With Marion D'Cruz and Farish Noor! And Bilik Panas!!!
Arts, Crafts & Books Fair
Sat 9 & Sun 10 May, 12pm to 8pm
Presented by The Annexe Gallery & Central Market
Admission Free, except where indicated
+ + + +
Art For Grabs, our arts and crafts bazaar, returns for yet another triumphant round of affordable artsy consumerism in a collision of coolness. That’s over 20 stalls selling art, photography, knick knacks, accessories, etc, all for under RM100 (per item, that is!).
This time we also have KL Alternative Book Fest, featuring over 20 stalls by local indie publishers (selling books not always available at a bookstore near you).
Everytime we host Art For Grabs, we present a fringe program of exciting events. This time around, we have Bilik Panas. Our “hot room” is not literally sauna-like, it’s actually air-conditioned. The “panas” here refers to the artistic, intellectual and emotional heat that will be generated by the performances, lectures and book launches we’ve got planned. See you there!
+
BILIK PANAS EVENT SCHEDULE
Admission Free except for Gostan Forward
SAT 9 MAY
12pm
THE CLOTH THAT CUTS: Re-Appraising Batik as a Trans-Cultural Signifier
Public Lecture by Dr Farish Noor
Presented by The Other Malaysia
Today Batik is seen and cast as something essentially linked to the (fixed and homogeneous) identity of nations like Malaysia and Indonesia. This lecture tries to explore the multifarious cultural, ethnic and historical origins of Batik as a form of art, and argues that in the designs of classical Batik we can see the overlapping of various cultural, ethnic and religious influences that cut across all of Southeast Asia and beyond. Batik is living proof of the cultural and ethnic hybridity of Southeast Asia.
2.15pm
GOSTAN FORWARD
Solo Performance Lecture by Marion D’Cruz
Directed by Mark Teh, Visual designs by Grey Yeoh
Presented by Five Arts Centre
*Admission by RM10 donation
The performance lecture traces Marion's growth as a radical artist, revealing her choices, strategies and influences over the span of the 35-year dance career in Malaysia. Marion will tell stories and perform excerpts of her favorurite and most significant dances, including “Terinai”, “Swan Song”, “Urn Piece”, “Chilayu”, and more.
4pm
KLAB Book Launch
TAXI TALES ON A CROOKED BRIDGE
Book Launch and Reading by Charlene Rajendran & Friends
Presented by Matahari Books
Charlene Rajendran is a Malaysian teacher and theatre practitioner who has been living in Singapore for eight years, and she refuses to own a car. Taxi Tales On A Crooked Bridge chronicles her conversations with taxi drivers all over the island republic. Quirky and jaunty, this book shows that there's no telling what bridges can be built -- whether the journey is crooked or straight!
5pm
KLAB BOOK Launch
NAJIB’S CHALLENGE: Glory or Oblivion? by Barry Wain & UNMASKING NAJIB by Lim Kit Siang
Presented by REFSA
What will be Najib’s legacy for our beloved country? Barry Wain and Lim Kit Siang present their latest books on this “hot” topic. To be officiated by YB Liew Chin Tong, MP of Bukit Bendera.
6pm
KLAB BOOK Launch
DEWANGGA SAKTI TERTINGGAL KAPAL ANGKASA DI HARI PELANCARAN BUKU 'KACIP' PIPIYAPONG
Presented by Sindiket Soljah
Dewangga Sakti terdiri daripada 6 orang pemuzik tradisional Melayu zaman sekarang yang melagukan karya-karya mistik dengan bunyian instrumen akustik. Manakala blogger hip Pipiyapong akan melancarkan karya beliau bertajuk Kacip yang lucu dan mencuit hati pembaca.
6.40pm
KLAB BOOK Launch
BERSERONOK DENGAN PEREMPUAN DALAM POKET
Pelancaran buku Puisi Poket 1: Akulah Perempuan Muda itu oleh Shaira Amira
Presented by Sang Freud Press
Puisi Poket adalah satu usaha untuk mengambalikan puisi kepada yang hak, yakni kau dan aku. Cukup kacip dan comel untuk disumbat di dalam kocek, ia sesuai dibawa dan dibaca di mana-mana; sewaktu menunggu teman di elarti, sewaktu naik elarti bersama teman dan selepas menyalakan rokok di belukar bawah landasan elarti setelah habis berbincang bahasa tubuh dengan teman.
8.30pm
GOSTAN FORWARD
Dance Lecture Performance by Marion D’Cruz
+
SUN 10 MAY
11am
MEDIA UNDER NAJIB: Hope or Disappointment?
Forum
Presented by Centre For Independent Journalism (CIJ)
Panel speakers include: Wong Chin Huat (political analyst and chairman of Writers Alliance for Media Independence), Tricia Yeoh (special assistant to Selangor state Chief Minister), Ibrahim Suffian (director of Merdeka Research Centre).
12.30pm
PENCERAHAN DAN KOSMOPOLITANISME
Talk by Khalid Jaafar, Director of Institut Kajian Dasar (Policy Research Institute)
Khalid Jaafar will be talking about IKD’s publications and the concept behind its publications. He will also be touching on the controversial issue raised by IKD’s publications that have been alleged as misleading for Muslims.
2.15pm
GOSTAN FORWARD
Dance Lecture Performance by Marion D’Cruz
Sunday, 10th May : 5 - 7pm
JIMIN LAI
STREET PHOTOGRAPHY, A BOLD NEW APPROACH : FEE : RM40.00
Have you ever been afraid of photographing strangers? What equipment should you use? How do you maintain distance and yet obtain great street images? Learn techniques and tips on how to shoot effectively and safely in the street directly with Jimin Lai, ex AFP and REUTERS photographer. Jimin will take a small group onto the streets of Kuala Lumpur to capture scenes and people up close. He will demonstrate composition, angle and approach on how to photograph striking images. Limited spaces available : Register early
4.30pm
READING LOLITA IN KL
Forum
Presented by Sisters In Islam (SIS)
Celebrate the freedom to read! Join Marina Mahathir, Cecil Rajendra, and others as they read poetry and excerpts from books, plays, scripts, etc that have been banned in many countries throughout history.
+
KL PHOTO AWARDS 2009
Gallery 4, 1st Floor, Central Market Annexe
Sat 9 & Sun 10, 2pm
CONTEMPORARY PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY
Steven Lee attempts to define what contemporary photography for portraiture is, and will walk through the 46 finalists of the first KL Photoawards 2009. Participants will have 24 hours to plan and photograph a portrait session of their friends or family, and return the next day to show, discuss and receive feedback of their newly photographed portraits. Steven Lee, an award winning freelance photographer based in UK, is also the initiator of the first KL Photo Awards for contemporary potraiture. Free - limited to 20 persons.
Sun 10, 5pm
STREET PHOTOGRAPHY, A BOLD NEW APPROACH by JIMIN LAI
Fee: RM40.00
Have you ever been afraid of photographing strangers? What equipment should you use? How do you maintain distance and yet obtain great street images? Jimin will take a small group onto the streets of Kuala Lumpur to capture scenes and people up close. Jimin Lai was formerly Chief Photographer in KL for Agence France-Presse, Senior Staff Photographer for The Star daily newspaper, and Stringer for REUTERS.
To register for either workshop, send an email to Steven Lee at: svllee@gmail.com or telephone 012 214 5838 for further information.
http://www.annexegallery.com
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Talk by Tun Mahathir
PERDANA DISCOURSE SERIES 9: "The Role of the Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Constitutional Monarchy in the governing of Malaysia"
Date: 6th May 2009 (Wednesday)
Venue: Perdana Leadership Foundation, No.1, Jalan P8H, Precinct 8, 62250 Putrajaya
More about the Discourse Series:
Objectives
1. To offer platform for research on thoughts of the past five Malaysian prime ministers
2. To allow knowledge sharing on the leadership style of the country's statemen
3. To map the continuity of thoughts of past leaders
Programme:
0800 - 0930 --Arrival of guests; Registration (Refreshment Provided)
0930 - 0935 -- Welcome Address
0935 - 0945 -- Introduction to the Discourse Series and topic
0945 - 1030 -- Keynote address by YABhg Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad*
1030 - 1115 -- Q&A
1115 - 1130 -- Coffee break
1130 - 1315 -- Panel Session and Q&A
1315 - 1330 -- Briefing for group session
1330 - 1430 -- Lunch
1430 - 1600 -- Group Session
1600 - 1730 -- Group Presentation and Plenary Session
1730 -- Refreshment & Closing
*His speech is pertaining to "The Role of the Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Constitutional Monarchy in the governing of Malaysia"
Please comment if interested.
Date: 6th May 2009 (Wednesday)
Venue: Perdana Leadership Foundation, No.1, Jalan P8H, Precinct 8, 62250 Putrajaya
More about the Discourse Series:
This is the ninth of the Perdana Discourse Series, following a successful debut in 2004 on "National Unity." Jointly organized by Perdana Leadership Foundation (PLF) and the Institude of Quality & Knowledge Advancement (InQKA) of UiTM and sponsored by Proton, the Perdana Discourse Series is a one-day semi-structured communication platform where a prominent presenter will speak to selected clusters of audience on a pre-determined topic, addressing its definition and tracing issue like policies, strategies and possible models used during the tenure of the past Prime Ministers. Discussions and issues arising from the discourse will be documented and mapped.
The keynote address will be followed by a moderated discussion session by experts from related fields and a representative of future leaders. Finally, a break-up group will deliberate on the issue to present resolutions on three aspects: the past, the present and the future. These will be presented by the whole group to conclude the discourse session. A monograph will be published following each programme in the series.
Objectives
1. To offer platform for research on thoughts of the past five Malaysian prime ministers
2. To allow knowledge sharing on the leadership style of the country's statemen
3. To map the continuity of thoughts of past leaders
Programme:
0800 - 0930 --Arrival of guests; Registration (Refreshment Provided)
0930 - 0935 -- Welcome Address
0935 - 0945 -- Introduction to the Discourse Series and topic
0945 - 1030 -- Keynote address by YABhg Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad*
1030 - 1115 -- Q&A
1115 - 1130 -- Coffee break
1130 - 1315 -- Panel Session and Q&A
1315 - 1330 -- Briefing for group session
1330 - 1430 -- Lunch
1430 - 1600 -- Group Session
1600 - 1730 -- Group Presentation and Plenary Session
1730 -- Refreshment & Closing
*His speech is pertaining to "The Role of the Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Constitutional Monarchy in the governing of Malaysia"
Please comment if interested.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Interesting Talk Peeps!
The Faculty of Law, University of Malaya
presents a seminar
entitled
'/SHARIA/ IN EUROPE: THE ARCHBISHOP, PLURALISM AND DEMOCRACY'
BY PETER CUMPER
DATE: 22ND APRIL 2009 (WEDNESDAY)
TIME: 3 TO 4PM
VENUE: BILIK PERSIDANGAN, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
Admission is freeeeeeeeeeeee!
SYPNOSIS
In 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a well publicised speech, suggested that consideration be given to the incorporation of elements of /Sharia/ law into the UK's legal system. His speech generated considerable controversy, but what has not been widely publicised is the fact that, during this speech, he suggested that in implementing /Sharia/, the UK could learn lessons from overseas, and in this regard he very briefly cited with approval, Malaysia. In this talk I will examine the Archbishop's proposal, and will contrast his approach to /Sharia/ law with that of Europe's primary human rights Court, the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of the talk is to consider the extent to which Europe should accommodate elements of /Sharia/ law and whether there are useful lessons from Malaysia in this regard.
SPEAKER'S PROFILE
Peter Cumper is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Leicester. He has taught at the Universities of Hull, Nottingham and Nottingham Trent, and has also held visiting positions at the University of Minnesota, Loyola University Chicago, William Mitchell College of Law, and the Open University of Hong Kong. His main research interest is in the field of Public Law. He is currently visiting Malaysia as part of a British Academy funded project into the relationship between international human rights norms and /Sharia/ law. Details of his most recent publications can be found at http://www.le.ac.uk/law/staff/pc29/index.html
All are welcome. Light refreshments will be served after the seminar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See you there! Need a ride.... you know who to call :-)
presents a seminar
entitled
'/SHARIA/ IN EUROPE: THE ARCHBISHOP, PLURALISM AND DEMOCRACY'
BY PETER CUMPER
DATE: 22ND APRIL 2009 (WEDNESDAY)
TIME: 3 TO 4PM
VENUE: BILIK PERSIDANGAN, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
Admission is freeeeeeeeeeeee!
SYPNOSIS
In 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a well publicised speech, suggested that consideration be given to the incorporation of elements of /Sharia/ law into the UK's legal system. His speech generated considerable controversy, but what has not been widely publicised is the fact that, during this speech, he suggested that in implementing /Sharia/, the UK could learn lessons from overseas, and in this regard he very briefly cited with approval, Malaysia. In this talk I will examine the Archbishop's proposal, and will contrast his approach to /Sharia/ law with that of Europe's primary human rights Court, the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of the talk is to consider the extent to which Europe should accommodate elements of /Sharia/ law and whether there are useful lessons from Malaysia in this regard.
SPEAKER'S PROFILE
Peter Cumper is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Leicester. He has taught at the Universities of Hull, Nottingham and Nottingham Trent, and has also held visiting positions at the University of Minnesota, Loyola University Chicago, William Mitchell College of Law, and the Open University of Hong Kong. His main research interest is in the field of Public Law. He is currently visiting Malaysia as part of a British Academy funded project into the relationship between international human rights norms and /Sharia/ law. Details of his most recent publications can be found at http://www.le.ac.uk/law/staff/pc29/index.html
All are welcome. Light refreshments will be served after the seminar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See you there! Need a ride.... you know who to call :-)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Post-Film-Screening Of Sophia Scholl and Rosenstrasse(draft 2)
On March 28th and 29th, The Annexe held a film screening attended by a few of us from EL and BC.
I intended to ask a few questions but didn't know how to put it, so i figured it is better to write.
I startled myself for attempting it with the wrong note :P ... also because my area of studies does not cover the topic that the movies were centralized upon. It was impromtu, without a chronology of the words that I can use to convey my thoughts to a group of thoughtful, well-read graduates in all aspects of life who are very concerned about their people and the order of the society.The attention that I wished to bring forward is the fact that we are living in Malaysia,that’s been contrarily claimed to be a multi-racial country. In retrospect, the reality is far from it.
To correlate it to the movies that we have watched: what happened in Germany or in Rosenstrasse is in fact, happening in Malaysia today.Why does the young generation seem to portray an apathetic attitude towards their nation and its interior problems that are happening right before their eyes.They know what the problem is, how they feel,or what to do. But the question is, CAN THEY DO IT?
Is there a law enacted to protect them when they want to convey their opinions about their government to the public? Even when they are most certain there might be a portion of like-minded people share the same sentiments as them, ideas for a particular area of interest and their love for their own people for a better nation? Because they are governed under the same laws and are sworn to the very same Constitution that grant them their freedom.
To be frank, I come from a conservative traditional Chinese family that is not uninformed about what’s going on in the nation. Because they are aware of the simple rule that this group of people(politicians) that they read about in the newspaper everyday and watch on television during news hour are those who have the power to allocate them with the basic necessities in life, food, clothes and peace to be exact. Within and out. Therefore, it ain’t easy to divert from the teachings that our elders have imposed on us throughout our upbringing, because to do so is like seeking the permission to denounce the central system that upholds the core value of the family institution, filial piety. To be a non-conformist is disobedience amounting to deserving of ties to be severed. (shrug, roll eyes, pout)
What we can see in all history of mankind is, the people that are in charge and have the power to decide the flow of system and ensure food and clothe for every member in a home within a country, are indeed those who have a spanking safe number of supporters from the same community, meaning the leader, more often than not, is a representative from the majority group. I understand talking race is sensitive to some quarters, nevertheless I’ve never seized trying to understand the need of its existence. What is race anyway? What for? Especially in Malaysia, when we are not any better people ourselves. The sound of it is not sweet at all, unless we’re talking about Formula One Car Racing, then hell yeah~
During discussion, we practically nodded as we laughed at a joke told by one of the guys,“ It’s okay to kill your own people, but it’s NOT okay to kill other people…”.
But, what if it rings true? Except that it’s not a matter of taking another person’s life.
The situation we have in Malaysia does not come off to a point where bloodbath is necessary in order to reign supreme in a nation that comprises of a number of different ethnic groups practising different cultures and belief systems..What’s going on here, is that the problem manifests itself in terms of rights to proper access in all areas and equal opportunities that see past the colour of the skin.
Contrary to popular belief that a large majority of Malaysians would like to see it to be, if we were to study it closely, the government is indeed trying to find ways to overcome that social barriers of which we cannot possibly deny, exist among us. Probably, in one way or another, we were used to being brought up with too.
The solution?
Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, defining the meaning of a word, the citizenship and most of all, the right to this chuck of land, so minute in size on the Atlas. Supposedly a “taboo” discussion and remain an unchallenged subject. To challenge and to question it, is an act of mutiny, betrayal, slander and defamation to the Ruler, the Constitution and to the rakyat whose loyalty to this land they are born into, goes beyond the realization that their achievements are the outcome of another group’s rights being denied.
The next generations of babies born into this country become the victims of misapprehensions passed down to them by the elders who developed prejudice and sense of ethnocentrism that are products of laws and government that are seen to favour one over the rest.
In this case, neither side is the winner. Hence the government should reconsider if their implementations and policies should be altered. Because times change and people do too. Yes, the green and the fresh ones can be moulded into what we want of them. But, the old ones who lived each and everyday over the years, witnessing the denial of opportunities by the ones that dominate over them without being able to stand up for what they know they deserve, will never be able to forget their pain and years of silent resentment. Hence, the segregation. Sad, sad reality.
Black and white are discernable, but…human conscience is gray. Why should we be allowed to even consider twice before befriending another, or entering our friends’ places of worship, or be reprimanded for being too close to a boy or a girl who is of different race from us, or worse still, be judged on the way we choose to pray to The Almighty and how we want to call His Name.
What I’m trying to put forward is that, we see and we observe the events unwrapping in the political scene. We feel the pressure at times. But does it justify our actions if what we do risks putting ourselves in trouble with the upperhand, for they often say,no one is above the law. And written laws are indisputable. This is a question that plays in the minds of the young ones, torn between two worlds.
However,on another tone, Sophia Scholl’s unwavering convictions in her call to freedom, the incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi by the military junta, the undeserved period behind bars that activist blogger RPK had to endure for the sake of their people have indeed liberated others.
Maybe one’s selfless sacrifice will be the other’s cause to fight for a better tomorrow.
And in the words derived from the movie Sophia Scholl: The Final Days, “No one loves more than one who dies for friends”. These are the brave ones who have become icons for a later inspired generation of youths torched with the undying will and burning spirit to speak up for global peace and human dignity that they inherited the moment they come to this world.
Guess, this was what I meant to say in my capacity as a student.
I intended to ask a few questions but didn't know how to put it, so i figured it is better to write.
I startled myself for attempting it with the wrong note :P ... also because my area of studies does not cover the topic that the movies were centralized upon. It was impromtu, without a chronology of the words that I can use to convey my thoughts to a group of thoughtful, well-read graduates in all aspects of life who are very concerned about their people and the order of the society.The attention that I wished to bring forward is the fact that we are living in Malaysia,that’s been contrarily claimed to be a multi-racial country. In retrospect, the reality is far from it.
To correlate it to the movies that we have watched: what happened in Germany or in Rosenstrasse is in fact, happening in Malaysia today.Why does the young generation seem to portray an apathetic attitude towards their nation and its interior problems that are happening right before their eyes.They know what the problem is, how they feel,or what to do. But the question is, CAN THEY DO IT?
Is there a law enacted to protect them when they want to convey their opinions about their government to the public? Even when they are most certain there might be a portion of like-minded people share the same sentiments as them, ideas for a particular area of interest and their love for their own people for a better nation? Because they are governed under the same laws and are sworn to the very same Constitution that grant them their freedom.
To be frank, I come from a conservative traditional Chinese family that is not uninformed about what’s going on in the nation. Because they are aware of the simple rule that this group of people(politicians) that they read about in the newspaper everyday and watch on television during news hour are those who have the power to allocate them with the basic necessities in life, food, clothes and peace to be exact. Within and out. Therefore, it ain’t easy to divert from the teachings that our elders have imposed on us throughout our upbringing, because to do so is like seeking the permission to denounce the central system that upholds the core value of the family institution, filial piety. To be a non-conformist is disobedience amounting to deserving of ties to be severed. (shrug, roll eyes, pout)
What we can see in all history of mankind is, the people that are in charge and have the power to decide the flow of system and ensure food and clothe for every member in a home within a country, are indeed those who have a spanking safe number of supporters from the same community, meaning the leader, more often than not, is a representative from the majority group. I understand talking race is sensitive to some quarters, nevertheless I’ve never seized trying to understand the need of its existence. What is race anyway? What for? Especially in Malaysia, when we are not any better people ourselves. The sound of it is not sweet at all, unless we’re talking about Formula One Car Racing, then hell yeah~
During discussion, we practically nodded as we laughed at a joke told by one of the guys,“ It’s okay to kill your own people, but it’s NOT okay to kill other people…”.
But, what if it rings true? Except that it’s not a matter of taking another person’s life.
The situation we have in Malaysia does not come off to a point where bloodbath is necessary in order to reign supreme in a nation that comprises of a number of different ethnic groups practising different cultures and belief systems..What’s going on here, is that the problem manifests itself in terms of rights to proper access in all areas and equal opportunities that see past the colour of the skin.
Contrary to popular belief that a large majority of Malaysians would like to see it to be, if we were to study it closely, the government is indeed trying to find ways to overcome that social barriers of which we cannot possibly deny, exist among us. Probably, in one way or another, we were used to being brought up with too.
The solution?
Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, defining the meaning of a word, the citizenship and most of all, the right to this chuck of land, so minute in size on the Atlas. Supposedly a “taboo” discussion and remain an unchallenged subject. To challenge and to question it, is an act of mutiny, betrayal, slander and defamation to the Ruler, the Constitution and to the rakyat whose loyalty to this land they are born into, goes beyond the realization that their achievements are the outcome of another group’s rights being denied.
The next generations of babies born into this country become the victims of misapprehensions passed down to them by the elders who developed prejudice and sense of ethnocentrism that are products of laws and government that are seen to favour one over the rest.
In this case, neither side is the winner. Hence the government should reconsider if their implementations and policies should be altered. Because times change and people do too. Yes, the green and the fresh ones can be moulded into what we want of them. But, the old ones who lived each and everyday over the years, witnessing the denial of opportunities by the ones that dominate over them without being able to stand up for what they know they deserve, will never be able to forget their pain and years of silent resentment. Hence, the segregation. Sad, sad reality.
Black and white are discernable, but…human conscience is gray. Why should we be allowed to even consider twice before befriending another, or entering our friends’ places of worship, or be reprimanded for being too close to a boy or a girl who is of different race from us, or worse still, be judged on the way we choose to pray to The Almighty and how we want to call His Name.
What I’m trying to put forward is that, we see and we observe the events unwrapping in the political scene. We feel the pressure at times. But does it justify our actions if what we do risks putting ourselves in trouble with the upperhand, for they often say,no one is above the law. And written laws are indisputable. This is a question that plays in the minds of the young ones, torn between two worlds.
However,on another tone, Sophia Scholl’s unwavering convictions in her call to freedom, the incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi by the military junta, the undeserved period behind bars that activist blogger RPK had to endure for the sake of their people have indeed liberated others.
Maybe one’s selfless sacrifice will be the other’s cause to fight for a better tomorrow.
And in the words derived from the movie Sophia Scholl: The Final Days, “No one loves more than one who dies for friends”. These are the brave ones who have become icons for a later inspired generation of youths torched with the undying will and burning spirit to speak up for global peace and human dignity that they inherited the moment they come to this world.
Guess, this was what I meant to say in my capacity as a student.
Post-Film Screening
On March 28th and 29th, The Annexe held a film screening attended by a few of us from EL and BC.
I intended to ask a few questions but didn't know how to put it, so i figured it is better to write.
I startled myself for attempting it with the wrong note :P ... also because my area of studies does not cover the topic that the movies were centralized upon. It was impromtu, without a chronology of the words that I can use to convey my thoughts to a group of thoughtful, well-read graduates in all aspects of life who are very concerned about their people and the order of the society.
The attention that I wished to bring forward is the fact that we are living in Malaysia,that’s been contrarily claimed to be a multi-racial country. In retrospect, the reality is far from it.
To correlate it to the movies that we have watched: what happened in Germany or in Rosenstrasse is in fact, happening in Malaysia today.
Why does the young generation seem to portray an apathetic attitude towards their nation and its interior problems that are happening right before their eyes.
They know what the problem is, how they feel,or what to do. But the question is, CAN THEY DO IT?
Is there a law enacted to protect them when they want to convey their opinions about their government to the public? Even when they are most certain a large number of people share the same sentiments as them, ideas for a particular area of interest and their love for their own people for a better nation? Because they are governed under the same laws and are sworn to the very same Constitution that grant them their freedom.
To be frank, I come from a conservative traditional Chinese family that is not uninformed about what’s going on in the nation. Because they are aware of the simple rule that these group of people that they read about in the newspaper everyday and watch on television during news hour are those who have the power to provide them with all the basic necessities in life, food, clothes and peace to be exact. Within and out. Therefore, it ain’t easy to divert from the teachings that our elders have imposed on us throughout our upbringing, because to do so is like seeking the permission to denounce the central system that upholds the core value of the family institution, filial piety. To be a non-conformist is disobedience amounting to deserving of ties to be severed. (shrug, roll eyes, pout)
What we can see in all history of mankind is, the people that are in charge and have the power to decide the flow of system and ensure food and clothe for every member in a home within a country, are indeed those who have a spanking safe number of supporters from the same community, meaning the leader, more often than not, is a representative from the majority group. I’m talking about race here though I’ve been trying to understand the need of its existence. What is race anyway? What for? Especially in Malaysia, when we are not any better people ourselves. The sound of it is not sweet at all, unless we’re talking about Formula One Car Racing, then hell yeah~
During discussion, we jokingly said aloud to everyone's delight , “ It’s okay to kill your own people, but it’s NOT okay to kill other people…”
But, what if it rings true? Except that it’s not a matter of taking another person’s life.
The situation we have in Malaysia does not come off to a point where bloodbath is necessary in order to reign supreme in a nation that comprises of a number of different ethnic groups practising different cultures and belief systems..What’s going on here, is that the problem manifests itself in terms of rights to proper access in all areas and equal opportunities that see past the colour of the skin.
Contrary to popular belief that a large majority of Malaysians would like to see it to be, if we were to study it closely, the government is indeed trying to find ways to overcome that social barriers of which we cannot possibly deny, exist among us. Probably, in one way or another, we were used to being brought up with too. The solution? Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, defining the meaning of a word, the citizenship and most of all, the right to this chuck of land, so minute in size on the Atlas. Supposedly a “taboo” discussion and remain an unchallenged subject. To challenge and to question it, is an act of mutiny, betrayal, slander and defamation to the Ruler, the Constitution and to the rakyat whose loyalty to this land they are born into, goes beyond the realization that their achievements are the outcome of another group’s rights being denied.
The next generations of babies born into this country become the victims of misapprehensions passed down to them by the elders who developed prejudice and sense of ethnocentrism that are products of laws and government that are seen to favour one over the rest.
In this case, neither side is the winner. Hence the government should reconsider if their implementations and policies should be altered. Because times change and people do too. Yes, the green and the fresh ones can be moulded into what we want of them. But, the old ones who lived each and everyday over the years, witnessing the denial of opportunities by the ones that dominate over them without being able to stand up for what they know they deserve, will never be able to forget their pain and years of silent resentment. Hence, the segregation. Sad, sad reality.
Black and white are discernable, but…human conscience is gray. Why should we be allowed to even consider twice before befriending another, or entering our friends’ places of worship, or be reprimanded for being too close to a boy or a girl who is of different race from us, or worse still, be judged on the way we choose to pray to The Almighty and how we want to call His Name.
What I’m trying to put forward is that, we see and we observe the events unwrapping in the political scene. We feel the pressure at times. But does it justify our actions if what we do risks putting ourselves in trouble with the upperhand, for they often say,no one is above the law. And written laws are indisputable. This is a question that plays in the minds of the young ones, torn between two worlds.
However,on another tone, Sophia Scholl’s unwavering convictions in her call to freedom, the incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi by the military junta, the undeserved period behind bars that activist blogger RPK had to endure for the sake of their people have indeed liberated others. Maybe one’s selfless sacrifice will be the other’s cause to fight for a better tomorrow. And in the words derived from the movie Sophia Scholl: The Final Days, “No one loves more than one who dies for friends”. These are the brave ones who have become icons for an inspired generation of youths with the undying will and burning spirit to speak up for peace and human dignity that they inherited the moment they come to this world.
Guess, this was what I meant to say in my capacity as a student.
I intended to ask a few questions but didn't know how to put it, so i figured it is better to write.
I startled myself for attempting it with the wrong note :P ... also because my area of studies does not cover the topic that the movies were centralized upon. It was impromtu, without a chronology of the words that I can use to convey my thoughts to a group of thoughtful, well-read graduates in all aspects of life who are very concerned about their people and the order of the society.
The attention that I wished to bring forward is the fact that we are living in Malaysia,that’s been contrarily claimed to be a multi-racial country. In retrospect, the reality is far from it.
To correlate it to the movies that we have watched: what happened in Germany or in Rosenstrasse is in fact, happening in Malaysia today.
Why does the young generation seem to portray an apathetic attitude towards their nation and its interior problems that are happening right before their eyes.
They know what the problem is, how they feel,or what to do. But the question is, CAN THEY DO IT?
Is there a law enacted to protect them when they want to convey their opinions about their government to the public? Even when they are most certain a large number of people share the same sentiments as them, ideas for a particular area of interest and their love for their own people for a better nation? Because they are governed under the same laws and are sworn to the very same Constitution that grant them their freedom.
To be frank, I come from a conservative traditional Chinese family that is not uninformed about what’s going on in the nation. Because they are aware of the simple rule that these group of people that they read about in the newspaper everyday and watch on television during news hour are those who have the power to provide them with all the basic necessities in life, food, clothes and peace to be exact. Within and out. Therefore, it ain’t easy to divert from the teachings that our elders have imposed on us throughout our upbringing, because to do so is like seeking the permission to denounce the central system that upholds the core value of the family institution, filial piety. To be a non-conformist is disobedience amounting to deserving of ties to be severed. (shrug, roll eyes, pout)
What we can see in all history of mankind is, the people that are in charge and have the power to decide the flow of system and ensure food and clothe for every member in a home within a country, are indeed those who have a spanking safe number of supporters from the same community, meaning the leader, more often than not, is a representative from the majority group. I’m talking about race here though I’ve been trying to understand the need of its existence. What is race anyway? What for? Especially in Malaysia, when we are not any better people ourselves. The sound of it is not sweet at all, unless we’re talking about Formula One Car Racing, then hell yeah~
During discussion, we jokingly said aloud to everyone's delight , “ It’s okay to kill your own people, but it’s NOT okay to kill other people…”
But, what if it rings true? Except that it’s not a matter of taking another person’s life.
The situation we have in Malaysia does not come off to a point where bloodbath is necessary in order to reign supreme in a nation that comprises of a number of different ethnic groups practising different cultures and belief systems..What’s going on here, is that the problem manifests itself in terms of rights to proper access in all areas and equal opportunities that see past the colour of the skin.
Contrary to popular belief that a large majority of Malaysians would like to see it to be, if we were to study it closely, the government is indeed trying to find ways to overcome that social barriers of which we cannot possibly deny, exist among us. Probably, in one way or another, we were used to being brought up with too. The solution? Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, defining the meaning of a word, the citizenship and most of all, the right to this chuck of land, so minute in size on the Atlas. Supposedly a “taboo” discussion and remain an unchallenged subject. To challenge and to question it, is an act of mutiny, betrayal, slander and defamation to the Ruler, the Constitution and to the rakyat whose loyalty to this land they are born into, goes beyond the realization that their achievements are the outcome of another group’s rights being denied.
The next generations of babies born into this country become the victims of misapprehensions passed down to them by the elders who developed prejudice and sense of ethnocentrism that are products of laws and government that are seen to favour one over the rest.
In this case, neither side is the winner. Hence the government should reconsider if their implementations and policies should be altered. Because times change and people do too. Yes, the green and the fresh ones can be moulded into what we want of them. But, the old ones who lived each and everyday over the years, witnessing the denial of opportunities by the ones that dominate over them without being able to stand up for what they know they deserve, will never be able to forget their pain and years of silent resentment. Hence, the segregation. Sad, sad reality.
Black and white are discernable, but…human conscience is gray. Why should we be allowed to even consider twice before befriending another, or entering our friends’ places of worship, or be reprimanded for being too close to a boy or a girl who is of different race from us, or worse still, be judged on the way we choose to pray to The Almighty and how we want to call His Name.
What I’m trying to put forward is that, we see and we observe the events unwrapping in the political scene. We feel the pressure at times. But does it justify our actions if what we do risks putting ourselves in trouble with the upperhand, for they often say,no one is above the law. And written laws are indisputable. This is a question that plays in the minds of the young ones, torn between two worlds.
However,on another tone, Sophia Scholl’s unwavering convictions in her call to freedom, the incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi by the military junta, the undeserved period behind bars that activist blogger RPK had to endure for the sake of their people have indeed liberated others. Maybe one’s selfless sacrifice will be the other’s cause to fight for a better tomorrow. And in the words derived from the movie Sophia Scholl: The Final Days, “No one loves more than one who dies for friends”. These are the brave ones who have become icons for an inspired generation of youths with the undying will and burning spirit to speak up for peace and human dignity that they inherited the moment they come to this world.
Guess, this was what I meant to say in my capacity as a student.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Let's Go for This One!!!!
Invitation to Attend a Complimentary Public Lecture
“The Global Economic Crisis and Moral Changes”
by Prof. Dr. Arthur Kleinman of Harvard University
Greetings from Centre for Extension Education, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman!
The University is proud to announce that an inaugural public lecture on “The Global Economic Crisis and Moral Changes” will be held in conjunction with the launching of the Harvard Ezra F. Vogel Malaysia/Singapore Initiative programme. The programme is a joint collaboration with the Harvard University Asia Center and Lam Kin Chung Morning Sun Charity Fund.
The distinguished Speaker, Prof. Dr. Arthur Kleinman of Harvard Medical School, will share his insights into moral dilemmas and problems afflicting today’s society. Prof. Dr. Kleinman will also explore the dynamic relationships between economics, politics and the professions and, perhaps, even religions.
The talk details are as below:
Title: The Global Economic Crisis & Moral Changes
Speaker: Prof Dr. Arthur Kleinman of Harvard Medical School
Date: 28 March 2009 (Saturday)
Time: 2.45pm – 6.00pm
Venue: Auditorium, Level 3, Wisma MCA, 163, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur
Admission: Free (First-Registered-First-Served Basis)
*Refreshments will be served*
Kindly register before 18 March 2009.
For enquires and registration, please contact Rajes / Nitthia / Odie / Yong atTel: 603-79572818 / 603-79555181 ext 8212 / 8210 / 8201 / 8611 H/p: 6016-2233 563 Fax: 603-79573818. Email: cee@utar.edu.my.
“The Global Economic Crisis and Moral Changes”
by Prof. Dr. Arthur Kleinman of Harvard University
Greetings from Centre for Extension Education, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman!
The University is proud to announce that an inaugural public lecture on “The Global Economic Crisis and Moral Changes” will be held in conjunction with the launching of the Harvard Ezra F. Vogel Malaysia/Singapore Initiative programme. The programme is a joint collaboration with the Harvard University Asia Center and Lam Kin Chung Morning Sun Charity Fund.
The distinguished Speaker, Prof. Dr. Arthur Kleinman of Harvard Medical School, will share his insights into moral dilemmas and problems afflicting today’s society. Prof. Dr. Kleinman will also explore the dynamic relationships between economics, politics and the professions and, perhaps, even religions.
The talk details are as below:
Title: The Global Economic Crisis & Moral Changes
Speaker: Prof Dr. Arthur Kleinman of Harvard Medical School
Date: 28 March 2009 (Saturday)
Time: 2.45pm – 6.00pm
Venue: Auditorium, Level 3, Wisma MCA, 163, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur
Admission: Free (First-Registered-First-Served Basis)
*Refreshments will be served*
Kindly register before 18 March 2009.
For enquires and registration, please contact Rajes / Nitthia / Odie / Yong atTel: 603-79572818 / 603-79555181 ext 8212 / 8210 / 8201 / 8611 H/p: 6016-2233 563 Fax: 603-79573818. Email: cee@utar.edu.my.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.
By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
I first encountered Abraham Lincoln in Piedmont, W.Va. When I was growing up, his picture was in nearly every black home I can recall, the only white man, other than Jesus himself, to grace black family walls. Lincoln was a hero to us.
One rainy Sunday afternoon in 1960, when I was 10 years old, I picked up a copy of our latest Reader’s Digest Condensed Books, and, thumbing through, stumbled upon Jim Bishop’s The Day Lincoln Was Shot, which had been published in 1955 and immediately became a runaway bestseller. It is an hour-by-hour chronicle of the last day of Lincoln’s life. I couldn’t help crying by the end.
But my engagement with the great leader turned to confusion when I was a senior in high school. I stumbled upon an essay that Lerone Bennett Jr. published in Ebony magazine entitled “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?” A year later, as an undergraduate at Yale, I read an even more troubling essay that W.E.B. Du Bois had published in The Crisis magazine in May 1922. Du Bois wrote that Lincoln was one huge jumble of contradictions: “he was big enough to be inconsistent—cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves. He was a man—a big, inconsistent, brave man.”
So many hurt and angry readers flooded Du Bois’ mailbox that he wrote a second essay in the next issue of the magazine, in which he defended his position this way: “I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. ….”
To prove his point, Du Bois included this quote from a speech Lincoln delivered in 1858 in Charleston, Ill.:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Say what? The Lincoln of 1858 was a very long way from becoming the Great Emancipator!
So which was the real Lincoln, the benevolent countenance hanging on the walls of black people’s homes, the Man Who Freed the Slaves, or this man whom Du Bois was quoting, who seemed to hate black people?
In the collective popular imagination, Abraham Lincoln—Father Abraham, the Great Emancipator—is often represented as an island of pure reason in a sea of mid-19th-century racist madness, a beacon of tolerance blessed with a cosmopolitan sensibility above or beyond race, a man whose attitudes about race and slavery transcended his time and place. These contemporary views of Lincoln, however, are largely naive and have almost always been ahistorical.
When Peter Kunhardt—my co-executive producer in the making of the PBS series “African American Lives”—asked me two years ago to co-produce, write and host a new PBS series on Lincoln, timed to air on the bicentennial of his birth, I realized that making this film would give me, at long last, the chance to ask, “Will the real Abraham Lincoln please stand up?” I also extensively researched and analyzed Lincoln’s writings and speeches for my book, Lincoln on Race and Slavery.
Lincoln’s myth is so capacious that each generation of Americans since his death in 1865 has been able to find its own image reflected in his mirror. Lincoln is America’s man for all seasons, and our man for all reasons. In fact, over and over again through the past century and a half, we Americans have reinvented Abraham Lincoln in order to reinvent ourselves. The most recent example, of course, is captured in the journey of our 44th president, Barack Obama, who launched his presidential campaign in Lincoln’s hometown, Springfield, Ill., cited Lincoln’s oratory repeatedly throughout his campaign, retraced his train route to Washington from Philadelphia and even used Lincoln’s Bible for his swearing-in ceremony.
On the eve of the 200th anniversary of his birth, the Lincoln fable is as vital today as ever. For my PBS series, I filmed all over the country, from a Sotheby’s auction where an obscure letter of his sold for $3 million, to the annual convention last summer of the Sons of the Confederacy, where one official told me that Lincoln is the biggest war criminal in the history of the United States, that his face should be chiseled off Mount Rushmore and that he should be tried posthumously for war crimes under the Nuremberg Conventions!
In the black community, despite strident critiques of his attitudes about blacks by historians such as Bennett, Lincoln continues to occupy a place of almost holy reverence, the patron saint of race relations.
But the truth is that until very late in his presidency, Lincoln was deeply conflicted about whether to liberate the slaves, how to liberate the slaves and what to do with them once they had been liberated. Whereas abolition was a central aspect of Lincoln’s moral compass, racial equality was not. In fact, Lincoln wrestled with three distinct but sometimes overlapping discourses related to race: slavery, equality and colonization. Isolating these three—like the three strands of a braid of hair—helps us to understand how conflicted the man was about African Americans and their place in this country.
Interspersed among these three discourses is the manner in which Lincoln seems to have wrestled with his own use of the “N-word.” Lincoln used the word far less than did Stephen Douglas, his Democratic challenger for the U.S. Senate, but he did indeed use it in prominent contexts including debates and public speeches. Even as late as April 1862, James Redpath recorded Lincoln’s saying of President Fabre Nicholas Geffard of Haiti (who had offered to send a white man as his ambassador to the United States), “You can tell the President of Hayti that I shan’t tear my shirt if he sends a nigger here!”
Lincoln despised slavery as an institution, an economic institution that discriminated against white men who couldn’t afford to own slaves and, thus, could not profit from the advantage in the marketplace that slaves provided. At the same time, however, he was deeply ambivalent about the status of black people vis-à-vis white people, having fundamental doubts about their innate intelligence and their capacity to fight nobly with guns against white men in the initial years of the Civil War.
Even as he was writing the Emancipation Proclamation during the summer of 1862, Lincoln was working feverishly to ship all those slaves he was about to free out of the United States. So taken was he with the concept of colonization that he invited five black men to the White House and offered them funding to found a black republic in Panama, for the slaves he was about to free. Earlier, he had advocated that the slaves be freed and shipped to Liberia or Haiti. And just one month before the Emancipation became the law of the land, in his Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment that would “appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.”
Two things dramatically changed Lincoln’s attitudes toward black people. First, in the early years, the North was losing the Civil War, and Lincoln quickly realized that the margin of difference between a Southern victory and a Northern victory would be black men. So, despite severe reservations that he had expressed about the courage of black troops (“If we were to arm them, I fear that in a few weeks the arms would be in the hands of the rebels…”), Lincoln included in the Emancipation Proclamation a provision authorizing black men to fight for the Union.
The other factor that began to affect his attitudes about blacks was meeting Frederick Douglass. Lincoln met with Douglass at the White House three times. He was the first black person Lincoln treated as an intellectual equal, and he grew to admire him and value his opinion.
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.
Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.
It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.
It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.
So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.
Henry Louis Gates Jr. is editor in chief of The Root. He is co-host of the PBS series Looking for Lincoln, which premieres Feb. 11 (check local listings for time). His book, Lincoln on Race and Slavery, is available now.
By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
I first encountered Abraham Lincoln in Piedmont, W.Va. When I was growing up, his picture was in nearly every black home I can recall, the only white man, other than Jesus himself, to grace black family walls. Lincoln was a hero to us.
One rainy Sunday afternoon in 1960, when I was 10 years old, I picked up a copy of our latest Reader’s Digest Condensed Books, and, thumbing through, stumbled upon Jim Bishop’s The Day Lincoln Was Shot, which had been published in 1955 and immediately became a runaway bestseller. It is an hour-by-hour chronicle of the last day of Lincoln’s life. I couldn’t help crying by the end.
But my engagement with the great leader turned to confusion when I was a senior in high school. I stumbled upon an essay that Lerone Bennett Jr. published in Ebony magazine entitled “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?” A year later, as an undergraduate at Yale, I read an even more troubling essay that W.E.B. Du Bois had published in The Crisis magazine in May 1922. Du Bois wrote that Lincoln was one huge jumble of contradictions: “he was big enough to be inconsistent—cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves. He was a man—a big, inconsistent, brave man.”
So many hurt and angry readers flooded Du Bois’ mailbox that he wrote a second essay in the next issue of the magazine, in which he defended his position this way: “I love him not because he was perfect but because he was not and yet triumphed. ….”
To prove his point, Du Bois included this quote from a speech Lincoln delivered in 1858 in Charleston, Ill.:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Say what? The Lincoln of 1858 was a very long way from becoming the Great Emancipator!
So which was the real Lincoln, the benevolent countenance hanging on the walls of black people’s homes, the Man Who Freed the Slaves, or this man whom Du Bois was quoting, who seemed to hate black people?
In the collective popular imagination, Abraham Lincoln—Father Abraham, the Great Emancipator—is often represented as an island of pure reason in a sea of mid-19th-century racist madness, a beacon of tolerance blessed with a cosmopolitan sensibility above or beyond race, a man whose attitudes about race and slavery transcended his time and place. These contemporary views of Lincoln, however, are largely naive and have almost always been ahistorical.
When Peter Kunhardt—my co-executive producer in the making of the PBS series “African American Lives”—asked me two years ago to co-produce, write and host a new PBS series on Lincoln, timed to air on the bicentennial of his birth, I realized that making this film would give me, at long last, the chance to ask, “Will the real Abraham Lincoln please stand up?” I also extensively researched and analyzed Lincoln’s writings and speeches for my book, Lincoln on Race and Slavery.
Lincoln’s myth is so capacious that each generation of Americans since his death in 1865 has been able to find its own image reflected in his mirror. Lincoln is America’s man for all seasons, and our man for all reasons. In fact, over and over again through the past century and a half, we Americans have reinvented Abraham Lincoln in order to reinvent ourselves. The most recent example, of course, is captured in the journey of our 44th president, Barack Obama, who launched his presidential campaign in Lincoln’s hometown, Springfield, Ill., cited Lincoln’s oratory repeatedly throughout his campaign, retraced his train route to Washington from Philadelphia and even used Lincoln’s Bible for his swearing-in ceremony.
On the eve of the 200th anniversary of his birth, the Lincoln fable is as vital today as ever. For my PBS series, I filmed all over the country, from a Sotheby’s auction where an obscure letter of his sold for $3 million, to the annual convention last summer of the Sons of the Confederacy, where one official told me that Lincoln is the biggest war criminal in the history of the United States, that his face should be chiseled off Mount Rushmore and that he should be tried posthumously for war crimes under the Nuremberg Conventions!
In the black community, despite strident critiques of his attitudes about blacks by historians such as Bennett, Lincoln continues to occupy a place of almost holy reverence, the patron saint of race relations.
But the truth is that until very late in his presidency, Lincoln was deeply conflicted about whether to liberate the slaves, how to liberate the slaves and what to do with them once they had been liberated. Whereas abolition was a central aspect of Lincoln’s moral compass, racial equality was not. In fact, Lincoln wrestled with three distinct but sometimes overlapping discourses related to race: slavery, equality and colonization. Isolating these three—like the three strands of a braid of hair—helps us to understand how conflicted the man was about African Americans and their place in this country.
Interspersed among these three discourses is the manner in which Lincoln seems to have wrestled with his own use of the “N-word.” Lincoln used the word far less than did Stephen Douglas, his Democratic challenger for the U.S. Senate, but he did indeed use it in prominent contexts including debates and public speeches. Even as late as April 1862, James Redpath recorded Lincoln’s saying of President Fabre Nicholas Geffard of Haiti (who had offered to send a white man as his ambassador to the United States), “You can tell the President of Hayti that I shan’t tear my shirt if he sends a nigger here!”
Lincoln despised slavery as an institution, an economic institution that discriminated against white men who couldn’t afford to own slaves and, thus, could not profit from the advantage in the marketplace that slaves provided. At the same time, however, he was deeply ambivalent about the status of black people vis-à-vis white people, having fundamental doubts about their innate intelligence and their capacity to fight nobly with guns against white men in the initial years of the Civil War.
Even as he was writing the Emancipation Proclamation during the summer of 1862, Lincoln was working feverishly to ship all those slaves he was about to free out of the United States. So taken was he with the concept of colonization that he invited five black men to the White House and offered them funding to found a black republic in Panama, for the slaves he was about to free. Earlier, he had advocated that the slaves be freed and shipped to Liberia or Haiti. And just one month before the Emancipation became the law of the land, in his Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment that would “appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.”
Two things dramatically changed Lincoln’s attitudes toward black people. First, in the early years, the North was losing the Civil War, and Lincoln quickly realized that the margin of difference between a Southern victory and a Northern victory would be black men. So, despite severe reservations that he had expressed about the courage of black troops (“If we were to arm them, I fear that in a few weeks the arms would be in the hands of the rebels…”), Lincoln included in the Emancipation Proclamation a provision authorizing black men to fight for the Union.
The other factor that began to affect his attitudes about blacks was meeting Frederick Douglass. Lincoln met with Douglass at the White House three times. He was the first black person Lincoln treated as an intellectual equal, and he grew to admire him and value his opinion.
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.
Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.
It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.
It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.
So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.
Henry Louis Gates Jr. is editor in chief of The Root. He is co-host of the PBS series Looking for Lincoln, which premieres Feb. 11 (check local listings for time). His book, Lincoln on Race and Slavery, is available now.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Why I'm Quitting Facebook!
You Can’t Friend Me, I Quit!
On Facebook's fifth anniversary, a not-so-fond farewell.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Check this OUT!!!
Now that we are all reasonably satiated from an overdose of CNY bounty, here is a test to take that will REALLY make you work your sluggish mind!!!
http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/enlightenment.html
Whoever got more than 5, let me know!! I want to know who is most enlightened. I only got 5 of course... not that enlightened I guess! :-)
http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/enlightenment.html
Whoever got more than 5, let me know!! I want to know who is most enlightened. I only got 5 of course... not that enlightened I guess! :-)
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
13 Mei - Sumbangan Tulisan
13 Mei (tajuk rasmi belum ada)
Editor : Fathi Aris Omar & Jimadie Shah
Penerbit : Gerakbudaya
Prakata
Tanggal 13 Mei tahun ini memberi makna yang besar kepada rakyat Malaysia terutama generasi muda pasca 13 Mei kerana usianya akan memasuki 40 tahun. Akta Pertubuhan Belia dan Pembangunan Belia 2007 mewajibkan barisan kepimpinan dan anggota semua persatuan belia berumur di bawah 40 tahun yang secara tidak langsung meletakkan mereka yang tidak melebihi umur tersebut sebagai anak muda.
Lantas peristiwa 13 Mei 1969 ini akan menghampiri usia terakhir waktu mudanya dan akan menjadi dewasa seterusnya matang. Persoalannya sudahkah kita berjaya keluar dari hantu 13 Mei dan menunjukkan kematangan kita di dalam menghadapi segala masalah kaum dan agama yang kita hadapi di waktu ini?
Untuk menjawab persoalan ini, kami di Gerakbudaya ingin menghimpunkan penulisan dalam pelbagai bentuk serta lakaran dan foto dari anak-anak muda bagi menzahirkan penyataan mereka di dalam menyingkap tragedi ini.
Segala sumbangan akan diterbitkan di dalam buku yang akan diterbitkan oleh Gerakbudaya dan akan dilancarkan secara rasmi pada KL Alternartive Bookfest yang akan berlangsung pada 9 dan 10 Mei 2009 di Annexe Central Market.
Kandungan
Kami bercadang untuk memberi peluang seluas-luasnya kepada penyumbang untuk berkarya selagi mana memenuhi tema dan kriteria yang ditetapkan.
Tema utama buku ini adalah membuang hantu & momok 13 Mei demi Malaysia yang lebih baik.
Gaya Penulisan
Gaya penulisan seperti yang di bawah boleh diaplikasikan walaupun secara umum adalah bebas;
1) Kisah-kisah dari sumber sekunder seperti ibu bapa, cikgu, ahli politik, pensyarah dsb
2) Penulisan kreatif
3) Temu ramah orang yang terlibat dan merasai tragedi, tokoh-tokoh politik, sosial dll
4) Surat terbuka kepada politikus
5) Esei
Setiap karya yang dihantar hendaklah tidak melebihi 2000 patah perkataan , tiada minimum
Sumbangan dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan Bahasa Inggeris
Bagi yang membuat lakaran dan foto hendaklah tidak melebihi 4 muka surat
Setiap penyumbang hendaklah menggunakan nama sendiri atau nama pena yang dikenali umum
Penyumbang mestilah berumur 40 tahun ke bawah dan warganegara Malaysia
Jika anda berminat. sila nyatakan gaya penulisan yang dipilih
E-mel sumbangan dan segala pertanyaan dengan subjek ’13 Mei’ kepada zulhabri@gerakbudaya.com
Setiap penyumbang akan diberi dua buah naskhah buku serta berpeluang cerah menerbitkan buku bersama Gerakbudaya atau cabang penerbitan kami yang lain iaitu, SIRD
Tarikh tutup adalah pada 28 Februari 2009
www.gerakbudaya.com
Editor : Fathi Aris Omar & Jimadie Shah
Penerbit : Gerakbudaya
Prakata
Tanggal 13 Mei tahun ini memberi makna yang besar kepada rakyat Malaysia terutama generasi muda pasca 13 Mei kerana usianya akan memasuki 40 tahun. Akta Pertubuhan Belia dan Pembangunan Belia 2007 mewajibkan barisan kepimpinan dan anggota semua persatuan belia berumur di bawah 40 tahun yang secara tidak langsung meletakkan mereka yang tidak melebihi umur tersebut sebagai anak muda.
Lantas peristiwa 13 Mei 1969 ini akan menghampiri usia terakhir waktu mudanya dan akan menjadi dewasa seterusnya matang. Persoalannya sudahkah kita berjaya keluar dari hantu 13 Mei dan menunjukkan kematangan kita di dalam menghadapi segala masalah kaum dan agama yang kita hadapi di waktu ini?
Untuk menjawab persoalan ini, kami di Gerakbudaya ingin menghimpunkan penulisan dalam pelbagai bentuk serta lakaran dan foto dari anak-anak muda bagi menzahirkan penyataan mereka di dalam menyingkap tragedi ini.
Segala sumbangan akan diterbitkan di dalam buku yang akan diterbitkan oleh Gerakbudaya dan akan dilancarkan secara rasmi pada KL Alternartive Bookfest yang akan berlangsung pada 9 dan 10 Mei 2009 di Annexe Central Market.
Kandungan
Kami bercadang untuk memberi peluang seluas-luasnya kepada penyumbang untuk berkarya selagi mana memenuhi tema dan kriteria yang ditetapkan.
Tema utama buku ini adalah membuang hantu & momok 13 Mei demi Malaysia yang lebih baik.
Gaya Penulisan
Gaya penulisan seperti yang di bawah boleh diaplikasikan walaupun secara umum adalah bebas;
1) Kisah-kisah dari sumber sekunder seperti ibu bapa, cikgu, ahli politik, pensyarah dsb
2) Penulisan kreatif
3) Temu ramah orang yang terlibat dan merasai tragedi, tokoh-tokoh politik, sosial dll
4) Surat terbuka kepada politikus
5) Esei
Setiap karya yang dihantar hendaklah tidak melebihi 2000 patah perkataan , tiada minimum
Sumbangan dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan Bahasa Inggeris
Bagi yang membuat lakaran dan foto hendaklah tidak melebihi 4 muka surat
Setiap penyumbang hendaklah menggunakan nama sendiri atau nama pena yang dikenali umum
Penyumbang mestilah berumur 40 tahun ke bawah dan warganegara Malaysia
Jika anda berminat. sila nyatakan gaya penulisan yang dipilih
E-mel sumbangan dan segala pertanyaan dengan subjek ’13 Mei’ kepada zulhabri@gerakbudaya.com
Setiap penyumbang akan diberi dua buah naskhah buku serta berpeluang cerah menerbitkan buku bersama Gerakbudaya atau cabang penerbitan kami yang lain iaitu, SIRD
Tarikh tutup adalah pada 28 Februari 2009
www.gerakbudaya.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
