The Illusion of Separateness

The illusion of separateness. A book I finished yesterday whilst lying in the grass in the sunshine,  marveling at how lucky I am.
Its still rattling around my head and I thought that made it worth talking about.

Its about the intersection of lives over time and through the war, and it's such a perfect mix of sadness and beauty that it left me feeling both lucky and devastated.  It left me with a perfect mixture of but what if...  and if only.

A mosaic of beauty and tragedy and emotion, of fervor and grief that left me reading over and over the same lines as they struck me so deeply.

It is perfectly encapsulated for me in this one paragraph:

He had never loved anyone so much. But it was something he could never admit to her. It was a truth anchored in his heart so that her pain might be less, so that she might find another, get married again, have children,  watch them grow,  make their lunches, see them off, visit them in college, get old herself, plan retirement, give away all her jewelry to grandchildren,  regret nothing - even forget, even forget the boy she was first married to, who took her picture at Coney Island, then was blown to bits in his B-24 by anti-aircraft guns over the French coast, escape impossible. 
The book of their love would be a chapter in her life. 
A digression that ends in a rain of metal over wet fields.  

..... behind her, the people on the Ferris wheel and the roller coasters were screaming too. You could hear them up and down the boardwalk,  lost forever in that last great afternoon of their lives.

Home

Home is  funny place, which I am simultaneously trying to escape from and return to. My heart longs for home, even as my feet wander farther still.
What am I searching for? 
And what will I do when I find it?

Homeless

Homeless
such a strong word
brings to mind images
of cardboard boxes, and dirty streets
drifting through the world
fitting in
but not belonging

Home was a room that's been sold to strangers
there's no space for me now
only memories.
I'm welcome back,
but not welcome home.

Home.
I think first of my childhood bedroom
and then the people I love
then nothing
blank spaces.

They say home is where the heart is
- but I just feel lost.

Night Sky

The thing I miss most about home is the stars.

People forget, in the cities. Life is so busy, so fast.
We forget to stop, to glance above, and even when we do, the world is hidden by a smog of industry, vaporous glimmers of our own making, so much lesser than the ones above.
I have been into the dark county, I have looked up and seen the lights above me, bright for the first time in so long. I have held my breath, struck by their beauty, but then filled with disappointment at the empty spaces, the aberration of their patterns.
This is a strange sky above me, and it only reminds me how far away I am from home.

Lying on the grass looking up at them fills me with a loneliness these people around me cannot fill. Nothing is familiar, in this strange world of mine.
There is no sense of belonging stronger than when I lay on that other dirt, and everything felt right.
I was home.

These are not my stars, I am alone.

Racisim

'I''m not racist but...'

I hear those words so often now, in my head I simply wait for their next sentence to betray them.
 Preceding your racism by professing not to be doesn't change or excuse the fact that you are.
Perhaps it's because I'm in the unique position of being welcomed into people's homes; within their their walls, sitting in their living rooms, it is their word, they rule.
They are safe in their castle, and perhaps it is due to this that they are so veracious. They are away from the public eye, even though they are admitting these things to a total stranger, and worse, an immigrant, one of the very people they are talking about.
But for some reason I don't count as one. I stand in the middle, not English (perish the thought!) but not a threat, not a true immigrant in their perspective. I hover in the in-between, belonging nowhere.
I speak English perfectly, my accent is fairly unobtrusive, I'm not from (and let's be honest, here is the real reason) the Middle East, and my skin doesn't mark me as different.

"I'm an immigrant here too" I point out, smiling awkwardly. "oh yes of course! But that's different." They say, laughing and brushing it away. Why? Because I'm educated? Because I'm white? Or because I'm not Muslim.
'Don't go to that area, it's full of immigrants now. Yes, but they take our jobs don't they! (but do they really?) Well, you have to worry about terrorism now don't you? Lucky we live away from the big cities, I wouldn't feel safe there anymore' (they cluck their tongues and shake their heads at the state of London nowadays)
It all comes back to this feeling, this righteousness tangible in its certainty - they really aren't racist, but... and then quite suddenly they are casual racists, even though they can't see it themselves.
These middle class, white people who profess to be so open-minded, so progressive, are in truth, anything but.
They are well-meaning, offering you cake and tea and smiling all the while, but their very perspective colors their actions, and in turn our society, subtly poisoning it against immigration, against change.

They are afraid, and when people are afraid they look for someone to hate.

The Internet

Today I was thinking about social media, and the power it plays in our lives.

Within the internet we often create an alternate personality, and in so doing, we can feel dissociated from reality - or our actions online. In itself, perhaps this isn't so bad. People - like me - can vent or speak about issues they don't dare talk about in real life, and we can only do so through the feeling that our identity is protected.
However, this disassociation can also have negative connotations. I would like to compare it - in the extreme - to the infamous 'Milgram Experiment' which occurred in 1961,  the scientist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of tests when one test subject would administer electric shocks to another test subject in another room. Each time the second test subject got their answer wrong, the shock voltage went up. The test subject being shocked would begin to complain, scream, then bang on the wall in protest, then finally, go silent. Although the test subject administering the test would begin to question the experiment, with assurance from the one administering the test, they would continue to what would be fatal or at least very worrying levels. Of course, the shocks were not actually occurring at all, but they didn't know that. Although this experiment was to ascertain the power of authority  (a reaction to the question of guilt in the Nazi trials that were occurring at this time) I also believe that it was in part due to the powder of dissociation. They could not see their 'victim' only hear him. In a way, the internet is the same -it allows you to see only certain reactions, certain parts of a person. You do not see the reality, and thus you can ignore it, continue past the breaking point because you don't actually see the direct consequences of your actions.

Perhaps the link is too tenuous.

What about isolation due to the internet?
We are so often so busy talking to our friends online, we ignore those right in front of us, or miss opportunities completely. I think most of us have had the incredibly annoying experience of visiting friends and them having them distracted, too busy checking their phones to properly talk to you.

I think I see it most when travelling. When I first started off, full of my parents stories of the people they met on their travels, the conversations struck up in youth hostels, buses and coffee shops, I was full of hope for the travel companions I would meet.
But on my travels I was met by an almost imperceptible wall of silence, broken by the clicking of technology, the invisible messages sent to and fro, the communications taking place across countries and continents. And surrounded by all these people, I was alone, facing a wall I didn't know how to break.
How sad that we are surrounded by humankind, yet so alone. What experiences are we missing, simply because we don't look up?

No-one can argue that this isn't the way of the future, and to shy from it is to fall behind, but I don't think we fully realise the power in this invisible world, nor the impact it has on those who grow up surrounded by it.

Technology is a beautiful thing, it offers us opportunities we couldn't have dreamed about thirty years ago, and it is growing exponentially, like a living thing. I can't imagine life without it, nor I suppose, would I want to. But I think it's important to realise that everything, even the most beautiful of things casts a shadow, and the internet is no exception.

Destruction

Why is a child's first instinct to destroy?
They see a bubble and want to pop it, their big sister does a drawing and they want to scribble on it, they see a tower of blocks and want to push it over, they see a bird and want to chase it.

How far does this extend then? Is it inherent within all of us? Society teaches us to build, but beneath it all are our baser instincts, and perhaps it is those that drive us time and time again to war and death.
We want to be the master of all, to conquer what can be conquered, and destroy what cannot.

Is it humanity's nature to destroy?  

Snowflakes

Where do they go
These creatures of snow
On their whimsical dance
Falling by chance
Like fireflies
On a path only they can see

God

If  I was to believe in God, I would find him in the falling snow.

In the storm and the deep thunder booming low  

In the mountains and their unyielding sight

In the taste of rain on my face, and the oceans might 

In the sound of the waves,and the rustle of wind in the trees

His words just out of reach, God is in the breeze 

He is in the candle flame and its shadows, dark and deep

The nighttime whispers, dreaming of what you sleep

And I would find him in our heartbeats, steady and slow 

If I was to believe in God, I would find him in the falling snow 

Human rights and Immigration

Where does the line between what is 'right' and people's rights, overlap?
To put it another way, when what we - the western world - have defined as wrong: cruelty, oppression, sexism, racism etc, occurs, do we interfere?
And how does this change depending on where these 'wrongs' take place? Do we have more right to interfere when it takes place within our own countries? There is a strange and terrible line between what we think is right, and allowing everyone freedom as is their human right. What do we do when these two qualities collide?
It's a question we must all ask ourselves, as it is become a more and more prevalent issue in today's world.

The United Nations' universal declaration of human rights argues for a world where humans can
'enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear', which indicates that everyone should be able to believe in what they wish. However it also unequivocally states the importance for 'equal rights of men and women'. Already this is problematic, as well we know that not everywhere in the world are men and women treated equally, and indeed in many cultures women have very few rights at all - patriarchal societies are not uncommon, even today.
When something is occurring that we deem wrong, is it our duty to step in? Or are we dancing too dangerously with the old concept of ourselves as the civilized people 'saving' the noble savage?
This question of course extends to many cultures around the world. As anthropologists, we are taught that we have no right to step in, only the right to observe. This becomes difficult for cases of ritualistic violence, systematic oppression or -something I have always found personally upsetting - female genital mutilation. Are we wrong to put our own values above others?

These are all difficult questions, however they are not the main issue I am wanting to talk about today. Today my attention was brought to the problem of Muslim immigration in Europe, and especially within France. This is an issue that graces the dinner tables of many in France, a discussion rife with contention and anger.
Are they being racist in that they want these people - who have a religion and set of beliefs they find offensive - out of their country or to change those beliefs?

On one hand, they have a point. What right do these people from foreign countries have, to settle in this homeland and not accept the French way of life? To cover their women and preach their own beliefs? But surely if their beliefs are not harmful, then they have this freedom, as the universal declaration of human rights clearly states 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'
However, when we go to Muslim countries, we cover up and adhere to their customs, out of respect. Therefore should this not be a two way road? Is it not insulting that they believe our dress to be indecent, that their way is the only right and good way? Is this oppression of women? Can it be if the women themselves believe in it? But what about those that don't, surely they should have the freedom within France to choose - a freedom they perhaps would not have had in their own country. 
One could argue they choose to move here, and thus must choose to accept our rules, and integrate into our society. 

But many of them are a displaced people, are immigrants with no home to go back to. Therefore do they really have any choice either?
Should we really be so offended simply because they have different beliefs from us?
This of course comes with its own problems today, the war on terror and the terror attacks that occur due to a tiny minority of the people accepted into Europe. Yet how dare we consider closing our doors to these people in need, how can we fight to not give them safety? How can condemn the many, for the crimes of a few? Should we turn our backs on those who need help?
Terrorism is a new and terrifying issue which is sweeping Europe. What is the answer to it?

There is fear here; this war is subtle, its soldiers invisible, and how can we fight what we cannot see? Best to not take the risk at all, many say. But will stopping immigrants from coming really stop the jihadists too? Or merely the innocents?
But surely if Muslims would integrate into our society, uncover themselves and embrace our culture, we would only have the extremists to deal with, and these would be far fewer. Would this be better for everyone? Or is it just what we want because it's easy for us - we aren't the ones being asked to give up our way of life.

Honestly, I don't know the answer. There is no easy way to solve this problem, I only know that not accepting these people is like turning the Jews away, back to Nazi Europe and the concentration camps - in many ways we would be sending them to their deaths. Perhaps a more intensive vetting system for who is allowed in? But it takes too long, it's too expensive, and it still doesn't solve the problem that the French people see before them - their country being moved in on by an entire people who refuse to accept the French culture, way of life, and everything they take pride in of their country. They fear they are losing their culture, the old ways and what makes their country french.

 I don't have the answers, but we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it, to express our opinions, and whatever they may be, they should be listened to. One side or the other should not be more or less politically correct as so often seems to be the case. For surely it is only by talking about it that we can understand others opinions and  hopefully, reach compromises.