Introducing Cathryn Davis, epouse Russell

A good friend of mine, a born and bred Midwesterner is moving to Paris in the fall for her last year of graduate school, right after her wedding to Bob, a doctoral student from the Midwest. Cathryn has decided to take Bob's name, which makes her visa situation slightly complicated since she wants to change all her identity documents in the three weeks or so between the wedding and the big move...

Cathryn: my name changes on august 7, but I'm not in the country till august 10. so, soonest i could have the new passport is august 13. but I'm not in DC then, so I'd have to mail it in, and would need the visa back by august 29, the last business day before we go.

and that's just tight enough to worry me.

me: can you just use your current passport?

Cathryn: I'm really set on changing my name. we're starting to toy with just going to the courthouse and getting married, so we can deal with all of this right now. but i have the romantic notion that I'd like to "get married on my wedding day," so I'd like not to do that unless we need to

me: using your current passport doesn't mean you're not changing your name, just that you haven't informed the state dept of that fact

Cathryn: fair enough. i suppose i could get my visa on my old passport, then get a new one at the American embassy while we're there.

see, I'm strongly committed to making my name change "official"

me: I'm French, i have very little interest in "official"

Cathryn: I'm American, and a law student. i like rules and structure.

me: but yeah, you can get a new Russell passport at the embassy

so you'd be delaying the officialdom by a few weeks, which is prob what it would take you if you weren't moving

Cathryn: wouldn't that mean I'd have to go back to the prefecture to get a new carte de sejour put into my new passport?

me: i don't know about that, but that would solve the short time-frame issue

also, sweetie?

Cathryn: it sounds like i should try to find someone over there to talk to

yes?

me: I'm supportive of your cultural right to like officialness and structure

but you're going to have to let go of that a little bit if you're going to live in paris for a year

Cathryn: but i am going to France, where i need to understand there will be less?

i know.

me: also - under French law, women don't "change" their name like here

Cathryn: a very, very fair point.

me: you add your husband's name to your own if you so choose

and can use whatever you want in daily life

so you would be Cathryn Davis epouse Russell

but you can refer to yourself as and have people call you Mme Russell, that's totally up to you

however for a French cop, your legal last name on paper will always be Davis

even if he doesn't address you as such

Cathryn: fair enough.

me: now stop hyperventilating, you'll be fine

We're very eager, here at The Interculturalists, to chronicle Cathryn and Bob's Acculturation Adventure - so stay tuned!

Because what's REALLY wrong with Iraq is the lack of theme parks???

From the Center for American Progress...

Mickey Mouse Operation

With the help of the Defense Department, the Los Angeles-based company C3 is "developing the Baghdad Zoo and Entertainment Experience, a massive American-style amusement park that will feature a skateboard park, rides, a concert theatre and a museum" and "is being designed by the firm that developed Disneyland." More than that though, the Pentagon is also backing a $5 billion plan to create a "zone of influence" around the new $700 million U.S. embassy that will include luxury hotels, a shopping center, and condos in an effort to "transform" the Green Zone into a "centerpiece for Baghdad's future." This isn't the first time the Pentagon has turned to Disney for solutions. One year after the scandal erupted over the long-term treatment of soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Army introduced the "Service, Disney Style" program that is now required for all military and other government employees at the hospital in an effort to "revamp attitudes" and instill a sense that "poor service equals frustration." With violence escalating in Iraq, the Pentagon is again looking to the Disney model for a way out.

'ANYBODY EVER BEEN TO DISNEYLAND?': The Disneyland-style amusement park in the heart of Iraq will cost nearly $500 million. Llewellyn Werner, chairman of C3, said of the idea, "[T]he people need this kind of positive influence. It's going to have a huge psychological impact." But make no mistake, Werner also sees dollar signs. "I'm a businessman. I'm not here because I think you're nice people," Werner said, adding, "I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't making money." Trying to sell the idea to Baghdad's skeptical deputy mayor, Werner explained the significance of waterpark lagoons: they're "very important to the sex appeal, the sizzle. Anybody ever been to Disneyland?" Werner's sentiment is shared by John March, executive vice president of the firm contracted to design the park. March recently downplayed any safety concerns associated with creating a massive entertainment complex in the heart of Baghdad. "Well, you live here in Southern California and there's drive-bys and everything else. So there's danger everywhere," he proclaimed. But Werner has an idea on how to bridge the sectarian divide in Baghdad: skateboarding. He said Iraqis will see the park as "an opportunity for their children regardless if they're Shia or Sunni." Speaking in deliberately slow English, Werner told the Iraqis, "One of the fastest growing sports in the world is skate…boarding." Indeed, the skateboarding park, part of the first phase, is set to open this summer.

More proof that the US government thinks that the only thing wrong with Iraqis is that they're not Americans. I was on board with secular democracy, free and fair trials, and a market economy - but THEME PARKS??

The Miniature Earth

My grandmother, who grew up dirt poor in Casablanca during the Great Depression, used to tell me that if you want to be happy in life, you shouldn't compare yourself to other people. But if you can't help it, you have two options: you can either compare yourself to those who are better off than you, and be jealous, or you can compare yourself to those who are less fortunate and be grateful.
In my line of work I encounter a lot of people who are definitely worse off than me and I credit them (and my grandmother) for giving me a sense of perspective. Sure, I have my share of self-pitying moments, and I think that can be healthy if it pushes you to work harder for what you want to achieve. That said, I am a college-educated Westerner, who owns a computer with Internet access, has the right to work in the US and EU, can travel almost anywhere, whose political rights aren't under any serious threat and who has never been a victim of violence or worried where her next meal was coming from - that's pretty amazing.

Le Pourquoi du Comment

I have several reasons for starting this blog. Like so many things in my life (why I moved to Toulouse in 2003... why I moved back to DC in 2004... and why I'm still here) there is any number of equally true reasons behind this, and depending on the exact question asked, the context, the questioner and the audience, I'll give you a different answer without negating any of the other explanations that I may have given instead. Here are a few of the reasons, in no particular order (I reserve the right to discover others at any point):

• I miss writing
• For a while now I've been thinking that I want to pursue intercultural communication as a career, either as an academic, a trainer, and consultant, or a combination. No time like the present to get started!
• I hope this will help me break into the field
• I hope this will help with my eventual grad school applications
• I love learning about others' experiences in culture shock, acculturation, etc, and I hope to learn from my fellow contributors as well as from other global bloggers (globloggers?)
• I spend a lot of time discussing culture and all its wonders with a growing number of friends and end up wishing that I had it all written down somewhere - I hope this blog can fulfill that purpose
• I know how naive and idealistic this sounds - but I really do believe that we could all lead happier, more productive lives if we took a little more time to understand one another and put some thought into why people do what they do and think what they think. This is true everywhere, from our personal lives to the most macro levels of the international system.
  

Gerson trashes understanding

Apparently, trying to understand why people believe what they believe is condescending. Just like helping poor people feed their families, giving the middle class a leg up in putting their kids through college is demeaning, or passing an Equal Rights Amendment would be insulting to women. I guess that's compassionate conservatism.

Being two things at once

The other night, BelmontMedina and I were discussing the democratic primary (still):

Natacha: you know, Obama could probably convince a lot of people to get over their racism by emphasizing that he's half-white and was raised by white people.
BelmontMedina: yeah but that would antagonize black voters, they'd think he was being uppity or something.
Natacha: why can't he be two things at the same time?
BelmontMedina: Americans don't think like that - you think like that because you're French.
Natacha: French people don't think like that either. I think like that because I'm bicultural.

When I was little I used to tell people I was half-French and half-American, and my mom would correct me, saying that I'm all French AND all American, and that is in fact how I feel, 20 years down the road. In the eyes of others my label depends on their perspective. In the States, people say I'm French, in the same way that Maruka is Mexican or that Jenneepah is Korean. The "-American" part of my identity is assumed. In France on the other hand, I am either "d'origine americaine" (of American origin) or people will say "elle vit aux Etats-Unis" (she lives in the US). The greatest confusion is when I'm in another country altogether - I have to introduce myself as either French or American, otherwise it gets too confusing. At the same time, I never feel as much myself as when I'm traveling outside of the US or France. That's about the only time I get to be "just Natacha," without having to decide between being a local or a foreigner.

EJ Dionne on Wright (and Falwell)

"To condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." - Senator Barack Obama, March 2008

I made a conscious decision several months ago to avoid election coverage as much as possible, at least until the Democratic nomination is settled. Nothing turns me off like vicious mud-slinging, and it would be great to still like the eventual nominee when November rolls around. That said, the vitriol surrounding Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright has been bugging me for some time - other prominent politicians have had just as close ties to religious zealots of all stripes without anywhere near the level of condemnation - why is that?

E. J. Dionne's column in the WaPo today asked - Do white right-wing preachers have it easier than black left-wing preachers? Is there a double standard?

I think it's pretty clear that there is - the real question is why. In politics as in life, you have to watch who you offend. The departed Jerry Faldwell and the like take shots at gays, unwed mothers, religious minorities (including atheists, agnostics and secularists), undocumented immigrants and others who are either lack political influence or were unlikely to support them in the first place. As Dionne points out, it's also more acceptable to criticize behavior depicted as an individual choice than to criticize the structure of American or global society.

Despite efforts in recent decades to shed light of the contributions of people other than white, Christian, heterosexual men to American history, the "default" American citizen in our collective psyche is still a white, Christian, straight man. The fact that "white men" being discussed as a distinct demographic in the democratic primary is a step in the right direction, but the fact remains that people who fit that description face less scrutiny than the rest of us. Hillary Clinton's candidacy has been replete with misogynist double-standards (remember the choked-up incident? the senate floor cleavage? rush limbaugh's shameful comments about "america not wanting to watch a woman age for four years" ? do i need to go on?), I'm slightly surprised that it took this long for Obama to be the target of something similar.

Charles Krauthamer's piece accuses Obama of "playing on white guilt" by having "the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks" (what Obama actually said: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life"). Ironically, Krauthamer's rant only serves to support Obama's point: "maintream America" doesn't know nearly as much about the lives, thoughts and experiences of their compatriots as they think they do.

How many anti-immigration advocates could describe the dire conditions that drive mothers and fathers to cross the Rio Grande? How many pro-lifers have been scared teenagers themselves? Why isn't the lack of decent maternity leave and affordable, quality child-care the hot-button political issue that it should be?

I don't agree with Wright. However, there are lots of people in this country and around the world who do think that HIV was created by the US government and released in Africa, either on purpose or by accident, and probably even more who think 9/11 was caused by American terrorism (that, of course, depends on your defnition of terrorism - more on that later). There are also lots of people who think 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government to justify launching a war on terror, or by a global conspiracy of Jewish bankers. There are all sorts of crazy theories out there about everything (creationism? geocentrism? trickle-down economics? my dad's theory that Sarkozy is a Scientologist?), but I don't think censorship (including censorship by punditry) is the right way or the American way to deal with controversy, as daft as some people's ideas may seem.

Finally, lots of seemingly insane theories turn out to be right, and if the choice is between blanket condemnation of non-mainstream ideas (like Krauthamer seems to propose) or accepting a greater diversity of public discourse, I think that's a n o-brainer. What would Western culture be without the Copernican Revolution? Of course, there's always the radical possibility of trying to understand where Wright & Co. come from and how they arrived at their conclusions.