Changing your name, in the name of language immersion

This is the first time I write about a reddit story which I didn’t obtain from Smosh videos.

It is written by a mother whose daughter refused to change her name for Spanish classes. Basically, her teachers changed their students’ names to the Hispanic versions, believing it helped the cultural immersion. One teacher respected her wish to not have hers changed. The other one refused to; she only started respect the wish after the mother got involved.

People both on Reddit and Facebook reacted negatively. They said the mother was being a bad mother who raised a culturally close-minded brat. For me, those people are the close-minded ones.

I am from Indonesia. I can speak Indonesian and English (unfortunately, I cannot speak any regional tongues). I started learning English from a young age, both in schools and private tutorships; I even had a few native speakers as my teachers.

Not once my teachers – including the foreign ones – told me to Anglicise my name. Not once they claimed my non-Anglophone name hindered the cultural immersion aspect of language learning. And yes, you can find many fluent English-speakers from all over the world who do not have Anglo names.

In this context, I cannot speak about Indonesian language without talking about Indonesian names.

As entertaining as those memes are, they perfectly describe how Indonesian names are a mishmash of different cultural and religious traditions.

What kind of names you have depend on your ethnic backgrounds (mind you, mixed lineages have been common for many decades), how “traditional” or “modern” you are and, of course, your religious backgrounds; if you are a Muslim, whether you are “traditionalist” or “modernist” is also a factor.* Not to mention there are parents who just make up new names.

Yes, the names on the first meme are of actual public figures… and yes, if you google Muhammad Wishnu, you will find quite a handful of men with such name.

Because of the seemingly unpredictable and categorically-imprecise nature of Indonesian names, there is no pressure for Indonesian speakers to embrace specific naming traditions. You are not seen as less Indonesian simply for having non-indigenous names.

Also because of that reason, I have yet to hear about foreigners being to forced to “Indonesianise” their names when learning our language. When they do get Indonesian names, they are endearing nicknames given by their local friends or adopted family.

In fact, one of the most prominent Indonesian-speaking Youtubers is Jang Hansol, a Korean national who grew up in Indonesia (and who is quite distinguishable for his Eastern Javanese accent). His Indonesian viewers have no problem calling him by his Korean birth name.

But, I also have to talk about the flip side. Even though Indonesians are generally accepting of different naming traditions, one minority group is a victim of a glaring and reprehensible exception: the Chinese-Indonesians.

Most of them do not have Chinese names, at least not in their official identifications. They were discouraged by Soeharto’s anti-Chinese regime from having Chinese names; they either use “indigenous” or western (mostly Anglo) names.

Some argue it is also caused by detachments from their ancestral heritage. There are indeed Chinese-Indonesians – especially ones in Java – who no longer speak any Chinese languages.

But, I doubt this is the main cause, considering there are Chinese-Indonesians who still speak the languages and yet, don’t have Chinese names in official identifications. Not to mention it was difficult to embrace your heritage when your government banned you from doing so publicly.

If you look at prominent Chinese-Indonesians with Chinese names, they were mostly born at least two decades before Soeharto’s regime.

I am very passionate about this reddit story because it reminds me of my own country, both of its bright and dark side. A country that can be both pluralistic and hateful at the same time.

I don’t know if there is a pressure in the Spanish-speaking world to “Hispanicise” our names. But, if it does exists, it is one of those cultural differences which I refuse to tolerate.

Not only it is bigoted, it also puts us in confining boxes, denying us of our own versatile and complex humanity.

No, I don’t think the teacher and negative commenters had bigoted intentions. But, their idea of cultural immersions is extremely shallow and misguided, they unwittingly coddle those closed and bigoted minds. Those fascist-wannabes would consider them allies.

Altering your names makes sense only when the other language has a different writing system.

.

.

*Regarding their religious identity, Indonesian Muslims use neither “traditionalist” or “modernist” as their preferred adjectives (I learned about them from Wikipedia); they simply identify as “Muslims”. When non-Islamist Muslims do use specific words, they identify as “moderates” and/or adherents of “Nusantara islam”.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Refusing foods for the wrong reason

Pictured here dishes which are NOT Indian

I guess writing about Smosh’s Reddit videos has become a recurring thing for me.

This time, I am thinking of a particular AITA story about a woman who refused Indian foods and got called a racist for it. While many Smosh viewers don’t think she is one, they believe she is the asshole. But, a handful of people (they are more prominent in Smosh’s Facebook comment section) are on her side.

And those people are in the wrong. Let me elaborate.

Yes, the OP does explicitly say she cannot stand spicy foods and her Indian coworker has known that from the very beginning. But, most of her defenders are only focused on those two details and ignoring the rest.

First (and it is a detail even many of her detractors forget about), it was at her Indian coworker’s private dinner party. Unless there is a risk getting fired, why would you willingly attend it, knowing you cannot eat anything there? If networking is really important, why don’t you create your own party, where you have complete control of the feast?

Second, her coworker was actually fine about the rejections; it became a problem when she offered OP one particular dish, which she also refused. When explicitly told it was a dessert, the OP insisted it was spicy because it had reddish colour. She later found out the dessert was called Jalebi and, instead of reading the goddamn recipe, she still focused on its appearance, still convinced the non-spicy food was spicy.

And that’s the reason why she got flamed: shunning an entire cuisine because of a preconceived belief and clinging onto it even after proven wrong, acting like she knows everything about a cuisine she has little or no experiences with. It is not because she refused, it is because of the reason why.

I don’t know why people miss those two details. Maybe they ignore them intentionally, to feel good about their own food pickiness. Maybe they simply have poor listening comprehension (as Smosh always reads the reddit stories out loud and, apart from the reddit posts’ titles, it never shows the texts on the screen).

Some of the OP’s defenders do pay attention to the details. But, they don’t think the details are damning.

Some of them openly admit they are picky eaters themselves. I do agree we should never coerce anyone into eating anything; in fact, it can backfire, causing people to develop food trauma.

But, at the same time, I refuse to pretend pickiness is a good thing. I refuse to pretend having limited tastebuds is a strength and something to be proud of. I refuse to pretend having limited sources of nutrients and homogenous gut microbiome are good for our health in the long run.

A handful of people argue the OP may be autistic herself; I also notice something similar when Smosh read the reddit story about bringing ranch to a mom and pop eastern European restaurant…. and the OP – an American – dismisses the restaurant as not “normal” for not having ranch.

I am not diagnosed with autism (even though a handful believe I am autistic, simply on the basis that I am “too different” (their condescending tone when uttering the word “autistic” is very telling)) and I am certainly not an expert on it. But, using autism to excuse cultural close-mindedness doesn’t sit well with me.

And, of course, there are those stereotype believers, who insist stereotypes are reliable sources of facts and are not products of prejudices and overtly-simplistic thinking. When I reminded them the reddit story involves a dessert, one person said Asians/brown people have no one but ourselves to blame, as we love to brag about how spicy our foods are.

I told him he should had used his common sense, as we clearly referred to our savoury, non-dessert dishes. He doubled down, insisting that many, if not most, of our desserts are indeed spicy. He never provided evidences to back his claim up, he even never claimed about trying the foods himself. He just said it was dishonest to not believe his claim and he stopped making comments afterwards.

Do spicy desserts exist? Definitely. But, are all Asian/brown people desserts spicy? No, definitely not.

Like that person, I am not from India, and I know very little about Indian cuisine. But, also like that person, I also have a goddamn internet access.

Wikipedia has an article listing all the most well-known Indian sweets. Sugar syrup, milk and clarified butter are the recurring ingredients in many of them, not all of them use spices; when they do, they use cardamoms and saffron, ones which do not yield hot flavour in dishes. You can also google search them, read their recipes on other websites and I guarantee the ingredients are similar as the ones stated in Wikipedia.

When I googled “spicy Indian desserts”, the results were similar to ones shown in Wikipedia. When I googled “hot Indian desserts”, the search engine thought the word “hot” referred to the temperature, not flavour. In this case, even Google refused to affirm my hypothetical preconceived belief.

I also wonder if this problem is linguistic.

In the English language, the words spicy and hot are used interchangeably and it may have compelled monolingual English-speakers to mistake all spices as hot. I don’t know if it just another case of stereotyping or the English language being confusing. I believe it is both.

Personally, I believe the redditor is neither a racist nor a xenophobe. But, I do think she is close-minded, a proud bubble dweller who refuses to pop it when given the opportunity to.

And she will remain one, as long as people keep coddling her mindset.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Misguidedly criticising others

If you have read Buzzfeed articles or anything by media outlets which are dependent on audience participations, you may have encountered ones about what Americans miss while living abroad.

You will notice some patterns.

One major criticism they have of non-Americans is our weak ambitions. I do think it is a legitimate one.

While simply having strong ambitions won’t instantly improve our lives, it certainly compels us to not get too content with the downsides, which compels us to do something about them. America wouldn’t be this developed if it wasn’t for its people’s ungodly strong drives.

But, the other criticisms are just…. bizarre: they also complain that other countries suffer from “high quality fast food” scarcity and their supermarkets offer little product varieties. For them, those downsides are a big deal.

Let me break them down and explain why they are stupid.

When I think of prosperity, I am thinking of our ability to afford our basic needs and ones of high quality. As long as well-balanced diets are affordable, does it really matter if our stores don’t have Oreos with million different flavours? Those are inessentials. Believe it or not, we can live without them.

And fast food? Seriously?

I understand if you miss the taste. But, how is its scarcity a huge negative point? If anything, considering the health effects, shouldn’t it be the exact opposite? Not to mention you have a chance to widen your tastebuds, especially if you live somewhere outside the west. The culinary world is more than just cheeseburgers, fried chicken and fries.

Oh and that criticism about ambition? Again, in general, it is a valid criticism. But, depending on the individuals who express it, I should add an asterisk: some of them also criticise the lack of hustle culture. Again, it is stupid.

If you are in dire needs of cash, you are in a strict deadline or there is a workplace emergency, working laboriously long hours is certainly warranted. But, if you are in neither situation, why the fuck should you work overtime everyday?

Is the extra cash (assuming you receive it) really worth the death of your personal lives (God forbids if you are married with kids) ? Is it really worth sacrificing your physical and mental health? If you are not one of those brainwashed cretins who believe working is the meaning of life, you would answer no to either one.

What’s my point here?

It seems some Americans have very misguided priorities. In this particular case, their idea of good living entails the ability to consume products excessively – especially fast food – and declaring working as life’s main – if not only – goal. They are parroting what the sordid corporate world has been propagating for many years.

I have to emphasise some Americans.

While some have the intelligence of a rock, there are also many genuinely thoughtful ones; they use their experiences living abroad and/or interacting with foreigners to contemplate about life in their home country, scrutinising it in entirely new light.

Even better, they also believe their country – currently the world’s only superpower – should learn from other countries. Not only they recognise its own weaknesses (some of which stick out like sore thumbs on the world stage), they also condemn their fellow countrymen for romanticising and whitewashing the dark side.

In this particular case, they understand life is more than just about working and consuming.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The fifteen minutes city conspiracy “theory” (and why you believe in it)

Fifteen minutes city is one in which every basic amenity is reachable by foot and/or bikes from your house within fifteen minutes. Cars optional.

While urbanist Carlos Moreno coined the term in 2016, the concept itself is as old as mankind.

Every city that was built prior the automobiles and -paraphrasing Jason from Not Just Bikes- didn’t get bulldozed for them is a fifteen minutes city. Even though they do suffer some level of car-dependency, many cities in Europe and East Asia still easily fall to this category. Basically, if you have lived in those regions, you almost definitely have lived in one.

Now, let’s talk about the conspiracy. Supposedly, it started because of what is happening in Oxford.

Apart from embracing a fifteen minutes vision, the city council also plans to heftily fine any drivers who drive into certain zones too many times. I don’t know if the fifteen minutes vision and drivers’ fine were intended as one package. But, I do know the controversy about the latter is overblown.

The fine is actually an extreme form of road congestion pricing and, like fifteen minutes city, it is also not a new concept. Singapore created it in 1975 and London has been implementing it since 2003; in fact, London’s charge zone is one of the biggest in the world.

Personally, I am not a fan of congestion pricing. If you want to tackle congestion, you need to prevent it from happening in the first place. You have to design the city in a way that most residents prefer walking, cycling and mass transit commuting over driving; you have to minimise the presence of cars. Prevention is better than cure.

But, tyrannical?

Congestion pricing only targets drivers. Non-drivers AKA pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit commuters can easily go to other neighbourhoods as many times as they desire without getting fined. Besides, you still can drive to any places you want, albeit with a higher price; literally no one and I mean NO ONE is forcing you to stay in your neighbourhoods forever.

To be honest, as infuriating as it is, I am not surprised by the blooming popularity of this conspiracy “theory”. Some people – including you – have misguided ideas of freedom, including one involving transportation.

You believe any kinds of restrictions – even the most reasonable and minor ones – are tyrannical. You are such absolutists with their idea of freedom, you think even constructive criticisms are censorship attempts.

When you have such extreme worldview regarding freedom, you believe in the slippery slope fallacy that every restriction leads to totalitarianism. In this case, you believe cars represent freedom of movement and any restrictions against them is the same as calculated efforts to imprison you within your own neighbourhoods.

Your extremeness also closes your minds.

Every time you watch urban planning Youtube videos, you are always dismissive of the content despite the cited studies showing the harms of car-dependency and the benefits of dense, walkable and transit-oriented urban developments.

You love twisting other people’s words. Even though most urbanists never propose a complete ban of cars on cities, you insist that they always do. Even though there are no evidences the Oxford city council want to confine people to their neighbourhoods, you insist that has always been the intention.

When I try dispelling misconceptions about fifteen minutes city, you insist your definition is the right one and the one I provide is wrong, even though a simple google search would show my definition (Carlos Moreno’s, to be exact) has existed for far longer than yours.

You – a gullible fuck who falls for an unproven conspiracy “theory” – also has the gall to call me a sheep, simply because I refuse to humour you.

You are extreme because you want the world to revolve around the needs of people like you, consequentially making your so-called championing of freedom hypocritical.

In the North American context, you support local governments mandating the existence of (sub)urban sprawls where cars are the only viable mode of transports… because you believe there is nothing freer than being forced to own and drive cars and being trapped in daily traffic jams and endless financial burdens.

In a more global context, you celebrate with glee every time a cyclist is killed on the roads; you believe anyone who dare to use roads other than for driving deserve to be executed. Freedom is only for those who surrender themselves to cars.

No, I am not being unfairly judgemental here. I have had my share of interacting with the likes of you. You are literally guilty of those things.

I want to assume nuances from your arguments. But, I always end up disappointed. The more I interact with you, the more I see how close-minded you are.

You are far worse than I expected.

It is just as frustrating as talking about religions.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Parasite rightfully won

I have seen way too many people attributing Parasite’s victory at the Oscars to its popularity and it being a foreign-language film.

They are so smart, it hurts.

Not every award is like the Kids’ Choice Awards. Believe it or not, some awards like the Oscars are presided by a handful of (presumably snobby) juries who judge the nominees’ objective merit, NOT their popularity. One can argue the juries are misguided with their judgement and they have been criticised for it. But, it is very certain they don’t care about popularity.

And the data backs me up.

Avatar, one of the most highest-grossing (and one of the most overrated) films ever, was (idiotically) nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars… and yet, it was defeated by Hurt Locker, a film I would never heard of if it wasn’t for its victory. Don’t forget that Marvel Cinematic Universe, the highest-grossing film franchise of all time, have yet to won a single Oscar; they are more successful in awards that specialise in speculative fiction.

Oh, and don’t forget that film snobs looooove Parasite. On Youtube alone, you can find lots of them ravingly reviewing the film… and mind you, those people do not care much about popularity. They don’t have problems berating films they deem dreadful, no matter how popular they are! In fact, I feel alone because it is hard for me to find people who enjoy both Parasite and Marvel films like I do.

The thematic analyses are even more plentiful. Thanks to those Youtubers and their equally passionate audience, the surge of its cinematic exegeses feels never-ending, proving how Parasite is a dense and meticulously-crafted work.

Those who dismiss the legitimacy of its victory are either driven by xenophobia, anglo-centrism, neoliberalism or a combination of some or all of them. I am confident with my assertion because their dismissiveness contradicts the observable facts and I have seen many people hating on the film because it is non-American, non-anglophone and critical of capitalism.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

 

 

 

How NOT to praise Baby Boomers

 

Praise them for boosting the prosperity

Obviously, this has been brought up many times before and it only applies to modern countries which economic booms happened almost right after the second world war.

If you want to credit anyone who created the booms, credit the Boomers’ parents and grandparents. They were the ones in charge.

In my home country Indonesia, I would not say they ruined the economy. They did improve it. But, our country has yet to become an economic powerhouse with extremely low poverty rate and high rate of ease of doing business. The improvement is meagre and unimpressive.

If anything, many joined forces with Soeharto in making the country a more sectarian, more anti-intellectual and more brutal place to live. Many were already adults in the early years of his regime; therefore, they had the option to not get brainwashed. I am sure those who participated in the still-glorified anti-Communist purge were also Boomers.

Praise them for having great taste

Well, admittedly, Boomers do have a great taste in music. But, I cannot fully praise them for having so.

Why? Because their taste was mainstream. Therefore, they were not special. That’s like praising someone who was raised among English speakers for being fluent in the language.

I prefer to credit the pre-war generations for influencing the Boomers’ musical taste. I mean, they were the recording studio bosses! They were the ones who decided what kind of music the youngsters at the time should listen to!

Oh, and don’t forget that Boomers are also among the current music producers who churn out craps, sacrificing artistic integrity for profit’s sake.

If I want to go further with American Boomers, not many of them had a good taste in cinema as well.

The Hollywood Renaissance, which was marked by directorial independence and respect of artistry, would not exist without the university-educated young Americans who loved watching the more aesthetic European and Japanese cinemas and formed the majority of moviegoers in the 1960’s America.

That’s a very specific demographic. Unless a boomer was among the moviegoers studio executives tried to pander to, we cannot credit him/her for a having a good taste in films.

Praise them for their great personalities

Some Boomers are known for overplaying their greatness and accusing Millennials and Gen Z for being entitled snowflakes, even though they themselves were raised in a significantly more prosperous era (again, in some countries), demand absolute respect just because they are old and get offended by OK Boomer, one of the mildest memes ever.

When they do admit their roles in wrecking the prosperity (which they enjoyed immensely), they shamelessly and openly wash their hands of their sins and act like old age and near-death are to be regarded as absolution.

To sum things up, they are conceited, delusional, fragile, hypocritical and irresponsible. Only donkeys think any of those traits are wonderful in any ways.

Oh, and even if I am willing to pretend military enlistment makes one an inherently heroic and courageous person (it inherently does not), you cannot use the American war in Vietnam to make the Boomers look heroic and courageous.

Why? Because conscription.

Able-bodied young men were obligated to enlist, whether they wanted to or not. If they were indeed heroic and courageous, they would have enlisted voluntarily without being forced to. They would have to enlist simply because they loved the idea of serving their countries (or, to be more accurate, their countries’ political establishments).

We can also use this argument to debunk the myth of the ‘heroic’ and ‘courageous’ generations of both world wars.

Praise them for their progressiveness

Some Boomers claim they are the bastion of progressiveness, supposedly due to many of them being Hippies in the olden days. So, let’s just pretend the Hippie movement was indeed all about peace and freedom (sceptical about it).

I may acknowledge that Boomers did lead a sexual revolution in the west. But, that’s the extent of their progressiveness.

Even the resulting sexual liberty was still very heteronormative. The west started to become widely pro-LGBT rights just mere two decades ago; even as late as the 90’s, gay Hollywood actors were forced to stay closeted.

If anything, many Boomers in the US and UK ended up voting for conservative governments in the 1980’s. And you cannot convince me there are none of them in the reactionary and war-mongering establishments.

War-mongering…

Never mind the Afghan and Iraq wars. How can one defend a generation for being peace-loving while at the same time lauding them for participating in a war?

“You are a hateful, ageist Millennial!”

No, I am not.

My words are expressions of frustrations against the ageist Boomers who try to convince everyone about their generation’s absolute supremacy. If I am a hateful ageist, wouldn’t I use their old age as an argument of how pieces of shit they are?

Obviously, if you really want to defend the Boomers, you would need facts and refrain from dramatising them. In order to do so, you need to be a reasonable and truth-loving person.

If you are a Boomer who believe in your generation’s divine greatness or a younger person who believes we must always respect ALL older people regardless of their actual respectability, then you are neither reasonable nor truth-loving.

If you belong to either category, then I can easily dismiss your argument. You cannot prove anyone wrong by using falsehoods and overstatements.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

 

 

 

Creating brilliant and cultured human resources in Indonesia

Note:

I initially wanted to submit this essay, which was originally written in Indonesian, to a writing contest. But, because of technicalities, I missed the deadline. Oh, well.

When one talks about the quality of human resources, education is often the first thing that comes to our minds.

It is true that education is the biggest factor. Quality education equals quality human resources. But, what do we mean by quality education?

We all agree discipline is crucial in our learning experiences and, as a nation, we are from disciplined. It would be bizarre to dispute that.

But, what I am going to say will be contentious. I am not sure if many of you will agree with me.

If I say we need to respect those who are more knowledgeable and more experienced than us, you would nod in agreement. But, the problems is many still believe ‘respect’ and ‘worship’ are synonymous with each other.

We love to make Gods out of those people, forgetting they are also ordinary human beings who are prone to any faults. They can make mistakes in their ways of thinking. They may also have ulterior motives and intentionally deceive others for their own benefits.

But, at the same time, we also have the guts to accuse the experts of being know-it-alls. We look down on knowledge and critical thinking. We are proud of our own ignorance and stupidity.

To overcome this issue, we have to teach the incoming generations to think more critically and to be more analytical. Moreover, we have to instill the sense of curiosity, humility and courage to resist falsehood, especially the one regurgitated by people of higher social standings.

If this suggestion is implemented, I am willing to bet the incoming generations would not only possess brilliant minds, but also would not want to trample and be easily trampled on by other people.

I also have another suggestion, a more abstract one: teaching them about the nation’s traditional cultures.

Obviously, many will agree with me. I am definitely not the first Indonesian citizen who yearn about conserving our cultural heritages. But, you must be wondering: what does this have anything to do with human resources?

If a country preserves its traditional culture, it would have a unique identity. If it is blessed with rich cultural diversity, the distinctiveness would be even more striking. If a country has a unique identity, it would be able to create works which are very unlikely to be created elsewhere. In the end, it would stand out on the international stage.

Even if you are an Indonesian who has been culturally westernised and who perceives traditions as backward entities, you would still be benefited by knowing your ancestral heritage.

Besides learning about the history of your ancestors, you would also learn about the life philosophy they held on to. As a result, you would encounter perspectives that you have never considered before. Ideally, you would expand your horizon… and, when combined with good reasoning, you would have easier time generating groundbreaking ideas.

Of course, you could have refuted my suggestion by stating that my dream can be fulfilled without studying Indonesian cultures. But, as I stated before, uniqueness is key.

Western cultures are already emulated all over the world. If you fix your gaze solely towards the west, your ideas would not be different from the ones initiated by foreigners. If the works of Indonesians are similar to the foreign ones, why should other countries make use of Indonesian human resources?

Yes, Indonesians with sufficient skills can still get hired by foreigners. But, if we are only good in professions in which our duty is to simply obey our bosses and/our clients, we would only excel behind the scenes.

Obviously, those behind-the-scenes jobs are also crucial to our lives which we all reap benefits from. Maybe you are already satisfied by our fellow countrymen’s behind-the-scenes success. But, I am not.

As important as those professions are, they can be done by every country on earth. Meanwhile, the ones in which we become the stars on the international stages have been proven difficult to attain. Very few countries have achieved high level of innovation and creativity.

The more we raise Indonesians who are capable of producing ingenious ideas, the easier it would be for us to be take centre stage internationally…

…and, once that is achieved, we as a nation would have successfully used all of our might to achieve a level of triumph which most countries on earth have yet to obtain.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Menciptakan SDM yang cemerlang dan berbudaya

Catatan:

Sebenarnya saya berencana untuk menyerahkan karangan ini untuk perlombaan menulis. Tetapi, karena permasalahan teknis, saya melewati tenggat waktu. Ya, sudahlah.

Jika kita membicarakan mutu SDM, satu hal yang sering terbesit di pikiran kita adalah pendidikan.

Memang betul pendidikan dapat dikatakan sebagai unsur terpenting dibalik SDM. Pendidikan bermutu, SDM juga akan bermutu. Tapi, apa yang kita maksud sebagai pendidikan bermutu?

Kita semua setuju bahwa disiplin sangatlah penting di pendidikan dan sebagai bangsa, kita jauh dari disiplin. Saya rasa akan aneh jika ada orang yang mau menyanggah pernyataan tersebut.

Tetapi, hal-hal yang akan saya bicarakan mungkin akan menyulut perdebatan. Saya tidak yakin bahwa anda semua akan setuju dengan saya.

Jika saya berkata kita perlu menghormati sosok-sosok yang jauh lebih berilmu dan berpengalaman, banyak dari anda yang akan mengangguk setuju. Tetapi, banyak manusia yang menganggap penghormatan dan penyembahan adalah dua hal yang sama.

Kita cenderung menuhankan sosok-sosok tersebut, lupa bahwa mereka juga manusia-manusia biasa yang juga rentan terhadap kelalaian dan kesesatan. Mereka bisa saja melakukan kesalahan dalam pemikiran mereka. Mereka bisa saja memiliki maksud-maksud tersembunyi dan dengan sengaja membohongi orang lain demi keuntungan sendiri.

Tetapi, pada saat yang bersamaan, kita juga berani-beraninya menuduh para pakar tersebut sebagai orang-orang yang sok tahu. Kita memandang rendah ilmu dan pemikiran kritis. Kita bangga akan ketidaktahuan dan kebodohan kita sendiri.

Untuk mengatasi ini, kita harus mengajari generasi yang mendatang cara-cara berpikir dengan kritis dan meneliti dengan seksama. Lebih penting lagi, kita harus menanamkan rasa keingintahuan, kerendahan diri dan keberanian untuk menentang kebohongan, terutama bila kebohongan tersebut keluar dari mulut sosok-sosok yang berderajat tinggi.

Jika usulan tersebut dilaksanakan, saya berani bertaruh generasi yang akan datang akan menghasilkan SDM yang tidah hanya berotak cemerlang, tapi juga tidak mau menginjak dan dinjak-injak orang lain.

Saya juga punya satu usulan lagi, usulan yang jauh lebih abstrak: mendidik mereka tentang kearifan budaya-budaya tradisional bangsa.

Tentu saja, banyak yang akan setuju dengan usulan saya. Saya sudah pasti bukan satu-satunya warga negara Indonesia yang ingin melestarikan warisan kebudayaan. Tapi, anda pasti bertanya apa hubungannya warisan budaya dengan SDM.

Jika sebuah negara giat melestarikan budaya tradisionalnya, berarti ia memiliki jati diri yang sangat khas; jika negara tersebut diberkahi keragaman budaya yang kaya, kekhasan tersebut akan semakin terasa. Jika negara memiliki jati diri kebangsaan yang khas, ia dapat mencetuskan karya-karya yang kemungkinan besar tidak bisa dihasilkan oleh negara-negara lain. Pada akhirnya, negara menjadi menonjol di pentas mancanegara.

Walaupun anda adalah warga negara Indonesia yang sudah sangat kebarat-baratan dan menganggap tradisi sebagai sesuatu yang terbelakang, mengenali kebudayaan nenek-moyang masih bisa bermanfaat.

Selain memelajari sejarah kehidupan mereka, anda juga dapat memelajari filsafat hidup yang mereka pegang teguh. Alhasil, anda menemui sudut-sudut pandang yang belum pernah anda pertimbangkan. Idealnya, wawasan anda semakin luas…. dan, jika ditambah dengan penalaran yang tajam, semakin mudah bagi anda untuk meluncurkan gagasan-gagasan mutakhir.

Bisa saja anda menangkis usulan saya dengan mengatakan angan-angan saya bisa diraih tanpa memelajari kebudayaan Indonesia. Tetapi, seperti yang saya katakan sebelumnya, kekhasan adalah unsur penunjang.

Kebudayaan yang berbau kebarat-baratan sudah “diteladani” di seluruh dunia. Jika anda hanya berkiblat ke arah barat, gagasan anda tidak akan begitu berbeda dengan yang dicetuskan orang-orang asing. Jika karya-karya anak bangsa tidak begitu berbeda dengan karya-karya luar negeri, untuk apa bangsa-bangsa lain mendayagunakan SDM dari Indonesia?

Sebenarnya bisa saja warga-warga Indonesia diperkerjakan oleh orang-orang asing selama keterampilan kita memadai. Tetapi, jika kita hanya andal di bidang-bidang pekerjaan di mana tugas merek hanya sekedar melaksanakan perintah atasan dan/atau pelanggan, kita hanya akan berguna “di belakang layar”.

Tentu saja bidang-bidang pekerjaan tersebut sangatlah penting bagi kehidupan kita dan hasilnya selalu kita nikmati. Mungkin saja anda sudah cukup puas dengan keberhasilan orang-orang Indonesia di balik layar. Tapi, bagi saya, keadaan tersebut masih belum cukup memuaskan.

Sepenting-pentingnya mata pencaharian tersebut, semua itu dapat dilakukan oleh setiap negara di dunia. Sedangkan mata pencaharian di mana kita bisa menonjol di depan layar mancanegara sudah terbukti sulit dilaksanakan dengan sukses. Hanya segilitar negara yang telah sukses melakukan pembaruan dan daya cipta yang tinggi.

Semakin banyak kita menghasilkan anak-anak bangsa yang bisa mencetuskan gagasan-gagasan mutakhir, semakin mudah bagi kita untuk bisa tampil di depan layar mancanegara…

…Dan, setelah hal itu tercapai, kita telah berhasil mengerahkan ketangkasan bangsa kita ke jenjang kejayaan yang belum berhasil diraih oleh sebagian besar bangsa di dunia.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to report problem countries

Obviously, every country is a problem country. And yes, including the so-called number one country, the so-called United States of America.

In this context, I am referring to countries like Iran and North Korea which are known for their severe human rights violations and have been extensively and negatively covered by foreign (mostly western) media.

  • I hate sugar-coating. I believe exposing the factual negative aspects of certain countries is not inherently hateful; there is nothing wrong about sticking to the truth.
  • But, it can be hateful when we insist the coverage must be entirely negative and are offended by the idea of showcasing genuine positivity because we want to keep affirming any prevailing preconceived notions.
  • I first noticed this when I watched the North Korean episodes of Departure, a traveling TV show which focuses less on the destinations and more on the journeys; they received backlashes for allegedly spewing pro-North Korea propaganda.

    Correct me if I am wrong. But, from my knowledge, a country’s propaganda should brag about its non-existing divine perfection and work as the ruling government’s ideological mouthpiece.

    Departure does none of those things.

    While the hosts did not mention the human rights violations of the countries they visited, they also never tried to paint them in an entirely positive light.

    The show is entirely non-political. The hosts only care about exploring nature and interacting with the locals; the latter is the theme of the North Korean episodes.

    If anything, I believe the show does the ordinary and unprivileged ordinary North Koreans a great favour.

    Because of the lack of political agenda, the white Anglo-Canadian hosts had no problems interacting with a group of East Asians who grew up isolated from the rest of the world. The resulting interactions were wonderfully wholesome.

    The episodes do not depict cultural clashes, they depict people who enjoy each other’s presence despite the linguistic and cultural barriers.

    They depict humans who see each other as fellow human beings.

    But, some people didn’t like it. They believed the only way to give the North Koreans a favour was to focus entirely on the system that oppressed them.

    I disagree with that belief.

    North Korea is not just an obscure country that most people haven’t heard of; they have, albeit sometimes mistaking it for its sibling down south. Because of that, negative media coverage is not only common, it is over-saturated.

    The over-saturation results in the dehumanisation of the North Korean people. Let’s face it: most of us don’t see North Korea as a country where fellow humans live, they see it as a giant oppressive machine that must be destroyed at all cost.

    And, whether you believe or not, this kind of dehumanisation already has a negative effect on the state of humanity.

    It is not a secret that many people, especially neoconservative westerners, support invasions of repressive countries like North Korea without any regards of innocent casualties; I mean, if they really care, they would not get aroused by the idea of violent invasions and would not perceive any innocent casualties as mere “collateral damage”.

    While I don’t pay as much attention to it, I also notice the same thing with how western media treats Iran.

    The humanisation of the Iranian people is way more well-received. But, unfortunately, the demand for dehumanisation prevails among the politically-outspoken degenerates.

    Many still refuse to see Iran as a place where humans live… which is why, just like in the case of North Korea, they are not hesitant to support violent military interventions against it.

    I do have my own solution to deal with this problem. But, not only it is made by a non-expert, it is also rather tricky to implement.

    If a country has been almost entirely negatively reported by foreign media and you want to make a documentary (or something similar) about it instead of a normal news report, there are two things you can do.

    The first thing you can do is to cover positive things about said country and tell the world its previously unknown faces.

    And when I say “positive”, I mean genuinely so. They should be based on facts instead of the political establishments’ rhetorics. You have to make sure the presentation of positivity does not paint the country in an entirely positive light.

    Youtuber Louis Cole AKA FunForLouis made a series of vlogs of him and his friends visiting North Korea. Even though I was never subscriber, I was intrigued…. and was quickly disappointed.

    Obviously, I should watch the sequels as well. But, in the end of the first video, he said North Korea was not as bad as people claimed simply because he and his friends were greeted with a touristy welcome; at that moment, he seemed to perceive a choreographed performance as an excellent representation of the reality.

    I was already repulsed about those overtly-polished Youtube vlogs. Cole’s ignorant comment only intensified my repulsion.

    Departures has proven that, if you use your brain a bit more and don’t easily fall for deceptive veneers, you can shed a positive light on an oppressive country without becoming its government’s propaganda tool.

    But, if you are reasonable iffy about making positive coverage and still prefer to do a negative one, I have a second tip: find a fresh angle.

    If you keep repeating the same real life horror stories, the only thing you would be good at is affirming simplistic prejudgements about North Korea and discouraging outsiders from humanising the victims due to the lack of nuances.

    I think the Youtube channel Asian Boss does a great job in getting the fresh angles. Instead of treating their North Korean interviewees as propaganda tools to exploit, they treat them as individuals with human stories to tell.

    As a result, not only it results in ethically-dignified documentaries, it also unearths surprising facts about the country they are defecting from.

    For instance, even though the consumption of foreign media is prohibited in general, I did not know that consumption of South Korean media will result in more severe punishments than the consumption of western one. It confirms one of our preconceived notions…. but, in a rather complex way.

    I specifically said this tip is only for those who make documentaries and the likes and NOT for journalists who solely make daily and relatively short reports.

    Why? Because it is obvious that my tips, especially the second one, require in-depth analyses and cannot be simply done in less than a day or even a week.

    Well, they can. But, the results would be sloppy.

    Okay, I am aware of how horrible my suggestions are; not only I have zero experiences in the media industry, my words are not precise and technical enough to be practically useful. Heck, even if I am a highly-experienced professional, my suggestions would not be the be-all and end-all.

    But, even then, the unreliability of my tips does not mean the media industry is perfect as it is. Every person with functioning brain cells knows mediocrity and lacking integrity are embraced as virtues.

    Public discourses about the ethics of depicting authoritarian countries are almost non-existent and, for reasons I have mentioned in this essay, it is something to be reasonably angry about.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

  • The Swede’s rhetoric

    I have made a few articles about Felix Kjellberg AKA Pewdiepie and one contains my arguments about how he is actually a reckless edgelord instead of an actual far-right ideologue.

    I mention how he never makes excuses for the bigotry of some of his fans, how he was (and still is) slandered by the media and how he only invited one right-wing pundit just to review memes instead of letting him spill verbal diarrhea.

    But, for some reasons, I forgot to talk about his own rhetoric.

    Below, I am going to list the common talking points of contemporary western conservatives:

    1. Equal rights are the same as special rights for women and the minorities

    2. Women are happier when they are treated as the “lesser sex”.

    3. The Southern Strategy never happened and American Democratic party is still the racist party.

    4. Taking down Confederate statues equals erasure of history.

    5. The Bell Curve is scientifically legitimate.

    6. Any violence committed by Christians of European descent, including the Holocaust, the Trail of Tears, and the Crusades, were either justified, exaggerated or fictional.

    7. All Muslims are sleeper cells.

    8. The world is controlled by globalist Jewish elites.

    9. Sexual violence is a trivial matter, unless they are committed by brown Muslims.

    I am sure there are more recurring talking points than I mentioned above. But, those will do.

    Disturbingly, I have seen how they often they are “discussed” by conservatives, especially by those who make Youtube videos,some of whom prefer to call themselves classical liberals.

    But, from all online personalities who have been perceived as far-right, Pewdiepie is the only one who has never talked about those things.

    Seriously, I have never heard him openly or discreetly espousing any of those lies. In fact, he barely touches politics and he never talks about history; his commentaries mostly revolve around the non-political aspects of Youtube culture.

    The thing about our bigotry is it cannot be hidden completely, no matter how hard we try, no matter how hard we deny its existence. Even if we are not prone to Freudian slips, our bigotry will appear subtextually in our messages.

    I have encountered so many people online who claim to not be bigoted… and yet, if you read their words between the lines, you will notice how hateful they are.

    You cannot say you are not a racist when you believe the mere presence of non-whites is the evidence of white genocide. You cannot say you are not a homophobe or a transphobe when you believe LGBT rights discriminate against cisgender and heterosexual people.

    But, with Felix, I haven’t seen any far-right subtexts from his online content.

    His commentaries are indeed laced with subtexts… classical liberal subtexts; he is all about freeing humans from any excessive constraints, both in social and legal forms. He disapproved of the “policing” of any kind of activities, as long as they are not violent.

    Basically, he is the complete opposite of those far-right individuals who are supposedly all about liberty while advocating for taking it away from those who are different from them.

    He, the person who never calls himself a classical liberal, is way more classical liberal than the reactionaries who claim to be ones.

    About the Christchurch mosque massacre…

    Both his name and Candace Owens’s were implicated because they were mentioned by the shooter. The shooter said “subscribe to Pewdiepie”, a meme created by Felix himself, during the live streamed violence while she was cited as his number one ideological inspiration.

    And both public figures reacted differently.

    Felix was never cited as an inspiration; the shooter mentioned the name of the most popular Youtuber because he wanted more attention.

    But, not only Felix immediately condemned the massacre, he pleaded to his fans to end the meme. After his many controversies, after years of being a reckless edgelord, he has realised he has a responsibility as a public figure for every single one of his public actions… and that includes his inherently harmless meme which he created as a tongue-in-cheek response to his rivalry with T-Series.

    Owens, on other hand, responded immediately by laughing it off in her dismissive tweet, despite the fact that she is the shooter’s number one inspiration!

    I don’t know about her now. But, at that time, it was obvious she did not have any sense of responsibility as a public figure, even though she was famous in the first place because of her politically charged and definitely-not-trivial messages.

    She was not that different from Trump who took days to condemn the Charlottesville Neo-Nazi rally attended by his own supporters.

    She was not that different from other right-wing public figures who constantly incite bigotry and yet refusing to acknowledge they might have inspired atrocities like the Christchurch massacre.

    But, she and her peers are definitely different from Felix Kjellberg.

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.