The Poise of Martin Luther King

Today I watched Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s appearance on “The Mike Douglas Show” a few months before his death.  After recovering from my astonishment, I watched a few more of his interviews and informal discussions just to be sure.

I’ve long known him as an incredible speaker.  I’ve watched countless videos of his speeches, but had never heard him speaking off-the-cuff.  I assumed that after giving a speech, he would sit down and talk like anyone else.  I was wrong.

I was struck by the incredible poise he brought with him in any situation.  It was as if his answer to every question was part of a practiced, polished oration.  His responses were not only well-constructed arguments, filled with natural expressions of his erudition and wit, but he presented them with such passion that it’s difficult to not be compelled.

I believe his ability to present that poise and remain the unwavering personality that he did, no matter his situation, is key to his success as a leader.  Of course, Martin Luther King was just a person.  He was not his ideas.  And, as historians are constantly revealing, he was not perfect.  But, because of the particular charismatic and unflinching person-ness he carried in (at least) public settings, people all across the world began believing his ideas.

That is incredibly powerful.  In reading about leadership, I’m beginning to learn more about the power and importance of really living it, remaining steadfast and sure of who one is regardless of doubters.  As Dr. King said in the interview, “The man of conscience can never be a consensus leader.  He doesn’t take a stand in order to search for consensus, he’s ultimately a molder of consensus.”

Thoughts on some Global Christian Cities

What I read:

R. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics (Berkeley, 1983), 41-67.

Richard Sennett, Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization (W.W. Norton, 1994). Chapter 4.

My Response:

I had never given much thought to relationship between the city and religion.  I suppose this has something to do with the secular nature of my own upbringing, and the secularity of many American and Chinese cities, where I have spent most of my time.  The article makes apparent the strong tie between religious experience and city via the corporal activities of city life.

To Origen, an early Christian scholar, the love of Hadrian and Antinous and the resulting construction of a city in memorial of Antinous was—though the concept was not clearly articulated at the time—blasphemous.  Early Christian scholars argued to release Christians from the binds of the body.  They believed that Christianity takes its followers on a “pilgrimage through the mind”, not through the physical world—certainly not through creating a city in honor of another mortal man.  These two articles share a bit of the thinking behind this concept as well as the seemingly hypocritical case of Christian Constantine’s “Very Own City”, Constantinople.

But, these articles remind me of the histories of cities including Mecca, Jerusalem, Tenochtitlan, and ancient Athens, which are often defined by their religious experiences.  One who entered them in their early hey-days was constantly made aware of that, whether through the architecture, municipal activity, or daily goings on of each city’s population.  The authors bring to life particular Christian instances of this—a worthy and exciting topic by itself—but fail to make the broader connection with religion in general, which is what really interests me about this topic.

Some Questions:

What did Antinous’s city look like?  How would it differ from an ideal Christian city in the mind of Origen?

It seems no matter how ascetic a religion’s beginnings, leaders of large groups of people always express that important capital expenditures must be made “in honor” of the religion or of its representative deities.  Do you find this to be the case?  Why or why not?

“All the News that’s Fit to Tweet”

WHEN I first became a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed advocate of social media, I was with the crowd who believed blogs and Twitter meant doomsday The New York Times.  The one-sided a-synchronousness of old media was going to lead to a revolution where everyone gets all their news from personal blogs and videocasts.  Right?  Well, not exactly.

Just like many other revolutions, this one will end up around the midpoint between the old ways and the futurism.  It’s exciting and there are great new ideas, but the average person is not likely to purify themselves of all institutional media anytime soon.  This gives many of those institutions the opportunity to not only join up but also define the way media will be consumed in the future.  Many have done a pretty poor job, but not all.

NYT has been taking social media seriously for a while now, and it seems to be working.  They do this on a few fronts, but I want to talk specifically about their work on Twitter.

NYT:  A Platform for its People

ALL major media organizations at least update a basic account.  This tends to be a stream that’s updated around 10 times a day with big, general headlines.  They’re bland and boring, but people still subscribe.  The NYT’s is no different.

Most of media orgs also have the typical NYTimes Business– or NYTimes Arts-type topical accounts.  These are similar, but might be updated even less than the basic account.  Still bland and boring, a bit more specific, and fewer subscribers.  Again, NYT is no different.

The difference for NYT comes with personal Twitter accounts.  They have done a masterful job of allowing each journalist to build his or her personal brand through the NYT platform.  The best examples are Andrew Ross Sorkin and Paul Krugman who each have hundreds of thousands of followers.  They post titles of and links to daily blog articles (on NYT’s website, of course) that have a few witty comments and some opinion.

But that’s not all.  NYT is not just embracing this revolution, but forcing their journalists to join up.  The Times has made it the responsibility of every journalist to take part in this social media project.  You’ll notice that each topic has 5-10 journalists who post regularly on their Twitter accounts.  Even Executive Editor of the Times, Bill Keller, has a Twitter account.  He’s only tweeted 8 times since starting the account in 2009, but that’s still a huge step.

A Revolution on its Head

ALLOWING subscribers to get so “personal” with specific journalists is dangerous.  These writers could leave NYT and take their readers with them.  They could make personal statements that dilute the brand and reputation of NYT.  But those things could happen anyway.  NYT is just smart enough to take advantage while the going is good.

These journalists are all building their own brands.  But they’re not doing it on their own on their own, as social media revolutionaries might have you believe.  It’s actually happening with a bit of coercion from one of the very media giants whose doomsday seemed sealed 5 years ago.

As NYT Social Media Editor Jennifer Preston says,

“Social media can’t belong to one person; it needs to be part of everyone’s job. It has to be integrated into the existing editorial process and production process. I’m convinced that’s the only way we’re going to crack the engagement nut.”

Ten Myths About America

1 美国人在街上看到你都会对你打招呼.

第一次听到这个说法是在新东方,当时被老师忽悠的热血沸腾,他们说”Welcome to America, where people are really friendly.” 到美国的第一个早晨,我看到美国人都露出热情洋溢的微笑,准备迎接他们的问候.结果就引来无数黑白小伙儿热情的搭讪…其余路人, 一律无视我的微笑… 大概这个打招呼的说法也是有地域局限的, 比如人烟稀少的大农村和富人游人集中的西部城市.听朋友说在那里等个公车, 路人都会跟你聊到你上车.至少走过费城, 纽约, 波士顿,华盛顿和芝加哥, 没人和我打招呼.所以打不招呼是由人口密集度和人民生活的压力大小决定的.

2 美国人过马路都不闯红灯

事实证明,如果一个红灯期间没有一辆车通过,美国人也照样闯红灯.在费城, 红绿灯对于行人基本形同虚设. 不闯红灯的,差不多只有我一个. 有一次我上学,眼看绿灯变黄灯,本想等下一个绿灯,结果身边的美国小哥呼啸而过,我也跟着走过去. 可怕的事情发生了,美国小哥通过司机让行,我走过去,司机根本不踩刹车完全就是要撞我!!!然后那司机还对我大吼!!!

3 美国人看了奥运会之后都改变了对中国的印象

奥运会对于美国人而言,只是一个普通的体育比赛. 美国人常常问起我鸟巢和水立方是不是真的那么好看,也会感叹奥运会开幕式的历史文化底蕴. 但是却很少有人说北京是一座国际化大都市. 大多数美国人对于中国的了解还停留在80年代. 想来也是,除了直播比赛,美国电视台才不会转播北京街景呢,有空还是多播广告比较实惠. 所以美国人看见的除了场馆就是开幕式,哪里能改变他们对于北京的印象呢?

4 中国餐馆在美国都是高档消费场所

广为流传的中餐在美国很贵说法十分可笑. 但中餐馆却是遍布全美, 但基本都是外卖型餐馆.小小的店铺, 只放的下5 -6张桌子. 一般这样的餐厅只卖捞面, 宫爆鸡丁和我们从来没听过得General Tsao’s chicken.  一餐吃下来,6-8美金不等. 装修的好一点的大型餐馆,里面都有小桥流水和佛像, 但那就不仅仅只卖中餐了, 泰国炒面,日本寿司等等亚洲食品都会出现在菜单上.大约人均20-30就可以吃的很好. 而中国城里正宗的中餐厅, 都像是80年代的香港,破旧不堪. 个别干净卫生的还都是台湾人开的. 这些餐厅大概人均$10-$20. 而真正高档的法式意式甚至日本料理的人均都消费至少要50美金.  所以中餐在美国应该是群众喜闻乐见的物美价廉食品.

5 美国人都热爱中国传统文化

美国人爱听京剧,美国人喜欢中国书法,美国人喜欢一切中国传统文化,以上说法纯属谣传.大概是因为美国游客来中国的时候没见过这些, 觉得好奇, 所以给中国人留下了这样的误解. 很很多美国朋友看了春晚, 所谓民族的就是世界的传统节目,他们还是看不懂的,有些人还会觉得很土. 送一个十块钱买的中国结和20块美金项链比起来,美国人还是喜欢贵的. 不过全美流行学中文倒是真的.

6 美国人男人都想有个中国女朋友

美国男人觉得中国女人性感是不争的事实.但是觉得性感不一定要和她们交往. 这其中的障碍大概就是中国女性害羞腼腆的性格了. 美国人的感情表达的很直接, 喜欢就是喜欢, 不喜欢就是不喜欢. 如果你打算被动的等待他们对你大献殷勤一个月, 你再考虑要不要和他们交往. 那基本上3个date以后, 他们就撤退了. 所以比起来还是性格外向的中国女生和ABC比较受欢迎.

7 美国人直接喝水龙头里的水

刚来美国的时候听说美国的水可以直接喝. 于是在这样的谣传蛊惑下, 很多国人都迅速用上了从国内带来的黄连素.  事实是美国人都有一个过滤器. 水放进去过滤一下才可以喝.  但是美国人不喜欢喝热水却是真的. 果汁可乐牛奶全部放进冰箱, 喝的时候从不加热. 我有一个美国朋友竟然在冰牛奶里加冰块.

8 美国人会像对待客人一样招待你

走在大街上,大概没有美国人会觉得你是来自中国的中国人, 他们只会觉得你是一个亚洲人. 所以不要期待他们夸赞你的英语好. 因为他们默认所有在美国的外国人都会说流利的英语. 如果他们说你英语不好, 我们也只好默默承认. 毕竟比起欧洲人和亚裔美国人来, 我们的英语还是很差, 甚至比口音奇怪的印度人还差很多. 也不要期待他们会问你许多中国的事情. 在这个崇尚个体独立性的国家,你只是你,不代表任何国家.

9 美国人穿着时尚像欧美街拍

欧美街拍中美国部分大多还都是明星. 普通的美国女大学生喜欢穿印有学校名字的帽衫, 紧身牛仔裤和UGG的靴子. 单看一个还觉得轻松休闲, 一个40人的教室, 20个女生, 15个都这样穿, 就和时尚离得很远了.  美国人从来不把跑步鞋当休闲鞋穿, 他们只在健身房穿这样的鞋子. 当然下班时间也经常看到西服女脚下一双跑步鞋赶公车.

10 NBA是美国最受欢迎的体育节目

美国人对于篮球的热忱远不如国人. 美国人喜欢在酒吧聚众看球, 但是我很少看到有在酒吧放NBA比赛的. 相比之下, 橄榄球和棒球会更受欢迎并且他们几乎从不看足球. 有比赛的时候, 在街上经常看到美国人穿着地方队的球衣和棒球帽. 酒吧里也充满了热情洋溢的美国大书叫喊着看橄榄球和棒球.

–Flora

美国人眼中的中国

很多我的美国朋友并不理解中国。他们大学之前没接触过很多中国人，没有中国朋友连华裔朋友也没有。他们是一般的美国人，经历了一般的美国童年。

小时候他们以为他们对于中国的理解是很清楚的。而他们对于中国的理解仅仅是来自于儿童电视节目、电影、书籍，以及同学和家庭的教育：

中国是一个离我家很远的地方。

中国在地球和我们相对的另一边。

中国和日本是亚洲最有名的国家，但是所有的亚洲国家都差不多。

中国人不是白人。

中国人有倾斜的眼睛。

古老的中国有皇帝。

古老的中国人有长胡子。

古老的中国人常常鞠躬行礼。

中国人有很多奇怪的传统。

中国人制造丝绸。

中国人吃米饭和签语饼。

中国人用筷子吃饭。

中国的语言听起来像“ching chong chang”。

后来随着他们的长大，想法也发生了变化,他们开始了解政治、文化和国际关系。这些想法来自于美国媒体、新闻、电影、高中课本、朋友的观点、甚至高中学校里很少接触的华裔同学和在美国的中国饭馆的环境。这些看法改变了他们对于中国的认识：

中国人相信共产主义。

中国政府总是骗人。

六四事件代表了中国政府对人民的政策。

中国制造很便宜但质量不好的产品。

台湾应该有独立的权力。

西藏应该有独立的权力。

毛泽东是坏人；又邪恶又疯狂。他让很多人死。

中国人的文字用标志，不用字母。

中国人很会做数学。

中国年轻女性很性感。

中国脏、穷、落后。

中国男人的阴茎很短。

中国人吃狗和很多其他奇怪的东西。

中国人的生活很无聊。

这是一般美国人对于中国的全部理解。很少美国人会超出这个范围。

我的意思不是说美国人比其它国家人理解中国少，或者美国人只不了解中国。真相是任何一个国家的人都很少特别了解本国以外的其它国家。中国人也不是例外。一般来说中国人看美国的观点也很简单。

不过，我觉得中国人常常期望外国人会了解中国，很像美国人常常期望中国人会了解美国。但是他们都不知天高地厚。

我觉得这个情况很危险。随着中国和美国贸易的发展，这两个国家的人应该互相更理解，不要加深误解。我们都要承认我们双方的生活方式都不是唯一的。和我们不同的生活方式并不代表他们是错的。

–Daniel