji yôjô kagami taught and instructed their readers in the cultivation life related to diet and sex. However, rather than functioning as simple visual splendor or as academic reference, these prints transcend the traditional demarcations of serious and satirical, private and public, and explicit and implicit. The Yôjô kagami prints are unique in their approach to the edification of the individual. In fact, on first sight, the prints appear to be more for visual pleasure and then satire than for use as informative woodblock prints. Unraveling the mystery that the prints have left behind for over a hundred years requires a visual, textual, and comparative study of the prints. Ultimately, the Yôjô kagami prints provide the reader with a rare multifaceted approach to cultivating life and their ability to do so lies in the unpacking of their mysteries and wonders.

here’s the image, click to view a larger version:

the Inshoku yôjô kagami or “The Model to the Cultivation of Life through Diet,” as I translate it, provides Kanpô knowledge, or Chinese medical knowledge, surrounding the image and internally has organs and their respective workers for display… [this image is copyright of Nichibunken, which possesses the original from which this print was digitized]