13 Sept 2017

KAIST Undergraduate Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019 – South Korea

Application Deadlines: Deadline for the application for a scholarship is the same as deadline for processing admission:
KAIST has three application cycles: EARLYREGULAR, and LATE.
Early
  • Application Opens: 1st September 2017
  • Application Closes: 25th October 2017
Regular
  • Application Opens: 1st November 2017
  • Application Closes: 5th January 2018
Late
  • Application Opens: 26th February 2018
  • Application Closes: 29th June 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International countries (except South Korea)
To be taken at (country): South Korea
Eligible Field of Study: Courses offered at the University
About the Award: The Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) offers the KAIST International Student Scholarship for both undergraduate international students. KAIST Undergraduate Scholarships are very competitive and once a student is selected by KAIST, his/her tuition fee is waived off and he/she will get scholarship based on KAIST policies.
KAIST welcomes applications from all over the world. Eligible international undergraduate applicants wishing to study at KAIST are invited to apply for the KAISTInternational Student Scholarship as they apply for their course. You can choose to apply either for SPRING semester or Fall semester.
Type: Undergraduate taught
Eligibility:
  • Applicants of International Student Admission
  • Students must maintain GPA over 2.7 out of 4.3 at KAIST
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Full tuition fee: tuition exemption for 8 semesters
  • Living expenses: 200,000 ~ 350,000 KRW per month
  • National Health insurance
Duration of Scholarship: Duration of course
How to Apply: 
  • There is no separate process for applying scholarship. Just check “KAIST scholarship” on the Statement of Financial Resources section on online application for admission.
  • Interested candidates should refer to the guidelines here to prepare for required documents in detail.
Award Provider: The Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)

Ashden International Awards for Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries 2018

Application Timeline: 7th November, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Developing countries
To be taken at (country): London
About the Award: World’s leading green energy awards, seeks to reward innovative enterprises and programmes that deliver, or play a key part in enabling the delivery of sustainable energy systems and through this bring social, economic and
environmental benefits. In 2018, we will make six International Awards. The winners will receive prize funds of up to £20,000 each.
What is Ashden looking for this year?
  • Finance and business innovation for delivering sustainable energy: Organisations or enterprises accelerating access to sustainable energy through innovation
  • Sustainable cities and buildings: Organisations working in the built environment to rapidly decarbonise towns and cities
  • Sustainable transport and mobility: Innovative enterprises or programmes that are improving access to sustainable mobility services for those who currently have poor access
  • Powering business: Enterprises or programmes which provide and/or use clean energy or energy efficiency in the provision of goods and services through business activities
  • Energy access frontiers: Organisations improving energy access in areas where the market for sustainable energy products and services is underdeveloped and energy access penetration is low
  • Sustainable energy and health: Organisations enabling the use of sustainable forms of energy to make a direct improvement to people’s health or to support the provision of health services
Type: Entrepreneurship, Contest
Who can apply for an Ashden International Award?
  • Businesses, NGOs, social enterprises and government organisations are all eligible.
  • The work must be delivered in at least one of the UN’s developing regions of Africa, Caribbean, Central America, South America, Asia (excluding Japan) and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand) and can be in rural or urban areas. High-income countries in these regions, as defined by the World Bank, are not eligible to apply
What happens if you win an Award As an Ashden Award winner? You will:
  • Be invited to London at Ashden’s expense to take part in the Awards Ceremony on 14 June as well as other events during this week. Winning an Ashden Award is contingent on taking part in Awards Week activities.
  • Participate in media interviews that we may be able to arrange.
  • Agree with Ashden what you will spend the prize fund on and any business support you may receive.
  • Provide and update monitoring data about the progress of your work after one year, two years and three years
Number of Awardees: 6
Value of Contest: 
  • The winners will receive prize funds of £20,000 each
  • As well as this cash fund, winning an Ashden Award brings many other benefits, such as:
    • Local, national and international publicity, through the work of our specialist media team.
    • Support to grow or replicate your work: this can include professional mentoring, training and introductions to investment and other finance providers.
    • Opportunities to present your work to large and influential audiences at the Ashden Awards Ceremony, International Conference and other Ashden events.
    • Membership of the Ashden Alumni network of Ashden Award-winners, which facilitates opportunities to create productive partnerships and learning.
    • The acclaim of winning a prestigious Ashden Award. Our application and assessment process is known for being rigorous.
How to Apply: Apply here
Award Provider: Ashden

Not My Wonder Woman: The Zionist Agenda in US Mainstream Feminism

Zarefah Baroud

Most women will agree that female representation in the media is incredibly important for a plethora of reasons, not only in media but as well as politics, and other platforms lacking opportunity for female participants. Providing women of all ages a strong and positive role model could break a toxic habit and pattern of accepting and expecting degrading societal roles and standards that have been appointed to us. A struggle that many women face, especially women of color, members of minority faiths, or members of the LGBTQ community, is the women presented in the media for the sake of progressiveness have never stood with or supported either groups of people. For me, and many other women, “female representation” seems useless for these reasons.
When it comes to the new film Wonder Woman, many questions arose for me personally: Would I ever take my hypothetical Palestinian daughter to see a film lead by a woman who works and supports the genocide and ethnic cleansing of her people? Would my hypothetical daughter forget all the immense damage Gadot has done in Palestine, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Syria, etc, due to the fact that she is female? The omnipresent term “White Feminism” comes to mind in cases such as these. The powerful, white, upper class, has not faced the oppression and devastation that Gal Gadot and her comrades in the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) have caused, in fact, they have and continue to profit from it, whether that be in political backing from the Zionist lobby, brutal arms deals, etc.
It is quite easy to feel hopeless in situations as this. What power does a university student in Seattle have? One factor many forget that carries power and impact is our financial and monetary support of companies, corporations, films, etc. Along with the list that the BDS(Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) movement has provided, I made the choice to avoid this film completely. Gal Gadot does not support women. DC’s decision to cast Gadot was not motivated by feminism, but by their support of the prevailing Zionist and White Supremacist agenda in the media and the United States as a whole. If they wanted to make a feminist political statement, they wouldn’t let the member of an anti-Arab (and anti-African for that matter) army, that practices the ethnic cleansing and genocide of indigenous peoples; play the role of an Amazonian woman – an Indigenous woman.
It comes down to what women truly need out of the feminist movement, not only in the United States, but globally. In the eyes of many Americans, women of color don’t enter their minds in relation to the feminism conversation; resulting in them feeling no sense of betrayal when they hear that Gal Gadot is the perfect “white” woman lead to the new Wonder Woman film.
If Americans are truly committed to seeing their country evolve into a place that values equity for women and other oppressed peoples, it is vital that the growing exclusivity applied to this standard is banished. This can be applied to many mainstream and growing movements in the United States today. If you marched with the Pride parade in 2017, for example, the intersectionality within your solidarity is not an option. You must march for justice against brutal police who have slain and abused a record number of Black Trans women. You must march against the Pink Washing Israel has propagated while abusing LGBTQ Palestinians. You must march against all forms of LGBTQ abuses. It is not a game of picking and choosing, but one of mobilizing collectively for the same value of justice, regardless of the various labels and the backlash affiliated with each of the causes.
I personally have come to the conclusion that this film was nothing but just another trick played on America’s juvenile approach to the empowerment of women. They put a woman on TV and the historic oppression of women is over, regardless that that woman herself fights for the propagation of oppression of other women all over the Middle East, Africa, and even the United States.
We saw similar events take place during Barak Obama’s presidency. They put the first Black man in the White House, and White America deemed themselves post-racial, despite the fact that the Obama administration continued the heavy militarization of the police in the United States, with the help of the IDF’s armed forces training, which directly targets and oppresses the Black community in this country. While his administration was busy bombing Somalia, Libya, and countless other African and Arab countries, he was still revered as a savior for America’s suffering Black community.
Likewise, Hillary Clinton dreamed of blazing the trail as the first female president, while betraying women everywhere as she schemed to overthrow the sovereign governments of Honduras and Libya. She too has failed to lift up women throughout the world.
For many people, the sentiment of Wonder Woman was far more than “just a film”. It was far from being a sign of evolution in the American feminist movement. Casting a woman who is a veteran from one of the most heavily militarized countries on the planet is not a sign of progress. But it does give Americans an illusion of progress. White American feminists can rest a little easier with the flawed assurance that they have done their job. We, whether we are Palestinians, people of color, LGBTQ, or religious minorities, we don’t stand to gain anything from their illusion.

The War on Terror Has Targeted Muslims Almost Exclusively

Maha Hilal

Every year on September 11, the United States mourns the innocent lives that were lost in the terrorist attacks of 2001.
Each year I remember these victims, too. But I also mourn the often forgotten victims of the never-ending wars and draconian counter-terrorism policies of the post 9-11 world: the Muslim community.
In a speech to Congress shortly after the attacks, then-President Bush addressed a portion to Muslims. “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends,” he said. “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.” Yet despite Bush’s attempt to distinguish between the “good” and “bad” Muslims, the war on terror has targeted the Muslim community at large almost exclusively.
Abroad, several Muslim nations have been devastated by U.S. invasions and military operations. As of 2015, Physicians for Social Responsibility estimated that 1.3 million Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis had died in the course of the war on terror — a figure the group called “conservative,” noting that it doesn’t include figures from other war zones like Yemen and Somalia. Civilian casualties run high in all of these places, and alleged combatants have died by the hundreds in U.S. military custody.
Domestically, law enforcement has systematically singled out Muslims for special abuse.
Muslim congregations and student groups have suffered intrusive surveillance. And federal agencies have systematically entrapped alleged Muslim “terrorists,” with one 2014 Human Rights Watch report finding that informants had played an active role in hatching at least 30 percent of the plots they prosecuted suspects for.
Meanwhile, so-called communication management units — where federal prison inmates are barred from virtually all contact with the outside world and other inmates — were built and used to warehouse Muslim prisoners. At one point, over 60 percent of inmates housed in them were Muslim, despite Muslims making up just 6 percent of the prison system.
In the even more extreme Guantanamo Bay prison, that number rises to 100 percent.
But it doesn’t end there, because the laws and policies of the war on terror have created a culture of fear — one that teaches American society to fear Muslims, and one that teaches Muslims to fear the U.S. government. While it’s gotten worse under Trump, it’s not something that started under him. The Bush administration built the violent infrastructure of the war on terror, Obama expanded it, and Trump is simply building on it still.
Earlier this year, President Trump signed two executive orders, commonly referred to as the Muslim Ban and Muslim Ban 2.0, which halted the issuing of visas to people from seven (and later six) majority-Muslim countries.
While many were surprised by this overt act of racism and xenophobia, the war on terror has taught Muslims like me that this is nothing new. The orders came amid a surge of hate crimes against Muslims, which recently reached their highest levels since 9/11 itself. Furthermore, the number of hate crimes this year has far surpassed that of 2016 — by 91 percent, according to the Council on American Islamic Relations.
“While the bias that motivates a hate crime may be unusual in its ferocity,” a Human Rights Watch report explained way back in 2002, “it is rooted in a wider public climate of discrimination, fear, and intolerance against targeted communities, which may also be echoed in or enhanced by public policy.”
As a Muslim American who has lived in the United States for most of my life, September 11 taught me a few things. It taught me that collective responsibility is at the heart of the laws and policies that have unfolded in the war on terror — that we’ll be targets till we prove we’re “good” Muslims who are uncritical of foreign policy and who believe in the American dream.
It taught me that religious freedom is a value that the United States cherishes, until of course Muslims try to claim it. Then it becomes a security concern.
It taught me that this is actually what many groups have experienced in our country. Different groups are targeted at different times under different umbrellas for our “national security,” which is nothing more than legitimized and institutionalized racism and xenophobia.
This year will mark 16 years of the war on terror — 16 years of military and militaristic means to allegedly abate the terrorist threat, but which have in fact terrorized my own community.
This year, as part of the DC Justice for Muslims Coalition, I’m leading a campaign called #MySept11MuslimStory to provide a space for Muslims to share their stories on the consequences they’ve experienced post-9/11 — not just from the U.S. government, but from society at large. This is my way of empowering the Muslim community to resist the oppression we’ve experienced on the basis of collective responsibility.
The war on terror was supposed to be about making our country safer. But as a Muslim American, I don’t feel any safer. Instead, I suspect those feelings of safety were never meant to be extended to me, or my community. As we prepare for what’s ahead, empowering ourselves couldn’t be more important.

The Other 9/11: Unremembered and Unatoned

STEVE BROWN

On Monday, we saw the usual yearly outpouring of articles and editorials from mainstream media commemorating the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, which killed 2,996 people and wounded 6,000 more.
Not that such memorials aren’t appropriate. They are simply insufficient. They fail to commemorate another 9/11 tragedy, one that took place 28 years earlier, in 1973 — not in America, but in Chile — and which caused the death – not of thousands, but of tens of thousands — while torturing and exiling 200,000 more.
I refer to the brutal coup d’état that overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, and replaced it with nearly two decades of murderous dictatorship under Generalissimo Augusto Pinochet.
Although this earlier 9/11 event occurred in a foreign land, there is a very good reason why Americans should remember it. And that reason is – our government caused it. The coup was strategized, funded, and abetted by President Richard Nixon, by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”) and by CIA directors from Richard Helms and James Schlesinger to William Colby and George Hebert Walker Bush.
Although Nixon, Kissinger, Helms, Schlesinger, Colby and Bush are arguably as guilty of mass murder for their part in the Chilean coup of 9/11/1973 as the 19 militants who reportedly flew airliners into the World trade Towers on 9/11/2001, the former did not suffer the same fate as the latter.
The 19 Al Qaeda (and/or Saudi) militants involved in the 9/11/2001 attacks all reportedly perished when their aircraft crashed. By contrast, Generalissimo Augosto Pinochet died peacefully in his sleep, at age 94, surrounded by his family, in a Santiago hospital. The death of Richard Nixon, at a respectable age 81, was celebrated by an impressive public memorial service, paid for by American taxpayers, and attended by world dignitaries, including all five living American presidents. As for our CIA chiefs: Richard Helms lived to a ripe old 89 years of age; John Schlesinger, to 85 years of age; and William Colby, to a less ripe but still respectable 76 years of age. And George Herbert Walker Bush is still going strong, God bless him, at age 95, along with Henry Kissinger, who at an impressive 94 years of age, is hale, hearty, happy, honored – and rich (although he is leery of traveling abroad lest he encounter a silly government or two that just won’t let bygones be bygones).
Here is a link to a moving article from the New Statesman, written in 1974, only a year after the Chilean coup, by Nobel Prize-winning author Gabriel García Márquez. . Although Marquez’s article is a devastating exposé of the U.S. Government’s shameful and illegal complicity in the coup, and its many acts of torture and murder, Marquez did not have access to the mountain of additional incriminating evidence that surfaced later, bit by bit, during the next three decades, which painted an even more shameful picture.
Perhaps the oddest piece of that later incriminating evidence was the CIA’s own public confession of its role in the Chilean coup, embodied in a Special Report, declassified and extracted from the agency with great effort by Congress, in 2000. However, even in this 27-years-too-late confession, the CIA seemed to place most if not all of the blame on Nixon and Kissinger (who certainly deserved their share). And even more bizarrely — in light of their very own disclosures to the contrary – the agency concluded its Report by refusing to admit to any abuses or cover-up by CIA agents.
It should be noted that, even now, 44 years later, the United States has still not made a public apology to the Chilean people for the decades of undeserved misery, torture and death it caused them. (Not surprising, since it hasn’t apologized to the Iranian people, either, for the decades of misery, torture and death it caused them when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953; or apologized to the Guatemalan people for overthrowing the democratically elected government of Jacobo Árbenz in 1954; or – well, I’ll stop there, since the full list of U.S.-fomented and/or -implemented coups d’état would probably exceed Counterpunch’s word-count limit on article size.)
So by all means — let us remember the thousands of innocents who died in the United States on 9/11/2001, and why they died. But let us also remember the thousands of innocents who died in Chile, after 9/11/1973 — and not only why they died, but whose country was responsible for those deaths.

Beyond the Class Ceiling: Education and Upward Social Mobility

PASCAL BLACKFOOT

One of the major differences between working and middle to upper-class parents, when it comes to their children’s education, and specifically how to best maximize their chances at upward social mobility, is that the former – in America, especially, since this nation pretty much purged its radical Left long ago – essentially believe that they ought to control their children’s behaviors and actions directly; the belief being that one is determined primarily by one’s actions (e.g. “to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps”) – often the jurisdiction of authoritarian Dads, or Moms. Whereas the latter (i.e. middle to upper-class parents, also known globally as the “Bourgeois”), although they superficially agree rhetorically with the former that one is determined by one’s actions (as the very legitimacy and persistence of their class privileges partly rests on this social belief – meritocracy! –), actually know, deep down, that one is primarily determined by one’s environment – considering many of them inherited a substantial part, if not all, of their start-up economic, and even cultural and social capital (connections) – and that therefore the key is to provide the right environment to shape the individual, as opposed to trying to control their actions directly.
Hence, Bourgeois parents, unlike their working-class counterparts, deliberately align the proper “determinisms” by actively controlling and shaping their kids’ environment. For example, by making surethat their kids attend to the right – private, preferably prep – schools, learn the right foreign languages early (in America: French, and increasingly nowadays Mandarin; while in Europe: English, German and French), take the right classes (AP in high-school), partake in the right activities early-on (ex: piano, tennis, golf, sailing, horseback riding, dance, ballet, etc. – not Brazilian Jujitsu! –), hang out with the right kids from so-called “good” families, are exposed to the right stimuli, such as:  the right books, the right toys, the right clothes, the right words, the right ideas, the right tutors, the right learning methods (analytical, ahead of so-called “global” or memorization-based ones; ex: for reading, phonics over “sight words”), often the ability to think and talk relatively independently – executive functions! –, rather than rigorous obedience and conformity, or adherence to some “lowest-common denominator” manufactured dreams (like some commodity cults, devotion to “Jesus”, playing the lottery, …), little or no screen-based media, etc. An entire carefully selectedclass-based sociocultural environment, largely concomitant with their chosen place of residence, in the right neighborhoods!  For the wealthy, the idea is to systematically transmit their class habitus – succinctly: internalized psychological and kinesthetic predispositions shaped by a specific class environment, i.e. the incorporation of the experience of class – (*), which of course comes naturally to them, but is obviously a much more difficult, and even risky proposition, particularly for aspiring members of the lower-middle class (and I don’t mean objectively, considering what they own, but rather who the parents are and where they come from culturally and psychologically, class habitus-wise) who typically lack the right “codes”, and often have overly rigid and caricatural ideas as to what those might be. As a result, working and lower-middle class kids frequently get “stopped” by their peers, or by some other gatekeepers – including some teachers! –, if they have the misfortune of making it far enough to hang out with what Pierre Bourdieu called the “Heritiers” (the inheritors). I guess one might call this the class ceiling.
And often, the psychological and/or physical pressure – physical intimidation, if not beatings, are not unheard of – exerted by working, and more often lower-middle class parents on their kids for them to succeed, as well as conform to ill-perceived upper-class cultural norms – or “codes” – is so greatlongstandinginsidious and pervasive, that the child, or more likely by that time teen, winds up seeing it for what it is:  his parents’ unbridled status ambition and implicit class-bound shame, through the reckless, if at times ruthlessinstrumentalization and denial of his or her authentic self, producing a feeling of alienation – i.e. dispossession –, since these injunctions likely went on since childhood, frequently ending in either open rebellion and/or self-destructive behavior (ex: drugs or other addiction, including video games):  the “rocket” exploding either on the launch pad, so to speak, or soon after launch, at the first setback (ex: such as getting ostracized or ridiculed by upper-class peers, or other gatekeepers, for failing to be endowed with the “correct” habitusor status markers – should he or she make it that far). I believe that in most cases, the sum of whatever may have been gained – and lost – in such a “transaction” likely results, at best, in a small upward increment: near class replication, and a lot of bitterness. The point being that upward social mobility is an inherently morally hazardousand generally slow process, over generations, despite high-profile exceptions – if it happens! –, and that it is probably best – meaning smarter –, for eager parents to temper their vicarious class ambitions, lest they be counterproductive, if not outright destructive. Who knows?  This may well be the most effective strategy for their children’s long term health and even “success”.
One of the principal ironies regarding orthodox (or even hyper-orthodox – ex: conservative “Libertarians” –), often lower-middle class parents attempting to emulate upper-class norms and culture, in the misguided hope of increasing their offspring’s chance at upward social mobility – “success” –, by turning them, often forcefully, into “good” little boys and girls, who are obedient and respectful – reverent – of political authority (i.e. of the power-structure), is that upper-class kids are, in reality, quite the opposite; being frequently self-entitled, arrogant and cynical “smart little shits”, who know – often at a gut level –, that these sort of meritocratic, slavish attitudes are for peons!  I would know, having been exposed to a fair number of them: a relative’s cohort at an elite liberal arts college, in Lakeforest, IL – one of the top 10 prep colleges in the United States (as listed in Lisa Birnbach’s The Official Preppy Handbook). By the way, contrary to what’s being pushed on the rest of the unsuspecting population, the upper-class fully appreciates the value of a Liberal Arts education (i.e. of arts and language as cultural capital) – up to a point, naturally!  These kids know, often from an early age, that the game is rigged in their favor and that there is no meritocracy, and therefore that “the system” (e.g. Calvinist ideology) is on some level a lie to be used but not to be believed, which is why they are typically cynical, often crassly so (see Jared Kushner’s – President Trump’s son-in-law’s – entrance essay to Harvard, leaked in The New Yorker). For example, their first car, in high-school, is not uncommonly a $40,000+ luxury SUV: inertial safety – read: mass and momentum as capital – and status, combined.  And usually, they are exceedingly good at understanding and using power, either overtly, or more often covertly (ex: through bluff or symbolic violence, including the use of words and pronunciation, body language, manners, etc.; basically in using the force of their inherited class habitus and “natural” self-assurance as a domination instrument) – which, I suppose, is a form of intelligence –, if for no other reason that they are typically around politically powerful – influential – people, such as their parents. However, and this should come as no surprise, they are also frequently lacking in moral intelligence, in its true philosophical – humanistic – sense, and are themselves or rapidly become, somewhat paradoxically, slavish tools of “the system” – drones, as Chris Hedges would say –, the same as most everyone else, and perhaps even more so, considering that they are so richly rewarded by it. They are, in a subjective but very real way, not free, for being so effectively and thoroughly determined by their class environment. This often leads, in time, to profound alienation (i.e. spiritual – and social – dispossession), a good example of which is what happens to the mother character in Robert Redford’s Oscar winning Ordinary People, 1980, or to the father character, at the start of the movie, in Robin Swicord’s recent Wakefield, 2016 (see also: Stephanie Land’s I spent 2 years cleaning houses. What I saw makes me never want to be rich, published in Vox).
As for the few working and more likely lower-middle class kids who somehow make it past the class ceiling, objectively realizing their parents’ wildest upward social mobility dreams, they are very often haunted by the contradictions and conflicts arising between two distinct, incorporated class habitus:  that of their original milieu, and of the one they ultimately acquired. And typically, in order to sustain the legitimacy of their newfound privileges and group belonging, they must actively suppress the former, i.e. their native class tastes, values and patterns. This is never more so evident than in the embarrassmentshame, and sometimes even contempt, these kids – now “successful” grown-ups – often feel with regards to their parents and formative class environment (both material and social); especiallyin the Anglosphere where the predominant puritan, Calvinist view is that being of a lower class, especially poor, is a reflection of one’s character, and that consequently one must somehow deserve this standing (which is the flip-side of the meritocracy myth, and a potent form of social control). This is one of the basic ironies of rapid social ascension:  the original class stigma – shame – that commonly spurred this often vicarious journey endures, if secretly, regardless. I suppose one might call this a case of “split-personality”: one essentially at war with itself (note: the “bastard-king” or “princess-housemaid” archetypes come to mind, for ex: Game of Thrones’ John Snow, or Cinderella) – incidentally, never a good omen for long-term mental and physical health! –, which is, in a way, entirely fitting, considering that the ethos of fervent class promotion is inherently a conflict-ridden and inducing – warlike – one. This is not a “Care Bears” ethos, as it does not only involve the denial of other “lesser” people’s intrinsic value, often former-class members (frequently including parents, siblings, and relatives), through the process of implicit and explicit class exclusion and domination (ex: disparities in wealth, opportunity and experience, symbolic violence, overt class contempt, etc.), but is a veritable form of self-denial in this case, as well, despite outward appearances; which is bound to leave its marks…
As we have seen, class ceilings exist not only between the working-class and the Bourgeoisie (i.e. lower-middle to upper-class), but also between the petite-Bourgeoisie (i.e. lower-middle class) and the Bourgeoisie proper (the actual middle-class). Another, somewhat more porous barrier also separates the true upper-class (our very rich), from the classes immediately below. Other obstacles also exist within classes, erected by various class fractions engaging in the struggle for supremacy. According to Bourdieu’s in depth – and often breathtaking – sociological analysis, published in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, originally released in France in 1979, and said to be one of the top 10 sociology works of the 20th century by the International Sociology Association, the various classes and class fractions are determined not only by the amount, but also by the relative distribution of their economic and cultural – learned – capital, as well as, to a somewhat lesser extent, by their social capital (social connections); the various types of cultural capital possessed (e.g. arts, literature and philosophy, human sciences, science and technology, or economics and politics) often playing a decisive role in how the inter and inner-class game of social domination is played. In other words, this is not a one-dimensional “game”, one presumably based on economic capital alone, as most Americans are culturally predisposed to believe, but a multi-dimensional one, reflecting the fact that there is more than one way to dominate, or to define and justify a social hierarchy (knowledge being one of them). These class walls, or “ceilings”, form redoubtable obstacles, not simply to achieving much sought-after (and in my view, overratedupward social mobility, but more importantly, to evolving a happier, saner – more equal – society: one where human development would be widely shared (as measured, for example, by the UN’s Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index).
In my opinion, and contrary to popular belief, the pursuit of happinessself-worth and realization through upward social mobility ultimately delivers none of these things. It is yet another one of those empty dreams which we are fed by the ambient capitalist, consumerist environment – probably the most seductive and widespread: a “fake dream”, as Slavoj Zizek would put it –, and yet another form of power-structure (i.e. statusworship, which has, in the end, very little to do with most people’s true personal development, in the sense of looking inwardly to know themselves better – Know Thyself – and hopefully deriving a genuine sense of value, purpose and meaning through it, one not based on money or fame – outward “success” –, and which therefore could not easily be lost or taken away, and everything to do with serving the interests of those very few at the top, while ironically hoping to themselves be served. Hence the trope: “getting the success one deserves” – or, more likely, not.

Rohingya and the Myth of Buddhist Tolerance

M. REZA PIRBHAI

When old and young are systematically rounded up and shot. When women are gang raped and their babies thrown into waterways to drown. When their homes and businesses are burned. When all the atrocities of ethnic cleansing are plain to see, international law leaps into action. Global bodies and their constituent states work to simultaneously put an end to the atrocities, provide refuge for survivors and bring perpetrators to book, no matter the identity of the offender or the victim. Or so we are told. For as the on-going slaughter and displacement of Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslims reveals, international law is not so blind.
Since their citizenship rights have been progressively revoked between the 1940s and ‘80s, thousands of Rohingya men, women and children have been subjected to murder and rape, their villages have been raised to the ground and more than a million have fled to neighboring countries without much protest from the world beyond. Even the UN’s late attempts to investigate the most recent barbarities have fallen short of constituting a full Commission of Inquiry and independent investigators have been blocked from entering Myanmar by the Buddhist-led government of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung Sang Suu Kyi. “Just imagine, for a minute,” Columbia University’s Hamid Dabashi urges in a recent article, “if it were Jews or Christians, or else the ‘peaceful Buddhists,’ who were the subjects of Muslim persecutions.” Given the attention Muslim violence ceaselessly garners, the reason behind the apparent lack of outrage to protect the Rohingya is clear to him: “Something in the liberal fabric of Euro-American imagination is cancerously callous. It does not see Muslims as complete human beings.”
Even when one acknowledges that Muslim Bangladesh (where about 500,000 Rohingya have sought refuge) has long sought to prevent their “infiltration,” Dabashi’s point hits home. According to the UNHCR, ordinary Bangladeshis have opened their villages and towns to the latest influx of Rohingya refugees, providing food, clothing and shelter. And even the state’s seemingly cold-hearted actions only reflect Bangladesh’s inability to accommodate its Rohingya co-religionists without international support, which is clearly not forthcoming. Furthermore, various Muslim-majority governments, as well as the Organization of Islamic Conference, have begun pledging funds and voicing the deep concerns expressed by their constituencies. But is it just the dehumanization of Muslims in the Euro-American imagination that seems to be at play in their voices falling on deaf ears beyond? What of the contrasting image of ‘peaceful Buddhists’?
Academia is in fact rife with examples of scholarship that touts the tolerance and inclusiveness of Buddhists and the general argument is nothing new. According to Thomas A. Tweed, Professor of History at Notre Dame University, increasing awareness of religious diversity due to colonial expansion and Christian missionizing led Euro-American Enlightenment intellectuals repelled by Christian sectarianism to consider Buddhism to fit the bill of the “natural religion” (or “perennial philosophy”) they sought, one that exuded “tolerance” toward people of different faiths and was amenable to scientific progress. So convinced were they that some, such as the nineteenth century German-American scholar Paul Carus, even chastised Asian Buddhists when they launched polemical assaults on Christian missionaries, accusing the Asians of using language the “Buddha certainly would not…” So was born the pervasive myth, characteristically articulated by the early twentieth century Swedish-American Theosophist Herman Vetterling, that Buddhism is “a religion of noble tolerance, of universal brotherhood, of righteousness and justice,” and that in its growth as the religion of a global community it had not “caused the spilling of a drop of blood.”
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Michael Jerryson, picks up where Tweed signs off to show that the tendency to associate Buddhism with tolerance did not die in the early twentieth century or remain bound in an ivory tower. In the wake of World War II, it found its way into the writings of Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, marching further forward in time with such works as Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and by the 1980s assumed political dimensions in the form of the Free Tibet Movement. And finally, who can forget (even if you want to) Keanu Reeves in Bernardo Bertolucci’s Little Buddha.
Social history, however, tells a different tale than Orientalists and popular culture. For every instance of forbearance, history also provides examples of violent intolerance legitimated by Buddhist doctrines and conducted by practitioners. As many ancient Jain and Brahmanical texts speak of persecution at the hands of Indian Buddhists, as Buddhists accuse their South Asian competitors of the same. And consider Jerryson’s examples of the sixth century Chinese Buddhist monk Faqing, who promised his 50,000 followers that every opponent they killed would take them to a higher stage in the bodhisattva’s path. Or recall that with the advent of nationalism, Buddhist monks rallied to the cause as with Japanese Rinzai support for the military campaign against the Russians in 1904-5, or Zen and Pureland Buddhist justifications of the Japanese invasions of China, Korea and Singapore during World War II. Buddhism has been corrupted in these places, they argued, and violence is necessary to insure that ‘true’ Buddhism is restored and preserved. The same rhetoric – of some fundamental Buddhism under threat – also underwrites the more recently nationalized bigotry and violence that Buddhist monks and laypersons have unleashed on non-Buddhists in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and, last but not least, Myanmar.
“No religion has a monopoly on ‘violent people’,” Jerryson astutely concludes, “nor does any one religion have a greater propensity for violence.” All religions are vast complexes of thought and institutions and devotees of each can always find legitimacy for hostility or hospitality toward the other depending on mundane needs or wants. It is for this very reason that the apparent disconnect between historical Buddhism and the sustained Euro-American myth of its tolerance is as malignant as the perpetual dehumanization of Islam and Muslims is cancerous. These Buddhists have long been the good guys and those Muslims the bad in this lore. Each is a necessary fiber in the liberal fabric of Euro-American imagination that veils the gaze of international law when it comes to the murder and displacement of the Rohingya.