I'm writing this in response to a note that a friend recently posted on Facebook. It alleged that white people cannot dance, particularly Canadians. In this note, my friend referenced his first dancing experience, and his most recent. It made me nostalgic for the days of Junior High School Much Music Video Dances.
They cost at least two dollars more than a regular dance; however, it was SO worth it - especially in Grade 7. Everyone, and I mean everyone, even the cool ninth graders came out to the video dance. It was what student party night is to university students to the 12-15 year old teenagers at Quispamsis Junior High.
It was 1995, so some of the pretty and popular Grade 9 girls would wear loose-fitting, low-cut jeans, with their Calvin Klein underwear sticking out of the top. Looking back, I'm not sure if that was actually stylish, or if the girls were just proud to be wearing something designed by Calvin Klein and felt the need to show off. Most of us simply wore our green, burgundy or black Club Monaco sweatshirts. I don't think there was anything special about it, except for the name, but it cost over $40. Oh to be a slave to fashion.
I remember learning the macerena at this time, and a dance to Saturday Night by Whigfield if I'm not mistaken. Girls (and a few brave boys) would line up, side by side, and engage in these synchronized dance moves, mimicking what we'd see on the screen. Oh how wonderful we thought we were (actually, we only pretended to think we were wonderful - I know I didn't actually feel like I was). Then, IT happened. IT being the inevitable slow dance. How laughable we must have been to our teacher chaperons, or worse, the MUCH MUSIC video dance CREW!!! I'm sure they'd do it on purpose...play a Celine Dion song, or worse, November Rain...
Girls would quickly separate from their friends - their eyes darting wildly around the room - hoping and praying to see him. Oh yes, HIM. The lights are flashing, couples are starting to form, like a bees nestling on flowers - fear and dread take over, you see other girls, weaker girls, running to the bathroom in agony...their ever-comforting best friend close behind (only because no one asked her to dance either).
And then you see him, and, no, he wasn't your first choice, or your eleventh - but he wasn't dancing with anyone else...so you move in...the song's already two minutes in (but that's fine since November Rain is nearly ten minutes long).
"Ummmm....will you dance with me," you say with a quiver in your voice.
He agrees. THANK YOU GOD!
And so it begins...
THE SEVENTH GRADE SHUFFLE. Your arms are stretched as far as they'll reach, just to gently place them on his shoulders - his arms are also outstretched, to nervously place them on your waist (likely leaving a sweat mark on your brand new, olive green Club Monaco sweatshirt). There is room for at least one other person to slide in between the two of you...but it's magical.
Thoughts involve, "ooh, I wonder who's watching...oh my god, I'm three inches taller than him...his hands are really sweaty...Oh my god, Mr. Wilson's watching, totally embarassing."
Of course they don't play the extended version of the song...you awkwardly part ways with your dance partner...and it's off to do the Cotton Eyed Joe dance.
"Where did you come from, where did you go..."
Now, nearly 15 years later, it takes every amount of will power that I have to not launch into those familiar dances when I hear the songs associated with them (let's face it, I totally still do the dances). I may even haul out the running man or the shopping cart...
Many white people may not be able to dance with any sort of validity; however, we've mastered the art of making people laugh through our intricate, popular moves. There has to be something to say for that...right? maybe? err....LONG LIVE THE SEVENTH GRADE SHUFFLE (and thank you Mark Monroe for being taller than me in Grade 7 and dancing with me once at a Much Music Video Dance in 1995).
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
If it Feels Good Do It
You can only experience something for the first time once. Makes sense, right. Even seems a little obvious. But, is it true?
I was recently talking to a friend who had resisted reading 1984 - not because he thought he wouldn't like it - but because he wanted to savour that first-time experience. He'd read Brave New World because he'd heard them compared. He walked around with a copy. I looked at this avid reader in utter dismay, because I knew that he would adore this novel. I quickly ran to my room and found my copy to hand over.
This is why I believe it is possible to recapture the feeling of doing something for the first time - by passing it on.
Nearly four years ago, I was in my fourth year at UNBSJ and working at Kent part time. At work, I hung out with two young men, about my age, who I also went to school with. We spent entire Saturday evening shifts discussing books, school, movies, girl/boy troubles and Star Wars. These boys spent a solid 68% of our shifts referencing and quoting Star Wars. The trouble was that I had never seen it. I had resisted for many of the same reasons that my friend resisted reading 1984.
Also, I worried that it was built up so much by so many people that it would inevitably disappoint. After much chastising, when The Revenge of the Sith was released in theatres, I sat down and watched Star Wars. All of them. However, I started with the prequels. (For anyone else who lived under a rock and never saw Star Wars, I highly recommend you watch them in that order). JarJar Binks is an almost tolerable character when you've never seen any of the other movies. Anyway, I digress.
These two boys, who had literally seen Star Wars hundreds of times, found new appreciation in sharing it with me. My thoughts on the experiment we tried were valued, and I could see the twinkle in their eyes in listening to what I had to say. They had the opportunity to watch a favourite movie of theirs through new eyes.
For me, I feel this fresh feeling every time I share my favourite song with someone who's never heard it - I get down right giddy. It's pretty ridiculous. It's one of those songs that starts off quietly, and then builds into this big, brassy, mass of excellence. The lyrics are stellar as well. (The song is My Little Town by Simon and Garfunkel - I couldn't find a decent version on youtube, so I didn't post a link). Anyway, I love watching someone who's never heard the song listen to it. I get chills just like the first time I heard it.
My point is, if something is great - it will be even greater as you pass it on.
I was recently talking to a friend who had resisted reading 1984 - not because he thought he wouldn't like it - but because he wanted to savour that first-time experience. He'd read Brave New World because he'd heard them compared. He walked around with a copy. I looked at this avid reader in utter dismay, because I knew that he would adore this novel. I quickly ran to my room and found my copy to hand over.
This is why I believe it is possible to recapture the feeling of doing something for the first time - by passing it on.
Nearly four years ago, I was in my fourth year at UNBSJ and working at Kent part time. At work, I hung out with two young men, about my age, who I also went to school with. We spent entire Saturday evening shifts discussing books, school, movies, girl/boy troubles and Star Wars. These boys spent a solid 68% of our shifts referencing and quoting Star Wars. The trouble was that I had never seen it. I had resisted for many of the same reasons that my friend resisted reading 1984.
Also, I worried that it was built up so much by so many people that it would inevitably disappoint. After much chastising, when The Revenge of the Sith was released in theatres, I sat down and watched Star Wars. All of them. However, I started with the prequels. (For anyone else who lived under a rock and never saw Star Wars, I highly recommend you watch them in that order). JarJar Binks is an almost tolerable character when you've never seen any of the other movies. Anyway, I digress.
These two boys, who had literally seen Star Wars hundreds of times, found new appreciation in sharing it with me. My thoughts on the experiment we tried were valued, and I could see the twinkle in their eyes in listening to what I had to say. They had the opportunity to watch a favourite movie of theirs through new eyes.
For me, I feel this fresh feeling every time I share my favourite song with someone who's never heard it - I get down right giddy. It's pretty ridiculous. It's one of those songs that starts off quietly, and then builds into this big, brassy, mass of excellence. The lyrics are stellar as well. (The song is My Little Town by Simon and Garfunkel - I couldn't find a decent version on youtube, so I didn't post a link). Anyway, I love watching someone who's never heard the song listen to it. I get chills just like the first time I heard it.
My point is, if something is great - it will be even greater as you pass it on.
Monday, May 4, 2009
When Pigs Fry
I read this morning that the Egyptian government has ordered the slaughter of every pig in the country. I have a few things to say about this:
1. HOLY OVERREACTION BATMAN
2. Is it really going to prevent people from catching swine flu? What's the next step: shooting anyone who enters the country who 'may have' come in contact with someone who's been infected?
3. There have been no reported cases in Egypt. Really, I should invert 2 and 3.
4. Who does this help? It certainly isn't the pig farmer. Or the pig (but perhaps they're doomed anyway). Or even the consumer...
5. When does this stop? Who draws the line?
1. HOLY OVERREACTION BATMAN
2. Is it really going to prevent people from catching swine flu? What's the next step: shooting anyone who enters the country who 'may have' come in contact with someone who's been infected?
3. There have been no reported cases in Egypt. Really, I should invert 2 and 3.
4. Who does this help? It certainly isn't the pig farmer. Or the pig (but perhaps they're doomed anyway). Or even the consumer...
5. When does this stop? Who draws the line?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
university re-visited
I was flipping through an old file on my computer and I found this essay on ethics. It may be a little dry, but I like it. So..I decided to post it.
The first thing that comes to mind when asked ‘why ought one be ethical’ is to say that their conscience would be afflicted if they were not ethical. The question then becomes what is the conscience? I believe that the conscience is a construct of society which subconsciously and uncontrollably means that it is external, societal forces which deem what is ethical. Therefore, if external forces are what define ethics; we must look to the outside as to why we ought to be ethical. This makes the reason that one ought to be ethical simple, one ought to be ethical to conform to society.
This leaves me, personally, with an ethical conundrum. In order to function in society one has to be aware of ethics, whether one chooses to follow them or not. Kant argues that “we can readily distinguish whether the action which agrees with duty is done from duty, or from a selfish view” (Kant 297). Kant points out that it is out of duty to society that people should act ethically: “Now an action done from duty must wholly exclude the influence of inclination and with it every object of the will, so that nothing remains which can determine the will except objectively the law, and subjectively pure respect for this practical law, and consequently the maxim that I should follow this law even to the thwarting of all my inclinations” (Kant 299). However, on the other side of the coin, one questions the method in which these societal ethics and the laws which Kant deems important enough to define our moral code came into fruition.
Nietzsche points out that “no one is responsible for the fact that he exists at all, that he is constituted as he is, and that he happens to be in certain circumstances and in a particular environment. The fatality of his being cannot be divorced from the fatality of all that which has been and will be. This is not the result of and individual attention, of a will, of an aim, there is no attempt at attaining to any ‘ideal man,’ or ‘ideal happiness’ or ‘ideal morality’ with him” (314). When unpacking this in relation to ethics, Nietzsche is basically arguing that a person’s very being is dependent upon all that has happened before him and everything that is to come and I conclude that if there is no ideal to strive for, a person is only performing what he deems will keep him fit for society. This is an unconscious decision which is not a decision at all because the ‘truths’ of society are so engrained into a person that they are unable to escape and therefore it is society which deems ethics yet again.
The original question of this essay is, “why ought one be ethical”? The answer which I have delineated for the last couple of pages are simply that people ought to be ethical in order to conform to society; however, I do not think that everyone ought to be ethical and thus ensues an ethical conundrum. First of all, ethics vary within different cultures which becomes evident during war times and whose juridical systems deem which ethics are the most ethical (not to sound redundant). Second of all, even within the same culture, if everyone were ethical, how would we even know the difference? Also, there is an inherent problem with the history which defines our ethics.
Historically, it was the leaders with the best armies and/or propaganda that deemed what was right. This has not changed and will never change. This makes ethics very ethnocentric. Most societies began out of violence and greed and then once set up are the very people who formulate a moral code for the masses without even knowing it. The fact that it is greed and violence which put leaders in control is unethical itself which makes the entire notion of ethics ludicrous.
The question of ethics now comes under fire, which deems the question of this essay ridiculous. When traced, my own personal ethics can be traced to my parents, which inevitably winds up at the Judeo-Christian model of morality found in the Bible. The very nature of the bible then comes into question. It is simply a book based on many parables written by men, apparently under the influence of God, who say very lofty and at times contradictory things. People have used this model of ethics to do very unethical things like bomb buildings, kill people, and wage war on countries that do not see eye to eye with what political leaders deem correct. It is hard to swallow that this is what our society’s moral code is based upon and therefore it makes the question, ‘why ought one be ethical’ a really hard one to answer and the very nature of the question ridiculous.
If it the question was, “why is one ethical” it would be much easier to turn to society and explain that most people want to avoid detainment and chastisement and therefore conform to the rules of society. I do not know if people ought to be ethical. If one wants to fit into the construct that is society, by all means, they must be ethical; however, if there is an inherent problem with the ethics that society has deemed necessity, they will never change unless there are people who act unethically according to the laws of their particular society.
If a person believes in the society in which they live, they ought to act ethically at all costs. If, however, they view inherent problems with the doctrines of the society in which they live, it would be impossible for them to act ethically under the construct of their particular society. When this is the case, if the questioner of society is a powerful enough figure, there is violence and thus that questioner now becomes the moral leader and the masses simply follow whoever’s ethics are the most powerful at the time (i.e., Constantine making Christianity the thing to do in Rome). Ethics, therefore, are ever changing and the only reason to be ethical is to conform to society in which one currently lives.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. “The Categorical Imperative”. Philosophy: History and
Problems. Ed. Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser. New York:
McGraw Hill, 2003.
Nietzsche, Freiderich. “Turning Values Upside Down”. Philosophy: History
and Problems. Ed. Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser. New York:
McGraw Hill, 2003.
The first thing that comes to mind when asked ‘why ought one be ethical’ is to say that their conscience would be afflicted if they were not ethical. The question then becomes what is the conscience? I believe that the conscience is a construct of society which subconsciously and uncontrollably means that it is external, societal forces which deem what is ethical. Therefore, if external forces are what define ethics; we must look to the outside as to why we ought to be ethical. This makes the reason that one ought to be ethical simple, one ought to be ethical to conform to society.
This leaves me, personally, with an ethical conundrum. In order to function in society one has to be aware of ethics, whether one chooses to follow them or not. Kant argues that “we can readily distinguish whether the action which agrees with duty is done from duty, or from a selfish view” (Kant 297). Kant points out that it is out of duty to society that people should act ethically: “Now an action done from duty must wholly exclude the influence of inclination and with it every object of the will, so that nothing remains which can determine the will except objectively the law, and subjectively pure respect for this practical law, and consequently the maxim that I should follow this law even to the thwarting of all my inclinations” (Kant 299). However, on the other side of the coin, one questions the method in which these societal ethics and the laws which Kant deems important enough to define our moral code came into fruition.
Nietzsche points out that “no one is responsible for the fact that he exists at all, that he is constituted as he is, and that he happens to be in certain circumstances and in a particular environment. The fatality of his being cannot be divorced from the fatality of all that which has been and will be. This is not the result of and individual attention, of a will, of an aim, there is no attempt at attaining to any ‘ideal man,’ or ‘ideal happiness’ or ‘ideal morality’ with him” (314). When unpacking this in relation to ethics, Nietzsche is basically arguing that a person’s very being is dependent upon all that has happened before him and everything that is to come and I conclude that if there is no ideal to strive for, a person is only performing what he deems will keep him fit for society. This is an unconscious decision which is not a decision at all because the ‘truths’ of society are so engrained into a person that they are unable to escape and therefore it is society which deems ethics yet again.
The original question of this essay is, “why ought one be ethical”? The answer which I have delineated for the last couple of pages are simply that people ought to be ethical in order to conform to society; however, I do not think that everyone ought to be ethical and thus ensues an ethical conundrum. First of all, ethics vary within different cultures which becomes evident during war times and whose juridical systems deem which ethics are the most ethical (not to sound redundant). Second of all, even within the same culture, if everyone were ethical, how would we even know the difference? Also, there is an inherent problem with the history which defines our ethics.
Historically, it was the leaders with the best armies and/or propaganda that deemed what was right. This has not changed and will never change. This makes ethics very ethnocentric. Most societies began out of violence and greed and then once set up are the very people who formulate a moral code for the masses without even knowing it. The fact that it is greed and violence which put leaders in control is unethical itself which makes the entire notion of ethics ludicrous.
The question of ethics now comes under fire, which deems the question of this essay ridiculous. When traced, my own personal ethics can be traced to my parents, which inevitably winds up at the Judeo-Christian model of morality found in the Bible. The very nature of the bible then comes into question. It is simply a book based on many parables written by men, apparently under the influence of God, who say very lofty and at times contradictory things. People have used this model of ethics to do very unethical things like bomb buildings, kill people, and wage war on countries that do not see eye to eye with what political leaders deem correct. It is hard to swallow that this is what our society’s moral code is based upon and therefore it makes the question, ‘why ought one be ethical’ a really hard one to answer and the very nature of the question ridiculous.
If it the question was, “why is one ethical” it would be much easier to turn to society and explain that most people want to avoid detainment and chastisement and therefore conform to the rules of society. I do not know if people ought to be ethical. If one wants to fit into the construct that is society, by all means, they must be ethical; however, if there is an inherent problem with the ethics that society has deemed necessity, they will never change unless there are people who act unethically according to the laws of their particular society.
If a person believes in the society in which they live, they ought to act ethically at all costs. If, however, they view inherent problems with the doctrines of the society in which they live, it would be impossible for them to act ethically under the construct of their particular society. When this is the case, if the questioner of society is a powerful enough figure, there is violence and thus that questioner now becomes the moral leader and the masses simply follow whoever’s ethics are the most powerful at the time (i.e., Constantine making Christianity the thing to do in Rome). Ethics, therefore, are ever changing and the only reason to be ethical is to conform to society in which one currently lives.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. “The Categorical Imperative”. Philosophy: History and
Problems. Ed. Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser. New York:
McGraw Hill, 2003.
Nietzsche, Freiderich. “Turning Values Upside Down”. Philosophy: History
and Problems. Ed. Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser. New York:
McGraw Hill, 2003.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Blogging
What is this foolishly addictive pass-time that I have started? It has seemingly turned into a journal/sounding board/forum for my random thoughts. It's crazy to think that people read this.
Until I was forced into blogging, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing on the planet. It's seemingly something that has grown on me in a big way.
It's ended up being the catalyst for some pretty major things happening.
Until I was forced into blogging, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing on the planet. It's seemingly something that has grown on me in a big way.
It's ended up being the catalyst for some pretty major things happening.
With every ending comes new beginnings. The print industry is going through an evolution of sorts. It seems like a grim time for newspapers across the world as people seemingly find their news from other, much faster, sources.
I think that it is an exciting time to be in print because you have the ability to reinvent the wheel. The industry will die if it follows the path it's on. Newspapers aren't used to break news anymore. They need to be looked at like a community machine, if you will.
Take Woodstock, for example. The Bugle Observer (or the Carleton FreePress when they were here) don't pretend that they are the only place that people are finding news. Anything huge, we're going to hear about on radio, television or the internet. The traditional response is that the newspaper is supposed to further detail things for us.
I will even go so far as to say that the newspaper has the ability to transform itself into something wholly different by covering events in the community. Papers will sell if your kid, or your dog, or your team, or your friend, or your business is featured. And ads will sell if papers are selling. I'm sure that's why papers in smaller centers are staying alive (even if it's barely alive).
Maybe I'm not saying anything new, but alas, that's what I think right now.
I think that it is an exciting time to be in print because you have the ability to reinvent the wheel. The industry will die if it follows the path it's on. Newspapers aren't used to break news anymore. They need to be looked at like a community machine, if you will.
Take Woodstock, for example. The Bugle Observer (or the Carleton FreePress when they were here) don't pretend that they are the only place that people are finding news. Anything huge, we're going to hear about on radio, television or the internet. The traditional response is that the newspaper is supposed to further detail things for us.
I will even go so far as to say that the newspaper has the ability to transform itself into something wholly different by covering events in the community. Papers will sell if your kid, or your dog, or your team, or your friend, or your business is featured. And ads will sell if papers are selling. I'm sure that's why papers in smaller centers are staying alive (even if it's barely alive).
Maybe I'm not saying anything new, but alas, that's what I think right now.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Old Friends and Bookends
Life is a funny little thing sometimes. The things that probably should be awkward and weird are not, and things that should be natural are.
I said on this very blog not too long ago that some things are better left unsaid. I was wrong.
I'm not saying you should say every little thing that pops in your head...you'd start sounding like a James Joyce novel. (That is a headtrip to read...even more of one to listen to someone like that). However, in the last couple of weeks, I've discovered a lot about myself and the people around me. Some of it impacted me initially in a rather negative way; however, it has turned into one of the most positive times in my life.
If there's somethin' on your mind....spill it. You'll feel better. I promise.
I said on this very blog not too long ago that some things are better left unsaid. I was wrong.
I'm not saying you should say every little thing that pops in your head...you'd start sounding like a James Joyce novel. (That is a headtrip to read...even more of one to listen to someone like that). However, in the last couple of weeks, I've discovered a lot about myself and the people around me. Some of it impacted me initially in a rather negative way; however, it has turned into one of the most positive times in my life.
If there's somethin' on your mind....spill it. You'll feel better. I promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
