Academic and Business Writing Course: On Writing Difficulties

photo edited by Laura Lai 

by Laura Lai/ Essay 

What are the ‘problems’ in writing? A ‘problem’ is usually a difficulty. And difficulties we may come across in all subjects of study, in all fields of activity, and in all aspects of life. This course – Academic and Business Writing, generously provided by Berkeley, University of California – considers ‘problems in writing’ the following: basic grammar problems; having trouble finding ideas to write about (getting started); organizing clearly the ideas; not having a rich vocabulary to express ideas, or others (not mentioned above). What are my strengths and weaknesses in writing from this point of view?

Simple questions are usually the most difficult to answer. There are exceptions, too. Here is one simple question that many people find easy to answer: ‘Would you marry me?’ This is a simple question, with an easy and short answer, followed by the complexity of marriage, the difficulties, and the learning of ‘being married.' So is with the language: usually, a beautiful learning journey when dealing with its complexity, a healthy and spiritual experience, and culturally enriching when learning its writing and speaking difficulties, its grammar rules, and the exceptions to the rules.

            Self-assessment is hard and I am not sure about the extent to which it is objective because there are people that are indulgent with their writing and others more severe with the way they write. In which concerns me, I objectively think that I have the least difficulty with finding a topic to write about and with the clear organization of my thoughts and arguments afterward.

            After having studied all foreign languages I know with the exercise book in one hand, and pen and pencil in the other, and after having studied four years of Political Sciences in English (mostly with American visiting professors), I do not allow myself to make ‘basic grammar’ mistakes. But, objectively speaking, everyone does. This includes native speakers, too. It usually happens when the writer is tired or had twisted the same sentence over and over that got to the meaning it wanted and skipped some easy typos. That is the reason why it is advisable that all writers leave the text aside for a while and reread it later with a pair of fresh eyes.

            Furthermore, I think I have a rich-enough vocabulary to write and speak about lots of topics in English. However, I find descriptions and literary comparisons to require an even larger vocabulary. There may be many ways to tackle this writing problem. One way I am considering is the larger exposure to the language, such as living in an English-speaking country, interacting in English, and being surrounded by the language in all its forms: written and spoken, formal and informal, local and regional expressions, etc. – all these can make writing even more precise, and it can confer it any funny dimension the writer wants to. 

But, to me, the most difficult in the process of learning English was the phrasal verbs. It is about these verbs such as ‘to call’: call for, call in, call off, call on, call out, call up and call upon. Or, the verb ‘to go’: go on, go off, go over, go round, go through, go under, go without, etc.

            What is the history of phrasal verbs in English? Who put this difficulty in the way of our beautiful language journey? Is it Shakespeare? No, it cannot be. If it were Shakespeare, they would have been a tragedy, but phrasal verbs are not, they are doable, and they are workable. It must be Thomas Paine! From here, the possible ‘pain’ to struggle dealing with phrasal verbs! J Obviously, I am joking!

            I noticed that for native speakers phrasal verbs come naturally when they speak. Therefore, it is through listening to a lot and carefully (and checking the dictionary at times) that I have gotten accustomed to most of them – those most commonly used. However, it looks like an endless process, because I still write a phrasal verb down when I hear it. I also noticed that phrasal verbs' incidence is higher in spoken English than in academically written papers. And I concluded that this may happen because their usage is more informal than formal. Anyway, phrasal verbs are a part of learning to write and speak a language and I do not neglect them.

Another difficulty in writing concerns American and British English. Personally, I would not call this a ‘problem’, because I consider not knowing the language a problem, rather than mixing some words of two countries that have a long common history. During this course, we have also been reminded that it is preferable to use American English when addressing ourselves to an American audience and to use British English when addressing ourselves to a British audience. Obviously, for Americans and for the British things are very clear which is what. For those of us who learn English as a foreign language, we only come across short lists of words written differently for the same meaning. For example, ‘lorry’ (British English) is for the American ‘truck’; or, ‘dust bin’ is ‘garbage’ in American English, etc. Fortunately, so far I only come across Americans that love to spot a word in British English and say joyfully: ‘This is British! Here we don’t fly over, but we overpass.’ In daily conversations with people, it never occurred to me to notice it as being perceived as a ‘problem’. Whether it is such a big written sin, I think it is subjectively decided by each and every person from the audience. If it were an issue, I still consider exposure to both languages (through reading, listening, and discussing) as a helping tool to improve writing from this point of view. 

To sum up, writing difficulties may differ depending on the level of the language we are in, and on whether or not we are native speakers. Despite the fact that self-assessment is hard, I consider having fewer difficulties with getting started to write and with organizing my ideas. In my English learning process, I found the phrasal verbs to be the most difficult because one change of a preposition may change the entire meaning of the sentence. For example, ‘pass by a house’ (to pass near it) and ‘pass away in a house’ (to die in it) – are very different meanings just by changing one small preposition!

            It is with passion, motivation to perfect the language learning, and great exposure to a language, such as living in an English-speaking country and interacting in English that lots of difficulties in writing English may be overcome.

 #cwp2x #edx #Berkeley #writing #amblogging #WritingBlog

Thinking about the Final Writing Project: Choice Considerations

 photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Essay 

It is said that beautiful things or happenings usually do not last long. So is with the fun of the Academic and Business Writing course. It is already the third week – some fun is gone – there are still three weeks to go – some more fun to come – and, then, the writing fun is over.

It is time to think of the final writing project. We are given time to think about how to write: academic or business style. We are given time to choose what to write: a statement of purpose, a cover letter, a movie/book review, a product review, or an essay about a social issue that is important to me. What shall I write?

This course’s professor, Dr. Sokolik, recommended we write the thing that is most appealing to us. From this point of view, the least appealing to me is the product review not necessarily because I do not have any product in mind, because if it was so, I could research a modern product and make it a review. I would practice this product review writing only for this course. And that would be it – I am not at all a good salesperson. I also do not like to be persuaded to buy something or to persuade others to buy things, because people know best their needs and their budgets. 

The first most appealing to me is the cover letter because it answers a need – my need as a job seeker. But … I do not think I will do it as a final project for the university; first, because it is just a few concise eye-catching sentences for a potential employer. Second, given my difficulties to get a job so far, I assume I will be practicing writing millions of such concise eye-catching sentences until a potential employer will contact me, if any. I do not think that I shall do that as a final paper for Berkeley. Third, I am a registered student for this course, I am interested in writing something that is at least 500 words – meaning, at least one page, one well-written page.

            This brings me to three last options – all appealing to me. It is about the statement of purpose, the movie/book review, or an essay about a personally preoccupying social issue. What is the most appealing to me of the three of them? 

Statements of purpose I wrote plenty so far. And many of them have been successful. I must have explained well my back-then academic career interest, and I must have explained well the way the further step was intertwined with the previous one, or the way a summer/winter school (or a conference) was linked to the step I was making! A statement of purpose is usually around 1000 to 1500 words (meaning two-three pages) and it sounds more appropriate for a final writing project. I could retake my Ph.D. statement of purpose.

            I remember that while I was writing my MA thesis on nationalism, I was coming across federalism as the reverse of the coin, and I was wondering if it was truly so. Then I had the chance of a one-year internship in Brussels in an organization on federalism that, in the end, proved to be a great mischance. This allowed me to understand federalism more, particularly the way Europeans were envisioning it and the way they were envisioning it in practice. I could also see the institutional supra-national dynamic getting towards a federal state just to copy the United States of America. Wondering about the theoretical fundamentals on which this new European whatever was building itself, I decided to apply for Ph.D. on this topic. I got accepted as an external student (meaning not working for the university doing research to advance the thesis) and on the Belgium educational law that allowed doctoral research as long as twelve years – still, a lot! At the end of my internship, I also got approved for a one-year non-profit book project at my initiative that was about explaining to youngsters the way European federalism looked at that moment. It was a great success, it was translated into at least ten European languages – I wrote it in English. But some youngsters from among the federalists could not mind their own business and started a war on a personal basis to fail my book project and my Ph.D. The former was a success, but for the latter, I got tired of working days and studying nights, especially since they were having lots of friends that they all had to pursue – from the social position they were – the personal war in which some engaged. And I was receiving letters to go there, to answer that, to come, to go, to interrupt yourself, to queue there, to stress, to tire, to exhaust and, in the end, to leave – which I did. I left convinced that I had to deal with a bunch of mean and stupid people – all of them with connections, but none of them with Ph.D. ambitions. But writing such a Ph.D. statement of purpose would bring back bad memories. Is it worth scratching on the old wound when I am having so much fun with this course on Academic and Business Writing? No! Absolutely not!

The movie/book review as well as the essay can stand for a final writing paper that is beautiful, culturally enriching and that does not bring back any kind of bad memories. Furthermore, in terms of length, they both can be 500 words – the essay even more. On one page, one can write a text that can be specific, can be formal, and in the right tone and the student can practice English, both vocabulary and grammar. It can count for a final writing paper for Berkeley, University of California. And they are both appealing to me.

            If Dr. Sokolik would be in front of me waiting for an answer today – even now! - on the topic I would choose for the final project, I would say that I take the movie review. First, because all my life I have been a movie lover – I love the way this art tells a story! As a child I could not know that behind the cinema way of telling a story, somebody writes it – I found out that later. And I love it. Second, I started reviewing for the ‘review' section of my Writing Blog old movies. I first check on Wikipedia for the most representative movies for a certain year, then I check on the American Film Academy’s website for the awarded ones, and, last, I check on YouTube those I can find. Sometimes I find also those rewarded, sometimes I only find those that was a public success. I review them adding a personal note – since it is for my blog. For example, I once came out with creative writing from a combination of Donald Trump’s visit to the Air Force graduation ceremony and the Top Gun movie. J

This Academic and Business Writing course is an opportunity to research more on the way to academically write a movie review and to continue my series of old movie reviews – that is now at the movies made in 1935, therefore awarded by the American Film Academy in 1936. It is a writing choice that is appealing to me. And so is the essay, but I do not have any topic that preoccupies my mind. What topics preoccupy you? I do not promise to develop it for the final writing paper, but I may develop it while I practice essay writing for my Writing Blog. At least, I would be happy to give it a try.

#cwp2x #writing #filmreview

Academic and Business Writing. Optional Pop-Up 2: Grammar and Vocabulary like Horse and Carriage

picture edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Essay

All language learning is about vocabulary and grammar. And these two, when learning a language, are like horse and carriage – you cannot have one without the other. When writing, spelling and grammar mistakes accompany the writer. This occurs also when the writer is more focused on the flow of ideas or the unfolding of the arguments, particularly when they unfold over several pages. It does not mean at all that the writer disconsiders the importance of grammar. Still, how important should grammar be?

Before attempting to give an answer, the first logical question is: what is grammar? Whose relevance are we approaching here? By ‘grammar’ it is meant ‘morphology’ – meaning the way words change, when verbs are conjugated or nouns decline in some languages, for example – and ‘syntax’ – meaning the way words are combined to form sentences and phrases.

Hommo sapiens sapiens use language to communicate, meaning words, and usually spoken words. Those of us who do not have a voice (like those who are deaf and dumb) use their hands and bodies to communicate. These are words expressed through gestures. Similarly to spoken language, one gesture may mean one word or may have several meanings. But knowing the signs for each word does not mean that the interpreter is communicating anything. By simply putting into signs every word the interpreter hears with the grammar it hears, does not mean that the interpreter is communicating. The sent message does not reach the receiver. The receiver can only recognize the signs for a word, such as the sign for ‘vaccine’ and guess that the interpreter may be ‘speaking’ about ‘vaccines’, but what the interpreter says about vaccines – meaning the message to be communicated – does not pass through because sign language has its own ‘unwritten’ grammar. The way to put the words into sign language is by practicing with ‘native speakers’, meaning with deaf that use this language. The message is understood when the deaf understands what it is told about exactly as we understand when we are spoken to.

But when we are spoken to, we may hear sentences such as: ‘Rome was not built in a day’, ‘Jane and Tom did London in one day.’ Both these sentences are short, correct, and all words are clear. What is it that we do not understand? We do not understand the way Jane and Tom could do London in one day. The meaning of the words becomes clearer if one knows all or most of the meanings of one word (or those we regularly use) – in this case, of the verb ‘to do’. Its sense is ‘to visit’ not to build London in one day. All words of a language constitute its vocabulary The dictionary is a book or, newly, an electronic device that has an inventory of all words in a language ordered alphabetically. 

Therefore, if both grammar and vocabulary are important, how can we balance the desire to write interesting, meaningful ideas with the need to be grammatically correct? The answer depends a lot on several factors. It depends on whether or not the writer writes in its native language. Then, the syntax should not be so problematic, and the spelling mistakes can be easily corrected by the computer. But when the writer writes in English as a foreign language, to be ‘grammatically correct’ depends first on the level of English. When the level is advanced, the writer does not make morphological mistakes (it theoretically knows the way a word becomes an adjective or an adverb, or makes an agreement between verb and subject).

            But even when the level is advanced, it is possible (actually, very possible) for the writer to make syntax mistakes. It seems that each language has its syntax, with the German language having the most particular one. German syntax requires that in a subordinate clause, the verb stays at the end of the sentence. Another particularity of this language is constituted by the so-called verbs with prefixes. When conjugated, the prefix and the verb separate, and the prefix is placed after the verb (for example, the verb ‘aufstehen’ (to wake up) is conjugated in the present tense as ‘ich stehe auf’). It is rightly assumed that syntax gets more challenging if one has a subordinate clause, with a verb with a prefix, and in a composed tense. These challenges are part of the beauty of studying a language even if making mistakes is unpleasant. A mistake becomes annoying only when it constantly repeats itself. And it is, humanly, forgiven when the mistake has never been explained and the writer persists in this ‘unknown’ mistake.

Besides the German language that has these syntax rules – that are not difficult to understand logically – the other languages that most of us currently use (such as English, for example) do not have complicated syntax rules, but each language has its own syntax rules. However, the fact that the writer writes in English as a foreign language when daily uses another language, with another syntax, can influence the way the writer writes in English. When the writer speaks several languages and is familiar with several syntax rules, it may get more challenging.

            On the way to balance the logical flow of meaningful ideas and grammatical correctness, there are no rules. Exposure to the language in which the writer wants to write is the most important. Being surrounded by English when the writer wants to write in English increases vocabulary, increases capacity to think in English, and, consequently, the capacity to write syntactically correct sentences.

            And speaking of correct sentences, is the following sentence syntactically correct: ‘Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary?' Before anybody would think that it might have been written by a writer writing in English as a foreign language, it shall be mentioned that this hypothesis is ruled out. This is actually an art in a sentence! It is a rhetorical device called ‘hyperbaton’ – meaning a change from the ordinary syntax nature. How many of the writers writing in English as a foreign language would have the courage to use a hyperbaton with the risk to be called … all kinds of linguistically incompetent names?

In conclusion, although two times a 'sapiens' (a word that comes from Latin, sapientia means 'knowledge,' 'wisdom') when learning a language is about learning its vocabulary and its grammar. They both rely on each other so that the spoken message reaches its receivers. Vocabulary needs grammar and grammar uses words. In writing, spelling and grammar mistakes may occur, especially when the writer writes in a foreign language and it is firstly more preoccupied with the flaw of its meaningful ideas. It is at the second reading that the spelling and grammar mistakes can be corrected and the overall quality of the text improved. But when the writer makes grammar mistakes it is not because it is an idiot - it may speak more language than the accuser does. It may also be the fact that it was not sufficiently exposed to the language in which it is writing, or it may be doing it on purpose making a written art from a change in the syntax of a sentence.

#cwp2x #writing #essay #amblogging

Plotter or Pantser? This is the Question!

 ©Laura Lai - my first edited photo!

by Laura Lai/ Essay

As many writers, so many writing processes – this is what the AWC’s article reconfirmed to me. Conducting its research on twenty authors, the short study revealed who prefers to plot in advance the story and who does not (pantser), as well as some of the reasons why they prefer to do so. Plotter or pantser – This is the question!

On the one side are the plotters. The plotter is the author that has an idea of a story, prepares a structure, and knows what happens next in the story and the way the story ends. It prepares a synopsis and sticks to it. For some authors, plotting is the only way (Laura Greaves). The arguments are different from author to author: plotting helps some authors to see their books coming together quicker (Dr. Kim Wilkins), or the need to have a planned structure for a novel-length project (Gary Kemble), and sometimes is the background, such as the screenwriting one, that taught on the importance of having a structure first (Margret Morgan).

On the other side are those authors who call themselves ‘definitely a pantser’ (Tamsin Janu), ‘ultimate pantser’ (Natasha Lester), ‘absolute pantser’ (Sandie Docker), or ‘fundamentally a pantser’ (Lisa Jewell). It is hard not to notice the determination in the answer of all these authors! There are authors who tried to be a pantser, but the call of the plotting voice was stronger. Others used to be pantser, but after being published turned to plotting. Some authors combine both plot and no-plot. For example, Ben Hobson who considers himself only a 90 percent pantser, Carole Wilkinson plots some parts, and Gabrielle Tozer who has at least the beginning prepared. Therefore, the pantser is the author who enjoys the freedom of writing, who let the story take her/him, while s/he enjoys the writing adventure.

Am I a plotter or a pantser? – Good question! I love different writing experiences. For essays, comments, and reviews, as well as humorous sketches I do not plan, but I think before I switch on my computer and start writing. Sometimes I need to research first (watch a movie before the review, read an article, etc.) and I take notes (names, dates, etc.) that accompany me while I am writing.

When it comes to political plays, from the moment I have the idea of a story to the moment I sit and start writing, there are several months I think of the story. The actual writing does not take too long, but the thinking of it takes months. And I think all the time: when I walk, drink my coffee, cook, or do the dishes. From the moment I pick up a topic, there is a thought that constantly preoccupies my mind.

I first make a large research on the topic that only 25-30 percent will show in the play. It is during the research that the story unfolds well in my mind. By the time I start writing, the story is already in my head. I settle on a premise that is unchangeable, but only a general structure (based on drama rules) that is in my mind. I write down words, timetables, and other issues that are relevant and I do not want to omit them. A very detailed outline and concrete synopsis – that I tried – makes me feel preventing new great ideas from sparking anytime during the writing process – and ideas I love. Writing drama is writing dialogue and dialogue is for me more spontaneous, more of a pantser-type, although a certain unfolding plan is ‘imposed’ by the drama rules.

First and foremost, I love the incredible feeling that writing gives. That is the reason why since very young I tried to make time to write some humorous sketches – when one has school and homework, time is limited. Life arranged itself in such a way that later I could research and write all day long. I cannot possibly know how long this divine treat will still last. As it is still given, I make the best use of this time and I am grateful for the joy - a particular type of joy that all authors – plotters or pantser – definitely feel.

Who’s the MAN in the post – HuMANitarian Crisis at the U.S. Southern Border?

by Laura Lai/ Essay

This month last year I was asking myself in a blog essay: ‘Who’s the MAN in the [southern border] HuMANitarian crisis? (to read the article click here). Although I answered my question in that essay, now I am asking myself: ‘Who’s the MAN in the post – Humanitarian crisis? I am wondering if it is still the same person… 

            The U.S. Southern border with Mexico is mainly a Normandy-barrier border meant to stop vehicles from illegally crossing into the United States. It definitely cannot stop drug smugglers, human traffickers and illegal migrants. Although this border has been illegally crossed for many decades, it is starting with 2018 that the number of crossings became growing overwhelmingly. The month of May 2019 was the third consecutive month topping 100,000 apprehensions. And it was for the first time since polls were made that 23 percent of the Americans were naming illegal immigration among the threats to the national security.

            The constantly growing number of illegal crossings had also several other implications: an overburdened Border Patrol, overstretched services and overcrowded facilities. Furthermore, many of the illegal migrants were posing as false families – kidnapping, buying, using or re-using other people’s children – in order to benefit from laws that favor families with children. According to the law, an adult with a child cannot be held in custody for more than a couple of days; then they are released into the United States and they never show up at the court hearing for asylum. What happens to the children after the ‘false family’ adult gets into the United States? Some of them are recuperated on the way, but obviously, they are a tremendously vulnerable category of people.

            It is in this context that the U.S. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency situation at the southern border and asked the Congress to approve a $4,6 billion for humanitarian aid and border assistance. The reasons for constant delays in getting through this crisis were several: the American political system and the Democrat majority in the House of the Congress; Democrats’ preoccupation to impeach the president; their doubts that this fabulous sum of money would be used for the wall-building rather than for humanitarian and border assistance; their reluctance to accept the existence of the crisis itself, and so on. However, it was on 2^nd July 2019 that Donald Trump signed the $4,6 billion in humanitarian aid and border assistance prizing the bi-partisan victory. Therefore, the ‘man’ in the humanitarian crisis was the one constantly accused of being lacked of compassion, but actually having acted with compassion in working out this crisis: the U.S. President himself. If ‘man’ were spelled at plural as ‘men’, then the ‘men’ in the ‘humenitarian’ crisis were definitely also the Border Patrol officers, who kept doing their jobs the best they could amid politicians’ fights, and the Church organizations, which faced and helped this humanitarian crisis with little dons and great divine strength and inspiration.

Trump Administration’s approach to this migration crisis was holistic. Internally, it fought on two fronts: on the one side, to convince the U.S. Congress to approve the aid, and on the other side to change the immigration laws and the asylum system. Externally, it worked closely with the Mexican President Lopez Obrador, whose collaboration and commitment to respect Mexico’s part of the deal, played a major role in decreasing the number of illegal crossing (and, implicitly, of the sufferance (of kidnappings, of traffickers, of raping, etc.) that goes with it).  I am wondering: ‘Who’s the MAN in the post – Humanitarian Southern Border Crisis?’

            A significant decline in apprehensions was evident in the months that followed the crisis, with September 2019 at its lowest point (52,000) and October (42,000). The month of November was the sixth consecutive month when the illegal apprehensions dropped. In December the illegal crossings were 32,858 (of whom two-thirds were adults and 10 percent unaccompanied children) in comparison to the May-peak with 132,887 apprehensions, or in comparison to the 170,000 unaccompanied children that surrendered at the border, of whom more than 50 percent were under the age of 12. Although a clashing point between the Democrats and Republicans, the Border Patrol officers name firstly the building of the border wall between the United States and Mexico with spyware technology as a main factor to decrease the illegal crossings, human smuggling and assaults on the border officers. In June it was reported that other 200 miles of the border wall were built – on pace to build the 400 miles by the end of the year. And positive statistical results came with it: general illegal crossings are down to 84% from this time last year, while illegal crossings from Central America are down to 97% from this time last year; and 450,000 pounds of drugs were seized by the border officers.

These numbers translate a less burdened Border Patrol, less stretched services and less crowded facilities. And since October 2019, the Border Patrol officers have more time to conduct DNA testing that were dramatically expended, in order to identify the false families. This resulted in the identification of 238 false families and 50 adults posing as minors; other 350 people are prosecuted for false statements, illegal entry and other felonies. The illegal migrant crossings from 2019 showed that many women were raped on the way to the border and all girls above 10 years old were given pregnancy tests, let alone the illegal drugs that cost lives or put at risk youngsters and the society in general. These statistical results translate a higher number of safer children and women from dangerous and merciless gangs and traffickers.

The President of Mexico Andres Obrador paid recently a historic working visit to the White House to discuss trade, health, immigration and other issues of mutual concern. It is on this occasion that the U.S. President Donald Trump publicly declared:

 ‘I want to thank Mexico because Mexico is doing a lot right now; they have almost 20,000 soldiers between the two borders. They have 6,000 on their southern border by Guatemala. And they have about . . . 16,000 at our southern border.’

The common efforts caused a drop of illegal apprehensions from 132,856 last May to 21,475 in May 2020, but what the U.S. President Donald Trump seems to say is that he acknowledges the President of Mexico to be the ‘man’ in the post –humanitarian crisis at the border between the United States and Mexico. And dinner at the White House was included in the program in the honor of the President of Mexico.

REFERENCES:

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1182363303722569729

https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/17/ice-cbp-migrants-family-status/ 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-acting-cbp-commissioner-mark-morgan-2/?utm_source=ods&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1600d 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-court-ruling-allowing-construction-of 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/illegal-border-crossings-in-december-dropped-sharply-from-peak-in-may

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/illegal-immigrant-crossings-fall-78-once-overcrowded-cells-are-empty

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/new-border-wall-blocks-90-of-illegal-crossings-up-from-just-10

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/dhs-warns-150-000-immigrants-from-72-coronavirus-nations-at-border

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/10/trumps-decision-to-end-catch-and-release-stops-the/

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1275505341493579777

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-and-lopez-obrador-will-talk-long-term-solution-to-illegal-immigration

Black Lives Matter. Do the Statues Matter? (I)

by Laura Lai/Essay

The struggle of the Afro-American people is a long struggle for inclusion in the American nation-building process. The Afro-Americans are black people brought from different African countries to serve as slaves starting with the 17^th century until slavery was abolished in the 19^th century – following a several years-long Civil War between the Northern American states that were slavery abolitionists and the Southern American states.

            At the very beginning neither the Blacks nor the indigenous Indian Americans were considered persons [Last year when I was a Drama Writing student, I wrote a fictive dialogue for my class inspired from a real story of an Indian American, ‘The Standing Bear – The Person’ that I posted on this blog and that you can read here.]. When slavery was abolished, their struggle entered new phases: the fight for the right to vote and the fight against segregation. After long but victorious fights, America elected also an Afro-American President. The fact that an Afro-American man, but no woman – be her white, was elected as U.S. President is the climax of a long and victorious fight to be recognized as a person, as a free citizen and with the right to vote. Under Trump Administration, statistics show that the Afro-American employment rate is historically high. The recent tragic death of the Afro-American George Floyd killed by white policemen shows first and foremost that mentalities are the hardest to change. The tragic death of George Floyd initiated a world movement that gathers all races from around the globe: ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement.

It is within this world movement that protesters asked for the bringing down of statues of imperialists and colonialists. Black lives definitely matter, but this essay wants also to have a look at the controversy around the removal of controversial statues around the world.

‘Afro-Americans suffer perhaps the greatest injustices of all ethno cultural groups, both in terms of their historical mistreatment and their current plight’, wrote Prof. Will Kymlicka in his book ‘Can Liberal Pluralism Be Exported?’ (Oxford University Press, 2001:47). When I was a MA Political Science student and researching on the topic of nationalism, I had the great chance of a summer school scholarship in Budapest and the great honor to meet the Canadian Prof. Will Kymlicka (from Queen’s University) and be his student for couple of weeks. And ever since I subscribe to the observations made by others (some of them teachers themselves) who told me before that great professors are ‘simple’ and ‘approachable’. And so it is! – as they do not have any reasons to use arrogance to talk down and to behave unapproachable, in order to cover knowledge gaps.

            In his attempt to answer whether or not the Western liberal pluralism can be exported to Eastern Europe, Prof. Kymlicka had first identified several ethno cultural groups: national minorities, immigrants, ethno religious groups, metics (illegal immigrants) and the Afro-American people. And from these five culturally different groups, the Afro-Americans constitute the category who ‘suffers the greatest injustices’ of all. Afro-Americans have no longer any other country but the United States and they do not speak any of the African languages, but English – and the language is the most important tool of integration into the majority nation-building. However, they were ‘prevented rather than encouraged from integrating into the institutions of the majority culture’ (Kymlicka, 2001:46). And federalism – that was the topic of my PhD research that I did not have the financial means to finish, or maybe it was neither the place or the time according to the Devine Grace – is usually seen as a ‘panacea’ of multicultural accommodation complexities. The European federalists definitely see it that way and they consider the American federalism as ‘a united in diversity’ inspiration for the creation of the United States of Europe. Prof. Kymlicka himself points on the advantages of the federal system given its self-governing defining element, but the denial of including the Afro-American in the nation-building shows that American federalism is a territorial federalism – meant to organize a large and diverse territory, rather than to accommodate a racial diverse population. Kymlicka reminds that American states had first to outnumber all minorities. Basically, in the American nation-building process, the Afro-Americans were denied participation in the nation-building.

‘The costs of allowing such a subculture to arise are enormous, both for the Blacks themselves, who are condemned to lives of poverty, marginalization and violence, and for the society at large, in terms of waste of human potential, and the escalation of racial conflict’ (Kymlicka, 2001:47).

(to be continued below)

Black Lives Matter. Do the Statues Matter? (II)

by Laura Lai/Essay

I cannot agree more with Prof. Kymlicka that it would be moral to introduced reforms in order to prevent such problems for the whole society. Besides, the Blacks are American English-speaking people with great human and intellectual potential – lots of talented people in many fields are Black – that is a great waste for the society as a whole to continue preventing them integrating and keeping them at the edge of poverty. Some reforms introduced by the current Trump Administration to support Black Colleges and Universities, as well as economic reforms that show the greatest employment rate among Afro-Americans, as well as Latin-Americans; reforms to protect the indigenous people showed some progressive steps in the recognition and integration struggle.

But the tragic death of the Afro-American George Floyd brought up all the injustice so far and the police brutality. The Blacks argue that such brutality happens regularly and we all heard of judicial errors through which Black people served tens of years in prison without being guilty. If that would be a matter of individual choice, I place myself on that side, who prefers an innocent good Black person walking freely and I would definitely feel very insecure to know that a white murderer is walking freely around.

Obviously the tragic death of George Floyd was like the drop that filled up a deep glass of long injustices and discriminations. The protests are a democratic right. People have the democratic right to voice their demands, but the violence – with which I fully disagree and that I also do not understand, because Black people’s shops were also vandalized – shows the anger and the frustration accumulated all these years. Some protesters’ anger and frustration directed towards some statues that they pulled down by themselves (ex. the statue of a slave trader pulled down and thrown in the river Thames in London) or asked to be removed (ex. anti-racists protests in Oxford). There is also a third case – that of New Zealand – in which the local council decided to remove the statue of the British naval officer John Hamilton, known also as a racist and imperialist. Such demands were formulated by protesters not only in the United States and the United Kingdom, but also in France and Belgium – and maybe in other parts of the world I do not know about.

The debate surrounding the pulling down of the statues (and what to do with them if removed) was a heated debate. Is that deleting culture? Is that deleting history? Do all statues need a reassessment? What to do with those controversial after removal? Shall we melt them? Or maybe shall a Museum of Racism be created the same way as Museums of Holocaust or Museums of Communism were made?

An overwhelming majority of those I have heard agreed with the protests and condemned the violence. Some people questioned also the right to protest amid COVID-19 pandemic when there are laws demanding social distancing, wearing masks and that do not allow large crowds of people – rules broken everywhere where anti-racist protests took place. These people are not anti-protesters, but their worry is justified by the quick spread of the virus that may put everybody at risk, cancel all progress made during the lockdown and put more pressure on the already overcrowded hospitals and overburdened medical staff. As the virus does not distinguish among races or any other category of people, and as there is no vaccine against it yet, protesters showed lots of courage in front of the virus, putting their lives in danger, too. This shows that they were strongly motivated to make their anti-racist voices heard. Is the removal of some controversial statues like deleting history or deleting culture?

A statue is a monument that represents the carved figure of a person, who at some point in history played a significant role in literature, music, politics, etc. A research undertaken by the University of Otago (New Zealand) that studied 123 statues concluded that one in four statues is vandalized and that is usually the statues of royalties, politicians, army officials (ex. the statue of King George V in Matakana was decapitated five times). Professor Nick Wilson, said:

 

    ‘These attacks are quite clearly driven by issues around colonization, and also militarism. 

    People are attacking these statues because of past injustices.’

 

Therefore, the argument advanced by some people – maybe slightly hesitant about whether or not to remove these statues – that X or Y (whose statue was asked to be removed) was also a philanthropist does not count for the protesters. To be honest, such an argument does not count for me either. According to the same Holly Bible we all know and those philanthropist were familiar with, one must share from the little it has worked for; if one does not earn anything has nothing to share and there is nothing to blame. I have all due respect for philanthropists who share from what they earned (as computer inventors/devices that we all use, as sportsmen, etc.), but I do not call a philanthropist a person who shares a wealth made on others’ sufferings. (to be continued below)

 

Black Lives Matter. Do the Statues Matter? (III)

by Laura Lai/Essay

 

According to the results of Prof. Nick Wilson these attacks against statues are not a novelty with the Black Lives Matter movement, but they have been existing since the 1930s. Although he relates this aggressively attitude with the past injustices, it may also be the fact that some segments of the population may feel offended to pass by ‘carved’ representations of a political or military historical figure that did not treat their keens fairly. During the debate around the controversial statues there were also a parallel made with the nazi Germany and the reasons why there are no statues of the leader of the Nationalist-Socialist Party in Germany, Adolf Hitler. For the same reasons there are no statues of communist leaders in Eastern Europe or for the same reasons there are not statues of Saddam Hussein, etc.

There are documentaries in which young Germans from poor families were helped by the Nationalist-Socialist Party to go school, to have a meal without knowing that later there would be asked to enroll in the army. There may also be people remembering the urbanization that Ceausescu (Romanian dictator) did, or others praising the way a dictator like S. Hussein kept a religiously diverse country together. Furthermore, the Oxford Dictionary explains that a statue is a ‘sculpture’, ‘figure’, ‘effigy’, ‘statuette’, ‘figurine’, ‘idol’. Therefore, there is no room for such ‘idols’ in a democracy. A statue of Adolf Hitler would not only remind the past injustices, but it would also be disrespectful towards the victims and those who survived. The Blacks are by no means different: besides the long period of historical injustice, then the long struggle for rights and integration, they also have to pass daily by carved representations of some people that did their ancestors lots of harm by enslaving them and God knows what other atrocities.

And once removed what shall we do with them? If there is something I truly love about democracy are the freedom to express our ideas and their free circulation. Sometimes there are so many ideas as heads are. I would not place my opinion to the extreme of melting them, for example, because that would mean to delete culture – in a way. Whatever carved figure it had been done by artists, usually talented ones. Therefore, melting a controversial statue would mean to delete the cultural work of an artist – definitely hard work, more or less paid. Besides, there are documentaries, pictures, artifacts, etc. from different dictatorial times since the Roman Empire. They are part of history. Nobody can delete or change history. History must be remembered in order not to repeat the same mistakes again. Colonialism is a historical time period in the colonial powers’ history, as well as in the history of the colonies. All the removed controversial statues can be placed in a history museum or in a museum of racism as some suggested. In which concerns the question of with what/whom to be replaced, I am convinced that people do not lack ideas and suggestions.

In conclusion, the struggle of the Afro-American people is a long struggle for being recognized as a person, then as a citizen with the right to vote and a struggle for integration in the majority nation-building process, as they do not have any country but the United States and they do not speak any other language but the majority language that is English. The tragic death of the Afro-American George Floyd brought up the injustices and the discriminations that the Black community had to bare so far. The participation of all races to the Black Lives Matter protests all around the world ignoring even the dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic (when there is not vaccine yet) shows a world solidarity for the Black community. It also shows that a great deal of people do not agree with the idea of ‘race superiority’. I do not even understand it: Let us only remember that the doctrine of the Nationalist-Socialist Party was based on ‘race superiority’. And in the name of the ‘race superiority’ doctrine a nazi government made of white people killed Jews… who were also white! Logically, it is a nonsense, unless it was just an excuse to kill innocent people, because we are all (regardless of age, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation) innocent until proved guilty. But the American judicial system has some unfortunate examples of Black people who served many years in prison although innocent. Black Lives Matter world movement is a collective voicing that this is not the society we aspire to and a public demand for a change.

Many protesters asked the removal of controversial statues and some local councils started removing them (in Hamilton (New Zealand), in Oxford (UK) the statue of Cecil Rhodes). History can never be outdated. It must definitely be remembered so that the same mistakes not to be repeated again. That is the reason why a decision to melt the statues would mean to delete the hard work of artists and would mean deleting culture. But their relocation to a national history museums or a newly created museum of racism – as some suggested – would make history remembered and culture not deleted. As for what to replace them with, there are no worries that the world lacks ideas. Democracy encourages the free expression of ideas and their free circulation until better choices are made. An assessment of all the controversial ones is necessary as those glorifying racism do not correspond anymore to the values of the current multicultural societies we have become and that we aspire to by constantly improving together. (the end)

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

― ‘Statement from the University on Anti-Racism’. June 15^th, 2020. Website.  http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-15-statement-university-anti-racism

Anderson, Charles. ‘City of Hamilton in New Zealand Removes Statue of British Naval Captain’. The Guardian. June 11^th, 2020. Website. https://www.msn.com/en-xl/australasia/australasia-top-stories/city-of-hamilton-in-new-zealand-removes-statue-of-british-naval-captain/ar-BB15nBsu?li=BBKxOg5&ocid=mailsignout#image=BB14RQOP|93

Bond, Jordan. ‘Statues of historical and political figures more likely to be vandalised – Study’. RNZ. June 17^th, 2020. Website.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/419192/statues-of-historical-and-political-figures-more-likely-to-be-vandalised-study

Cruse, Ellena. ‘Two Women Arrested after Statue of British Explorer James Cook Vandalized in Sydney’. EveningStandard. June 15^th, 2020. Website. https://www.msn.com/en-xl/australasia/top-stories/two-women-arrested-after-statue-of-british-explorer-james-cook-vandalised-in-sydney/ar-BB15sSIR?ocid=mailsignout

Kymlicka, Will and Opalski, Magda (eds.). Can Liberal Pluralism Be Exported? Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Osborne, Samuel. ‘Cecil Rhodes: Oxford University to Remove Statue of Imperialist after Anti-Racism Protests’. The Independent. June 18^th, 2020.  Website. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rhodes-statue-down-oxford-university-black-lives-matter-a9571896.html

Radio LBC on https://www.globalplayer.com/live/lbc/uk/

Reflection on the Protests against Pandemic Lockdown

by Laura Lai/ Essay

At the end of February and beginning of March 2020 almost all governments decided on a lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic with the precise purpose of slowing down the spread of the virus. Basically, from one day to another, shops got closed, businesses went bankrupt, people got jobless and almost all of us forced by this new and sudden circumstance to adapt to a new indoor reality. Mid May 2020 is the period of global lockdown ease with lots of people around the globe protesting against governments for having been taken away the liberties for which people have been fighting for centuries. Theoretically can democratic governments do that?

This short analysis does not challenge the existence of the virus, but it starts from the assumption that it exists; and this analysis applies to the liberal democracies, whose democratically legitimized governments are – more or less directly – ‘accused’ of ‘tyranny’ for having temporarily put on hold citizens’ liberties.

Political theory, particularly Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in his ‘Second Treaty on Government’ make a distinction between a ‘state of nature’ governed by reason as given by God and the ‘state of law’ governed by authorities according to laws.

            There is no question that all individuals are born free and with the ‘inalienable right’ to enjoy all rights they have in the state of nature, meaning: to enjoy their own life, liberty, property, as well as the right to oppose those who want to hurt them or deprive them of their right to enjoy life, liberty, property, etc. Therefore, in a state of nature, the individual can take the law in its own hands and be himself a judge. That is the reason why it is considered that the individuals in a state of nature are equal – because they can judge and punish by themselves.

            But even in a state of nature nobody is allowed to harm anybody, because each individual is a creation of God that gives life, that allows each individual to live as long as He wants and for a purpose He has. And if the state of nature is governed by reason given by God, it makes sense that, even in the state of nature where there is no other authority but God, nobody is entitled to hurt the life, health, property of somebody else, because he who does that goes against the Will of God. Even in the state of nature, reason tells that each individual should preserve itself and should preserve humanity in general.

            However, every time when there is a smaller or larger group of people there are usually interests. Then, the divine reason is darkened by passion, selfishness, revenge, interests, ambition, etc. The biblical story of Cain and Abel is an unfortunate example of state of nature, when reason is darkened by envy – a story that shows that one of the worse things in an individual is the envy for somebody else’s wealth, success, potential, prospects, beauty, etc. and when it gets stronger than reason it can lead to murder among brothers.

The ‘state of law’ refers to the organization of the ‘civil society’ or the ‘political society’. Nowadays, even the term ‘society’ has different meanings, particularly when referring to ‘Lawyers’ Society’, ‘Writers’ Society’, etc., but they all refer to a group of people hierarchically organized and all of them hierarchically organized in the larger society. Purely theoretical a married couple is a small society, a family is also sociologically considered a small society. And we all make the whole big ‘political’ or ‘civil’ society – at John Locke, at least, the terms of civil and political society are used as synonyms although nowadays we make a distinction between the two.

            Theoretically, each individual has left the state of nature and entered the state of law, when it consented to allow institutions to organize its life according to laws we agree upon. And when the society disagrees with certain laws, it has the right to protest and even to change governments. We all left the state of nature, when we became or when we formed a country. On the other hand, individuals have also the right to flee a country in their inalienable right to pursue their own happiness and to choose to live within a society that responds better the individual needs it has, because individuals are different, needs are different, opinions are different and so are societies – differently organized although all democratic.

            The point is that each individual left the state of nature and theoretically entered the state of law when we all created ‘the society’ – an organized entity and we authorized some people to make laws, to take decisions and to judge the disputes. In the state of law – at least theoretically – nobody is exempted by the law, we are all still equal, but in front of law, and we are all expected to participate at the exercise of the law (ex. the police spreading protesters not respecting the rules on social distancing and mask wearing because of the COVID-19 pandemic).

Therefore, governments are born from individuals’ common consent, so that we can govern ourselves according to common laws for our common peace and protection that we are deprived of in a state of nature. The concept of ‘liberty’ does not mean ‘complete permission’. Not even democratic governments have unlimited power, but their powers are limited by the theoretical aim of government that is to preserve the live, health, property of each individual of the society. It is said that in a state of law nobody should have the right to destroy rights such as life and health of itself or that of humanity, unless that person has a higher or more noble purpose than that of individual and humanity' preservation.

            There are most probably no laws about how should a government do in case of a pandemic. However, the political theory suggest that in the state of law each individual has previously given this prerogative to the governments to take decisions for preservation and for the, general, public good when we entered the state of law. Governments around the world thought that a temporary and different form of organization – ‘the lockdown’ – should be the best decision to slow down the spread of the virus for all individuals’ preservation.

Easter Confession. HAPPY EASTER!!!

photo by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Essay

This week is, for some of us, the Holly Week. For some of us, Easter will be celebrated this Sunday. And I am one of those. It is usually a week of prayer, and on Saturday at midnight we light our candle in church and pass the light to each other. This light is brought every year on Saturday from Jerusalem so that at midnight we can take it from church and bring it to our houses.

This pandemic that we definitely need to survive is theoretically called ‘virus’, but in practice is an invisible killer. Measures have been taken: on the one side, the laic state wants us all in houses and banned all gatherings (including the Church ones). On the other side, the Institution of the Orthodox Church understood the importance of these measures, respects these measures and there will be no gatherings in church. However, it is hard for the Church – and this is easy to understand – to see itself prevented by a damn pandemic to bring the light from Jerusalem and pass this light to the believers, as it traditionally does. Therefore, the laic state will allow people to get out in front of their houses and wait for the Church volunteers to bring the light from church. At first sight, it looks like the laic state and the Church have worked out this issue for the Easter night.

But I am not convinced that it is so. This pandemic looks more ‘snak(e)y’ to be worked out so easily. To me, it looks more like this damn pandemic has used the weaknesses of both the State and the Church to continue this Easter tradition, so that it can reach its goal of increasing the death toll.

            In concrete terms, what the State and Church have done looks as follows: if we are allowed in front of our block of flats (because many of us do not leave in a house or a villa) it means at least 20 people waiting for the Church volunteers to bring the light, volunteers that have seen other groups of people and to whom they passed the light. Furthermore, when we, the believers, take this light we traditionally say ‘Jesus has arisen!’ and the other one replies ‘It’s true! He has arisen’. If each of us stretches the arm, we may take the light from 1,5 – 2 meters social distance, but are we all going to pay attention without exception? Gatherings and small conversations are sufficient elements for this damn pandemic to increase its death toll.

It is up to each believer’s conscious to do what it thinks is right in the Easter night. I am also a believer in God. Easter is my favorite holiday. I wait for Easter with an emotion hard to describe. Spring is my favorite season. I love seeing the trees in spring and to hear the birds joyfully singing in trees! For my mother, Easter is also a special holidays, because it is on the 1^st day of Easter that she has given birth to me. Thanks God that I was born healthy. It is through Divine Grace that God gave me LIFE. And like all of us, I also was not born with a candle in my hand. But ALIVE and HEALTHY!

            Therefore, I believe I have a responsibility to protect the LIFE that God has given me. In so far, I have not smoked or drunk and I have moderate eaten. For Easter during this pandemic I will also do what my conscious tells me to do. I will leave this damn pandemic to win this Easter battle, so that I can win the war: to enjoy as many Easters as I am given by God, to go to church many more times that I skipped during the pandemic, to light as many candles as I want afterwards, and on Easter, not only to receive a light from a Church volunteer that has it from Jerusalem, but to be able myself to go to Jerusalem and light a candle!

I personally stood strong like a rock in front of strong winds and heavy rains that wanted me shaped in a way or another I dislike. This pandemic is just like one of those winds and rains. But if we stay strong like a rock, this pandemic wind will blow less and less strongly until it will cease. The rain will stop, too. There will be sunshine and many

HAPPY & HEALTHY EASTERS AHEAD!!!