Forza Americano!

A decade ago, the idea that "Baywatch" would be available in China was unfathomable. Today, it is a reality. The siege of American culture on Chinese shores has increased exponentially over the past few years and will only continue with time. Although The Chinese government have great "face" to save and will never advocate or admit the americanization of its people, the masses have taken a different point of view. More and more Chinese people are growing fascinated with American culture. The speed of transformation is as utterly mystifying as it is amazing seeing that not long ago their society was a constrained, controlled one to say the very least.

Reading the article "The Americanization of China" was thoroughly enjoyable for me. I could not help but snigger at the fact that there were billboards of Nike's "Flyer Qiao Dan", otherwise known as Michael JORDAN, and that his "airness" outranked Mao in a survey. Although soccer has been the most popular sport in recent times, the popularity of basketball has been on the rise. Kids grow up now associating Ronald McDonald with Chinese culture while munching on Big Macs. People can be seen strutting around the streets parading the latest Levi's collection and some even bearing hip-hop outfits waltzing into clubs with names like "New York New York". Cinemas are no longer merely a run-down space playing Hollywood flops, rather the latest Tom Cruise and Sylveser Stallone flicks are now available in all its American glory. American products ranging from cosmetics to toothpastes have flooded the Chinese market and thanks partially to satellite technology, shows such as "The X-files" are now available too. At this rate, nobody would be surprised if there was a Mandarin version of Sesame Street in the making.

This Diffusion of culture through the media and other mediums is as clear as an example of cultural imperialism can get. It is clearly a "Give to dominate" strategy by the Americans as they would have many economic benefits to reap by bringing these franchises and products to China. In Shanghai, at one glance in certain areas, it is a sea of red. No, it is not the colours of communism, but the color of Coke. A French trader's cheeky remark does sum it all up really. "From some angles, it looks like Coke is sponsoring Shanghai." The Chinese government know that the influx of American culture is a "devious plot" to "conquer". However, they are quite powerless in stopping it because the masses are demanding it.

The Americans defend the invasion on China. They suggest that with the younger generation having the chance to experience American culture, it gives them a sense of attachment to the rest of the world, since the American brand is in fact at times the global one.

"It's maybe not for the older generation, but there is a feeling that if their child can eat at McDonald's then he can go out in the world and succeed." - Harvard Professor Watson .

Many people around the globe, and even here at home in Singapore, have adopted the popular American culture. Do you guys think that this is necessarily a bad thing? Or does it have its advantages?

The Only Race That Matters is the Human One

One of the most unfortunate truths about our world today is the prevalence of racism, which is the undisputedly most significant attitudinal barrier to intercultural communication. Whether explicit or implicit, this uncivilized attitude has tormented humanity throughout its history, from the times when old England regarded the Scots as barbarians to the aversive racism shown towards the African-Americans in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, although it has been curbed to a certain extent, racism is still inspiring needless violence and conflict.

The root of racism is probably based on the intolerance of cultural differences. Culture tells people what to believe and Some people have unwarranted stereotypes and prejudices that have no context and are mostly inaccurate. These negative social attitudes are often exaggerated and may be formed because of generalisation based on personal experiences or hearsay. Possibly, they could just be the direct result of xenophobia, although racists will never admit it. Perhaps these individuals are also ethnocentric, believing that their race or ethnicity is superior to all others. They might have limited or no contact with some other races and therefore assume prejudices that may very well stem from their innate fear of the unknown.

In the world of football, the Blacks in particular have been discriminated against intensely, especially in countries such as Italy and Spain. Just this month in Madrid, fans of Atletico Madrid hurled racial abuse at players of Olympique Marseille during a european game. This, together with the violence that followed, earned the club a lofty fine and a stadium ban of two matches which meant that they were required to play their next two competitive fixtures at other venues and not on their home ground. One of those fixtures, happens to be against English football giants Liverpool FC. This incensed some English fans who had already made plans to fly to Madrid to catch the much anticipated match. Conseqeuntly, due to the immense pressure on UEFA (european football's governing body), the decision was reversed and is now pending a hearing after Atletico Madrid lodged an official appeal against the punishment.

UEFA has since clarified and reasoned that the ban was lifted temporarily because of "organisational and logistical difficulties related to relocating the match to another venue at such short notice". However, everybody knows that this is a mouth-watering clash in european football that means a great deal to both sets of supporters but I cannot help but question what message this sends out. That racism will only be punished if the next game is not a "big match"? That punishment can be put on hold just because of supposed "logistical difficulties"? UEFA has often spoken about their zero-tolerance approach to racism in the sport. However, many do not believe that they are proving it. Rio Ferdinand, an England international player who was one of many that was subjected to racist chants in Zagreb, Croatia during a recent World Cup qualifying game, rightly voiced his displeasure.

"They [UEFA] make a lot of comments about what they are going to do but they never back up the words with actions. Croatia was fined a few thousand quid. What is that going to do?"

It is sad to say that although sport is supposed to be a common denominator that unites all peoples, racism has still found its way in. I have to say though that I feel grateful to live in Singapore where racial harmony exists and the different ethnicities have become so comfortable with one another that sometimes we can even poke fun at each other and just have a good laugh about it.

Have any of you experienced racism shown towards you or heard of someone who has? Maybe not locally but when you were out of the country?

Virtual Terrorism: A New Era of Crime?

I was reading through the world news section online at www.asiaone.com when I came across an article titled New Scam: "Virtual Kidnapping". It refers to human smuggling organizations making use of the time taken for illegal immigrants to cross the US-Mexican border to call up and extort ransom money from families of illegal immigrants, falsely claiming that they have one of their relatives held hostage. This scare tactic has been working like a charm and cases have been piling up almost weekly in recent times. It is no surprise that because of fear, families usually pay without informing the authorities.

Initially, it was difficult for law enforcers to handle these cases and determine whether the smugglers, known as 'coyotes', are lying or not because the medium of their communication is verbal and done over the phone, not in person. This makes it impossible for them to utilize their knowledge of kinesics and oculesics to pick up on any tell-tale signs in their behaviour. The only form of non-verbal communication that they would be able to study is the paralinguistics of the criminals. For example, a lying criminal might give away his nervousness in his voice if he sounds panicky and has unsually more non-fluencies in his speech. However, it is far from straightforward and law enforcers must be careful when interpreting these vocal patterns and anomalies because non-verbal communication is very subjective. They must make a conscious effort to remain objective and be very certain of their inferences before making any decisions because lives are at stake. It is easy to over-analyze or let biased perceptions get in the way but should they get it wrong, there could be dire consequences. A more concrete and foolproof way of verifying if the smugglers indeed have the hostage in hand would be to demand proof of life. In this case, when the hostage is put on the phone, the family would be able to identify if it is truly their relative by recognizing the pitch and tone of the voice. Most of the time, if the gang refuses or tries to stall for time when asked of this, they're talking bull****.

No matter how good the good guys get at ascertaining whether the bad guys were telling the truth or lying through the skin of their teeth, it is always a tricky business. Even in person, isn't it possible for seasoned criminals to lie in a steady, calm voice while keeping their heart rate down, not flinching a muscle and staring you dead in the eye? If the authorities made a wrong judgment call and decided that a gang was lying when they weren't, they might need another body bag.

In this age of technology, "virtual terrorism" is no longer just something imagined. This is evidence that it is already happening. I remember the concept of it being used on a much larger scale in the hollywood blockbuster Die Hard 4.0. I don't know about you, but if something like that became non-fiction, I don't think we can count on Bruce Willis to save the day. It would be nice if some things could remain fictitious, don't you think?

OeeeeOOOOooooEEEAAAAEEEAAAOOOOeeeeeeAAA.

That familiar tune plays again on television as the hit reaity show Survivor returns for a 17th season, this time, in Gabon, Kenya. Once again 18 castaways are grouped into tribes, knowing that in order to attain personal glory at the end, they first need to cooperate in order to achieve tribal immunity (losing tribe had to vote a member to leave the game) during inter-tribal challenges and avoid tribal council (where voting takes place). Also, their initial teamwork was demanded, literally, for survival sake as Gabon is a land of beasts that is almost untouched by humans.
Within the tribes, members demonstrate all the basic characteristics of being part of a group. There was casual interaction as everyone had begun as strangers to one another and needed to get to know their "team-mates". They're also interdependent for basic survival tasks i.e catching fish for food, collecting water, starting fires. Tribe members also have a certain degree of shared behavourial standards. For example, it is an unsaid rule that everyone must help in the day-to-day activities in camp. Lastly, each tribe has an obvious collective identity, albeit a rather superficial one, as they don their respective tribe's colours on their bandanas.

Interestingly enough, the oldest members of each of the two tribes were made the "leaders" of the tribe. In the second episode, members of tribe Fang came to an iffy collective agreement that their tribe did not need a real leader, largely because they weren't satisfied with some of Gillian's (oldest member of tribe fang) actions and the fact that nobody wanted to step up to assume that position of power since it would inadvertently make that individual look "strong" and therefore risk becoming a target. In other words, tribe Fang decided that they would count on their group synergy to pull them through.

Contestants have to constantly manage group dynamics and ensure that they balance their effort based on both individual and group needs. Should they choose to solely focus their energy on individual needs then they would be seen as selfish and voted off right away but at the same time they could not afford to just be the ultimate team player and not watch their backs because backstabbing was the name of the game. It is a classic case of group socialisation as contestants seeked to influence the group to act in certain ways or make certain decisions that would most benefit them in terms of their power and level of membership within the tribe.

Finally, the occurance of groupthink takes place repeatedly. Within a tribe, cliques or alliances are formed and the one with the most members is the group within the group that is in "power". Most of the time, the relatively low-profile members of a tribe go along with the decision of the dominant alliance on who to vote off even though they do not understand the logic behind it, for fear that their disobedience would put their heads on the chopping block instead.

Which role do you think would be the best strategy in this game of complex group dynamics? The manipulative backstabber, the quiet worker or maybe the outspoken leader? Ever thought of how you would play the game should you be a contestant on Survivor?

Meeting New People: Is It Fun, Or A Chore?

When you meet someone for the first time, how do you know what to say? Or how to present yourself? Surely you would act differently with different people, but if you did not have much to go by, how would you decide to behave in front of the person? Is all this instinctive or learned? Whatever the case, there is no doubting that interpersonal communication is a huge element of our lives.

A few weeks ago, I met someone who was visiting Singapore for the first time. He was an American and had actually never been out of the States prior to his trip here. Based on cultural and sociological information, I knew that I definitely had to cut the "Singlish" terms out of my vocabulary or he was probably not going to understand a word I said. Since it was going to be our first meeting, I could not gather any psychological information, like what his demeanour was. Therefore, not knowing what he was like exactly, I expected my interpersonal communication with him would be limited to very awkward, superficial conversation, at least initially.

During our first engagement, I realised within the first one minute that he was not that different at all. In fact, his personality and sense of humour were very much similar to most of my other friends. Therefore, based on stimulus generalisation, I found conversing with him rather effortless. The only thing that really got him confused was when I mentioned "football". "Oh! You mean soccer?" He clarified. Over time, through dyadic primacy, I found out that he was a little more emotionally sensitive than some of my other buddies, and so, by stimulus discrimination, I avoided teasing him too much. Overall, it was refreshing to meet someone from a different land and learn that they aren't so different after all.

As I continue on life's journey and meet new people from all walks of life, the importance of effective interpersonal communication has become more evident to me. I have come to understand how it can be so powerful in persuasion, forming positive first impressions, and of course in building relationships with people. Mastering effective interpersonal communication can bring many benefits and in today's ever-growing population, with people becoming increasingly judgmental on looks and personality, has possibly become a necessity. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming social outcasts. What do you think?

Is killing so easily warranted?

It is no secret that in the Middle East, media, in every form, is controlled. Their society is awfully conservative and will not tolerate anything that might be even remotely suggestive, let alone insurgent. Almost anything that deviates from the conservative is viewed as "unholy". The above article from The Straits Times today reports on a Saudi Cleric who has called for the deaths of a few owners of certain Television Networks deemed to have broadcasted "immoral" material during the holy month of Ramadan. Apparently, it involved Television programmes featuring scantily-dressed women. In the cleric's eyes, these images have non-verbally communicated "evil" to the masses.

The cleric has probably taken such a strong view on this issue because of his social construct that has shaped his belief system and perceptions. In the West, such mindsets would be unheard of. This can be accredited to the vast Cultural differences that affect interpretation of certain stimuli. The senior Saudi Cleric has developed a mental framework over time which encompasses certain rules that probably coincide with the social rules and norms of his society. The images of women in skimpy outfits His rather extreme proposal to kill the owners might also be explained by his vocation as a cleric. He is probably a very religious individual who has almost zero tolerance for "evil" behaviour.

I don't mean any disrespect but I cannot help but feel appalled at the cleric's comments. I've always been aware of the nature of societies in the Middle East but to suggest lawfully killing someone over this matter is just absurd, dare I even say barbaric, to me. Granted, I may have social constructs and mindsets as well because of my environment and past experiences, but what happened to the value of human life? Is it that simple to be stripped of your right to live? The television programmes did not hurt anyone physically, and at the very most have caused severe disgust among some people. From whatever angle you look at it, one must ask, does it warrant a death sentence? The culture in the Saudi Kingdom's society seems to be much like the ancient Roman or Greek civilizations where human life had no sanctity and was expendable unless maybe you were of royal heritage.

Yes, we must respect others' way of life and culture. However, I could not help but feel disconcerted when reading this article.

Obama's Rhetorical Masterpiece

On the epic night of 28th August 2008, Barack Obama made history as he officially accepted the Democratic presidential nomination. He now became the first ever African-American presidential nominee of a major US political party.



His acceptance speech was a rhetorical masterpiece. It was delivered with loads of charisma and heartfelt emotion. I am not even American but i must admit that i was a little moves when i listened to it. It encompassed the five major constituents of a rhetoric (Logos, Lexis, Kairos, Audience and Decorum).



For the Logos aspect, Obama made if clear once again to the people what exactly he stood for and the policies that he intended to make should he become president. He vowed to cut taxes for almost all working-class families, emphasized the need for investment in alternate forms of energy and job creation, and reiterated his desire to "end the failed politics of Bush". In terms of the Lexis, he delivered his address in a most confident, loud and inspiring tone of voice that was filled with conviction, much like the way a medieval king would rally the front lines of his army just before entering into battle.



As for the Kairos, the date on which Obama gave his acceptance speech was decided in tribute to one of the greatest individuals in US history. The night coincided with the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Also, the venue was a dramatic setting. It was a filled sports stadium with bright camera flashes sparkling like stars among the 84,000-strong crowd in an enormous semicircle.



For the Audience part, the crowd needed someone to feed their desire for change. Obama duly composed his speech to assure the crowd that his top goal was to achieve change for the better. His empathetic and motivational words moved many sections of the audience to tears. Finally, the Decorum was rather perfect as his serious tone appropriately matched the importance of the day. His precise vocabulary and preacher-like style of delivery tied in perfectly with the landmark occasion and yearning audience.

Video of Obama's Speech