When I was little, I wanted what many Filipino children all over the country wanted. I wanted to be blond, blue-eyed, and white.
I thought -- if I just wished hard enough and was good enough, I'd wake upon Christmas morning with snow outside my window and freckles across my nose!
More than four centuries under western domination does that to you. I have sixteen cousins. In a couple of years, there will just be five of us left in the Philippines, the rest will have gone abroad in search of "greener pastures." It's not just an anomaly; it's a trend; the Filipino diaspora. Today, about eight million Filipinos are scattered around the world.
There are those who disapprove of Filipinos who choose to leave. I used to. Maybe this is a natural reaction of someone who was left behind, smiling for family pictures that get emptier with each succeeding year. Desertion, I called it. My country is a land that has perpetually fought for the freedom to be itself. Our heroes offered their lives in the struggle against the Spanish, the Japanese, the Americans. To pack up and deny that identity is tantamount to spitting on that sacrifice.
Or is it? I don't think so, not anymore. True, there is no denying this phenomenon, aided by the fact that what was once the other side of the world is now a twelve-hour plane ride away. But this is a borderless world, where no individual can claim to be purely from where he is now. My mother is of Chinese descent, my father is a quarter Spanish, and I call myself a pure Filipino-a hybrid of sorts resulting from a combination of cultures.
Each square mile anywhere in the world is made up of people of different ethnicities, with national identities and individual personalities. because of this, each square mile is already a microcosm of the world. In as much as this blessed spot that is England is the world, so is my neighborhood back home.
Seen this way, the Filipino Diaspora, or any sort of dispersal of populations, is not as ominous as so many claim. It must be understood. I come from a Third World country, one that is still trying mightily to get back on its feet after many years of dictatorship. But we shall make it, given more time. Especially now, when we have thousands of eager young minds who graduate from college every year. They have skills. They need jobs. We cannot absorb them all.
A borderless world presents a bigger opportunity, yet one that is not so much abandonment but an extension of identity . Even as we take, we give back. We are the 40,000 skilled nurses who support the UK's National Health Service . We are the quarter-of-a-million seafarers manning most of the world's commercial ships. We are your software engineers in Ireland , your construction workers in the Middle East, your doctors and caregivers in North America, and, your musical artists in London's West End.
Nationalism isn't bound by time or place. People from other nations migrate to create new nations, yet still remain essentially who they are. British society is itself an example of a multi-cultural nation, a melting pot of races, religions, arts and cultures. We are, indeed, in a borderless world!
Leaving sometimes isn't a matter of choice. It's coming back that is. The Hobbits of the Shire traveled all over Middle-Earth, but they chose to come home, richer in every sense of the word. We call people like these balikbayans or the 'returnees' -- those who followed their dream, yet choose to return and share their mature talents and good fortune.
In a few years, I may take advantage of whatever opportunities come my way. But I will come home. A borderless world doesn't preclude the idea of a home. I'm a Filipino, and I'll always be one. It isn't about just geography; it isn't about boundaries. It's about giving back to the country that shaped me.
And that's going to be more important to me than seeing snow outside my windows on a bright Christmas morning.
Mabuhay and Thank you.
Essay by Patricia Evangelista
Did you like this essay? Click here to learn more!
Showing posts with label advanced. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advanced. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Why Are Filipinos So Poor?
Why are Filipinos so Poor?
In the ’50s and ’60s, the Philippines was the most envied country in Southeast Asia. What happened?
By F. Sionil Jose
What did South Korea look like after the Korean War in 1953? Battered, poor - but look at Korea now. In the Fifties, the traffic in Taipei was composed of bicycles and army trucks, the streets flanked by tile-roofed low buildings. Jakarta was a giant village and Kuala Lumpur a small village surrounded by jungle and rubber plantations. Bangkok was criss-crossed with canals, the tallest structure was the Wat Arun, the Temple of the Sun, and it dominated the city’s skyline. Ricefields all the way from Don Muang airport — then a huddle of galvanized iron-roofed bodegas, to the Victory monument.Visit these cities today and weep — for they are more beautiful, cleaner and prosperous than Manila. In the Fifties and Sixties we were the most envied country in Southeast Asia. Remember further that when Indonesia got its independence in 1949, it had only 114 university graduates compared with the hundreds of Ph.D.’s that were already in our universities. Why then were we left behind? The economic explanation is simple. We did not produce cheaper and better products.
The basic question really is why we did not modernize fast enough and thereby doomed our people to poverty. This is the harsh truth about us today. Just consider these: some 15 years ago a survey showed that half of all grade school pupils dropped out after grade 5 because they had no money to continue schooling.Thousands of young adults today are therefore unable to find jobs. Our natural resources have been ravaged and they are not renewable. Our tremendous population increase eats up all of our economic gains. There is hunger in this country now; our poorest eat only once a day.But this physical poverty is really not as serious as the greater poverty that afflicts us and this is the poverty of the spirit.
Why then are we poor? More than ten years ago, James Fallows, editor of the Atlantic Monthly, came to the Philippines and wrote about our damaged culture which, he asserted, impeded our development. Many disagreed with him but I do find a great deal of truth in his analysis.This is not to say that I blame our social and moral malaise on colonialism alone. But we did inherit from Spain a social system and an elite that, on purpose, exploited the masses. Then, too, in the Iberian peninsula, to work with one’s hands is frowned upon and we inherited that vice as well. Colonialism by foreigners may no longer be what it was, but we are now a colony of our own elite.
We are poor because we are poor — this is not a tautology. The culture of poverty is self-perpetuating. We are poor because our people are lazy. I pass by a slum area every morning - dozens of adults do nothing but idle, gossip and drink. We do not save. Look at the Japanese and how they save in spite of the fact that the interest given them by their banks is so little. They work very hard too.
We are great show-offs. Look at our women, how overdressed, over-coiffed they are, and Imelda epitomizes that extravagance. Look at our men, their manicured nails, their personal jewelry, their diamond rings. Yabang - that is what we are, and all that money expended on status symbols, on yabang. How much better if it were channeled into production.
We are poor because our nationalism is inward looking. Under its guise we protect inefficient industries and monopolies. We did not pursue agrarian reform like Japan and Taiwan. It is not so much the development of the rural sector, making it productive and a good market as well. Agrarian reform releases the energies of the landlords who, before the reform, merely waited for the harvest. They become entrepreneurs, the harbingers of change.
Our nationalist icons like Claro M. Recto and Lorenzo Tanada opposed agrarian reform, the single most important factor that would have altered the rural areas and lifted the peasant from poverty. Both of them were merely anti-American.
And finally, we are poor because we have lost our ethical moorings. We condone cronyism and corruption and we don’t ostracize or punish the crooks in our midst. Both cronyism and corruption are wasteful but we allow their practice because our loyalty is to family or friend, not to the larger good.
We can tackle our poverty in two very distinct ways. The first choice: a nationalist revolution, a continuation of the revolution in 1896. But even before we can use violence to change inequities in our society, we must first have a profound change in our way of thinking, in our culture. My regret about EDSA is that change would have been possible then with a minimum of bloodshed. In fact, a revolution may not be bloody at all if something like EDSA would present itself again. Or a dictator unlike Marcos.
The second is through education, perhaps a longer and more complex process. The only problem is that it may take so long and by the time conditions have changed, we may be back where we were, caught up with this tremendous population explosion which the Catholic Church exacerbates in its conformity with doctrinal purity.We are faced with a growing compulsion to violence, but even if the communists won, they will rule as badly because they will be hostage to the same obstructions in our culture, the barkada, the vaulting egos that sundered the revolution in 1896, the Huk revolt in 1949-53.
To repeat, neither education nor revolution can succeed if we do not internalize new attitudes, new ways of thinking. Let us go back to basics and remember those American slogans: A Ford in every garage. A chicken in every pot. Money is like fertilizer: to do any good it must be spread around.Some Filipinos, taunted wherever they are, are shamed to admit they are Filipinos. I have, myself, been embarrassed to explain, for instance, why Imelda, her children and the Marcos cronies are back, and in positions of power. Are there redeeming features in our country that we can be proud of? Of course, lots of them. When people say, for instance, that our corruption will never be banished, just remember that Arsenio Lacson as mayor of Manila and Ramon Magsaysay as president brought a clean government.We do not have the classical arts that brought Hinduism and Buddhism to continental and archipelagic Southeast Asia, but our artists have now ranged the world, showing what we have done with Western art forms, enriched with our own ethnic traditions. Our professionals, not just our domestics, are all over, showing how accomplished a people we are!
Look at our history. We are the first in Asia to rise against Western colonialism, the first to establish a republic. Recall the Battle of Tirad Pass and glory in the heroism of Gregorio del Pilar and the 48 Filipinos who died but stopped the Texas Rangers from capturing the president of that First Republic. Its equivalent in ancient history is the Battle of Thermopylae where the Spartans and their king Leonidas, died to a man, defending the pass against the invading Persians. Rizal — what nation on earth has produced a man like him? At 35, he was a novelist, a poet, an anthropologist, a sculptor, a medical doctor, a teacher and martyr.We are now 80 million and in another two decades we will pass the 100 million mark.
Eighty million — that is a mass market in any language, a mass market that should absorb our increased production in goods and services - a mass market which any entrepreneur can hope to exploit, like the proverbial oil for the lamps of China.
Japan was only 70 million when it had confidence enough and the wherewithal to challenge the United States and almost won. It is the same confidence that enabled Japan to flourish from the rubble of defeat in World War II.
I am not looking for a foreign power for us to challenge. But we have a real and insidious enemy that we must vanquish, and this enemy is worse than the intransigence of any foreign power. We are our own enemy. And we must have the courage, the will, to change ourselves.
F. Sionil Jose, whose works have been published in 24 languages, is also a bookseller, editor, publisher and founding president of the the PhilippinesÕ PEN Center. The foregoing is an excerpt from a speech delivered by Mr. Jose in Manila, Philippines.
In the ’50s and ’60s, the Philippines was the most envied country in Southeast Asia. What happened?
By F. Sionil Jose
What did South Korea look like after the Korean War in 1953? Battered, poor - but look at Korea now. In the Fifties, the traffic in Taipei was composed of bicycles and army trucks, the streets flanked by tile-roofed low buildings. Jakarta was a giant village and Kuala Lumpur a small village surrounded by jungle and rubber plantations. Bangkok was criss-crossed with canals, the tallest structure was the Wat Arun, the Temple of the Sun, and it dominated the city’s skyline. Ricefields all the way from Don Muang airport — then a huddle of galvanized iron-roofed bodegas, to the Victory monument.Visit these cities today and weep — for they are more beautiful, cleaner and prosperous than Manila. In the Fifties and Sixties we were the most envied country in Southeast Asia. Remember further that when Indonesia got its independence in 1949, it had only 114 university graduates compared with the hundreds of Ph.D.’s that were already in our universities. Why then were we left behind? The economic explanation is simple. We did not produce cheaper and better products.
The basic question really is why we did not modernize fast enough and thereby doomed our people to poverty. This is the harsh truth about us today. Just consider these: some 15 years ago a survey showed that half of all grade school pupils dropped out after grade 5 because they had no money to continue schooling.Thousands of young adults today are therefore unable to find jobs. Our natural resources have been ravaged and they are not renewable. Our tremendous population increase eats up all of our economic gains. There is hunger in this country now; our poorest eat only once a day.But this physical poverty is really not as serious as the greater poverty that afflicts us and this is the poverty of the spirit.
Why then are we poor? More than ten years ago, James Fallows, editor of the Atlantic Monthly, came to the Philippines and wrote about our damaged culture which, he asserted, impeded our development. Many disagreed with him but I do find a great deal of truth in his analysis.This is not to say that I blame our social and moral malaise on colonialism alone. But we did inherit from Spain a social system and an elite that, on purpose, exploited the masses. Then, too, in the Iberian peninsula, to work with one’s hands is frowned upon and we inherited that vice as well. Colonialism by foreigners may no longer be what it was, but we are now a colony of our own elite.
We are poor because we are poor — this is not a tautology. The culture of poverty is self-perpetuating. We are poor because our people are lazy. I pass by a slum area every morning - dozens of adults do nothing but idle, gossip and drink. We do not save. Look at the Japanese and how they save in spite of the fact that the interest given them by their banks is so little. They work very hard too.
We are great show-offs. Look at our women, how overdressed, over-coiffed they are, and Imelda epitomizes that extravagance. Look at our men, their manicured nails, their personal jewelry, their diamond rings. Yabang - that is what we are, and all that money expended on status symbols, on yabang. How much better if it were channeled into production.
We are poor because our nationalism is inward looking. Under its guise we protect inefficient industries and monopolies. We did not pursue agrarian reform like Japan and Taiwan. It is not so much the development of the rural sector, making it productive and a good market as well. Agrarian reform releases the energies of the landlords who, before the reform, merely waited for the harvest. They become entrepreneurs, the harbingers of change.
Our nationalist icons like Claro M. Recto and Lorenzo Tanada opposed agrarian reform, the single most important factor that would have altered the rural areas and lifted the peasant from poverty. Both of them were merely anti-American.
And finally, we are poor because we have lost our ethical moorings. We condone cronyism and corruption and we don’t ostracize or punish the crooks in our midst. Both cronyism and corruption are wasteful but we allow their practice because our loyalty is to family or friend, not to the larger good.
We can tackle our poverty in two very distinct ways. The first choice: a nationalist revolution, a continuation of the revolution in 1896. But even before we can use violence to change inequities in our society, we must first have a profound change in our way of thinking, in our culture. My regret about EDSA is that change would have been possible then with a minimum of bloodshed. In fact, a revolution may not be bloody at all if something like EDSA would present itself again. Or a dictator unlike Marcos.
The second is through education, perhaps a longer and more complex process. The only problem is that it may take so long and by the time conditions have changed, we may be back where we were, caught up with this tremendous population explosion which the Catholic Church exacerbates in its conformity with doctrinal purity.We are faced with a growing compulsion to violence, but even if the communists won, they will rule as badly because they will be hostage to the same obstructions in our culture, the barkada, the vaulting egos that sundered the revolution in 1896, the Huk revolt in 1949-53.
To repeat, neither education nor revolution can succeed if we do not internalize new attitudes, new ways of thinking. Let us go back to basics and remember those American slogans: A Ford in every garage. A chicken in every pot. Money is like fertilizer: to do any good it must be spread around.Some Filipinos, taunted wherever they are, are shamed to admit they are Filipinos. I have, myself, been embarrassed to explain, for instance, why Imelda, her children and the Marcos cronies are back, and in positions of power. Are there redeeming features in our country that we can be proud of? Of course, lots of them. When people say, for instance, that our corruption will never be banished, just remember that Arsenio Lacson as mayor of Manila and Ramon Magsaysay as president brought a clean government.We do not have the classical arts that brought Hinduism and Buddhism to continental and archipelagic Southeast Asia, but our artists have now ranged the world, showing what we have done with Western art forms, enriched with our own ethnic traditions. Our professionals, not just our domestics, are all over, showing how accomplished a people we are!
Look at our history. We are the first in Asia to rise against Western colonialism, the first to establish a republic. Recall the Battle of Tirad Pass and glory in the heroism of Gregorio del Pilar and the 48 Filipinos who died but stopped the Texas Rangers from capturing the president of that First Republic. Its equivalent in ancient history is the Battle of Thermopylae where the Spartans and their king Leonidas, died to a man, defending the pass against the invading Persians. Rizal — what nation on earth has produced a man like him? At 35, he was a novelist, a poet, an anthropologist, a sculptor, a medical doctor, a teacher and martyr.We are now 80 million and in another two decades we will pass the 100 million mark.
Eighty million — that is a mass market in any language, a mass market that should absorb our increased production in goods and services - a mass market which any entrepreneur can hope to exploit, like the proverbial oil for the lamps of China.
Japan was only 70 million when it had confidence enough and the wherewithal to challenge the United States and almost won. It is the same confidence that enabled Japan to flourish from the rubble of defeat in World War II.
I am not looking for a foreign power for us to challenge. But we have a real and insidious enemy that we must vanquish, and this enemy is worse than the intransigence of any foreign power. We are our own enemy. And we must have the courage, the will, to change ourselves.
F. Sionil Jose, whose works have been published in 24 languages, is also a bookseller, editor, publisher and founding president of the the PhilippinesÕ PEN Center. The foregoing is an excerpt from a speech delivered by Mr. Jose in Manila, Philippines.
Anger
Anger is part of the fight/flight brain response to the perceived threat of pain. When a person makes the cognitive choice to take action to immediately stop the threatening/painful behavior of another, anger (as opposed to fear) becomes the predominant feeling, with behavioral, cognitive and physiological correlates. In the animal kingdom, when physically threatened, animals will make loud sounds, attempt to look physically larger, bare their teeth, and stare. Humans behave in a similar manner when a perception of potential pain occurs, and the decision to oppose occurs. Anger is a behavioral pattern designed to communicate "Stop your behavior immediately, it is harmful or threatening- If you don't, violence towards you may follow." Rarely does a physical altercation occur without the prior expression of anger by at least one of the participants.
In the world of humans, because of our unique use of codified symbols and sounds -written and spoken language, pain or the threat of pain can be perceived from written and verbal sources . We may not perceive an immediate physical threat, but pain or the threat of pain thus can be felt psychologically and thus the threat of psychological harm is real. Therefore anger can arise without (1) A direct physical threat (2) An actual other person present. Because of our capacity to imagine the distant future, the threat of pain can also arise purely from our imagination, and not be based on anything happening in the immediate present.
In humans anger often arises when another human being is perceived to violate expected behavioral norms related to social survival (for example, not receiving 'respect' - without which a person may feel physically vulnerable). These violations break social or interpersonal "safety rules," or are ethical/legal violations.
Humans often experience anger empathetically. For example, after reading about others being treated unjustly, one may experience anger, even though she/he is not the victim.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/
In the world of humans, because of our unique use of codified symbols and sounds -written and spoken language, pain or the threat of pain can be perceived from written and verbal sources . We may not perceive an immediate physical threat, but pain or the threat of pain thus can be felt psychologically and thus the threat of psychological harm is real. Therefore anger can arise without (1) A direct physical threat (2) An actual other person present. Because of our capacity to imagine the distant future, the threat of pain can also arise purely from our imagination, and not be based on anything happening in the immediate present.
In humans anger often arises when another human being is perceived to violate expected behavioral norms related to social survival (for example, not receiving 'respect' - without which a person may feel physically vulnerable). These violations break social or interpersonal "safety rules," or are ethical/legal violations.
Humans often experience anger empathetically. For example, after reading about others being treated unjustly, one may experience anger, even though she/he is not the victim.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/
Maria Sharapova: Highest Paid Female Athlete
Maria Yuryevna Sharapova is a Russian professional tennis player and a former World No. 1. As of November 19, 2007, she is the fifth-ranked female player in the world. At the end of 2006, she was the world's highest-paid female athlete
Sharapova has won two Grand Slam singles titles. She is a former U.S. Open champion, having defeated Justine Henin in the final of the 2006 U.S. Open. Two years earlier, she defeated Serena Williams in the final at Wimbledon.
Sharapova has been labelled as an offensive baseliner by tennis critics and fans[2]. She is noted for having an excellent double-handed backhand and serves; particularly for the power and placement of these shots. She also is noted for having a good forehand. Likewise, critics claim that for her height, Sharapova has decent agility on-court. Being an offensive player, Sharapova is usually able to overpower her opponents or keep them on the run with sharp angles from the baseline. However she is not known for being among the strongest of defensive players. She loses precision on her groundstrokes when she is put on the run herself, a weakness that the best all-around players will exploit. Sharapova is also not a natural volleyer. Instead of having "soft hands" at the net, she typically uses a powerful "swinging" volley for net approaches. Sharapova usually serves for placement but uses enough power on her first and second serve that attacking that stroke was very difficult for her opponents.
Due to her injury problems, Sharapova has adopted a new service action, with a shorter backswing. Sharapova's first and second serve has become less effective during the 2007 season. Previously, Sharapova had an elongated backswing to generate power on her serve; however, as a trade-off, the swing also placed incredible strain on her shoulder, which eventually led to Sharapova's shoulder injury at the beginning of the 2007 season.It has been seen that in Madrid, Sharapova's service motion has reurned to normal.
In 2006 Sharapova signed a lifetime endorsment deal with Prince Sports, Inc., a longtime sponsor of Sharapova. She currently plays with the O3 White racquet.
Source: http://www.imdb.com/
Sharapova has won two Grand Slam singles titles. She is a former U.S. Open champion, having defeated Justine Henin in the final of the 2006 U.S. Open. Two years earlier, she defeated Serena Williams in the final at Wimbledon.
Sharapova has been labelled as an offensive baseliner by tennis critics and fans[2]. She is noted for having an excellent double-handed backhand and serves; particularly for the power and placement of these shots. She also is noted for having a good forehand. Likewise, critics claim that for her height, Sharapova has decent agility on-court. Being an offensive player, Sharapova is usually able to overpower her opponents or keep them on the run with sharp angles from the baseline. However she is not known for being among the strongest of defensive players. She loses precision on her groundstrokes when she is put on the run herself, a weakness that the best all-around players will exploit. Sharapova is also not a natural volleyer. Instead of having "soft hands" at the net, she typically uses a powerful "swinging" volley for net approaches. Sharapova usually serves for placement but uses enough power on her first and second serve that attacking that stroke was very difficult for her opponents.
Due to her injury problems, Sharapova has adopted a new service action, with a shorter backswing. Sharapova's first and second serve has become less effective during the 2007 season. Previously, Sharapova had an elongated backswing to generate power on her serve; however, as a trade-off, the swing also placed incredible strain on her shoulder, which eventually led to Sharapova's shoulder injury at the beginning of the 2007 season.It has been seen that in Madrid, Sharapova's service motion has reurned to normal.
In 2006 Sharapova signed a lifetime endorsment deal with Prince Sports, Inc., a longtime sponsor of Sharapova. She currently plays with the O3 White racquet.
Source: http://www.imdb.com/
Richest prize in golf up for grabs in Dubai
The richest prize in golf is up for grabs in the Dubai World Championship set to begin in 2009.
According to press reports, this extravagant tournament will dangle a total prize fund of US$10 million and draw the sport’s biggest names.
The competition will be held at the emirate’s Jumeirah Golf Estates and would initially run for five years as part of the European Tour. The over-all winner will get a total of US$1.66 million
The Tour’s Order of Merit will be re-named as the “Race to Dubai” with the winner pocketing US$2 million. Should a single player wins both the “Race to Dubai” and the Dubai World Championship, he will get a total of US$3.66 million.
The world’s best players, including Tiger Woods, are welcome to play, according to organizers. But those not part of the European tour should fulfill its criteria before qualifying.
The tournament, they say, offers an alternative to the PGA Tour, particularly those who opt not to reside in the United States.
Source: http://blogs.inquirer.net/golfdigest/
According to press reports, this extravagant tournament will dangle a total prize fund of US$10 million and draw the sport’s biggest names.
The competition will be held at the emirate’s Jumeirah Golf Estates and would initially run for five years as part of the European Tour. The over-all winner will get a total of US$1.66 million
The Tour’s Order of Merit will be re-named as the “Race to Dubai” with the winner pocketing US$2 million. Should a single player wins both the “Race to Dubai” and the Dubai World Championship, he will get a total of US$3.66 million.
The world’s best players, including Tiger Woods, are welcome to play, according to organizers. But those not part of the European tour should fulfill its criteria before qualifying.
The tournament, they say, offers an alternative to the PGA Tour, particularly those who opt not to reside in the United States.
Source: http://blogs.inquirer.net/golfdigest/
Apathy: The Feeling of Indifference
Apathy is a common feeling of complete discontent for one's emotional behaviour.
Apathy etymologically derives from the Greek απάθεια (apatheia), a term used by the Stoics to signify indifference for what one is not responsible for (that is, according to their philosophy, all things exterior, one being only responsible of his representations and judgments). The concept was then reappropriated by Christians, who adopted the term to express a contempt of all earthly concerns, a state of mortification, as the gospel prescribes. Thus, the word has been used since then among more devout writers. Clemens Alexandrinus, in particular, brought the term exceedingly in vogue, thinking hereby to draw the philosophers to Christianity, who aspired after such a sublime pitch of virtue. [1]
The concept of apathy became more sympathetically accepted in popular culture during the First World War, in which the appalling conditions of the Western Front led to apathy[citation needed] and shellshock amongst millions of soldiers. Many often had no emotion or thought process concerning killing/death in general.
Source: http://www.imdb.com/
Apathy etymologically derives from the Greek απάθεια (apatheia), a term used by the Stoics to signify indifference for what one is not responsible for (that is, according to their philosophy, all things exterior, one being only responsible of his representations and judgments). The concept was then reappropriated by Christians, who adopted the term to express a contempt of all earthly concerns, a state of mortification, as the gospel prescribes. Thus, the word has been used since then among more devout writers. Clemens Alexandrinus, in particular, brought the term exceedingly in vogue, thinking hereby to draw the philosophers to Christianity, who aspired after such a sublime pitch of virtue. [1]
The concept of apathy became more sympathetically accepted in popular culture during the First World War, in which the appalling conditions of the Western Front led to apathy[citation needed] and shellshock amongst millions of soldiers. Many often had no emotion or thought process concerning killing/death in general.
Source: http://www.imdb.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
