Fun Moroccan Fact: Women don’t take their husbands last name, they keep their own. More interestingly, even though they move into their husbands’ house- and this often means leaving their own village- they do not take their husbands family as a part of themselves. I am referring to the idea of the wife becoming a part of the husband’s family, ie “mother-in-law.” (the amazirt call them the parents of my husband/wife) Another example, even if I were to marry a Smith from Golden and move to Golden I would still consider myself a Pullen of Arvada my entire life. I imagine the adoption of the husband’s family is a product of our culture of taking on the last name so I see it as interesting. I fixate on this point b/c it created an Erika-puts-her-cultural-foot-in-her-cultural-mouth moment.
Remember my telling you guys that my site is all one big family? Well that means that all the families share the same name and when I leave the site it’s such a small village that, when asked where I live, I tell them Ait (the people of) that last name because nobody knows the village. Everyone knows that family though. Well I mentioned that to my host sister (who is a member of that family) and she laughed and said yes, it’s a small ighram and they are all related. Well some women were talking about this same thing a few days later, and I didn’t understand everything they were saying but I kind of was following. One woman said, yeah I have to tell people I live in Ait ____ b/c nobody know where _____ is. Then a bunch of the women got defensive that the place shouldn’t be called Ait _____ (It’s common to call bled tribes by the founding family’s name instead of coming up with a real name) So they looked to me to solve their dispute, remember I didn’t understand most of what they said so I decided to answer honestly. I said, When I talk to the gendarms I have to call it Ait ____ (bad idea). All the women threw their hands in the air and informed me that none of them were of that last name, that was when I learned the women who called it Ait ____ was one of the single women of that last name and all the other women had married into the village and, therefore, do not identify with my village.
Idle thought, because I have too much time on my hands thanks to Ramadan, marriage in Europe (specifically England is what I’m referencing but it’s pretty much the same across the board) just two or three centuries ago (a few hundred years is a “just” in the anthropologists mind) were not unlike these marriages. Women would have arranged marriages or be married off to anyone their parents could afford to marry them too and even so the woman would be considered part of her family from that region and not really a member of her husband’s family. She was just “accepted” into the cool kid group if she had a son.
So for simplification of explaining relationships out in the boondocks of Morocco, think of England in the mid 15 or 1600’s. I specify the boondocks because the big cities are much more revolutionary, in Marrakech people even date, not openly and they certainly don’t hold hands, but there is relationship building before marriage. The social upheaval of the rebellious youths is upon us, Lord have mercy.
In other news, Ramadan is going well. It started four days ago and, actually, it’s not as hard as I had thought. Actually, I’m kind of cheating, I’ve changed my day life for my night life, I stay up and eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner at night till morning call to prayer at 4 am. After call to prayer I go to bed and stay there till about 11 am. Then I just have 8 hours to kill before I can eat again.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Thoughts and Opinions
This is going to be an opinion entry; I have it separate from my usual update/ anecdote entry so you can skip it if you don’t really want to hear my ranting. This also involves a short quest inside the inner workings of my mind (scared or intrigues?)
This is a super random thought that arose in a very stream-of-consciousness route. I can’t remember where I heard it but someone was trying to sound intelligent so instead of saying “that brings up the question...” they said “that begs the question...” I wasn’t part of the conversation so I couldn’t correct them but the misuse of this word put my mind on the track of debates and arguments in general and how they are often confused and debate is, tragically, an art that is dying before our very eyes and people don’t even realize it. For those of you who don’t know/ have forgotten here is a review of the rules. The party that wants to make the change, I think their called the support, goes first. They present why they feel the status qua needs to be changed with points and proof (reliable evidence). Then they sit down and wait while the other side presents. The second party, the defence, then stands up and defends the status qua via the support’s arguments; if they’re very talented they can slip their own points into their argument. There are, of course, other rules such as never address the other side- you aren’t trying to change your opponent’s mind, you’re persuading the audience to agree w/ you not them, no adhom- insulting-, no here-say –rumors or things that can’t be proven (i.e. she said, “I’m going to kill you,” is here say unless there are witnesses/ recordings), and no begging the question. This brings us full circle to what put me on the topic, to beg the question means to make an argument that is based on something not previously established/ defined; the point not previously established is the question that has been begged. For example, to say “Sinners go to Hell” begs the question that Hell exists. The proper form of that point would be to first prove that Hell exists, and then prove that sinners go there. Begging the question is especially common with people who are debating opinions and ideas.
Fun Fact, in the official debate forum the rules are only broken if the opposing party notices and calls it out. Rather like in the court of law, one attorney has to call out the other attorney’s ere, (you know, “objection your honor...”)
Btw, yes my mind went through all of these steps of defining debate, then the rules just to arrive at the topic of the debate- of course I already knew these things so it only took a fraction of a second to skim the interesting points.
This brings us, finally, to my opinion entry; I have a couple of thoughts. First, the art of debate is fading into the annals of history and the only places you see them anymore are in High School clubs and the courts; this is actually really tragic because the debate form is much more useful than people realize. We could avoid so many stupid fights if we could all just approach things in a more debate like manner. This idea is best applied in the context of relationships because the only way you’re going to get two ppl wanting to approach things in this style is if both parties want to work through the issue. I say “form” and “style” because you are trying to persuade the other party to see a) agree with you or b) see where you’re coming from. That, by the nature of the beast, is not a debate.
Scenario 1: (The argument) A couple are walking down the street when the classic “woman in the red dress” walks past and smiles at the guy. The boyfriend nods and notices that she’s a pretty woman but doesn’t rubber neck or anything. The girlfriend is hurt and becomes jealous and accuses the man of being a pig then refuses to speak to him the rest of the evening thus ruining the entire date.
Scenario 2: (The debate) A couple are walking down the street when the classic “woman in the red dress” walks past and smiles at the guy. The boyfriend nods and notices that she’s a pretty woman but doesn’t rubber neck or anything. The girlfriend is hurt so she says, (note says, not shouts or accuses) “It makes me feel insecure when you stare at other women, I feel like you don’t think I’m pretty enough for you anymore.” To which said boyfriend responds, “You are the most beautiful woman in the world and I’m the luckiest man in the world that you walk with me in public. I felt it would be rude of me not to acknowledge when someone greets us on the street.”
The discussion might continue for a time back and forth with both sides making points, but they eventually come to a resolution and enjoy the rest of their evening AND have a better understanding of one another. Several days later, they are walking down the street and another pretty woman smiles at the man. He puts his arm around his girlfriend’s waist/ shoulder and nods at the woman in a cordial manner. Behold, girlfriend knows he is just being polite and boyfriend is being considerate to girlfriend’s feelings...Of course in real life “boyfriend” might consider doing the same with any woman and not just attractive woman, just to avoid unwittingly building a complex w/in said girlfriend.
Like I said before this plan only really works w/ relationship b/c both ppl have to be willing to listen and share their opinions/ emotions. Also, if trying to apply this, do remember that ppl play follow the leader. If one person loses their temper and starts yelling the other person will, most likely, follow suit.
My second opinion is pertaining to the loss of the art of debate. The “Abortion Debate” is total bullshit. Think about it, I want you to sit down and look at the cesspit of words that is a product of the two sides hurling arguments at the one another.
From the very first, both sides are guilty of breaking the most fundamental rule and destroying the entire illusion of a debate. They’re trying to change their opponent’s mind, not the audiences.
The “Pro- Life” side makes argument after argument of the un-ethicality of abortion, and that it’s murder, etc on and on (btw they are very thorough about proving the murder side of their arguments but totally drop the ball on the question of ethics, stop begging the question and define/ defend what you mean and what your basis of ethics, please). This is all well and good but they never shut-up. This makes it impossible for them to hear the “Pro- choice’s” opinion. Also, they are forever resorting to adhom calling the other side “murders” etc.
Now the “Pro-Choice” side doesn’t even try to maintain a debate form, this is probably because they don’t realize that, since they are what is the current action and “pro-life” is trying to change that they are the defence. That means that to make a debate they have to hear and respond to the supports arguments. They don’t. Instead they go on and on about amendment rights, and the danger of illegal abortions, etc. (we all know the arguments) Here they, too, are guilty of begging the question, they are very thorough about proving how dangerous illegal abortions are; but nobody ever defines why the choice is theirs to make (“my body my choice” begs the question that you own the other body too, if this is your defence it, too, needs to be defended). Just like their opponent, pro-choice, too, never shuts-up to hear the other side
This is not a debate, its two groups of small children screaming at each other with their hands clapped over their own ears so they can’t hear what the other side is saying.
The most frustrating thing is that these people are so busy proving they’re right they can’t see that they aren’t even arguing the same topic. This farce of an argument will never be resolved if the two sides don’t grow up and see they aren’t on the same page, actually, they aren’t even in the same book at the moment. Pro-life is screaming about ethics and souls. Pro-life is screaming about human nature and statistics. If these people don’t learn to sit down, shut-up, and not interrupt they will just continue to make meaningless noise pollution forever.
All this because someone miss used “begging the question,”... at least I’m never bored.
This is a super random thought that arose in a very stream-of-consciousness route. I can’t remember where I heard it but someone was trying to sound intelligent so instead of saying “that brings up the question...” they said “that begs the question...” I wasn’t part of the conversation so I couldn’t correct them but the misuse of this word put my mind on the track of debates and arguments in general and how they are often confused and debate is, tragically, an art that is dying before our very eyes and people don’t even realize it. For those of you who don’t know/ have forgotten here is a review of the rules. The party that wants to make the change, I think their called the support, goes first. They present why they feel the status qua needs to be changed with points and proof (reliable evidence). Then they sit down and wait while the other side presents. The second party, the defence, then stands up and defends the status qua via the support’s arguments; if they’re very talented they can slip their own points into their argument. There are, of course, other rules such as never address the other side- you aren’t trying to change your opponent’s mind, you’re persuading the audience to agree w/ you not them, no adhom- insulting-, no here-say –rumors or things that can’t be proven (i.e. she said, “I’m going to kill you,” is here say unless there are witnesses/ recordings), and no begging the question. This brings us full circle to what put me on the topic, to beg the question means to make an argument that is based on something not previously established/ defined; the point not previously established is the question that has been begged. For example, to say “Sinners go to Hell” begs the question that Hell exists. The proper form of that point would be to first prove that Hell exists, and then prove that sinners go there. Begging the question is especially common with people who are debating opinions and ideas.
Fun Fact, in the official debate forum the rules are only broken if the opposing party notices and calls it out. Rather like in the court of law, one attorney has to call out the other attorney’s ere, (you know, “objection your honor...”)
Btw, yes my mind went through all of these steps of defining debate, then the rules just to arrive at the topic of the debate- of course I already knew these things so it only took a fraction of a second to skim the interesting points.
This brings us, finally, to my opinion entry; I have a couple of thoughts. First, the art of debate is fading into the annals of history and the only places you see them anymore are in High School clubs and the courts; this is actually really tragic because the debate form is much more useful than people realize. We could avoid so many stupid fights if we could all just approach things in a more debate like manner. This idea is best applied in the context of relationships because the only way you’re going to get two ppl wanting to approach things in this style is if both parties want to work through the issue. I say “form” and “style” because you are trying to persuade the other party to see a) agree with you or b) see where you’re coming from. That, by the nature of the beast, is not a debate.
Scenario 1: (The argument) A couple are walking down the street when the classic “woman in the red dress” walks past and smiles at the guy. The boyfriend nods and notices that she’s a pretty woman but doesn’t rubber neck or anything. The girlfriend is hurt and becomes jealous and accuses the man of being a pig then refuses to speak to him the rest of the evening thus ruining the entire date.
Scenario 2: (The debate) A couple are walking down the street when the classic “woman in the red dress” walks past and smiles at the guy. The boyfriend nods and notices that she’s a pretty woman but doesn’t rubber neck or anything. The girlfriend is hurt so she says, (note says, not shouts or accuses) “It makes me feel insecure when you stare at other women, I feel like you don’t think I’m pretty enough for you anymore.” To which said boyfriend responds, “You are the most beautiful woman in the world and I’m the luckiest man in the world that you walk with me in public. I felt it would be rude of me not to acknowledge when someone greets us on the street.”
The discussion might continue for a time back and forth with both sides making points, but they eventually come to a resolution and enjoy the rest of their evening AND have a better understanding of one another. Several days later, they are walking down the street and another pretty woman smiles at the man. He puts his arm around his girlfriend’s waist/ shoulder and nods at the woman in a cordial manner. Behold, girlfriend knows he is just being polite and boyfriend is being considerate to girlfriend’s feelings...Of course in real life “boyfriend” might consider doing the same with any woman and not just attractive woman, just to avoid unwittingly building a complex w/in said girlfriend.
Like I said before this plan only really works w/ relationship b/c both ppl have to be willing to listen and share their opinions/ emotions. Also, if trying to apply this, do remember that ppl play follow the leader. If one person loses their temper and starts yelling the other person will, most likely, follow suit.
My second opinion is pertaining to the loss of the art of debate. The “Abortion Debate” is total bullshit. Think about it, I want you to sit down and look at the cesspit of words that is a product of the two sides hurling arguments at the one another.
From the very first, both sides are guilty of breaking the most fundamental rule and destroying the entire illusion of a debate. They’re trying to change their opponent’s mind, not the audiences.
The “Pro- Life” side makes argument after argument of the un-ethicality of abortion, and that it’s murder, etc on and on (btw they are very thorough about proving the murder side of their arguments but totally drop the ball on the question of ethics, stop begging the question and define/ defend what you mean and what your basis of ethics, please). This is all well and good but they never shut-up. This makes it impossible for them to hear the “Pro- choice’s” opinion. Also, they are forever resorting to adhom calling the other side “murders” etc.
Now the “Pro-Choice” side doesn’t even try to maintain a debate form, this is probably because they don’t realize that, since they are what is the current action and “pro-life” is trying to change that they are the defence. That means that to make a debate they have to hear and respond to the supports arguments. They don’t. Instead they go on and on about amendment rights, and the danger of illegal abortions, etc. (we all know the arguments) Here they, too, are guilty of begging the question, they are very thorough about proving how dangerous illegal abortions are; but nobody ever defines why the choice is theirs to make (“my body my choice” begs the question that you own the other body too, if this is your defence it, too, needs to be defended). Just like their opponent, pro-choice, too, never shuts-up to hear the other side
This is not a debate, its two groups of small children screaming at each other with their hands clapped over their own ears so they can’t hear what the other side is saying.
The most frustrating thing is that these people are so busy proving they’re right they can’t see that they aren’t even arguing the same topic. This farce of an argument will never be resolved if the two sides don’t grow up and see they aren’t on the same page, actually, they aren’t even in the same book at the moment. Pro-life is screaming about ethics and souls. Pro-life is screaming about human nature and statistics. If these people don’t learn to sit down, shut-up, and not interrupt they will just continue to make meaningless noise pollution forever.
All this because someone miss used “begging the question,”... at least I’m never bored.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
There's No Place Like Home
Well friends, my two weeks of training/air conditioning/ swimming pool/ consistent internet access is at an end; and so I say goodbye to Oz. Now it’s back to the bled with me. Just in time for Ramadan. I have had this threat of the month of fasting looming over my head for some time now (ppl start asking if I fast around June) I have decided that yes, I am going to fast. Not all the way though, they aren’t allowed to drink water during the day, and I won’t give up my water. I stay inside all day because it’s cooler in my house (my “cool” house is 100 degrees) No, I will continue to drink my nine liters of water and be bewildered that I don’t pee. I know that means I need to drink more but I can’t, there aren’t enough hours in the day. As it is I spend the whole day with a bottle attached to my face. Oh well, at least I’m not in Tata (it’s 140 there)... Actually, that’s what I say every time I think it’s too hot to live.
Speaking of water, the water here in Oz is so weird! It tastes ever so slightly like mold, yum.
Anyway, I’m off on another adventure fraught with bus riding (yay for CTM- the one with A/C) and taxis.
I learned a great deal about both potential projects and Moroccan culture/ Islamic views of sexuality this week and I want to tell you guys everything but I’m sitting at the bus station and my bus is due to leave in a few minutes so I’m afraid that will have to wait until next time. It will probably be another essay so be prepared. Pop some popcorn and enjoy.
I should leave you guys with something though. OK...
“We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.”
Speaking of water, the water here in Oz is so weird! It tastes ever so slightly like mold, yum.
Anyway, I’m off on another adventure fraught with bus riding (yay for CTM- the one with A/C) and taxis.
I learned a great deal about both potential projects and Moroccan culture/ Islamic views of sexuality this week and I want to tell you guys everything but I’m sitting at the bus station and my bus is due to leave in a few minutes so I’m afraid that will have to wait until next time. It will probably be another essay so be prepared. Pop some popcorn and enjoy.
I should leave you guys with something though. OK...
“We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)