MInjok and the 21st Century: and Me in KMLA

I had never really thought about the term 'minjok' much before.

            
To be honest, I hadn't even thoroughly contemplated the idea even when preparing for the admission interviews for KMLA (Korean Minjok Leadership Academy; I obviously should have).  Come to think of it, it was up to a rather strange level that I so unconditionally accepted the term and its general meaning: the population of a nation with relations much like family (民族, composed of 'min', subjects or citizens, and 'jok', meaning kin and the same character used in 家族, 가족, family). How could a whole country filled with persons and personas of all different shapes, sizes and color be considered to have one common identity as a family? And how could I not have thought that over once? Questions rose immediately upon the first touch I made of the topic.


What is 'minjok'? The Australian Research Council linkage project on Languages of Security in the Asia Pacific has an interesting article on the word 'minjok', how the idea evolved, and its underlying concepts. 

Well, the first sentence freaked me out. 

"The concept of ‘nation’ (민족 (民族) minjok) is new in Korean. The term was first used only around 1905 and is a loanword from the Japanese word ‘minzoku’."

Gasp.
So this word 'minjok', the word we (yes, we) most often use to describe our (yes, our) culture, our history, our race, our nation, our ethnicity and our country's people is actually recent and, in fact, Japanese. Double gasp. We hate the Japanese!

What
HAPPENED
H E R E




POINT ONE
WAY BACK IN HISTORY

I, presumably like most of the 'minjok' of Korea, thought the idea of minjok was a cultural heritage of Korea; that it may be outdated and nationalistic because it really was

well,

old.

When I thought of minjok, I thought of this:

We are a race that are 5000 years old! We have lived on the Korean Peninsula for half a 10-thousand years now! Dangun fathered all of us! We have tradition! Look at all the wonderful things from Chosun Dynasty! Such pretty colors in Danchung: they are traditional! Hanbok is the best clothing in the world! From Ancient Chosun to ROK, we have built up thousands of years of history that all of us minjok share!

No.

Who are 'we' anyway: why that's such a silly question! Of course we are the Han minjok, the descendants of Dangun and the sole main population of the Korean Peninsula throughout history!

Yes, WE ARE MINJOK! 

No.

I'd thought Koreans shared a history; a history in which we'd always stuck to each other and held in ourselves that we were all Korean. We'd always been a minjok, proud to keep borders closed and invasions out. We'd always thought of ourselves as one minjok that shared everything to do with ethnicity and nationallity.

No.

POINT TWO

IT TURNED OUT; NO

So, no.

As it turned out, that was not what really happened. The idea had formed in around 1905, as a means of emotional background for retalliation against the Japanese and colonization, and their idea of unifying the world. Korea was not the same as Japan, was not part of it, and would not be part of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. Korea was on its own. This seems like a very positive start for minjok. We were forming an identity.

People constantly struggle to build self-identity. Countries, I think, do as well. But Korea hadn't been exposed enough to wake up and start forming an identity called Korea. It had its borders closed, and it didn't have anything much to differentiate itself from. Japanese invasion happened. Koreans were endangered. The people were there, but were they Japanese? Were they Korean?

So they became MINJOK.

Then things turned downhill. People were being united as minjok for a different purpose. They were one, and they were subject to one. The military regime took over Korea, and called the people minjok. This minjok needed to unite! It was poor, and it was devastated, according to the head.

They actually needed to go back in under Japan.

POINT THREE
NOW?

SO NOW WHERE ARE WE? WHAT ARE WE HEADING TOWARDS?

Shin Gi Wook of Stanford University is quite an expert on the matter. He has spent a lot of   his life invested in studying minjok, and one of the results is this: The Paradox of Korean Globalization.

Here, he talks about how Korea is in the trend recently (2003) of heading for globalization, but how nationalism is all the more getting stronger. This is a paradox, but one that will happen.

Ten years from then, Korea has become much more globalized, but the basic logic of 2003 still works. I personally believe that the more influx of foreign material and culture flows in, the stronger Koreans will bind under the term 'minjok'.

In the past, 'minjok' was not for big foreign identities were not.

Big foreign identities emerged, and finally colonized this scattered population of the Korean Peninsula. 'Minjok' appeared.

More big foreign identities emerged, and Korea needed their help. Particular people in Korea needed their help as well. 'Minjok' was strengthened.

Now Korea has become the big foreign identity. It is striding out onto the globe, and it needs an idea to hold the people of the big identity together.

Is 'minjok' appropriate?

See, the problems with 'minjok' are that it is highly exclusive. Korea has this weird idea that we are all of one race, and one race only. This is what 'minjok' means essentially. 

And this family gets angry. 

"We are all one big angry family! We are angry at Japan! We are angry at strange dark skinned people trying to sneak into our family! We are angry at white men stealing our women! We are proud to be a family that rose out of the most terrible economic state imaginable into a good, proud, affluent nation! We are morning calm and we are angry! We are angry at you! Neuuahahaaaaaah!"

 shoo.

But somehow this family has an occupation in markets and really likes dining out. 

What?

No, it will not work.
The idea of minjok we have today?
The idea of minjok KMLA supports today?

is closer to a failing religion.  

Yum. (Response to "You're not fluffy, just morbidly obese" by Hyesung Roh)

Response to "You're not fluffy, just morbidly obese" by Hyesung Roh

Mr. Thread

I am simply abashed

When I came over for brunch

You did not taste sweet

or chewy

or morbidly toothsome

What I meant to say was,  you taste..

always as if you're about to point out

that I am, yes I am, in fact

healthy and – and full

Yes, thats what you tell me every bite I take

Thank you for being all of your eight cherry pies. That look on your face, and I can't stop.

Monthly TOEFL Essay #2: Minority rules (unabridged version)

IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY,
THE GENDER MINORITY GROUPS

WILL RISE TO BE THE MAJORITY GROUPS

This century will bring a particular sort of social change: one where the world turns over placing minority groups of long history at the top of society. Who are these minority? Two groups have evidently begun the march up to this metamorphosis. One is half of the whole population treated not even human for so long; the other is a much smaller group whose gender identity differs from their biological sex. They are going to rule the world. 

Ladies first. Women's rights are improving: that has been the trend for the last several decades. Changes have been consistently elevating the status of women even since the 21st century began. Ever heard of the term 'alpha girl'? It was sort of a fad a few years ago in the beginning of this century. It indicated a girl or a woman who excelled in activities beyond any man. It indicated a girl or a woman was generally expected to be inferior to males, but there were a few exceptions so exceptional they deserve a whole nice cute phrase to themselves. That's what people thought at the time.  

That phrase quietly crept into the shadows. There are no 'alpha girl's. Every girl is exceptional, and no girl is expected to be naturally inferior to men. Now, people acknowledge that females should no longer be considered any different than men, though action doesn't always follow. People don't believe in 'alpha girl's anymore: they believe in 'alpha people'. Or at least they know they should. That's how we are now equal. There were fights, there was media, there were individual alpha girls, there were stupid men, and there were brave women. There was 'equal'.  

But will it stop there? Men used to be the ruling species; they weren't equal, they were over women. They were at the top of societies, and they controlled. They were the only gender that ruled. The only. So won't women become the only ones to rule as well? They say the qualities required for this century are those of the feminine sort; empathy, sensitivity, carrying out tasks in a detailed manner, knowing how to be subtle. Of course, not all women possess these qualities and not all men don't, but generally speaking, this is what society thinks women have. This is what higher jobs of the new era require, them being more about investment, management, and social relationships. At least, that's what people have started thinking. Among 64,000 people surveyed in thirteen nations, two thirds feel the world would be a better place if men thought more like women. Women are wanted. They will be placed on the top, soon. Or else, they'll make they're own way there. 

Then we have homosexuals. As was just mentioned, feminine qualities are desired in society today. Now, there are gay men who have these feminine qualities. These are the rulers coming after women in the 21C social hierarchy. There is more to this story. Besides women-like traits, there is another thing the society currently needs. Less people. The Earth is overflowing with people. It's gross. People are using up everything. However, it seems like people aren't going to change their style of living for at least quite some time. 

So what can be changed? The number of the pests on the planet. Evolution will happen. There are too many people. Too many people breed. There need to be less people who breed. Homosexuals don't really breed. Or they can perfectly control it. They are what Earth wants more of instead of these destructive heterosexuals. More and more people will gain the mutation. Eventually, the human kind will evolve towards being homosexuals.  

Now you whine, "But our species can't survive if we don't breed!" No, we can survive fine. Why is it homosexuals and not infertile people? Humans have rather amazingly developed technology to the point where no actual breeding is required to give birth to offspring. So if we are mostly homosexuals, then we can control birth rates. I think nature knows that. Gay people are the next step in evolution. That's why so many homosexuals are what is currently viewed by people as 'awesome'. These 'awesome' people will jump up hoppidy hop, up to the top. Then they will ameliorate policies, and even more homosexuals will rule our world.

Women will be the ruling gender of our world, and then gay people will be. It does seem a little radical for the current century. But think about what happened in the previous one. People went from being unable to communicate at distances more that ten meters away to seeing each others faces live while on opposite sides of the Earth. Technology turned over.  Society will. 

Monthly TOEFL Essay #2: Minority rules

IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY,
THE GENDER MINORITY GROUPS

WILL RISE TO BE THE MAJORITY GROUPS

This century will bring a particular sort of social change: one where the world turns over placing minority groups of long history at the top of society. Who are these minority? Two groups have evidently begun the march up to this metamorphosis. One is half of the whole population treated not even human for so long; the other is a much smaller group whose gender identities are peculier. They will rule the world. 

Ladies first. Ever heard of the term 'alpha girl'? It was sort of a fad a few years ago. It indicated a girl or a woman who excelled in activities beyond a man. It indicated a girl or a woman was generally expected to be inferior to males, but there were a few exceptions so exceptional they deserved a whole nice cute phrase to themselves.

That phrase quietly crept into the shadows. People don't believe in 'alpha girl's anymore. Every girl is exceptional, and no girl is expected to be naturally inferior to men. Or at least people know that that should be the case. There is 'equal'.  

But will it stop there? Men used to be the ruling species; they weren't 'equal', they were the only gender that ruled. So can't women gain that position? The qualities required for this century are those of the feminine sort; empathy, sensitivity, detailed manner, being subtle. It is what higher jobs of the new era require, them being more about investment, management, and social relationships. Of course, not all women possess these qualities and not all men don't, but generally speaking, this is what society thinks women have. At least, that's what people have started to think. Among 64,000 people surveyed in thirteen nations, two thirds feel the world would be a better place if men thought more like women. Women are wanted. They will be placed on the top, soon. Or else, they'll make they're own way there. 

Then we have homosexuals. As was just mentioned, feminine qualities are desired in society today. Now, there are gay men who have these qualities. These are the rulers to come after women. There is more to this story for besides women-like traits, there is another thing the society currently needs. Less people. Earth is overflowing. Humans are using up everything. However, it seems like people aren't going to change their lifestyles for quite some time. 

So what can be changed? The number of the pests on the planet. There need to be less people who breed. Homosexuals don't. They're what Earth wants more of instead of destructive heterosexuals. Evolution. More and more people will be born with the mutation. Eventually, mankind will evolve towards being homosexuals.  

Now some may whine, "But our species can't survive if we don't breed!" No, we can survive fine. Why is it homosexuals and not infertile people? Humans have developed technology to the awe-striking point where no actual breeding is required to create offspring if there's the material. So if we are mostly homosexuals, we can control birth rates. Nature knows that. 

Gay people are the next step in evolution. That's why so many homosexuals are what is currently viewed by people as 'awesome'. These 'awesome' people will jump up to the top. Then they will ameliorate policies, and even more homosexuals will rule our world.

Women will be the ruling gender of our world, and then gay people will be. It does seem a little radical for the current century. But think about what happened in the previous one. People went from being unable to communicate at distances more than a hundred meters away to seeing each others faces live while on opposite sides of the Earth. Technology turned over.  Society will, too.

Monthly TOEFL Outline #2: Minority rules

IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY,
THE GENDER MINORITY GROUPS

WILL RISE TO BE THE MAJORITY GROUPS

Weird. Right? The major change I think this century will bring is a particular sort of social change: where the world turns over placing long long minority groups at the top of society. Who are these minority? I saw two evident groups that were marching right up to this metamorphosis. One is the gender-wise minority group; the other is really young people. They are going to rule the world. I think. Why oh why would I possibly think this?

WOMEN AND HOMOSEXUALS

1. Women's rights are improving: that has been the trend for the last several decades

• Everyone's heard of this. We all know that women were treated really bad and then they started being treated as humans, became enfranchised, and are now looked upon as equal to men by most people.

• So now women are equal. 

• But not so far in the 21st century, women aren't going to stop there. They will rise and become socially what men used to be in the past for hundreds of years; the lone dominant race of the planet for the most part. 

• I know it sounds radical, but it is not unlikely. 

• Ever heard of the term 'alpha girl'? It was sort of a fad a few years ago in the very beginning of the 21st century. It indicated a girl or a woman who could do multiple things at once, or one who excelled in activities beyond any man. It indicated a girl or a woman was generally expected to be inferior to males, but there were a few exceptions so exceptional they deserve a whole nice cute phrase to themselves. That's what people thought at the time. That's what women actually were at the time: it's only very recent so many females started getting out of the household more.

• That phrase disappeared. There are no 'alpha girl's. Every girl is exceptional, and no girl is expected to be naturally inferior to men. Even back then, women were thought to be 'equals', but that wasn't in the whole spirit of the word. Now people acknowledge that females should no longer be considered any different than men, though action doesn't always follow. People don't believe in 'alpha girl's anymore: they believe in 'alpha people'. Or at least they know they should. 

• That's how we are now equal. There were fights, there was media, there were individual alpha girls, there were stupid men, and there were brave women. There was 'equal'. 

• But will it stop there? 

• Men used to be the ruling species; they weren't equal, they were over women. They were at the top of societies, and they controlled. They were the only gender that ruled. The only. 

• So won't women become the only ones to rule as well? 

• They say the qualities required for this century are those of the feminine sort; empathy, sensitivity, carrying out tasks in a detailed manner, knowing how to subtle. Of course, not all women possess these qualities and not all men don't, but generally speaking, this is what society thinks 'feminine'. This is what higher jobs of the new era require, them being more about investment, management, and social relationships. Even if it isn't, that's what people have started thinking. Among 64,000 people surveyed in thirteen nations, two thirds feel the world would be a better place if men thought more like women. Women are wanted. They will be placed on the top, soon.

     2.  And then we have the homosexuals

• Feminine qualities are wanted, right? 

• Now we have gay men who have those feminine qualities. These are the next rulers in the 21C social hierarchy. 

• Now, there is another thing the society currently needs. That is less people. The Earth is overflowing with people. It's gross. People are using up everything. We all know about environmental issues, don't we? And guess what: it seems like people aren't going to change their style of living for at least quite some time. So what else can be changed? The number of the pests on the planet. 

• There's this thing called 'evolution'. Although some people don't believe in 'big evolution', like from a frog to an elephant, most believe in at least 'small evolution', like from an early form of humans to what we are now. I hope you do to. Because what I'm about to suggest here is a rather radical form of small evolution. 

• There are too many people. Too many people breed. There needs to be less people who breed. Homosexuals don't really breed. Or they can perfectly control it. They are what Earth wants more of instead of these destructive heterosexuals. More and more people will gain the mutation. Eventually, the human kind will evolve towards being homosexuals. 

• Now you whine, "But our species can't survive if we don't breed!" No, we can survive fine. Why is it homosexuals and not infertile people? Humans have rather amazingly developed technology to the point where no actual breeding is required to give birth to offspring. So what happens if we are mostly homosexuals is that we can control birth rates. 

• I think nature knows that. 

• See. gay people are the next step in evolution. That's why so many homosexuals are so awesome. 

• These awesome people will jump up hoppidy hop up to the top. Then they will ameliorate policies, and even more homosexuals will rule our world.

I Draw.

I don’t remember when I started to draw. I was told I quickly took on to drawing at the very early age I was introduced to it. One of my earlier great works is a tiger. Scribbles going up and down all ways like this; and they were a tiger. A tiger. Brilliant. Amazing if I think about it now. I didn’t know how to draw a tiger, but I wanted one recreated on paper and so I did whatever I could. And I’m positive I thought it was the ultimate epitome of the panthera tigris species at the time. I wanted to draw, and so I did. 

What have I become.

I grew up drawing. There probably wasn’t a day I went in elementary school without drawing something, may it be the slightest doodle in the margin of history textbook. I remember in third grade I would hurl my school bag in the corner of the sofa as soon I got home and grab a piece of A4 sized paper from the printer, sit down at the table, pull out my multicolor and all terrain pen from my pocket, and get started on business because I had a new style of drawing an eye that I had been storing up all day so I could get to my multicolor pen and pour all that eye out. The eye had the gleam shining in my eyes at that moment. I grew up drawing.

But by the time I learned there existed a certain thing called ranking of scores, something had changed. I had no longing anymore. Drawing was never first priority. I didn’t feel like it. I didn’t really have something I wanted to depict either. Instead it stuck to my hand and became a habit I’d never quite asked for. Lemony Snicket said in The Slippery Slope that fate is like a strange, unpopular restaurant filled with odd waiters who bring you things you never asked for and don’t always like. Now my life is like that. And an awful lot of waiters comprise half empty bones of shaky pen strokes, muscles filled with the most delicate of curves that turn out to be nothing, and skin emitting an iridescent hue simply came into existence out of sheer sake of creating the concoction of color itself. 

I’m addicted. I can’t let my hands be when I’m listening to something or watching TV. So I move them and something is recreated on paper. But this time I didn’t want to draw a tiger. I didn’t want to draw anything. I don’t want to draw anything anymore. But the problem is that I don’t have anything else I like even remotely as much as how I liked drawing. And so I hold on to that stark memory I have of the joy I felt in art a few years earlier. It’s going nowhere.

Then I realized with some advice from a particular teacher that I needed time to experiment. I’m doing that now. I was assigned to fill a small sketchbook up with this subject I had never actually much tried drawing before: myself. I don’t know where this will lead, but what else do I have to do? I’ll grow up drawing.

Thought #1: A fish lives in water

Sometimes change happens.

Sometimes things return to the state they use to be.

But that is also change.

People are very subjective to changes in the environment around them.

People imitate other people.

But that is also change.

Sometimes people change because of the environment around them.

Sometimes people return to the state they used to be before they imitated others.

But everything is change.

I hate it when I detect change.

I don't necessarily hate change.

But I hate you if you change.

You did not have to change.

But you did change.

And that hurt.

I know you didn't mean it.

But you don't even know you didn't mean it.

People don't usually notice they changed.

Sometimes they don't notice you.

But you notice them.

A fish lives in water.

We know it can't live out of water.

But did it live in water before it was a fish?

Or did it become a fish because it had to live in water?

I hate the water the fish loves.

Don't imitate its flow.

Don't be a part of all that everything.

Don't hate me because I hate change.

Don't think you mean it when you freeze.

Don't notice how I stray.

I hate the place you've come to love.

I love some things sometimes.

But sometimes change happens.

It just does.

And people are very subjective to changes in the environment around them.

So are you.

But I love it when you're not a part of everything.

Do you like dry land?

Reflection on Nacirema: Reading Ritual among the Asnim Tribe

The common member of our education system has become so familiar with the diversity of ways in which different peoples answer to similar assignments, that he is not likely to be surprised by even the most ridiculous of minjok customs introduced in our blogs. However, there is a certain tribe called the Asnim that shows the end of the spectrum of where human behavior can go.

The Asnims are a rather newly introduced people, brought to attention about eighteen years ago. They are an East Asian group found in residence over an expanse of over three hundred acres of land in a high altitude region. Their territory is located between the Ruetsap region and the Asos culture. Research testifies the Asnim nation was created when some of the Naerok tribe relocated in hopes of constructing the pure, perfect utopia appearing in the legends of Kojnim, their holy script.

The Asnim culture is characterized by a highly developed bartering economy, which seems to have completely replaced the use of physical currency elements once present. From frequent trade, the denizens of the Asnim nation gain magical substances that can either calm or disrupt their digestive systems according to need. This enables them to gain ample energy for the ritual activity they contribute most of their time to. This rite is the reading of holy scripts. The focus of this activity is on the 'luminating board'. Although the application of various types of slate-like boards has been found as a common facet of life in numerous cultures since prehistoric times, the ceremonial usage of the boards in Asnim culture is quite bizarre.

Each individual of the tribe possesses at least one big board and one small board. The big board consists two stone slates attached to each other, while the small board is one slate small enough to be carried in a single hand. Both are used for the same purposes. When highly structural and very specific finger movements are performed on them, the boards light up and fill up with holy blue letters of a sacred script called the 'Koobecaf'. The Koobecaf is an eclectic document made up mostly of diverse writings on ancient history and studies on human psychology.

The Asnims show remarkable obsession about these boards and the Koobecaf. They exhibit almost masochist behavior in taking care of the boards. Carrying around the boards to everywhere they go, the Asnims tire out completely their finger and arm muscles over the day in being insanely cautious never to drop the boards lest so much as a scratch appear on their surfaces. They also stare into the luminated side for hours straight until their heads ache, for the alleviation of which they frequently pour a type of holy water named 'Skistoh' into their throats. All this is so that they can keep reading the Koobecaf. They seem to believe the Koobecaf offers every solution to problems in social relationships, government policies, and other sectors of everyday life. The Asnims have also been found to be able to communicate directly through the boards at even long distance by engraving marks called 'Ekil' into the Koobecaf.

But there is also an entirely different type of holy reading ritual present in the Asnim world. This is the reading of higher texts written in a language different from the one the Koobecaf is in. However, unlike the reading of the Koobecaf, this ritual is not open to all members of the tribe. The 'Citsemod' caste, deemed unfit for such lofty holy activities, is excluded from this activity. The rest of the tribe, refered to as the 'Tanretni', marches several times a week to a special temple located at the top of the central hill, near the residential structures, chanting the spell 'nawgoyggnoey'. Once inside the temple, they are separated into smaller groups and sent to certain specialized chambers, where they are guided by the priests called 'Ti-cer's to read and understand ancient scripts. Although all this is a very secretive rite, I was able to infiltrate into one of the chambers where the ceremony was taking place. Recent tribal focus seems to be decoding the works of the great ancient scholar 'Renim Ecaro'.

Because the language in the documents read in this sort of ritual is very different from the usual found in the Koobecaf, most Asnims find it very arduous to decipher the material given in the temple. They often do not understand the full meaning of the texts, and so the Ti-cers, who have gained full insight in the language and content, are placed in ultimate power among the tribe. They are in charge of holding the sacrifices, including the annual 'Erutcip-tac' ritual, and the legal punishments including the 'Mujlub'.




The Asnims did not understand the Nacirema, as we do not understand the Asnims. The Asnims were so busy applying prejudices and forming opinions against the seemingly horrific customs of the Nacirema that they didn't realize they performed the same rituals everyday.

I didn't realize I performed the same ridiculous rituals everyday.

The Asnims

The Age of Stupid #3: Beautiful, but Blatantly Base (finally, the essay)

ACADEMIC FILM REVIEW OF
THE AGE OF STUPID

"BEAUTIFUL, BUT BLATANTLY BASE"

BY YUBIN SUL

It's splendid. It's stunning. 

It's shouting.  

The melody is there, and it's wonderful, but it's being sung in shrieks. That's what The Age of Stupid feels like. It's stupid.

The Age of Stupid looks into the problem of climate change from the perspective of a post-apocalyptic archivist in 2055, asking the question, "why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?"

I would like to ask why the filmmakers didn't save this movie when they had the chance. 

POINT ONE
IT'S OVERLY MOVING

             The whole thing is utterly shocking and very motivating. It uses the modes of persuasion very well. 

             Pathos is one of the most dominant themes of the movie. Many appealing effects are used: including strong scenes like kids knowing what they shouldn’t. However, what I found interesting was the frequent switching of videos. It works with the chaos of 2055, and helps the developing of negative thoughts about the causes of climate change.

But it's so moving it gets uncomfortable. It starts to feel as if the filmmakers are injecting their thoughts into you by means of sympathy and horror. I felt repelled from the video as I realized how  manipulatively persuading it was. The creepiness goes so far as to start stimulating the idea that global warming is a hoax. 

a sort of a documentary about global warming being nothing but a hoax 

why the global warming agenda is wrong 

But global warming is real enough. Evidence is everywhere. 

(click on images)

what NASA has to say about evidence of climate change

facts about global warming 

             

The creators of The Age of Stupid knew that all too well. I think they knew it so bad they had to get the absurd seriousness through to people, and ended up producing a very vivid video.

             But it’s designed to kidnap opinions. Some spectators recoil because it's so blatant. If the delivery had been just a degree slighter of anguish, it would’ve been much easier to accept.

POINT TWO
THE WORLD IS CONNECTED

But one thing's true for sure. The world is one and we individuals in it are all connected. The film shows the links across oceans and the irony that occurs in this world of joint responsibility.

Al Duvernay works in the oil industry. But oil plagues the world with catastrophes. One is Hurricane Katrina, which reaped him of all his possessions. Then there’s the unexpected result: the Iraq war, which destroyed the lives of Jamila and Adnan, Iraqi siblings.

Piers Guy is cutting down the carbon footprints and energy consumption levels with his family. He states air travel the single most energy wasting activity an individual can do. Meanwhile in India, Jehangir Wadia is promoting air travel in an affordable price so everyone can fly.

The consumerist Americans are using up more and more oil. Shell excavates some of that oil from Layefa Malemi's hometown in Nigeria, driving her into a state of poverty and danger. She wants nothing more than to live like an American.

Fernand Pareau, the aged guide of Mont Blanc, has been witnessing the demise of great glaciers: the accumulative consequence of the pollution and fever the entire human population is generating.

In this perspective, every single person is exceedingly important in halting climate change. We must all act. If we don't, something happens to the life of an individual somewhere on Planet Earth: that person could easily be you and me.

a video that sheds some more light into how we are all connected

POINT THREE
WHAT ARE WE TO DO

             The sad thing about the movie is that it doesn't offer detailed solutions, except perhaps the life of Piers Guy. At the end, the audience is left awkwardly gaping thinking, 'Woah. So... um...?' The film gives only the start. People have to find out more for themselves on how to deal with the crisis at hand.

             I find this intriguing. It's like there is a segment of the film left blank for the audience to fill in. We have to complete the story with a narrative of our own: the film is really a patchwork of seven different fabrics, not six. But people don’t really do that.

             The video could have gone further, and it should have. The oomph was focused only on delivering the shock, which disappears behind screens soon after the ending credits roll up.

this cute animation shows some of the things we could do

             The video turned out rather stupid, but the message it was meant to convey is not. In this giant web of a world that is about to dissolve, the time to act is now. We are not stupid.

The Age of Stupid #2: Outiline (not the essay, either)

GENERALLY,
BEAUTIFUL, BUT BLATANTLY BASE

It's awesome. It has strong impact. But it's shouting - shouting too much to the point where it gets slightly unconvincing. But there is definitely a truth in there: the world is knitted into one web. However, it doesn't suggest a sufficient amount of specific solutions. So in the end, the audience is left in a sort of awkward state. I want to do something but I end up staying in my seat because I don't really know what to do at this moment.

POINT ONE
IT'S OVERLY MOVING

• the whole thing is utterly shocking and very motivating 

• it is so by using the modes of persuasion: ethos, pathos, logos 

• ethos: a seemingly real character from the future (as if he's telling experience), interviews from renowned people

• pathos: uses many appealing effects, strong scenes, kids talking about things they shouldn't be, a definite tone, confusing organization

• logos: a lot of data and evidence, many people's logic, show connections

• it's so moving it gets slightly uncomfortable (it's too strong)   

• it feels as if the creators are injecting their thought into you with the video

• then it starts sounding really childish, as if it's knocking only on sympathy and horror

• once the thought that the content might just seem true right now when it actually isn't (it was manipulated to be presented to evoke emotion and immediate reaction) gets imprinted in your brain, nothing can get to you - you just end up painfully watching every scene with doubt

• after some time, ironically, it starts stimulating the idea that maybe global warming is nothing but a hoax after all

• the sad thing is that global warming is real enough, alright 

• evidence 

• the creators of The Age of Stupid knew that all too well 

• the way I see it, they knew it so bad they had to tell people the absurd seriousness of the issue: they got the most shocking footage, they took advantage of all the methods they thought would help reach out to the public, they worked really hard and produced a very powerful, a very vivid video 

• but so it went a little overboard; to the point where slightly sensitive spectators like me recoil a bit because it's too blatant 

• if the issue was delivered with a just a degree slighter of anguish and a degree more of objectivity, it could've been accepted much more easily by people like me

POINT TWO
THE WORLD IS CONNECTED

• the film's too harsh in delivering its message about climate change

• but one thing's true for sure   

• the world is one and we individuals are all connected 

• the ripples are large not only in terms of distance, but also in the intensity 

• basically, the film shows how actions on this side of the world can kill millions on the other  

• Piers and Lisa Guy who are cutting down their family's carbon footprints and energy consumption levels recognizes air travel as the single most energy consuming activity an individual can do, while a guy in India is talking about promoting air travel in an affordable price so everyone can ride airplanes 

• the consumerism of Americans is using up more and more oil; Shell excavates some of that very oil from Layefa Malemi's hometown in Nigeria, driving her into a state of poverty and danger; but she wants nothing more than to live like an American

• a resident of New Orleans, Al Duvernay, has worked a large proportion of his lifetime in the oil industry - but oil affects the world in catastrophes: Hurricane Katrina (destroying his own home), the Iraq war (on the opposite side of Earth, destroying the lives of a pair of Iraqi siblings that never had anything directly to do with oil)

• the aged guide of Mont Blanc has witnessed the demise of great glaciers all due to the rise in temperature: not a result of local problems but the accumulative consequence of the pollution and fever the entire Earth is generating 

• water from the bottle tastes much better than the tap

• in this perspective, every single person is exceedingly important in halting climate change as well as in reversing the direction we're going in 

• we must all act: if we don't, something happens to the life of another individual somewhere on Planet Earth: that person could be me

POINT THREE
WHAT ARE WE TO DO

• the sad thing about the movie is that it doesn't offer detailed solutions (not everybody can be Piers Guy)

• well, it is structured so it would be awkward if a specific list of things to do suddenly popped out out of nowhere 

• but it's also structured so the audience is left awkwardly gaping thinking something along the lines of: 'Woah. OMG. So... um...?' 

• it is a great way to get people's attention and get them engaged in the idea 

• however, it's only the start 

• people have to find out more for themselves on how to deal with the crisis at hand 

• that's the intriguing part: it's like there is a segment of the film left blank so the audience can fill it in - we have to research what solutions there are and complete the story with a narrative of our own 

• but people don't really do that 

• the video could have gone further, and it should have: it was pushing people very effectively throughout the hour and a half and the energy could've gone to some real changes had they been suggested in the film

• find solutions

The Age of Stupid #1: Free flow of thoughts (not the essay)

Here are a few developed versions of the thoughts that popped into my head while/ soon after watching the film (it's about the video and only about the video:

POINT ONE

REALLY?

Is climate change that serious?  Are we going extinct by 2055? I sure hope not. And it's not that plausible either. The movie offers a lot of evidence in its own way, but one can't help but remain dubious. The Age of Stupid seems to carry the message that that's exactly what's wrong. It says we're stupid. We just can't see how serious this all is. We're too dumb to realize the predicament we're in. Wait, are we? This will require more research.

POINT TWO

WHY DIDN'T WE SAVE OURSELVES WHEN WE HAD THE CHANCE?

Let's suppose climate change is really as much of a critical problem as the video says.

The archivist keeps on asking "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?" 

The archivist

Why didn't we? Why don't we? 

Well, firstly, do we even still have the chance? The movie was made in 2009, and it says that emissions of greenhouse gasses must halt and start to wane by 2015 if we are to survive. It's 2013 now. We have two years. It doesn't seem like anything's going to happen in two years.

Why doesn't it? So why are we not doing anything to save ourselves? Is it really because we're not sure if we're worth saving? Of course not. Well, personally, that was the thought that arose in me after watching the film, but humanity generally doesn't think so at all. We think we're so very awesome that we don't even pause to look around and see that we've become so obese we can't stand on our environment of life anymore. Just take a look at the Indian guy that runs the airplane business. He's so full of himself and so focused on his work; his success. He doesn't know his doom, the whole world's doom, is nearing when his work is going well. Anyway, the point here is that people value themselves very highly, and also as a race. 

So why, oh why, are we confidently striding towards suicide? I believe the reason is that people are very unaware. They think they're aware, as this woman states. According to her, she is "of course worried about global warming!" Does she sound worried? She just turned down a plan to start saving the dying Earth and she thinks she's worried. 

She says that "if you look at all the facts -if you do it fair and with balance- you can get a good outcome. A good outcome. She is so shockingly unaware. She knows not. She's just outrageously unaware. This is the problem.

POINT THREE
IT'S AMAZING. IT'S SHOCKING.

It was intense. it was alarming. The story, the facts, the visual effects and the narration all approached me in a very creepy way and swooped down on me in all their might, leaving a mouth gaping and a mind shivering.  

What it was wasn't very clear to me. But I got what it was trying to say. The problem's as intense as the movie is. And we've got to start acting RIGHT NOW.   

Here are some strategies the movie used that I found effective. (click images)

            1. Special Effects

2055

            2. Animation

MANIPULATION OF OIL COMPANIES

HISTORY OF CORPSES  WHO HAD STH WORTH STEALING

ENERGY AND RESOURCE WASTE 

CONSUMERISM

ONLY MASS PROTESTS CAN MOVE THE GOVT 

 CAP ON FOSSIL FUELS

            3. The most quaking scene

THIS IS WRONG
THEY'RE KIDS AND THEIR IDEA OF 'HOUSE' IS THROWING GRENADES

POINT FOUR

THE WHOLE WORLD IS ONE.

It's not about the man in New Orleans that lasted through Hurricane Katrina.  

It's not about the guy who's starting up the affordable airline company.

It's not about the Iraqi children who fled from the war presumably caused by oil.

It's not about the guide of Mont Blanc who has to stop trucks from coming in.

It's not about the family reducing carbon footprints and organizing a wind farm.

It's not about the Nigerian woman in an oil stained village. 

It's not about the individuals.

It's not even about the environment, maybe.  

It's about how all those individuals can be placed under one context. And it's about how events and people that seem completely irrelevant actually in cause-and-effect relationships. It's all about how one action a guy makes on this side of the world is going to affect the lives of a million people he doesn't know. It's actually about how we have come to live in such a world: a world in which everybody is connected. 

I realize there's a common name for that. Globalization. It's as much of a cliché as global warming is, and I know that. In fact, I'd turned my back on the word 'globalization' long ago; a lot of people I met were rather fanatical about the idea and how it could be applied to the bright little youngsters of Korea; the rest treated it a child's play and laughed or grimaced of using it seriously as an idea or as grounds for an argument. So I grew not to like the word at all.  

But it had never been so real and right up in my face before as it was in the movie. It was new, and it wasn't crazy or childish. It was lain out subtly in the story, but at the same time imprinted in bold. Once I took a step back after the I was done with the film, it suddenly started screaming out in all pitches. I may never be able to determine if global warming is real or not until the effects take full force, but I felt like the movie was right about one thing at least: that the whole world is all connected. 

One person may be all it takes to kill the planet.

One person may be all it takes to save the planet.