Merry White Christmas

Charles Dickens wrote his "A Christmas Carol" in 1843, in the economic crisis of England famous as Britain's "Hungry Forties," when people feared of social breakdown. In that story scrooge Scrooge in a journey turned to a generous Scrooge.
Perhaps in today America and other Christian western countries, this conversion sounds meaningful as they more or less are experiencing same conditions. This January brings with it hardship in economic and weather situation as well. This year white Christmas has covered the face of the northern cities in the U.S. Strong storm is not good news for the rich let alone for those who have lost their jobs, salaries and are homeless.
This situation has added to previous economic hardship, although the poll says that the circumstances are better comparing last year, but still there is a 10% unemployment and the situation of the colored people in finding job is worse than the Whites. These conditions may lead to intolerance toward the weaker stratifications like the minorities and immigrants.
Scrooge before his journey thought those people unable to support themselves are better to die. It was the innocence of crippled Tiny Tim and the vision of his future that converted him. In current cold, and white Christmas, indifferent wealthy people see innocent children like Tim, but who can show them their future?
Sometimes these events and times are just spurs to help others. And it is not special to the U.S, as in Iran too we have such events and times like the beginning of the year or the time of opening the schools that people find some reasons to help those who are not rich enough to afford the extra expenses. I think this is a good common point between the nations.

Schema

According to the free dictionary schema is a "diagrammatic representation; an outline or model" and in psychological approach, it is "a pattern imposed on complex reality or experience to assist in explaining it, mediate perception, or guide response."
So, schema is a mental structure that can be applied in everything in our real life, as a simplified knowledge about ourselves, others and every other thing.
This mental perception could affect every aspect of our life; it would direct our thought and accordingly our action in encountering any phenomena. In fact, schemas in our minds are filters that everything goes through them and then we decide how to react. The ranges of schema contain everything, however, Changing Minds. Org has categorized some types of it like this:
"Social schemas are about general social knowledge.
Person schemas are about individual people.
Idealized person schemas are called prototypes. The word is also used for any generalized schema.
Self-schemas are about oneself. We also hold idealized or projected selves, or possible selves.
Role schemas are about proper behaviors in given situations.
Event schemas (or scripts) are about what happens in specific situations."[1]
As a conclusion, we can say if you have a positive conception about any subject it will encode in your mind as a positive and you will remember it with its positive aspect. If someone loves sea, definitely he has had a favorable image about the sea, but if someone is afraid of sea, he probably has an experience about drowning one of his beloved one in the sea.
This is applicable to any other mental representation. I have a personal experience. In 1981, my brother came to Iran, after nearly 17 years living in the U.S. Then, as the war with Iraq was recently finished, the representation of Iran was a poor and miserable country, which is full of chaos and violence. When my brother called his wife after a couple of days and said he had gone shopping and had bought some Chiquita banana, his wife, a native American, had amazingly asked if there was any Chiquita banana in Iran? In fact, her social schema about Iran according to information had gathered from media was a starving third world country.
There are the same false schemas in Iran against the United States. Some of people obsessed with the anti America schema may think the people of this country are occupied with the animosity about Iran, while if they establish personal contact, they will understand those imaginary enemies are human beings like themselves, with kindness, affection, respect and open mindedness toward others. Therefore, to be ready to change a schema when one finds it is not true, needs braveness.

[1] . http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/schema.htm

Everything is all right

The history of the U.S has shown that every action is regarded legal as long as there is a written document for that. From the very beginning of establishing this country, they found another nation living there, the Indians. They made treaties with those people while in some instances, they even could not read the treaty and signed it just according to a vague and sometimes false explanation provided with them, and then they were forced to retreat toward harsher lands legally, according to their sign in their treaty. So, the important part of every matter is finding a legal justification. This justification is a bondage to law or the same written document and this is the way that has been followed through time.
The issue of war is not an exception in this respect. If there is a just justification and cause for war, then it will be ok. The beginning wars with Indians were justified because the Indians did not act according to their treaties. Now the recent wars are waged by introducing just cause for it, like war on terror. "The "war on terrorism" purports to defend the American Homeland and protect the "civilized world". It is upheld as a "war of religion", a "clash of civilizations", when in fact the main objective of this war is to secure control and corporate ownership over the region's extensive oil wealth."[1]
In Just War Theory, war is introduced as a humanitarian operation. The image of invader is justified, on the other hand the representation of the enemy is demonized. This new representation is based on convincing the public opinion. People are told that the wars are conducted according to some principles which have of course, a legal and documented origins. Therefore, people always could be assured that everything is lawful and legal.

[1] . http://www.somalilandtimes.net/sl/2006/259/5.shtml

Bold Gamble?

Bruce Riedel, who has been an advisor to four presidents on the Mideast and South Asia, now has advised White House in war in Afghanistan. His experiences as a CIA officer may influence his advices though. "Responding to reports that Mr. Obama on Tuesday will call for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, possibly an increase of 30,000 troops, Reidel said, “This is a very bold gamble on the part of the president. He inherited a situation which was getting bad and is getting worse now.”[1] He thinks the decision of Obama in deploying new forces to Afghanistan is “probably the most important foreign-policy decision … he is going to make”. Riedel thinks, if Obama can convince Americans that he believes he has a workable way forward, they will accept the idea of sending more troops.
Therefore, what the adviser focuses on is making people convinced. The mere justification is to remind the threat of foreign enemy. The adviser announces, "We face a very determined enemy in the Taliban and al-Qaida, which just last week announced that it is prepared to fight and has no interest in negotiation." And nobody asks whether they were pursuing negotiation till now and now they want to root out the enemy by sending more troops?
One way of convincing people may be creating hope. As he says "“Hopefully, the strategy [the president] is proposing will demonstrate results and while we won’t know when the war will be over, we will know we are on a path to an outcome that protects American national security and keeps the Taliban and al-Qaida from taking over Afghanistan.”
Another way is creating fear "I think that if the president spells out to the American people why we are there in terms of the threat it still poses to this country by al-Qaida and its Taliban ally, many Americans will say ‘Yes, we don’t want another 9/11.’ ”
But here is some questions in people's mind that why they are not successful during these long years of presence in that country? Is the reason has just been not having adequate troops? The increasing poll of dead and casualties concerned the people and they want their children home by Christmas instead of Afghanistan.
Riedel is now a senior foreign policy fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
[1].http://www.projo.com/news/content/AFGHANISTAN_EXPERT_SPEAKS_12-01-09_LNGKSQJ_v15.3b3d9f5.html

Virtual War

The more complicated the societies become, the more virtual communication grow. As conflict is one aspect of communication, we can find growing virtual war as well. Virtual war is more dependent on propaganda, so it is a bloodless war.
In virtual war, any data about the enemy, including their weak points, deficiencies and wrong doings in every field, can be used against it. Therefore, information in this war is the most powerful means. This war can be done through different ways. It may be either Cyber Attack approach or Cyber Defense approach.
In Cyber Attack approach, Cyber war crashes the systems of data, communications and intelligence of the enemy. Disabling enemy’s systems may be done through hacking, blocking or transferring banking accounts of major officials in enemy country.
Cyber Defense in virtual war is mostly done by Net war. In this way by launching new sites and weblogs which support the idea of attacker, its idea could be prevalent through public and be used as a means in confronting the enemy. Weakened enemy has less room to show its superiority. Creating a distorted image from enemy and questioning its credibility pushes it toward defeat.
These ways in compare to real wars that need deploying troops to another country, usually miles away, the problem of convincing people and other opposite groups within the attacker country, investing much more budget and suffering death and casualty poll and day to day justifying the aim through mass media, have less difficulties.

Soft Power

Soft Power

Connotation of the word "power" implies the ability to get what you want. This ability has been demonstrated through various ways and by different methods. If we consider exercising power through history, what comes to our minds is usually war, imposing dictatorship, coups and other violent measures, the measures to gain other's power and resources by costly and bloody ways. The other way to impose power has been to pay for what you want to obtain. In foreign policies between the countries, usually the powerful country either gives economic help or makes military threats to obtain its goals in the opposite country.
However, there is another form of reaching those goals bloodlessly. This method has been introduced to the foreign policy by Joseph Nye. He is currently University Distinguished Service Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He coined the term "Soft Power" in his book "Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power" in 1990.
"Everyone is familiar with hard power. We know that military and economic might often get others to change their position. Hard power can rest on inducements ("carrots") or threats ("sticks"). But sometimes you can get the outcomes you want without tangible threats or payoffs. The indirect way to get what you want has sometimes been called "the second face of power." A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries admire its values, emulate its example, aspire to its level of prosperity and openness. This soft power—getting others to want the outcomes that you want—co-opts people rather than coerces them."[1]
In his second book, "Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics" in 2004, he made more elaboration on this phrase, saying, "The primary currencies of Soft Power are an actor's Values, Culture, Policies and Institutions."[2]
"The success of soft power heavily depends on the actor’s reputation within the international community, as well as the flow of information between actors. Thus, soft power is often associated with the rise of globalization and neoliberal international relations theory. Popular culture and media is regularly identified as a source of soft power, as is the spread of a national language, or a particular set of normative structures; a nation with a large amount of soft power and the good will that engenders it inspire others to acculturate, avoiding the need for expensive hard power expenditures. Because soft power has appeared as an alternative to raw power politics, it is often embraced by ethically-minded scholars and policymakers. But soft power is a descriptive rather than a normative concept. Like any form of power, it can be wielded for good or bad purposes."[3]
In fact, the ability to attract others to do what you want and the ability to change their preferences is a general definition of Soft Power. This attraction is attained from special ways. As Nye says, "The ability to establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture, political values and institutions, and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority."[4]
There are differences between soft power and hard power that has made using the former difficult. Because of these differences we can conclude why the inclination toward using hard power although it has not always been successful is still more. "Of course, these differences are matters of degree. Not all hard power actions promptly produce desired outcomes—witness the length and ultimate failure of the Vietnam War, or the fact that economic sanctions have historically failed to produce their intended outcomes in more than half the cases where they were tried. But generally, soft power resources are slower, more diffuse, and more cumbersome to wield than hard power resources."[5]
This notion of building a legitimacy and credibility to be followed among other nations without using carrot and stick principle reminded me of the early days of establishing the America, the days that nobody even knows this country is going to be named America, the day that John Winthrop made his ceremony upon Arable ship. He spoke about a city upon a hill. The city that meant to be a model, a model that other nations could or should imitate. This historical reminding made me think that if Winthrop was thinking about soft power from the early days what has happened that today the degree of adhering to this power has decreased?
"When the United States paid insufficient attention to issues of legitimacy and credibility in the way it went about its policy on Iraq, polls showed a dramatic drop in American soft power. That did not prevent the United States from entering Iraq, but it meant that it had to pay higher costs in the blood and treasure than would otherwise have been the case. "[6]
Although some officials think about the need of this power and seek its ways like the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who spoke of "the need to enhance American soft power by "a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action and economic reconstruction and development.""[7] These efforts have not much drastic effects. For instance, few characteristics like Martin Luther King who according to Nye had soft power have been emerged. This may be due to the lack of legitimacy, the time consuming and difficulties of establishing it or a strong disagreement against this issue among leaders and officials. The instance of the latter issue is in Nye's article about Decline of American Soft Power. He mentions skeptic view about using soft power according to Rumsfeld, secretary of Defense, "The United States, they assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or without the world's approval and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. The world's only superpower does not need permanent allies; the issue should determine the coalitions, not vice-versa."[8]
Nye too confesses "Of course, soft power is not the solution to all problems. Even though North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il likes to watch Hollywood movies, that is unlikely to affect his nuclear weapons program. Likewise, soft power got nowhere in attracting the Taleban government away from its support for Al-Qaeda in the 1990s. It took hard military power to end that alliance. But other goals, such as the promotion of democracy and human rights, are better achieved by soft power."[9]
What can be conclude is that it is not right time to rely on using this type of power, because of disagreements on using it, the arrogance that reinforces opposition to it and the hard work it needs to attract people.

[1] . http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
[2] . Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics pp31
[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
[4] . http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
[5] . http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
[6]. . http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html
[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
[8] . http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/faculty/hauser/PS293/NyeDeclineSoftPower2004.pdf
[9].http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1615/after_rumsfeld_a_good_time_to_refocus_on_soft_power.html

Film Review

REVIEWING THE GREAT DEBATERS; A FILM DIRECTED BY DENZLE WASHINGTON

About Director
DENZLE WASHINGTON; actor, director and producer, through this film has experienced his second work on directing, after Antwone Fisher in 2002. His first film also has dealt with the problems of black people in the society of America: an unhappy sailor who opens up to a naval psychiatrist.
Washington as an actor almost always has played his roles impressively. His first appearance was on T.V in 1977, when he was just 18 years old. This trend flourished through times and now as he is acting in two current films, has been nominated to play in a film, which is going to be screened on 2011. The prosperous way of life has endowed him with some awards including two-time Academy Awards.

THE GREAT DEBATERS

Summary:
Mr. Tolson is the professor of a college in Texas. He selects four students to form a professional debate group. They win all the contests with other colleges' debaters but they are black like themselves. In the racist mood of 1930s, when lynching blacks is not odd, an invitation from White Harvard for debating meant much. Mr. Tolson who had been involved in activities for freeing the blacks from those conditions, let his team to go by themselves lest his presence bring police and prevent them. The actual war of the team now three persons; was in Harvard and what made them win was telling about miseries of the black people.

Film Review:
This film is based on a true story, a historical event taken place in 1935. The characters are true as well as the place. Yes, Wiley College according to Wiley college site was initially founded in 1873, for minorities especially African-American students by the help of the Freedman's Aid Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church in order to provide education for the "newly freed men" and preparing them for a new life. This college is located in Harrison County,Texas.

Robert Eisele has written both the story and screenplay of this film. What is very pleasant while viewing this film is the resilience of minorities and victory of hope. Washington, in this movie, as Prof. Melvin Tolson, the head of debating team in college, has had being lived in the atmosphere of racism and thereby can produce a real air of that time. The real Tolson in wiley college in the 1930s was a professional debater. He himself even worked on the gesture of his students, wrote speeches for them, and practiced with them. He was so smart that could predict the rival's arguments and continue accordingly. To a viewer who has not any background from true Tolson, the acting of Washington brings to mind a clear image from that character.

After ups and downs in the story telling, comes the turning point and that is the scene in which for the first time the black team is invited to compete the debater's team of Harvard; a White and strong team. In fact the secret of their victory against such a strong and sophisticated debaters is their experiences of suffers they have been taken both in their lives and witnessing it in their concolorous fellowman.
sites:
http://www.hollywood.com/review/The_Great_Debaters/5024137
http://www.wileyc.edu/tgd.asp
http://www.moviefone.com/movie/the-great-debaters/29834/main
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427309/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000243/

Another Tragedy, Another Accusation

On the sixth of November 2009, Fort Hood's flags in Texas were put at half-mast and will remain that way until the eleventh of November following an order from President Obama. America was shocked once again by a shooting and the massacre of thirteen innocent people. This time it was an army major on a military base who committed the murders. His name was Nidal Malik Hassan, aged 39. According to his relatives, he was a devoted Muslim who attended daily prayers. He was born of Jordanian parents in Virginia and joined the army where he trained to be a psychiatrist. He was supposed to help the soldiers returning from combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was strongly against the presence of the United States in those countries and was not at ease in the army, but his attempts to leave the military were rejected. He could not tolerate that he was due to deploy to Afghanistan at the end of month, so on the fifth of November, he shot at the soldiers who were in the medical screening building, killing 13 and injuring 30.

In this case, what is highlighted is his religion. The media emphasizes that the shooter is a Muslim and narrates that he believed Muslims had the right to attack Americans. He is now under guard in a hospital and what has been said about him is all heresay until he makes a statement.

What concerns me here is that the problem is somewhat complicated, as it seems there is a plan to create a foreign threat for American citizens. It seems that Americans are supposed to have a common enemy to be able to maintain American creed. As we know, this shooting was not a unique occurrence. In the most significant act of terrorism after 9/11 attack, The Oklahoma City bombing that was done in 1995 by American Timothy McVeigh, 168 people died and 680 injured.
"As with Timothy McVeigh, the sniper, we focused on the person, not their religion. You wouldn't take a Christian or a Jewish soldier who did something like this and look at other Christians and Jews and say, 'Can we trust them?' "Said Qaseem Uqdah, a former Marine and executive director of the American Muslims in Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council."[1]

Moreover, School shootings, a terrible tragedy, have a long background in the United States.
"When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into Columbine High School in Colorado on April 20, 1999, and killed twelve students and one teacher, the United States reacted with horror and disbelief that such a thing could happen in American schools."[2]
Or in the recent massacre in 2007 when, Seung-Hui Cho, a senior English major at Virginia Tech killed 32 people and wounded many others, the focus was not on his religion.

Hasan, as it is said, hoped President Obama would drive the army back from Afghanistan. After hearing he himself was obliged to go there, he snapped and in ten minutes killed 13 people. It seems that a collapse of the dreams of a man who was escaping from war made him commit massacre. I wonder if he were not a Muslim would they still emphasize his religious habits.
Nothing can justify violence, it is clear. I am not attempting to justify his horrific actions, but I wonder why his religion should be implied as the source of his actions?

[1] http://www.isna.net/articles/News/Muslim-Organizations-Urge-the-Media-and-Public-to-View-Ft-Hood-Attack-as-Criminal-Act.aspx
[2] . http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Re-So/School-Shootings-and-School-Violence.html

Cosby Show and 44th president

Media has often represented a dark face from black people. They are shown either lazy and stupid or criminal, in the best circumstances, they are passive or sport professionals.

The opposite programs, like Cosby Show, that illustrates normal and successful black families, have changed this picture. Cosby show with its sitcoms shows its audiences a different narrative of blacks. It has used the influence of television to affect people's mind and alter the past imaging of this race. It does so by real situations, music, and fun. This series has started airing from NBC in 1984 and now after 25 years is still a favorite program.

According to Pazsaz entertainment network, "The series is about Heathcliff Huxtable, commonly known as Cliff, and his family. Cliff delivers babies for a living and has an office at home. His wife, Clair, is a successful lawyer. They have five children, ranging from the youngest, Rudy, to the oldest, Sondra. Most of the episodes revolved around Cliff dealing with his kids as they went through life, aged, and some eventually moved out."[1]

The question is that are the programs like Huxtable family paved the way for electing Obama? Are these shows preparing people's mind to trust the abilities of blacks and change their attitude regarding degrading them? Although the writer and comedian, Bill Cosby, believes that people would elected Obama anyhow without these propaganda, because people have had Martin Luther King in mind, the question may have other answers too.


[1] http://www.pazsaz.com/cosby.html

American volunteering system

Society has a complicated system which all of its phenomenon have interrelations with each other. The system differs in different countries according to their cultures and values.

One of the interesting parts of American society is volunteering groups. According to its interest or profession, a group of people try to help others by defining various projects. These projects would have a wide variety. Naming its variety, according to what my dear American friend has informed me, I can mention: movements in favor of green plants, adaption of an orphan either in the country or abroad, collecting food, clothing and other essential items to give to those in need, helping at a hospital, humane society (where pets without homes are kept), nursing home (care for elderly), Habitat for Humanity (an organization that uses volunteers to build homes for families who would not be able to afford to buy one), service organizations that help people with household chores or yard work or transportation or shopping if they are unable to do those things independently. Genrally American volunteerism encompasses almost anything.

The background of these volunteering institutions turns back to the beginning of American Revolution. According to Oxford encyclopedia volunteers were "a part‐time military force raised by local initiative during 1778–9. Its original purpose was to guard against invasion and to preserve law and order, at a time when regular troops had been removed to combat the American Revolution, and government lacked the money to revive the militia…. The movement soon took on a wider political importance, both as the expression of an emerging middle‐class consciousness and as the basis of a new kind of organized extra‐parliamentary support for popular causes."[1]

This atmosphere is reinforced by the government and the different states usually wish people to sustain that spirit, its reason may be due to use it in emergencies. The feedbacks of the statemen have been to make people feel proud of that and continue it. For instance there was news from President Obama in Washington Times: "President-elect Barack Obama kicked off a nationwide volunteer program Monday with an advertising campaign aimed at what the Presidential Inaugural Committee characterized as a "new spirit of service in America." He opens the ad saying, "America's greatness was not crafted in skyscrapers alone...But on the ground by those who could see what needed to be done." [2]

Finding causes of doing such kind of social activities would be an interesting topic in sociological, psychological and also political researches. Introducing the findings to other people may help them to increase their activities and make them more organized. It also would serve to remedy its deficiencies.

[1] http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O245-Volunteers.html

[2]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-volunteer-campaign-kicks/#s

American Identity

According to Huntington Identity is "an individual's or group's sense of self."[1] Two of the peculiar aspects of the American society' context are multiculturalism, and multi ethnicity and the reason is that this society is shaped upon immigration. People from all continents came to form a single country.

Alex R. Schafer has used humor to put this situation into word:— "The Korean owner of a restaurant in Texas trains Hispanic workers to prepare Chinese- style food for a largely black clientele ordering their food in English."[2]

So the crucial question will be "what culture will be the dominant one?" or in Huntington's definition, whose sense of self will rule the whole country? The answer to this question is not a clear cut one, though everyone keeps his or her nationality, all of them have accepted a new identity as, Americans. This acceptance or as some may say assimilation, began from early days of America. St John Crevecoueur in his Letters From an American Farmer explains what he had observed in 1782:"He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, received new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys and the new rank he holds,… here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men."[3]

I think American identity in the sense of a collective identity is somehow unconscious and is hidden in the layers of their thinking. But when a threat comes, Americans become actively aware of their beliefs. This sensitivity could be tracked in the attack to the trading towers in 11th of September in 2001. As Huntington has mentioned in his book, the number of raising flags of the United States before that event, and a few days after that was not as much as in the days of attack. Therefore it can be concluded that the stream of a unique identity still running in the United States like those days of St John Crevecoueur.

[1] .Huntington,Samuel,2000, Who Are We?New York, Simson& Schuster

[2] . Schafer, Alex R.. 2006, A New Introduction to American Studies, Edited by Temperley, Howard, and Bigsby, Christopher, Great Britain, Pearson longman.

[3] . Schafer, Alex R.. 2006, A New Introduction to American Studies, Edited by Temperley, Howard, and Bigsby, Christopher, Great Britain, Pearson longman.

A Muslim Journalist From Canada

Zafar Bangash is a Pakistanian journalist who lives and works in Ontario, Canada. His magazine is Crescent which is the only Islamic magazine in Canada to represent Islam and goes worldwide.

We had two meetings with him. The first one was publicly in conference hall and then on the next day we had him in our class.

In the first meeting which was our first encountering with him, he started his speech friendly and also a bit jokingly asking us "Have you ever heard of Canada?" Then he explained why he asked the question and said according to a survey in some universities in America many of students did not know that Canada is their neighbor.

To continue the interesting lecture, he referred to the meaning of power (the ability to do what you want to do and the ability to influence others to do what you want to do) and then attached it to the recurrent issues. And said Canada has a middle power. And Canada is totally related and dependent on the United State and has a strong trade with it. The government of Canada did not involve officially in Iraq war because the people disagreed and protested, but it supported the United States military and economically anyway. And about 60% of people are opposed to involvement in Afqanistan.

The population of Canada is divided to three category including English, French and the third group which is immigrants from all around the world, like China, eastern Europeans, Pakistanis and Iranians who consist 20 thousands of the population.

Canada is even more extremist than George Bush. The reason why the government of the Canada is taking a hostile side toward Islam is that the Right party which is minority is in power, but the left party which is more moderate has been divided to three group and because of this division they cannot take a united position and win the rival in election.

He described the people of Canada generally decent and good, but asserted that it is the government that has taken a very hostility view to Islam and all of its related concepts like Iran and Hamas and Hizbollah. It supports Israel policy and has a pro- Israel policy. A Canadian journalist, Paul Martin, who had met saied Hassan Nasrollah narrated a false statement on behalf of him, that Hizbollah would attack Israel all around the world and would not confine to the geographic Israel. Then when another journalist, Ian Macdonald, asked him about the evidence of his allegation, Martin was upset and just left the interview.

The other evidence he brought to show the pro-Zionist policy of Canada was when Israel bombarded Khayam camp and the U.N headquarter in Lebanon and the major of the U.N troops, a Canadian officer, was killed. The prime minister instead of attacking the Israel had made an excuse for them and said they were defending themselves and the guilty was the major who shouldn't be in there.

Zafar also said that most of the media are influenced by Zionist lobby like Toronto Star and Toronto Son. They attack Muslims but Muslim community is well stablished and has a better position in compare to other similar organizations in the Europe.

The next day we had him in our Ethnicity class. He talked about Canadian Mosaic, i.e, different colors of people living in that country. One million out of 20 million of the population is native. They have self government but live in very bad conditions. Most of them are alcoholic and smuggling cigars.

A comparison between America and Canada, according to Bangash may lead us to these points:
In the United States you go to a melting pot but in Canada you can keep your own language, religion and culture, e.g if you want to study your own language, government would provide it for you. This is a multi cultural country that by law all ethnic groups are considered equal.
The people of Canada are more relaxed but in the America they are more tensed.

The people of America are arrogant because of the attitude of being super power but in Canada they are not so. Also the violence in American society is more than Canadian fellow.
He said that the government is interested in increasing population, so every new baby to a couple would be welcome and paid for it till 18 years.

About the language, he said all the federal organization should provide their documents both in English and French. Apart from Qubeck, Menetoba, and Novesqushia are French speaking provinces. And for encouraging students to learn French, they are provided with 500 $ to do so.
He concluded that apart from apparent hostility of the state, it is a good place to live.

The Tragedy Of A Slave Man

At 11:30 on Tuesday 6th of October, we met Imam Abdul Alim Musa in the assembly room of World Studies' faculty. He seemed friendly and I inferred that he knew some of our professors from the days of their residence in the U.S.

His way of life was different and I encouraged search about him. I found that he is "a Muslim activist and director of Masjid Al-Islam in Washington, D.C., and a member of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT),"[1] "an international pro-Iranian, pro-Hezbollah Islamist think tank." [2] The magazine of this institution is Crescent International. He has founded As-Sabiqun. An organization "in Washington, D.C., and has branches in Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and Philadelphia.The As-Sabiqun philosophy stresses unity between the various Islamic organizations in the attainment of common goals. Cooperation on domestic social issues with like-minded non-Muslim groups is also encouraged, as long as Islamic ethics and morality are not compromised. Additionally, although As-Sabiqun is a Sunni movement, they have publicly voiced support for Shi’a movements and organizations such as the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and Hizbullah."[3]

According to the San Francisco Bay View " Alim Musa is "one of the highest-ranking Islamic leaders in the Black community, nationwide and specifically in the Islamic movement."[4]
When I got a bit familiar with him, then I could have a view of his speeches in the faculty. He spoke about Identity crisis among black people in the U.S.. He began his talking with giving a picture of slaves, packing like sardines in ships, brought to the U.S.. There all of their backgrounds were taken from them, including their religion, language and culture, then a new culture and language were introduced to them and the way of their life completely changed. Then he gave a brief summary about leaders and heroes of black people like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.

I found some interesting points in his speech. What Abdul-Alim Musa set forth was a very important thing and that was self image. He believed as black people have accepted the assumption of the colonists about themselves, it is nearly impossible to change.
The other attractive issue to me was his perception about being minority. He said being minority does not always mean disadvantage. They may have the ability of resilience, so they can remain and reach their goals. I liked to ask him whether it is his own experience or he has conferred it from Quranic verse "Haply a little group who conquered a big group."

About political system of the U.S, he thought that it is shaped in a way that no acceptable person would be able to go up and be president. So either Obama is not a reliable person and prescribed the students not to expect that he would do a great job.

According to the Washington Post, Musa "has been trying for years to build an Islamic community [in D.C.] … that he would like to see replicated nationwide until the United States becomes an Islamic state."[5]



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Alim_Musa

[2] http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/sabiqun_anti-semitism.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_3

[3] http://www.sabiqun.net/about_us.html

[4] http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/sabiqun_anti-semitism.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_3

[5] http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2009/05/americas-punk-the-fbi-imam-gets-punked-by-britain

The United States and Internet

What can be inferred from a general survey in cyber space about the history of inventing internet is that many people assume that internet is invented in the United States. But if we wish to be a bit critic, then we should get back and have a look at the history of this modern invention.

According to John Anderson "The answer to the question of 'who invented the internet' is not a single man or company, but instead the involvement of many experts from various fields pooling their knowledge towards a common goal."[1] There is a theory that suggests the launch of Soviet Union's satellite (Sputnik I) in 1957 impulsed the U.S. to accelerate its researches. Then over the time by improvement in transferring data, "technology enabled the creation of a functioning long distance computer network. Larry G. Roberts could be labelled as one of the people who invented the internet because he built its first links: between the University of California and Stanford Research Institute in 1969. Known as ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Networks), the network was gradually expanded to link military, scientific and educational institutions all over the country. It wasn't until 1990 that the internet became available for public usage and stopped being the preserve of the government and research institutions. The development of HTML during this year meant that graphical websites started appearing and the world-wide-web started taking form into how we know it today. "[2]

Since then the usage of internet has grown day by day. Here is a sample of the growing usage of this invention from http://internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm

Also the statistics of number of users during various years, according to same site which I have summarized it:

December, 1995
16 million
0.4 %

December, 2000
361 million
5.8 %

June, 2009
1,669 million
24.7 %

Although population of internet has a lot advantages for people but also it is its disadvantages that concerns the critics. One of this concerns is the source who supervises the internet. What can be inferred from evidences it is again the father of this creation; the U.S., as we hear the news like " *The Obama administration has just released much documentation about itsnew effort to secure cyberspace."[3]

Monopolizing this vast and great industry has worried some people. One of them is the famous blogger Cory Doctorow who has written on 6/18/2009 about his concerns about mistrust against some search engines; "This may come as a surprise, but I have a lot of sympathy with artists' rights groups and even entertainment companies that mistrust giants like Amazon.com Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN) and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG).

Now, it's not that I hate Amazon or Google, but I do understand that they are fast becoming the intermediary between creators and audiences (and vice-versa), and that this poses a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries.

That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer's market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold.

And the danger of that is that these corporate giants might, through malice or negligence, end up screwing up the means by which the world talks to itself, carrying on its cultural discourse -- a discourse that ultimately sets the agendas for law, politics, health, climate, justice, crime, education, child-rearing, and every other important human subject."[4]



[1] http://www.catalogs.com/info/gadgets/who-invented-the-internet.html

[2] http://www.catalogs.com/info/gadgets/who-invented-the-internet.html

[3] http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2009/06/cyberspace-is-real-declares-president-of-united-states/

[4] http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=178058&

Surprise

There was our last class on that day. We were waiting for our professor to come and begin the class of "An Introduction on American Studies", but he made us surprised. We were called to go to conference room and there we met a writer and poet from the U.S. His name was Christopher Merrill. "He has published four collections of poetry including Brilliant Water and Watch Fire, for which he received the Peter I. B. Lavan Younger Poets Award from the Academy of American Poets."[1]

He also has some non- fiction books "Things of the Hidden God: Journey to the Holy Mountain (2005) and Only the Nails Remain: Scenes from the Balkan Wars (2001)"[2] , Which the latter is "A chronicle of the writer’s ten war-time journeys to the Balkans"[3]. There he talked nearly briefly about the experience of his trip to Iran. He appreciated hospitality of Iranians and liked foods. Then he talked about his city which grows 3 main things: corn, writer and something else that I didn't get.Then he answered the questions of students. Questions were in different fields, and contained a range from political questions to literary ones.What I write here is my perception from the whole talks. He said after 9/11 Americans motivated to know more about Islam, because if you don't know something you will fear more. He believed that literature of Obama is great in his books, also his team is well organized. About the invasion of America to Iraq and afqanistan, he said the first one had no reason, but the latter was always connected to Ben Laden, so it could have an excuse and justification.His answers to the different literary questions of students could be summed up that in every era, the poets and writers have responded to the needs of their own time.

[1] http://www.english.uiowa.edu/faculty/merrill/index.html

[2] http://www.christophermerrillbooks.com/

[3] . http://www.christophermerrillbooks.com/works.htm

My Concept of America

America has been a multidimensional subject. Some see it as their idol and their desire is to live there, on the other hand some hate special characteristics which are accompanied with it. I have to say that my concept is something between, I believe this country, like other countries, has advantages and disadvantages. I enjoy some of it's traits like the regulation, preserving the civilian rights, scientific progresses, the spirit of collective association, the value of work, the humanitarian groups and activities, and many other positive aspects of it. On the contrary I dislike the spirit of dictatorship which allows it to invade countries or impose its ideas through films and propaganda.

My concept of American Studies

If you are raised in a country with neutral view toward everything, you may spend your time searching your own favorits and hobbies, but if the atmosphere around you is full of extra positive or negative view toward some issue, then you may ask yourself, "ok, why others think so and say so?" It is then that a sence of curiosity ignites inside you and it will drive you toward knowing that specific issue. That curiosity leads you to go and know more about that favoured or hatred question in your mind.

The issue of America is like the situation I mentioned above. We have heard a lot of negative things about it from mass media as we have grown up. But gradually as we heard more about it during time, we found out that it is not a place full of negative things. In fact it is the politics which tries to rule its decision. so it is a need to realize who is this country which has been introduced as enemy.

Perhaps a survey of culture, politics and the people of the u.s in the faculty of North American studies would be helpful to give a wider view as we get familiar with other's attitude.