The Keys To Happiness

    In Eric Weiner’s, The Geography of Bliss, it is evident that there are many different paths to happiness. Happiness is an abstract term, which is greatly dependent on the individual. The subjectivity of the term allows for different interpretations of what happiness is: one person’s happiness is another’s misery; one person’s pain is another person’s triumph. Many would argue that there is basic formula for happiness that consists of: economic stability, security, and love. Where you live also plays a big a role to your happiness, as location is often conducive to certain factors. Despite the fact it is nearly impossible to quantify happiness, because happiness is temporary and the level of my happiness changes daily, I would give my happiness score a six. I would give my happiness a score of six because although I am in agreement with others that financial and physical security are essential to happiness, I believe that where I have lived has imbued the importance of perspective and balance as being factors paramount to happiness.

     There’s no getting around it, money matters. Money motivates us, it governs our actions, money makes us do things we thought we’d never do, and money, whether we like it or nor, contributes to our happiness. Although money it is important in order to buy the certain necessities that one needs in order to live a comfortable life, I believe that too much money and striving to attain too much money can often lead to ruin and that is why balance is crucial. When Weiner travels to Qatar to search for what makes people happy, he find a materialistic society in which wealth governs happiness, which returns us to the age old question that Weiner brings up, “If money can buy happiness, or at least rent it for a while, then surely Qatar, by some measures the wealthiest country in the world, must also be the happiest” (Weiner 97). Through Qatar’s great leaps in infrastructure and economic growth, they have been able to create a city from the sand, in which they try to compensate for the lack of culture by building malls, five star hotels, and attractions like the Grand Prix. When alluding to a “ridiculously expensive pen” that he received in Qatar but lost in London, he answers the question if wealth can buy happiness, “its joys were illusionary, a mirage in the desert” (140). I believe that I have been able to avoid, for the most part, wealth governing my happiness is because I have realized from the current economic conditions that it can all be taken away from you in an instant. You may be driving a Maserati one day but you can easily be driving a taxi cab another and that is why balance in any endeavor is essential to happiness.

    I often take heed in the idea that there is no pleasure without pain and accordingly there can be no happiness without some sort of misery or what I like to call perspective. Being of Indian descent and traveling to India yearly, I can tell you that one thing that India does not have a paucity of is perspective. As Weiner points out, “If you want to know India, just stand on a street corner, and spin 360 degrees. You will see it all. The best and worst of humanity” (297).  I find that whenever I return from trips to India I am a happier person. I appreciate things at home that would not normally make me happy but they do: the cleanliness, the absence of deadlock traffic, and the more moderate climate. I love India and going back yearly but even after two weeks I can get tired of small imperfections. Similarly to Weiner I feel the same contradiction every time I about to depart from the New Delhi airport, “I am relieved to be leaving this craziness behind. I want to stay” (306).

    Location can also play a large role in determining one’s happiness. As Weiner points out, if one were to live in an obscure country like Moldova, their chances of being happy would be significantly lower than if that person lived in Qatar or Bhutan because different societies are more likely to have certain aspects more. For example, Bhutan definitely has more of a spiritual society than that of Qatar and the chances of being wealthy were to be far greater if one lived in Qatar rather than Bhutan. Although there can be many different factors that can determine happiness, I believe that the most important qualities are perspective and balance. Finding a middle state of life is very important in which rather than strenuously attaining a goal you live a balanced life in which you can experience multiple aspects of life.   

South Africa: The Power of the World Cup

           Every four years, the world convenes on a chosen city to witness one of the most celebrated and popular events: the World Cup. This summer I had the opportunity to travel to South Africa to witness this momentous occasion that brings people together, nations closer, and the world on the heels of its feet. As the world descended upon South Africa, the social and economic implications proved to be very important for a country that is trying to prove its progress since its deplorable past of Apartheid. Although many view the World Cup as an exciting event in which nations just compete for soccer superiority, its importance lies in the fact that it has the power to bring people from all over the world together and that it can significantly bolster a nation’s economy.

            Tourism can often serve as the best form of foreign relations. As the excerpt “The Ugly American” states regarding Franco-American relations Post World War II, “ tourist-class airfare inspired optimism for the future of U.S. relations with the Western Europe” (The Ugly American 1). Just as tourism between France and America was important for Franco-American relations, tourism between South Africa and the world helped people to unite to bring different nationalities together. Thirty-two nations compete in the World Cup, but over thirty-two different cultures and nationalities traveled to South Africa. Walking in Cape Town, it is not hard to notice the different ethnicities walking on the streets. Spaniards, Germans, Britons, Americans, Indians, Chinese, Dutch, and an eclectic mix of people take over Cape Town and invade its restaurants, shops, and hotels. The World Cup has the power to unite people from all over the world over one common similarity: their love for soccer. It is incumbent for one to always remain respectful of other nationalities, because you never know who you are sharing an elevator ride with, you never know who is sitting by table adjacent to yours, and you never know when a mob of a certain team marches by. One event that best exemplifies this notion of unification among many different people is when the Dutch beat Uruguay during the semi-finals in Cape Town. After the Dutch won, the city had exploded and all you could hear were loud vuvuzelas and Dutch victory chants. After the game, my brother and I had meandered to the waterside to observe the festivities. Once we had arrived, I not only saw the Dutch celebrate their win, but I saw South Africans, Britons, Americans, and other Europeans join in their celebration. It seemed that all of Cape Town had come together in order to not revel in Holland’s victory, but to celebrate the World Cup itself. It was events like these that contributed to my belief that the World Cup may be the best form of foreign relations.

            The World Cup not only shows us how tourism can lead to social respect and harmony, but it also shows us how tourism can significantly impact a nation’s economy. According to the novel Hosts and Guests, “The major stimulus for the development of tourism is economic” (Hosts and Guests 6). The World Cup serves as an effective tool to increase tourism, which benefits the economy by being a “valuable foreign exchange”, in which people can buy goods and other services and by benefitting “local businesses that are not tourism related” (Hosts and Guests 6). It did not take an economic researcher to realize the positive effects the World Cup was having on South Africa’s economy: all the flights coming into South Africa were booked, all hotels were full, shops were always busy, and the flow of foreigners into businesses districts and market places never stopped. Not only did the World Cup trigger an economic stimulus in the form of tourists, but it also created a great deal of jobs and expedited government investment in infrastructure: new airports were built, soccer stadiums were constructed from barren land, and a host of other building projects were initiated.

            Tourism can lead to many different positive impacts for a country. This summer’s World Cup proved to be a powerful medium in combining social harmony and economic growth. Tourism offers a useful outlet in which people from different backgrounds can meet each other and bond over a common theme. In this case, soccer proved to be a useful tool in bringing people together as it was ordinary to see sights such as a Dutch man hung someone who is Japanese after Holland’s semi-finals victory or to see a fan from a different country rejoice in another country’s triumph. The most powerful impact of tourism, however, is its ability to rejuvenate a nation’s economy, and through the World Cup, South Africa’s economy greatly benefitted through the capital spent by tourists and the government. 

Challenges to the Vitality of the "American Dream"

            Many people illegally flock to our nation to achieve the “American Dream”. This dream means a lot of different things to people but all would argue in the most basic sense it means to achieve safety from persecution, achieve greater economic security, and to be able to have equal opportunities and freedoms no matter what your social status and background is. They will cross borders, climb fences, and pursue any means necessary to execute their goal of coming to the States. In response to the great deal of illegal’s coming to America to achieve their “American Dream”, the Arizona legislature has passed Senate Bill 1070 that has proven to be the broadest and strongest immigration law in the country, causing a great deal of upheaval domestically and internationally. Supporters of the bill have argued that the law is necessary in order to protect economic and social interests of Arizona residents. The law has also been under fire for its broad powers that may lead to discriminatory practices such as racial profiling. The vitality of the “American Dream” continues to be as vibrant as ever and although it is important to establish comprehensive immigration reform and to combat illegal immigration, the means as to how we accomplish this goal must be done in a respectful and civilized way. 

            Under Senate Bill 1070, police officers in Arizona will be able to detain anyone who is suspect of being in the country without authorization. The bill also makes it a crime to not carry immigration papers and allows citizens to sue their government if the law is not implemented. Many have argued that a law to this is extent is necessary in order to ensure the safety of Arizona residents and to protect their economic interests, but in essence its more of a protection of a way of life that people feel has come under threat from a foreign influence. Many Arizona residents feel that their “American” life style, ideals, and values have been challenged by this sudden influx of illegal immigration.

           

            An immigration policy is needed that will limit the number of illegal aliens. A nation must have secure borders that protect its citizens, but we must also secure our borders in a way that does discriminate and treat others harshly. It would be in our best interest to protect the “American Dream” as it allows for mobility on the social and economic ladder for legal and illegal residents alike. The “American Dream” not only draws millions of people to our country, but it also draws foreign capital, trade, and businesses that benefit our country and hard working American citizens. If it were not for the notion of the “American Dream”, I would probably not be here today. It would be incumbent for us to always treat other ethnicities and cultures with the utmost respect, as we do not want to deter the immigration of hard-working, intelligent people that can contribute to our country in meaningful ways. We do not want the United States to be known as the nation that allows forms of racism and racial profiling to exist, we want to be known as the nation that practices forms of equality in the greatest sense and does not place unfair judgments on people.

            America has a reputation of being the world’s melting pot. If you go to any city, you will see an eclectic mix of cultures: Chinese, Indians, Arabs, and Hispanics. Even many Americans can trace their lineage to European ancestry so, in a sense, were a country made up of immigrants. Our families before us came here for the same reasons, whether it was escaping a form of religious persecution or going to find economic opportunities, we all came her for that same “American Dream” that has drawn so many illegal immigrants here. Although there must be measures to protect our borders, businesses, and way of life that all people, no matter what background, cherish, we must accomplish these goals in a respectful manner. The Arizona Immigration law is in fact everything that America stands against: discrimination, harsh treatment towards people, and inequality. Contrary to what some people may believe right now in light of the Arizona Immigration law, the  “American Dream” does still exist and is as vibrant as ever. We must strive to protect this dream at any cost and realize that we must be known as a nation that does not place unfair prejudices on any different cultures, ethnicities, or nationalities.  

The Displaced Person’s Diaspora

      The film The Long Way Home describes the plight of Jews during the Second World War and all of the challenges they endured during the reign of the Nazis and post World War II. In the film, many Jews are referred to as displaced persons. This notion of a displaced person often refers to someone who is forced to leave his or her home, has no home to go back to, and has no alternative place to go. Jews suffered the consequences of being categorized under this category as they had no where to go after the war: they could not return to their homes as there was too much ruin and nothing left, only a few could return to their holy land of Israel, and the United States and many other countries were limiting the number of Jewish migrants. This story of forced migration is one of the most tragic in human history but it is not unique. Many nations have had to endure the same fate such as India and Pakistan during the partition of 1947. Although there are many similarities between the forced migrations of Jews and Indian’s during the mid 20^th century, they are different in that Indians had a home to go back to whereas Jews had to fight to obtain their home.  

     There are many striking similarities between Jewish migration to Israel and Indian immigration from Pakistan during Partition. The British both played very large roles in inhibiting and allowing migration for both Indians and Jews as India and Palestine were both colonial possessions. In the case for the Jewish people, the British government did not allow Jews to travel to Palestine after the Second World War, fearing that were would be a violent backlash among Palestine’s residents. After World War II, the British began to let go of its colonial possessions and they soon drew up borders of what would be known as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Hindus from Pakistan traveled back to India as many Muslims from India traveled to both Pakistan and Bangladesh. All of these migrations triggered violent backlashes. In Palestine, Jewish resistance fighters blew up buildings and British government and army buildings. During partition, violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims broke out in various cities as both religions fought for areas they deemed to be their home. Both Jews and Indians encountered violence and aggression when they attempted to go back home but it did not deter them from establishing their homes.

      The Indian migration differed from that of the Jewish migration because Hindus had a homeland to go to while Jews worked to establish a homeland of their own through the United Nations. After World War II, there was great debate and upheaval as to how best deal with Jews left “displaced” after World War II. Many were held in camps resembling those of Nazi prison camps in order to protect them and others, many who were captured fleeing to Palestine were housed in Cyprus, and there were also some who fled to the United States. Jewish resistance leaders had to fight tooth and nail to establish a home for themselves through the United Nations by means of a member vote. This differs from what Indians living in Pakistan had to endure because their problem was not where to go but rather how to come to terms with leaving all their possessions, businesses, and personal finances to flee to India to escape death and violence. While Jews voluntarily wanted to go back to Palestine, many Indians living in Pakistan were financially successful and resented the fact that although they had a home to go back to, they would be leaving behind their lives work behind.

     Home is a place of comfort to many but above all it’s a place of security. In both the plight of the Jewish and Indian people, their sense of security was taken away from them and they had to flee to safer and more secure areas. While Jews had to fight to establish a homeland and voluntarily wanted to go to Palestine, many Indians were forced to go back to India. Although it may have been tough to come to terms of leaving one’s home and all possessions behind, ultimately both people both felt that going back to their place of origin would be more beneficial. 

The Sun Never Sets on the Google Empire

The Sun Never Sets on the Google Empire

To some extent, everyone has felt the effects of colonialism on his or her own life. Whether it is economically or otherwise, the pros and cons of colonialism have been seen all over the world. Being from India, I have been subject to not only colonialism of the British rule but I have now witnessed the colonization of India by foreign technology and manufacturing companies. Corporate colonialism has affected many developing countries and has produced many positive and negative effects. Although many would argue that colonialism in any form is detrimental to a country’s growth because foreign entities influence the government in power, I believe that colonialism and corporate colonialism in India has positively affected the country economically and socially.

                       

Many countries that colonized parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America did not realize the consequences that their actions had on their respective regions, and once they had left their colonies many of the people suffered the repercussions of their rule. The British first established a dominant presence in India during the 18^th century. The British worked with local municipalities in order to establish their control over different regions. After the British rule, British created the borders of what would be India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, with the Hindus living in India and the Muslims living in Pakistan and Bangladesh. While India was more tolerant of Muslims, all Hindus living in Pakistan were to leave all their possessions in Pakistan and move to India. The next decades would be marred by border violence and religious strife between these countries. There are still tensions between India and Pakistan in the disputed region of Kashmir. Going back to India every year, I have witnessed how colonialism has fragmented a country and how it has brought violence and ethnic tensions among its citizens. During one visit to India, I traveled to the Himalayan region of Ladakh. Although Ladakh is known for its beauty and diverse culture, it is also known for being close to the disputed border regions of India and Pakistan. It was not hard to notice the military presence in the small city of Ladakh. Machine gun turrets outside building, constant military envoys, and army barracks set up across the city. Being minutes away from the India-Pakistan border made me realize the devastating consequences colonialism can have on a nation. British colonialism enhanced tensions between Hindus and Muslims, which eventually lead to the creation of three different countries where there is still ongoing hostility and violence today.

Although the British have left India, a new type of colonialism has taken over India: Corporate colonialism. Instead of the British or Portuguese coming, Google, Microsoft, HP, Nike, and various manufacturing companies have put their flags into the ground in the form of factories, IT headquarters, and call centers. Although this influx of business has made India one of the fastest growing economies in the world, it worries me because going back every year it is not hard to notice the growing disparities between the haves and the have-nots. This conflicting scene makes me question my responsibility to my country in this never-ending cycle. Many companies, such as Nike, have established manufacturing headquarters in India. As a big fan of Nike products, I have never thought of how my purchases of their products might impact people back in India. I continually ask myself am I contributing to the possible exploitation of workers back in my home country. Although it is tough for me to ever know how my purchases in America or overseas might affect my countrymen, I cringe when I see a label on a piece of clothing labeled “Made in India”.

Although Colonialism and Corporate Colonialism has had detrimental effects on India, I also believe that they have greatly improved the state of affairs within India. One of the British Empire’s most lasting contributions to India is English language. When the British left India, they left behind an educated middle and upper class. Schools, businesses, and the government soon used English in their affairs. India is a very diverse country in which there are many different dialects and languages. Each state has its own language and I believe that English served as a good medium to unite the country linguistically. Corporate colonialism has positively affected India because it has helped to promote the country as an economic powerhouse, established a vibrant middle class, and has also improved infrastructure and health services, which benefit the whole population.

Colonialism in history has often been the catalyst for ethnic tensions, corruption, and violence in countries. After British rule, India was fragmented and relations between Hindus and Muslims were at its worst. The remnants of colonialism left behind greatly impacted and helped India become the economic power it is today. If the British did not leave their language or education systems behind, it is doubtful whether India would be as successful as it is today. Soon after the British left, foreign companies set up shop and established their presence in India. Although I worry about the plight of workers and whether I and others around the world contribute to their possible exploitation, I believe that the presence of foreign companies in India has allowed all classes to grow and will eventually lead to a stronger and more united India. 

Blog #2 Deconstruct Pico Iyer's Article

In Pico Iyer’s article, Why We Travel, there are many logical fallacies and cultural assumptions that are inaccurate. Although his article is called Why we travel, a more appropriate title would be Why I travel because it is very much about him and not about society in general. Instead of writing to the masses, Iyer is targeting a specific audience, that being the wealthy upper and middle class. Iyer also makes a great deal of generalizations about other cultures that are invalid. Although some parts of Iyer’s article may appeal to those travelers who are of a high socio-economic class, I believe that the majority of his article does not speak truth to the majority of people who travel domestically or overseas.

When first reading Iyer’s article, it is not hard to notice some of the places he mentions: Beijing, Mongolia, North Korea, Cuba, and Thailand. His first assumption is that people have the means to travel to all these places. Many people only travel domestically because it is too expensive to travel abroad. Iyer then goes on to say that, “I know that I travel in large part in search of hardship – both my own, which I want to feel, and others, which I need to see.” While this notion might resinate with a lot of people, many travelers do not want to be burdened with poverty, famine, and hardship. People have their own problems and usually when they go on vacation they want to relax and feel good. Iyer’s next fallacy is that he states “holidays help you appreciate your own home more.” While this may ring true for a lot of people who come from a secure background and family, many travelers go away to escape and sometimes do not want to return home.

Iyer also makes a great deal of cultural inaccuracies that are in many cases generalizations. Iyer states, “In China, after all, people will pay a whole week’s wages to eat with Colonel Sanders, and in Paris, Mickey Rourke is regarded as the greatest actor since Jerry Lewis.” If a middle or upper class person in Beijing read that statement, I believe that they would react to it with disgust and call it a very ignorant because it is after all the 21^st century and we are in the age of globalization in which a middle class person in Beijing has more in common with a middle class person from New York City rather than someone who is of a lower class in Beijing. Although there might be people in China who will pay a week’s wage to go to KFC, there are probably people in the United States who would do the same. Just as there might be people in Paris who regard Mickey Rourke as “the greatest actor since Jerry Lewis”, I’m sure there are people in Paris who strongly disagree.

Although many people can probably relate to Pico Iyer’s article, Why We Travel, because they too want to experience hardship, experience new cultures, and indulge in exotic tendancies when they travel, Iyer’s views do not hold true for all people. Iyer’s targeted audience is people who have the means to travel overseas who are typically middle to upper class. He also assumes that people are as exotic and open as he is. Many people who do have the means to travel overseas do not want to be burdened with poverty and hardship. Throughout the article, when speaking about foreign cultures, Iyer’s tone is somewhat ignorant. He assumes that all people in China look at brands, like McDonald’s, with great admiration. While some might feel this way in China, some people also might view it with great disdain. The world is getting smaller and these brands that were once strictly American are now global and far-reaching. 

Deconstruct Pico Iyer's Article

In Pico Iyer’s article, Why We Travel, there are many logical fallacies and cultural assumptions that are inaccurate. Although his article is called Why we travel, a more appropriate title would be Why I travel because it is very much about him and not about society in general. Instead of writing to the masses, Iyer is targeting a specific audience, that being the wealthy upper and middle class. Iyer also makes a great deal of generalizations about other cultures that are invalid. Although some parts of Iyer’s article may appeal to those travelers who are of a high socio-economic class, I believe that the majority of his article does not speak truth to the majority of people who travel domestically or overseas.

When first reading Iyer’s article, it is not hard to notice some of the places he mentions: Beijing, Mongolia, North Korea, Cuba, and Thailand. His first assumption is that people have the means to travel to all these places. Many people only travel domestically because it is too expensive to travel abroad. Iyer then goes on to say that, “I know that I travel in large part in search of hardship – both my own, which I want to feel, and others, which I need to see.” While this notion might resinate with a lot of people, many travelers do not want to be burdened with poverty, famine, and hardship. People have their own problems and usually when they go on vacation they want to relax and feel good. Iyer’s next fallacy is that he states “holidays help you appreciate your own home more.” While this may ring true for a lot of people who come from a secure background and family, many travelers go away to escape and sometimes do not want to return home.

Iyer also makes a great deal of cultural inaccuracies that are in many cases generalizations. Iyer states, “In China, after all, people will pay a whole week’s wages to eat with Colonel Sanders, and in Paris, Mickey Rourke is regarded as the greatest actor since Jerry Lewis.” If a middle or upper class person in Beijing read that statement, I believe that they would react to it with disgust and call it a very ignorant because it is after all the 21^st century and we are in the age of globalization in which a middle class person in Beijing has more in common with a middle class person from New York City rather than someone who is of a lower class in Beijing. Although there might be people in China who will pay a week’s wage to go to KFC, there are probably people in the United States who would do the same. Just as there might be people in Paris who regard Mickey Rourke as “the greatest actor since Jerry Lewis”, I’m sure there are people in Paris who strongly disagree.

Although many people can probably relate to Pico Iyer’s article, Why We Travel, because they too want to experience hardship, experience new cultures, and indulge in exotic tendancies when they travel, Iyer’s views do not hold true for all people. Iyer’s targeted audience is people who have the means to travel overseas who are typically middle to upper class. He also assumes that people are as exotic and open as he is. Many people who do have the means to travel overseas do not want to be burdened with poverty and hardship. Throughout the article, when speaking about foreign cultures, Iyer’s tone is somewhat ignorant. He assumes that all people in China look at brands, like McDonald’s, with great admiration. While some might feel this way in China, some people also might view it with great disdain. The world is getting smaller and these brands that were once strictly American are now global and far reaching. 

Should we have borders?

    Countries are divided by metaphorical and literal borders. Metaphorical borders can be from culture, language, and social differences. Literal borders are what divide countries, states, towns, and cities. Borders are important not only because they simply mark off territory, but also because they keep areas safe and secure. I believe that we should have borders because they keep areas secure and because they create order.

   There are many different arguments as to how to best address our border problems with Mexico and other Latin American countries. I believe large although there are large portion of people who come through and are decent human beings, I also believe that a large portion of people who come through smuggle drugs and are affiliated with various gangs. I believe that borders are necessary in situations like these because the United States has to do its best to defend against these threats.

    I also believe borders are necessary because they create order. If there were no state lines or city lines in the United States there would be chaos. To start with, how would one know where exactly one is. Borders create distinct locations so it is very easy for people to their location. Whether its dealing with building permits, taxes, gas prices, speed limits, it all depends on what part of the world you are in and how are you supposed to know where you are if there are no borders. Long before the 21st and 20th century, people had to hunt for their own food. It was a common unwritten law that you do not go into another people's territory to hunt. You hunt in your own territory. If there were not borders to tell people if they were in their territory or not there would be madness. It would be a free for all and that would result in great tension, animosity, and aggression.

    Borders are important not only for the reasons stated above, but also because they clump people of similar language, culture, and social tendencies together. I believe that this is important because people need a place where they can bond with their own countrymen. That is why people love going back to their hometown or home country all the time, they want to be with people who speak their language, share the same culture, who part take in the same religion and cultural practices.

    Although some argue that borders are exclusive and often cause more problems than solve them, I still believe borders are the best option. Even though some of the most horrific battles we have ever seen has resulted because of border issues, it is important to see the value in borders. Although there are many reasons as to why World War II started, a main reason is borders. The Germans wanted to expand their territory into Europe and create an Aryan race. This resulted in the holocaust, great loss in life, and a great deal of destruction. While some may argue that this is a reason that there should be no borders so acts like these don't reoccur, I believe that this argues that countries should have even stronger, safe, and secure borders.

In closing, I believe that borders are a necessary and integral part in daily life. They serve to secure people and keep them safe, clump people of similar backgrounds together, which helps to promote peace, and lastly they create order.