Ethnicity

Shakira was disappointed to find that Filipinos in New York would not connect with her based on their race.

She wished to speak her language, enjoy the food from her ethnic background, talk about things from "back home" with people that she thought were from her country of origin.  However, the people she wrote about did not wish to connect with her that way.  They preferred to identify themselves as Chinese instead.  Or terminate the conversation and walk away as quickly as they can.

Why is this so?

Have these people forgotten their roots?  Are they ashamed about where they have come from?  Are they like the proverbial "kacang lupakan kulit"?

Or is Shakira racist in wanting to connect with people of the same ethnic background as herself?  Is it wrong to wish for such connections?

Many Filipinos that I meet are like Shakira.  They long to connect with other Filipinos, especially while they are not in the Philippines.  Even if they have lost their Filipino citizenship, they would identify themselves as Filipino, cheer for Manny Pacquiao, speak in Tagalog, and eat food that originated from that country.  However, not all Filipinos are like this.

Which behaviour is better?  Holding on to one's origins in preference to mixing with others while abroad?  Or mixing with others in preference to having friends from one's ethnic origins?  Does it matter?

Does it change for people whose ancestors migrated several generations ago, as compared with first generation migrants?  Or visitors and temporary visa holders?

What is your experience in this matter?

Who complains

The world is afire with revolt, but a new kind of revolt, befitting our young century: The revolt of the middle class.

While their complaints are all different, the specifics only magnify what they have in common: All of these protests and rebellions are being led by comparatively well educated, affluent citizens upset about their government’s violation of liberal principles and the rule of law.

These words, from http://aholeofthecentury.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/the-revolt-of-middle-class.html, provoked a realisation within me.  It seems that a vital ingredient in the process of democracy lies in having reasonably educated people with sufficient wealth to power the protests of the masses.  People who read and think and feel for the underprivileged, and want to do something to help.

Do you think so?

The minorities would be trodden down, if nobody stood up to defend them.  And when the oppressors are the government voted in by the majority, it takes the power of the voters to get it right again when they realise the harm they have caused.  People who repent of their earlier voting, or who see that the people that they have voted for abusing the power that they have been given.  People who wish to correct the wrong in society.

While the media may influence the thinking of the people, while religious leaders and moral crusaders may tell people what to think and how to vote ... the power ends up with the educated who have enough wealth and muscle pulling the masses with them to voice their protests.

Is this how God works?  Is this how democratic society works?

I think it was so in the days of Jose Rizal in the Philippines.  Of Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.  And perhaps several more.  But perhaps there is more to democracy and how the people think and drive their protests than this simple statement.

What do you think?

The interpretation has changed

A family has recently returned from Malaysia.  There were a few reasons for this.  The most startling one related to their visas.

As this family has children attending an international school there, they were eligible for guardian's visas to live in that country.  Both parents were granted one of these visas each, in the past.  However, on their most recent application to have their visas renewed, they were told that Malaysian authorities would only renew one of their visas, but not both.

The law pertaining to these visas has not changed.  The law allows that guardians of children be granted visas.  Only the interpretation of the law has changed.  Ie. instead of granting such visas to both parents, the authorities will only approve the visa for one parent.

Does this seem silly to you?  Is this normal in your circumstance?  What do you think about such laws?

I remember similar experiences with traffic laws in the Philippines.  One issue was with "swerving".  Technically, it means changing lanes across multiple lanes without indicating and recklessly.  There are signs to tell drivers not to swerve ... especially near the exits from the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX).  Drivers are to try to be in the correct lanes to exit these expressway rather than to cause hazard or traffic jams through their ill-preparation.

However, traffic law enforcers would sometimes apprehend drivers in other locations, and accuse them of swerving.  Even when they have indicated, even when they change lanes slowly and carefully, and even when they only go across one lane.  The word "swerving" is sometimes subject to interpretation.  Some drivers would prefer to bribe the law enforcers rather than to argue or to plead their case in court, but this does not really help the situation.

Have you been caught out similarly?  Where?  How?  What was the circumstance?

What is the law and what should the interpretation be?

Are there any spiritual implications that you can see?