Edge of Somewhere: Into the Fray

Planning assumptions

This morning, I read an update on the situation in Haiti with the group who were arrested for trafficking. First, I think we should be careful with the term ‘missionary’ here. I would note a difference between a ‘missionary’ who is someone vetted, trained, sent and supported by a body to whom he or she is accountable and a religious group travelling abroad. From past experience with mission organisations and training short-term teams for cross-cultural contact, I know there is are a broad range of skills and expectations in these groups (both the folk travelling and those who are sending).

Of course I don’t know the specific situation with this group, what the backstory is or what kind of training they had beforehand. But I do know how easy it is to carry one’s assumptions about ‘what probably goes on there and what we can do.’ I do know that, no matter how disorganised the (orphanage, shelter, clinic, church, food pantry, etc.) seems to be, that it’s unwise to come with the assumption that one can impose one’s own organisation on them. We often carry an earnest combination of ‘I want to help in whatever way possible’ and ‘let’s get things done’. We tend to drop in and make a superficial survey of the situation and then offer what seem to be reasonable suggestions or take some direct action without fully considering or consulting with the local partner. I’m wondering if this group made a series of these choices that led to their arrest; it’s also easy to assume that there is no defined mechanism in a given country for accomplishing whatever it is the group wants to focus on (otherwise why would a third party need to step in and do the work).

However, and this is a big however, there is a legitimate role that outside groups can play as a third party with fresh insights on what can be accomplished. Beyond the typical financial aid that can be funnelled, there is networking and brainstorming that come from international partnerships (and this is something that goes both ways; there are sometimes things that the local partner has never considered that seem obvious to the visitor and assumptions that a visitor might make beforehand that the local partner can quickly dispel and completely change the focus of a proposed project). The primary thing (and this goes with any kind of relationship) is open communication. There are huge two-way disasters in the making when either the visitors or the local partners have erroneous assumptions about a given project.

It then becomes dangerous (or causes an international incident) when the visitors don’t have a thorough understanding of local cultural norms or regulations. We are in Mumbai this week enjoying the interplay of ideas in a new place where (hopefully) we are both listeners and catalysts for new thoughts. But I’m just realising anew, especially in situations that are especially sensitive like prostitution or trafficking, that things could quickly go south is one is careless in either that listening or speak too quickly ideas that don’t appropriately address the issues at hand.

Into-the-Fray • 18 February 2010 Comment

Success in failed underpants

The last week’s news sounds like the plot of Mel Brook’s The Producers; in the musical/movie the main characters discover that, by producing a musical that will certainly become a flop, they will paradoxically bring in more money. I wonder if there is a terrorist group channelling the ideas of Mel Brooks (and not sure if that would be hilarious or horrifying).

Had the gentleman of the exploding shorts succeeded in his attempt, we would probably never have known what brought the plane down nor possibly where the man was from, etc. (though these groups are usually quick to shout out what they’ve ‘accomplished’). However, what if the set goal was to fail outright? What if they never intended to destroy the plane?

If a plane is brought down it represents a certain financial loss and obviously a loss of life; though these groups seem intent to bring about the most loss of life possible, I would imagine their goals are more nuanced than that. We are essentially talking about a conflict of worldview; it’s more practical to disrupt the norms of living than to kill large numbers of people (the former requires only a bit of leverage in the right place; the latter usually involves a great deal of effort and risk of exposure).

A few years ago, a man attempted to hide a bomb in his shoe and now, all around the world, travellers must remove footwear for inspection. This man succeeded far more in failure; the disruption he’s caused is global rather than just one flight. Now because of the Underbomber, we are now told to arrive four hours early for flights rather than the accustomed two. How much economic and social disruption do these extra two hours represent? How much stress for people who are already stressed (and how much more surly will the already overworked TSA screeners become)?

I think we risk becoming completely subject to the failures of ideologues; but I suppose that is nothing new.

Into-the-Fray • 5 January 2010 Comment [1]

Halloween Viewing

Whilst waiting for Trick-or-Treaters tonight, I sat watching a DVD collection of The (brilliant) Brothers Quay. The web version of the video does not compare to the remastered films on disc. At the end of In Absentia I—yelped.

I’ll also note the work of Lauren Simonutti while I’m at it. I think that she and the Brothers Quay are drawing from somewhere deep in sister realms.

Into-the-Fray • 31 October 2009 Comment

This Must Be It

Middle-aged hippie Scandinavians in loin-cloths and a drum-kit off road vehicle! How much more can one ask for?

Röyksopp ‘This Must Be It’ from Röyksopp on Vimeo.

Into-the-Fray • 30 September 2009 Comment

Predestination

The shooting in Pittsburgh last week…a man walked into a gym and killed several women; he had planned this for some time, was apparently openly disturbed, published details of it online and was questioned by police a week before under suspicion of having a grenade on public transport. Yet, somehow, ‘nobody noticed’ that something was amiss with him.

The murderer noted that, at church, “This guy [the pastor] teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder, then still go to heaven.” A deacon of this church (from which the murderer was removed for harassing a woman) stated, “God will hold him accountable. God has his justice.” The pastor, “Knapp, who left town Saturday to care for his critically ill father in Florida, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Friday that, ‘the message of the word I preach never reflected such a thing.’” But then the deacon immediately states, “We believe in permanent security—once saved, always saved,” Rickard [the deacon] said. “He will be judged, but he will be in heaven. … He’ll be in heaven, but he won’t have any rewards because he did evil.” (Quotes from AP.)

So which is it? You preached a message of ultimate predestination and election; that one can do nothing that would turn God away from your salvation. Yet you say that he’s going to ‘be judged.’ What, is he going to have to sit in the penalty box for a thousand years? You gave the man a message that he would find acceptance and peace in the life beyond whist fully missing all markers of his unhappiness in this life and attempting to address them here.

The gun dealer where the murderer purchased his weapons certainly does not take responsibility for anything, “Thompson [the dealer] said attacks like Tuesday’s underscore the need for people to protect themselves because police can’t respond in time to crises, he said.”

So…to be clear, the woman in the gym are to blame for this because they were unarmed. They were foolish enough to go out in public without adequate protection from disturbed men who can easily purchase high-powered weapons used in battle and designed specifically for killing people. That has to be the most pathetic logic I’ve heard in at least the last three weeks. Yet people spout it off with a straight face. Why are we checking for weapons in airports? It would seem logical that what is really necessary is to arm everyone on the plane to make things even.

Also, this man was craving attention—and now has it. His name is all over the news around the world. For however many years people did not pay attention to him; he was not important enough to note or give help to and now ‘everyone is talking about him.’ How wise is that? We are giving ammunition to others like him who feel they have no other alternative. What does this have to say about our society that we are so unaware of people with mental illness that they have to completely break down and kill for us to notice (and then we are ‘shocked and saddened’)? It is wholly destructive from all angles that we pay no heed to the warnings (and are ill equipped to deal with them regardless, I would imagine there was nothing the police could do when they encountered him a week before without ‘proof’) and give over an arsenal of tools (literally) to the socially maladjusted for bad ends.

This is going to pass right under the radar; big news for this week till the next tragedy on Wednesday. We will go right back to our lives…and right now there is a lonely person searching for an assault rifle online who thinks this will be his option out.

Into-the-Fray • 10 August 2009 Comment

Oh Bother

Because of a bureaucratic glitch, I’m going to have to leave the UK at the end of this month. One is required to have £800 in the bank at all times for the three months prior to making an application for a visa. That first month of working, when I was transitioning from “student” to “full-time worker, taxpayer, and general contributor to society”, I dipped slightly below that. I realised this three months ago (after if was already too late) and called the Home Office; they said the rule was absolute but, of course, someone sits down and reviews my specific situation (e.g. that I have a full-time permanent job and a regular income). However, I called the international student advisor at my school earlier this week to get the necessary documentation from him for my application—and he said not to even bother. Apparently the government is finding any excuse to deny visas (he just had 120 denied because there was a date presented incorrectly on the graduation letter from Strathclyde). He said that, a year ago, in my situation, they would not have even blinked. “Oh, this fellow already has a job…here is the visa”. Now they are absolutely hard-line, black and white.

We are looking into what my options are; my (terrifically supportive) company is keen on keeping me. The most sensible thing is going to be to end my contract here and send me to another one of the offices abroad (France seems the likely contender at the moment, we are checking on the procedure for a French visa [which, though the French have their own reputation for red tape, seems much more at ease than the British system. The Home Office has all these guidelines and forms regarding visas; the French Consulate General website basically says, “call us up for an appointment and we’ll talk about your needs”—perhaps with a glass of wine and some cheese]). The bizarre thing is that the government is shooting itself in the foot with stuff like this; my company is not going to hire someone else in my place, they will just send me to another country…and my tax and social revenue will go there with me. I want to be here! I have a good job, plus I do NGO work on the side and want to bring in folk from the organisations I work with do training and programs here. I’m not leaching off the government or just floundering about. Grrrrrr (to use an exact expression).

It’s a sudden upheaval; just as I am getting settled in, I must leave because of a relatively minor technicality. I will try to come back (as I have till next September to apply for a post-graduate study visa). However, once the visa I have expires (this month), I will have to apply from abroad; applicants from a third country must have £2800 in the bank at all times for the three months prior to application. So wherever I go, it will be for at least three months plus the processing time.

This is all a huge bother and I feel like I’m not dealing with people; just up before a big machine. It is an education though; as an American, it’s easy to fall into an slightly rosy understanding of what one’s rights are to travel and live abroad since my passport opens so many doors. However, my country is famous (now at least) for not reciprocating that openness (e.g. the citizens of many of the places I have been can not travel to the US as readily as I can to their countries). I understand the reasons for all these things on paper; but, when one is dealing with a system that defines people’s lives by an unwavering observation of a set of rules, it’s difficult to maintain an un-biased view.

Into-the-Fray • Journal 11 January 2009 Comment

What happens

I’m back in Glasgow for a few days to pack up my things and prepare for the move to Dumfries and Galloway where I will start work at The Green House, the main offices of Natural Power (See more on The Green House itself at this link.) My title there will be marketing assistant though my role will focus a good deal on internal communications (the company is rapidly expanding and we need to keep track of what everyone is doing in the several offices worldwide). I’ll also produce design and layout work (something I’ve been wanting to do more of) as well as put those cinema and video production skills back into play.

We mostly consult on the design and construction of on and offshore windfarms (the company is well respected and has a 100% success rate for planning acceptance; this is from a combination of careful sighting and a good ethos for working with communities where farms are proposed). They do everything from small sites of a couple turbines to very large offshore installations (such as a 1100 MW site in Ireland that will provide 10% of the country’s electricity).

This will be a big change for me after ten years sporadic freelance work; however, If I’m to take a “proper job”, I’m glad it’s at a place such as this. I think energy is the topic of the moment (how it’s produced, used and abused). I’m looking forward into getting into the thick of it with a group of people who are at the forefront of renewable energy (that’s not an attempt at marketing spin, they really do good stuff). The friend who originally told me about Natural Power said this is one of the best working environments she has encountered (she was working as a headhunter for the renewables sector). These are the “bright green” people who are changing the face of “corporate society”.

Much much more to follow.

Journal • Into-the-Fray 3 October 2008 Comment

A different sort of MSc

You know you are in a different sort of master’s program when one of your classmates tries to glue himself to the Prime Minister! The details are a bit sketchy but see the BBC story here.

I’m—not entirely sure what to make of it; apparently Mr. Brown just laughed it off and allowed Dan to stay at Downing Street for a while. I think in the US he might have been shot or something.

Update: there is a CNN article and video interview with Dan here.

Into-the-Fray • 22 July 2008 Comment [1]

The Greatest Silence

Just came across this film on systemic rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Having visited the DRC, I’ve had a little primer on the situation there; yet, some of these stories shake me to the core. I am amazed and saddened that one of the most beautiful ways of sharing between people is made into such a horrible violation of humanity.

Into-the-Fray • 8 April 2008 Comment

Living by Metaphor

We had last week the first session of Food Culture and Agriculture, a course on how societies view the growth of food and the customs that surround it. “Customs” here are far-reaching; we are not merely discussing table customs, but the cycles of consumption and waste that are necessarily connected to our “modern” food “industry” (perhaps food should also be in quotes as the pre-packaged frozen salted preserved irradiated bar-coded best-by dated substance purchased in the supermarket bears little resemblance to what was once considered cuisine).

There are any number of criticisms one can raise concerning food culture; there are arguments that we have larger issues at hand to consider. However, until the Industrial Revolution, the world was based on agrarian societies. We planned our years based on agricultural cycles; we lived near the soil. Now we think of soil as something dirty. It is something dead and dusty that gets tracked into the house and must be vacuumed up and disposed of (as an aside, most of the dust in one’s home is dander or the faecal material of dust mites who have fed on sloughed off skin). At best, we look upon soil as an inert medium in which we grow plants.

We consider ourselves the benefactor of the agricultural cycle. However, we are not the end product of agriculture; plants and produce are not the final product either. Soil is the product of agriculture. Without the regeneration of soil, agriculture is impossible.

I’m going to meander and come back to this in later postings as I’m interested in the interplay between the environment and religious belief.

We all live by metaphors; societies function by the consensus of ideas (or, to be harsher, often we live by the consensus of delusion). The primary metaphor of western society is that humankind is cursed and in need of redemption; we’ve been developing the components of this metaphor for the past several thousand years and its influence and consequences have now spread over all the Earth. We are a fallen race; the consequence of the fall is this:

And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
—Genesis 3:17-19 KJV

This has been the basis for social custom and cohesion for millennia; the primary activity of humankind has been to toil in the fields. Yet, suddenly, within a few generations, we have surpassed this original curse (and burdened ourselves with a new one). These verses tend to get read through quickly, as if they are of secondary importance to the whole “we’ll be fighting against Satan till the end of time” thing. But, what we fight against is dust. The felt consequence of the curse are not primarily the fight against cosmic forces or the fact that we have to wear clothing; it’s that we will forever struggle against dust. And we are made of dust; we face an intractable situation. We are bound to tend the soil till we return to it; or, at least, we were until we unleashed the powers of industry on the world.

I wonder if the environmental and societal issues we face now are rooted in a grand attempt to abandon the metaphor of dust. What greater power could our species show than to gain the upper hand on God and his feeble curse? What greater expression of pride could we display?

Yet, in this attempt, we drain life from soil. We have replaced life with chemistry and killed the mystery. The substance of our lives is humus; but it is this substance we seem to disdain and distance ourselves from. I think that, unless we return to a closer understanding of soil and the consequences of its loss, we can never have a healthy respect for others (or for ourselves, for the future, for the environment). If we do not consider or respect the base substance of life, there can be no respect of any living thing.

Into-the-Fray • 6 November 2007 Comment [1]

« Further reading

Edge of Somewhere

Home

Categories

Search

Read

Recent Comments

Links

Discussions