Shout out to Project Remix

I first heard about Project Remix last year–or at least the collection of nascent ideas that would eventually become Remix–from one of the creators, who is also a good friend of mine. I was immediately sold on the idea, which was to create a site that provided resources and information to Desi (South-Asian) youth. A site created by the Indian youth for the Indian youth.

The official site launched recently, though it had already started generating buzz among our peers when it had made its first foray into the collective consciousness. Currently there are sections for cuts, cultural media, and articles. The cuts feature mixes used by various student groups and collegiate dance teams (bhangra, raas, Indian fusion, etc.) from across the country. Cultural media highlights video performances from various collegiate groups. The articles on Project Remix have been broken down into smaller categories and initiatives, devoted to everything from the arts to sports (currently I’m contributing to Team Innovate’s Neurobio series so be sure to check that out!). Examples of articles currently up on the website include my neurobio piece (an overview of neuroscience), a two-part series on biofuels, a review of Slumdog Millionaire, and a piece recounting a trip to Chennai to volunteer.

Project Remix is seeking new, fresh voices that can contribute to the site in any capacity. If you are a writer or blogger who is interested in appearing on the website, you can email projectremixny at gmail dot com. For any other questions, you can also send an email to the aforementioned address. The website is http://www.projectremix.org.

In addition, you can follow Project Remix on Twitter @ProjectRemix for updates.

Caught Between Worlds

I am Indian.

I am American.

Am I one? Am I the other? Am I both?

I think I started seriously thinking about it a few months ago, when the marriage talk took on a new level of urgency. I’m supposed to marry a Malayalee Nair guy. They prefer I marry someone from India. I prefer I marry someone from here. Does it make a difference? What do I want for my children?

I am of two minds. On one hand, I am in love with Malayalee culture, its uniqueness, its richness, and its resilience through millennia. I have learned both Carnatic music and two forms of classical dance. I am Hindu, and Hindu with a decidedly South Indian flair (and yes there are regional differences). I want to make sure my children are raised in that culture.

Yet on the other hand, I am in love with aspects of American culture, because it really is a portal to other cultures due to the proverbial melting pot of American society. I love baseball and football (no, not soccer), have decidedly multicultural culinary tastes, and have a doggedly American sense of independence and individuality. I’m a registered Democrat and have little to no idea about Indian politics. I know Shashi Tharoor won in Kerala, Kerala is no longer communist, and the Congress Party is still in power. Beyond that, I’m stumped. I understood cricket for a grand total of 2 weeks following watching “Lagaan” after which I returned to my original opinion (originally Robin Williams’) that “cricket is basically baseball on valium.” My music tastes are varied, but if I go to Pandora to pick a station, it is ultimately a rock station. Even as far as marriage goes, I’ve come to accept (heck, embrace) the idea that you really do need to get to know the person you’re going to marry, even if it is arranged. Perhaps it comes from living in a culture so devoted to dating.

Yet there are days where saying “our” with regard to India-related things feels right, and others where it feels awkward and foreign. Likewise for American. So what is the deciding factor that puts a person squarely in one world or another?

For me, I think I’m more comfortable being identified as an American of Indian origin, rather than an Indian. Yes, my skin is brown, my hair is black, I “look” Indian, but when I speak, I’m American. On most counts, I don’t feel comfortable when I go back to India. Culturally, I can hold my own in certain things. Yet there is one glaring exception: language. Perhaps that is the one thing that will keep me from really feeling…Indian. Yes, I can manage some conversation, but most is grammatically abysmal, and is done more for comic effect or satisfying my grandmother, whose English is about as good as my Malayalam. I can’t find linguistic common ground with my relatives when I go back. Most of them speak English very well, but there’s a certain level of cultural intimacy that only comes with speaking in one’s mother tongue. Maybe that’s what keeps me from being “fully Indian.”

I suppose I walk the line between Indian and American, though I’d like to think that perhaps, I’ve created my own cultural identity that happens to be squarely between both worlds. It is not set in stone, but fluid, sopping up whatever I find that is both rich and profound.

To those among you who are first-generation Americans, or were raised in a multicultural household, do you identify with your birth country’s culture, your parents’ culture(s), or do you fashion your own?

Miss California

I almost want to feel bad for this girl. The operative word here is “almost.”

Two weeks ago, Carrie Prejean emerged onto the scene as the winner of the Miss California pageant. She strutted and sashayed her way through the competition, until one question, the proverbial shot heard ’round the world. In response to a question by Perez Hilton regarding her views on gay marriage, she responded as follows:

Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

I guess if it were any other question where she was the underdog as far as prevailing (and accepted) viewpoints go, I would have applauded her for having the guts to go ahead and possibly piss off a whole legion of people by sticking to her guns. Except this question was about gay marriage…and her answer, though her own honest opinion, was not appropriate in that forum, on that national stage. I think even if she stood by her views but accepted the possibility of gay marriages being a legitimate possibility in this country, it would have been ok. Yet her awkward phrasing of gay marriage as “opposite marriage” and the addition of the every-popular (but never effective) “no offense” made clear that her views on gay marriage are absolute, and negative. She ultimately lost the crown, but gained a whole new legion of fans, mostly the same people who brought us Proposition 8, and are threatening to halt progress in its tracks. She has stuck by her views on marriage, claiming she is a Christian, and those are her beliefs and felt that she was unfairly discriminated against due to her answer at the competition.

Then came the revelation that she had breast implants funded by the pageant prior to the national competition. Talk about role model, and a proponent of natural beauty (as opposed to plastic and silicone-enhanced beauty). Great person for girls to look up to.

Then came the pictures.

The topless pictures that are very much against pageant rules in the state of California (and possibly everywhere?). Prejean claims this is just a ploy on the part of those who oppose her views and her Christianity. She says that being a model and being a Christian is possible, that they are not mutually exclusive titles. While I’m tempted to outright deny it, I’m not a Christian, so I’m not going to touch that issue with a ten-foot pole. I’ll leave that for the Christians to debate.

Miss USA competitors are supposed to be role models for girls across the country. In an age where progress is gathering momentum, where love–straight or gay–is being acknowledged in public circles and in the context of state governments, trying to say that one kind of love trumps another is just wrong. Not even being open to the possibility is just wrong. Progress is about opening yourself up to change, not rigidly holding on to the past at the cost of hindering society’s movement upward.

While (apparently) implants are not taboo in pageants, getting breast implants right before the Miss USA pageant doesn’t sit well with me. Whatever happened to the idea of natural beauty? What will the thousands of girls think when they realize that her breasts are fake. Will they think that beauty only comes with surgical intervention? That beauty, ultimately, has a price tag? Really, implants shouldn’t be allowed in beauty pageants, it just defeats the purpose in my eyes…where the purpose is identifying role models for girls everywhere.

The pictures, though, are a clear violation of pageant rules, no matter how you spin it. If, as she says, it was just lingerie, then the pageant should be flooded with more girls who have modeling experience in that area. Whether or not the rules should change (since after all, pageant participants do model in two-piece bathing suits) should be decided for next year’s competitors. Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is with partial nudity, but when you’re dealing with hard and fast rules and you flagrantly go against them, you should relinquish your title.

On a side note, poor Miss North Carolina i.e. Miss USA 2009, the limelight was unfairly stolen from her and cast on Miss California because of the controversy she has generated. I hope she fares well in the Miss Universe pageant.

Watch “Sita Sings the Blues”

Because it is brilliant.

It is basically The Ramayana from Sita’s perspective. Her story is juxtaposed with that of the cartoonist, who herself is enduring a bad breakup from her husband. I know there are some raised eyebrows from the Hindu community, namely the portrayal of the story and missing out the elements of the story that make Rama’s actions “make sense” i.e. time period, expectations of women, etc. However, the point of the Ramayana (and any other story/epic) is to inspire, and perhaps even provide comfort as the case seems to be here.

Check out Nina Paley’s blog as well. She bills herself as “America’s Best-Loved, Unknown Cartoonist.” I get the feeling she’s not going to be unknown for much longer.

In Sita, the cartoonist finds someone not unlike herself, faced with the sudden separation from her husband, whom she loves without boundaries. The story is wonderfully narrated by three, Indonesian shadow puppets, and the animation of Sita’s story and the cartoonist Nina Paley’s story are animated differently, both styles adding another dimension to each story. I think I liked the songs the most–all rendered by Annette Henshaw, a singer who sang the songs during the twenties–it was as though the songs were made for the film.

It aired on PBS New York (WNET) last night, however the full, streaming movie is available here:

http://www.thirteen.org/sites/reel13/blog/watch-sita-sings-the-blues-online/347/

Thank you Keith Olbermann

Thank you for upholding the integrity and honor that comes with going to Cornell, no matter which part of Cornell. I was in Human Ecology, you were in Agriculture and Life Sciences. Our paying less money per semester does not make us any less of a Cornellian, or any less of an Ivy Leaguer.

I was not aware of Ann Coulter’s comments about your Cornell education, deeming it “the land-grant, non-Ivy League school…” (for those who want to see the full article, go to her website) For the record, Ann Coulter is my least favorite Cornell alum–if the word “favorite” can even be used reasonably to describe her in any regard (like describing a favorite illness?)–falling well below even the oft-maligned Paul Wolfowitz. She is a disgrace to the University, not for her Republican views but for her small-minded approach to the problems that plague our society. She does not consider the other side, it’s her way, or the highway.

Cornell University seeks to promote intelligent dialogue among people from different views (which is the case with most universities I suppose). At Cornell, the Cornell Review and Turn Left (right-wing and left-wing publications, respectively) coexist relatively peacefully. We have a thriving religious works department, and discussion is always encouraged among the different religious groups. Ms. Coulter, meanwhile, killed two birds with one stone in an interview with Beliefnet, by calling liberals “godless” and claiming churches that don’t agree with her “are called mosques.”

I’m not one to be blunt about things, but I’ll make an exception this time. I don’t like her, I think most people who know me are well aware of that (and I think it’s fair so say if she knew me, she wouldn’t like me either, so it’s mutual). I don’t usually complain about the incessant nonsense that seems to emanate from her on a daily basis. Yet hearing this just rubbed me the wrong way.

I am a Cornell graduate. I am not any less qualified than any of my friends from Arts and Sciences, Engineering, Art, Architecture, and Planning, or the School of Hotel Administration. I took most of my classes in Arts and Sciences, since I was pre-med, and the chemistry and physics classes were only offered in Arts. Most of my Cornell career was spent in either Baker or Rockefeller. My freshman writing seminars were in Arts. Some of my humanities requirements were also in Arts. The rest was in Ag or Hum Ec (oh and one elective cross-listed in Engineering). What was the difference between my education and someone in one of the privately-endowed schools? I paid less for my education. I’m a New York State resident, and I went to the College of Human Ecology. In-state residents get a break, something that is definitely not unique to Cornell. Yes I got my Cornell degree, which is proudly sitting on the mantel of my fireplace, at a graduation ceremony where other graduates from all the Cornell colleges were present. We heard the same speech by President Skorton, we sat in front of the same, proud collection of college deans, we all sang the “alma mater.” My state-side college peers and I just did it for around half of what the rest of them paid. Big deal. I am no less of a Cornellian than anyone else, past, present, or future.

So thank you Keith for standing up for the rest of the Cornellians from Ag, Hum Ec, and ILR.

I’m calling on all Cornell alumnae (and all current Cornellians) to email Ann Coulter expressing your feelings. I don’t care what college you’re from, but stand up for your status as a Cornell alum, regardless of which college you’re from. We’re all Cornellians at the end of the day. Ultimately, that’s all that matters.

King as a Model for World Peace

Martin Luther King Jr. Day is celebrated every year in the United States to commemorate the life and achievements of a man who managed to do so much in a life that was cut tragically short. He was a follower of Gandhi’s nonviolent approach and the use of civil disobedience as a powerful tool for change. Violence, to him, was never an answer to even the most dire problems. Indeed his steadfast devotion to peace earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, something that he accepted graciously, but never let define him. He was still the reverend from Georgia who sought to uplift those who were downtrodden.

We live in a time where violence has become the norm, where nonviolence–though idealized and uplifted in theory–is not seriously employed as a reasonable solution. We are engaged in two unpopular wars without a discernible end, and are mired in troubles that are progressively eating away at our resolve. Probably now, more than ever, we need the Rev. King to lead us from darkness to light. We may not have the man, but we have his legacy, his ideas, and his dream.

When obstacles rose in his path for racial equality for everyone, King found ways around them, and managed to achieve what he set out to do. When violent, fringe movements rose out of the civil rights movement, King distanced himself from them, sticking to his nonviolent path. When the Vietnam War broke out, King withheld support when to do so was considered unpatriotic. Indeed he wasn’t afraid to push through the opposition to stand up for what he believed in, and ultimately to stand up for what was right.

His dream finds applications even in today’s tough times. Today, Iraq and Afghanistan are still reeling from the violence of protests, of suicide bombers, and of war in general. Today, our social programs are languishing. Rev. King would have never supported our actions now, how we’ve put all our eggs into the proverbial military basket. “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death,” he once said. If that is the case, we are undoubtedly standing at death’s door.

As a new president prepares to take the reins of a nation in shambles, I wonder what our next course of action will be. “[Man] is distinguished from animals by his freedom to do evil or to do good and to walk the high road of beauty or tread the low road of ugly degeneracy.” In the face of unspeakable violence–some exacted by us–as well as a lagging economy, we could meet it with violence and greed, i.e. more of the same. Or we could take a leaf out of Dr. King’s book and try to meet the challenges of the new administration with intelligence, with magnanimity, and with compassion.

We must combine the toughness of the serpent and the softness of the dove, a tough mind and a tender heart.

Dr. King’s dream must find new purpose in a world that, while somewhat improved from the one Dr. King experienced, still has many problems to overcome.

Confessions of a Lapsed Pescatarian/Vegetarian with Benefits

My friends were right. I like chicken just a little too much. Admittedly, I’m a little embarrassed to be writing this, especially after I had written this. In my defense though, it took me a year and a half to cave.

It wasn’t so much the need for chicken, or meat in general, that made me cave. It may have had something to do with the fact that my hair was falling in record amounts everyday, owing very much to a diet severely deficient in protein. Living on my own was fine, I could tailor my diet to ensure I was getting protein sans meat (minus fish). Yet living at home with a family that finds vegetarianism, or anything remotely like it, just a little bit alien made it difficult to meet my needs when the default meal almost always included chicken. It may have also had something to do with my mother bemoaning the fact that I was somehow betraying the family by treading the path towards vegetarianism. Yet in all actuality, maybe it may have been because I just missed meat. It proved incredibly difficult to stay away from it, especially chicken, since I had been raised on it since I was born. Maybe I’m just weak.

Am I a bad person for becoming (something close to a) vegetarian? Am I even worse for lapsing?

Nairs traditionally eat meat. Maybe that’s why it seemed so unusual to most of my family that I would eschew meat. I kept fish because I thought that keeping at least that form of protein would ensure that my diet was complete, and would ensure that I maintained my intake of omega-3s and vitamins more commonly found in fish than vegetarian sources. Keeping fish–a Malayalee staple–also kept my family somewhat at ease, though not completely.

So why did I even pursue a path to vegetarianism to begin with? There are a few reasons:

1. Animal cruelty: The news is full of stories of meat processing plants mistreating their animals. Mistreating is probably the understatement of the year. PETA and vegetarianism were ubiquitous in the crunchy-granola environment of Ithaca, so it did rub off on me a little.

P.S. PETA wants to rename fish “sea kittens” in an attempt to make the public view fish differently, and perhaps stop eating fish. What do you think?

2. Religious reasons: Compassion is a cornerstone of Hinduism, which explains why so many Hindus are vegetarian.

3. I guess I just wasn’t into meat for a while.

Vegetarianism of course carries with it a long list of benefits, from better health (losing weight, lower LDLs, more fiber, etc.), to a healthier environment (less livestock being raised for meat, less methane emission). I still hold that reducing our meat intake is the only way to ensure some sort of humane treatment for animals, since much of the tactics being employed today are the result of the maddening demand for meat and the need to industrialize the process of raising and slaughtering livestock.

Vegetarianism is still the best option, but clearly I wasn’t ready for it on some level. I probably should have known when I was so reluctant to give up seafood.

I don’t think I entirely expected I’d lapse. Yet I think once I started to have very vivid dreams of eating meat again, I needed to address it. My diet was severely lacking in protein and it was affecting my health. Yes, I still ate seafood, but preparing decent seafood enough times per week was not something I was able to do. So I slipped and fell, or returned to my normal diet, however you’d like to look at it.

Do I feel a little guilty? Oh yeah. Do I think I’ll try to become a vegetarian again? Probably, though further down the road. Do I regret lapsing? Not entirely. I needed to address my health, that was the main reason I went back…though yes, some of it was caving into the general need for non-vegetarian fare. It’s not like I’m about to swing to the other end of the spectrum and go completely carnivorous and eat all kinds of meat. It’s just returning to what I would normally have before my experiment with pescatarianism. This translates to seafood, some chicken, but never beef. I’m trying to stick with organic sources, or at least theoretically organic sources (halal/kosher), though it’s so unfortunate that organic products are much more expensive than the run-of-the-mill variety.

Maybe once I’m living on my own, and have enough time to devote to preparing meals, I’ll venture back into vegetarian territory. Until then though…

We Need to Tiptoe Carefully

I am not professing to know all the little nuances about the situation in Afghanistan, but this is what I’ve been able to conclude overall:

Barack Obama had mentioned during the campaign that attention would be turned towards Afghanistan, which in his eyes, represents the greater threat compared to Iraq. While I am tempted to agree with him, I can only hope he doesn’t mean an all-out war. It looks that way, though, since there is a plan in place to double the number of troops in the area.

War is probably the worst idea for the area now.

Here’s how I see it:

Afghanistan is starting to see a resurgence in the strength and size of the Taliban. The Taliban has started to encroach on Pakistani regions that lie close to the Afghani border, and have experienced little to no resistance from the government. Pakistan, itself, is a powder keg waiting to explode. Not only is Afghanistan slowly being eaten inside-out by newly-resurrected Taliban forces on its western border, India has increased the deployment of troops to Pakistan’s eastern border in light of the horrific attacks on Mumbai. Couple that with the fact that the government reeks of impotence and corruption, it is a disaster waiting to happen. War will just hasten the pace at which the fuse burns, if not blow up the powder keg outright.

So what should the plan be?

Pakistan, I think, has neglected the Afghani border in favor of keeping troops stationed near the LOC, as well as further south along its border with India. Given India’s accusations of Pakistan’s involvement with the terrorist attacks on Mumbai, war on that front is still highly likely. Ultimately (as far as I see it) this mostly stems from continued struggle for control over the region of Kashmir. Barack Obama’s original suggestion to somehow, solve that problem in order to reduce the need for troops being deployed to that front is smart in theory, but cumbersome to implement. India will not part with Kashmir, and Pakistan will not go away empty-handed. Nonetheless, there need to be steps taken diplomatically, to bring some sort of peace to the area. This battle has gone on for too long.

There is no easy way to explain the rise of the Taliban. It seems to be a combination of the Afghani government’s inability to protect itself effectively in conjunction with steadily-brewing anti-American sentiment, owing to its continued campaigns in the region. More troops will probably not help solve the latter. We must be seen as peace brokers, not war mongers.

Ultimately if we are to exert any further influence in the area, it should be more in a consulting and humanitarian capacity. Yet it shouldn’t be about designing a pure democracy, but about designing a government that best serves the needs of the people. This includes not stacking up the upper echelons of government with known drug lords and saying the opium production problem will be addressed. That should have been enough of a sign that there are major issues that needed to be addressed with regard to the current government.

Opium production continues to remain astonishingly high, with its largest crop (8,200 tons) being produced in 2007 (according to the Washington Times). The Taliban presence and resilience has been closely linked to the drug lords associated with the rich opium trade out of Afghanistan. Finding an effective way to end the opium trade will cut a major artery that serves the Taliban’s growth.

The Afghani people are still hurting, and there are still many thousands of refugees who need shelter, food, and healthcare. We need to be able to show the Afghanis, and the world as a whole, that we use our status to help others in need, not to encroach on other nations’ territories and meddle in other nations’ issues. Maybe once we do that, there won’t be as pressing a need to raise generations of people to hate us. We need to shed the cowboy mentality that has dictated the last eight years of foreign policy.

So imagine starting another war in an area that is still recovering from the last one, and borders a nation that is itself, in a virtual spiral downward.

We can’t afford a war in that part of the world. It would be a disaster. Let’s throw aside our weapons and try diplomacy for once.

Here is the link to a site compiling posts from bloggers from around the world who oppose the doubling of troops in Afghanistan.

Apparently Muslim Still Equals Terrorist?

So in recent news, AirTran removed 9 Muslim passengers off of one of its flights because other passengers heard some of them making supposedly suspicious remarks. AirTran wouldn’t rebook their flights, and were forced to pay extra for seats on another flight. I should add that the 9 Muslim passengers included 3 small children ages 2, 4, and 7.

It’s good to know that being Muslim and/or brown in the United States still means you can be mistaken for a terrorist, even if you are a U.S. Citizen (as was the case with all but one of the 9 targeted passengers). All the men had beards, and the women had headscarves, so immediately there needed to be suspicion. Why is this still the case? For the record, the comment in question was about safety: the fact that the jet engines were by the window. It was an observation, not a point in a terrorist plot.

I really hope the group sues the airline, if not for branding them terrorists without thought, then for having the gall to not rebook their flights when it was proven that they were not terrorists.

Israel v. Palestine

Let me just say, from the get-go, I have no stance. Both sides have their merits, and both sides have their faults. Historically, I’ve been more pro-Israel, but it’s less clear now. In light of the recent attacks on Gaza, I’m tempted to side with the Palestinians. But again, it’s all very unclear, to me at least.

I’m not going to present any argument here. All arguments I have looked at seem to be right in their own way. The textual assertion that Zion should not be in existence at this stage since the Messiah (as defined by the Jewish faith) has not been born, yet if you consider the hardships the Jews endured during the Holocaust and their need for a separate state, that justifies the existence of Israel. Palestinians, meanwhile, have had the land for centuries before it was carved into a Jewish state. Yet the violence with which many have reacted does not lend much credence to their cause: to create a Palestinian state.

The only one argument that I’m definitively against is the need to completely annihilate the Jewish state, which seems to be the stance of hardliners in the Arab world. There has to be a way that they can coexist without bombing each other into oblivion. I don’t think that’s being terribly idealistic.

I want to hear your thoughts. I want to be convinced of one side or another. I want the arguments to stay away from stepping on the toes of another faith, because many of the arguments I have read for one side or another seem to rely on that, and that doesn’t achieve anything except to make the arguer appear close-minded. I want them to be well-thought out arguments that consider both sides, but ultimately settle on one for whatever, well-defined set of reasons.

I’m looking forward to your responses.