On China

I, soon, have to articulate or encapsulate my experiences within Southern China. Out of respect to the CPC in that area, or beyond, I decided to lose my notes on the subject. Lately, I've been noticing that people who never spent time in China have been profiteering about fictionalized accounts in that area. Effluent people slumming it cannot possibly equate to articulate a truthful supposition about the conditions in China. While in this region, it was not practical, nor safe to disclose my location. Days in which I lived in peace were spectacular.

I'm saying this as a person who gets harassed as existing as white, or who posts pictures of days with blue skies that register as "good days;" yet, seem incalculable to Western ideations of air quality. In terms of China, a day in which good fortune falls upon you is a good day. Not, a day in which you understand and tabulate the PPI of a region. This reflects the conception of sanitation in a post-global warming environs. This is a highly offensive iteration of what one populace conceives as, "Quality of life." For, to conceive of a national identity as being less carbon-reliable -- especially in a nation that buys U.S. treasury debt -- is inexplicable, and further marginalizing an identity to a presupposed set of qualifications that an emissions, PR team identifies.

Would you, as Americans, enjoy absorbing the facts of your material dependency upon other countries subjugated in a labor force? While teaching in English in China, I was surprised to hear that few people were able to connect the concerns between the valuation of the yuan &  the fact that Chinese peasants are incapable of fulfilling loan obligations simply due to the depreciation of the yuan. Many of the professional class in China were surprised to theorize this phenomenological equation that their currency is fundamentally devalued on the basis of trade. Paradoxically, manifold Americans -- of my generation, not the previous cyclization of offspring pertaining to actual age groups predisposed to fighting abstract colonial concerns -- are as incapable of perceiving the barriers of free trade, as well as the political structures that impinge upon the free flux of ideas, whether based in the present structure of the CPC, or the "global forum for democracy." As of such iteration, no such categorization of man or woman exists within the spherical development of life. Obviously, so.

The only pertinent details are simply that the American populace is unable to articulate the goals and arguments of socialism within respect to their own system of governance, due to systemic/ goals-oriented projections of market capitalisms and, respective, justifications for their own personal historicity, or justification within the market system as such. As individuals merely content to perpetuate their life advantage or disadvantage in respect to a multinational synthesis or understanding of politics; it is simply a pathetic reiteration of the nationalism of a plutocratic society to endlessly justify rationale to imprison the proletariat sectors of the society in which [one] naturally depends upon to exist as such, or to be able to define oneself in contradiction to the individual self within a society. For, to define the self is almost treason in nature, the self is autocratic, yet denied existence in relation to the factory, or in later times, the so-called progression of capitalist society.

In relation to mainland China, the system is flummoxing. The people exist in sharp contrast to the faceless promulgation of industry. In Western societies, there are narratives about the Western civilian reclaiming their home from cancerous pollution or repositories. This is not to equate aforementioned populace with sophistication, yet, merely to assert that the inoculation of such is absolutely insane. For example, any theoretical concern about the PPI of air pollution within Chinese society is absolutely problematic on humanistic levels. For instance, PPI is only capable of being measured or tabulated on British systems of measurement. Issuing PPI, as a country that benefits from the industrial or commercial exploitation of the natural resources of mainland China is circumspect. In society, this is articulated as the society is, somehow, "Dirty." Or, the populace is "unclean," or "uninformed," when -- in fact -- said society is being contorted by the goals of their leadership to further the interests of not capitalism, but the profit margin of countries they will likely never visit.

The strange consequence of the media blogosphere on the conditions of Chinese air pollution, was not to lament these conditions of life. In fact, in many cases, these conditions were used to subject American or British individuals teaching in China as class-less, and subpar individuals. The subjugation of the teaching, or professorial class: to the dictates of the society which issuances national and state identities, gets further criticized for participating within another society. The loss of the national identity is maligned upon those who attempt to circumvent polemical questions, and better the lives of those abroad. Those repressed in Western society are further repressed within Chinese society. In addition, the Western racism that allocates another country as "receptive" to aid or in need of "reform" fails to account for the actual situations of racism that exist for a Caucasian or ethnic society abroad. The concepts of racial purity that exist within Southeast Asian societies prove to be monolithic and highly detrimental to the existence of all humanity within any society.

It is troubling enough that the least enriched sectors of Chinese society must encounter the rejection of the victimized members of capitalist society. For instance, the jobless intellectual class is persecuted on the basis of their credit scores in relation to the rating-issuing agencies of the country. To apply this further, if a labouring body of said individuals reneges itself upon a welcoming market after being denied accessibility to their own existence, then the education of China is suffering at the bequest of lackluster American conservatives. The English-as-a-Foreign-Language sector of Chinese society, frequently thought of as an indication of social class rather than any voluble expression within a suprastructure (whether foreign or Western), is clearly not benefiting from a stymied articulation of society as articulated by those the least capable of summating or acknowledging its existence.

There is a troublesome factor between the inability of the liberal arts to envision the existence of a financial other that is not only oppressed in contraction, yet waylaid into foreign markets without requisite experience. In consideration of national debates, the threat of this permutation within American society (as an unconscious class incapable of building itself as a class due to repression, yet woefully restricts the ability of all others within their society [whether, as women; whether, as intellectuals; whether, as organs of protestation]) is the gravest concern of the future, peaceful coalition between all diverse elements of humankind. The merest anticipation of this question, even if one tries to convene with a democratic president, is pushed to the border in a diminutive fashion. As an ambassador to the Chinese military, I sought assistance articulating my position in relation to Chinese society. My communications were monitored, yet never impinged upon by the CPC/ CCP beyond Internet outages typical to bad searches, or lore about bad searches. Absolutely, I was shunned for associating too frequently with Chinese nationals. However, despite the threats to my personhood in China, I was never given a professional response by the Obama government to my query as to how a representative of America should act while performing abroad.

The reprobate truth is simply that the governance of the Chinese society upholds campaigns of racial purity, whilst the American government amicably ignores truly disparate thoughts from either respective party platform. How could one body of government have a state in the individuality of the society, when this has no ramification upon their future ability to consume, as an elected officiator?

In Chinese society, there is no position for a woman to pursue her career unless she is wed to a member of the CPC who manages to skate accusations of bribery, and extortion. How a human being -- in an elected office -- in respect to a body of government, manages to escape this condemnation (and, especially, in respect to a punitive society entirely fails my comprehensions). The difference between this type of scandal between the manifestation of politics and the failed politician within American society is that this person is not condemned on the basis of "corruption." Said individual, loses their place of employ, element of societal respect, and legislative traction.

It's not to say that the biggest players in Chinese political scandals should remain unscathed. There are plenty of individuals keen to inherit the bureaucratic positions of their parents', or ancestry. Many individuals who indirectly benefited from Mao's gross neglect of the peasantry class have found no other outlet for themselves beyond palaces redesigned as clubs. Many people have ancestry simply interested in as having as many orgies as possible while attaining their first degree within Chinese society, all the while lambasting the statues of the permissive West and considering their degree-awarding programs inferior. All the while, exhibiting blatant racism against the educators deigned to be responsible for their ability to fulfill their class structure. The West, whether through the direct manifestations of Chinese racism or the paternalistic devotion of the class oppressors disguised as intellectuals abroad, cannot produce the fundamental constructions of identity that either society, which exists in opposition to the other, can possibly send forth.

The consequence of both maligned interpretations of class, or nationalism are manifold. The Chinese intellectual class, much like the American public in relation to the acquisition of French as an indication of social position, forever study the habitudes of those rejected from American, academic society. The students, young people of 18 or 19, are commonly found (in my personal experience) vehemently arguing in favor of the usage of "ain't" as an appropriate verb tense, as opposed to any reasonable conjugation. The fact of was that my ability to speak English with a Midwestern, or Northeastern accent (typically irrationally seen as superior in American dialects) had no prescience over American men, nor American women who failed to even complete bachelor's degrees. The students gathered information from what they considered to be authorities, regardless of how skilled. The result could potentially be that those responsible for the education of the Chinese military become the least qualified, most sexist (as a result of their economic oppression [which they are incapable of realizing]), and most racist Westerners possibly capable of ever educating a college populace.

The ramifications are so frightening that the concern of hiring x-body as opposed to y-body seems to predisposition these imagined civilizations in an existence that inherently clashes with any populace that happens to vary ethnically or culturally. The Chinese military is not being conditioned to respect their elders if these elders are Caucasian women. The establishment, furthermore, had no appreciation for concerns of educational background. Merely, it's almost as if the powerful and burgeoning military of another prefecture is being dehumanized against non-Chinese factions. That is to say, that by maintaining a faculty of a populace predisposed to racism on the basis of the American civil war, this not only negates the intellectual strides or press of the ruling class, but actually predisposes a Chinese agrarian society to revolt against the remnants of colonialism (a largely disenfranchised academic class), as opposed to identifying the guidelines of trade that marginalize and legalize the slavery of this society to the West, while in fact, the Western society is held by the debts of Eastern bond-holders.

All in all, the situation remains inherently dire. There is no amount that popular, Chinese-American authors (or profiteering authors) can behold to augment this friction between an exploited class and an ethnicity. The reality remains that the financial repositories of the American educational system benefit those in society deemed at the most disadvantage. In lieu of racism that could arguably be carried as to having an impact upon present society, the federal institutions have awarded financial incentives to ethnic and other, "calculably poor populaces." The result of this reattribution of ownership, grants, and federal allotments is not the alleviation of racism; yet, the more ingrained persecution of the American social classes in competition with one another. When attempting to alleviate racial boundaries as a ruling class, the American educational elite has waylaid any attempt at true equality. The supposition is built-in to negate the possibility of, say, upperclass whites who fail to give their children money for college, on the basis of their personal selfishness. This idea also refused to discount the idea that there are highly successful minorities and Forbes earners who happen to be of a non-white descent. Either application should be dissatisfactory because both are based on stereotypes about race that happen to remain inconsequential. For the impoverished white, for instance, it is not helpful to be constantly persecuted by one's educators as being endowed with qualities that one simply did not contribute to the national fabric of the existence of the United States in correlation to the prowess on the basis of slave labor. To this day, outsourcing and inequitable seizures of labor exist abroad. Not only is the American populace brainwashed into finding its corporate plateau, but the rhetoric in which the educational system (based upon ethnicity as fallibility) is innately corrupt and overlooks life circumstances in the case of any individual.

The American educational system and those interested in the reform of said industries, whether in relation to a personal post they hold on bequest of a University or PR department (do such departments exist in this 'economic climate'?), is a lie. Even if one removes this notion of ethnicity/ class status from an equation in which vulnerable minors are interspersed into a system of financial mores in which only the most educated and previously financial elite are prepared, the fact that a body argues for a situation on behalf of their employers should not be considered legitimate. On the most basic level, this is considered a conflict of interest. Meanwhile, constant propaganda issues on the radio that encourages individuals to pursue their most unattainable fiscal dreams at the expense of their future at times when they are incapable and so poorly educated that they cannot cope or understand each contingent relation to their being.

Any cultural bias that exists in respect to, say, horrible times in history where all non-white societies were subjected to European colonialism, does not account for modern racism in today's society. It is simply not permissible to suggest that one even has a sense of racism against Caucasians without belying a class situation that suggests exposure to impoverished and, in the statisticians' eyes, traditionally ethnic populations. How unfortunate, then, it is to exist as myself... restricted from success within a society, politically oppressed, and silenced in each expression of society. For, I am repressed by the American intellectual, the intellectual abroad who asserts power as a man or educational superior, the American financial institution, and reviled by any society which has even been victimized by a society that I was, in turn, victimized by. My lack of political power and lack of representation in a society is visible each time educational lobbyists work on behalf of those indebted to federal loans.

As a college student, I remember learning about loans. I remember learning about grants. I also remember that no matter how many of your parents remain alive past your childhood, if you had one parent who made an income; you were penalized. It didn't matter whether said parent contributed to your educational progress or not. I am not blackening the conscience of those before me. It simply means that the federal educational system cannot protect children from how their parents chose to spend their finances. If your parent does not finance your education, health insurance, nor see this is as important or is prevented from caring for you in the workplace, this is not accounted for. In addition, individuals commonly discriminate against those whose parents have a net worth that is higher. As if having parents or a parent who made a salary either means that a person is either receiving enough support to pay for their education, or that having parents (or a parent) who did not make X bracket of EFC are somehow morally superior to higher earners within their peer group. Similarly, the same instances of prejudice could be applied to a person whose parents surpass the EFC by aeons, yet are somehow exempt from contributing to their own education. In this instance, a discontent is created in which said group adopts a mentality that they are being penalized, coddled, and denied the rights to truly compete with their age group.

This is not to say that there are most definitely people who exist that attempt to exercise racial or class discrimination in a misguided attempt at nationality, or due to some weird ideation attributed to biological malfeasance. The "great white benefactor" is as clearly a stereotype as any other one that exists. Stereotypes that are equally troubling are, say, outreach programs for all holders of federal loans. So, it is appropriate for legislatures to defend only the causes of the poorest borrowers, not those who might have had anomalous position in life due to hereditary constraints, or whatnot. Let's say an individual whose parents make over 200,000 applies to Harvard, is matriculated, and receives no financial aid. Let's say said individual choses to attend this school to either flee abuse not yet caught by regulatory bodies, or decides to go because they believe that the right to a fair education is so tangibly sensible that few question it. For instance, if you are attributed as smart enough to be accepted; you are seen as able to attend. Would any person honestly fault this person for attending a prestigious school on the basis that their abusive parents failed to curb their spending, or had restricted themselves with excessive personal debt due to unforeseen personal events?

It simply remains an inarguable point that the nontraditional trajectory of a student who is not poor enough to subsist on food stamps, yet had to deal with -- say -- incomprehensible abuse at the hands of parents who took up risky, high-interest credit card debt to pay for parochial education without the consent or understanding of the child, yet simply on behalf of tradition. Or, basically, any extraneous situation in which a parent dies, and another is burdened with burying them, etc. Perhaps, still more, the case can actually be that the parents' behave abusively and wish to hamper the growth and healthy development of the child by not properly preparing for their future. All of these conditions can exist, all of these situations merit treatment beyond advisors oddly hampered in one-dimensional impressions of a society that seem a little strange. Only minorities can receive financial aid because all minorities are disadvantaged (racist assessment)? Only the children of poor, single mothers deserve federal grants (sexist assessment)? Step-parents can be expected to faithfully contribute to the welfare of children not legally borne to them (dismisses possibility of abuse).


What is frightening about these classifications is that those who are endowed more money feel they are entitled to be given this money. Even upon listening to the explication of having had a single-parent or experiencing abuse, because the federal government or a school has given these individuals money, they are both unable and incapable of hypothesizing that the means which made them capable of receiving this money is biased or inaccurate. Surely, any person lacking moral or conscious support is more than capable of questioning these mechanisms. Yet, the slavish devotion, and religious-like affirmation of those who were more fortunate to be considered unfortunate remains troublesome. Moreover, if a person has ever had to encompass a powerless position in society -- as an underclass, as a woman, as a grown-yet-abused step-child -- most would attest that this type of misfortune predisposes a person to be denied the ability to proactively participate in society. Said individual, by being denied financial incentives (for example, upon entering college), is waylaid from positively contributing to society. Though the debtor is not allowed to be jailed in modern American society, the debtor (on the basis of credit score) is frequently denied access to jobs compatible with their educational level, on the sole basis of, say, the ratio of debt: income.

If this seems self-defeating, it doesn't mean that those lacking or deprived of these resources should consider extinguishing their lives. Just because a society defined by those with a majority of double-income, non-divorced earners articulated the distribution of material resources for incoming generations, doesn't mean it is the responsibility of said individual to combat these instigations. In fact, said individual -- specifically, if they had the poor chance of having a nontraditional family background in a small community -- is least equipped to serve as a martyr, or artist-martyr deigned to understanding the failings of society, yet remaining helpless to resolve such qualms. Such an individual, and god-forbid, a person smart enough to constantly be whipping post for the educational concerns of the aristocratic or technocratic members of a society, is so broken by material dialectialicism, so indentured by the lacerations against non-nuclear parentage (And, who would have a concern about something so abstract besides that of an individual brutalized by systemic violence?), so consigned to slaving for their fellow academics who were not given such treatment on the basis of their parents' address, that the amount of serving what is romantically and hopelessly seen as a noble pursuit of a democratic society, leaves an individual fatigued, experiencing discrimination from their peers, lacking the fair resources to compete with their peers, ignored in obscurant activity, subjected (if of the opposite sex) to the sexual predation of a ruling class, and exposed to the merciless of persecution of mentally imbalanced professionals designed to direct their academic future with little regulation (aside from immaterial questionnaires). Moreover, the vent in which an individual can reasonably protest such a vacuum of utter hopelessness, is seen as a critique of the pro-affirmative action agenda of many liberal Universities. The individual might actually abhor questioning a system that seems to counteract against the racist notions of the old in favor of an environment that appears to banish these concerns with equivocal, and financial rewards.

While this could be tangentially visible, often the true reality is that many fail -- regardless of ethnicity, previous amount of financial aid, professional creativity, ability to teach, etc. -- in their academic tracks because of social dynamics that don't resort to much beyond glorified and, even, well-publicized name-calling. If you think of a professional abstract or a counter-abstract, as a person and a person disagreeing, it's only some argument, despite the illusion of professionalism. It's the same competition for funding, attention, tenure, stability, etc. This could be the most cynical analysis of this to date, but the average fact remains, that many who pursue graduate school must do so at the cost of living below the poverty line, at an income in which they could never address their personal finances (should they fail to be normal, or disadvantaged), or working such a grueling amount of hours with all their work being stolen by advisors, regurgitated without their consent, in the hopes of achieving a job that is mathematically difficult to attain (multiply the difficulty factor by an exponential quantity in states with above-average rates of unemployment [even more frightening, attempt to calculate the true number of unemployment, not considering those who no longer apply]), and introduce dynamics wherein such a sect is exposed to those that happen, by chance, to have contradictory situations or indulgent parents.

If it sounds like the basis of a class war in which the uber-educated, yet, ultimately stymied and professionally denied (no matter how much ass-kissing or how many grueling hours of discussion sectors they endued being bullied by the same victims of said nonfunctioning system), and, in any other scenario... as in any other society, it's the type of situation that takes an incandescent Marx, Engels, Derrida, Freud, Lacan, Mao, or Lenin (ad infinitum) and radicalizes this person into a pulpit of scholastic endeavors incapable of ever achieving social equality, valorizing the economically victimized, and -- at best -- allowing these figures to remain celebrities amongst a contradictory (no matter how rationalized) class body with competing interests, at times, even competing for shared resources.

The modern educational climate is not one that readily awards the disadvantaged with a dose or humanity, nor instills confidence or compassion among their peers. If the peer is disadvantaged, receives financial aid falling beyond what is considered standard, behaves in a hard-working manner unpopular amongst friends in order to circumvent the controllable elements of fate, or even, has to cope with the dysfunctional family dynamics or class prejudice that crippled their own family... all of these instances receive no formal attention. A disadvantaged student, and later a worker in the wage labor system, benefits from hiding the reality of their conditions in life to the best of their ability. For example, homelessness is considered a grounds of unemployment in many office scenarios where the norm is the inclusion within the suburb based on stratas of income, or domestic arrangements with dual-income earners.  Indeed, the fantasy is that life is so collapsible or containable that it can be prearranged in such a calculated fashion.

What happens to the rare individual who, in the spirit of American entrepreneurship or democracy finds they are no less incapable of learning than their peers, despite their socioeconomic background? What happens if this person finds affirmation, compassion, and understanding among peers of various class stratas? What if this person adopts leadership positions, becomes a high-achiever, and graduates? Well, it's highly likely that in states where it's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of income, where attitudes are puritanical and numbers will not allow you to interview (debt ratio too high due to deceased parents, etc. and no opportunity is given to explain [as if family misfortune should be explained, as if it wouldn't be a constant stressor enough] due to prejudice in the workplace on behalf of conservative individuals who have probably been making everyone without two, Christian parents feel ashamed about their existence since the dawn of time), this individual has to continue to devalue the nominal attitudes of society and rely on whatever nontraditional sense of self-worth he, she, or xie has developed. In the case of broken family ties or peer groups that enforce bullying structured along status and regimented on the basis of economics, there are often not enough substances that can exist in nature to made said individual feel less depressed. The amount of sheer adversity that an individual who never attended college, yet never accrued debt on the basis of a single parent or some such circumstance, is forced to grappled with is untenable. Credit scores can actually limit whether or not a person is able to work at a fast-food restaurant, even if this person invented a new way of thinking of calculus and clearly capable of handling a till. In addition, the fact that debt exists in cases as a testimony to a person's honesty, as in this person did not smuggle drugs to pay for their college tuition or some such venture, is never factored in. The best this person can hope for, especially in states impacted by financial recessions, is to be told that the companies supporting the growth of their states, allowing college graduates to repay their loans (if they exist), and changing the economy of their state... are willing and able to deny a college graduate the ability to work on the basis of their student loans. Moreover, there is frequently some discordant chord that compels the small business owners and legislators of the state to keep talent in Michigan (or, _____ locale), while effectively crushing the ability of those not naturally fortunate or sabotaged to be incapable of working on the sole basis of their previous achievements.

The average person could find a profound incomprehension about why a college graduate would move to what is considered a second- or third-world nation. The fact that the country did not have a viable healthcare system for such individuals is never acknowledged. In fact, individuals have been denied welfare on the basis that student loans have been considered income. As anyone ever hounded for them has ever considered, the student loans are not entities that allow you to describe to a collection agency how a welfare or DHS facility said they could be used as a source of food. The American government might have a federal deficit, but the figures are most outstanding in application to the machinery of the Department of Defense. Other countries, in which fear-mongering republicans such as Sarah Palin say hold the bonds of U.S. deficit, have their own deficits. Did Sarah Palin ever travel to China to talk about the parallels in Chinese cities that mirror those of American cities? In an effort to create hysteria, the federal and some corporate debts become a rhetorical argument to instigate controlled rebellions in what would otherwise be disenfranchised and struggle sectors of society heavily victimized by modern capitalism (as in low-income populaces who enroll children in the military to cover college debts due to their relative poverty, probably due to inflation in the '80s, staggering job opportunities, economic inequality, etc.).

What is so dangerous about these problems is not only what happens when countries abroad welcome these oppressed individuals. The welcome can usually be reinterpreted as some gross violation of a person's rights, or shadowy employment contracts. However, it would appeal to this class -- should they be denied employment that they have often trained for -- to relocate upon the offer of having a position of respect within society, or being allowed to have involvement in the educational process to better influence the next generation. If a computer programmer is not allowed to work at a company in said industry, making the type of salary quoted to them in an admissions booklet; it makes no logical sense as to why this person would not move abroad to teach computer science at a college. The actuality of the situation is that many individuals fail to anticipate the amount of linguistic training required for posts that even stipulate no requisite level of proficiency in a foreign country, nor the sheer amount of bias that exists from having an identity. Even if this person is the most unfortunate member of their class, they are again responsible for deflecting the type of global fallout associated with grade, which is not only not the fault of an individual, but often a phenomenon that many citizens who become ex-pats are incapable of managing.

What suffers, you might ask. It's dangerous because many people aren't equipped for the lack of diversity in other societies, or render themselves incapable of formulating an identity that does not exist in relation to a social prototype of, even, male security at the unconscious suppression of female identity. Sometimes, people dissociate or lose their identity, like a schizophrenic or antisocial personalty type. Overall, it means that long-standing class inequalities and questions of talent are never resolved. They are conveniently repurposed for other societies at the cost of what should not be an issue. There should not be a gulf between private and federal student loans, in which one sect is seen as more or less needy and receives more political representation or lobbying on behalf of their human rights. The recent lobbying on behalf of changing the policies of Sallie Mae, for encroaching upon the rights of student borrowers and violating the Fair Debt Act, does not apply to private loan holders. One type of financial obligation for the cause does not deserve more attention. The pervasive attitude responsible for this is the idea that those who aspire for more or have more setbacks are guilty of not conforming to a classist society in a puritan-ingested thought sequence where intelligence is hardly bisected from pride.

The issue that inspired me to post was the misinterpretation of the American involvement in China's educational system. The gestures towards openness on behalf of a new president who studied abroad in France do not necessarily indicate awareness of the plight of the true American intellectual class that believes in the potential for any and all to think freely, regardless of class. These thinkers would advocate intellectual freedom, rights for or the abolishment of student loans, reformation of a healthcare system that impoverishes the unable, and, basic adjustments to the existing policies or the ability to debate these concerns without shutting down the government at the embarrassment of any person working or living abroad. Not that avoiding embarrassment should be the only basis of political awareness, but many lack this level of attenuation.

The unilateral conceptualization of the U.S.A.-China foreign debt situation is biased. For instance, international banks have long been exposed to what happens when Chinese farmers are loaned money, then cannot repay said amount due to the 'natural' depreciation of the yen. Most Chinese students not involved in business are unaware of the artificial inflation, deflation, and all around problematic interpretation of the yen. In fact, assigning currency value could be interpreted as political. The scarier facet is that an idea as logical as this often has the impact of creating fear, as it is a new idea. Yet, how can international disputes be avoided, treated, and suspect to diplomacy if basic citizens cannot participate in the content of the debate or understand the paradigms.

American or British culture is not a tangible entity that can be encapsulated or transported in a concise or coherent fashion. Additionally, it takes more than the average degree-holder to brandish this level of financial literacy. It takes the kind of alone time that comes from being classified as some sort of misfit, and losing relationships or experiencing discrimination that forced me to justify my right to think, as well as my right to hold professions or participate in a society on the basis of my mother's untimely death. I would not rationalize or wax poetic about the rights of man had I not had to experience considerable hardships that involved me maintaining a healthy perception of self when all other avenues in society denied me this ability, oftentimes through casual revolvings rather than intentional actions. Of course, no casual or unmonitored system, such as the educational system, did not wreak havoc upon my personal life or my ability to pursue a future free of abuse and impoverishment.

To anyone who travels abroad, another culture does not "love" American culture. Likewise, the differences between American and British culture can't be easily quantified. If a large youth population buys a product sold in their market and repacked using branding in their own language, what of this American culture is even being represented? The adoption of brands or luxury goods doesn't indicate acceptance of diversity. It certainly doesn't mean never travel abroad, nor that all people exhibit xenophobia. It's just not something that should be done for the sake of trendiness, parental approval, or generating Internet praise. I would not have been used to spending long periods by myself or dealing with social ostracism unless I had experienced it as a young child. Nor, would I have been capable of moving abroad, responding healthily to culture shock, and learning another language without having had similar experiences of cultural disassociation, relocation, etc. Not for the faint of heart, nor the insolent rebel.... a society that values a penal code in juxtaposition to a judicially liberal state is not something all people can grapple with.

I only want to suggest that there are some fundamental discrepancies the society relies upon to function. Not in the interest of anomie do I wish to share these, nor to cultivate a political identity. In all likelihood, an employer would Google this and look at me highly strangely whenever I completed some sort of basic task. Like, am I arranging a stapler in a revolutionary manner? Or, they'd search me for signs of Asperger's. I will write more about China, but the majority of my notes were purposely lost or never written down out of an intention not to treat the topic with exoticism, endanger myself, or expose my political beliefs. However, it would be more dangerous for me to not present an informed opinion on some tangential topics before they become devoid of all signification in the media.

I thought this would be an insanely difficult topic to write about. I was taught that if a white person mentioned racism, they equated themselves with the shameful category of white rappers, or republican senators prone to shattering the faith of their moderate bases. Next, most people are strangely opposed to basic outlining of rights for those who have student loans, the suggestion that a system could be tweaked, or my own hope that this could be done without constraining the ability of impoverished individuals who happen to be of another race from receiving educational funding they might already qualify for. Lastly, my situation is not one of preeminence, or some type of fort that I've constructed with independent wealth and the ability to gate my home far away from other human inhabitants. Finally, much of my capacity to gain even said information or understanding has been on the basis of trust. So, much of what happened, I wouldn't share & this is only policy to me.