i'm not going to dwell on the london bombings and all that they entail because i think that's already been covered to death by the media. i'm more intrigued by the implications of kuseikos' reflections - it's not just what he says, but how he says it and what he doesn't say that holds so much meaning.
emotional excesses vs a steely exterior - cultural stereotypesin highlighting how the brits have picked themselves up and gone about their lives as if nothing had happened, kuseikos injects a dose of self-deprecating humour with the use of cultural stereotypes. he writes:
The Brits cannot be scared off. They do not lose control. The Brits are not afraid of the bombs that exploded in London. They are not panicking.
This is precisely what I esteem and admire in a people. One of the things I find most annoying in Southern Italians is the way they think they have to stress, uselessly exaggerating their emotions. Crying and shouting for any stupid reason.
In front of pain and disaster, the Brits haven't been shaken at all. They are back to their lives, keeping their emotions well hidden within their heart, which is where they are supposed to stay. The terrorists have lost their battle in England because they can't bring terror in London. The Brits don't react to fear. They have a dignity that most other peoples (Italians for example) do not have.i say "self-deprecating" because kuseikos is italian. of course his disparaging description of the italian people could be an indication of reverse ethnocentrism, but it's not strong enough to warrant such a label. i prefer to think of it as a keen appreciation of the prevailing perceptions of a certain community.
in any case, such cultural stereotypes can be a very thorny issue. while i see nothing wrong with the way that kuseikos has handled it, it's not difficult to imagine how his comments can be blown out of proportion. the problem with exploiting such stereotypes is the propensity for one to lose control over the situation. your intentions might have been honourable; your execution might have been flawless. but there's no preventing misinterpretation. it's an inherent failing of communication - you never know if your message is received exactly as you meant it.
now imagine the repercussions of handling such delicate subjects in a manner that is anything short of appropriate. even the most rational academic would find it difficult to separate emotion from reason and react with objectivity. the average person isn't going to look at something from the point of view of the author and pardon him for his inability to convey his message with sensitivity. even if no ill intentions lie behind the message, it is far too easy to lose sight of that all-important fact and succumb to the raw emotions that drive your response.
treading carefullywhile it might be possible to prevent conflicts from arising in such situations, i'm not of the opinion that the quality of intention and execution alone is adequate. like i said, you can handle the subject in as tasteful a manner as humanly possible but you can never be sure that it won't be seen as offensive by anyone. it would be too much to expect everyone to be able to interpret every message as it was meant to be received - after all, language is a barrier to communication precisely because levels of proficiency vary. given the dangers of miscommunication, are we then to avoid such sensitive topics altogether?
sure, exercising self-censorship can help prevent latent tensions from spiralling out of control. but social responsibility encompasses so much more than just watching what you say. it's also about keeping a tight rein on your emotions in the face of provocation. responding in a mature and measured manner or even not responding at all is possibly the best solution. only then can we put a stop to the vicious cycle of action and reaction; provocation and retaliation.
it helps too if we all possess the willingness to see things from a perspective other than our own. only by understanding where another person is coming from can we free ourselves from our preconceived notions and conclusions.
you know something? it's not about tolerance - what the hell do people mean when they talk about religious tolerance? the very word implies an endurance of something that is distasteful. why are we advocating tolerance? differences aren't something that we should be averse to and put up with for the sake of maintaining harmony. they should be understood, appreciated, and celebrated.
ying @ 11:55 PM
