Quote of the Day

Ok, I get "Quotes of the Day" on Google all the time, and some of them are brilliant. I just figured that it was a waste to just look at these awesome quotes once and forget about them. I don't really know what else to do with them, so I'm just going to post the quotes here.

So quotes for January 11
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
The scientific name for an animal that doesn't either run from or fight its enemies is lunch.
- Michael Friedman
Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
- H. L. Mencken

January 12
Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday. - Don Marquis
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club. - Jack London

January 15
I can't understand why a person will take a year to write a novel when he can easily buy one for a few dollars. - Fred Allen
The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning. - Sir Winston Churchill
A nation is a society united by delusions about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbors. - William Ralph Inge

January 17
If nobody spoke unless he had something to say, the human race would very soon lose the use of speech. - W. Somerset Maugham
I don't have an English accent because this is what English sounds like when spoken properly. - James Carr
All science is either physics or stamp collecting. - Ernest Rutherford

January 19
Nothing so fortifies a friendship as a belief on the part of one friend that he is superior to the other. - Honore de Balzac
One should absorb the colour of life, but one should never remember its details. Details are always vulgar. - Oscar Wilde
Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad. - George Bernard Shaw

January 23
There's no secret about success. Did you ever know a successful man who didn't tell you about it? - Kin Hubbard
Physicists like to think that all you have to do is say, these are the conditions, now what happens next? - Richard Feynman
The average, healthy, well-adjusted adult gets up at seven-thirty in the morning feeling just plain terrible. - Jean Kerr

Peacechild: What makes faith so important?

Entry 9

Wow, I am on my last entry (for this book anyways). I really thought I would never be able to complete all of them. Initially, I wasn't really planning to answer this question. Eight rather heavy-duty questions were more than enough for me. In fact, I had one of the creative writing type prompts in mind to finish off this blog before deciding to answer this question on a whim.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




The Bible is probably one of the most captivating books I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I mean, it is not everyday you see a book that encompasses essentially everything the human mind can idly ponder upon such as philosophy, history, humanity, genealogy, and parables. Of all the morals and knowledge I obtained from this book, which was based upon the principle of absolute faith in a higher being, I probably learned the most about, well...faith.

One of my favorite quotes comes from the Bible.
"It is done unto to you as you believe." Matthew 9:29.
And that pretty much wraps up why I believe makes faith so significant.

It is habit for us, and a cliche when expressed as words.
"If you set your mind to it, you can do it!"
"Think positively for positive outcomes!"
"It's 90% psychological."
etc.

Yet, such banalities never cease to be true.

We, designed as we are, can never take a step (regardless of however ambitious the step may be) forward without faith. Airplanes would never have been created without faith in its blueprint. Religion would never have become such a major component of society without faith in its values. Friendships and alliances would be impossible without faith in the other party. Nations would never have been built without faith in its success. People would have never learned to walk without some innate faith that they could without falling. Even something as trivial as falling backwards in the 'Trust Game' cannot be accomplished without faith in the people behind you. It seems that faith, in its diverse (all very pervasive) forms, is inescapable.

***

Faith is the absolute belief in something or someone that drives us to accomplish tasks, instigate miracles, and live from day to day. Faith is our interminable fuel, and although where we receive it may differ, none of can run without it.

Peacechild: Choose a representative passage from this novel that holds particular significence to you. Type it in and comment on its significance.

Entry 8

"By 1972, the Christian world view was already sinking its root deep into the Sawi mind. Men who once abused and even tortured their wives as subhuman chattels and slaves now openly acknowledged their rights as cherishable companions and helpmeets...Women who once indulged in moodiness, screaming tirades and highly abusive speech now manifested a compelling newness and warmth of personality. Children were no longer being primed for war...Gefam ason and the waness bind were now only bad memories." (pg.231)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This passage displayed the consummation of Richardson's pursuit of conversion. I consider this passage to be the crux of this book. It was an event that could be related to the moment a butterfly is born of a long wait in the cocoon. The Sawi no longer observed their "barbaric" traditions and had taken its first step in joining to become an auxiliary member of society.

It also reminded me of the ephemeral nature of culture and how that change in itself becomes a part of culture. In Korea, for example, fads come and go. Women, who were considered inferior to men and are still discriminated against, have gained a noticeable increase of rights. Feminist movements allowed women more dignified pathways, allowing deliverance from the role of obedient housewife. Women are now reigning in distinguished positions, they have equal say in a marriage, and have joined men in social hierarchies. The era of the subservient housewives have been replaced by independent, capable women. It has now come to a point in which I cannot imagine a Korea without female politicians, mothers without careers, nor women without a college degree. This has become a component of Korean culture (one which I am personally grateful for).

Change is inevitable. Change may or may not be necessary, but all the same, it cannot be escaped. I, personally, am not a huge advocate of imposing upon functioning cultures at all nor dramatic change in general, but Richardson had a point in stating that someone eventually would (although I disagree with the follow-up comment about the matter of compassion involved as stated in Entry 3)eventually interfere with the Sawi way of life. Because the world is constantly in a civil war attempting to encroach upon and conquer (imperialism really hasn't ever perished), there was no doubt that someone would eventually do so to the Sawi. This, I think, is because the world (which is usually defined by the current superpower) loves to play "doctor" and habitually diagnoses healthy men with an illness called "it's malignant tumor-if-you're-different" in order to socially circumvent and cram them into society.

Anyways...

In the big picture, the conversion seen in Peace Child is really nothing. It has happened to hundreds of others. Change of culture has continually occured (according to whoever has the power at the time). It has happened everywhere. Such a global movement has been 'snow-globed' in this passage about the Sawi. Although, the means and the reason may be unjustifiable, the Sawi must now accept an evolving culture and transform with the rest of the world.

That is what this passage symbolized to me: metamorphasis and civilization.

Peacechild: What concepts in the Sawi culture intrigued / reviled / saddened / angered / surprised you?

Entry 7

This may be the strangest thing. The concept of something as hackneyed as road kill disturbs me. Dozens of emotions pass me when I see it. Sitting in the car, I would find myself surprised at the sight. Then, reviled and slightly sad at the sight of crushed, deformed cats and dogs or the thoroughly flattened feathers of pigeons, I would become morbidly fascinated. I would squirm at the thought of road kill and yet, be unable to completely get rid of the thought of the sight. Compared to that, nothing of the Sawi culture seems truly atypical to me. Perhaps it is because of ardent years of Discovery Channel and National Geographics or because this extreme difference is so difficult for me to imagine, but the concepts of treason being honored, cannibalism, nor familial hostility do not strike up a certain emotion but rather produces a studious curiosity and rationalization.

As I have mentioned in my previous entries, the Sawi must have a logic behind their actions in order to have survived through the years as they did. There must be justification behind cannibalism, commendation of treason, and familial hostility. If thought through that way, I truly find myself almost devoid of distinct emotions besides intrigue.

If I saw cannibalism happening before my eyes or even happening to me, I would probably vomit or faint (or perhaps both), and very clearly instigate disgust and fear, but the idea in itself doesn't irk me. This is probably because cannibalism, to me, is not a rudimentary means of substenance (unless we were discussing the Donner Party or such) but a religious tool, a means of cultural empowerment. My fascination comes in after passing such a phase. Where did they get this idea in the first place? Of all the symbols the Sawi had to choose from, from where were they inspired to use cannibalism as a weapon? Why treason? Why?

I am absorbed by the very roots if Sawi culture rather than the acts and values themselves, and I cannot even produce a laughable theory. Why and how did the Sawi culture come up with these ideas? Something must have began such a tradition. But what began it?

Peacechild: What reflections and connections can you make with this novel?

Entry 6


Peace Child was by no means a literary milestone. I mean, it was relatively far from Hemingway or Dickens. However, Peace Child was a book I could connect emotionally with...more so than with Dickens anyways. Conformity, introduction of change, transformation, modernization and preserverance were elements that really put thing into perspective. To me, (although this is probably missing the point of the book, as it was a relatively minor detail) Richardson's odyssey to convert the Sawi into Christians struck me as an ingenious scheme to coalesce a culture with his own. Being the typical person that I am, I attempted to put this development into context that would be familiar to a high schooler.


A high school girl enjoys, or rather gorges on the feeling of "togetherness." She will attempt to fit in with the crowd and change accordingly, as females are social chameleons at this stage. She will try not the say, wear, or do the wrong things. She may wear skinny jeans and like nothing more than wearing slacks. She may laugh and smile without meaning a thing. And in this inexorable cycle, if she is higher on the social hierarchy, she will set the commandments of trends and impose unity. Although, as a high schooler, I believe that this affair is much crueler than Don Richardson's contention, this occurrence is not unlike his journey.

As the newcomer, Richardson must be wary of his ambience and observe. He must smile and nod at the astonishing and revolting because he is not yet allowed to have a say. He must act as a social chameleon if he is to become Moses of the hierarchy. And so does. Richardson does the right things, bringing gifts, medicines, and other necessities. He gains the Sawi's trust, penetrates the social ladder, and becomes one of the most stellar members of the Sawi community. Finally, he is allowed to have a say and so he does, but not without continuing to pick and choose the best methods that would be accepted by the Sawi because he must stay on the top of this social standing if he is to spread God's words. Skinny jeans were a necessary discomfort. A certain social acumen and subtlety was necessary throughout his quest. Although this was probably done inherently, I felt that although two events were for drastically different purposes, I could not help but feel that all social conquests are perhaps done in parallel ways.


Indeed, Richardson's case was focused upon his religious expedition and social acceptance was probably one of the most minor concerns of this book. Yet, it was also one of the details which stood out most to me and helped me connect a "great expedition" with a banal, usually ignored circumstance. Naturally, I also noticed a more conventional point of connection.


Righteousness.


I have a stalwart set of values. If I don't think that something has been done justice, I will say so without elaboration. I attempt to live according to what I believe is right. I am also very headstrong in my beliefs and do not usually change them on the account of words of external persuasion but rather through years of empirical data and internal 'enlightenment.' I am, by no means, saying that I am correct in any way nor am I saying that I am always aligned in my actions and words. However, this was an element that I was able to connect with in Peace Child.

Initially, I was skeptical of Richardson's success story. In all honesty, I had already labeled Peace Child as another one "those" Christian conversion stories. It was inexcusably narrow-minded of me to categorize a book I hadn't even opened in such as a way, and as it often happens, I was wrong. It was indeed a disturbing book, but I also found earnest passion and sincerity in it as well. Don Richardson always acted according to his values. His even being in the Sawi tribe reflected that. He enforced according to his religion, obviously one his top priorities, and his actions reflected it. His often discrimantory biases probably rooted from such values. Although Richardson's and my values have collided at various moments, they were of the same adamant foundation of righteousness. Neither, I believe, are superior.


I was able to sympathize with Richardson on this. I did not agree with his specific values, but his attempt to live by them--that was admirable.

Peacechild: What do we do when confronted with other cultures?

Entry 5

The Four Steps of Viewing the World:

1. We ogle.

2. We scan.
3. We judge.

Optional: (4. And sometimes, we laugh.)

In a rapidly globalizing society, that is exactly what not to do.

And yet, this has become a poisonous habit which we cannot seem to get rid of. And so people impose. They force and mold others to conform to avoid looking biased. But is what we do right?

I certainly don't think so.

In different cultures, we may feel that things are out of order.

It was definitely so for me when I first came to Korea. I saw how respect was shown not in how things were said but in what was said. I saw how people bustled pass me without an "Excuse me." I saw the students dressed in uniforms. I heard Korean. In that moment of culture shock, the first thing I felt was, "Something is very wrong." But nothing was wrong. It was just that I did not know what to do. After all, the best the world had provided me with was the list above. It was time for a new list of rules. I realized that I needed to silence my complaints and criticisms and start to observe and understand what was going on. I had been much too loud to listen. I needed to comprehend the rationale behind the actions of these people. And fortunately, I eventually did. But this was a long, arduous process that was partially unnecessary. I didn't need to go through the four stages of the narrow-minded asinine. By simply accepting the differences and absorbing the culture, I would have been in an enlightened and luxurious stage of leisure.

And I adhere the much simpler list of the less-narrow-minded asinine.

How to REALLY View the World:

1. Shut up.

2. Observe.

3. Accept.

*Deceptively easy and definitely not for the faint-hearted.

Peacechild: How is your modern culture different from the Sawi tenants?

Entry 4

The Sawi=Heartless cannibals.

That was how I first equated the Sawi the moment I completed the first chapter of the Peacechild. But then, being the way that I am, started thinking, that they were not as heartless nor as devoid of logic as they were made out to be. Afterall, the Sawi culture had to have been based upon a functional to have lasted hardily through the deleterious winds of change and time. Yes, our cultures are based upon drastically different viewpoints. We don’t eat people for one, nor do we dress in grass or go hunting for fresh pork. But, are we really different? Is the Sawi culture so motivated by an extraterrestrial source?

I have stated before that “I believe that all people are made up of the same essence. The foundation of emotions.” The Sawi needs to eat and breathe very much like we do. They are in a constant pursuit of happiness and fulfillment just like we are. We simply choose to pursue it in diverging directions: the Sawi, through spiritual, mental empowerment involved in treachery and hunting, and us, through ‘lemming-ness,’ or safety found within masses. (Look up “suicidal lemmings” to see what I mean.) Anyways, my point is that we are not that different from the Sawi tenants. Underneath our polyester clothing, our attendance at million dollar schools, our “bless you’s” and “Thank you, I’m fine! And you?”, we will find that the same core that makes up the Sawi.

Like the Sawi, Koreans value family ties, especially that of in-laws. Women, once married, “belong” to the mother-in-law while men have an obligation to care for the in-laws as well as their nuclear families. In fact, In-laws are referred to with the same titles (although used in the honorific forms) as blood-related parents are. However, in actuality, there is one element that yokes the rest of the family: children. Grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles all envision and strive towards creating a resplendent future for the offsprings, the future generations. In fact, one philosopher studying the abruptly flourishing economy of Korea stated that the the mental and physical investments made for the children probably drove the uphill ride. That is also an aspect I see in the Sawi culture. The reason that the Haenam people murdered Yae (of the first chapter) in the first place was in order to give a guardian spirit to a child, who was promptly re-named Yae. This showed the importance that those of the Sawi culture placed upon its future.

Koreans are also an emotion-driven group, valuing unity, nationalism, and victory above all else. Although based upon different philosophies, the Sawi seem also to be driven by the same elements of pride, unity of community, and victory. Whole villages were displayed to be mourning for the loss of members of their communities. The clever, ruthless plan that the Mauro had concocted to murder the Haenam people was because of the desire to gain revenge for Yae’s initial death. Values esteemed by our cultures existed within the Sawi culture, which I had believed to be lawless and harsh.

Even the wrongs that are criticized in the Sawi culture seem to be condoned in our own culture. Treachery. Isn’t that something practiced constantly in our own societies? Do we not lie to benefit as well? Do we not “fatten friendships" for our own gains? Such faults exist in our own culture as well; it is simply that it has become an unstated habit that we have grown too accustomed to it.

See?

We are not that different.

Peacechild: What do missionaries do for these people?

Entry 3

Let me tell you a joke:A teacher said, "I'll give $2 to the child who can tell me who was the most famous man who ever lived."An Irish boy put his hand up and said, "It was St. Patrick." The teacher said, "Sorry Sean, that's not correct."Then a French boy put his hand up and said, "It was Napoleon." The teacher replied, "I'm sorry, Pierre, that's not right either."Finally, a Jewish boy raised his hand and said, "It was Jesus Christ." The teacher said, "That's absolutely right, Maurice, come up here and I'll give you the $2."As the teacher was giving Maurice his money, she said, "You know Maurice, you being Jewish, I was very surprised you said Jesus Christ."Maurice replied, "Yeah. In my heart I knew it was Moses, but business is business.”

This is what I believe happens to missionaries. They divulge into the world, preach, convert, and return, satisfied. But is conversion that simply completed from the eyes of the non-believer? Perhaps, it is just “business” for non-believers as Maurice puts it. It isn’t that difficult, after all, to do “business” with people whose mission is simply to ‘place the nail and hammer it in.’

I have always felt that missionaries are like men on missions in life or death situations. Or at least, that was what the almost maniacal urgency in their acts showed me. Yet in this increasingly global society, I have found these methods quite ineffective as people of all culture and religion have to learn to become progressively more tolerant as a part of a universal etiquette. I admire these acts of converting as examples of human perseverance and courage as I watch these organizations ignore cultural taboos to spread their values, but at the same time, I am baffled. When evangelists are martyred spreading their faith, is that not a sign that they are handling conversion the wrong way? Is that not a sign that cultures do not want to be converted? Isn’t it time to realize that simply hammering in won’t work? Isn’t it a clear indication that people have become much too used to seeing the hackneyed, blaring signs of mission organizations to care? Yet, how could these acts of faith be applauded on the same scale as, let's say, someone who saves a child from a burning fire?

Reading Don Richardson's article, I found that he was very much an idealist in believing the amalgamation of culture and religion. But is that truly possible? With religion always comes the disintegration of traditions to some extent simply because the religion that is introduced comes from different cultures that are of an absolute truth to each individual civilization. In Korea for example, many Christian homes do not practice jae-sah because of the Ten Commandments which demands that "thou shall not bow before any god but me." To Korea, which is fundamentally based upon Buddhism and Confucianism, traditions of honoring our superiors and ancestors like jae-sah are a significant part of culture. Yet, because Christianity is synonymous with absoluteness, these foundations are often induced to fit and become worn remnants of what once was.

The argument that someone would 'invade' the unknown territories of 'Stone Age' cultures eventually, and therefore, missionaries, who are the "most sympathetic" should be the first. That was weak. Is sympathy defined invariably for both “these people” and the mission organizations? And are these missionaries really sympathetic? And if so, what are they sympathetic for? The fact that these cultures are educated differently from us? The fact that these cultures observe different traditions from us? Or the fact that they are not aware of the rest of the world? Is it truly for the people rather than for themselves?

Currently, I find that many missionary organizations have lost the means of communicating their purpose. Of communicating the Christian truth. They need to regroup and find effective ways of introducing (rather than enforcing) Christianity in a respectful way. So what do current mission organizations do for ‘these people’ besides erode culture? Well, I don’t really know...yet.