April Salchert2013-05-18T12:42:12-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=april-salchertCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for April SalchertGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Anxiety of North Korea's Threats: An Expat's Perspectivetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28581192013-03-12T19:00:00-04:002013-05-12T05:12:01-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
Lately, the threats have been more jarring than in years past. However, like many Koreans, most of the expat community shrugs it off, likening the threats to whining from a petulant child.
However dismissive we are to news of Kim Jong-un's (김정은) newest tantrum, we quietly acknowledge that the threats are not completely empty. There is a danger of escalation. We simply keep an eye out for that email or phone call from the embassy telling us it's time to go (or hope we will have the luxury of time and notice to do so).
Why the relaxed attitude?
It's difficult to imagine unless you are familiar with life in the ROK. I now sit in our new apartment in Daegu, South Korea. The sounds of day-to-day activities come through the window. New construction going up, traffic from the main road is speeding by, people are walking their dogs and taking their lunch breaks: It's business per usual here in the ROK. Went shopping this morning and there was no rush for bottled water, kimchi and rice. The shelves are well stocked and the markets are busy with activity.
When you come into your own as an expat in South Korea, it's easy to forget about North Korea. Life here is blessed compared to the economically-deprived west. Our basic needs are met: food, shelter and medical care.
Most foreigner jobs provide housing, a decent monthly salary, pension, severance and medical insurance. After household bills, contributions to savings, and/or paying off debt, there is usually more than enough money left over to eat and drink to our hearts' content, shop as we please, and travel extensively.
Many of us from the U.S. secretly share the opinion that going home would be more horrifying than living with the constant North Korean threat. Back home there is: Lack of health care, lack of employment, high cost of living and, the dreaded, living with the parents. These points keep us happily settled in the ROK.
People back home frequently ask about the North Korean threat. Of course, I have to admit there is some relief in our recent move from Seoul to Daegu, but even still, I have a hard time putting a lot of energy worrying about a possible attack. A North Korean attack only exists in the world of 'what if'. I have problems that exist now and I need not be bothered with worrying about projected results from political rhetoric.
Drowning financially in a sea of medical bills and student loans is a very real thing for many people these days. Moreover, in the U.S., the possibility of being shot while working as an elementary teacher is an understandable anxiety. These are much more likely events than a North Korean invasion.
When people wonder how anyone could seek out work in the ROK, consider this: Most expats here are university grads with very little possibility of employment back home. Many have huge loan payments and no job prospects to help them chisel down that debt. Even if they do find a job in the U.S., how many jobs offer decent health insurance these days?
I'm not afraid of the possibility of being bombed, but I am afraid of going back home and being unemployed and/or sick without health insurance. That is more terrifying than anything Kim Jong-un spouts on about. I fear him much less than I fear the thought of being poor in the United States.
P.S. These days the biggest news in South Korea is a new fine for showing too much skin. Short skirts and bare shoulders is what the S.K. government is worried about these days, not their northern neighbors - but don't tell Kim Jong-un!]]>A Response to Suzanne Venker and Fox News: Gender Equality Strikes Backtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26787562013-02-14T12:06:25-05:002013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/Foxnews.com, I've been drawn into a discussion with friends about gender equality. Stephen Colbert also tore her argument apart, I will go a bit further.
According to the author, Suzanne Venker, gender equality is a nice idea, but otherwise a pointless endeavor:
"Those of us with children know better. We know little girls love their dolls and boys just want to kick that ball. This doesn't mean men can't take care of babies or women can't play sports. It just means each gender has its own energy that flows in a specific direction. For God's sake, let it flow."
The author's claim of authority on the subject is grounded solely in her experience as a parent. This is something I will graciously skip over, as it is nonsense. However, I will defend my opinion of it being nonsense by stating that basing credibility on personal experience as a parent is shakable at best. She has not had every child in the world, only her own, so basing her argument on her own parenting experience would be to assume that all children are the same as hers (i.e. if her daughter plays with dolls, all daughters play with dolls, etc.)
This aside, I will address a specific aspect to her argument. To start, Venker states pre-feminism was better:
Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It's hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.
Women had the better end of the deal? The death toll of the Titanic is evidence of this? Let's back up from the iceberg of crap that is this argument.
In the age of the Titanic, women were discouraged from anything that would remove them from the house. They were not even allowed to vote on issues that directly affected them. Sacrifice? I would say these women sacrificed plenty. Under these gender restrictions, they were about as lucky as the crew of the Titanic.
However, Venker attempts to screw her point to modern day: "Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings. Men and women may be capable of doing many of the same things, but that doesn't mean they want to. That we don't have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades."
The most obvious problem with this statement is that there aren't more CEOs because male CEOs have simply been around longer. Feminism didn't immediately change the social structure of all families, businesses and political policies. In the last 50 years there have been some changes, but men have had, um, about 2100 years head start on being CEO of the world. It may take a few more years for women to share the same numbers.
Further down the crazy train, Venker's particular line of thinking can be turned into the following argument: Feminism leaves no room for men to have an opinion on procreation. The largest complaint under this rhetorical umbrella is that men can become trapped when it comes to procreation. When a woman decides to have a child, her decision can place a man under unwanted financial responsibility for eighteen years.
My response: So what?
If a man is so terrified of a woman roping him financially with a baby, he should carefully consider his options, those options being: Vasectomy and condoms. The birth control pill is also very effective for committed relationships. However, if he cannot trust his girlfriend to use birth control, he has one last option: Don't have sex with her! It's an innovative concept.
Another side of this argument: The men who want to have a baby and are horrified that their partner can get an abortion, ultimately "killing their baby."
Again I say: So what?
If two people are in a relationship and disagree on the issue of "to be baby or to not be baby," the problem is compatibility, not fertility.
Therefore, when men cry: "Not fair" on women's choice of abortion or childbirth, I shed not a single tear.
Our bodies are not up for discussion. I don't demand vasectomies, so no one, absolutely no one, should demand anything of my uterus. It is my right -- it is my equal right as a human being. That is the equal agreement between both genders.
So yes, equality is possible. It would be nice if Fox News would give gender equality a little longer than a half century before stamping "FAIL" on it.]]>Is It Freedom? The Right to Bear Arms and Shoot (Reflections on Sandy Hook)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23272102012-12-19T01:06:47-05:002013-02-17T05:12:01-05:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/Sandy Hook shooting, questions like: "What are our rights?" and "What about our freedom?" bubble to the surface.
People forget that freedom is not a tangible object nor is it an objective stance. Freedom is subjective. Freedom is an idea we strive for, like a philosophical state of mind. Freedom is not a tangible answer which trumps and solves every ethical debate. Dangerous rhetoric is formed when people cling to freedom as their argument, such as: We are free therefore we have the right to own a gun. Beating the drum of freedom in order to claim certain rights of possession can quickly infringe on the rights of others. These are ethical issues, not issues that can be swept into a black and white argument of freedom versus total government control.
Many say we don't have the right to health care, as it infringes on rights to lower taxes. Yet this limits many people to premature deteriorating health and death. Without the right to socialized health care, we strip others' rights to good health and a long life.
There are many who cringe and scream at the idea of government creating more laws which may limit their rights. They think government dictating certain things like health care and firearms toes the line of communism.
The right to carry a firearm: Is it a right or is it enabling violence? Should we allow government to dictate what we own?
Yet, government does control many of our possessions: Laws are in place to protect innocent people and prohibit possession of such things as drugs and slaves. Are we afraid stricter laws on possession of weapons will give the government too much control? At what cost, human cost, are we willing to fight to maintain the right to bear arms?
Before continuing, I would like to point out something that most US citizens forget: We are a massive country. I tell my Korean students that South Korea, in size, is less than 1/50th of the US. They look at me wide-eyed and befuddled. The idea of a country being so enormous boggles their minds.
What we in the US must remember, is that these laws are not meant to restrict us from going out and shooting a deer if we feel so fit, but to protect the millions of lives that are under the governments' responsibility to protect. When a 20-year old kid decides to shoot up an elementary school, the government MUST take notice and acknowledge that there are some loose screws in the machinery of our firearm legislature. This is not to rain on your hunting parade - this is about the millions of non-hunters who are terrified to wander outside because you insist on having the right to stuff a handgun in your bedside table drawer. It's the government's job to protect your rights, but also the rights of those little children.
So, do you really need a gun at home? Outside of mafia connections, I can't imagine the reason. I believe it is simply personal preference, a want, not a need.
So it comes down to: Our needs and our wants. No one needs cocaine or slaves. (Some) people want these things, but they definitely do not need them. And when someone's wants infringes on someone's needs (i.e. staying alive), then there is a crossroads of rights - whose rights do we protect?
Many are concerned that new laws prohibiting firearms will create a black market and another endless battle (likening to the war on drugs). To this I say: Bring it on. First of all, from what I understand, the logistics of smuggling weapons is a little more complicated than smuggling drugs. Either way, I would rather spend some extra tax dollars on firearm surveillance than do nothing at all. Allowing the same legislation to continue simply out of fear of creating a black market is the most ostrich-like argument I have ever heard.
Many have also pointed to mental health care and the media as another cause for recent shootings. While, yes, mental health plays a role and yes, media encourages indulgent behavior, neither of these things physically shot anyone. Besides, an increase in mental health care and a decrease in media violence will not curb the fact that there are still millions of guns easily accessible in U.S. homes. Can the media or a mental health professional prevent such crimes on a significant level? Possibly some, but no one can control or predict when a person will snap emotionally and mentally. But we can block their access to a firearm. Telling a child not to take the candy on the table is all well and good, but the minute your back is turned, do you really trust that they will not reach for the candy at least once? Shouldn't we just move the candy to be sure?
Do us all a favor and leave the gun at the shooting range and hunting grounds. Keep our homes safe. Keep our children safe. It's a worthwhile sacrifice.]]>The Social Pressure of Experiencing Motherhoodtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18515442012-09-03T19:00:00-04:002012-11-03T05:12:01-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
I do not like the expectations that are laid before me on a regular basis. Expectations placed by movies, television and even my own friends. I use to love indulging in a Sex in the City episode, but now I find myself irate with any episode I watch. Media like this only strengthens these social expectations of women.
Moreover, I do not appreciate people, especially people I barely know, placing their own expectations on my uterus. When did my uterus become appropriate dinnertime conversation? I do not talk about your kidney, lungs or liver. Please leave my uterus alone. And please, stop likening it to a ticking clock.
One of the best gifts my mother ever gave me was her non-romantic explanation of childbirth. Many of my friends were told that the pain and suffering of childbirth washes away the minute you hold the baby. They talk of the experience as some sort of privileged trip to Baskin Robbins. Well, thanks to natural hormones, adrenaline and/or induced drugs, that may be true. Yet all that talk covers up one imperative truth. Having a baby is more than one moment. The post-childbirth hormonal 'high' does not last 18 years.
My mom gave me the real scoop on the experience. Not that she regretted having me, but she didn't want me to buy into the 'magical childbirth hoopla'. She wanted me to look past the doctrine of childbirth. Childbirth is not a rite of passage. We are not cave men. We have choices. Men do not have to hunt and women do not have to gather berries and breed children. Just because our bodies are built to do something, does not mean we have to pump out children and slay wildlife. I would like to think we are capable of making logical decisions beyond our bodily urges.
Regardless, I am happy for the women who find joy in motherhood. I applaud women who attempt to 'have it all': the education, the job, the marriage, the kids, etc.
Yet imbedded in that statement: "Have it all", lies a problem. Somewhere in those three little words, I get lost. I am not included. I will never 'have it all' because I do not want 'it all'. Basically, in that light, I will always land short of the finish line. The reason: I am choosing not to get pregnant.
Look at men. If they decide to focus on their career, fantastic. If they decide to be a stay-at-home dad, wonderful. They do not have to hunt. They do not have to farm. They do not have to lift heavy things. Men do not need to experience a nine-month gestation period to 'have it all'.
It is no new news that women's cards have been stacked with the Y chromosome. And there have been few changes from the caveman years. We have yet to break out caveman mentality when it comes to what is expected of women.
The same choices put before Elizabeth I are the same choices put before every woman in 2012. Career vs. Motherhood vs. Attempting both.
Many women call on their natural instinct to make the decision: Our natural desire to procreate and nurture.
Yet women do not hold the patent on nurture. So why the societal pressure?
The pressure comes from within. We cherish our ability to hold life inside of us. Yet, in order for us to break free of gender roles - women have to let go of what we feel is inherently and instinctively ours. We are not all naturally better nurturers. Many women are simply not made for motherhood. Furthermore, a man can have the ability to provide the same, if not more, nurturing love for a child. Do we rob men of that opportunity simply because of a lacking chromosome?
Women who have children because of societal pressure many times believe they will love their child simply because they are female. These women think they will become good mothers once the baby is born. They believe in a Disney movie's portrayal of motherhood. Yet these are the same moms who you will find staring blankly into their smartphones, ignoring their crying child. Where is their natural instinct in that moment? I doubt their lack of mothering skills has anything to do with their genetic makeup. Instead, they are letting society dictate their behavior, their lives and their uterus.
But congratulations, they 'have it all' and their uterus is finally off the dinner table, whereas my uterus will constantly be a subject of discussion over mashed potatoes.]]>In the Eyes of a Republican: Romney's Middle Class Voterstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18023162012-08-29T11:59:01-04:002012-10-29T05:12:04-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
It was my dad, he had news and it sounded serious. He said, "I can't do it."
I stopped walking. I was a little scared by his tone. "What's that?" I asked.
"I can't vote for Bush again."
When I was growing up, we were Republicans. We listened to Rush Limbaugh in the car. We went to church every Sunday. I grew up with the steady drum of black and white thinking. It was a secure world because there was no gray-area. However, that world only exists when you stay on the right side of that gray line.
When our lives landed in the gray-muck it was difficult to maintain the conservative standing without getting confused on all the rules. As a young adult, I became politically indifferent. By 2008, I was living in Chicago and I could not take a step without tripping over a presidential election conversation. It was time to pay attention. My post-conservative apathy had run its course and I was slowly changing my perspectives and beliefs.
The phone conversation with my father signposts that turning point. My father having his own doubts was a significant political shift in my little world.
Here I am four years later, on the other side of the big pond, where most Europeans are completely miffed as to why anyone, who is not super wealthy, would vote Republican. I usually say I am equally miffed (I rarely divulge my Republican upbringing).
Popular liberal opinion claims Republicans are uninformed or under-informed. However, this is not necessarily true. Much of this popular liberal opinion is based on campaigns of the extreme right, the Tea Party and pretty much anything Rush Limbaugh says.
Edging away from the extreme right, you can find intelligent Republicans. It is these non-extreme Republican-voters who can put Romney in office. They want lower taxes, less government controlled entities and more privatized systems. Furthermore, many of these Republicans are driven by their religious beliefs, family values, economic status and ideological standards. If you mix all those circumstances into one pot, you have yourself a Republican-voter.
For these voters, it comes down to one simple message: Leave us alone.
These voters, in spite of the current economic climate, are doing alright. They have a steady job, decent wage and reliable health care. These are home owners who were smart (and/or lucky) enough to dodge the housing market crash. These people are not thinking of the general populous, they are thinking of themselves. And, as far as they can see (past the end of their cul-de-sac), they see rainbows and retirement.
The only political issue on tap for a non-extremist Romney-voter is the national debt. They blame most of this debt on the poor taking advantage of 'the system'. They do not want people living off their tax dollars. (It seems Republicans believe the vast majority of unemployed mirror the cast of Trainspotting.)
Most middle class, non-extreme Romney-voters are not overly interested in issues of birth control or marriage equality. They definitely do not want to talk about it. However, if pressured, they would morally stand with whatever church they go to on Sunday.
I can empathize with the Romney-voters. I understand how "big government" can be scary. I live in Sweden, where many things are government-run. It can be frustrating at times. However, the Swedish government will do everything it can to keep you housed, healthy and fed. So, even with the endless lines and procedures, here in Sweden, your basic needs will be met.
In the U.S., if things do not line up perfectly and there is no family to support you, your life can become pretty hopeless. The system is broken and corrupt. Job loss can spiral out of control pretty quick. If you have no family and/or are mentally ill, find a park bench and pull up a pigeon.
The 'umph' in Romney's campaign is housed in selfishness and fear of that park bench. The selfishness and fear is justified by a well-polished rhetoric. Romney-voters believe if everyone worked as hard as they did, there would be less poverty. Middle class Romney-voters believe the poor are poor because of the poor's own doing. Romney-voters do not want to pay for anyone else's mistakes or hardships. Romney-voters want their hard-earned money to be all theirs. Community support is unnecessary: Every man for himself. They think governmental support is charity and charity should be optional.
Overall, Romney-voters want their money and their families to be left alone.
All evidence to the contrary will not change their minds. To change their perspective would mean their lives would have to be touched by hardship, hardship directly affected by their own selfishness.
And it may take a President Romney to do just that.]]>Olympic Pride vs. Nationalismtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17728602012-08-13T11:50:40-04:002012-10-13T05:12:11-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
While it is a wonderful opportunity for athletes, some treat the Olympics as a reflection of friendly global relations. I would say that sort of thinking is solidly fixed in fairyland.
The Olympics can sometimes be viewed as an advertising campaign for those already apathetic to international news. And, if you weren't apathetic yet, you will be after 4 hours of watching gymnastics.
The Olympics should be used as an international collection of the best athletes, nothing more.
When the U.S. wins gold, it is not a reflection of the U.S. It is a reflection of the individual athletes' abilities, hard work, dedication and yes, their nation's funding and training. But overall, it is the individuals who run the race, play the game and jump the jumps. I celebrate the athlete, not the nation. I don't give the U.S. government credit for Michael Phelps. I give Michael Phelps credit for Michael Phelps. Obama did not swim the race, Phelps did.
For some, the Olympics can become a "who's the biggest international fish" competition. This is imbedded in a nationalistic ideology. Maybe you believe this nationalistic doctrine is good for people. I do not.
For example: There are social media postings claiming the U.S. women's soccer team's victory over Japan is "pay back" for Pearl Harbor.
This kind of mentality is scary.
First off, turn some of that hatred onto ourselves. Are we going to approve of our children receiving the same sort of verbal abuse for all the wars and suffering our government has started? In many ways, terrorism and hatred towards the U.S. has only just begun. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Secondly, what does Pearl Harbor have to do with athletes in the 2012 London Olympics? I would love to hear the crazy line of thought on that campaign.
Back in my bartender days in Chicago, I watched people scream at the television. Be it the Bears, Cubs or White Sox, I got a kick out of people's pride in their team as if they themselves were on the field. Team pride. Being a part of a group and sharing in group glory is a great feeling. However, there is a danger inherit within the workings of this type of pride. It naturally blinds individual common sense. The team becomes the most important priority. Not the individual player or fan, but the team. The team trumps all decisions. The survival and success of the team is of primary importance. The degradation of the opposing teams is part of the team's survival. It is this mindset that can be dangerous when fueled in international waters.
I was embarrassed by the chanting "U.S.A, U.S.A..." in the stands in London. It was unnecessary. There was no need for the chanting. We knew where the players came from. Chant the players' names or simply eat your popcorn and be quiet. As an expat, I was horrified by the chanting. There was something bully-like about it.
However, it is that national pride and chanting that makes the Olympics attractive to some. It is why my significant other, who never watches handball, all the sudden is glued to the screen when Sweden is playing.
Overall, the Olympics gets watered down to high school gym politics. Occasionally, underdogs emerge here or there, but generally the most medals go to the people calling the shots: The Empire-lympics.
A lot of people look at the Olympics and think: "See, look at us all getting along - one big international family." Though, when I hear people loudly chanting "USA, USA" and I see Fox news getting upset over the lack of red, white and blue costumes, I start to wonder what drives people to watch the Olympics. I am curious when people will stop hiding behind a flag. To be an international family, the flag waving and chanting will have to stop.
In sum, the Olympics should be about the athletes, and that is all. Stop counting medals, it is not fair. For goodness sake, put the flag down.]]>Human Trafficking - Power of the Few and Apathy of the Massestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.17544882012-08-08T02:42:17-04:002012-10-07T05:12:03-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
I recently watched a documentary on human trafficking, The Day My God Died. This documentary focused on the women sold into prostitution in India. These women are living out my worst nightmare. Scarier still was my initial reaction: 'don't feel guilty about it - it's not your fault' and go on with my day.
We have been conditioned to care about things that don't matter. We have been programed for apathy. People in power depend on our programming and continually flood us with distractions. You would be surprised how close to the Matrix we really are. Facebook, reality television, movies, network news, internet, email, texts, IPhones, and the social pressure of marriage, kids, and consumer consumption keeps us pretty busy. It is easy to get lost in the noise.
Human trafficking for prostitution is enabled by a combination of power and apathy. Rape is an act of enforcing, taking and establishing power over an individual or a community. Apathy is how rape and prostitution grow into a global human trafficking phenomenon.
As long as us 'regular people' keep our mouths shut, human rights violations will continue at an alarming rate.
Many of us push these disturbing revelations to the back of our brains and move on with our little worlds of little problems: paying student loans, applying for jobs, stress with friends and family, harping on equal pay, free healthcare, wanting to be in a relationship, etc.
Self-indulgence is also a crime. I commit it every day. I smile, give to charity and talk about politics at dinner parties, but then I go home and worry about my waist size. As I stare at myself in the mirror, I hope the U.N. is doing something to stop all of these horrible things. Newsflash: The U.N. is doing next to nothing.
I am positive there are people are benefiting from my well-tuned apathy. This weekend some guy is going to spend money so he can rape a 10 year old girl. Yes, I'm being that critical of myself, and you should too. If enough of us were upset about it, I'm guessing his weekend would be a little more complicated than simply walking into a dark alley of brothels.
Contrary to what most non-Americans would like to think, public apathy isn't only a U.S. problem, this is a universal problem. We need millions, billions of people upset. Boycotting Fox News is not going to do it (though it would be a start).
It's not a problem that can be saved by money or knocking on brothel doors. Our little donations are like bringing one tube of antibiotic lotion to a M.A.S.H unit under sniper fire. We need to turn around and start shooting the snipers.
This is not to say the efforts of those who are presently at the front lines are meaningless. On the contrary, they are heroic. However, I'm pretty sure most involved want the trafficking to stop completely.
The trick is to stop the crime at the source. Follow the money. Oddly, the money ends up in many politicians' wallets - even politicians we like. Human trafficking is interwoven into our society and to disrupt it would mean disrupting an entire global system. That disruption would make some powerful people very angry.
People have found a way to lock themselves into their little worlds. What they don't understand is they are digging their heads in the sand like ostriches and doing more damage by doing nothing.
Quite frankly, I don't know what to do - except get angry and write. I am going to keep writing, mostly letters, which will probably be ignored, but it is something of worth. I am at least taking my head out of the sand.
So, every little extra bite of food you take today and every little meaningless conversation you have about Twitter and Facebook, I want you to think about your life in comparison with a human rights victim. Congratulations, your apathy silences their screams. Enjoy your burger and go ahead, update your status - I'm pretty sure there's a girl in India getting raped right now, but your status update about your trivial problems are much more important.]]>The Non-American Tale: Romney of Oztag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15923032012-06-14T13:02:58-04:002012-08-14T05:12:09-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
For Europeans, I have started to let this ignorance slide a bit. However, I'm finding the same kind of blind ignorant following in U.S. Americans too. Mitt Romney's recent blunder yet again demonstrates how many people are simply not listening or paying attention. How is this guy a presidential candidate? He's been dancing around issues and flipping his words around so many times it makes me wonder if he has developed some new strand of bipolar disorder.
With that in mind, today, I went shopping. This activity generally exposes my foreign-ness as I stumble over my Swedish and ask the store clerk to mercifully switch to English. Nevertheless, there is the occasional surprise attack of the "Fan of the USA." These exuberant people strike when least expected.
"Oh my God -- you're American! Oh I love the States!"
Today was another attack. I had to show my ID at the liquor store. Something I hate doing because I have managed to "ja" and "nej" my way through most transactions without too much confusion, but today I was trapped. There I was, with my passport flashing for all to see.
This particular cashier was extra excited: "She's American!" She announced my citizenship to the long line of people behind me. "A tourist!" This would have been cute, but we are in Stockholm where Americans are not rare alien-sitings.
I glanced apologetically to the guy behind me who, like most traditional Swedes, kept a stoic facial expression. He was seemingly unimpressed and probably slightly annoyed.
"Actually, I live here." I replied quietly.
"I LOVE the states! It's my dream to live there! It's so wonderful - you're rich right??!" She cooed. I was hoping she was being sarcastic. She wasn't.
She frowned. "No. That can't be -- everyone is rich there!"
I should have let it go, but I couldn't. I never can. "Well, it's not that great right now. At the moment there's growing unemployment and poverty, it's slowing becoming more like a third world country with a great marketing campaign."
She gave me a look that could slice my beer bottles. She now hated me. The guy behind me continued to look smug, but his eyes sparkled. I was positive he'd have a good laugh later. I quickly tried to pack up my items before I destroyed her entire ideology.
She wasn't done with me though. She pleaded, "But, it's my DREAM!"
I relented, "Well, then, of course you should go then -- I don't want to kill your dream." I left, avoiding any more eye contact.
The rest of the day, I thought about my other "Fan of USA" conversations I've encountered while here. I once had a coworker argue with me at length about how everyone in the states had huge houses with multiple bedrooms. She told me everyone had two cars and lived in the suburbs, where everyone wore beautiful clothing. The way she described the States mirrored an episode of MTV Cribs. I told her repeatedly that she was misinformed by the media, yet she still didn't believe me. It was as if she needed to believe the U.S. was still the land of fairies, unicorns and the teenage Britney Spears.
My previous landlord lived in California for a few years before returning to Sweden. She insisted the U.S. was better and wanted to go back. She made broad generalizations about how people in the states were not racist, there was more opportunity for immigrants, and people were just plain nicer.
While I tended to agree with her that people in the U.S. are generally more easy-going and sociable than the Swedes, I warned her that racism and unemployment are still present in the United States -- if not growing in some areas. She was angry with me for saying that, as if I was some indignant child. I told her that I didn't want to give her the wrong impression - there is no perfect country. Maybe the States has great things to offer, but I wanted her to be aware that she wouldn't necessarily be free of the problems she has here.
Remember the Disney movie, An American Tail with the cute little mice? That song with the refrain: "But there are no cats in America and the streets are paved with cheese..." I found that song to be hilarious as a child. Now I find it ironically applicable to certain conversations.
Every nation has its pros and cons. The United States of America still has strong residing freedoms (which could soon be destroyed). It's difficult to break the news to foreigners that my country isn't the wonderful Land of Oz. I realize it's not Syria, but it's not a fairyland. Unlike the media, politicians or our wealthy community, I refuse to support this ridiculous racket (either ultra-positive or ultra-negative) of the Wizardry of the States. Like Toto, I want everyone to look closer. I want to expose the men and women behind the curtain.]]>Decision 2012: U.S. vs. Everywhere Elsetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15842752012-06-12T15:00:13-04:002012-08-12T05:12:06-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
I have a dissonant feeling about moving home. I have spells of homesickness, which are frequently interrupted by anxiety and nausea.
I have recently spoken with another U.S. expat who is completing her first year living in Germany. She loves living abroad, but she has pressure from her family to move back home.
"Pressure," I asked?
She answered quite simply that her parents want her to "start her real life".
"Real life," I asked, "what's that?"
Let me clear some things up about living abroad: It's not all one big frat party. Frat parties are not language immersion classes -- but my life is. Grocery shopping is a Swedish language lesson whether I want one that morning or not. Additionally, as an expat we're forced to wear our nationality like a tattoo. We bear the international brunt of horrendous things said by Fox News, Donald Trump and Lindsey Lohan.
Regardless, being an expat is an amazing experience and I told this new expat to keep traveling. I have watched other expat friends go home to start their 'real life', and I have yet to see how their life is any 'realer' than mine, outside of the fact that they are unemployed, paying out the nose for health care and can easily find Cool Ranch Doritos.
Yet homesickness still hits me, but while I miss cool summer nights drinking beers on State and Division in ol' Chicago, I have doubts it's the right place for us.
Reasons being:
1. Bipartisan politics
Both parties have locked horns. There isn't a Republican or Democrat who can change that.
Religion has found a way to run everything, even though that's exactly what our founding fathers wanted us to avoid.
Our media continues to point in all directions except at themselves. We need less Hollywood, more Wall Street and Washington. But for some strange reason people keep begging for Jersey Shore.
2. Gender roles, expectations and inequality
Women want equal pay. They also want access to birth control. They want to be able to have sex for pleasure, just like men.
They are fighting the wrong battle. First, they need to tell their church, their government and their media that they are done buying into the pressure to have babies and marriages. They will need to make a strong statement and stick together. It is okay to be single. It is okay to be gay. It is okay to be in a relationship but not get married. It is okay to have babies. It is okay not to have babies.
Unfortunately, this will not happen, because most women don't want to give up the medieval idea that good looks, legal marriage and babies improve their net worth.
3. Class system: Blue Collar, White Collar, Gold Collar
The middle class will continue to shrink.
What happened to it being okay to be a construction or factory worker? What happened to valuing teachers? I want to physically punch someone when they say: "Those who can do; those who can't, teach." I know some very successful lawyers, doctors and business professionals that wouldn't last a day teaching 3rd graders.
What happened to the United States valuing their citizens? Unions -- we need them. Not everyone is a CEO, and that's okay. It takes more than one person to run a company and a country, but every occupation has value.
These days, we are taught by the old boomer generation that if you don't go to a university, you will be poor. People are pushed into universities before they even know what they want to do. Hence, we have a ton of confused graduates with Bachelor's Degrees. Most have a very large loan debt and no decent job to pay it off.
Where are all these white collar jobs to validate the need for all these university graduates? Hmm.
This explains why we have well-educated university graduates, quoting Shakespeare's sonnets or the chemistry table, making your grande cappuccino.
These people would have been better off with a hourly job, borrowing Shakespeare's volumes and Chemistry for Dummies from the library and taking the time after high school to map out a financial and career timeline that makes sense to them and their generation.
4. Rights
There is a lot of talk about 'rights' these days: Right to marry, right to health care, right to have guns, etc. People are worried about 'too much government control'.
Well, frankly, I'm okay with the government taking away guns. I don't feel comfortable with racist bigots wondering around with loaded weapons.
I most definitely want some free healthcare in case these people decide to shoot me for saying something they deem "un-American".
I'm not sure people should fight for the right to marry -- I think they should fight for the right to receive these benefits without a governmental marriage contract.
I've heard conservatives say that we have no right to rich peoples' money. I'd like to turn that around and say that the rich people have no right to MY money either, but, unlike them, I'm willing to share it to make a better community, school and healthcare facility. I'm pretty sure that's why I'm poor and they're rich.
I think, in the end, the idea of moving home frightens me. And, I think after all these reasons listed above, it should.]]>Un-Occupy Hollywood: The Power of Mediatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15689822012-06-05T15:56:08-04:002012-08-05T05:12:28-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/Wall Street Journal, the Kardashians are just as likely to pop up on a sidebar as Drew Barrymore's marriage or Donald Trump's whimsical musings.
Entertainment news has become viral. Obama may be president, but E! and ESPN are the King and Queen. It's extremely difficult to pay attention to politics when Brad, Angelina and Tiger Woods are being shoved in your face. I don't even pay attention and I still happen to know that Brad and Angelina are engaged, but not setting a date.
Many people were amazed and moved at the Kony2012 campaign. But this guy has been causing extreme violence for years. The only reason he got attention in the States was because it appeared on Facebook feeds on everyone's snazzy new smartphones.
The power of Hollywood, the glitz and glam of it all: We are daily consuming their lifestyles and ideologies. Too many people buy US Weekly and watch Jersey Shore and The Bachelorette. And then we have Vogue trumpeting for the fashion industry, instructing us to purchase clothing that costs 10 to 20 to 30 times the actual material worth. Don't forget social media and the pressure to stay connected. I've heard people say that they can't pay rent, but they will, under no circumstances, go without their smartphones.
Even more influential and less pricey: Movies and television. This is where they feed us with a daily menu of double standards, impossible expectations on our bodies and facial appearance, and massive stereotyping -- all served with a side plate of clothing advertisements. The general message is as follows: "Be like us or you're a loser."
Hollywood continually feeds us with this crack. Some people are able to see through the garbage, but more actually believe these messages.
I hear ol' Hollywood and its actors tend to be liberal. I simply don't believe it. From what I gather from their messages, they couldn't care less about their main audience: the middle and lower classes. As far as I'm concerned, they are just as bad as Mr. Trump and his birther banter.
Occupy Wall Street? Why don't we Occupy Hollywood? Or better yet, unoccupy it? A little easier to do that than camp outside a financial district. Turn off MTV. Stop purchasing mindless entertainment media. No more E! News. Refuse to watch reality television. It's poison. If you watch television or movies, be mindful of the actual message that is being sent via Meg Ryan. And resist the need to know what the "stars are up to." They are actors. They eat, sleep and drink coffee like the rest of us. Stop purchasing Vogue magazine. Start thinking. Need a new shirt? Try the secondhand store. Or better yet, look in your closet again.
I know some people can afford the Vogue lifestyle, but it is destructive on many levels. At some point we have to start being accountable for making the wealthy media and fashion moguls so rich and influential. Furthermore, if we don't, we are promoting self-destructive messages to our children.
Stop buying designer clothes. Stop buying into the idea that you need designer clothes. Stop pretending it matters what kind of shirt you have. Buying designer labels is not a positive example of capitalism. Forget the Prada scarf, and start a small business or nonprofit foundation instead. Educate your children on the power of media and the value of being well-informed.
Many people think their obsession of Hollywood and fashion is harmless. It's not. It's a massive diversion from issues that actually need attention. No more Prada. Watch closely. Listen carefully. Read.]]>Why Are You Still Reading About Why You're Still Not Married?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15530862012-05-29T12:20:22-04:002012-07-29T05:12:04-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/ "Why You're Not Married", and the even more disturbing recent follow-up: "Why You're Still Not Married".
These two articles have enraged many. Quite rightly so. I'm more enraged she's making money writing about such things.
I have also been married and divorced. It happened all when I was quite young. Throughout my twenties and into my thirties, I have been told frequently: "At least you've been married," as if it was some sort of Girl Scout badge. McMillan's blog runs into this same delusional thinking.
Unlike McMillan, though I may 'have the badge' in marriage AND divorce, I hardly feel that gives me some authorial position on the subject. In fact, when I read she was divorced three times, I was miffed to why she was advocating the institution of marriage. I'm still wondering if she is. I can't decide if she advocates marriage or the paycheck of selling out to patriarchal ideology.
Either way, when asked about marriage, I usually give an unpopular response:
Don't get married. Simply don't even try. More than likely, men will propose anyway. Why? Because women who see marriage clearly for what it is, a sham, not a fairy tale, these women possess a confidence and sense of intelligence that fascinates intelligent men.
It should. Because marriage is silly. The fact that some women AND men treat it like the ultimate definition of who they are, married or unmarried, is insane. It's crazy. And people, as Tracy points out frequently, don't like committing to crazy.
I understand that many people marry because it is the base of their spiritual beliefs. Fair enough. There's one problem I find here. I'm pretty sure God did not have a $5,000 to $10,000 price tag in mind when he advocated monogamy and marriage. I smell smoke when I see a religious wedding showered in cash. I'm not sure what Jesus would think, but I'm thinking the money could be well spent somewhere a bit more useful than Macy's Wedding Boutique.
Furthermore, I am more frequently miffed by non-religious men and women who bow to the marriage market. Some say for financial reasons, to protect assets, for the kids, for retirement, for the mortgage, for their dog Sparky. But all of these reasons can be rectified in a law office. Though I'm guessing it's not a simple process. We are bound to a very embedded, layered and systematic idea that legal marriage is the only way to protect ourselves from each other in a relationship.
Here in Sweden, marriage is something that happens much later in life, if at all. Couples can have long-standing relationships for decades, kids and all, before even thinking of marriage. Marriage is a celebration of their relationship, not a validation or protective service.
Back in the states, the status of 'single' vs. 'married' identifies and dictates a person's identity. For singles, I think it can sometimes feel like barbarian vs. colonized.
Think about how much power is in the institution of marriage, the CORPORATION of marriage -- and if it was eliminated, what would change? Our government depends on us believing in the sanctity and structure of marriage. If we question it, what happens? That whole gay marriage question would hardly be an issue. It shouldn't matter who you love. It really shouldn't. It most definitely isn't the government's business. But they make it their business. Think about the hot topics of birth control and abortion, these issues should be decided between the couple, not the local state representative and his own personal beliefs.
McMillan's article sends a final cloak of fairy dust that illuminates her marriage mission: Change yourself for the sake of love and you will find that special someone. Love yourself. Well, that's all fine and good -- yes, love yourself, but don't delude yourself. In fact, loving yourself may allow some personal clarity, revealing that marriage is completely unnecessary when it comes to love.
I think somewhere between her harsh tone, the stock self-help advice and clinging to the belief that marriage denotes some sort of validation, she had to place the word 'love' in there to make it okay. It's not okay. She's confused. Marriage is one thing, love is another. One is connected to government and religious institutions while the other is connected to your heart. Be wary and don't confuse the two as symbiotic with each other.
And definitely be wary of advice coming from someone making money promoting the idea of love=marriage. The advice is probably as worthwhile and sound as a stock investment in Facebook.]]>Facebook Rehab: Congratulations Mark, I'm Leavingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15308372012-05-20T16:34:20-04:002012-07-20T05:12:15-04:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
It seems impossible to have a coffee, a dinner, a drink without someone supplementing the conversation with intermittent Facebook 'checking' or referring to it one way or another. My 'non-smart' phone and I are unable to combat such noise. Quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time then watch someone post a picture of our meal, scroll through their news feed and update their status to announce 'what a great time we're having.' Speak for yourself. The bonus is when I 'get' to view their ex-boyfriend's photos, as if I would find that more interesting than the dinner menu.
Yet I cannot judge too harshly, I was an addict too, an addict of Facebook. I can only be thankful I never purchased a smartphone. If I had, I wouldn't be writing this. I would be sitting in bed, scrolling through my FB news feed.
Just this year, Facebook has become a mover and shaker on Wall Street. As someone not overly thrilled with Wall Street, nor a fan of people making a ton of money for the sake of making a ton of money, I was happy to celebrate their success by vanquishing my allegiance. Call it an early wedding present for Mark -- one less user to worry about.
Though I am aware that Mark has given a chunk of his wealth to charity, Facebook appearing on Wall Street still leaves me with a dissonance.
However, the decision to delete my Facebook account did not originate from my disgust for cooperate greed. Instead, I left the social media because it was consuming my personal life. Nearly four years of pictures, videos, and witty (and not so witty) status updates are now gone (or at least archived in a "deleted content" file server earmarked for the CIA and FBI).
I found it rather symbiotic that my personal reservations were well timed to accompany Facebook's debut on Wall Street.
My only reason for joining Facebook was my international move to Asia. Ironically this move was due to me slowly going bankrupt in Chicago in 2008 -- underpaid, under-insured and slowing being buried in debt. The financial wizardry of Wall Street execs drove me to escape to international lands for a better paying job. For these reasons, it is difficult to find a soft spot for anyone joining the royal court of Goldman Sachs, no matter what their motive.
However, back in 2008, I had no idea I was feeding the same monster I was attempting to escape. Ironically, for much of the last few years, my expat status was the motive behind my Facebook loyalty. I remained a daily user, citing: 'keeping in touch with people back home.
I was a believer. I regularly sipped the Kool-Aid.
However, over the course of the spring I had a trial 'deactivation' of Facebook to focus on my MA dissertation. No longer was I spending precious time over status updates to impress or entice certain 'friends.' No longer was I endlessly searching on other peoples' profiles just to enter into a time-sucking dialog about what they had for dinner or why they supported Republicans.
And, when it came to privacy issues, I couldn't stop thinking about who was out there. I was friends with over 300 people, 200 of these 'friends' were not even people I would consider beyond a close acquaintances. Quite a few of them I didn't even like that much. Most of them barely knew me. Yet these were the people with whom I was 'friends' and shared my thoughts and musings.
What took me most off guard were my 'friends'' reaction to my retreat into non-Facebook land. Many applauded my actions, citing they 'wish they were strong enough to do it' and many others seemed honestly upset about it. All the sudden my retreat began to mirror a type of boundary-creating problem that alcoholics and drug users experience during rehab. Apparently, I am in Facebook rehab.
As Mr. Zuckerberg enjoys his Wall Street campaign and wedding nuptials, I am disappearing into the social media shadows. As an activity, it dangerously toes a line of ridiculous social behavior. Moreover, I'm not sure I want to align myself with a company joining the gang down at Wall Street, especially while many of its users are still struggling to pay their mortgage, taxes and find employment. However, I'm sure Mark has the best intentions, at least I hope so.]]>Fair Taxes According to a Four-Year-Oldtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10921682011-11-14T08:27:02-05:002012-01-14T05:12:02-05:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
However, the most surprising aspect of these two worlds is how they collide.
The majority of children at the nursery/pre-school are between the ages two to five. I have started to get drawn into their various personalities and little ticks and flaws, their strengths and weaknesses - it's easy to see the little people they are becoming, little adults growing up very quickly.
Sharing is a constant struggle in the world of preschool. "MINE! It's MINE" is a daily hymn sung to all preschool teachers and we dig deep to find the patience again and again to mediate the settlement of possessions, be it toys, rocks, sticks or, sometimes, an unidentifiable object.
We occasionally have Play-Doh at our school and I do my best to distribute equal amounts of Play-Doh to each child before the Play-Doh-ing begins.
However, there are frequent moments when, do to unforeseen circumstances, the Play-Doh becomes distributed unequally. Thus, havoc ensues.
Usually this situation begins when one or two children obtain a large amount of Play-Doh, (of which, mind you, they are only using a small portion). Their winnings (whether it was a lucky income or stolen by quick wit and maneuver) ceased to be a necessity and more of a symbol of possession.
Meanwhile, the other three or four attendees at the Play-Doh table are playing with less than meager portions of Play-Doh. One of them usually accepts their condition and attempts to do their best with what little they have (making pea-sized snowmen, etc.). However, there are always one or two participants who have surveyed the situation and have deemed the entire Play-Doh area: A site of injustice.
Their demands on the Play-Doh millionaires start out as small negotiation tactics but become louder and more desperate as the millionaires refuse to budge. And then, some poor, innocent bystander sits down in hopes to join the Play-Doh fun to unfortunately find him/herself in the midst of a major Play-Doh economic dispute. Naturally, the misfortune of this newcomer becomes the catalyst for the protester's campaign.
Soon I am on the scene to find the Play-Doh table in total unrest. "Miss April, Miss April, He/She/They aren't sharing! Look how little we have and he has NOTHING!"
It easy for me at this moment to think about the news headlines and how pertinent this little micro-scene would be for the BBC.
"Okay, well then I guess we need to share with our friends then don't we?" I say in hopes that the wealth at the table becomes more equally distributed on its own accord without my physically having to remove some Play-Doh from people's "banks". This does happen a bit, but oddly, it is usually the kids with the least amount of Play-Doh who first offers their income to the Play-Doh-less child.
I find this astonishing.
Meanwhile, the Play-Doh millionaires rip off a piece of Play-Doh that is about .01% of their total net Play-Doh worth.
In the end, I have to relinquish the Play-Doh millionaires' stash and redistribute the Play-Doh wealth once again as evenly as possible. This usually is accompanied with wailing and gnashing of teeth.
However, it should be recognised that after the "Play-Doh crisis" is over, when I redistribute the Play-Doh, ALL the children are able to do whatever they wanted to do before, just on a bit smaller/larger scale.
And, at the end of the day, the fact that they ALL got to play is what matters, isn't it?]]>Technology Entitlement: Paying for Mediatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9857262011-09-29T11:51:54-04:002011-11-29T05:12:01-05:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
Call me old-fashioned, I pay for my music -- on iTunes or I buy the CD. I have so many friends tell me: "Why would you pay for something when you can get it for free?"
Granted, there have been times when I have been tempted by this argument. Additionally, no one likes someone insisting people should pay for something that is available for free. I'm generally not very popular during this topic of conversation. You'll hear me harp on and on about the necessity of socialized, free health care, but yes, I know, I want people to pay for their music.
In the last couple decades, people have become more and more accustomed to getting what they want fast and without much effort. Technology has made so much accessible that most people under the age of 25 don't even remember what it's like to live without internet access, let alone a computer or cell phone.
Which turns me to this: Recently, my hometown's local newspaper, The Star Tribune, has decided to make the transition into charging for their online edition.
And I hear from the people back home, "Why would I pay for something I can get for free?"
Now, the music thing was always a bit of an ongoing argument that I never really defended in a strong way -- but now this hits a little closer to home for me.
My question: Why are you suddenly entitled to get something for free that you use to pay for?
I don't recall anyone demanding free newspapers back when people use to read an actual "paper." Just because it's no longer a solid product that lands outside your front door doesn't mean it didn't cost time, money and talent to be produced.
Yes, you can get free news elsewhere and paying for local news seems redundant if you can just hop on CNN.com. Paying a monthly fee for local news seems superfluous when much of the global economy is struggling.
And, switching back to the music media issue, the prices for music and DVD's are not exactly affordable for everyone -- but then why do we feel we should still have access to something we can't afford? I don't recall, when CD's first came out, feeling I'm entitled to own ALL of Dave Matthew's CD's immediately. No, I saved my money and bought them, one by one (yes, I have all of them). I didn't need the CD's, I wanted them.
That's the difference these days -- "want" is equal to "need." Entitlement.
So people want free newspapers, but do they need them? With the paperless world becoming the norm, what do people expect from newspapers? Those news articles didn't just create themselves; it took work to put them together. Why should we expect newspapers to live off of advertising revenue alone? Not every local newspaper can compete with FOX, CNN and BBC on the advertising market.
I guess as far as I'm concerned: If you are so oppose to paying for a local newspaper's online edition, turn on your television and watch the news -- oh yeah, but then I guess you better pay your cable bill.
]]>9/11 and Global Tolerancetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9553272011-09-08T09:11:24-04:002011-11-08T05:12:02-05:00April Salcherthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-salchert/
The anniversary of 9/11 presents an issue for me.
I guess I am suppose to feel very nationalistic on this day, mourn for those lost and wave my American flag.
However, I have a strange feeling about waving the U.S. flag on such a day. Wasn't this overly nationalistic behavior what got us to 9/11 in the first place?
Or, even more broadly, should anyone be waving any national flag?
I lived in the international college town of Uppsala University in Sweden this last year, where one could find, at times, an underlying anti-American sentiment. Broad sweeping accusations were slung at me in a flippant manner, "YOU Americans are so conservative. YOU Americans are so religious, so greedy, so ignorant, so fat, so war-hungry and so (insert generalization)."
While in line to get a beer at the bar, a casual conversation with a stranger would quickly turn into a crucifixion of my country.
I found myself against a wall of European disgust. I could not believe the opinions that were being flung at me. It was as if Fox News and Jersey Shore actually represented the entire U.S. population and I was the target of to aim all accusations. It was pointless to argue any other U.S. social perspectives and political viewpoints as most of these young Europeans had made up their minds long before I had even met them (and I'm guessing long before 9/11).
I found myself, who is not very nationalistic, defending my native land more passionately than ever before. I was not sure what bothered me more, the fact that I was being unfairly attacked or that it brought out a strong nationalistic feeling that I thought I never possessed.
It is no secret that Europeans are very nationalistic as are Americans. Where you come from can define you and stamp a certain identity, a cultural identity. With this particular identity, people are not shy to express their preferences and non-preferences regarding other cultures. I am actually surprised to hear some Europeans accuse Americans of being racists - no, I take that back, I'm not surprised - I just find the irony amusing.
I could make a list of some of the nastier things that have been said to me in the last year (let alone some of the more extreme statements that I heard while living in Korea) but I do not think that would present my point as well as looking mores specifically at one of the cultural aspects that leads to national flag waving: Language.
Here in Stockholm, most people speak English as their second language and are quite good at it. I have found, like most native English speakers living here, that I do not have to learn Swedish to live and work in Sweden. In fact, as a native English speaker, even if you try to learn Swedish, many will still want to speak English with a native English speaker.
While this may sound attractive and convenient, after a while it becomes frustrating and annoying. It is especially annoying when an expat tries to take the time to learn Swedish only to be corrected on every syllable uttered. Between that and the encouragement to speak only English, it is easy to become complacent and irritated with the idea of learning Swedish.
Meanwhile, my own language gets butchered on a daily basis. I really don't mind, nor do most native English speakers. Of course, my language does not root me in any particular land - I could be (from a non-native English speaker's perspective) from Australia, the U.K., the U.S., Canada or even another country were English is prominently spoken as a second language.
In my experience, many Europeans can be very sensitive on the topic of language and adamant about correct pronunciation. I have had some embarrassing run-ins when attempting to speak another language, "Ew, you have that American accent."
So what? I feel this "purity of language" insulting as my language is said in so many accents, my ability to adapt and understand non-native English speakers has become a phenomenon in itself. I'm thinking about getting a cape and creating a superhero outfit for some of the poorly constructed and pronounced phrases I've untangled.
However, this turns back to globalization and the "Americanizing" of everything. Some of the accusations thrown my way have been in regards to the rash of McDonald's and other American fast food chains that have spread over the world. In addition, the spread of English is also my fault. I get this feeling that people are attempting to block globalization, and cling tightly to their language, culture and reject all that is born of the U.S.A.
Part of me sympathizes, and another part thinks it is simply juvenile thinking. This idea that "this is mine, that's yours, don't touch" is what got us into 9/11 to begin with.
I most definitely am not saying that we should throw culture and nationalism out the window, but I do think international and cultural tolerance towards globalization is required in order to move farther away from further events like 9/11.
Who cares what language we speak or how we speak it as long as it is not a language speaking of war and violence? Besides, when all languages and culture are peeled away, why would we be afraid of creating a global culture?
]]>