Nationalism vs. Culture

I am a Pakistani American. If a census was elaborating demographic details of the US, I would fall under this category. This label generates an identity crisis and consequently delineates the dual life that I live. On one hand, I have to assimilate and conform to the American way. Neglecting this duty would undermine my US citizenship and be blatantly disrespectful to my peers and friends. On the other hand, I have an obligation to uphold my Muslim principles and reflect my Pakistani values. The key is balance, but most definitely easier said than done. I hate nationalism. Regardless of its benefits, the costs of blind and negligent patriotism are extremely high. Think about the Holocaust or the genocide in Rwanda. Both utilize heavy nationalistic propaganda although there were disparate sources for these atrocities. Similarly, I don't feel that coloring my personality red, white, and blue or green and white creates any sort of pleasure or serenity for the mind. It just divides us all through facets we have no control over (such as race, sex, etc). But culture is different. A man who doesn't know his history can be fooled into repeating the mistakes of his ancestors. A man who knows not his values or recalls his moral upbringing is spitting on the graves of those forefathers that sacrificed their lives for such codes. A man who can not communicate in his mother language has been stripped of the most basic freedom to understand and indulge in dialogue. The moment that culture kisses the lips of nationalism, there becomes a dire conflict of interest. The mixing of dedication to a government verses dedication to a lifestyle breaks the concordance of secularism. One should hold these principles mutually exclusive. I have seen the freedoms of America which are deprived to many Pakistani people. I have seen the simplicity of Pakistan that is denied to the First World. Somewhere between both cultures, I exist. But never to wave a flag, sing an anthem, or pledge my allegiance. I claim the label "Pakistani American" with pride, for those before me that gave me the fortitude to claim it. But it is just a label. What's hidden behind such categorization is the actual implementation of culture. Unfortunately, the whole product often becomes the amalgamation of culture and nationalism. For shame.

We fear what we don't understand, and I'm afraid of everything

There exists an interesting hypocrisy within the world. It's both humorous and saddening to witness. As my brother K-Dawg hinted at in an earlier blog post, there is a type of faith that is placed within a certain object. Whether that object be religion, science, family, etc. There exists a trust that is formulated in a certain object and, through this trust, there is a sort of foundation that is created in order for there to be a space of stability within our individual realities. Although the previous sentence could be discussed and deconstructed for hours, I wish to discuss the idea of faith and how, when broken down, there really exists no difference between faith in a God and faith in a man. And how, each faith broken down, all exists for the same purpose and goal: to provide some kind of sanity and stability within the chaos that we call reality. Let's start with faith. Faith is defined many different ways, some being oriented towards religious faith others being oriented towards having trust in a person or thing. For the sake of the argument, let's just say that faith is defined as having trust in something that is unseen. A fair enough interpretation that, I believe, fits the world's view of faith. For the sake of the argument, let's utilize an analogy to make our case. One is a religious man whom believes in a God, the other is a man whom believes in science. Both have faith in an object, one for science the other for God. While a person might say, well science is real because we can see what is written down and calculated. We observe and therefore it is fact! Is that so? Well, let's break that down a bit. You observe with your eyes and utilize your mind, but is that really your observations and thoughts? Descartes had an interesting theory that he utilized in order to make a point, and I shall borrow from this interesting philosopher's analogy. He posited the hypothesis of our beings and minds being controlled by a Demon, a Demon that projects images that we call "reality" and uses them to fool us. It might seem a silly question to ponder. After all, we know we are looking at reality... But are we really? To believe so is to make, what I like to call, an assumption. Scientists assume that the reality they observe is really reality. Just as a religious man might assume that a God exists. There is a faith in something that can never be proven in both areas. Don't like the Demon analogy do you? Well, let's try another exercise. Is there even such a thing as reality, or does reality get blurred and skewed by our version of what is real? You might see the sky and say "that is good", attributing sky to something that is good. While I look at the same sky and say, "what an awful sky, how I hate you", attributing the same sky to something that is evil or foul. We both look at the same object, unless that Demon is playing tricks with us again, but we view it in a different light. Constructing two separate realities from the same construct that become all that we see... There is no escaping from this construct, the only way we can justify putting down religion in the name of science is because it helps to feed off the insecurity of our existence. That masterful insecurity that is geared towards chaos. We all fear it, even when we don't admit it. We fear the lack of control... It's innate and human, we want to know that there is stability even when there is none. So we begin to seek ways to fight off the reality of our insecurity, even though what we build are mere illusions. Narratives that help us to fight off the tides of human existence. We voluntarily chain ourselves in Plato's cave. Watching the shadows with glee, for we know that we can always look and the shadows will be there. We can always glance down and the chain will be fastened tight. It is the chaos that should become us, we must embrace the life that is human. For if we do not understand that we have no control, then there will always be war, fighting, anger, and hate. For these emotions are all born from the same fear, the fear that grips us all separately but equally.

Following a pace, not to save face

In the middle of Berlin's prominent Museum Island, there is a young woman that claims a pillar and drums away on an exotic instrument. She doesn't seek attention from the traffic of tourism nor does she make eye contact with an admirer. Next to her is a bronze bowl where she accepts donations, but never in a proactive manner. She is the quintessential street artist, yet with reservations. She doesn't fit in with the German monuments yet the music she makes is nothing short of monumental. She does not race against time, but just paces along with each passing hour. Her life is a rhythm. I had so much to say to her, yet to interrupt her art would have constituted a shameless act. I envy her. I pity her. I love her. I hate her. She is the epitome of freedom locked up in the barracks of a practical world.

There is no answer, only ways

It is the obsession to know. The inadequacy that accompanies our ignorance. The clash between a sagacious personality versus a mundane one. Early on we find our niche and seek to become connoisseurs within our respected fields. We undermine information that is presented from external sources because it could potentially tarnish our credibility. Modern day science is adamant is trying to snatch grounds from theology. Mathematicians are adamant in figuring out certain equations and disproving others. Psychology and Sociology are constantly on the brink of war trying to establish whether it is the internal or external aspect which dictate human behaviors. Although these truths are often coerced into making concessions, they are no closer to finding the answer. There is no answer. Academia was created to quench the curiosity of Man. It is a religion in itself. Some blindly follow theories made by "apt" individuals, and other create their own evaluations of the world they live in, deeming these ideas to be concrete. To assume what we believe is bulletproof, is to validate our inner narcissism. To assume that all is an assumption, is to validate our lust for obscurities. These type of intellectuals have a fetish for questions. To answer their question is to stab their ego. In their mind anyone who has the gall to procure a conclusion to a rhetorical hypothesis is a pompous fool. The moment we let go of this urge to know merely just to know, is the moment our minds can find peace. And when we need to figure out how to solve our issues in life, we can simply emulate those before us that have suffered from similar dispositions. Science isn't the answer. Religion isn't the answer. These are methodologies that create ways for us to cope. Cope with the scarcity of existence. Cope with mortality. Cope with the fact that an abundance of knowledge can still keep us ignorant.     

What happened to Jiminy Cricket?

There is a rift. We are so consumed with the here and now that we often forget the simplest of things, those simple things that are so essential to our essence and our soul. Nowadays most of us disregard the statement, believing that there is no scientific proof to the essence or soul of humanity. Science has become another tool that we have taken to an extreme, another blessing that we have used to construct a pedestal to ourselves. We look upon ourselves as the masters and we believe so hard in our of actions and views that we disregard that natural world that speaks of something else. As Serj Tankian said, "science has failed our world, science has failed our mother earth". We must break off the chains of calculative thought, a thought that pushes for action that is heartless and action that is quick and without thought. And we must instead embrace a thought that involves inward inflection and deconstruction rather than simply acting for the sake of acting. As my father would say, "think before you act, don't act and then think". Most of us are taught to act simply because it is a copy of that which we see on television, music videos, magazines, etc. Most of us are beginning to lose the ability to act because we feel, deep down in our hearts and soul, we know that a certain action is wrong or right. I used to believe in a thing called a conscience, a little cricket that would tell me when i was wrong or right. His voice is beginning to be drowned by the images and narratives society is choking him with. Presenting scientific "evidence" to show he doesn't exist. Utilizing cultural images to convey the notion that following an inward moral compass is just not "cool" anymore.... It's a cultural and calculative movement that is sweeping us, like a tidal wave against a small city. And the more that we give into it, the less human we become. When we widen the rift between ourselves and the other. in this case our soul, essence, and conscience, then we begin to become less and less human and more and more machine like. Following blindly the call of the media and culture. To disconnect us from our hearts and minds is to disconnect us from our life. And a life without essence and thought is an animal like life indeed.

The Death of Love

The era of romanticism is dead. Mankind has supplanted imagination with technology, replaced the human touch of communication with devices, sold quixotic notions of love and revolution by exhausting the use of cinema, and undermined even banal realities through broadcasting them on the television. The romantics of previous generations expressed their emotions with originality but what has become the inclusive nature of relinquishing feelings is culpable for the cliches of the status quo. To love is simply not enough. One must profess their love in a manner that is suited to the magnanimity of the feeling itself. Gaudy gestures such as buying flowers or going on dinner dates have become the norm. In the old days, courtship was sufficient. A few verses written in the form of an iambic pentameter portrayed the emotion of love quite lucidly. Even when  poetry became hackneyed, simplicity of sharing sentimental thoughts or affectionate letters could still be counted on. Then the Google era popped up and the charlatans burgeoned out of control. The internet provided immense information including ways in which to impress the opposite gender, topics to avoid that threatened chemistry, and how to seal the deal. Sure the objectification of the opposite sex existed far before this generation. But through dating tips, establishment of taboos, creation of gender expectations and limitations, and by instilling the need to quench lust(porn), technology played an important role in the perversion of love. Consequently, the romanticism that once dictated the ideals of affection died in its sleep. What awoke the next morning was superficial love bolstered by technology.