Being Open and Rich … At What Cost?
Dinner and dance was around the corner and I hadn’t had an inkling of what I was to wear. The theme this year was “Shanghai Noon”. The one with Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson – all those Cowboys, Indians and Chinese-y thrown together like one huge blender of cacophonic laughter. Anyway, I went with the Native American Red Indian this year. Got the costume and now had to source for the face paint. (Which is the only reason I went for it. Cosmetics, here I come … haha)
In my exploration of the Red Indian culture, I stumbled upon the story of Chief Crazy Horse. Apparently, he was a well respected warrior who fought with utmost courage in what he believed in. Certainly piqued my interest. So as I delved deeper into his enigma, I came across this:
(A short synopsis: Men from the West occupied Indian lands for gold, produce and expansion. They took the lands by force or by deception and sent the Indians packing to remote reserves. Pretty sucky)
Chief Crazy Horse:
"We did not ask you white men to come here.
The Great Spirit gave us this country as a home.
You had yours.
We did not interfere with you.
The Great Spirit gave us plenty of land to live on, and buffalo, deer, antelope and other game.
But you have come here, you are taking my land from me, you are killing off our game, so it hard for us to live.
Now, you tell us to work for a living,
but the Great Spirit did not make us to work,
but to live by hunting.
You white men can work if you want to.
We did not interfere with you, and again you say
why do you not become civilized?
We do not want your civilization!
We would live as our fathers did, and their
fathers before them. "
Here’s the line that struck me:
Why do you not become civilized?
What denotes “civilized”?
I read in the "Today" newspaper, a week or two ago, an article concerning the economic policies of our fair weathered Singapore government. By and large, the writer made perfect monetary sense in encouraging or at least highlighting that the government was not keeping pace (or rather restrictive) with certain avenues of openness. The government was not homogeneous in its approach to endow openness across the board and this would indelibly constrain other economic possibilities for growth.
This individual, a Fellow with the Political\Social Science department of our local University, was stating that we weren’t following the times, that we, though more open than before, were lacking when compared to the global arena. Thusly, we lose out on whatever financial echelons that we might otherwise achieve.
Here’s the kicker. He offers up the restriction on Gay Nation Celebration and Satellite Dishes among others as opposed to the permissive stance on Integrated Resorts (ie. Casino … its amazing what the marketing people can do to parlay the notion of gambling into something so innocent) as examples.
In other words, if Casino = yes, then GNC (Not the company) and SD = yes as well? (That’s what I implied from it anyway.)
To this, I say, “Huh?” (More like "WTF?" actually)
Surely, for such wide-ranging policies, shouldn’t the greater overall picture be taken? Not lest simply the economic state of affairs.
Here is a scholar all worldly-wise and “unbelievably“ well-educated, yet he needles the government on the satellite dishes and gay parades.
Just as the white men took over Native American Indian lands and yet label them as uncivilized, are we not somewhat similar? In our thirst to be truly global and competitive, do we forego our civilities, do we gray what is right and what is wrong?
Gay Nation Celebration … why the need for promoting the gay lifestyle. I can understand being gay and all, but why promote it? If the heterosexuals don’t have a Hetero Nation Day, why then a Gay Day? Why is there this need to differentiate? Are we not of the same human race?
Besides, what is the parade celebrating anyway? Maybe it’s there to tell people that its OK to be gay … maybe its for acceptance …
Or perhaps it’s a way to say it’s the right way or allowable way? Then again, how can it be the right way when the very nature of gayness goes against the laws of procreation? (Highly controversial, so I’ll leave that up to debate) For what other purpose does the “meeting” between couples be for?
Stripped down to the basics, it’s about celebrating desire … desire to have feelings for another of the same sex or the desire to have sexual relations with the same sex. Let’s be serious … birth is not possible … so for what other purpose is there, but to promote desire?
Being gay is alright. Nothing remotely wrong with that. Where I disagree is the notion of having a beach parade for it, to celebrate its “glory”. We are still Asian. We have our customs and cultures, seeped in traditional, though sometime backward nomenclature, exhibit admirable qualities of acceptable civil behavior.
Prancing around on a beach celebrating a “different“ sexual orientation simply doesn’t correlate.
So now, what about satellite dishes (SD)? With SD flows the host of uncensored deluge of human "shame" (depends on how you see it) … violence and sex (those that belittle the opposite sex as toys). Whilst others may proclaim our intellectual ability to discern or even our right to choose between right and wrong, we, humans have a propensity towards anarchy … we live by our moral code but we are have never been strong enough to abide by it. Served up enough of the low grade crap, what was once met with derision is easily accepted as normalcy.
Look at history … We cringe at the thought of the barbaric Dark Ages, the human scion that is Genghis Khan, Vladimir The Impaler or Attila The Hun … Yet how is that any different from the beheadings in Sumatra, Iraq or even the hallowed land of the free, America where their "democracy" boasts of some of the highest murder rates in the world?
Compared to the States, even the Dayaks in Sumatra (who did the beheading) have some semblance of civility despite their perceived barbarism …
Simply put, “When I kill m enemy, I know my enemy’s name.” - Dayak disposition
In the age of technologically wizardry, where missiles can reach thousands of miles … we simply kill without knowing whom we have killed.
Why is it still happening? Are we not enlightened to make appropriate decisions?
In all our celebration of progress, we have failed miserably in our culture … in our moral code.
It saddens me that a scholar, so distinguished by his fellowship in an esteemed university put forth his views on competitive globalization without forethought on the repercussions of such policy changes on society. The fact that more weight was placed on being “numero uno” economically demonstrates the cultural slant; our desire to be the rich with little thought of morality or ethics.
First World country .. what does that mean? Are we in the most civilized bracket of society? The crème de la crème?
We proclaim that we are civil. We seem to be championing cosmopolitan values Cosmopolitan? Or rather western values … In fact, I’m far more inclined to feel that it’s a money culture that we are promoting … our capitalistic ideals. I’m no communist, marxist, blah blah … I am most assuredly not opposed to the notion of wealth … but we have the proclivity to allow ourselves be dictated by the rules of money.
It makes the world go round as they say.
Unbeknowst (probably), the scholar proposes the lightening of our moral code to endear ourselves to the economies of the rich. We are already rich and should be richer still in future. But rich at waht cost? Are we truly rich? Depends on which side of the fence you’re on.
With the advent of expanded legalized gambling, casinos, events like crazy horse … etc … Singapore is becoming more open … more economically strengthened through our predisposition to liken our attractions to the whims and fancies, if not afflictions of the basic human needs\desires\temptations. Indeed, in this circumstance, we are getting richer.
Yet stripped down to its evolutionary roots .. these efforts at openness are simply … sex and gambling … vices nonetheless.
Some may argue that … NAY, we are simply enlightening ourselves and minds on the ways of the world .. we are gaining in wisdom.
I say bullshit. How is it that the People\Gods\Deities whom we are still worshipping\admiring, have been dead eons ago … Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Confucius, Gandhi … or more recently, Mother Theresa. We still worship them for the what they embody … all the richness of life and wisdom. We seek live life as just and holy. We seek enlightenment.
Thusly, I find it ridiculous that some have the gall to proclaim gambling, pornography (or Adult content to the politically correct) is enlightenment? I certainly can’t see Mother Theresa patronizing such places. Enlightenment … my ass.
With money … "Life is rich" … I snigger at such thoughts. In this day and age … rich is an oxymoron when simple pleasantries are seldom practiced in our society.
Whatever happened to the simple “Thank you”? It is a joke that we actually have to run a national courtesy campaign. (Whatever happened to it anyway?)
Civilized, cultured, sophisticated, educated, enlightened … I think not.
Economic champions perhaps … but at what cost … our morality?
The question is not if we are globally competitive (enough), not if we can\are rich (enough), not if we are open (enough) … the question is which sense of the word "rich" would we prefer to ascribe to?
I am certainly no saint nor a scholar, but I’m pretty sure that there are certain things that we can do without.
Just my 2-cents.
(As a disclaimer, I bear no ill to gays. I just have issue with constant jibe for Singapore to be more open. There are more important things to be open about like the hidden poor, the forgotten aged and the disappearing practice of compassion … perhaps even our own humanity.)
