Recognition For A People Who Faded As Japan Grew

Race is always a tough subject to write about. It's difficult to illustrate a race/culture's differences because reporters have to highlight it without making the people look like they are weird.

But this article by Norimitsu Onishi by that appeared on the New York Times website (I stopped receiving the newspaper, but shall hopefully resume my service soon– i miss having the paper to hold in my hands) did neither. It didn't single out the Ainu people by fetishising a "inherently unique characteristic," but it also didn't quite fully explain how they were different from the Japanese.

Onishi led the article by describing the Ainu as a people who hunted and fished and worshipped nature for centuries before the Japanese pushed into the northernmost island that was the home of Ainu and killed the people. I mean, that's a fair and well description, until you realize that the Japanese themselves live on a big island too, which would also make them hunters and fishers too (maybe? Who knows? We certainly don't since there is no clarification of any sort). Also, how vague can "worshipping nature" be? A lot of Asian cultures do that, and I am just not sure how this would distinguish the Ainu from the Japanese.

How the author shows the differences between these two cultures (or races? I can't really tell) is very important because the point of this article is about the Japanese government finally recognizing Ainu as an indigenous people. Because if we, as foreign readers, don't understand what sets these people apart, we just leave the article thinking, "Oh, so is it like how we say black people are black?" And then (especially as Americans) we get confused as to how this isn't an acknowledgment that came sooner.

The author did put in physical descriptions, like how the Ainu people were typically of fairer skin than the Japanese and they have hirsute features (I had to look up "hirsute"– it means for a women to be as hairy as a man) He also said that the Ainu's way of life no longer exists. (If this is true, then why would an acknowledgment be a big deal– or even necessary, for that matter?)

Onishi did not say how the Ainu cuisine is different from the Japanese, how their customs and habits may vary. But they must exist, right? Or else this whole "indigenous people" announcement wouldn't have happened. Anyway, by the end of it, it just seemed like an American man saying that he is Irish, and another American man saying that he's British– the history of their heritage might be different, but they are still just white, American men.

If we look past these discrepancies, and just the politics of it, then I suppose it's pretty interesting. However, it will be hard because the whole gravitas and importance of this announcement lies on the fact that the Japanese and Ainu have had such a troubled past, and that the Japanese are finally acknowledging that they are not an ethnically homogenous nation. So without the differences, readers would just think, "Whatever, they're still basically Japanese."

And what if that wasn't true? What if these people really were as different as how Koreans and Chinese people are?

2008 Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism

I love it whenever the Pulitzer prizes for journalism is announced. This year, Washington Post leads the journalism honors, winning six awards, including in the category for International Reporting. New York Times won two awards, one of them for investigative journalism. And though the New York Times is my favorite newspaper (we all know why), I am so happy that the Chicago Tribune also received the same award, sharing it in the category of investigative journalism, for a series of articles exposing faulty governmental regulations of children's products. I absolutely adore the Chicago Tribune, for no rational reason other than that it was the newspaper that first sparked my interest in journalism. I was thirteen and living in Illinois, and I started to realize that there might be more to current events other than mandatory newspaper clippings for Social Studies.

Anyway, I do remember the series of articles written by Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker of the New York Times about medical supplies from China having counterfeit ingredients, resulting in a global poisoning. I did not follow it religiously (if you click on the Times Topics, you will see that the two have written extensively on this topic) but I do remember their articles reading like an episode of "House, M.D." That, to me, is how journalism should be: taking a subject that would be otherwise dense and boring, and turning it into a dramatic, tension-driven story. And really, isn't that how things often are? A lot of times, we dismiss the idea of reading topics like economics (rise and fall of the Czech krown, for example) or medicine (in this case, diethylene glycol) because we think that it is either over our heads or just plain boring. But once the facts are presented in a compelling manner that is, at the same time, explanatory, we learn and enjoy reading about them.

Another worthy mention is Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post who won the Pulitzer for feature writing. I remember this article making its rounds in Facebook and in forwarded emails. To be honest, I had originally thought that it might be a trite read (please look at the title)– plus, I hated the format of the Washington Post website. But once I started reading it, I absolutely could not stop. Weingarten splices a single event– which is violinist virtuoso Joshua Bell playing in the main metro station of Washington D.C. for passerbys, a la subway-performer– with anecdotes and facts that basically explore how the majority of people aren't able to recognize genius when it is in their presence. In fact, according to the experiment performed by Bell, they mostly ignore him. This article could have just been point-blank, what-I-just-said, and therefore rather superficial. However, Weingarten kept adding layers and layers of perspective to that single event, even going so far to quote Kant– which for me, personally, could have worked as either a hit or a miss. As a philosophy student, I loved it; as a journalism major, I thought it was a little hoity-toity. Anyway, I read through that article very quickly, and it just all flowed together so easily. By the end of it, I marveled at how Weingarten was able to write so extensively about a single event, and yet make it so thought-provoking.

And finally, one of my personal favorite categories is the winning photo for breaking news. Pictured above, this image was taken by Adrees Latif of Reuters. It is of a Japanese videographer wounded during a street demonstration in Myanmar, and it so perfectly captures the adrenaline. There is just so much motion in this photo. I also wonder, since no one is looking at the photographer, where Latif is in regards to the demonstrations and the chaos.

If you want to look at the previous winners of the Pulitzer, you can go to this site and click on whatever year you wish to see.

Kosovo Declares Its Independence From Serbia

Last night, while we were studying in the student lounge, someone said, "Dude, we should go to Kosovo this weekend." Why, we asked. "They have a sick flag, parties on the streets, and they love Americans."

Ten minutes later, I looked at the NYTimes website, and I realized why he had said that. The flag was indeed sick– and his words basically summed up how little mainstream American attention the Kosovo issue has received. I have only started following it recently because of a panel discussion I had attended about two weeks ago about Russia's foreign policy. One of the topics discussed (Read: argued) was about how Russia refuses to support Kosovo in its endeavors to become an independent nation from Serbia. There was a rather fiesty Russian politician present, and three other Czech government officials.

Anyway, with the article, the majority of it is background and the bloody history of the Serbs and Kosovars. I wonder how this looks from an American point of view– to pick up the paper one morning, and see on the front page that a random region in Eastern Europe has declared independence from a random country. Meanwhile, over on Europe's end, there has been endless coverage on this, with many years and months of build-up, and the United States is actually pretty involved in this play of international affairs. I feel like if I hadn't known about this before, this news would have come as a surprise, my first reaction being, "Why is this on the front page? How could this possibly be important if the Times has not reported this more aggressively before?"

I guess that says something about our international news coverage in American newspapers. But that's really another story.

Kosovo's independence has been a long time coming, and most of the Western countries (France, Britain, United States) support its secession. However, the Serbs are furious and have been terribly against this since day one, saying that Kosovo's declaration should not be recognized and that it is a "blatant breach of international law."

That quote is in almost every single article that has reported the event. But for some odd reason, no one seems to have reported on the reason as to why it is a "gross" or a "reckless" breach of international law (Seriously, google "Kosovo" and "breach of international law." Apparently, these writers were on a deadline.)

I found out from one of my professors that following the Kosovo War in 1999, the UN formally placed Kosovo under the territory of Serbia. In order to become independent, according to the treaty, Kosovo must seek a vote from the UN Security Council. However, it just circumvented the UN, and declared its independence unilaterally, which indeed makes it a violation of international law.

Why didn't any one of these articles say that in their background? That was necessary and important information.

Well, one of the reasons I figure is because many of these reports of been on the side of the Albanians in Kosovo. The majority of most sovereign EU nations support the secession of Kosovo. The only countries that don't approve of it probably have some sort of separatist issues in their own countries (like Russia with Georgia, or China with Taiwan)

However, Kosovo is considered a unique situation because ever since the treaty in 1999, after the ugly, bloodstained Kosovo War, the Serbian government has more or less ignored that region. I recently saw a film in which a politician in it declared, "We may have follow the action of the law, but we violated the spirit of the law." I guess that is indeed one way of looking at how Serbia has treated Kosovo. The previous president, Slobodan Milosevic, was a manic who has been charged with being behind the massacres of ethnic Albanians during the Kosovo War.

The news reports are also not saying why exactly is Serbia so pissed about losing that region. Sure, there is a definite reduction of power, and it is a pride issue as well, but a lot of Serbians feel that by losing Kosovo, they are paying for the crimes of Milosevic. Kosovo is also a cultural hotspot, in the sense that it is the cradle of the Serbian Orthodox Church since the Battle of Kosovo in the 14th century. So Kosovo is a part of Serbia's historical identity.

Last year, when Kosovo was in negotiations with the UN to become its own country, the United States had said that in the event that it should happen, the United States will indeed recognize its sovereignty. The Russia panelist at the panel discussion had said that it was unfair of the U.S. to say that before anything was resolved. Here you have some officials in a room trying to draft out an agreement and a compromise, and then a super power like the U.S. comes along and just pushes whatever plans that a party might have, and says, "I will indeed side with this party." In that way, negotiations are over- there is basically nothing else that can be said, because how could the other side be taken seriously now?

In the following hours since the declaration, there have been reports on which countries support the secession, and which countries refuse to recognize it.

One of the reasons that the U.S. will back Kosovo is in this article, but Dan Bilefsky, the writer, did a very crafty job of putting it in neutral terms. He wrote in one paragraph, "Kosovo, a desperately poor, predominantly Muslim landlocked territory of two million, has been a United Nations protectorate since 1999..." and then in another paragraph, "...revelers unfurled giant American flags, carried posters of former President Bill Clinton and chanted, “Thank you, U.S.A.” and “God bless America.'"

Kosovo is a predominantly Muslim state, and on TV and in the newspapers, there are pictures of American flags waving triumphantly! It not only shows the U.S. as being a big brother to a country that seeks independence and freedom, it also shows that the U.S. supports a Muslim community, thus building credibility for its affairs in the Middle East. And last, but not least, the U.S. has a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

No wonder Russia is pissed.



During the panel discussion, one of the Czech government officials had said that one of the reasons to be wary of Kosovo's declaration of independence is for the precedent that it will set for other dissatisfied ethnic minorities in other countries. He is also worried about the tension between the Balkan neighbors and for the violence spilling over the borders.

"There are plenty of conflicts in the world, and Kosovo is the only one that is being rushed forward," he said.

In response, another panelist said, "Everybody is trying to solve the problem the easiest possible way, when we only have bad solutions."

It seems like our Eastern European counterparts are not as optimistic for this news. After all, they are the ones living in the region– the U.S. is safely across an ocean, away from any potential violent repercussions.

Links: A Slideshow from the NYTimes
Independence Daze written by Gary J. Bass. (Who deserves to be free? This article is a great way to acquaint yourself with the criterion that allows a region a secede from a nation.)

Deus Ex Malcontent

For the past two years, I have been following Deus Ex Malcontent. Not religiously, but enough to know that the blogger, Chez, is an astute and opinionated writer who happens to work at a major news network. Many of his blogs are commentary/criticism on the news and its absurdity (Think Jon Stewart after taking a pill of vitriolic hatred), though some are music-related or about his personal life.

Sometimes, his writing allude to his work, but I have never guessed to which news organization he belonged, nor did I try very hard. Does it matter what this man's day job is as long as he keeps publishing these incredibly insightful/humorous/sardonic posts? Not to me– but I guess CNN cared because they fired him from his position as a Senior Producer for having the blog.

CNN has reportedly said that "he did not get permission to publish personal writings."

Oh, the crippling irony.

I understand that companies are worried about their dirty laundry being aired, which explains why a couple years back, an air stewardess was fired for blogging about her job. However, isn't there a tinge of hypocrisy in this particular case? A major news organization that reports its information and criticism under the protection of the First Amendment (and their role as the Third Estate) fires one of its capable employees for writing his own personal feelings on the media and current events in a public forum, without ever revealing his affiliation with said news network. Firing him has positively done more harm than benefit for CNN's image.

There is probably a "180, not 360" joke in here, but I'm too disappointed with CNN right now to make it.

Link: NYTimes among many others.

The Lives They Lived

As we approach the first weekend of 2008, I would like to take a look at last week's New York Times Magazine. As usual, they had chosen to write short profiles on the people who had died in 2007. In the first page, the magazine introduced this year's series with a very succinct sentence: "In putting together this issue, we shy away from any attempt at being definitive; instead we embrace idiosyncrasy, storytelling and the interests and passions of our editors and writers."

These pieces do not sum up the whole of each individual's lives. Instead, the narratives are almost like sprints, short bursts of energy that seem to epitomize each character's career. Reading these made me squirm a little, because these people have what we call, "fire." They did what they loved, and they threw their entire beings into it. And some of them were so young, like the two soldiers who died in Iraq, Omar Mora and Yance Tell Grey in a piece titled "The Guardians" by Dexter Filkins.


I have many favorites, and each for very different reasons. There was the painful recount of Kate Webb by Maggie Jones, a Vietnam war correspondent, who went missing for 23 days, and was believed to be dead. After she was released by her captors, instead of going into hiding, she devoted the rest of her career to reporting every inch of South East Asia and the Middle East, immersing herself into the different languages and avoiding the usual expatriate neighborhoods. She saw a different face to her Viet Cong captors, one that was unlike what the United States gleaned from second-hand accounts of war generals.



I also really like the one by Elizabeth McCracken about Joybubbles, the father (or granddaddy, however you wish to see it) of phone hacking. This one was great because I have never heard of phone hacking or about telephone phreaks, so it was a real eye-opener. His life was quirky and a little surreal (he decided that he wanted to five years old for the rest of his life), but the end of the piece honestly made me choke back tears.



And of course, on the final page, there was a very short one about David Halberstam by Neil Sheehan. Really, a fmust-read for any future journalist. About their stint in Vietnam together, Sheehan wrote, "We were politically suspect. We ought to be fired. Many of our editors doubted us. David was just 28 when we teamed up, and I was 26. How could these kids be right when a four-star general and a senior diplomat said they were absolutely wrong?" I think that made me foam at the mouth a little.

What these pieces do for me, more than anything else, is remind me about the endless possibilities of each individual's lives. It also makes me feel incredibly lazy and unaccomplished, but this is exactly what I needed to get me to sit up and take notice of the world around me.

On a sidenote, you can see that I have finally figured out how to do the links. Well, Happy New Year, everyone!

Writers Won't Work on Awards Show

It was announced today by AP that the WGA is not allowing their writers write for this season's awards shows. This could prove to be problematic for the studios as Jon Stewart, an active member of the WGA, was slated to host the 2008 Academy Awards.

I haven't really been following the WGA strike, but I do follow my Jon Stewart news, because I desperately miss the Daily Show. It's a slightly bizarre situation for me because I don't actually watch the show on TV- I usually watch all the clips on the Comedy Central website. So it seems, for me personally, that the writers' demands for compensation for the new media is a valid point.

About a month ago, the New York Times published a diary of a striking Daily Show writer, Rachel Axler. I smiled while reading– it was some classic Daily Show humor.

"12:15 p.m. A man in a suit passes by. He yells, 'I hope you all get fired!'"

"Look — this is weird for us, too, you know. Writers are not a naturally combative species. We’re used to sitting in front of our computers and crying. Fresh air is like poison to us. If protocol didn’t dictate otherwise, it’s very likely we would never wear pants. But we’ve given up our salaries and our jobs — easily the only jobs we’re qualified for — to stand outside and yell at people. So, for the sake of decency, could you please not yell back?"

But I really do miss Jon Stewart delivering it. Last week (I believe), the Daily Show showed up on Foxtrot! I was so excited and so relieved to know that the other mediums (cartoons!) were affected by the WGA strike as well.


Reading the diary of Axler, it felt good to know that the writers miss us too.

"1 p.m. Back on the walkin’ oval. I wear four sweaters on my torso and one wrapped around my head. If I were at work today, what would I be doing? Probably working on a headline about Musharraf. Watching videotape of Bush urging another leader to rethink martial law. Ingesting vile amounts of Boo Berry cereal to stimulate the joke-writing process.

Do I actually miss that? Yeah, I actually miss that."


Links: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Hollywood-Labor-Awards-Shows.html
Links: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/fashion/11strike.html

Serving Life For Providing Car to Killers

Instead of focusing on the most prominent piece of news today, "U.S. Finding Says Iran Halted Nuclear Arms Effort In 2003," I decided to look a little left of the front page of New York Times to see what's going on in our nation's judicial system. It is an article written by Adam Liptak, and it is about how there exists a legal doctrine in the American judicial system that considers accomplices to crimes as culpable as the offenders themselves, and therefore the accomplices should recieve the same punishment as the offenders.

Liptak focused on the case of 25-year-old Ryan Holle, who has served 5 years of his life sentence without the possibility of parole due to his unwitting help to a murder that happened on March 10, 2003. He is guilty of lending a car to his friend, who later in the night, killed a girl by beating her head in.

"Mr. Holle was a mile and a half away, but that did not matter," writes Liptak.

Liptak gives the prosecutor, David Rimmer's, reasoning of why Holle should get life, saying, "No car, no crime. No car, no consequences. No car, no murder."

Rimmer seems to see the events to be transitive, almost in a seemingly simplistic manner.

Liptak is very informative in his article, giving us the history of how the law came about. More importantly, he elaborates on his the English, Indain, and Canadian courts have decided to abolish the doctrine. It is the overwhelming accordance among the common law countries that a person should be held accountable for his own acts, but not for the acts of others.

This makes America an exception when it comes to the stringent belief that a crime is directly supported by the events leading up to it. It seems to me that we could enter the realm of "what-ifs" and "maybes" if we were to adhere our lives strictly to that rule. What if I decided to throw five dollars into a homeless man's hand, does that mean I am directly responsible if he later chooses to use the money to get heroin, and while he's doped up, commits a murder?

If the situation I just brought up seemed a little unfair, we can consider the murder itself then. William Allen Jr., the man who borrowed the car from Holle had wanted to use the car to drive himself and his friends to the home of a marijuana dealer to steal a safe that contained a pound of marijuana. The situation turned ugly, and they ended up killing the drug-dealer's 18-year-old daughter.

Christine Synder, the mother and drug-dealer, said that she screamed her head off when she saw her daughter's head bashed in. She was sentences to three years for the drugs found.

If the courts wish to truly apply this doctrine to this particular case, they should not only give Holle a life sentence for being an accomplice, they should also give Mrs. Synder a life sentence, for bringing about the crime. I think the strict adherence to the law in which accomplices are just as guilty as the offenders is tragically unfair, but if the courts really wish to make full use of it, they should punish all the people involved in bringing about the murder– and that includes the mother who decided that it is safe to deal pot while she is living with her 18-year-old daughter.

One of the most important things that bornes guilt, I believe, is the intention of the action. Because Holle never intended for the girl to be murdered by his friends, his serving the jail time will not rid of him of any guilt, because he does not have any. All it would do is increase his distrust in our nation's legal system, and also render him completely cynical of the goodness of his friends.

Can you imagine? Before you decide to lend a pair of scissors to a friend, you have to weigh your pros and cons. Pro: My friend can get her craft project done. Con: She might stab her partner with them.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin