Family values

My brother is visiting me in Reno from southern CA this week.

Having moved away (> one hour) from my family for an extended period of time (> one year) for the first time has been an interesting experience.

I have always been close to my family; it was always of the utmost importance growing up. My family would regularly visit grandma and grandpa on the weekend where it was also common to see my mom's brother and sister, and their descent-sized families.

Oh how I loved seeing the fam. Grandma would and still does stuff my to my brim with delicious foods, grandpa would be talking about the Dodgers, Auntie Noma would be her normal loving self, and Jerry would be on some new exciting kick.

Anyhow, with my brother visiting, I always start feeling a little reminiscent. One of the times that I remembered missing my family the most was when I spent three months in Panama. I wrote the following letter to my mom and my grandma about the soup, soupita, that those women have prepared for me hundreds of times throughout my life.

It is the letter that I would like to share:

Dear Bedoya women (Grandma and Mom),

It nearly brought tears to my eyes.

When at the market last week I haphazardly picked up an assortment of grocery items: a pound of rice, choyote, tomato sauce, lentils, platanos, onions, and so on. As the week went by, I hardly noticed the ingredients that remained, perhaps by fate, in the cupboard. This evening, when feeling hungry, I opened the cupboard and to my surprise, I had just the right ingredients to make the dish that defines my childhood, and most likely my existence. It is a dish that I have come to call my own; not by creating it, but devouring it.

I thought twice about tampering with the preparation that I hold so precious to my heart. My Grandma and Mom have perfected this dish, and I did not want to shame them. After nearly one hour of contemplation, I decided that I would take a shot, hoping that I would not do it injustice. I have made it before, but it usually is preceded with a frantic telephone call to my Mom asking for preparation instructions.

As I stepped into the kitchen my nerves were high and the air was thick. (The latter was a figurative and literal statement; in the tropics, like here in Panama, the air is completely saturated at 100% humidity.) I took the ingredients and the utensils out of the cupboards with an amalgam anxiety, curiosity, and eagerness flowing through my blood. I started.

Like second nature, I started to prepare the meal. My body was moving uncontrollably as my innate sense of what and how came together like a newborn foal instinctively knowing how to run after leaving the womb. I chopped! I stirred! I measured! I cried (onions)! The odor was a drug that sent my into a cooking trance!

When my trip was over, I leaned over the stove, spoon in hand. I dipped it. I blew softly. I did it.

Paralyzed, I wanted so bad to hug the both of you and tell you that I love you. I made it.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

I made Soupita today.

Chris

Oh, and the picture is of my me and my brother with our two second cousins, Joey and Gia at my parents house about one year ago.

all about love

Monday and Tuesday I read a book that had recently found its was into my life--All About Love: New Visions, by bell hooks.

I was first exposed to this book in May when somebody I dearly love was asked to read it at a wedding. Apparently, she introduced this book to the groom nearly a decade ago and he had since incorporated the book into his relationship with his now bride.

When I asked Larry the role it played in his relationship, his response was touchingly beautiful. He said that they regularly read the book--when times are both easy and difficult--to reflect upon their love and use it to, for instance, remind them what love means to them, how honest they are being with themselves and each other, how they had spiritually grown through love, and so on.

Because the book played such an important role in their lives, they asked for a passage to be read at their wedding.

Incidentally and rightfully, this happened to be shortly before the wedding (a few days!). When driving from Reno to Boise for the wedding, we read the book aloud and searched for a passage and eventually found one that was very fitting for the occasion and for Larry and Kristen.

The short blips that was read on the roadtrip fascinated me and provided material for some insightful discussions. The only downside to that was that we did not read very much of the book, which was needed since deciding on a passage was time-sensitive.

My interest was piqued in the book, so I ordered a used copy for next to nothing.

I felt that this book was very touching. To me, hooks essentially calls for a love revolution. That is, she examines love in the many forms that we believe it to be.

She begins by defining love, since it has so many different forms and is considered to be undefinable by many. What she writes is that love IS NOT a noun, but rather a verb. This enables agency and acknowledges that love is not passive or fallen into, but something that is worked at. She further builds upon Peck's definition of love in The Road Less Traveled that "The will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth." (Note: I liked the book so much that I already lent is away.)

Much of what is later written is built upon the work and responsibility needed for love to exist. This included a topic that hit home for me--familial love. As hooks worked through love as being emancipatory through work and responsibility, she describes that many of us do not love in our relationships that we have traditionally accepted as being loving. More specifically, she asserts that love cannot exist in the face of abuse. In my case, abuse manifested itself in my family by my father through occasional physical abuse, emotional abuse, and, most importantly, neglect. I have spent many of the latter years of my life dedicating a good deal of energy towards trying to love him, but there has been little-to-no attempt to reciprocate. hooks described that relationship simply as one that is very caring, but by her definition, not loving.

hooks also struck chords given that I recently began a romantic relationship. She discussed the importance of work, honesty, choice, power, materialism, spirituality, mutuality, community, and romance. Many of these issues I have been working very hard on. For instance, part of understanding the and working towards eliminating power dynamics in our relationship has been to identify realities and their associated privileges, such as our sex, education, lived experience, and race.

What I thought was most beautiful was her description of all of the potential that loving can have. From loving oneself, to romantically loving another, to the loving of others in community, hooks was inspiring and painted a picture of a possible egalitarian utopia with loving as the bond holding us together.

I used a picture of a family (I could not find a good photograph of a community) to hopefully show that when we think of love, that we have preconceived notions about what it should look like. I think that if we truly embrace loving as hooks suggested first and foremost, then we would see love first and the fact that there are two men second.

We only live once, so why not work hard?

Speak Your Mind . . . Reno

Yesterday was my birthday. I have annually taken that day to be completely selfish and spend the time isolated from family and friends to reflect up on the past year and plan what I want to do over the next year.

I have recently been reading a book by Michael Kimmel called The Gendered Society. It is a great book that looks at gender and sex in our society. Its thesis is antithetic to our socialization that the difference between the genders and sexes is immense. In fact, from what I have read and know, Kimmel's statement that there are larger differences AMONGST men and women is GREATER than BETWEEN men and women is right on.

Anyhow, for my birthday, I decided to spend the afternoon (1:30 to 8 PM) at Wingfield Park at a (mostly) local hip-hop show called Speak Your Mind. It was really nice to sit, listen to some good music, and read.

I had my face noticeably buried in Kimmel's book for a good portion of the show.

I was REALLY enjoying myself reading about men and women, how people are taught to send different messages, what it means to be male and female, etc. because I was in an area where there were people of all ages, races, ethnicities, classes, and sexual orientations. It was as if the book was highlighting and putting a good deal of meaning to all that I was experiencing.

I write that I noticeably had my face buried in the book because a person who was sitting in front of me, noticed, and when I was taking a break, asked me about it.

After looking it over, my new friend, whose name is Angel, looked it over and wanted all of the information! Angel and I discussed why we were both interested in the issues (e.g., gender and family, biology of the sexes) and I ended up giving the book away!

Angel and I further talked about Reno, the "cowboy" mentality, lack of cultural diversity, conservatism, etc. I have recently been struggling with the fact that I am one of a handful of people of color in my program, I have no gay friends here in Reno, and nearly of the people I associate with are white middle-class NPR acolytes.

So, to say the least, Angel was as prophetic as the name. Angel is an older black gay woman who shared similar experience when moving from San Fransisco to Reno decades ago.

Angel and I talked and tentatively made plans to see "her Reno," as she put it, which would liberate me of living in my mono'culture' (it is by mo means that I do not like my current community, it is just that there is much more cultural diversity that I have historically experienced and long for).

I really look forward to spending time with her and getting to know the more of the community that I feel has been missing during my two-year stay in Reno.

Much love Angel!!!

Panama in one photograph

In 2008, I went to Panama from May to August to volunteer as a research assistant on a seed-fate study that would put me in the forest canopy whilst in a basket hanging from a crane.

I remember being so excited for the trip; as this was my second time in Central America, and the first time was an AMAZING experience.

I went to Costa Rica in 2002 and took a fabulous course on tropical herpetology with the brilliant teacher, Greg McConnell. We spent one month on the eastern (Caribbean) dry side of the Cordillera Central (mountains that longitudinally bisects the country). We were mostly (except for coming and going and one weekend) in the forest, so our contact with Costa Ricans was minimal.

This trip to Panama, however, turned out to be a little different. I did spend a significant time in the forest, but I also spent time in the city with the Panamenos.

I had to travel quite a bit, and I traveled mostly by bus, but also taxi, foot, and with Panamenos that worked for Instituto Smithsonian de Investigaciones Tropicales (STRI). In doing so, I had MANY conversations with the working class and saw much of what the cities had to offer.

In doing so, and by feeling the ominous presence of US, I had a very different experience.

The US only officially demilitarized Panama in 1999. That is, there is still a HUGE presence in Panama (mostly because of economically invaluable Panama Canal) in policy, history, currency, people's minds, economics, and politics.

I cannot begin to count the number of people that I met that would bring up, for instance, on December 29, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted 75–20 with 40 abstentions to condemn the 1989 US invasion of Panama to remove former CIA agent Manuel Noriega as a flagrant violation of international law. I would also like to note that Noriega worked with the CIA for over three decades (two were contractual).

To see and speak with the people about their traumatizing experiences of being occupied made me remember that all was not so cozy in Costa Rica as well. I somehow FORGOT that I was SHOCKED when I went there and saw how ugly American and other western influence looked like in that country. I remember during my three visits to town in Costa Rica events like pick-up trucks with megaphones blaring the Coke-A-Cola song and crawling to just lead kids enough to chase them and occasionally throwing the cans out of the back, and the overbearing advertising that was most burdensome than most sporting events that I have attended.

These scenes reshaped my view of what I do and want to do in the World, and I was upset with my memory for allowing my to selectively remember all of the awesome animals and plants in the rainforest. I will not do this again, with Panama or with future experiences.

I selected the picture above to represent my view of my trip to Panama for several reasons. First, the foreground sets the stage with the solemn Spanish statue and architecture reminding us of imperial Spain. The pillar is raised high and powerfully protrudes whilst penetrating the landscape, noting the power to persist time and weather. The foreground is what I shall remember, and not the barely visible background of remaining rainforest. Deforestation to supply our consumers with wood products, beef, coffee, bananas, and soy have left Panama like many other areas of the Global South, devastated. The tone and colour serve as an appropriate lens through which to witness repression of the Panamanian people and Nature. There are many other aspects of the photograph that are less conspicuous but important, like the Kuna-Yala (indigenous Panamenos) forced to sell trinkets in the city to gain their oppressor's currency to survive and a rooster atop the statue (why is that there and what does that have to do with Panama?). But the last main depiction I like to concentrate on is the man on the bench. To me, he man's look on the bench is a manifestation of what Marine General David M. Shoup best described (albeit about general US policy, but of Vietnam):

I believe if we had, and would, keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. That they design and want. That they fight and work for...and not the American style, which they don't want. Not one crammed down their throats by the Americans.

How the west lost

In the U.S. we reap the supposed benefits of western imperialism.

For instance, we have resources at the expense of forthright slaughter of American Indians and their culture; we further have attained economic and militaristic power through enslavement of first Africans, then the working-poor, and now we outsource enslavement in the Global South. (Note, by we, I primarily mean the elite, ruling classes, and to some extent, collectively as a society.)

One way in which we further colonize the Earth is through thought. The western academy and supporting structures systematically oppress some while remaining xenophobic to others. This sort of thought supremacy has so many scientists--many of which I know personally--quick to pontificate pedantically about their ardent adherence to their epistemology and NO others.

One example was in a recent article that played by The Scientific Method's rules (observation), but was dismissed because the people were either of color or subscribed to different philosophies: "The observations confirmed what until now had been only anecdotal reports from Amazonian inhabitants of wild cat species." (From Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708141620.htm.)

Recent conversations and arguments in the Blogosphere have only confirmed this working hypothesis that western science is subjective, exclusionary, and oppressive when discussing issues such as spirituality, dreams, and the sacred--all issues that the majority of scientists quickly reject because of their lack of supposed "testability," "repeatability," and other incontrovertible dogmatic principles of The Scientific Method.

My first of two issues is not with supposed objectivity of sense-based knowledge, it is the supremacy and oppression of other knowledge. Would it really hurt if people were spiritual? Read into their dreams? Or felt that some things in life are sacred?

Secondly, I have issue with the fact that too many of the scientists adopt an empiricist philosophy, which suppresses many critical human traits that must be expressed to attain a sustainable and healthy lifestyle (e.g., creativity).

That aside, what question I think is begging is: What purpose does science serve in the 21st century?

Many defenders will be quick to point out the quantity of life, improve people's lives, the convenience of modern technology.

But is that what science is trying to do? Because if so, that is, at its core, VERY problematic and arguably accounts for more problems than it has solved!

What I think that western science should do is, instead of blindly following their "objectivity," create a set of guiding goals or tenets or principles or rules of conduct OF HOW SCIENCE RELATES TO HUMANITY AND EARTH, such as the Hippocratic Oath.

Moreover, what we do see when it comes to the dysfunctional relationship that science has with society is scientists being used as pawns (e.g., tobacco- and oil-hired "scientists") and discreditably of science because of how they do (e.g., everything causes cancer) or do not (e.g., not treating people as equals because things are "too complicated;" I think that is an excuse to not effectively express themselves) communicate.

Having a higher set of "rules," will allow scientists to (i) reflect on their work, (ii) put their work in a framework with attainable goals, and (iii) give them a crutch when answers are expected and they more than often too proud to utter "I don't know."

In sum, I think we (scientists) need to make room for other types of knowledge in our lives, talk about it, and apply it.

Why must we adopt philosophies that search for The Answer to an unknown question?

Why not just have humanitarian- and environmental-based goals (to me, humans and Earth are the same) and try to reach them by what we learn though experimentation and observation and if not consider other ways?

I know I am, by no means, well-read in this area, and that I am not the first to write about this. I just has a weird day of empiricists blabbering poppycock.