Cultural imperialism

When I first came to Korea I was readily aware of the fact that I was a stranger and visitor to a foreign culture and society. As a westerner living in a non-western country I was very aware of my culture's history of cultural imperialism. As a good westerner I knew that our way isn't the only way, that there are a varied multitude of ways to live life and to order society and that it was not my right or place to try to change the cultural values and practices of my new home.

The the thing I find ironic is that this modern western mentality is prevalent when we talk about foreign cultures or about nice neat things at home, but they don't extend to those things that our western ideas deem to be less than ideal.

So while its not my place to tell Koreans to not eat dogs (based on the notion that simply because westerners place a different set of values on dogs does not mean that that is the value set that everyone, everywhere must hold to; just like I eat beef despite cows being sacred in India) it is apparently the modern westerner's place to tell the Inuit what they can and can't do with seals. This despite the fact that the Inuit were hunting and eating seals long before Europeans came to the New World.

As such I have nothing but praise for the recent actions of Michelle Jean, Governor General of Canada.

From the CBC:

Earlier this week in the central Nunavut community of Rankin Inlet, Jean used a traditional Inuit knife to cut into the flesh of a seal and slice off a part of its heart. She then swallowed it raw. Jean said she was informed the heart is the most coveted part of the meal.

The incident sparked national headlines and protests from animal welfare groups, but also earned her praise from sealers, Canadian Inuit leaders and politicians like Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who described Jean as "Canada's new Braveheart."

"The heart is a delicacy," Jean said. "It is the best you can offer to your guest. It is the best that is offered to the elders.

"So, do you say no to that? You engage, and at the same time you are learning about a way of life, a civilization, a tradition."

I have a hard time seeing people opposed to this aspect of Inuit life as little more than sanctimonious pricks.

Is education meaningless?

A few months ago I wrote about the Pope's comments concerning Aids and condom usage. In it I talked about how the prevalent belief that education and condom availability was the answer to stemming the spread of AIDS simply wasn't working. As evidence for this I pointed to a study conducted in Washington D.C. that showed that despite these two hallmarks of modernist AIDS prevention, AIDS infection rates were well above epidemic levels amongst many segments of Washington's population.

Well another piece of evidence has come out that once again proves the old maxim, that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

A recent study has shown that despite the efforts of educational programs people in America are on average in poorer health today than they were 18 years ago when the focus on healthy lifestyle education began.

From the BBC:

During those 18 years, the percentage of adults aged 40-74 years with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 rose from 28% to 36%.

The number of people exercising three times a week or more fell from 53% to 43%, while the number of people eating five portions of fruit and vegetables a day fell by nearly 40%.

At the same time, smoking levels remained the same and moderate drinking slightly increased.

Overall, researchers found, the number of people adhering to all five "healthy habits" - including maintaining a healthy weight and stopping smoking - decreased from 15% to 8%.

Of course it should come as no surprise to anyone that the answer to this problem is, wait for it, more education.

"Together we can help Americans understand the severity of obesity, the efforts being made to address it, and how to maintain a healthy weight and live a healthy lifestyle."

Isn't this what you've been doing for the past 18 years to no effect?

Intellectual awareness is most often not enough of a motivational factor. Just think about how many times in your own life you've been aware that an action or habit is hardly beneficial yet continued in it. You knew intellectually that what you were doing wasn't for the best but we, you and I, still do it.

I of course am the last one that can speak to what is the most effective motivational lever.

Star Trash

People had been waiting since 2002 for the return of Star Trek. There had been a few times that it appeared that the last entry in the franchise, Nemesis (which scored a 36% at Rotten Tomatoes and a 50% at Metacritic), would be its last. It was a bad movie that performed poorly at the box office and seemed to show that this franchise had become tired and stale.

Flash forward 5 years and the buzz surrounding Star Trek was building. There really was no way that Paramount was going to let this franchise die without one last kick at the can. So they brought on [I]Lost[/I] creator JJ Abrams to reboot the series ala Batman Begins.

Two years later I and many waited with bated breath for the first glimpse of the revamped Star Trek. That first glimpse was a trailer filled with splashy special effects, big explosions and cheesy dialogue. I wasn't a good start in my opinion. I reserved judgment. It was merely the first trailer and there was time to show that this movie was going to be more than [I]Independence Day[/I] set in space. As the trailers came and the buzz built my expectations for the film fell. I had hoped for more from JJ Abrams than what was being shown in the trailers, but the real test would be the movie.

So when the movie hit last week, I and several friends descended on the local movie theater for take in the revamped Star Trek. My fears from the trailers were exceeded and I left the theater bitterly disappointed.

Why?

First, is the idea that Star Trek was and should be a story about ideas rather than an action vehicle. It was Utopian fiction that enabled its creators to look to what was good in humanity, construct a future that would show us a better path and allow them to comment on our present in the best fashion of Utopian fiction.

Star Wars was the series about action and thin stories. Which is why both were able to survive for years along side one another and succeed. They filled different niches within the market and did so quite well. It was when these differing franchises delved into the sphere of the other that they typically failed.

This new Star Trek is simply a vehicle for a big special effects budget that races from one pointless explosion to the next with little left in between for something that might be considered a plot or character development.

This brings me to my second complaint: character development. Star Trek was always a show of layered characters. Kirk was always the lead with Spock his faithful number two. Below these were Scotty and Bones, followed by Chekov, Uhura and Sulu. Its much the same in this new movie, with some elevation of Sulu and Uhura. However there is nothing in the character of Kirk (the stories driving force) that denotes depth of character. He is a living breathing cliche.

Our first glimpse of Kirk is as a young boy who shows no concern for others. He is a selfish petulant child driven by ego. Our second glimpse of Kirk is him as bad boy ladies man with a chip on his shoulder against the organization that cost him his father. Our third glimpse of Kirk takes place at Star Fleet Academy where both of these elements of his character blend to give us a man who the night before cheating on a test is macking on the gratuitous green skinned girl. There is nothing in these scenes prior to the string of events that would ludicrously lead to his promotion to captain that would lead us to believe that he has the depth of character required to become a Star Fleet captain, or a character which I should give a shit about.

My third complaint concerns the plot. The purpose of the movie is to reboot the franchise and in so doing free it from much if not all of the canon that came before it. So in best Star Trek fashion time travel and alternate realities are bent to the will of Abrams and we are given a scenario where a mining ship is the most powerful vessel in the galaxy, time traveling black holes and the uber convenient presence of the elder Spock.

A hard working, everyday Romulan witnesses the destruction of Romulus despite the best efforts of Ambasador Spock, in a mind blowing consequence of a black hole forming as a result of the detonation of red matter, this Romulan's mining ship is transported more than a century into the past. Our appropriately named antagonist, Nero, vows vengeance on Spock and the Federation who brought about the end of Romulus.

Of course we are to let go of the fact that black holes don't allow for time travel. We see black holes three times in the movie. The first is when Nero destroys Vulcan, the second is in the mind meld that details Nero's motivations and machinations, and the third is in the movies climactic confrontation between Nero and Kirk. In two of these cases a black hole functions properly. The one that enables the reality altering ramifications for the lives of our Star Trek crew (and enables the franchise reboot) is a flawed use of a black hole.

A black hole is not a hole. It is an object of sufficiently dense mass and gravitational force that even light can't escape it. This gives us the the term 'event horizon', that point at which light is able to escape the gravitational force of the black hole.

So when we see a black hole created at the heart of Vulcan and we see all matter being sucked into it, this would be a realistic use of a black hole. The planet would be destroyed by the gravitational force of the black hole.

When we see Nero's ship being destroyed by a black hole it is a poor utilization of the black hole. In our first instance we see a planet being torn asunder in seconds. This time we see Nero's ship slowly coming under the devastating effects of the black hole. Why did it work so quickly in the first instance and not in the second? Oh right so that you can have this stupid little scene on the bridge of the Enterprise showing the bonding of Kirk and Spock and of course to give a chance for a light show as Kirk destroys Nero. Of course its bisected by a black hole, the thing that destroys planets, so this is merely a self gratifying circle jerk on the part of the Enterprise crew.

We then see the Enterprise on the threshold of the event horizon and being sucked into the black hole. Of course the black hole gets its name from the absence of light and yet we can see light behind the Enterprise so it should be safe, especially for a ship that can travel 3 times the speed of light. Merely another gratuitous action point.

The third time a black hole is used (second in the movie, first in chronological order) it is an actual hole that allows for time travel. Patently absurd.

Enough digression concerning black holes and get back to the plot. So a petulant, womanizing ego driven Kirk is being brought up on charges of academic malfeasance. A charge that should cost him is career in Star Fleet but lucky for us it is at this very moment that Nero launches his attack on Vulcan saving us from a fate without Kirk in Star Trek.

Of course he's on academic suspension and isn't allowed to go, so Bones breaks about 15 different regulations and smuggles Kirk on board the Enterprise leading to what are supposed to be comic moments of Kirk falling unconscious, a numb tongue and inflated hands. Of course it is this very illegal action that saves humanity from destruction. All hail Kirk!

So Kirk is able to convince Captain Pike that they are heading into a trap and in yet another moment of absurdity Kirk is made 1st officer upon Pike's departure from Enterprise.

This leads to the butting of heads between Spock and Kirk, leading to the expulsion of Kirk from Enterprise in time to meet up with Ambassador Spock who is there to try and fill in as many plot holes as possible.

From here things get simply atrocious.

What this movie really is is one long series of action sequences strung together loosely.

First scene in the movie, action sequence. Next scene, action sequence. Next scene, action sequence. Next scene we break it up with a little human on alien sex scene. Then comes a faux action sequence. Then an instance of intrigue. Then an action sequence. It goes on this way for nearly two hours.

Anyways, I've even tired of this critique, but I'll mention a few other moments in the movie that I found particularly absurd and insulting.

1. The promotion of Kirk: At the end of the movie we are treated to a scene where Kirk is promoted from cadet on academic suspension facing expulsion from Starfleet to captain. He jumps six officer grades and is promoted straight to captain because of one days work. Imagine if you will a cadet at Annapolis facing expulsion being thrust into action and after one battle being promoted from flawed cadet to ship captain. Never happen right? Right, but in this absurd version of Star Trek we are to applaud it.

2. Kirk: As I mentioned previously Kirk is a cliche of no depth. As the movie's titular protagonist there is supposed to be something there that draws us towards him and root for him. Personally Kirk was a two dimensional character who I'd like to see flushed out an air lock as sit in the captain's chair.

3. Formulaic: The movie follows the action movie formula to a tee, even if it means adding in rather unnecessary and even absurd action sequences in order to meet its 1:10 ratio of action sequences to script pages. As with other movies that follow this formula, action is used as a crutch to prop up a poorly written film and to distract the audience from the poor plot, plot holes, poor acting and general shitty nature of the film.