I let the bloggie slip for a week. Opa! Here are a few highlights from this past weekend:
1. The perfect bite? I met a friend for lunch at the Hornet, a restaurant just a few blocks away that I had never been to before. I pass it every time I take the bus, so I've been curious about it for awhile. I got an Ahi tuna wrap sandwich with some mango salsa and avocado all mushed in there. It came with sweet potato fries, too. Pretty delicious.
2. I went out Saturday night for a friend's surprise party organized by her husband. It made me so happy to see her so thrilled. She really was surprised and kept saying, "I can't believe you all came here just for me. Thank you so much for coming!" Adorable.
3. Face it or not (ahem, anyone remember Birthright trip 2008?), I actually got a little tipsy on Saturday night! Perhaps it was the fact that I started off by getting a FREE cocktail? Or the fact that I got myself second one, or maybe it was the next two drinks? Ha! I was just having a good time, totally in control, but relaxing a bit more than usual. I ended the night perfectly by taking a cab home and having a really nice conversation in Spanish with my Cuban driver. Seriously, I always get the coolest cab drivers!
4. Driving home from the grocery store I saw my friend walking her dog! I honked, waved and pulled over. With groceries still in the car, I parked and went for a walk with her and her dog, Max. Moments and happen-upons like that make me feel like I'm starting to have a community here, learn Denver, and connect with good people.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Living more consciously
I have been much happier these days. Back a few weeks ago I wrote No soy yo. I am not myself. I was living numbly awhile. I hadn't felt myself in so long, that I wondered if I ever would feel it again. By 'it' I mean that I wanted to engage in the world. I wanted to smile more and make my nerdy, dry puns even when no one understood them and I would just seem like an odd character. I wanted to say Good Morning to people I ran by on the bike path. I wanted to care about how I dressed, not that I have "style" but, shall we say, I have a style. My style. I wanted to talk to random people, ride the bus rather than drive, cook dinner and bring my lunch. All of this, I just didn't feel like I had time to do before. Something changed. Finally! I feel this weight lifted off me. I am myself again! I feel the same sort of confidence that I had when I first moved back to the states from Peru. I got through "tough times." I did the independent thing. I could make things happen and be myself. Be myself. Be my self.
I think part of being me is that I am much more compassionate toward other people. Why? Maybe it's because as I engage with the world around me, I start to care more about the people and environment around me, too. Maybe it's because I feel a broader spectrum of emotions just by living more consciously. The happy is happier; the sad is more sad. I like this way of living. I have always thought this: I would rather feel something than feel nothing. That is, I would rather feel emotions strongly, than not feel anything at all.
As part of this living more consciously and feeling emotions more deeply, I cried twice this week. Both times it happened because I just was hit with a wave of profound emotion. I felt sad for the way things are, at once inexplicable and completely understandable. The first time was when I was cooking dinner and mindlessly listening to the news on the radio. The compassionate voice from the little black hand radio on my table reported that one third of Haiti's entire population died in the earthquake. One third. Thirty-three percent. I can't really fathom the extent of suffering in that country, on that island, right now. The second time I cried was when I was on the bus home from school yesterday. A crew of high school girls behind me were talking about ethnicity. Of course, the way the were chattering was not so sophisticated: energetic, full of "like," and testing their new ideas by saying them aloud to each other. "Wait, what if I married an Asian guy, then my kids would be... 3/4 Asian?" What made me feel a profound wave of emotion, though, was the man sitting in front of me. Obviously frazzled and unkempt, it was clear he was a war veteran. He kept swearing and repeating this one phrase over and over and over. "Shit, man, I killed people over there!" I couldn't help it. Tears came. That did, and does, strike me as a moment I will remember for a long time. I was - and am - sad for this man whose whole experience of life has been shaded with guilt and constant memory of his inhumanity. Sad for the people he killed over there, whoever they are and wherever there is.
Living consciously...
I think part of being me is that I am much more compassionate toward other people. Why? Maybe it's because as I engage with the world around me, I start to care more about the people and environment around me, too. Maybe it's because I feel a broader spectrum of emotions just by living more consciously. The happy is happier; the sad is more sad. I like this way of living. I have always thought this: I would rather feel something than feel nothing. That is, I would rather feel emotions strongly, than not feel anything at all.
As part of this living more consciously and feeling emotions more deeply, I cried twice this week. Both times it happened because I just was hit with a wave of profound emotion. I felt sad for the way things are, at once inexplicable and completely understandable. The first time was when I was cooking dinner and mindlessly listening to the news on the radio. The compassionate voice from the little black hand radio on my table reported that one third of Haiti's entire population died in the earthquake. One third. Thirty-three percent. I can't really fathom the extent of suffering in that country, on that island, right now. The second time I cried was when I was on the bus home from school yesterday. A crew of high school girls behind me were talking about ethnicity. Of course, the way the were chattering was not so sophisticated: energetic, full of "like," and testing their new ideas by saying them aloud to each other. "Wait, what if I married an Asian guy, then my kids would be... 3/4 Asian?" What made me feel a profound wave of emotion, though, was the man sitting in front of me. Obviously frazzled and unkempt, it was clear he was a war veteran. He kept swearing and repeating this one phrase over and over and over. "Shit, man, I killed people over there!" I couldn't help it. Tears came. That did, and does, strike me as a moment I will remember for a long time. I was - and am - sad for this man whose whole experience of life has been shaded with guilt and constant memory of his inhumanity. Sad for the people he killed over there, whoever they are and wherever there is.
Living consciously...
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Dating
A post about dating. Dating's fun! It's fun to meet people, hear what they care about, how they think, see their quirks and - at the "worst" - have some funny stories. I had a brunch date last weekend. This guy just could not get over that we weren't having a date at night time. The night before he called me to ask what to wear (I kid you not). During the date he kept saying "I can't believe we're having a date over breakfast!" Seriously? The date was, predictably, a flop, which isn't to say I didn't have a good time. I hope I kept my emotions (laughter?) in at the time. Inquire within for more details. So, that's the kind of date where you don't expect anything from it. You have to go into it as a little case study of weird people, pull yourself together, be outgoing, and push past the awkwardness in order to have a funny story to tell your girlfriends at yoga class. That's the Awkward Date.
Then there's the Unavoidable Date. This comes up in a couple situations. First, you see the eyes. You know what I'm talking about, don't deny it. The attempts at eye contact, the nervous chatter and flustered questions to make you stay chatting longer. Usually, the date is couched in some ambiguous terms like, "Can we get together to talk about a few questions I have from class" or "Can you help me with my paper." It's unavoidable. The terms of the date make it so that you have to say Yes. You can't refuse because then you'll look like the jerk classmate who won't give a second to help out a peer. But, you also can't respond with the "I'm seeing someone" line because then you seem like an arrogant egomaniac who assumes everyone is asking you out on a date when they really were just asking for help. I can't say no to a date when it's not officially a date. Unavoidable.
Then, and this is my least favorite, there is the Ambush Date. This is when you're hanging out, la-di-da, having a good time and, all of a sudden, Bam! It occurs to you that this could be, just maybe - I mean, is it possible that from his perspective - this is a date? Ack! How did that happen? When did that happen!? You look around and realize it's a romantic date restaurant. The lights dim. All of a sudden the eyes (see above for description) come out. You run to the bathroom and come back to see the check is paid. That's when you say, Shit, an Ambush Date!
I have yet to pull a Meg Ryan from When Harry Met Sally, but all in all, I'm having a lot of fun these days. How about you guys? Any genres of dates you've noticed? Gentlemen- what's your defense?
Monday, January 11, 2010
Imperialism & the Underdeveloped Colony/Post-Colonial State
In response to my readings this week for my class, Politics of Development...
As an outgrowth of Western thought and imperialism, development work historically has been structured to integrate states into the global economy (Wallerstein, Galtung). Overall development has been considered "successful" when colonial/post-colonial states interact and thrive within the global economy. However, integration into a world economy inevitably leads to some cases of underdevelopment because the system’s structure is based on being economically viable and competitive: some states will “win” (have more desirable products, cheaper prices, etc.) and other states necessarily will “lose” (have fewer and less-useful products, higher prices, etc.) (Wallerstein, Galtung). Development’s goal of integration into a fixed economic structure such that some must fail when others succeed undeniably leads to underdevelopment.
As an outgrowth of Western thought and imperialism, development work historically has been structured to integrate states into the global economy (Wallerstein, Galtung). Overall development has been considered "successful" when colonial/post-colonial states interact and thrive within the global economy. However, integration into a world economy inevitably leads to some cases of underdevelopment because the system’s structure is based on being economically viable and competitive: some states will “win” (have more desirable products, cheaper prices, etc.) and other states necessarily will “lose” (have fewer and less-useful products, higher prices, etc.) (Wallerstein, Galtung). Development’s goal of integration into a fixed economic structure such that some must fail when others succeed undeniably leads to underdevelopment.
Notably, this structure of economic-focused development ignores, or even worse, impoverishes, other crucial areas of states. For example, Escobar discusses the inattention to culture in development. Escobar argues that there should be a return of local culture and context-specificity in critical analysis of development. Further, he argues that anthropologists should consider effects on culture when looking at how development occurred. Similarly, Thiong’o shows how the post-colonial infusion of English disintegrated African language and culture. In fact, as evident in theatrical, lyrical and written artistic works, the imperialism influence over the choice of language itself also extended to change the concepts expressed through language. In sum, development has focused on economic gains and integration in the global market, not on cultural contexts or social progression.
I think development must be concerned economics, and, further, that economic development must be a main concern. However, even while focusing on economics, the structure of development also should be and can be changed to include culture. Elaborating on ideas from the readings, I posit two ways to integrate culture into the structure of development. First, culture must be integrated in how developers work with people in developing nations. This may be done by having developers speak the language of the region being developed (Thiong’o, Galtung) and creating “horizontalization” by involving domestic associations that are organized around cultural communities (Galtung). A third way is to have a “go-between” country (Galtung). While this will not promote the culture of the developing nation, it will minimize the degree of imperialism of the dominant culture.
Second, culture must be integrated in the actual work that the developers produce. The idea is to begin with cultural values and to add creativity in order to develop products that will be competitive in the world-economy. Taking advantage of local culture and geographies (Wallerstein), can lead to innovation. Creating new culturally influenced products for sale on the global market is particularly important for nations whose marketable resources are finite, not part of global demand, or unavailable due to poor infrastructure or high distribution costs (Galtung).
While it is easy to theorize of culture combined with creativity resulting in new economically competitive products, how exactly can development workers induce this sort of innovation? Further, underdevelopment would subsist, despite economic development, if resources do not reach through the nation. Thus, what political development needs to occur in order to ensure that the economic profits are distributed for the benefit of the whole nation-state? Finally, how can we separate the use of professional international work languages from eroding the use of local, native languages?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Call it what it is
In my best interest, I am going to try to write more about my "professional" thoughts. Part of why I started this blog was to explain concepts I struggle to understand as a way both to make myself figure it out and to make myself be able to explain it in "real people" terms. So! Here is a thought I have been wrestling with this week from my first class of Introduction to Human Rights.
Human rights are a way to organize society. We know -- have come to agree -- that the fairest, most moral way to organize society is by guaranteeing all people equal opportunity and enjoyment to some 50-odd human rights. A system of implementing, enforcing, and upholding these human rights creates rules for ourselves that do not just give order and expectation. The rules also will produce the maximum happiness for each individual and for the totality of humanity.
That human rights exist is a fairly well-accepted notion around the world. Most international organizations, countries and individuals accept that there are certain entitlements due to all humans by virtue of the fact that they are human.
What human rights exist is also well-settled. People, states, international organizations all pretty much accept the human rights that are laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example, everyone has the rights to life, liberty, security of person, education, health, and the right to work. Other rights that I particularly endorse are that everyone has the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. While it is a declaration (non-binding), not a treaty (binding on its signatories), the document truly does serve as a foundation for accepted international norms.
So we know human rights exist and we know what they are. The problem comes in figuring out if an action is in accordance with, implements, or enforces what we know are human rights. Context without content.
The issue (finally!) I was trying to understand is why people try to add an extra label to each human right. People like to classify each human right as a particular type: "civil/political," "economic," "self-determination," or "social/cultural." First, I hate this added layer of linguistic fluff. Using different words can be a way to avoid enforcement. If a law upholds the "human right" to leisure time, but someone's case argues for their "economic right" to leisure time, then the law does not apply. Call it what it is.
Second, we run into this problem where now we're not sure if these new classifications become their own single-standing human rights, or if they are sub-categories under the overarching category of "human right." Should we forget about the "human" part and just start calling them "social," "economic," "political" rights? Take, for example, what is going on with indigenous rights. Are those human rights? Are they socio-cultural rights? They also involve civil/political and economic issues, so maybe they are "political" or "economic" rights. Or, maybe indigenous rights are a sui generis framework of rights wholly apart from human rights. Unclear, people, unclear! If we didn't have the stupid classifications, we wouldn't have these linguistic ambiguities that actually cause conceptual ambiguity (weird that sometimes words that come after a thought can "go back" and change what the thought was in the first place). Call it what it is.
Finally, I find these distinctions to be a wholly arbitrary farce. The example given in class was that the right to healthcare is an economic right. Never in a million years would I have first classified healthcare as a right that has to do with money. How is it that my right as a human to have a physically healthy body and sound mind can be classified -- and classified solely -- as a monetary issue? Certainly, in the United States, anyway, healthcare has come to be intertwined with financial concerns both on the part of the individual (access) and the state (burden). But, I do not think that is the essence of the right.
What about the right to refuse healthcare? Or communities that don't use money? Or communities whose Shaman or Medicine Man doesn't charge money? Or a group of peoples whose cultural values deem "healthcare" to be something wholly different from the Western conception of "cure" -- an Eskimo peoples believe the highest form of respect to an ailing elder is to kill them before their honorable life degenerates. My point is, why don't we call human rights by the names that they already have? Rather than presupposing what content must fill the context by using our Western, artificial classifications, we should call it what it is.
Human rights are a way to organize society. We know -- have come to agree -- that the fairest, most moral way to organize society is by guaranteeing all people equal opportunity and enjoyment to some 50-odd human rights. A system of implementing, enforcing, and upholding these human rights creates rules for ourselves that do not just give order and expectation. The rules also will produce the maximum happiness for each individual and for the totality of humanity.
That human rights exist is a fairly well-accepted notion around the world. Most international organizations, countries and individuals accept that there are certain entitlements due to all humans by virtue of the fact that they are human.
What human rights exist is also well-settled. People, states, international organizations all pretty much accept the human rights that are laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example, everyone has the rights to life, liberty, security of person, education, health, and the right to work. Other rights that I particularly endorse are that everyone has the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. While it is a declaration (non-binding), not a treaty (binding on its signatories), the document truly does serve as a foundation for accepted international norms.
So we know human rights exist and we know what they are. The problem comes in figuring out if an action is in accordance with, implements, or enforces what we know are human rights. Context without content.
The issue (finally!) I was trying to understand is why people try to add an extra label to each human right. People like to classify each human right as a particular type: "civil/political," "economic," "self-determination," or "social/cultural." First, I hate this added layer of linguistic fluff. Using different words can be a way to avoid enforcement. If a law upholds the "human right" to leisure time, but someone's case argues for their "economic right" to leisure time, then the law does not apply. Call it what it is.
Second, we run into this problem where now we're not sure if these new classifications become their own single-standing human rights, or if they are sub-categories under the overarching category of "human right." Should we forget about the "human" part and just start calling them "social," "economic," "political" rights? Take, for example, what is going on with indigenous rights. Are those human rights? Are they socio-cultural rights? They also involve civil/political and economic issues, so maybe they are "political" or "economic" rights. Or, maybe indigenous rights are a sui generis framework of rights wholly apart from human rights. Unclear, people, unclear! If we didn't have the stupid classifications, we wouldn't have these linguistic ambiguities that actually cause conceptual ambiguity (weird that sometimes words that come after a thought can "go back" and change what the thought was in the first place). Call it what it is.
Finally, I find these distinctions to be a wholly arbitrary farce. The example given in class was that the right to healthcare is an economic right. Never in a million years would I have first classified healthcare as a right that has to do with money. How is it that my right as a human to have a physically healthy body and sound mind can be classified -- and classified solely -- as a monetary issue? Certainly, in the United States, anyway, healthcare has come to be intertwined with financial concerns both on the part of the individual (access) and the state (burden). But, I do not think that is the essence of the right.
What about the right to refuse healthcare? Or communities that don't use money? Or communities whose Shaman or Medicine Man doesn't charge money? Or a group of peoples whose cultural values deem "healthcare" to be something wholly different from the Western conception of "cure" -- an Eskimo peoples believe the highest form of respect to an ailing elder is to kill them before their honorable life degenerates. My point is, why don't we call human rights by the names that they already have? Rather than presupposing what content must fill the context by using our Western, artificial classifications, we should call it what it is.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
A Minor Obsession
The past few days I have been obsessed with this one song by a Spanish singer/actress. Her quirky voice and the minimalist instrumental background conveys this mixed feeling of still feeling a bit hurt and sad, but knowing with confidence that it's time to move on. I like the sound of it and I like the lyrics. See what you think. If you post a comment I'll probably pee my pants with excitement:
Bebe
Sinsentido
Bebe
Sinsentido
Manteniendo la compostura
a duras penas
a penas esto dura
lo que dura el cuerpo
el cuerpo
se mantiene por dentro
se va contigo
sinsentido me acompaña
recogiendo cosas del suelo
lo que otros
no quisieron
ah ah ah ah
...
encuentro trozos de vida
trozos de cuento
trozos de plástico
platas y recuerdos
trozos de trozos
trozos en cuerpos cuerpos en trozos
ay cuerpo, cuerpecito mío
que caña te he metio
en estos años que llevo
de camino perdio… (2 veces)
que me has robao el corazón
y lo has tirao a una alcantarilla
que me has robao el corazón
y lo has tirao a una alcantarilla
y mira ahora,
mira este cuerpo, cuerpecito mío
que caña te he metio
en estos años que llevo
de camino perdio…
ay cuerpo, cuerpecito mio... (2 veces)
ah ah ah ah
...
y las palabras
ahora te delatan
lo que llevas dentro
aunque vengan disfrazás de lo contrario
ya no me puedes engañar
así que me voy
porque total
tomar mi propia decisión
es casi la única libertad real
que me queda
así que me voy
porque total
pa que quedarme
si tomar mi propia decisión
es casi la única libertad real
que me queda.
a duras penas
a penas esto dura
lo que dura el cuerpo
el cuerpo
se mantiene por dentro
se va contigo
sinsentido me acompaña
recogiendo cosas del suelo
lo que otros
no quisieron
ah ah ah ah
...
encuentro trozos de vida
trozos de cuento
trozos de plástico
platas y recuerdos
trozos de trozos
trozos en cuerpos cuerpos en trozos
ay cuerpo, cuerpecito mío
que caña te he metio
en estos años que llevo
de camino perdio… (2 veces)
que me has robao el corazón
y lo has tirao a una alcantarilla
que me has robao el corazón
y lo has tirao a una alcantarilla
y mira ahora,
mira este cuerpo, cuerpecito mío
que caña te he metio
en estos años que llevo
de camino perdio…
ay cuerpo, cuerpecito mio... (2 veces)
ah ah ah ah
...
y las palabras
ahora te delatan
lo que llevas dentro
aunque vengan disfrazás de lo contrario
ya no me puedes engañar
así que me voy
porque total
tomar mi propia decisión
es casi la única libertad real
que me queda
así que me voy
porque total
pa que quedarme
si tomar mi propia decisión
es casi la única libertad real
que me queda.
Monday, January 4, 2010
First Day of School!
Back in Grad classes! I just had two classes today. The first was better than the second.
First, Jack Donnelly's Intro to Human Rights. That guy is a riot. He does this weird pretzel thing with his legs under his desk, makes dry jokes as he runs out of breath, and breezes his hand (pinkie ring and all) through his white hair while talking. But, boy, is he brilliant. I had him for Int'l Political Theory last summer and basically hung on his every word. I'm looking forward to this class, too!
Here is the quick question I asked him after class. The basic concept of today that Donnelly lectured on is that while human rights norms are accepted pretty much across the board on the international level, the enforcement and implementation of human rights is done on a national level. In other words, all countries basically agree what are human rights, but not all countries believe they are improperly enforcing/implementing those human rights in their country to their citizens. So, I asked if this base premise (that nations enforce human rights) presupposes another "human right," the right to belong to a nation. Basically, this "human right" would be less of a universal right conferred from the fact that a being is human. Rather, it would be actually be a precursor to exercising one's human right that is due only because of our social-political constructs, namely, the way we have organized the world to be full of countries that have (1) territory and (2) sovereignty. Donnelly seemed pretty interested in this idea. He said that it was one of the weakest areas of human rights theory because it's unclear which takes precedent -- state territorial sovereignty or individual human rights -- and because not all people have membership to a state (refugees, asylum status immigrants, etc.) . True, true. Those reasons are what motivated me to ask the question in the first place. While I am interested in the strength (analytical logic) of the human rights theory, I actually was most curious about indigenous and minority groups that had/want their own territory, self-determination and self-governance within the dominant state.
Call me a groupie, but I am also going to audit Donnelly's other class - Ancient Political Theory.
Second class is Politics of Development. I was not as impressed. We watched some video clips, had some power points that made vast generalizations under poor logic. Worst of all, the professor posed some pretty scattered and unimpressive (hackneyed) questions in an attempt to generate discussion. Meh. We'll see how that goes.
Also - I applied to 13 internships today! Pick me, pick me! Must. Sleep. Now.
First, Jack Donnelly's Intro to Human Rights. That guy is a riot. He does this weird pretzel thing with his legs under his desk, makes dry jokes as he runs out of breath, and breezes his hand (pinkie ring and all) through his white hair while talking. But, boy, is he brilliant. I had him for Int'l Political Theory last summer and basically hung on his every word. I'm looking forward to this class, too!
Here is the quick question I asked him after class. The basic concept of today that Donnelly lectured on is that while human rights norms are accepted pretty much across the board on the international level, the enforcement and implementation of human rights is done on a national level. In other words, all countries basically agree what are human rights, but not all countries believe they are improperly enforcing/implementing those human rights in their country to their citizens. So, I asked if this base premise (that nations enforce human rights) presupposes another "human right," the right to belong to a nation. Basically, this "human right" would be less of a universal right conferred from the fact that a being is human. Rather, it would be actually be a precursor to exercising one's human right that is due only because of our social-political constructs, namely, the way we have organized the world to be full of countries that have (1) territory and (2) sovereignty. Donnelly seemed pretty interested in this idea. He said that it was one of the weakest areas of human rights theory because it's unclear which takes precedent -- state territorial sovereignty or individual human rights -- and because not all people have membership to a state (refugees, asylum status immigrants, etc.) . True, true. Those reasons are what motivated me to ask the question in the first place. While I am interested in the strength (analytical logic) of the human rights theory, I actually was most curious about indigenous and minority groups that had/want their own territory, self-determination and self-governance within the dominant state.
Call me a groupie, but I am also going to audit Donnelly's other class - Ancient Political Theory.
Second class is Politics of Development. I was not as impressed. We watched some video clips, had some power points that made vast generalizations under poor logic. Worst of all, the professor posed some pretty scattered and unimpressive (hackneyed) questions in an attempt to generate discussion. Meh. We'll see how that goes.
Also - I applied to 13 internships today! Pick me, pick me! Must. Sleep. Now.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Razas
This post won't be what I want to be, but at least I am writing something.
A few weeks ago I was reading in a cafe here in Denver as the sun set in front of me and behind the mountains. My hair kept falling in my face. While still reading, I pulled my hair into a braid without thinking. I could tell a little baby girl behind me was watching me because I heard her father say Mira la raza, or, Look at her braid. I loved being a part of that moment for so many reasons and I keep playing it over in my mind.
Braids always remind me of the time I have spent living in the Andes. All of our girls, the mothers of our girls, and the professors at their schools wore braids. I often braided my own hair, but if I didn't the girls would do it for me, teaching me new patterns. In a place where I often stood apart, I loved that from behind I would blend in with everyone else: a thick, dark braid hanging down by back, wisps falling out in the wind. The moment here in Denver seemed even more connected to the Andes because I was watching the sun set over the Rockies, which are essentially the same mountains, just further along the fault.
It amazes me that this perfectly simple and practical, yet undeniably beautiful, thing can stand for femininity across cultures and time. How is it that all women and girls around the world just innately know how to braid their hair? Is it in the same category of universals as innate language, emotions, or grammatical syntax? Do men know how to do it? Of course there are so many ways to braid -- Americans braid with the weave coming in toward the center, Andeans braid with the weave coming out of the center, a heart-braid, a french braid, a four-strand braid. I can't help but feel an unspoken connection to another women I see wearing a braid because I know that we both stood that morning with our arms bent behind us, mindlessly twisting our hair into this raza.
I also love the symbolism of the word in Spanish. Raza. The word raza means both braid and race. To me that shows the concept that races should mix and feel comfortable intertwining, like a braid. The three strands of a braid are each interconnected and truly need the other strands in order to stay in place. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I like to think that interracial mixing could be as simple and natural as weaving a braid.
A few weeks ago I was reading in a cafe here in Denver as the sun set in front of me and behind the mountains. My hair kept falling in my face. While still reading, I pulled my hair into a braid without thinking. I could tell a little baby girl behind me was watching me because I heard her father say Mira la raza, or, Look at her braid. I loved being a part of that moment for so many reasons and I keep playing it over in my mind.
Braids always remind me of the time I have spent living in the Andes. All of our girls, the mothers of our girls, and the professors at their schools wore braids. I often braided my own hair, but if I didn't the girls would do it for me, teaching me new patterns. In a place where I often stood apart, I loved that from behind I would blend in with everyone else: a thick, dark braid hanging down by back, wisps falling out in the wind. The moment here in Denver seemed even more connected to the Andes because I was watching the sun set over the Rockies, which are essentially the same mountains, just further along the fault.
It amazes me that this perfectly simple and practical, yet undeniably beautiful, thing can stand for femininity across cultures and time. How is it that all women and girls around the world just innately know how to braid their hair? Is it in the same category of universals as innate language, emotions, or grammatical syntax? Do men know how to do it? Of course there are so many ways to braid -- Americans braid with the weave coming in toward the center, Andeans braid with the weave coming out of the center, a heart-braid, a french braid, a four-strand braid. I can't help but feel an unspoken connection to another women I see wearing a braid because I know that we both stood that morning with our arms bent behind us, mindlessly twisting our hair into this raza.
I also love the symbolism of the word in Spanish. Raza. The word raza means both braid and race. To me that shows the concept that races should mix and feel comfortable intertwining, like a braid. The three strands of a braid are each interconnected and truly need the other strands in order to stay in place. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I like to think that interracial mixing could be as simple and natural as weaving a braid.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Happy 2010!
Happy New Year!
Break has been wonderful! Spent some time on the Cape. I saw some high school friends, but mainly just spent time with the family. Had a few days back in Denver, then up to Montana for a skiing New Years with college friend and her family. Loved it! I feel so lucky to be where I am right now and to have such loving friends and family.
I am not a huge fan of new years resolutions because I like to work on things continuously or make the conscious effort at the time, whenever I figure out something new I want to work on. But, that said, a few things I want to work on this year are...
(1) give Denver another shot. I think I have fallen into a pessimistic view of it and I am changing that around to be more optimistic. I will explore new areas, talk to more people, and do the things I moved here to do. That is, I will try to live a more balanced life taking advantage of the things the Rockies have to offer.
(2) learn more about Judaism and do something (buy a challah bread, light the candles, cook a nice dinner, go to services) to celebrate Shabbat each week. I hope I can find a temple I feel comfortable attending and I want to be learning more about Judaism as a way of life.
(3) read more novels, even as little as 1 page a night before crashing. I love reading and devour books. It has been so hard when I get to bed late, exhausted and I have already spent all day reading and looking at the computer screen. But I miss falling in love with characters, having good stories spinning around my head and good writing.
(4) Volunteer! I get to attend legal nights again this semester. I work as a volunteer translator for lawyers who don't speak Spanish at a free legal clinic. I couldn't go last semester because I always had class. I'm also getting involved in this cool organization that teaches human rights to high school kids. There is going to be a Youth Conference for the kids in April and I'm helping to plan the curriculum and the event. I'm really, really looking forward to this!
Some photos to enjoy --
Me with DK at the lodge at Big Sky in Montana
The trips.
The bridge on Keveney Lane, just down the hill from my parents' house
Lindsey, Andy, Louis, me, Mom, Diana. Notice the immature bunny ears ruining a perfectly nice photo.
The cute grandparents!
me!
Break has been wonderful! Spent some time on the Cape. I saw some high school friends, but mainly just spent time with the family. Had a few days back in Denver, then up to Montana for a skiing New Years with college friend and her family. Loved it! I feel so lucky to be where I am right now and to have such loving friends and family.
I am not a huge fan of new years resolutions because I like to work on things continuously or make the conscious effort at the time, whenever I figure out something new I want to work on. But, that said, a few things I want to work on this year are...
(1) give Denver another shot. I think I have fallen into a pessimistic view of it and I am changing that around to be more optimistic. I will explore new areas, talk to more people, and do the things I moved here to do. That is, I will try to live a more balanced life taking advantage of the things the Rockies have to offer.
(2) learn more about Judaism and do something (buy a challah bread, light the candles, cook a nice dinner, go to services) to celebrate Shabbat each week. I hope I can find a temple I feel comfortable attending and I want to be learning more about Judaism as a way of life.
(3) read more novels, even as little as 1 page a night before crashing. I love reading and devour books. It has been so hard when I get to bed late, exhausted and I have already spent all day reading and looking at the computer screen. But I miss falling in love with characters, having good stories spinning around my head and good writing.
(4) Volunteer! I get to attend legal nights again this semester. I work as a volunteer translator for lawyers who don't speak Spanish at a free legal clinic. I couldn't go last semester because I always had class. I'm also getting involved in this cool organization that teaches human rights to high school kids. There is going to be a Youth Conference for the kids in April and I'm helping to plan the curriculum and the event. I'm really, really looking forward to this!
Some photos to enjoy --
Me with DK at the lodge at Big Sky in Montana
The trips.
The bridge on Keveney Lane, just down the hill from my parents' house
Lindsey, Andy, Louis, me, Mom, Diana. Notice the immature bunny ears ruining a perfectly nice photo.
The cute grandparents!
me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)