Expat Observations from a world traveler 2005 (WARNING: OT & Long)

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



Moreover, many media people and politicians often mention the Holocaust as the cause of Zionism, but there is also another underlying causality that has almost never been brought up in the media. So what is it? Well, it is the refusal of Eastern and Central European countries to fully naturalize their Jews, the persecutions that the Jews suffered there, and the fact that life was simply made impossible for them on the territories of those nation-states. All those factors were what mainly encouraged the Jews to create the Zionist movement and carry out the subsequent colonization of Palestine. The Holocaust came later.



Zionism is often discussed in both the Western and the Arab media. However, I have not seen anybody in such media, including the BBC and the CNN or any other major newspaper, or an Arab-authored book or article ever discuss how the Jus Sanguinis laws basically caused Zionism to rise in Eastern/Central Europe as the only possible opposing philosophy to them. Perhaps, if we could see how such "blood laws" played such a big role in bringing all the Jews to Palestine, the people fighting the Jews could understand why they are there in the first place. Maybe, they could see that the blame should be placed not only on the Jews but on the European countries that did not accept them. Maybe, the next demonstration by Palestinian refugees should not be in front of the Embassy of Israel or the US but in front of the Russian or Polish or German or even the Ukrainian embassies. For, in many ways, it was these countries that for centuries told the Jews to go back to Palestine. Is it any wonder then, that they in the end they did just that?



It has been the German, the Polish, the Russian and Ukrainian idea that nationality is something genetic and hereditary and that it is not determined by one's place of birth, but exclusively by one's ethnic and not geographical roots. It was these nations that have taught that one's nationality can only be inherited and cannot be lost or acquired. It was them who told the Jews to get out because they did not have the right of blood to live in those countries. As a result, this strange and archaic principle of nationality effectively drove the Jews from those countries, transplanted them to Palestine, and caused the infamous Palestinian displacement as a natural effect of such a mass migration of humanity from Europe to the Middle East.



It is a much overlooked detail, a way of thinking, a concept that has been totally disregarded by even the most informed commentators, politicians and scholars. It has also been largely ignored by the American and the British media . Many of the most educated Brits and Americans do not know about the Eastern and Central European concept of "nationality by bloodline". Many mistakenly think that what the Jews suffered from in those lands was merely a religious persecution. And since not much is ever popularly discussed outside of the Holocaust as the cause of the establishment of the State of Israel, the blood laws as the origins of the present "land dispute" in the Middle East have hardly ever been brought up by anyone.



Additionally, since Jews do not form a separate ethnic group in America and are just 'Americans of Jewish faith', anti-Semitism there is just hatred against people who practice Judaism. Americans will therefore, often think that Germany and Russia and Poland must have also seen Jews as integral members of their nations but persecuted them because they were opposed to the Judaic religion. Just like in America, right? The problem was that these countries are not America so, they didn't hate the religion as much as the "nationality" of the Jews. They saw the Jews as a separate ethnic group, a separate race, a separate people that was undesirable and that had to be expelled.



In simpler terms- in Central and East European countries anti-Semitism is a racial/nationality-related thing; and the Jews were living as another race in an unwelcoming and hostile environment. Both the people and the governments there treated them as foreigners even if born and raised there, and as unfavorable "aliens". There is no such thing as a "Russian, born and raised" ."Or a Pole, born and raised". Either you are Polish or Russian by blood or you are not. The message of both the population and the officials there was for along time was this: - "We do not want this Jewish nation here. They should go back to where they came from." In such a manner, one can say that Poland, Russia and Germany and other such countries basically forced the Jews to go to Palestine and "dumped" them on the Arabs, thus effectively achieving racially pure societies in their own homelands. At the same time, Arabs were left to deal with the Jewish problem. So, while the Arabs are loudly protesting against the " American and Western conspiracy" to colonize them, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, and other such nations quietly sigh with relief as they look with smug satisfactions upon their now Jew-free, "Aryan", one-nation, one-race, lily-white countries. "Whew! No more Jews here. Let the Arabs deal with them."



Why do Arabs see Jews as a Religion and Europeans see them as a Nation(ality)?



We have probably all heard of the Jewish Kingdom of Judea and Israel, and many of us have studied the history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament. If atheists, maybe we have come to know about it through Hollywood movies, TV series, etc. So, before we even get into the whole Jewish History "thing", let us see who the Jews were in those times. Say, 2000-3000 years ago. The Jews were mainly Semitic desert nomads who through various wars, ended up in Israel/Palestine. Where did they originally come from? Somewhere from the Middle East, undoubtedly. Could it be where Iraq is now? Where Saudi Arabia is now? Most Jews in Russia or Poland look like Lebanese people so shall we assume that they maybe came from the area around Lebanon and ended up in Canaan/Palestine?



In any event, they were a group of tribes similar to those which the Arabs came from. Was their origin possibly in Jordan or Syria as well? Around that area, probably, too. In those times they were called "Hebrews", meaning " from beyond the Euphrates". The Jews considered themselves a nation and, most importantly, their neighbors at that time also considered them a nation. Their language was similar to Arabic or Aramaic. They built their own kingdoms in what is now Israel/Palestine, but then they were attacked at various times by the Babylonians and then, occupied and later colonized by the Romans. Eventually, they were kicked out of the area sometime in the beginning of the 1st millennium. Later, they were dispersed all around the world. The main bulk went through Africa into Europe and this is where they settled for a long period of time. The Jews had their own national religion and their own God- Yahweh. They intermarried in the beginning with other Semitic tribes which became absorbed into their nation. But later, they did not intermarry as much anymore. Some intermarriages still took place but, as a general rule, it was not easy for anyone to marry into a Jewish family.



Many Jews went to live in Arab countries and, because racially they were similar to Arabs, and many spoke Arabic as their mother tongue, the only conspicious difference between them and the Arabs was their religion. So, to an Arab, up until today the word "Jew" means just that- a religious group. This is how the Arabs see it from their own Middle Eastern cultural and historic perspective. So, if a Jew converted to Islam, he, for all intents and purposes became indistinguishable from another Muslim Arab. He spoke Arabic, he looked like an Arab, well, he was now a Muslim Arab. This is why until today Arabs vociferously oppose any kind of concept of "nationhood" or "ethnicity" inherent in the Jewish people. "Jews are not a nation, they are a religion!" the Arabs repeat over and over again. And they are probably right as long as the Jews are on the territory of Arab countries and the Arab definition of "Arab-ness" applies.



After the Arabs broke up into all these different countries you see on the map now, they developed a legal concept of "Jinsiya"- a nationality, the Arab type of nationality, that is. Nationality to them has since then been identical to citizenship, as I have mentioned before. It means that if your family had been in some Arab kingdom for many generations and your ancestors had at some time acquired a legal status there, you would now be called "Egyptian", "Moroccan", "Syrian", "Yemeni", etc. Sometimes, you could be naturalized as a long-time resident foreigner and again you would be considered an Egyptian and an Arab if you speak Arabic well, and if you have documents from that country. If you are Jewish, you would be Jewish in religion only, as your race would be the same as that of the Arabs; and your "nationality" (read: citizenship) would be the same as that of the people around you. So a Jew in Egypt would be just as Egyptian as anyone else.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



If there was any conflict or hostility against Jews by Muslims in the Arab world or anywhere else in the Islamic world, it was not because of any racial or national issues, but because of religion only. That was the only way that they could tell Jews apart from themselves.



Most Jews could generally solve the problem of such hostility against them by simply converting to Islam. Some opted to do so. An Abraham Ben Yitzhak would just have to say 'There is no God but God and Mohammed is His Prophet' and he would become a Muslim Ibrahim Ibn Yitzhak and thus join the Arab mainstream society. It would usually be that simple. Spain, having been an Arab kingdom before, but having become a Christian country later on, still retained such a "naturalization mechanism" for Jews as what the Arab countries had- the Jews (or Arabs living in Spain) simply had to convert to Christianity, and thus, they would become full nationals of the various kingdoms that Spain was composed of at that time. Some Jews opted to do so again. An Abraham Bin Yitzhak said that he now believed in Jesus Christ and thus, he became a "Jose Rodriguez" and a Spaniard. Those who did not do so, were kicked out, but at least, they were given the chance to become believers in Christ the Savior if they wanted to stay. I say, fair enough. At least there was a choice and an opportunity extended to them to become part of the Spanish society.



Up until now you see lots of Spaniards with Jewish-type faces but names such as Juan Perez or Pedro Lopez. And that is why Jews who travel to Argentina or Chile or other former Spanish countries would not look too different from many of the locals there.



France was somewhat less accepting of the Jews and did not initially see them as being French, but after the French revolution, all the Jews in France who were loyal to "la Republique" were proclaimed to be "Frenchmen". Within the French society, as well, there seemed to be a great deal of people who were of the Mediterranean stock and racial type, so a Jew in France would not stand our racially from the general population. Still many French people up until today continue to utilize the term "La Nation Juive" - "The Jewish Nation" when talking about the worldwide Jewry.



The biggest problems began when Jews moved into the Central-Eastern part of Europe. Not only they had different faces and hair and skin color from the majority of the people there, but in such countries as Germany, Poland, Russia, or whatever they were called at that time, nationality was and is generally seen in purely racial and ethnic terms. In other words, those nations, as it were, traditionally divide people into "breeds", the way dogs and cats and horses are divided into their respective breeds. So, being born in Germany does not make you a German, unless you descend from the original tribes indigenous to that place. Unless you 'look" German. To give you an analogy- if a French Poodle moves to Germany and mates with another French Poodle there, the puppies will not become German Shepherds. The only way for a person to assimilate into the ethnic mainstream in Germany, Poland, Russia, etc. is to intermarry with the indigenous population and for the children to intermarry. Once your "blood", i.e., the genetic lineage, is 75% German or Russian, or Polish, you are usually considered a full national.



So, ethnicity, race and nationality are one and same thing in those countries. Consequently, Jews who moved to these countries sometime in the Middle Ages ran into major difficulties. They could not assimilate, and ,eventually, had to leave those nations and go back to Palestine after hundreds of years of living on their territory.



Jews were not the only ones who have suffered from Jus Sanguinis.



A few paragraphs above I have also mentioned that the nationality by blood model is also a model used by the Japanese. It is also important to note that the same method of defining one's legal ethnicity is utilized in China, Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, Cambodia and many other Asian countries. Your nationality is determined first and foremost by the way you look- Koreans and Chinese can usually tell each other apart by looking at each other's facial features. Sometimes, they overlap but most of the time, they do not. Thus, the can tell most of the time.



Similarly to the Jews born in Germany not being Germans, children of Koreans born in Japan are still not Japanese. Likewise, Chinese in Korea still continue being Chinese after three or more generations. Such blood laws are very discriminatory and have caused suffering to many people. In the early 1970ies, ethnic Chinese in Malaysia underwent a major persecution from the indigenous citizens of the country in which they were born and raised. Many thousands were killed as a result. In 1999 similar events occurred in Indonesia: many ethnic Chinese were blamed for the collapse of the Indonesian currency and suffered severe beatings. Their women were raped, their stores were plundered and many had to "go back" to China or Hong Kong. So, why were these people persecuted? Weren't they born there? They were, in fact, born there and many had lived up to four generations in Indonesia. Some have even converted to Islam. However, they did not as a rule intermarry and they did not acquire "the Indonesian blood" by doing so. Consequently, they were still Chinese in the eyes if the Indonesian population and its government. They even had documents with special numerical codes to show that they were Chinese.



During the reign of Idi Amin in Uganda, many Indians were dispossessed of their property and forced to leave the country. The same happened to many white farmers in Zimbabwe when the Blacks wanted to take the land that the Zimbabwean government decided had been 'illegally acquired'. The farmers are still referred to by the Zimbabwean president Mugabe as 'Europeans' although many were born in Africa. And if the government treats you as such, 'whatcha gonna do'? Many ended up going to Britain, just like the Jews who went back to Palestine.



After the British left Burma in the 1950ies, those residents of the country who were ethnically Indians and Pakistanis were soon stripped of the right to own companies because they "were not Burmese". A Brit or an American will probably protest and say:- "These people were born there! Ergo, they are Burmese!!!" No, no, and again no! It is not for you to decide. Who is Burmese and who is not Burmese is decided by the Burmese. Especially by the government of Burma. And if your name is not something like Su Mu and you do not have a Burmese face, you are just not Burmese. So what if you were born here? If a pregnant woman comes and gives birth in the kitchen of your house, does that make the baby in any way related to you? If a kitten is born in your house and you are a human, does that make the kitten a "human" as well? This is at totally different logic from the one applied on the streets of London, New York, Los Angeles and Buenos Aires where all races born and raised there automatically belong there.



If you are a modern politically correct American, you will probably say that the above cases of persecution are just like the internment of the Japanese Americans in camps during WWII, or like the putting of American Indians on reservations during the Great American westward expansion. I would say- not quite. The Native Americans and the Japanese-Americans were displaced and interned and some even exterminated. But the Indians were not told to " Go back to Siberia" and the Japanese-Americans were not seriously expected to " go back to Japan". They were BORN in the US. Americans and even Brits take the birth of any person in their country as something as sacred as if it is a automatic blessed right of residence bestowed by the Almighty Himself. Hence, rarely there have been recent mass expulsions of people who were born in the US or the UK.



It is no wonder then, that when a Brit or an American wants to determine a person's nationality, the first question he normally asks you is "Where ( what country) were you born ( in)?" Or "Where ( What country) are you from, originally?" Upon getting the name of the place, the British or the American person will say: "Oh, so you are (--put the name of country here and add the suffix -"ese" or "-an").



In Europe, Asia and Africa, however, there have been many expulsions (either directly ordered or encouraged) of people born in "their" respective countries but of foreign ancestry no matter how remote. It all probably stems from the fact that on these three continents people are not children of immigrants, but are mostly of a homogeneous stock who are indigenous to the place in which they live as opposed to others who are of a more recent stock and whose families have not been in the countries as long.



Precisely the same thing happened in Europe to Jews as what happened to the Chinese in Indonesia with a few exceptions- in 1999, China was still there, but Judea was not there in the early 1900s when pogroms against the Jews were happening in Eastern Europe. Also, the Chinese around the world did not rally in the support of their ethnic brothers as much as the worldwide Jewry supported the cause of solving the "Jewish exile" problem by establishing a new state in the British and/or Turkish-ruled Palestine.



A Jew looks "Semitic" to East and Central Europeans, but looks "European" to Arabs.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



It is very important to note that when Jews ended up in Germany or the Russian empire, they looked extremely different (racially) from the people there. If to an Arab a local Jew looked similar to him, to a German or a Pole he did not. To them, Jews were a race, a nation from the Middle East, a bunch of foreigners who were not even Christian and who came to live in their land. In Russia they referred to the Jews as "The Hebrew Nation" and they still do so until today. A German, a Pole and a Russian can easily tell who is Jewish and who is not. The hair is different, the shape of the nose is different, the voice is different even if born there. Granted, after a few centuries in Europe the Jews started looking more European and many became very pale because of rapes and the mixture with some new Jewish converts. There even appeared Jews who were blond and blue-eyed. Still, the locals, the pure, indigenous Russians and Germans could tell that the person had Semitic blood even if blond, therefore the bulk of the Jewish population was still quite easily distinguishable to these, very ethnically homogeneous European people. Even if there were some very 'Aryan-looking' people among the Jews, the East-Central Europeans could still often notice that these were not full-blooded members of their Slavic or Germanic ethnicity.



Allow me to give you an analogy with Blacks in America. Think of people like Malcolm X or Collin Powell. They are light-skinned, and Powell, in particular, is almost completely white. However, within the context of America, and by traditional American norms, he would still be called "Black". When an average White American looks at Powell, he probably says to himself "Oh, a Black Man". Why? Well, the shape of the mouth, the nose, the mannerism, the curly hair, etc. are a dead give-away, not to mention the manner of speaking and the pitch of voice. However, if you ask a few hundred million Black Africans how they would describe Powell, you would get such answers as a "White man", "an American man" or "Muzungu"- a light-skinned foreigner. "Black" or "African" would rarely be the answer. So, depending on the observer's perspective,point of refernce and cultural background, the same person's identity would change, subject to who he would be compared to. A "mulatto" thus looks white to Africans but looks 'Black' to "white people". Because, when a human eye sees something out of the ordinary to it, it will notice differences but will take similarities for granted. All the resemblances that a ?mulatto? person has with ?pure Caucasians?, such as lighter skin, lighter hair, maybe, even blue eyes, will be dismissed by the eye of the Caucasian observer, as it will notice only the unusual to him African elements of the 'mulatto's' appearance. The opposite thing will happen when a black African is looking at the same hypothetical 'mulatto'. He will ignore the broad nose and the thicker lips and, instead, pay attention only to the lighter hair and the whiter skin of that person. He will thne probably conclude: ?Oh, a" White Man!". A 'Muzungu'.



It was kind of like that for Jews in Europe. Even a blond, blue-eyed Jew would still have something in his facial features, the shape of the nose and the hair texture, as well as the accent, that would make the local people in Eastern Europe conclude that he was an ethnic Jew. He would be somewhat darker than a typical Pole or Czech, his hair would be thicker and curlier, the complexion would be more olive, the eyes would bulge more and not be as deep, the nose will usually have a different shape. ?This is a Jew?, the East Europeans would conclude after about a second's observation.



However, to an Arab, such a light-skinned Jew would be a "Khawaja"- a European. He would not notice the fact that the nose was not the same shape as what the Germans or the Poles have, that the hair was curlier than that of Poles or Germans, that the shape of the eyes was somewhat Semitic. He will not be comparing such a Jew to a Pole. He will be comparing him to the people in his Arab village. He will only pay attention to the fact that the skin is lighter, the eyes are blue and that the person is wearing European-like ( at least not Arab-style clothes)- and the ?computer ?in his brain will spit out the conclusion of the observation- this is a ?Khawaja ?, a European!



Those European Jews who happened to travel in Arab countries would notice to their surprise that they would no longer be harassed for their Jewish look, as they were when they lived in Europe, and, instead be treated as just Europeans by the Arabs.



The difference is this, though- Malcolm X and Colin Powell would still be called "Americans" by ?other Americans? even though they would still be seen as Blacks, but the Jews would never be called "Russians" or "Poles" by the Russians and the Poles, and other such Europeans while at the same time ironically still be called Khawajas- Europeans by Arabs. Now, let me ask you, just how East European would these Jews really be?



To give you a visual analogy, If you ever watched the show "Starsky and Hutch" back in the seventies, then I can tell you that people in Russia or Ukraine or Lithuania look like Hutch and the Jews look like Starsky. Starsky's ( Paul Michael Glaser's ) family were Jews from Latvia and his particular Mediterranean appearance would stand out very much in Latvia. Starsky and Hutch would be two completely different racial types there. In America, they would both be "White", but in those countries, Hutch would be a "Latvian" and Starsky would be a "Jew/Hebrew"-a non -Christian stranger of a heathen Middle Eastern stock. I invite you to tour Latvia and challenge you to find even one person with a face like Paul Michael Glaser. I guarantee you that you will not, but if you do, he will be a Jew or maybe an Arab tourist there.



Some Jews there did look like Kirk Douglas, i.e. of somewhat Nordic stock, but most looked like Seinfeld, Adam Sandler, David Schwimmer, Woody Allen or Einstein- a Northern Semitic/Mediterranean look. Very different from the natives who have the same complexion and hair color as Brad Pitt or Olivia Newton John.



The bottom line is this- no matter how many generations they lived there, because of their different 'race', different religion and because they did not intermarry with the natives ( the natives for the most part would not have liked it, anyway) the Jews could never become Polish or German or Russian. Even if they converted to Christianity, they would still be called "Baptized Hebrews" for it was their descent and looks, and not their newly acquired religion or the birthplace that determined their true nationality. It is also worthy of noting here that although many Jews in the US say that their ancestors came from Russia, strictly speaking, Jews were not allowed to live in Russia proper- they were kept in Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania and other countries which were under the Russian control at that time. While the Russian government allowed them to live there, they were still very unwelcome and constantly suffered from physical and legal persecutions. The local churches and governments saw these Jews as a scourge of sorts and repeatedly carried our all kinds of evil propaganda against them, which resulted in pogroms, prohibitions to participate in certain professions and other kinds of injustices which left emigration as the only way out. As a result, many went to the Americas- US, Canada, Argentina, Uruguay as well as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Some settled in Britain. And those who missed the immigration quotas of the above countries, went to Palestine.



Immigrant societies in the Americas accept Jews as their own.



Those Jews who went to the United States and also, emigrated to Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, and other such countries were in for a pleasant surprise. The nationality concept in the Americas was a whole different game and very beneficial to them and their children. The indigenous population does not rule the countries there, (as it had usually been wiped out before the arrival of the Jews), so no one can tell a person born there 'to go back home'. Mostly, it is the children of immigrants from Spain, England, France and other such countries who "call the shots" in such societies. Consequently, a Jew who went to live in the US, Canada, Argentina, and other such countries became a naturalized American, Canadian, Argentinean, and their children were now full citizens and full Americans, Canadians and Argentinians. He lost the scared look that characterized Jews of Eastern Europe.



The Jews were now walking proudly and behaving confidently in their new societies. Their children were now thinking of themselves as fully-fledged members of these new countries. They quickly advanced and became honorable citizens, doctors, lawyers, mayors and politicians. No one would ever again tell them to "get out".



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



The same can be said about Jews who went to other ?immigrant-ruled? societies- S. Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Once their children were born there, their nationality became S. African, Australian, New Zealander, etc. Also, because the divisions in those countries were often along White/Black/Indigenous lines, the Jews became "Whites" and later, members of something that is called in the Americas "the native-born population". The law of Jus Solis-" born here- you are one of us"- was something that was working in favor of the children of these Jewish refugees from the Jus Sanguinis countries of Poland, Germany and Russia.



Again, the situation became similar to what it was for Jews in Arab countries a long time ago- the main thing that now distinguished Jews from other Americans, Argentineans, Canadians, Australians, etc, was, again, their religion.



Unlike an average Pole or a Russian, an average American, Canadian and Uruguayan cannot easily tell Jews from other "whites" unless they dress in religious Jewish clothes. A person from the Americas may be able to tell Blacks from Whites and, also, Hispanics and Asians, but his eye is not tuned in to the niceties that exist among different types of Caucasians. A Pole can literally tell a Jew a mile away because of the experience that he has had in his country with seeing Jews there on a daily basis. These were possibly the only obviously distinct minority in his homeland, so he leaned to recognize them. However, an average American does not have such experience. He can distinguish White Americans from African-Americans, but he cannot usually distinguish a Jew from an Italian, a Greek, a Turk and other thousands of groups that form the "White American" category. It goes the same for Latin American countries. Many Spanish and Italian descendants there seem to look "Jewish" or "Arabic", so a Jew could pass for a Spaniard or an Italian. An Indian will stand out there and a Black man would but not a Jew.



In Poland or Russia, a Jew can just be stopped on the street and often get beat up because he has a face that still looks Semitic to a local. However, in the Americas, a Black person will just see him as another "White" and a White person will also see him as another "fellow White". In short, he is just another child of immigrants- just like everybody else. Thus, the Jews found the Americas a very stable place in which to settle and, in spite of occasional religion-based discrimination, most of them successfully assimilated into the mainstream of these relatively new immigrant countries.



Ironically, though, the governments of the USA, Canada and Argentina equated people's nationalities with "what country they came from". So, when the Jews arrived in the New World, they were now seen as "Russians", "Germans" and "Poles". Up until this day, on their census documents, many American Jews put:" ancestry "Polish" or "ancestry: Russian". They could never be Polish or Russian in Poland or Russia, but they became such in America. Curious, indeed.



In Argentina also, up until today they call Hassidic Jews- "Rusos"- "Russians". Ridiculous and strange, and crazy if you ask any Old World person, but that's just the way it is there- and perfectly logical to these New World countries- "What country do you come from?" "Poland. That's it"; "You are Polish." The newly arrived Jews tried to protest and shout that they are "Jewish by nationality" because that is what the Poles and Germans considered them to be, but it would only fall on deaf ears in the New World. You are now a "Pole of Jewish Faith" in the Americas. Or Australia, or South Africa for that matter. It is, indeed, a bit funny for any European who visits the US to see American-born Jewish people with names such as Lipshitz or Weinstein proudly declaring, " I am Russian". "What kind of Russian name is that?" " And Russians do not have faces like that". Again, an average American Jew is just located too far from Eastern Europe to know of such things. Also, most native-born Americans do not even know what Russians looks like. Or, what kind of last names they have, for that matter. (By the way, a typical Russian name is "Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov", not "Abraham Goldenstein"). God bless the American ignorance!



American Jews now participate in "heritage tours" going to Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania to see where their grandparents came from. However, technically speaking, they did not really come "from" there. From the point of Jewish History, they only went "through" those countries. Before that, they had lived in Germany and Spain and North Africa.



Jews were travelers and temporary residents in those places. However, the present American obsession with genealogy impels thousands of American Jews to go on expensive genealogical tours to places that weren't true motherlands of their ancestors at all. Jews weren't like the Irish, you see. Those countries never accepted them; rather, they were their unwilling and begrudging hosts who ended up expelling them from their soil in the end. Again, these American Jews cannot relate to that, as they think that the whole world is just like America, and they can go to Ukraine to see where their great grandparents came from and what kind of culture people have in those places just like Italian Americans go to Italy. "Oh, so is this what my ancestors looked like ?" they probably say looking at local Ukrainian peasants. But, the Jews did not look like that, dress like that or even speak the language of those places. They spoke Yiddish, had Klezmer music, not the Ukrainian "Hopak" and never wore those Ukrainian Cossack head -dresses. By observing life in Ukraine today, these American Jews will discover little of what the Jewish life was like, since most of what used to be of it there is gone. The Slavic population living in those villages now had as much in common with the Jews as the modern SAR Chinese population had with the British colonials who lived in Hong Kong during the Imperial times.



Still the American Jews keep on going to the towns and villages where the Jews did not even have the right to work the land and where they were unwelcome guests of an alien race. They are flying to countries whose nationality their ancestors could never obtain. That is why they went to America in the first place, didn't they? Such American ignorance about the Jus Sanguinis laws keeps those tour operators in business. However, wouldn?t tours to Jordan, Israel, Syria and Lebanon as well as Iraq and Saudi Arabia be more appropriate? Aren't those the real places where Jews came from? Pity that such tours (except the ones to Israel and, maybe, a secret one to Jordan ) would be quite difficult to arrange.



So, for now, at least, the traditional American attachment to the "Where is your family from?" thing" ' which shouldn't apply to the wondering Jewish tribe, (unless one is talking about the Middle East) is keeping various "heritage tours" in Ukraine in business.



American, British and East European Jews see and experience anti-Semitism differently.



When American Jews complain about the Anti-Semitism in the US, they classify it under "religious prejudice". A Jew who claims discrimination in hiring says that he was not hired, or that he was fired because of his "religion". In Britain, it is the same thing. When the Brits talk about anti-Semitism, they again see it as an expression of purely religious intolerance. In old British books you can still find the mention of the" Jewish race", but in today?s' politically correct Britain, all citizens are British and Jews are just a religion. Moreover the eye of an average politically correct and multi-cultural Brit can no longer tell Jews from other 'white' people. His eye may have been "trained" to distinguish a Pakistani from a Chinese person, or an African from a Burmese, or other former colonial subjects from each other, but his eye is not good at picking out a local British Jew. A hundred years ago an eye of an average Englishman probably could do it, but now it can't. There is too much ethnic mixture in Britain and the Jews got lost in the melting pot that is modern UK. The only thing that is different between a British Jew and any other Brit is again- his religion.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)





However, because of the people's tendency to equate one's country with "the world", awkward and incorrect reporting takes place when American and British commentators or historians start describing past or present anti-Jewish events in Eastern Europe as instances of "religious hatred". For example, recently a rabbi was assaulted in Kiev, Ukraine. Immediately, some British commentators started mentioning it as a case of "religious prejudice". In any literature describing history of the Jews in the Russian empire, again the main explanation for any persecution that they suffered seems to be that it was a purely "religious matter". Again, while the commentators and the writers may be fairly well informed of the fact that such persecutions took place, they are usually not aware of how the Jews formed a completely different nationality in those countries. Being British, they think that other countries do what the British do- namely, liberally give their nationality to various other races that happen to be under their crowns at the moment.



This has lead to tragic misunderstandings. Jews who were running from the Nazis because they ( the Jews) " were 'not' Germans", became "Germans" once they entered the British Empire and they were subsequently arrested and interned. You see, to the Brits, even a person such as Anna Frank would be a "German". Nationality = Place of Birth = Passport is the law in most present and former British domains.



In order to fully understand what was happening to the Jews in Eastern Europe and in Germany for that matter, one should have preferably gone there, spoken to the local Jews, studied the local nationality laws and not judged the local events based on the American and British models of thinking since they simply do not apply there. In America Jews are Americans! Americans like you and me, but in, say, Ukraine they are just not Ukrainians. Sorry!



Jews can never become Ukrainians or Russians or Poles. Because of that, and because they "have killed Christ" and were accused of many things that they did not do, people in those countries used to beat them up (and they still do), come into their houses, and even occasionally do things like kill their children and hang the parents upside down from the ceiling so that they could see their kids lying dead underneath them. But, most of the time they would just tell them- "Get out of our country! And sometimes,? Go back to your country!"



"But I was born here!"- The Jew would protest.



To which the reply would be something like this: "So a dog that was born in the stables is now a horse? Get out!"



The Orthodox and The Catholic Church made life impossible for Jews in Central/Eastern Europe.



The Church, especially the Catholic and Orthodox churches, were probably some of the most serious culprits in fanning anti-Jewish hatred in Central and Eastern Europe. For over a thousand years, the Jews were blamed by them for killing Jesus Christ. How can one expect the Jew to be treated well, when their Gentile neighbors are repeatedly told at church that "that accursed nation is guilty of killing your God"?



'Why did you beat up this Jew?' 'I beat him up for crucifying Jesus Christ? '



The hatred for Jews as Christ-killers is another thing that people in Protestant America and in the Arab countries cannot truly relate to, and do not often mention in the media when they talk about anti-Semitism. Muslim or even Christian Arabs do not see Jews as killers of Christ and Protestant Churches did not create a "Christ-killer" propaganda of similar intensity in the countries which were largely Protestant- Sweden, the US, Canada and the UK among others as what was created in Orthodox and Catholic countries of Europe.



It does not however take away the fact that in many Protestant countries the Jews were still hated, however, the "they killed our God" type of hatred was especially evident in Poland, Russia and Romania, the countries who obeyed either the Anti-Semitic Papal authorities or the authority of very anti-Jewish Patriarch of Constantinople.



Imagine this daily reality for a Jew in Eastern/Central Europe- Hundreds of millions of Germans and Poles, and Russians, and Ukrainians treat him as an undesirable alien who " had killed their God", and many tell him to get out of their country. What did the Jews do? To counter that problem the Jews invented Zionism. "These people persecute us and do not want us here. Let's get organized and go back to our country". Americas and other immigrant societies could not take all the Jews in, so it seemed logical to these Jews that they needed to go back to where they originally came from, which, in their mind, was the place where they coalesced into the kingdoms of Judea and Israel. So they started buying land in what was at that time Palestine.



The Jewish "Khawajas" are coming to the Middle East.



When the Jews started "re-populating" Palestine, it had already been populated by various Arab tribes. And again, as I have mentioned before, Arabs have a different concept of nationality. In fact, all of them seem to have "two nationalities", as it were. Each one is an Arab and a Palestinian, an Arab and an Egyptian, an Arab and a Syrian, -a unique phenomenon. And their view of the world is also different from the way a European Jew would view it. It is quite simple in their minds, and looking out from where they are, either you are an Arab, whether Christian or Muslim; or you are a Jew (who can be an Arab, too). And then you have "Kaffirs"- the infidels- various Chinese, Japanese, or whoever is not of Jewish, Muslim or Christian faith; then, there are Africans who can also be Arabs and Muslims, provided they speak Arabic and practice Islam.



Then you have the "Khawajas"- all these people from Europe/America, etc.- they dress in pants and they wear hats. Europeans, White Americans, Australians, Brits- they are all "Khawajas".



To give you a comparison: have you ever heard a Mestizo Latin American, particularly someone from Mexico or Central America call White Americans "gabachos"? Well, it is the same "Khawaja" word, an Arab term, transferred into Spanish, to describe all those lighter-skinned people from the North- the racial terms would be "Gringos", "Honkies", "Haolies", "Whities", "Gueros", etc. If you do not wear a long piece of cloth over your head, or put on a fez, and you do not speak Arabic, and if your skin is lighter than mine, your eyes are blue- you are a "Khawaja"- a "Gringo"!



So, paradoxically and very ironically, again; while the Europeans were trying to kick the Jews out of Europe because these were 'not' Europeans but Semites; the Arabs now saw all these Jews coming from Europe, dressed in European clothes, speaking German-based Yiddish and behaving like Europeans ( at least to the Arab eyes) as "Khawajas".



'Hey, there is bunch of "Gringos" coming into town!' they would probably say, and a dialogue like this most possibly took place between an Arab and Jewish Zionist:



Arab: 'Where do you come from?'

Jew from Poland:' Poland'

Arab: 'And why are you here?'

Jew from Poland:' I came back home. This is my country.'

Arab: 'How can you call this place home? Where is your father from?'

Jew from Poland: 'Poland'.

Arab: 'And where is your grandfather from?'

Jew from Poland: 'Poland.'

Arab: 'So how can you say that this is your country if your roots go back to Poland? You are Polish, a European, a "Khawaja". This is Arab, Muslim land. What are you doing here in our country?'

Jew from Poland: 'I am a Jew. This is our country.'

Arab:' "Jews" are just a religion, you are a Polack. A Khawaja. A Western Gringo, Honkie, Whitie,' etcetera, etcetera.



The Arabs' logic seems unassailable in this case, right? Well, if this Arab had gone further down the Jew's family tree, he would have discovered that his great grand-grand-grand-grand father was not from Poland, that he had lived in Germany, and before that his ancestors had lived in France, and Spain, all the way back to where they are standing and talking now. That the Jews were wonderers. Two thousand years went by, but the Jew is still clinging to the land that has now been occupied by Arabs for about a millennium. He is here because the Europeans told him to get out and well, that is why he is standing in front of you with his suitcases.



Arabs do not accept such a fantastic explanation. Ugly conflicts ensue. A war takes place. Arabs in Palestine become refugees.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



Yes, an Arab sees the Jew as being just "Polish", but it is also important to realize that who is Polish and who is not Polish is not decided by the Arab. It is decided by the Polish people. Who is European and who is not European is decided by the European people, not by Arabs. And again, as I have mentioned before, those European people use "the Jus Sanguinis" principle- "the Right of the Blood"- nationality is determined by bloodline/ancestry/heritage, while the Arabs use the "What country do you come from and what is your citizenship?" principle to ascertain people's ethnic identity.



The Arabs thought that the Jews were "Russians" coming to take Arab land "based on religion"; while in reality, it was happening based on "nationality". And considering the Arab cultural perspective on the territory of Arab countries, mistaking the Jews for Russians was a mistake easy to make. The trouble with such a way of thinking was that, again, who is Russian and who is not, was not something for Arabs to decide.



This way, again the Jew became caught between the Scylla and the Harybdis as these two nationality models clashed on him- on the one hand you have East /Central Europeans who see these Jews as an alien Semitic nation and chase them out of their countries " back to where their tribe came from", and on the other hand, you have these Arabs who see the Jews as "Europeans of Jewish faith" who came to usurp their land, right during the time of the European occupation and colonization. So, the Arabs dumped these Jews in the same category with the other "Khawajas"- the French in Lebanon, the British in Egypt, and the Italians in Libya. "It is a plot by the "Khawajas" to take over our land! Let's rise in arms!"



Jews fight back. Wars, bloodsheds and deportations take place after that.



This is simply amazing! Two cultures, the European and the Arab one can look at the same group of people and see two different things based on their own perspective. And after that they proceed to categorize the group relative to their own histories, social systems, visual associations and viewpoints!



Blacks from America who went back to Africa faced similar problems as the Jews who went to Palestine.



Let's again go back to the analogy with Black Americans: In the 19th century, many Blacks from the US decided to go back to Africa. Why? Well, they were told repeatedly by white racists in the US: "Go back to Africa! Get out of here!" So, some went back. Now, when they arrived in Africa, they were met by all these different African tribes who probably asked them the same questions:



African: 'Where did you come from?'

Black man from Alabama: 'USA'

African: 'And what are you doing here?'

Black man from Alabama: 'This is my continent, I am black.'

African: 'So am I, but I am blacker than you. Your skin is lighter than mine. Your face looks strange. You are not from Africa.'



(Many Blacks in the US were mixed with whites because of rapes by their previous owners. If in America a person who is 70% black, he is still a Black man, then to an average African, a person who is 30-% White is... a White man!!! Yes, siree!)



Black man from Alabama: 'But in the USA they call me "Black" and by other bad words, and they tell me to go back to Africa. So that is why I am here.'



African: 'But here you are an American, A Westerner, a White man. You are not an African.'



Black Americans especially the ones who went on to establish Liberia over a hundred years back, had to fight several black tribes who wanted to repel them as "foreign invaders". Again, the native African Blacks could not recognize these strangers coming from the US as their Black cousins just as the Arabs in Palestine could not see the European Jews as their Semitic cousins. Most probably, the Blacks in Africa never saw themselves as having a "Black" ethnic identity. They thought of themselves in tribal terms and these people from America were not of their tribe. End of the story. Case closed.



Here is another analogy along the same lines- take Mexican-American people in the American Southwest. In the US for a long time, these were and still are called "Mexicans" by quite a few members of the white population, and are treated as such. After all, their skin is kind of brown; they have last names such as Gonzales, Ramirez and Perez. Many speak Spanish and are Catholic. These are "Mexicans" or at least "Hispanics" within the context of those states.



However, if these "Mexicans" went to Mexico proper, they would be treated as 'Americans', not 'Mexicans'. The word "Hispanic" would not be even applied to them as everybody there else is also "Hispanic". So, it happens to some groups of people that in Country A they are a "B", and in Country "B" they are an "A". A very awkward situation.



The above two analogies present cases that are similar to what happened to East European Jews in Palestine, but there is one major difference if you try to compare it to the above case with the Mexican-Americans- namely: the US is a land of immigrants. A person there can be a Mexican-American and an African-American but all are Americans, at least according to the US law. One can say that the Mexican Americans are Mexicans and not "White", but one cannot say that they are not Americans because they had been born in the US or are US citizens. However, in Europe, because of the Jus Sanguinis laws, there is no such thing as a Jewish-Pole or a Jewish-German. These are oxymorons. You can be a 'German Jew' or a 'Polish Jew' but not the other way around. Either you are a Pole- a Slav, or you are Jew- a Semite living in Poland; and one day, "you will get out of my country and go back where your Asiatic, Semitic ancestors came from".



"But he (the Jew) is a citizen of Poland/Russia/Germany!" you will say. Remember again! Those countries clearly differentiate between 'citizenship' and 'nationality'. Citizenship is your purely political association with the State. Nationality, OTOH, is ethnic/racial and comes from almost "tribal" bloodlines/heritage. Anybody can become a Polish "citizen", but becoming a Polish "national? is impossible. You have to be "born of the blood".



The British law, as the American law, treats people born in their country as their own.



If you are an American, a Canadian or a British citizen reading this, you are probably used to the fact that 'national' and 'citizen' mean the same thing in your countries. In America, actually, the word "national" even denotes something less than a citizen. Kind of like the people from Samoa or the Marianas. These are territories administered by the US but people there cannot vote in Federal elections and they do not have exactly the same rights as full US citizens living on the mainland. In Britain, it is also similar, in a way. Colonial passports of Hong Kong Chinese were not equal in value to the "full British passports". In a way these were nationals but not full citizens.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



People born and raised in Britain are a totally different story. When, for example, other European countries kicked their Gypsies out in the latter part of this past millennium , the British would often only deport those Gypsies who were not born in Britain. The ones who were born there were considered British. Sure, we all hear of hooligans that shout "Paki go home!" to British citizens of South Asian descent, but that is not the official line of the British government. 'Born in Britain' usually makes you British. 100%.



When the British distributed "Wanted" posters on Menahem Begin in Palestine during his terrorist activities against the British rule- they wrote "Nationality: Polish" on them. You see, according to the Brits, his nationality was Polish, but the British stubbornly refuse to realize that who is Polish and who is not Polish is not decided by them since Poland does not have the same nationality laws as the UK. It is decided by the Poles who is a Pole. And while to Brits 'nationality' and 'citizenship' were closely related, and a very Semitic-looking Begin was "Polish", to the tens of millions of Poles he was just a "Zhid"- a Jew who happened to be born in Poland. Not a "Pole" by a long shot. And that was pretty official, too.



Unlike in Britain, in Poland, Germany, Russia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, etc. the ethnic "nationality" 'overrides' your citizenship. Having, say, a Russian nationality means that you have a certain face, a certain color of hair, a certain name and a certain pedigree from certain 'tribes' that goes way back- millennia perhaps. Nationality basically indicates your "human breed". Polish people also have certain faces and bodies and skin and eye color. So do Germans. So do the Romanians. What?s more, they can usually tell just by looking at your face if you are one of them or not. And the Jew can never be one of them, or be a 'national' of those countries. Menahem Begin was in Palestine because he was ' not' Polish, but an ethnic Jew. And according to many anti-Semitic Poles, Palestine is the place where they should all be living.



The Jews were treated as a "non- indigenous nationality" in the Soviet Union, which further forced millions of them to emigrate, many to Israel.



While the English-language media used the words "U.S.S.R", "Soviet Union", and "Russia" interchangeably, as if it was one and the same, it was not. If you do not believe me, check any encyclopedia. Check the CIA World Fact book. Russia was only one of the republics (read: non independent countries) that composed USSR. There were fifteen of them- Georgia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. In the U.S.S.R, they had an internal classification of nationalities, and an internal passport system to designate them- kind of like an ID booklet that all citizens had to carry from the time they turned 16. The Jews, of whom there were some several millions in the country, had those, too.



Now, what was that "nationality" system? Aren't they all "Russians"?



In Hollywood movies they are, and in the English-language popular media they are. In British and American novels about the Cold War (by writers who have never even been to that country, and do not speak the language) they are. However, to themselves, and to the countries around them, they are not. They are all 'Soviets' but not all "Russians".



What is the difference?



The same difference as between "British" and "English". "British" can be Scottish, English, (Northern Irish- arguably) and Welsh. The English are the most numerous of the four (or three, some will say) and, arguably, the most powerful, but they are only one of the several ethno-cultural groups that compose the country. The French and the Belgians loosely call them all "Anglais", but it is a simplification and, culturally, and even politically, it is very wrong.



Unlike in the United States, where most people are children of immigrants, in the USSR they are not. Georgians are from Georgia originally. Ukrainians are from Ukraine for tens of millennia. Russians are from Russia originally. These people have been there since the last Ice Age and perhaps even before that. They were there way before recorded history. At least this is how the Soviet people would have seen themselves.



The Soviet government divided people there into the indigenous and non-indigenous populations. The indigenous- or what they in USSR used to call "korennoye naselenie"- literally the "autochthonous population", had the "blood right" to be in the country. The ones that came to the country later- say a few hundred, or even a thousand years ago were not "autochthonous". Some Jews came about a thousand years ago, but most Jews who lived there migrated through Poland and into the future USSR lands only a couple of hundred years ago.



The Gypsies also 'settled' (or rather established their caravan routes) there about 500-1000 years ago. The Germans came 200 years ago, after Catherine the Great invited them to help raise agriculture and improve trade in the country. Does this make them autochthonous populations? If this were the countries of the Americas or even Britain, or even Arab countries, these people would by now be "natives", citizens, nationals and totally assimilated members of society for sure.



However, the rulers of the USSR had other ideas. This is what they decided: " We will support the indigenous population and persecute the non-indigenous ones". So, who would be the autochthonous ones? The Russians were Slavs mixed with Finns- autochthonous, that is- they have been in the country for 10,000 + years? Ukrainians? A mixture of Iranic tribes and Slavs- same thing- autochthonous. The Georgians? Indigenous population. So all these peoples were now members of one great multinational state of USSR. However, there were also "nationalities" that were declared "non-autochthonous" The "Hebrews"- read "Jews", the "Germans", and the "Gypsies". These three were seen as de facto "foreign nationals" residing in the country. The Jews were also referred to as "people of Jewish nationality" in everyday Soviet life.



Again, the Soviet government utilized strict "Jus Sanguinis" laws to define people's nationality. Based on documented ancestry and 'bloodlines', they would write in people's ID cards- Last Name, First name, Patronymic ( the name of the father plus -the OVICH suffix for a man, and -a YEVNA suffix for a woman), Date of Birth, and then "Nationality"- the infamous "pyataya grapha" or "Fifth Paragraph".



Again, who is Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian and a "Hebrew", and who is not, is decided by guess who? The Soviets! Not by Americans; not by Arabs; not by Brits. Soviets decide. It is their country. Lock, stock and barrel!



So, let's see what strange classification system they created there:



A National ID card looked like a passport and it was in fact called a " Passport", but it was an internal one. There would be a picture and an inscription of this nature



(for Jews):



Rosenberg

Abraham

IsaakOVICH

Born: May 19, 1936

Nationality: Yevrey (Hebrew)



This is what information an ID/Internal Passport would have on a Ukrainian citizen of USSR:



Belenko

Oksana

VasilyeVNA

Born: October 9, 1946

Nationality: Ukrainka (Ukrainian)



This is what it would look like for a Russian (who were only 49% of the population of USSR- not 100% as the Hollywood movies and various American Cold War novels would want you to think.)



Ivanov

Ivan

PetrOVICH

Born: January 23, 1955

Nationality: Russki (Russian)



Or a German (who had been in the country for 200+ years)



Mueller

Hans

KarlOVICH

Born: December 11, 1943

Nationality: Nemetz (German)



How would you like to have an ID like this? Whenever you apply for a job, or rent a place, and present it to the police on demand, or show it to train conductors or the post office, you are a "Hebrew" for the whole Soviet world to see. You are not an "autochthonous" citizen and therefore, not a full citizen. For all intents and purposes, you are not even a national of the country. There are quotas on you everywhere, other students can harass your kids at schools, teachers ask you your nationality, and the word "Hebrew" is marked on the student rosters, official papers, job applications, birth and death certificates, etc. You spend your entire life as a "Hebrew" foreigner in a faraway Slavic land.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



When Israel was established in 1948, all those who had "nationality: "Hebrew? and as a result felt like 'Hebrews' in were automatically treated as potential traitors and foreign citizens while at the same time, not allowed to leave "the host country". They became a fifth column; many considered them enemies of the state and they were caught in a limbo- they are neither from here, nor from there. Life became so hard for them that emigration became the only choice. People would scream at them- "Go back to your country! Back to Israel! This is not your country! Get out!"



Eventually, these "Hebrews", who often did not speak a word of Hebrew, were allowed to emigrate back to "their country" and they left in millions. And would you blame them?



When these Russian-speaking "Hebrews" arrived in Israel in such numbers, the Arab population was up in arms- there is a million of them coming. Why? They are all 'Khawajas!' What are they doing coming into our country? Where are we going to live now?



Thank you, leaders of the mighty U.S.S.R for pushing over a million Jews into the Palestinian lands and then duplicitiously supporting the Palestinian struggle which resulted from a demographic catastrophe which you yourselves helped to create! How very hypocritical of you to do that!



The Hypocritical Soviets.



By then, many more Palestinian Arabs had already been displaced to make room for more immigrants coming from the USSR. A terrible thing to happen! All of a sudden you are told to leave your homes. Why? What did you do? You've never hurt those Jews.



But again, whose fault is it? Why couldn't the Soviet government treat those "Hebrew" people like their own, like they would treat a Georgian or a Ukrainian? Why couldn't they just call all people "Soviets"? Why was there the fifth paragraph? Why did they have to have those internal "nationality" ID cards? Why create the 'non-autochthonous' nationality concept? Why couldn't they thoroughly naturalize people who had been in the country for centuries? And why did so many Soviets scream at these Jews," Go back to your country!" "Go back to Israel!" Why were so many Jews harassed there and told to 'go back to Israel'?



In a very hypocritical way, the Soviets always blamed Israel for taking away Palestinian lands but ,at the same time, it was the Soviets that proclaimed that the Jews were Semites and Hebrews and not Russians. It was them who practiced such a severe anti-Semitism against the Jews, that they practically left no alternative for them but to emigrate 'back home'.



Jews in America often cannot relate to what the Jews in the USSR went through.



There have been demonstrations by some Jews in the US against Israel and Zionism. The reason they saw the need to demonstrate in America was because they were as 100% American, just as anyone else in the US. Hence, they really saw no need for Israel to exist. No one ever denied them the right to live in the US. They have never had strange ID cards saying that they are not part of the ' autochthonous population'. Not many have been screaming at them, " Go back to your Israel!". Not in Williamsburg, anyway.



However, there were no such demonstrations in Russia or Ukraine because Jewish people there could never become Russians or Ukrainians. And they still aren't fully so. They are happy that if the things get nasty and attacks against them begin, they always have a country to go to.



Although now the Fifth Paragraph has been abolished, its ugly heritage in the former Soviet states has not yet disappeared completely. The Jews can never truly be accepted as Ukrainians or Russians socially unless they start intermarrying with the indigenous population and then, only their grandchildren can feel like they truly belong. And slowly, but surely, it is happening. Over the next century many more "Hebrews" will intermarry. And it is not a bad thing. If you ask me, nothing good seems to have come out of being a person of "Jewish nationality" in those countries.



Israel also differentiates between Nationality and Citizenship.



You thought Israel would be a country that would not adopt the blood laws after all the problems that these had caused to Jews in Europe. It did. In Israel, there is again a "nationality"- either you are an "Arab" or a "Jew"; and then there is a "citizenship"- "Israeli". So, Arabs there can have the 'citizenship' but not the "nationality". Looks like the Jews borrowed the same very ugly Jus Sanguinis principle from Europe and superimposed it on the Middle East, a region that traditionally never practiced it except in the cases of modern Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other Gulf states but even then it has been a very recent phenomenon.



Did the Jews know any better when they set up that nationality system? Maybe not. After all it was like that in Poland. Let?s create the same system here, too.



A yet another unexpected twist- Jews looking down on each other in the new land.



After Israel was established in 1948, a yet new identity was formed, a whole new concept- "a native-born Israeli". A "Sabra"- cactus, that is - supposedly a modern Israeli person, who just like a cactus is "tough on the outside, but soft on the inside". He is Hebrew-speaking, he usually does not know much about life of Jews in other countries and sometimes he looks with condescension on immigrants from outside of Israel. "We are warriors, we fought for this country, we are Israelis. And you are all "Russians". We don't like you- go back to Russia".



Can you just imagine that? You take one group of people that were persecuted so much and you put them together in one place and, guess what happens?-almost immediately they start forming a pecking order amongst themselves- "I was born here! You weren't". "I was here before you, but I am poor and now you come here and you get subsidies from the government, but I don't get anything". The Jews who were "Hebrews" in the USSR, were now "Russians" in Israel. Some are now even being beat up by those who are supposed to be their brothers- of the same blood as them. Jewish police sometimes insult Jews from USSR by calling them "Rasputins", "Mafiosi", and "Russian pigs". There have been reports of them getting roughed up by the cops- the proud, "native-born Israelis".



Things are now different in Europe, too.



Things have also changed in Europe but for the better, at least, as far as the Jewish situation goes. Many of the countries that used to persecute Jews and treat them as foreigners, no longer do so as much. If there are haters, they now unleash their xenophobic fury on the new Arab, African and Asian immigrants. Many Europeans would even prefer that the Jews were back, as the Poles, the Germans and the Russians now have to face these newly arrived groups that are even more different and even less assimiliable than the Jews. At least, the Jews knew the local culture. and the Europeans were also somewhat used to the Jewish ways. They were part of the landscape for so long. They were better than these fanatical Chechens and not as different from us as the Africans that are now coming in droves to our shores. And these are the devils we don't know.



The US and the UK are now starting to export their concept of multiculturalism and tolerance to the traditionally intolerant societies of Central and Eastern Europe. Germany is inviting Jews to come back. And the new importance of money is changing things, too. Now a Jew can go to Ukraine with money and marry a beautiful local girl. Many no longer care about him being Jewish. There are still anti-Semites and occasional hate attacks, but things are getting better. From the long term point of view, Jus Sanguinis in Eastern Central Europe is destined to be a thing of the past, something that most people will one day forget about. And racial hatreds of yesteryear will one day be also forgotten, for sure.



The Jus Sanguinis is no longer on government law books, even though it still raises its ugly head in informal situations. With the present or upcoming EU membership, a lot of things have become different and more things will change in the future. Turks in Germany are now Turk-Germans. Russia and Ukraine have identity documents that just say: ?Citizen of Ukraine? or ?Citizen of Russia?. As they have to adopt EU standards to prepare for either entry into, or some associate status with the EU, ?Blood Laws? are now being replaced by ?Soil Laws?- the Russians have begun to replace the ethnic name ?Russki? with ?Rossiyanin?- a term that can be applied to anyone who is a citizen of Russia and/or who was born there. Things are definitely getting better.



Tens of thousands of Jews are going back to Germany and Russia. Many are now buying property in Ukraine. The Jewish heritage of many European cities is being revived. It is just a pity that there was so much suffering for such a long time, and that so many lives have been ruined. Maybe the Arabs were right, maybe these Jews should be called 'Europeans', after all?



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)





What could have been done in the past to prevent the Palestinian tragedy?



America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina as well as all the other countries in the Americas could have taken more Jews in. Jews could have converted to Christianity and stayed in Spain without ever reaching Germany or the Russian Empire. They would have been accepted and could have become good Spaniards. They could have converted to Islam and become as Arabian as all the other Arabs while they were in North Africa. Didn't many do so? Some people say that many Palestinians are simply descendants of Jews who converted to Islam a long time ago. Many even have that traditional Jewish look but names such as Ali or Mohammed.



They could have all gone to France after the French Revolution when the revolutionaries declared that all people in France who had allegiance to the Republic were now Frenchmen.



European countries could have adopted the "Jus Solis" law and declared all those Jews just Poles and Russians and Germans. They did not. Hence, you have the mess on your hands that you see on TV every day.



Arab countries could have taken in more Palestinian refugees and naturalized them after the Arab-Israeli conflict took place, too. It surely would have helped.



Jus Sanguinis still exists in some places.



While many countries, including Germany have abolished Jus Sanguinis, some countries still practice it. In Gulf Arab countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Arabs from poorer countries, and also, children of African immigrants cannot get the local citizenship/nationality even if they were born there. Beduin tribes in Kuwait who cannot prove that they are from well-established Kuwaiti families remain stateless. Kuwait expelled most of its Palestinian population after the first Gulf War( many of whom were born in Kuwait) because its leaders decided that these Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein. In Saudi Arabia, many children of immigrants from Chad and other Arab countries are still not Saudis. Born and raised there, but not Saudis. Why?



In Japan, children and grandchildren of Korean immigrants still have hard time getting jobs, apartments and participating in the Japanese society because they are not Japanese. Some African countries such as Zimbabwe abuse that law, as well, by refusing to naturalize children of foreign-born parents.



And even though Russia has been making progress by abolishing the fifth paragraph, If you do a search anywhere on the ethnic composition of the population of Russia, particularly in the CIA World Fact Book, you will clearly see that the Russians up until this day say that only some 80% or so of the population of the country are Russians. All others are not considered to be. It is no longer a legal stance but it is still mentioned. Why?



Even in countries where non-indigenous population can obtain citizenship, they are still not treated equally from the social perspective. They have problems finding work, places to live, friends and mates. Such things happen to children of Indians, Pakistanis and Arabs in various European countries. Jews who have stayed in the former Soviet countries no longer suffer legal discrimination against them, but it may be a long time before the local people from those countries start considering them as their true nationals.



All that shows that while the law may be waning, and things may be changing, the cultural practices of Jus Sanguinis are still lingering. When will they ever go away completely? Do you want me to be optimistic? I will say, several generations - a century or two.



Conclusion



Those who take sides in the Middle Eastern conflict by listening to only one side and not studying the whole issue are really missing the point. They also waste energy on hating the "bad guys" on each side. In addition to that, everyone's perspective is clouded and slanted because of one's own cultural background and the tendency to see events from one's own cultural perspective. People tend to simplify such a multi-faceted problem as this.



Many plead for Israel's right to the land because they are either Jewish themselves, or have close friends who are Jewish. Many Muslims and politically correct Westerners support the Palestinians. Blames are often directed against the British, the Muslim fanatics, the religion of Islam, the United States interests in the area, the militant Jewish settlers, the hawkish leaders of the Knesset and other such villains.



However, very few know about the profound role that the Eastern and Central European countries such as Poland, Romania, the Russian Empire (and the USSR) and many others played in driving millions of their Jews into Palestine; Jews who were born and bred in those countries. They did that by instituting against them a policy of persecution based on the legal principle of Jus Sanguinis. These nations have not taken any blame for what is happening in the Middle East and it has rarely occurred to anyone, including the Arab leaders, to at least say to them: "Quit kicking your Jews out and onto our lands". Their part in creating a huge Jewish population in Palestine is hardly, if ever, discussed and has almost never been brought up in any important public debate.



The sanctimoniousness of those countries is seen in how arrogantly and phonily they talk about self-determination for the Palestinians, while it was their governments and churches who practically made the Jews emigrate from the countries; the places where they had lived for generations, in order to seek shelter in that arid Middle Eastern land called Palestine.



Although many Jews are returning to Eastern and Central Europe, those countries still have Jewish populations that are miniscule compared to what they used to be in the past, and while some Jews are happy to re-embrace the lands of their births, many of the locals still treat them as outsiders. Poland has only a few thousand elderly Jews left and not many Jews are going back to Poland. The government and the general public of Ukraine consistently refuses to consider local, native-born Jews as Ukrainians. Citizens of Ukraine, yes. Ukrainians, no! Few real steps are taken to bring to justice many anti-Semitic elements in the country that consistently publish slanderous articles against the Jews in the press further fanning inter-ethnic hatred in the country. The strange mechanism set into motion by those racist organizations still feeds on human suffering and creates a sadistic loop of these malicious steps: 1) Slander the Jews so that they get discriminated against and emigrate from the country. 2) Let them go to Israel and push out more Palestinians. 3) Let more Palestinians get displaced and rebel against the Jews.4) Let the Jews fight back and more Palestinians get killed, 5) Now the anti- Semites can slander Jews again and more of them again can get discriminated against. 6)They again emigrate to Israel in even greater numbers, push out more Palestinians and the World Zionist Conspiracy is blamed. More weapons are then sold to both sides. More funds are channeled to terrorists. A vicious cycle. Who suffers in the end? The innocent Palestinians and the innocent Israelis.



Bullets are still flying, Palestinian children die, terrorists blow up and kill innocent Jewish people in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Bearded and bespectacled, mature-looking commentators with PhDs talk about aggression and terrorism committed by each side. Fanatical Muslim and Jewish elements continue to plot murderous acts against each other.



Establishing a state in Palestine called " Israel" may not have been a wise step, but the policy by the Central and Eastern Europeans to treat the Jews as a nation from that ( the Middle Eastern) part of the world, and to refuse to acknowledge them as their own nationals, was one of the principal factors that forced compelled the Jews to take that step. Now, the Jews in Israel are paying for their ancestors' difficult decision to build such a country on the land that the local Arabs considered their own, by living under the constant threat of terror attacks in a society devoid of peace.



Will Poland, Russia, Ukraine and Romania, and other such states, ever apologize for making their own countries "Jew- free" by simply dumping their Jews on the Arabs in the Middle East, while causing great sufferings to both the Jews and the Arabs? Will the Palestinian leaders ever realize that this is one of the main reasons why all these people are on their land, and understand who is partially to blame? Will there be huge demonstrations in every Arab and Muslim capital in front of the embassies of the Russian Federation, Poland, Ukraine and Romania with youngsters in Hamas and Hizbullah uniforms shaking fists in the air and carrying slogans: ?Take them back!", "Don't Dump Your Citizens on our Land!"," Stop Pushing Us Off Our Farms With Your Jews", and " Get Them Out of Here, They Belong To You!"?





That would be a sight to behold, wouldn't it?

 

[momopi_IHB]

<a href="http://truthfulinsights.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html">http://truthfulinsights.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html</a>



Thursday, December 29, 2005

Racism in the US vs. Latin America



If you travel to and live in both the Latin and the "Anglo"- America, you will notice that the problem of racism in both parts of the world is expressed differently. In the US as a rule, the poorer the strata of the society, the more racism there seems to be in their general attitude in dealing with other groups. The worst place to be different in color or in nationality in the US would be some trailer park or some poor neighborhood. As one becomes more educated, it seems that it becomes easier for one to mingle with other people, as richer, more knowledgeable Americans seem to be more open-minded than the lower, less informed classes. Therefore, rich blacks will have much better time among rich whites than among poor ones. The same would go for Asians and Hispanics if one observes how they integrate into the US society. The poorer they are, the more discrimination they have to face from both poor whites and poor blacks. Lower classes in America are segregated into somewhat "angry" ethnic neighborhoods where each one associates with his own kind. Not so with the higher classes. One only needs to look at the US government to see how many minorities there are in power. People like Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powel come to mind, as well as people with all kinds of exotic and ethnic names who have come to occupy high positions in US politics.



In addition to that, America divides its population into five "tribes" - Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans. These are arbitrary definitions for all intents and purposes, but people seem to take them very seriously and they form their personal identities based on those. Foreign visitors sometimes remark that while America is diverse, "the white guy", "the black guy" and other such "guys" seem to be very stereotypical models into which the US population is expected to fit in. Whites are supposed to act a certain way, blacks- another way, etc.



In Latin America things are slightly different. The first thing that catches one's eye is that the poor classes there are the least prejudiced. If one goes to places such as Panama, or Puerto Rico or Colombia, one will notice that there is almost no racial segregation among the lowest echelons of society. In addition to that, a Black person does not speak a certain "black dialect" as in the US, and you cannot tell on the phone if a person is Black or White ( same in Britain, by the way). There are not many cultural stereotypes of behavior that one needs to fit into. People seem to behave just like what their nationality dictates they should behave. A Colombian behaves as a Colombian. A Brazilian behaves as a Brazilian should. Not as a "Black Brazilian". Just Brazilian.



The Spanish ( or Portuguese) language spoken by the darkest African-looking person and the whitest- Northern Spanish/Euro-looking person is generally the same. One may notice that there are sometimes black neighborhoods in Latin America, but they are often such because slaves that worked in certain areas simply remained there- such as around the coast and the former plantations. Social interactions among poor working classes are very harmonious, and people of all colors mingle and make friends easily. Intermarriage between poor people of all races is very much accepted. However, once one begins going up the social ladder, this is where prejudice starts getting stronger and stronger. Whereas in the US you see many blacks in positions of power, you will be hard pressed to see them occupying such posts in Latin America. The higher you want to go, the whiter you have to be and the more you need to look like a European immigrant. There have been exceptions to the rule, such as Alberto Fujimori of Peru, but the Japanese are in many circles seen as "honorary whites" anyway .There has been an Argentinean president of Arab descent- Menem, but again, he looked very European, physically, and "acted" in a European way, too. Generally, to get a good job and to move up, being as white as possible helps a lot. That is the reality of life there.



It is like that in the US, too, you may argue, but, again, the US does have Affirmative Action and one can see all these Black judges and mayors and quite a few rich Black people who are very well integrated. College professors with Ph. Ds who are Black are quite common. Nothing like that can be seen in Latin America. Very strange, indeed.



In addition to that, within Latin America, racial definitions are somewhat different, too. Generally, a person who is part European and part Indian with a name such as Gomez, Lopes or Rodriquez will be considered ?white? there. The "Hispanic" qualification naturally does not exist in that part of the world- they are just Peruvians or Mexicans. This creates confusion on the part of Latin American immigrants to the US whose identity changes to "Hispanic" as soon as they arrive. People of French and Italian descent from Argentina suddenly become "non-whites" in the US. However, a person of the same origin coming from Paris will be "white". Again, it shows how ridiculous the whole thing is and how arbitrary those definitions are.



Many Black people who came from Latin America to live in the US have felt that now they had much greater opportunities to advance and make something out of themselves. So did many people of Amerindian descent ( such as poor Mexicans and Guatemalans) who were able to benefit greatly from the equal opportunities awarded to them by the consitituon of this country. However, they all complained of one thing- it is so hard to make friends with the poorer classes of Americans who seem to be very prejudiced and angry as a whole.



The " white" people from Latin America such as Argentines or Chileans would, on the other hand, often bemoan their loss of status here and the fact that they are now no longer "white", but "Hispanic". This is probably the reason why if one sees people from Latin America in the US, most of them are not European-looking but either Native South American or a mixture of various races, because the States, after all is the best place for them to develop and grow, albeit not socially.At least not aslong as they are poor by US standards But, who cares?- social acceptance may not necessarily be on their priority list, anyway. At least, not immediately.

 

[momopi_IHB]

On being white in Asia.



Being a white person in East Asia is a strange experience.



One is for all intents and purposes an eternal guest and is treated as such by the man on the street. You may be living in the country for 20 years but to the average Joe Asian, when he sees you, it is like you have just arrived. He starts speaking to you in English or if he does not speak English, he either uses signs or avoids you altogether. He asks you questions that one would only ask a tourist. Somehow, they simply cannot fathom the fact that one is living in their country permanently. You are just so unusual, they simply cannot accept that. They want to be a host and they want you to be the guest.



With very few exceptions, being accepted as "one of them" is an impossibility. You can never be Chinese or Japanese or Korean. Or Vietnamese, Thai or Cambodian. You can be seen as a Filipino or a Singaporean, though but it has to be among very educated classes- and they may, in fact, one day, see you as such. The man on the street, again though, will see you as this permanent tourist no matter what you do. From this point of view, even if you feel that the country has become your "home" ,the general population will have hard time accepting the fact that you now belong there.



Having said that, the group of people that you know, your friends and colleagues will come to accept you quite well. The people are generally quite polite and non-confrontational. The food is delicious. If you are a man, you will find it easier to score with local women than back home as you will be seen as someone exotic and virile.



Being poor in Asia is not a good thing but being white often compensates for it. In some countries, such as Japan, for one, not being rich may not matter so much socially but it may matter if you need to get a good place to live or send your kids to an international school.



In Malaysia, Thailand or the Philippines, being poor will not make you too many friends with the locals as they are not used to seeing poor white people and do not know how to deal with them. Mostly, it will be amazement followed by eventual feeling uncomfortable on their part.



Asians as a rule seem to be quite insular and have a view of the world and your role in it that may seem as narrow to you. They call you a ?foreigner? but they do not call other Asians- foreigners. They simply call them Koreans or Filipinos but never ?foreigners?. Also, they assume you to be a certain way even though you are nothing like that. As far as they are concerned, only people with narrow eyes and jet black straight hair eat rice and use chopsticks. All white people eat bread and use fork and spoon. Never mind the fact that you grew up on Chinese take-always back in New York- you will have hard time convincing people that in your country there are Asian restaurants and Asian people. It is a common thing to be sitting at an eatery in Tokyo, eating your meal and having a middle aged lady at the end of the room stare at you as you use chopsticks, and then watching her start clapping while smiling and nodding in surprise and admiration. Look at that foreigner! He is using chopsticks! Wow! Never mind that Asians can use all the Western utensils and wear jeans. That is normal. Your eating with chopsticks is not normal, however. These things get on one's nerves after a while, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about them as the number of people holding such stereotypes is simply astronomical.



You can become fluent in the language but, again, to a local stranger who has just met you, it is so shocking that he may not even register it. You will be speaking in Chinese or another Asian language and he will staring at you with his mouth agape and not knowing how to react.



I remember I was once sitting in a Thai restaurant and watching a program in Thai- a language that I speak quite well. Suddenly, an employee walks out of the kitchen and without looking at me or even saying hello, walks up to the TV and changes the channel to CNN. Then he walks out just as unceremoniously. "A white person understanding Thai is an impossibility, we had better change it to CNN- so that he could understand". Such is their train of thought. Again, not everybody is like that, but such an attitude is very common and is almost a daily occurrence when you meet people there whom you don't know.



I remember I was once in Manila in the company of two middle aged ladies, one Japanese and one Filipino. I had my guitar with me and proceeded to sing a Japanese song to them. I then translated the Japanese lyrics into Tagalog. There was a Japanese word "karasu" which means "raven". I explained to the Filipino lady that "raven" in Tagalog was "uwak". She nodded, then chuckled, and then, chuckled again. "Uwak"- "bwahahaha". She was nodding and giggling. I asked her what was the matter. The answer was

" Because your face... it is American...but you say, bwahahaha- uwak, ha-ha-ha." It was a strange, almost surreal experience. Never mind the fact that their faces were not "American". It was OK for them to speak English, and I was not laughing, but as soon as I used the word "uwak: it evoked chuckles.



Some white people do a wise thing by not learning the local languages, speaking English to everybody and not trying to integrate. Unlike in America where such an attitude would be quite insulting, in Asia this is how many people expect you to act, and they accommodate you quite well if you behave like that. Many Westerners conduct themselves in just such a manner and act with superiority, and they gather nothing but admiration from the local population. Strange indeed.



One of my friends, an old Asia hand once told me, ?One can never expect an Asian to treat you as an equal. Hence, unless one wants to be stepped on and scorned, one has no choice but to try and come off as being superior". Rudeness, of course is not tolerated anywhere, but being somewhat cocky pays off as people there seem to respect such a type. It also helps if one actually has the money and the power to justify such a self-view. Failing that, if one is on a short trip, one can fake being rich for the duration of one's stay.



The food is great and overall, notwithstanding the irritations described living in Asia is very enjoyable. However, after being there for months and years, it is quite refreshing to go to a place like Argentina and walk down the streets among crowds of people that look like you. In Asia, people will not approach you and ask you for directions, unless they are drunk. In Argentina they do. This makes you feel at home as people come up to you and speak to you in Spanish assuming that you are a local. But one becomes just one in many there. In Asia, although one is somewhat of a mild freak of nature, one can enjoy a weird semi-celebrity existence and keep tasting local hospitality ad infinitum.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Saturday, December 24, 2005

My Home In The Air



The Chinese say money can buy a house but it cannot buy a home. Does that mean that you can have a home without any money? I think so. While on California highways back in the 1980ies, I found that my home was on the roads since I spent so much time on them. I formed emotional attachments to certain highways, streets and buildings which I would silently greet every time I passed them by. I also created homes for me on certain streets, beaches, in restaurants and parks in Saudi Arabia, Japan and Singapore. Some hotels where I stayed for years, with their nice coffee shops, became my homes.



However, I must say that the place that I feel completely at home is in the air, aboard a plane. Somehow, a perpetual traveler such as myself recognizes it as the ultimate "home". It becomes almost a house on intercontinental flights, especially those that are half-full. I migrate to the back

of the cabin and then, if I am allowed to, occupy a whole row all to myself. I can read books, watch a movie and have beautiful stewardesses bring me my two meals a day. The thing that makes it so cozy for me is the fact that I am no longer located in any particular country- I have departed the one I was in, had my departure stamp put in my passport, but still have not arrived in the one I am flying to. This gives me a sense of emotional freedom as I am not a guest, not a resident, not a citizen. I am just what I am- a traveler.



I gaze down on the earth and I am aware of the fact that people down below no longer have any control over me. They cannot see me, talk to me, scold me or gossip about me. I am out of their clutches and will be so for many hours to come, something that I am going to savor along with the red wine served by the chraming young ladies in thier fresh uniforms.



I am surrounded by people who are passengers and travelers just as I am, but I am not feeling that I am in their country or that they are in mine. We are all ten kilometers up in the air, relaxing, watching movies, drinking beer and wine and are being lulled to sleep by charming young girls. There are no bosses, no coworkers, no juniors or seniors, and we are all equal. At least, before the captain we are.



Sometimes I wish I could spend more time up in the air like this, where I experience life at its highest, both literally and emotionally. I was taught that heaven was high above the earth so, hopefully, after I die I will spend a few eons flying as a passenger on some angelic plane. I will settle for the new Airbus- the one with bars and lounges, and, hopefully, it has the same onboard entertainment system as Singapore Airlines. That will be Heaven of all Heavens.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Friday, December 16, 2005

American Dream, International Provincialism and Travel Preparation



The American Dream vs. the America+ Some Other Country (ies) Dream.



There are two types of American dream. The first one is that of a foreigner in some oppressed land where he has no freedom and no opportunity to advance himself or his family. He may suffer from the lack of political freedoms, or poverty in spite of all his hard work there. For such a man, America looms as a paradise in which his basic requirement are all met and where he becomes truly happy.



The second American dream is by a native-born person- it is about establishing a career in the field one wants to pursue and making big money at it. One then finds the partner of one's dreams, gets married, buys a beautiful house and lives happily thereafter with a new family.



Both dreams are imperfect. They are based on many false assumptions and filled with naivet?. The foreigner usually has no idea what America is all about. He thinks it is a country where money lies around on the streets. Sure, he is now getting paid in dollars, but everything is equally expensive, too. And, while he may be a subject of respect back home and is now called ? an American? by the people whom he left behind, he is but a nobody in the US. Unless, of course, he has some exceptional skill that the country needs. For most people, however, life in America is a hard struggle to advance and attain the middle class status. For many it takes a generation or two.



Young immigrant men may have it especially hard in the US. During their late teens or early twenties, the time when they should be dating and falling in love, they realize two painful things- American girls are not interested in Fresh.Off the Boat men ( F.O.Bs) as these appear clumsy and hick-like to them, and present very little value as boyfriends and future husbands. They also learn that within their own immigrant community, men often outnumber women and the guys that had been there before them now have the money and the status to get the best girls from that same community. Many of the immigrant women also prefer to date and marry the ?real Americans? and not the struggling ?fresh-off-the boat? bumpkins. These men also get caught in between two cultures. They are not yet accepted as Americans by the new society and they are no longer what they were to the people in the home country. Many cannot go back as they may not have the money to do so. Some of their countries may even arrest them if they attempt to go back. China and until recently, Vietnam were doing just that and many immigrants from there were caught in a cultural limbo in between the two places. For a Vietnamese refugee man to meet a beautiful VN-ese girl in the US would be quite hard as many prefer rich and handsome Americans or the long-established US- based VN-ese with cars, houses and businesses. Loneliness and alienation may drive many to join gangs and do all sorts of wild things as younger people often lack the maturity needed to face such solitude in a new land without being severely traumatized by it.



America has many good things, too: there is freedom of speech in the sense that you cannot get arrested for saying things against the government. You cannot be put in prison not paying a debt. The infrastructure and the services are top-notch. There are social programs for the very needy, as well. Products of all kinds are easily available delivered with a smile. Credit is easy to come by. You can purchase real estate and cars relatively easily, as well. There are student loans that can help you finish school. It is easy to get into colleges and earn diplomas and such US degrees are respected everywhere in the world. People treat customers nicely. There are laws to protect minorities and other non-mainstream people and you can sue people if you feel such laws are violated. There are numerous opportunities in many fields and if you know how to take advantage of them, you should be fine. US citizenship is also not hard to obtain, albeit harder than, say, the Canadian one. If you are stateless, the US government will provide you with a semblance of a passport- a ?refugee travel document?. America has no major coup d'etats or revolutions. There are no true military invasions or occupations by foreign powers. So, one can thank America for many things that it can offer a prospective immigrant.



The bad things are- many things are so expensive now that the way to afford them is by using credit. Some forty or fifty years ago, basic salaries were often enough to live a good life. Now, they are not. So, people end up borrowing money to afford all the things that used to be affordable at much cheaper prices in the past. Many people are, therefore, indebted up to their ears and are working just to make the monthly payments. Taxes are high, medical services are also high. Even if you have medical insurance, you may end up paying a high deductible. So, you had better stay healthy.



Also, socially speaking, there is general unfriendliness and cliquishness in society. People are not easy to meet. Racial and ethnic groups often end up staying with their own kind. As in any other immigrant society, those who had been there before look down on newcomers. And, many children of immigrants can be particularly unfriendly to those who are fresh off the boat since as we know that &^%$% tends to travel down the hill. Also, just as a foreigner has a distorted idea of the American paradise, so does a native-born American has a distorted idea of the countries these new people come from- he thinks that these are very backward places with no electricity and no TV. If one?s English is accented and not fluent, one will be often treated as a hick or a mental *&&^%$%. Until one gets completely Americanized in behavior and speech, it is quite hard to fit into the US society, at least, on the social level. The closer one gets to the White Anglo Saxon Protestant in looks, speech, acting and thought, the better are one?s chances of fitting in. If not, one can be in for some lonely times. Hence, the somewhat off-the-mainstream people hang out together. Blacks with Blacks, Hispanics with Hispanics, Asians with Asians.



So, any immigrant who goes to the US needs to be aware of these things and weigh them carefully against his often idealistic expectations of life in the US. ?Know before you go? applies to any place in the world, and the US is no exception. Still, all things considered, if one is adrift in the world, America is probably the best place to end up in.



The happiest immigrant in the US is the one who still maintains ties with the home country and uses dollars to build a nest egg where things are cheaper and where people now admire and seek him out as ?that rich American?. These are the ones that you see smiling as they work hard in their noodle shops. They measure their worth not against the American standards, but against the standard of their cheap homeland where they are now treated as kings even if they used to be treated as nobodies there before.



The native- born person?s dream to buy a house, get married and live happily ever after also needs to be weighed against the realities of the American society today. With divorce rates sky-high, one can lose one?s shirt during a divorce settlement as the laws are heavily slanted in favor of women. Childbirth is expensive unless you are very poor and the government can pick up the tab for you. Raising kids is also expensive. Becoming a member of America?s middle class is not easy and, even if you become one, you will find yourself in a very unenviable position where your money seems to disappear right and left and you feel squeezed on both sides- from the strata above you and the strata belowow you. The very rich have tax loopholes and the very poor have welfare but if you are in the middle, it is hard to get rich. One ends up working very hard to maintain a semi-decent standard of living while supporting a government that does not even have national health insurance since America is the only developed nation in the world that does not offer it.



Becoming a doctor or a lawyer is probably the fastest and easiest way to propel oneself up and beyond the middle class category but is that what you want to do?



Dating is also quite hard for an average American guy as local women have enormously high standards as to the kind of man which they think they deserve to have. They want rich and handsome guys with enormous incomes. This leaves a lot of average guys behind, living lives of harsh work coupled with blank and consistent solitude.



The native-born American who is not a doctor or a lawyer can learn something from the happy, noodle-soup-stirring immigrant. He may check out some countries where these immigrants come from and see if he likes them and would like to spend some of his time there. The idea for him is not to leave America forever, but to combine the US with those countries where the US dollar acquires incredible might once it is changed into the local currency. And, if one feels that one is hopelessly behind in the American rat-race, and is labeled a ?loser?, one can leave it and position oneself against the rat-race of some other country where one will be decidedly ahead.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



Here is one good example: about a hundred years ago, some of my ancestors had an American dream, a ?South? American dream, that is. They emigrated to Argentina. In the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina was a land of promise- people from all over Europe were emigrating there in hordes, the economy was booming and a melting pot of nationalities was being crystallized into a new Euro-South American nation. Anybody could become an Argentine. A new, almost completely ethnically European country was being formed near the Antarctica. Great European-style cities were being built. Buenos Aires was one of the most exciting world capitals now, with Parisian architecture, opera houses, theaters of drama and ballet and a whole new culture of tango, great poetry and literature, and general sophistication on par with any European state. Argentinean tourists were traveling around the world in style while receiving the same respect as rich Americans were at that time.



However, something happened towards the middle of the century as the country's economy and politics began getting worse and worse. By the end of the 2nd millennium the largely European Argentina became a poor Third World country. Heaven only knows what happened to my relatives and their children and where they are now.



I, nevertheless, decided to take advantage of the cheap prices in the country and went there in the summer of 2005. While I was never much of a Mr. Popularity or the Man Most Likely to Succeed in America, I used my US citizenship to make money as an English teacher in Saudi, Kuwait and Oman, changed my money into US dollars and ended up in Buenos Aires armed with wads of cash, debit cards from US banks, and a big smile on my face. Boy, did I have a ball! I stayed in downtown hotels in Buenos Aires, I traveled everywhere by taxi, I went to exclusive nightclubs and walked around that magnificent European city like a well-off man. I went to restaurants that only the rich locals could afford, and hobnobbed with the cream of the local society. The exchange rate of three Argentinean pesos to the dollar made me three times richer- literally. I felt that, probably, by sending some telepathic prayers from a hundred years ago, my ancestors who ended up in that city, somehow fulfilled their dream of becoming a rich Argentine through me. I also felt that I was like a deep water diver who ended up in that country as one would under water, and my air supply was in the form of American dollars turned into pesos. For the first time in my life I felt what it was like to be rich in the ?West?- a strange, suddenly impoverished ?West? near the South Pole.



I remember that once when I was a kid in my native country I was walking in the port area where a large foreign ship had docked in. The ship was from Argentina. The tourists from it were getting ready for a stroll around the city ,and one of them looked at me and gave me a piece of chewing gum. He had probably thought that I was so poor I could not afford it. Some thirty years later, as I was doing my shopping in Buenos Aires, I remembered the event with a smirk, bought some chewing gum and gave it to a teenager who was begging in front of the local McDonald?s. ?Here, Argentina, my debt to you has now been repaid!? . And my ( South) American dream of strutting around like a rich man in another melting-pot American country had come true. I had the money to buy a house or rent a big one there, I could most easily have fallen in love with a local lady if I wanted to, and, I was economically somewhat on top of things. Was this an American dream come true? Kind of. At least to me, it was. I also learned something about ?foreign currency manipulations? but, to me again, it was just finding a place where my dollars could buy more.



So, if your American dream has not come true yet, and you feel like you are running out of time, consider creating a somewhat modified version of it, which would involve some other country in addition to the US. With enough imagination, preparation and guts, you may attain it sooner than you think, although its realization may happen in places you had never even thought of traveling to before.



Provincialism Everywhere.



Every nation-state maintains a sort of a cultural matrix with a myth about its glorious past, its comfortable present and even a better future. An average citizen of such a nation-state, unless he is well-traveled, well-read, and multi-lingual, swallows such nationalistic myths hook, line and sinker. Often, as one would expect it to happen just that way, this mythology is not shared by the neighboring nation-states who have their own versions of how great they themselves are, and how not-so-great the other country is. The story is not only limited to nation-states, but holds equally true for cities, neighborhoods and even villages. A non-traveler most often thinks that he lives in a place where everything is right and better than in other places.



Such an attitude is a manifestation of Worldwide Provincialism Extraordinaire, a force not to be ignored as one makes his home in all these new places. One needs to be very diplomatic when one meets his hosts and try not to complain about the inconveniences one experiences there, as the natives will never take your complaints kindly. The rare person that does, will probably agree with you but won?t be able to help you, however, most will just say? If you don?t like it, why are you still here??. Hence, when in foreign lands, do not ever criticize the country, village or area, except in confidence, tactfully, and to other expats. And only if you must.



I remember I was once in Bangkok and a Thai neighbor decided to drop in with his girlfriend. After exchanging some pleasantries and making some international small talk with me of the kind " Where are you from", "How long have you been in Thailand, etc" , he proceeded to deliver a glorious speech on the greatness of his counyry, the magnificence of its King and how other nations, particularly Western nations ( including Russia) were out to exploit it and rip it off. His speech was fervent and passionate and I kept nodding and smiling while recalling so many similar speeches that I have heard from os many other nationals- Nicaraguans, Russians, Puerto Ricans, Japanese and so many others about how great they were, how kind and friendly and hospitable, and how everybody else was out to get them, exploit them, rape their women and take away their natural resources.

Just write a script, leave blanks where the name of the country is and start the harangue. They ill all sound the same.



Nation-states, in general, are very protective of everything that they view as part of their domain, be it the territory, cultural treasures, women or jobs. Such nationalism is what keeps people from migrating freely around the world as they used to in the past. It also keeps large areas in some countries unpopulated and in other countries- overpopulated. Even though many countries are capable of absorbing large numbers of people, they will zealously guard every inch of their territory and only allow very small numbers of migrants in, most often those whom they do not view as threats and only on their own terms.



In most of Europe and Asia, nationalism has always been tied to people who, for millennia, belonged to the same ethnic groups, had the same type of names and physical appearance and lived in the same places since what they perceive to be the beginning of their history. Europe and Asia, consequently, been two difficult places to settle and be accepted in. Recent riots in France have proved that to be true. There are some places where things are easier. Countries such as Singapore and Philippines who for centuries have been home to all kinds of ethnic groups and who have absorbed them are somewhat exceptional. One can, in fact become a Singaporean or a Filipino. One cannot become truly Japanese or Korean, though. Thailand has also absorbed immigrants, particularly of another Asian origin declaring them to be Thai once they were naturalized.



In Europe, Great Britain has been very good to immigrants in spite of what some people perceive to be the notorious British ?coldness?. As recently as the 19th century people could just come to the Kingdom, Anglicize their names and live there, and they would be thought of as locals as long as they looked, talked and behaved as such. Russia was also once open, and many foreigners became absorbed into its mainstream and considered Russian provided they were willing to be baptized into the Orthodox faith.



Things changed in the 20th century as forces of nationalism became stronger and migrations became harder to carry out in these two places.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



Nationalism in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa seems to have been of the nativistic variety: It would be of the ? I was born here, therefore I am this, and you were not born here, therefore you are not?. Hence, you would have the conflict of the native-born towards the foreign-born for quite some time although it would only last for one generation. That conflict also existed alongside the discord between the true indigenous population vs. the native-born white people who looked and behaved as their colonial forefathers, something that did not exist in Europe or Asia.



In Africa, there were two types of ?nationalisms? . There is the original African tribalism which has nothing to do with ? I was born here? factor, but simply with what tribe you descend from, plus the nationalism between the newly created European-style nation-states which divided people into strange new colonial nationalities. People were now Nigerians, Kenyans and Cameroonians with no one really understanding what it meant to be one. The natives there simply thought of themselves as Kikuyus and Yorubas or Muslims and Christians. Often, new countries which were simply European creations to suit their own conveniences would have a territory of one tribe divided between two sovereign states, and members of the tribe that spoke the same language would now have two different nationalities. Instead of having a true European model where nations are delineated by language, culture and ethnicity, they now had totally unnatural entities which the traditionally tribalistic Africans have never been able to fit into.



In the Gulf Nations of the Middle East, nationalism is usually based on something called ?Jinsiya?- roughly translated as ?nationality/citizenship?, but normally tied in to one?s belonging to the indigenous tribes of that particular state. Therefore, being a Saudi or a Kuwaiti or a Qatari means having native roots in the Aboriginal ethnic groups that have "always" been there. Being born in those countries does not automatically entitle one to becoming a national of those nations. In some countries, notably Saudi Arabia, many children of pilgrims to Mecca were able to become Saudi citizens when citizenship was still easy to obtain some thirty years ago, but their children are still not considered to be ?true Saudis? because they are not blood-related members of the some thirty or so original native clans of the desert. These are still in the luckier situation then so many people who had neen born and raised in those countries but do not qualify for the ? JInsiya? and ,therefore, are stateless and destined to live a rough life in the land of their birth.



As an expat in all these countries, one will on many occasions com against such forces of provincialism and nationalism. The best weapon in one?s arsenal would be citizenship from some highly respected country such as Canada, Great Britain or even Singapore or Japan, as well as some highly sought after skill, and/or plenty of money. With very few exceptions, money seems to be the best weapon of them all against the forces of international cliquishness.



Philosophically speaking, one should not take the concept of nation-state as something totally eternal and holy. It is just a group of people temporarily occupying a certain territory and calling itself by a certain name. These are things created by man and they are not lasting. Try and do a web search on ?the map of Europe? over the past two thousand years to see how many countries have shifted borders and how many have simply disappeared. There were undoubtedly many gallant knights who had fought for the prosperity of the kingdoms of Aragon and Pomerania, and hundreds of thousands may have died so that the glory of Prussia would live on. These nation states are gone now and new ones with new names have sprung up. But what did those heroes die for? And does anybody still remember their names and their feats of arms against the hated Andaluz or Courlandia? Most probably not.



A wise expat, armed with a marketable skill and/or money and aware of how ephemeral all these things are, should forever try and maintain his peaceful independence as he moves between countries. Forever on guard, cautious and healthily skeptical, answerable only to himself and his own view of personal freedom, he is able to maintain his unique way of living a varied and multi-faceted life in this mythology- and provincialism- ridden world.



How to Prepare for a Trip Abroad.



I have been traveling all my life, and I think that one of the most important elements of a successful voyage is proper preparation. If you get ready for you trip in a correct and thorough way, you will have less to worry about when you are in the foreign land. Traveling is stressful as it is, so there is no sense in making it even more so. Hence, prepare early, prepare well and prepare carefully.



First of all, you need to make reservations at least two or three months in advance. For some trips, a reservation as far ahead as four of five months is advisable. You need to be ahead of time for several reasons: Sometimes, there are very few seats on certain very popular flights and many seats out of your airport may already be booked very far in advance. If you book early, you will have plenty of time to change your reservations should something come up. After you make the booking, check it carefully. On certain occasions, travel agents make mistakes. They can also give you not enough time to change planes at airports. Some travel agents are young and inexperienced and thus make serious errors. Some may be tired and book you on wrong dates. So, check your reservation on the Internet. Is everything correct? Are all flights confirmed? Some agents forget to confirm a flight. If that happens, you can be stranded at some foreign airport. Also, make sure that hotel reservations are also in place; either reserve one on the Web or ask your agent to get you a room. They can often get room rates that are way below the ones you can get at your destination if you try and find one by yourself.



Second, pack well, but do not pack too many things. Put only the most necessary items in your luggage. Do not take too many heavy objects as you are usually only allowed twenty kilos with you on your flight. Also, some suitcases are very heavy. If and when you go and buy travel gear or bags, it is often better to buy soft ones. These are lighter and you can pack much more into them. Moreover, when packing, do not put your documents, your laptop, digital camera, phone charger, or other such vital items into the bags that you are going to check in. And, please, never put any money in there. If, God forbid, your luggage is sent to the wrong destination, you will not be able to get to them for a long time. So, check-in bags are for clothes and shoes, and carry-on bags are for documents, laptop computers, electric/electronic items, cameras and toiletries. Do not forget to put a few pairs of clothes and underwear in them, too. You may need those in case you have a long stopover in some foreign city and feel the need to change your garments.





The next thing has to do with electric appliances and cell phones. Your phone chargers go into your carry-on luggage, remember? Do not forget to buy an electric adapter, as well- some countries have different types of electric sockets and some even have different voltage. Any big supermarket will have those and please shop around- the Chinese ones are cheap, the Japanese are expensive. Cheap Chinese ones will do for short trips. Do not forget to charge your phones before your trip and, also, ask your telecommunications company about how to dial from overseas- if your phone roams in a foreign land and locks into a local network, you may have to dial differently from there than you do from here.



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



Another thing to keep in mind is that your most important items such as the cell phone, tickets and your passport are the things that you will need to keep on yourself. I recommend that you get a special travel pouch which you can wear on your chest under the shirt or dress. Or, you can get one that you can affix on the inside of your hip or under your arm, beneath your clothes. In this pouch, you will keep your credit and ATM cards, your cash, travelers? checks and other such personal articles. If your cell phone is small, you may want to keep it in the pouch, too; if it is big, I recommend getting a special holder for it which you can attach to your belt. Also, you may want to consider buying a belt bag or a small over-the-shoulder bag to keep your valuables in. If you travel to big cities with many poor people there, keep in mind that there are many thieves that are constantly looking for victims to steal from. Tourists and foreigners are their favorite targets. Do not become such an easy mark for those criminals, always check your personal items and keep your hands on them as much as you can.



Finally, get to the airport early. If it is an international flight, be there at least two or three hours before the departure. It can be boring but so what? You can buy a book or a magazine after you have checked in your luggage and gotten the boarding pass. If you get your boarding pass three hours early, which is called pre-boarding, you can spend the next couple of hours relaxing, getting snacks or reading a newspaper while others are jostling each other in the long lines. If you, however, get there late yourself, you may be in for a mad rush, long lines and unneeded nervous tension. So, the motto is better early than sorry!



If you follow the above-mentioned steps, your will be able to have a very pleasant trip and save yourself many headaches. Proper preparation is important in any endeavor, but trips to foreign lands deserve an even more thorough groundwork on your part. He, who prepares well, travels well. Let that be your slogan from today onward.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Why is it hard to date in America?



In the US culture people are taught to be confident, independent and believe in themselves. It is a good thing but there is an unintended consequence- you have a big class of swollen heads who think they are hot sh*t while, in fact, they are not. Plus the culture somehow worships the arrogant as*hole type. Male or female. A humble, modest, nice person will be welcome in Asia and Latin America, but seen as a naive weakling and potential doormat in the US. So you have a lot of strutting, swaggering, cocky people because if you do not behave like that, you will not be respected so much.



Hence, nice women are in the minority, as they have to look tough and arrogant within the context of the culture they are in. Or, as the culture goes, they will be taken advantage of.



Do not forget the British cliquishness- another unfriendly thing inherited from the mother country- people like to be in small groups and do not like outsiders. That is why people try to get companions while in high school as cliques are hard to penetrate once you are out in society.



Also, America was built by pioneers and these needed to be strong and independent. A weak and modest woman in a covered wagon which would have Indian arrows piercing it every five minutes, would not be a good companion.



In the early days of the republic most people were men, anyway, and most ( of the few that were there) women were British. These are not exactly the most attractive women in the world, but they had oodles of handsome young pioneers who would die to have a chance to marry a pale, sickly, horse- faced British woman. Hence, the tradition of worshipping ugly and few-in-number women, and the certainty of ugly women having gorgeous men at their feet any time they wanted. So, the dating is poor. For men, that is.

 

[momopi_IHB]

My Dad's Dreams



Friday, December 09, 2005 (18:09:55)

My father was an amateur geographer and theoretical traveler. He would often seat me in front of a short wave radio and make me listen to announcers speaking different languages and telling me : "This is French, this is German. This is Arabic." After one year, I was able to tell one language from another with reasonable accuracy. Later he would instill in me love of maps and made me read books about different countries and how people in those places lived.



In my childish naivite I thought that other people must be just as enchanted by the wonders of the world in which we all lived and that they wanted to travel and explore it as I did after my Dad taught me all these things. Naturally, though, other kids were much more into playing sports and fishing and other such things. Most could not tell one foreign language from another, nor did they want to taste the many enchantments of the foreign lands the love of which my late father took so many pains to instill in me.



My father was a big dreamer. He would announce that in the future we would move to live in this country or the next and would tell me great stories about it . He would tell me how super it would be to go and live in Latin America and enjoy the local music. Or how great it would be to buy a place in Crimea, for one. Or, later, he would tell me about Australia and say- ?Son, one day we will go there !?. I would have wild fantasies imagining myself going to all those places, visualizing myself there; traveling, meeting the local people, and making new friends. My father?s voice sounded enthusiastic as he dreamt out loud, and I was thoroughly convinced that we were actually going to move to all these destinations, and I would start an exciting new life in a new location.



However, most of his dreams were just that: dreams. Somehow he would get busy solving all sorts of petty problems that were immediately in front of him and postpone the move. The deferral would last a year and then two, and then three until he would forget about it.



In my mind however, I would not forget. The fire of foreign adventure that he started in me and the almost realistic images of me in those places stayed on in my mind.



Now, when I finally reached the state of personal independence which makes it possible for me to move around the world more or less with ease, I have set a goal for myself which is to visit all those places he talked about. I was in them in my day-dreams, so I might as well just convert those to reality.



The trips began slowly- first- Africa, including riding a camel to the great pyramids, then Latin America. Then, as my father would once tell me- ?You should fall in love with a girl from some Pacific Island?, and I have done that, too. The list before me is quite long but I am determined to follow through on it. I was once a starry-eyed child who had such goals planted in me. If I do not make them come true, then I will not be able to say that I have lived a full life.

 

[momopi_IHB]

Freedom, Assimilation and Parallel Universes



free.

As you travel you will see that usually countries that are not free politically seem to be free on a grass-root level.

Freedoms of people to do business without special permits, to make love and show affection for each other are

often in inverse proportion to the political freedoms. Many societies where one is free to practice all kinds of

politics and say anything one wants are often regulated on the grass-root level with too many rules and ordinances

to control the daily lives of people.

.....



Assimilation:



Facts about assimilation into other societies: 100% assimilation into any new place is impossible. Even within the same

country moving from one place to another and being completely accepted in it as its member is impossible.

With foreign countries it is naturally harder but the elements of assimilation are as follows:



1) Race/ethnicity/tribe : is one a member of any of the majority races/ethnicities that are present in the country? Does one look like

someone who could possibly be from there? Can one's facial features pass for those of a long standing member of that

society?



2) Language. Do you, or can you learn to speak the same language and with the same accent as the locals? Even if you learn the

language that may not be your own, you will still have to deal with the accent factor, especially when you are on the phone. Do you know

the idioms, proverbs and the slang in that language? Can you use them well and in all the appropriate situations?



3) Mannerism- can you move, walk and use the same body language as the locals? If not, can you learn it?



4) Dress and hair. Can you master the way the locals dress and cut their hair? This may give you way even if all the other

things coincide.



5) Thinking. Can you think and form ideas the way the locals do? Do you agree with the way they view the world.



6) Religion and citizenship. Do you, or are you willing to practice the same religion as the majority of the population or any other large group

inside of that country? Are you willing, and/or allowed to become a citizen, or are you a citizen already? Are people of your ancestry allowed

to become full citizens in that particular place?



7) Educational background. Can you behave like a person who had been educated in that country and taken the same subjects

as what locals normally take there?



8) Historic knowledge and national self-consciousness. Are you familiar with the history of the country, its place in the world ( the way the locals see it) and the complexes and grievances that it has towards other countries or other "groups" of peoples. Are you familiar with how it formed and do you feel that you are ( or, you

can behave as if, you 'were' formed as part of that country).



9)Your name. Does your name sound like the majority of names in that place? Can it pass for a name of a local?



Each one of the above counts for 10% of the total. One is missing- your birth in that country and, in many cases, the birthplace of your parents and grandparents.

Since, assuming that you were not born there, you will not be 100% assimilated. If you do something bad or have to complete for jobs and other things with the real locals during hard times, you will be painfully reminded of your foreign birth. If you do something great, it will be forgotten and you will be declared a full local.



Cases in point. Joao Fernandes migrates from Portugal to Brazil. After some 10 years in the country, he loses his accent and assimilates into the Brazilian society

and is treated like any other Brazilian. Li Hwa Peng arrives in Brazil from China and studies Portuguese. He speaks it with an accent and is never really treated like a local. The people are friendly however and he has few problems except that people always ask him where he is from, which is not the case with Joao Fernandez.



Jon Smith moves to Japan. He learns the language until he is completely fluent in it and becomes a citizen of Japan. He learns the culture very well and speaks and acts like a local. However, he is not allowed to rent apartments in most parts of the country and some hotels and bath houses do not let him in. The man is not Japanese and never will be.



Hans Gruber was born in Russia and speaks, looks and thinks as a Russian. However, because of its very conservative blood laws, the Russian government considers him to be a German even though his family has been in the country 200 years. He has many obstacles getting employment because of his last name and is called a "Kraut"

by many Russians. Even though he is a citizen on paper, his birth certificate says " Nationality "German". His neighbors treat him as a German as well. However, in daily lives with students at the university and people in the neighborhood, he is not suffering that much. He has many friends and has recently gotten married after he had

finally gotten a job in spite of many struggles. He has decided to change his name to his wife's name and change Hans to Ivan to further his assimilation.



Immigrant countries in the Americas are much better places to assimilate into than the homogeneous countries if Europe and Asia. Recent events in France have proven it. However, even in such immigrant countries as Australia or the US, a group that is more recent, less numerous and more conspicuous will still experience problems from the people who had been there before them and who had been born and raised there.



The rule seems to be this: if your assimilation chances are below 60%, you had better have some really good qualifications that will knock people out cold, and, if the laws of the country as well as its culture still put obstacles in your way, move some place where you can make some money and come back with money. Money usually facilitates the assimilation process as nothing else would. But even that may not offer a hundred percent protection when angry masses of teed off natives roam around, looking to beat up on the newcomers.



There are people who are really out of luck such as poor illegals who are not wanted in their country or displaced groups who have nowhere to go- Indians in Africa, children of African illegals in Saudi Arabia. If you are not one of them, be grateful. Those folks are really screwed.

................



(cont.)

 

[momopi_IHB]

(cont.)



We see other cultures as both inferior and superior to ours. The reason we do so is because we use our own cultural standards, i.e. things that we learned as important in the societies in which we grew up. So, when we see new societies we compare them to the values that we have learned from parents, schools and peers in the places where we grew up.



People from such a spiritual country as India may admire the United States for its wealth and technology but be appalled by the spiritual poverty. An American in India may enjoy the spirituality of the people but be appalled by the physical poverty that is there. South East Asians will also admire America for its money, but be appalled by the lack of friendliness, the way children abandon their parents and the general lack of the sense of community in the country. American travelers in S.E Asia are amazed at the friendliness of the people but find the social interdependence that people there display as a sign of weakness. They also see the countries as being dirt and disorganized. Americans see Brits as being sophisticated but cold and impersonal and Brits see Americans as being loud mouthed, pushy and disrespectful of one's privacy, albeit funny and entertaining when one socializes with them. However when one is with the culture that one grew up in, one cannot see it as an outsider and is not aware of its many things the way a person from somewhere else could be.

.....................................................



Oh, they are so friendly!



After my many visits to foreign lands I would come and tell my family about how friendly the people there were. My dad would listen to my stories with a smirk. He would then tell me " You will only know about the people when you start sharing daily bread with them". People who are friendly to a new face in a foreign land will turn into devils if you end up costing them money or taking away from them rather than contributing. People are selfish any way you look at it and they like you because you are a novelty and can ( at least as far as their hope for you goes) improve their condition of life, be it as a source of entertainment, friendship, love, or most importantly, new money and profit. If you do not deliver as they hoped and become a burden, few will help you. Most admiration they had for you will turn to scorn. Unless you run into some holy man, your experience is such a land will turn into hell alongside with the new devils by your side.



By the same token a person who visits a country will form a completely different impression of it from the one who has to work and live there. A guest is always treated differently from a resident. Again, being a new face who is relaxed and on a visit and does not have to work and take away jobs from the locals works in one's favor. People like guests or tourists. Once you start living and working there, your whole perception changes and you will have to go through a big culture shock from which you may or may not recover completely.



Other languages- parallel universes:



As you learn a new language to the point where you begin to think in it and read literature in it, you will feel like you will develop a whole new personality and move into a parallel universe. Concepts will be different, the flow of thought will be different and many words will have no equivalent in your native tongue. Some expressions and adjectives will have approximate counterparts but never the same. The music of the language and the colors, tastes and sounds that it contains will reflect the centuries and millennia in which it formed by the people who had had a different history and values from your won. Ones you reach the point when no translation is necessary and every time a new word or sentence is pronounced you can picture, taste or smell what it says, your move into a parallel universe will be complete. You will for all intents and purposes become a different person, while still remaining yourself in so many ways. You will also understand why so many misunderstandings occur between your culture and the culture whose language you have just learned. However, there are five to six thousand languages in the world so, to understand the way humanity really feels and sees itself and the universe around it, you will need to approach native fluency in those languages. This is a chronological impossibility as you will need at least a year of constant immersion and insanely intensive study to master at least one. No one lives 5000 years and even if reincarnation were possible, you would need to be able to recall all the other languages from past lifetimes. It has never been known to happen. Consequently, complete understanding of humanity and all the nuances in the way it perceives and expresses life is utterly impossible.