For the record, I liked The Human War. But not this.
Noah Cicero published this "thought" or "essay" on Thoughtcatalog.com <http://thoughtcatalog.com/2010/beatniks-and-the-roots-of-hipsters/>.
I agree, somewhat, with this: "The modern hipster paradigm is that joining the military is lame. That the military is for non-artistic people who have no sense of irony. The modern hipster also believes that Christianity isn’t something to be taken seriously. The modern hipster has no religion, it just lives on this planet walking around aimlessly keeping themselves busy with work and artistic projects."
I, personally, don't think that the military is full of non-artistic people. As far as I am concerned, if a human being wants to be creative, he/she can be creative anywhere on this earth, doing anything at all; every moment in existence is a creative opportunity.
But I also know that military service can take away a certain element and instill another element in a human being.
For example, South Korean men who paid their military service dues come out saying how agonizing it was, but always conclude that "a man must serve at the military...." If their wives ask them, "Why?" They just say, "...A man must serve at the military." They don't have an answer. They just know that they suffered physical and mental pain that they wouldn't have suffered elsewhere or at any other point in their lives and this suffering has a unifying force among Korean men. They just know that they've experienced something that has turned them into the conventional idea of what makes "a man" in South Korea. All men in South Korea are required to serve in the Korean army unless they are exempt for whatever reason (mentally "inept," bribed out by rich parents, whatever). So, basically, every man in South Korea is soldier. If the North invades again (or the other way around), every man in South Korea will be drafted.
I digressed for a moment, but this all has a point. I refer to this example time and time again because I love this example: I saw a movie at two film festivals during my stay in South Korea. I saw it the first time right around this time of the year at the Pusan International Film Festival (PIFF), and the second time around at the International Women's Film Festival in Seoul (IWFFIS). The film is called "Viewfinder." There is a monologue that basically says that although a Korean man and a Japanese man are basically the same entity, what sets them drastically apart and makes them fundamentally different is that a Korean man's imagination is limited, whereas a Japanese man's imagination is boundless.
What the speaker is saying here is that because a Korean man has experienced the pains of military service and has been trained to kill people, he is forever anchored to the earth and reality; if he wishes to take off into his mind somehow, he's unable to let go of himself completely and explore deep realms because his imagination is stifled by the memory of a certain pain that he's experienced, the kind of pain that is permanently etched in him. The speaker further notes that a Japanese man is "always prepared" to dive into the realm of imagination. The speaker envies the Japanese man for this, who has replaced the speaker's animation position when he was fired.
So when Cicero says that the military is for non-artistic people, there is some truth to that, but I think it should be clarified: The military wouldn't be the ideal place for anybody, because it'll stifle if not completely dry up imagination and the spirit of creativity. But the fact of the matter is, there are plenty of places outside of the military that can cause the same damage, for instance a cubicle at the DMV. Another person that might debunk this idea that "the military is for non-artistic" is Tim O'Brien, the author of The Things They Carried. I, personally, loved that book. I haven't read anything else of his. O'Brien fought in the Vietnam war, but he is artistic.
The paragraph that follows the one up there is the one I really have an issue with: "This is why there are so many Asian hipsters: in general Asian-Americans do not join the U.S. Military, care about American politics, the history of America or the Christian religion. They believe in serial monogamy because they haven’t had the Christian tradition slammed down their throats for 2,000 years like the Europeans have. The Asian-American grows up on the American landscape and seeks out other people with similar beliefs and they find the hipsters, who have similar value structures. And since hipsters are not xenophobic like many people in America, becoming a hipster is a viable option for an Asian."
I am fully aware that Cicero starts out the sentence about Asians with "in general," but that's precisely the problem here. One should never generalize because it'll create problems. For one thing, I know four Korean-Americans who have or are still serving the U.S. military. They had their reasons for joining the Army or the Marines although I am completely against the idea. Do I consider them the "artistic" types? Not really. One of them, maybe. But honestly, who am I to say that a person is or is not an artist? If one of them stood in a Kuwait desert and drew a smiley face in the sand and said, "Look: I'm an artist," who's to say that that person isn't one?
I also have an issue with Cicero claiming that Asians do not care about American politics, American history, or the Christian religion. The last bit is the craziest one, but I'll address the first two:
As a Korean-American (or an Asian-American or even just ASIAN, if you want to be general like Cicero), I care about American politics to some extent. (In what way? Or, to what extent?) I care enough to vote for Obama...? I care enough to have gone to Korea to research modern Korean literature on a U.S. government funded grant in order to cite and illustrate the open-minded Korean intellectuals of the early 1900s to show educators of this generation that South Korea was not xenophobic, racist, and pure-blooded national identity obsessed a century ago as it is today, and that we should utilize ideas given by Derrida to debunk the illusion of a pure-blood nation and promote diversity to allow South Korea to become as diverse like the U.S. (does this idea promote U.S. cultural imperialism in Korea?--no, because I think striving for diversity should be the goal of every nation--hurray for world peace), even though a lot of obstacles lie ahead. So that's my political bit. Another thing: It is impossible for Korean-Americans to not feel the slightest bit political. Hello? North Korea? South Korea? The U.S.'s involvement? Um...
I was told that Fulbright scholars are "cultural ambassadors," but that's really just a joke. Anybody can be a "cultural ambassador," are you kidding me? Just hop a plane and go to another country. There. You have culturally "ambassed" the hell out of another country.
Now the bit on American history... As a Korean-American, I sort of did not fit the stereotype of a good-at-math-Asian. I was terrible at math, and because I was so terrible at it, I never paid attention in class and really did horribly in math all four years of high school and for a year of it in college. But I kicked ass in my AP US history class. I passed the AP exam. And my APUSH teacher adored me. Actually, the entire Pearl River High history department and all its faculty adored me. I know another Korean-American attending Rutgers University right now who is majoring in American history. I don't see why she would pay money to go to college and spend four years of her life studying a subject that she doesn't care about. And she's Asian...
Now for the most hilarious bit: Asians not caring about Christianity? WOW. We Asians, if anything, have no one but the U.S. for making us the most Christian ethnicity on this planet.
My dad is a deacon at a Presbyterian church. My mother carried me to church in her belly for nine months. After I was born, I was taken to church every single Sunday of my life until age 18, when I was able to make my own decisions. I left church at 18, but I returned at age 20, then left again at age 21. I haven't returned since and am now an atheist (more or less), but that isn't my point here.
About 99.9% of my Asian-American friends are Christians. About 12% of their parents are either elders at a church if not pastors.
The history of Christianity permeating all of Asia is incredibly complex and varied (because ASIA is actually many different countries, given that it is a continent), but I'll just focus on what I know: Korea and Christianity.
American and European Christians have been going to Korea as early as the 1800s to evangelize. By the early 1900s, when Korea was trying to catch up to Japan and China's state of modernization (a.k.a. Westernization), they were eager to learn English, Japanese (a colonial vehicle to an even greater form of cultural imperialism--the West's) and soak in Western culture, which meant adopting their religion as well.
Schools such as Yonsei University and Ewha Women's University are founded by Christians.These schools were established over a hundred years ago. Are there Korean Christians today? Jesus Christ. Both Korea and the U.S. are teeming with Korean Christians. There are so many fucking Korean churches on this earth, it's not even funny.
In fact, a couple years ago, I saw statistics on the percentage of missionaries coming from which nations. The U.S. leads. The second nation that has the most missionaries in the world is... South Korea.
I think South Korea has like 48 or 49 million people in it or something. The number is dropping every year because people don't want to have babies and are more career-oriented these days. (Novelist Kim Young-ha is one of them.)
Do Korean-Americans not care about U.S. politics, U.S. history, or Christianity? Wow. That's the most insane thing I've ever heard. Especially the bit about Christianity.
I've seen more zealous Christians who are Asian in my life than those who are non-Asian. Could that be because I've been raised by Asians among Asians most of my life? Sure. But that doesn't make Cicero's statement any less absurd.
A lot of my female Asian-American friends are well into their twenties, and a lot of the single ones are still virgins. Would I consider some, if not most of my Korean-American friends xenophobic? Absolutely. They grew up with Korean-American Christians all their lives, so their Christian value of chastity and their Korean upbringing (by Korean immigrant parents raised in the 50s & 60s, who saw Park Chung-hee as President--the most racist, most nationalistic people ever) are very cherished.
So do I think that they believe in "serial monogamy"? Hell. No. Only monogamy. In marriage, and a holy matrimony at that. I don't mean like City Hall signing papers kind of thing. I mean pastors, blessings, the whole fucking shebang.
Europeans are less susceptible to being a hipster than Asians because Europeans have a long-standing relationship with the religion whereas Asia does not? C'mon.
Asia does have religions. Hinduism. Buddhism. Shinto. There are more that I'm not aware of, but those three are pretty fucking huge. If the "modern hipster" isn't a Christian, but claims to be Buddhist, would that person not be considered a hipster anymore? I mean, I don't get it. Ginsberg was really into Buddhism... Whitman wrote Leaves of Grass while reading Hindu texts. ... I really don't get it. And it's not fair to say that "Buddhism isn't a religion; it is a way of life." That's really not a valid argument because Christians can say the same thing.
Do religions from Asia not count as religions, therefore, would that allow the transition into becoming a "modern hipster" be a lot easier...? ...Yikes.
How absurd...
Now, I sort of fit the first paragraph's description on what makes a "modern hipster," in that I am not a Christian, and I just "[live] on this planet walking around aimlessly keeping [myself] busy with work and artistic projects." Yeah, I do that. But would I call myself a "modern hipster"? No.
Can others call themselves that? Sure.
There were just... so many things wrong with this essay, now that I think about it.
I liked Cicero's The Human War. I still like him as a writer. But I do not agree with this piece at all. I don't even see why it is necessary. I don't think it was very well thought out. No, I don't think it was thought out enough, and I don't think the points were very strong. Just irritating because they weren't true, which is why I had to write this response, given that there are many readers and followers of him.
No comments:
Post a Comment