Are we living in a monoculture?

another thing that might fuel Momus' theory is that of the apparent decline and unpopularity of Mcdonalds that is now catching a hold. they're closing down outlets here and there around the world, they're introducing fruits and yoghurt at the counter in an effort to be seen as healthier.

in your axis of evil para i don't understand what connection there is between the cultural agenda and N. Korea's nukes

I guess I'm wanting a feeling of 'This place is so substantively different from the culture I was brought up in that it could be used as an alternative template for modern life'. What I instead usually get is 'This place used to be substantively different, but now contents itself with accepting the US model and 'catching up'' -- ie the sense that 'how we relate to modernity' and 'how we relate to America' are the same issue. And yet we know that, relatively recently (for instance, the Bauhaus and its attempts to define a very German 'modernity') there were ways to be 'modern' that were not ways to be 'American'.

why is it that they have adapted to american culture and not that they have taken what they like/want from western culture and ignored the rest?

Well, you may be right. But are the elements they've kept from their own culture 'progressive' and 'modernist'? (Brazilia is a nice example of a very regional approach to 'the modern', recognisably different from the US model.)

in your axis of evil para i don't understand what connection there is between the cultural agenda and N. Korea's nukes

North Korea's 'particularity' is very much expressed in military fly-bys, missile parades, people in stadia holding tiny fragments of the national flag, etc. That seems to be culture there. I hear Kim Il Sung is an aspiring film-maker, though, so I reserve my judgement until I see his first feature, 'Whooping Cranes At Torturer's Creek'.

That said, I think Australia is one of the best countries in the world that you could hope to live in. I consider myself very lucky to have that privilege.

McDonalds is shutting down outlets, okay, but there are still thousands. In Europe there's also Burger King, KFC and the rest. But in France there's "Free Time" avec le "Hit Poulet!" C'est magnifique, tres francais! It's as standardized and homogeneous as anything american. But France is an extremely standardized society.

As noted, IKEA is a great example. How is it Swedish? The design comes from Sweden, nothing is produced there. Totally globalized. Not even the Swedes could afford to buy furniture produced in Sweden.

Despite perhaps justified concerns re: a more militarized US foreign policy, I really don't think the gov't has much to do with the willingness of the world to buy certain US products, i.e. films, fast food, levis. People love that stuff. So do I--SOMETIMES. The problem, like anything, is overconsumption. Die Hard to the exclusion of the hundreds of great small US films that often people outside the states don't see, or only in art houses. Whoppers are great, but you'll get fat, and you'll contract cancer and diabetes if you only eat junk.

The problem is, Europeans don't go to European films. Part of that has to do with distribution monopolies, but part of it has to do with the desire to be entertained, rather than instructed. Similarly, the power of fast food is the "fast" part. Even the French don't always have time for a two hour lunch.

Sorry for the ramble. It's a really interesting question. I guess my point is that there are billions of willing victims out there.

probably would be a better world if those Thai children weren't forced by Kathy Lee Gifford and Nike to make clothes and could go back to being prostitutes for Japanese sex tourists.

And it went tres bust a couple of years ago.

IMO the 'US' is just a metonym for a market-dominated monoculture (which also IMO is the lesser of two evils compared to micro-nationalist fervor)

That's a good point. One that is missed by many.

Also.....

People don't even know they've been co-opted sometimes. I was recently talking to a German univ. student who said to me, "We have a concept here in Germany called 'the American Dream.' Have you ever heard of it?" I almost choked on my Bratwurst.

But the Bauhaus point is OTM, leading to the ubiquitous International Style which is, of course, international! Kind of.

Ok, back to topic. Someone else to thread!

I have had this exact conversation with a number of German students, early 20s usually. It's explicitly understood. They have an aversion to German flags, being thought of as German, etc. Of course "Germany" is not very old, relatively, and that may have something to do with it, just since Bismarck, or Weimar, or WWII, or 1990, take your pick of historical milestones.

There is also an element of reverse (and perverse) self-importance. "our guilt is so great you cannot possibly understand."

Oh, come on.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "substantively different" means - whatever point in history you go back to you can find similar family, gov't , social structures across different societies, so I'm a little dubious about the idea that at any point there was that huge a leap between cultures. You can find still significant differences between societies, ways of thinking about how you relate to society that can throw you offbalance when you understand them, they just tend to be things that are subtler and don't jump out and hit you over the head.

re Nathalie's point of "subjective monoculture" - I agree but there are also many ppl who have grown up (and will continue to do so) between 2 or more cultures and so have a unique perspective on them. What would you call that I wonder?

Of course this is a subjective matter. Yes, there are more 'local' things off the beaten path. It's a question of degree. How different is 'substantively different'? How different is 'different enough'? Can we imagine visiting Japan pre-1860s (when it was 'closed to the world') and finding something otherworldly? Japan still has otherworldly elements to it, and yet it also has a lot in common with the west. Surely it's a question of where you look?

At this point (drumroll) I'd like to bring in Alain Badiou, or rather a paraphrase of his arguments from a review of one of his books (apologies to those who were on the 'Indie, Class...' thread, where I also quoted this):

'While purporting to "respect difference," the acolytes of otherness are "clearly horrified," Badiou observes, "by any vigorously sustained difference." Arguing that genuine difference entails conflict, Badiou contends that "difference" is really a recipe for homogeneity and consensus. By this token, left-wing militants, along with Christian and Islamic fundamentalists and African practitioners of clitorectomy, are stigmatized as "bad others" and disinvited from those "celebrations of diversity" sponsored in campus halls and advertising agencies. "Good others," on the other hand, exhibit differences that are remarkably consonant with "the identity of a wealthy West." Indeed, with its mantra of "inclusion" and its vagueness about "the exact political meaning of the identity being promoted," identity politics supplies exotic grist for the corporate mills of Western democracies. Thus, in Badiou's view, "difference," cast in the image and likeness of consumerism, joins "rights" as rhetorical camouflage for Western economic and military domination.'

(Me again) So, in answer to H's question, the degree of difference I'm talking about would be the degree of difference sufficient to cause conflict (since 'genuine difference entails conflict'). It would be the degree of difference that would go beyond what you could put in a Janet Jackson video or a 'multi-culti' advertisement. It would be the degree of difference that would lead to differences of opinion about whether the 'other' concerned was a 'good other' or a 'bad other'.

It goes without saying that conflict does not have to be mortal conflict, though, and that the fact that we might be prepared to call, say, clitorectomy a practise of 'bad others' does not mean that we have the moral right to invade the countries where it's practised and eradicate their difference in the name of 'universal human rights'.

But in answer to your question 'what then should we do', surely the answer is 'We co-exist'. Even with 'bad others', others we cannot 'understand'. Diversity is, in itself, a higher value than whatever moral perspective we currently subscribe to.

That's pretty damn glib when it comes to things like clitorectomy.

i still find places vastly different. i've been on an unintentional tour of english L cities recently, liverpool leeds and london. people look and act in different ways. in liverpool, they just walk right up to you and speak to you. they wear their caps at different angles, even if they bring out st george for the football.

there are still places, very provincial places, where people are deeply suspicious of america. my dad won't watch american comedies, and i know pubs that would have chipboard on the windows in twenty minutes if they tried to serve budweiser.
but in metropoli you're as equal to find anti-amricans, ones who use hip-hop slang, and hate george bush, and wear converse. who'll take on american signs in a progressive and selective way.
so americanisation is a kind of hybridising, enforced specialisation.

(sidenote on S. Africa - a major turning point in struggle was when the banks, Citibank etc. decided that the bad publicity they were getting from protests offset their profits and pulled out, that pushed S. African businesses and some officials to seek accommodation with ANC and to try and make changes locally to improve relations. Coule of interesting articles I wil try and dig up for you.)

Speak white
il est si beau de vous entendre
parler de Paradise Lost
ou du profil gracieux et anonyme qui tremble dans les sonnets de Shakespeare

nous sommes un peuple inculte et bègue
mais ne sommes pas sourds au génie d'une langue
parlez avec l'accent de Milton et Byron et Shelley et Keats
speak white
et pardonnez-nous de n'avoir pour réponse
que les chants rauques de nos ancêtres
et le chagrin de Nelligan

speak white
parlez de choses et d'autres
parlez-nous de la Grande Charte
ou du monument à Lincoln
du charme gris de la Tamise
de l'eau rose du Potomac
parlez-nous de vos traditions
nous sommes un peuple peu brillant
mais fort capable d'apprécier
toute l'importance des crumpets
ou du Boston Tea Party

mais quand vous really speak white
quand vous get down to brass tacks

pour parler du gracious living
et parler du standard de vie
et de la Grande Société
un peu plus fort alors speak white
haussez vos voix de contremaîtres
nous sommes un peu durs d'oreille
nous vivons trop près des machines
et n'entendons que notre souffle au-dessus des outils

speak white and loud
qu'on vous entende
de Saint-Henri à Saint-Domingue
oui quelle admirable langue
pour embaucher
donner des ordres
fixer l'heure de la mort à l'ouvrage
et de la pause qui rafraîchit
et ravigote le dollar

speak white
tell us that God is a great big shot
and that we're paid to trust him
speak white
parlez-nous production profits et pourcentages
speak white
c'est une langue riche
pour acheter
mais pour se vendre
mais pour se vendre à perte d'âme
mais pour se vendre

ah !
speak white
big deal
mais pour vous dire
l'éternité d'un jour de grève
pour raconter
une vie de peuple-concierge
mais pour rentrer chez nous le soir
à l'heure où le soleil s'en vient crever au-dessus des ruelles
mais pour vous dire oui que le soleil se couche oui
chaque jour de nos vies à l'est de vos empires
rien ne vaut une langue à jurons
notre parlure pas très propre
tachée de cambouis et d'huile

speak white
soyez à l'aise dans vos mots
nous sommes un peuple rancunier
mais ne reprochons à personne
d'avoir le monopole
de la correction de langage

dans la langue douce de Shakespeare
avec l'accent de Longfellow
parlez un français pur et atrocement blanc
comme au Viêt-Nam au Congo
parlez un allemand impeccable
une étoile jaune entre les dents
parlez russe parlez rappel à l'ordre parlez répression
speak white
c'est une langue universelle
nous sommes nés pour la comprendre
avec ses mots lacrymogènes
avec ses mots matraques

speak white
tell us again about Freedom and Democracy
nous savons que liberté est un mot noir
comme la misère est nègre
et comme le sang se mêle à la poussière des rues d'Alger ou de Little Rock

speak white
de Westminster à Washington relayez-vous
speak white comme à Wall Street
white comme à Watts
be civilized
et comprenez notre parler de circonstance
quand vous nous demandez poliment
how do you do
et nous entendez vous répondre
we're doing all right
we're doing fine
we
are not alone

nous savons
que nous ne sommes pas seuls.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LALONDE, Michèle, Speak White, poème-affiche, l'Hexagone, 1974.

What is wrong with the concept of universal human rights? When a country signs onto the Declaration it allows its citizens to point out that the gov't has affirmed these rights and thus can be held responsible for its actions.

I don't think it's that cut and dry. That just seems to be the most cynical interpretation and while it may be true in many cases, I think there can be exceptions.

H: If you believe there's nothing wrong with the concept of universal human rights, you also believe that there's nothing wrong with monoculture. So presumably you do not mourn the eradication of genuine difference. There is nothing worrying, for you, about a society with only one concept of 'the right way to live'.

Seeing that the UN has actively stated that Democracy is now deemed the paradigm form of government that would seem to cast all other types of government into the confused hell of 'bad otherness'. Are you willing to stand behind 'diversity' in protection of these bad others? (Or is democracy a special case?)

There are all sorts of reasons -- apart from the fact that people can be stupid and selfish -- why democracy may not have all the answers. For instance, if China had been a democracy when overpopulation became a problem, they could never have imposed the 'one child per family' policy which saved them (it would have got a democratic government voted out of office as well as infringed all sorts of human rights).

That's all.

If there were truly a monoculture, wouldn't we all drive American cars?

There is a fundamental problem of definition running rapant through this thread. There's way too much mistaking of the symbols of (American) culture with "culture." American cars/McDonalds/Starbucks do not define a culture. The are signifiers, they are markers, they are ambassadors, they are the invading van, but they are not the embodiment of culture. That's why it's so easy for "other" cultures to expropriate these symbols and retain their own culture.

client states
Like Western Europe? Iraq? Oh, come on.

I feel Momus' point about human rights being a sort of secular religion has not been satisfactorily been countered yet. To oversimplify (and indeed misrepresent) for the sake of an example: if "we" say "humans have a right to life" and "they" say: "adulterers should be killed on suspicion" what are our convictions that we're right founded on? If it is not that we think our ideas are better, must it not be a belief in some unqualified "good", and that we feel this "good" is better than those others' "good" only because we don't claim it was decreed by a deity (although we've received it in much the same way)?

During this latest war the press seemed to portray the Iraqi people as innocents, as people much like us who just happened to be in the grip of a brutal dictatorship. Now it's ended, we still don't know whether there is a majority of people in Iraq whose dreams of a just society is expressed by the concept of a secular, multi-ethnic state with a democratic government. According to this article from the Guardian, many of the Shia population want an Islamic state with Sharia law.

I was thinking more about the subtle differences in values and outlook which are difficult to define and yet in experience are immediately tangible in relation to Momus' question about whether Australia is America with an Australian flavour. One interesting example relates to the popularity of country music amongst rural Australians. American country music was embraced by rural Australians as their own music decades ago. Away from the racially-segregated context in which it developed side by side with the blues but separate from it, American country music was embraced with equal enthusiasm by rural Aboriginal Australians. The interesting thing about Australian country music is how different the lyrical content of its songs are compared with their American counterparts.

Re: the question of universal "human rights".

No doubt our notion of what is right or wrong depends to a certain extent on cultural background, context, personal viewpoint and bias and so on.

What is most disturbing to me is the fact those who claim that their actions, or the actions of their country or leader, are motivated by human rights concerns, seem able to overlook the fact that their country nukes, napalms, and cluster bombs (etc...) innocent people.

So believing in the value of a set of universal human rights or at least claiming to do so, doesn't seem to be able to do much in terms of holding one back from full-out violations of some pretty basic human values.

A set of universal principles for global cooperation might not be so bad, if only we would apply them to ourselves and not only to others.

Yes, that's always the problem, isn't it? I'm not making fun, I am agreeing.

I think it all starts with the desire (or need) to travel and also have a home too. This goes way back. When people move around (now we do this in cyberspace as well), they see things, they covet the things they see, and the people who live in the traveled-to places see the travelers and the things they have and they want those too (including the freedom to travel).

In all of human history, whether we are talking about napalm, infected blankets, opium, chocolate or salt, there has only been one way of determining who gets to travel and who gets the stuff that traveling brings, including ideas like human rights. It doesn't make it morally right, but what are the alternatives?

no joke ... we need a set of principles for global cooperation. most likely there is no universal "moral" basis. only the universal situation that if we don't agree that something needs to be done to learn to live together, then at some stage it's game over for everyone.

and whatever the set of principles agreed upon, there needs to be an acknowledgement that "regime change begins at home".

Specifics, please?

Maybe despair would be a more helpful emotion than hope?

I choose to hope that in your heart of hearts you could not possibly mean the second part of your statement.

Yes of course. Peace. Let's at least agree on that.

'Against the monoculture of economic globalization,' comments New Internationalist magazine, we must demand 'a world where many worlds fit.'

I have to admit I'm suspicious of anyone who commands me to demand any kind of world at all. The only kind of world I demand is one where I can openly doubt anyone with such demands. Seems to me that what we need first of all is a lot more doubt.

Maybe you'll check it out this time?

http://www.nancho.net/graph/mosechu-.jpg

Really? I am hoist on my own petard puppet string, then. But maybe I got radicalised in Portugal, where I was seeing a lot of Zapatista graffiti at Coimbra University.

Actually, I noticed when skimming the New Internationalist article I link to that it was published almost exactly on September 10th 2001, and does read like a relic from a different age. We now feel nostalgia for an age where our biggest problems were questioning globalization, Clinton and NAFTA and their trade plans. The capitalist machine has been thoroughly militarised since then, and outrageous imperialism has replaced the merely 'not-so-level playing field' we used to hear so much about. The radical posters I'm seeing around Berlin are now having to say some version of 'Stop the war on Iraq so that we can get back to the war on capitalism!'

And furthermore, most anti-capitalist protestors I know always complained about the imperialist impulses in the private sector (corporate censorship, diktats over behaviour outside working hours, stonewalling of the press, eschewing responsibility, exploiting those who are most vulnerable wherever in the world) and maintain that these actions merely pointed the way to what we've got now, because not enough people bothered to question authority when it was handing them a paycheque or a buy-one-get-one-free deal.

How can you say one has been 'replaced' by the other when there is no *real* difference in power or influence?

Australian culture is really an ever-shifting culture of immigration and seven generations is too long ago to feel part of the culture of immigration. I have no ties to an elsewhere. I only have one passport. I must be the only person in this whole damn street to have only one passport. The only other anglo has a British one too.

So, anyway, officially Australia is multicultural, therefore not part of the monoculture. Personally I'd say it's polycultural coz multicultural now just means eating spaghetti and stir-fry one night a week. Polycultural has not been overused and so it still has impact.

But the monoculture is multicultural! The US is the model melting pot society -- everyone comes, ultimately, from somewhere else. All its customs are synthetic and bastardised. This is why it's such an efficient socialisation machine; everybody in the US has left behind some kind of 'traditional culture' and gone, voluntarily, through the sausage machine of American socialisation. And now they're exporting the technology all over the world. You don't need to go to America because America will come to you.

America's very claims to be racially blind, religiously neutral, an equal opportunities employer etc are what makes it so able to erase other cultural forms, which cling to things like racial difference, religious custom, gender etc as defining cultural essences.

This is the paradox: in order for a country to be truly 'different' it must fail to tolerate difference. If it tolerates difference, it just becomes a multicultural melting pot like all the others. This is why big cities all tend to resemble each other, whereas the countryside maintains some distinctiveness. This is also the reason for the paradox that I keep coming up against: that the liberal traveller who seeks to immerse himself in some truly different culture must enter into some weird pact with the most conservative, foreigner-hating elements there. He must be on the side of those who want to (in terms, for instance, of Japan) kill Christian missionaries and keep the ports closed, rather than those who rush to welcome him and his ilk. In embracing 'the other', he embraces those who reject 'the other'.

And the opposite is true. In championing 'the other' I help undermine real difference. The other must be left to champion itself in order not to lost its own identity and have it replaced with a plastic simulacrum. Because the other is not, initially, 'other' to itself. Once I start to make it self-conscious of itself as 'other' by imposing on it my perception of it, it starts to become 'other' for itself, it changes quickly into a tourist town, a fake, a spectacle, a souvenir. I've actually witnessed whole towns transformed into simulacra of themselves in my lifetime, including my home town, Edinburgh, which is now hyper self-conscious, and has become 'the Edinburgh Experience' rather than just Edinburgh.

God Emperor of Dune finally makes sense, actually.

You're going to have to explain that, Ned Emperor of Prune.

One of the plot elements/background detail of that book -- fourth in the series -- is that it is set thousands of years after the 'god emperor' Leto took control. Arrakis aka Dune had a highly developed and unique culture, the Fremen, with specific social, political and religious practices and beliefs; as part of Leto's own particular evolution and control of the society he took over, he slowly reduced everything and anything about the Fremen to being a tourist act -- described in the book as 'Museum Fremen,' enacting shows for religious pilgrims. Frank Herbert wasn't coming up with anything new per se in this depiction and I'd have to reread the book to understand the exact motivations of the character Leto in this instance, but I seem to recall it being a case of 'perception' writ large, to use your terminology, one of control and marketing, though the latter term isn't used from what I recall. Given the inevitable links and parallels this discussion has had with what has happened in Iraq, the comparison and connection sprang to mind. Also, since the whole Dune series sprang out of Herbert's own experiences in the Middle East, in a combination of reflecting on the land, the people, its resources and a consideration of what drives the phenomena of messiahs, it too can be seen as a take on the 'other' from the point of view of the West, shaping visions.

Another interesting post in an interesting and worthwhile thread, Momus, but I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Yes, Japan, though actively participating in the world economy manages to keep itself culturally separate from the "Monoculture" partially by creating its own monoculture with deeply ingrained and institionalized discriminatory practices. Thanks, Meiji Architects!

But co-existence of different cultures/racial groups is nothing uniquely western. There are many quite 'different' places (perhaps India is a prime example) that are historically fairly tolerant of different cultures. These are multicultural societies, quite distinct from the western model.

Trips to places that fewer travellers go, for whatever reason, are often the most interesting but I don't think this has anything to do with these countries being xenophobic monocultures. Myanmar, for example, is a good place to get away from global culture, largely because there is so much racial and cultural diversity in the country (albeit held together by a non-democratic regime with very questionable human rights).

Let me look at this in a more personal way. I live an extremely rootless life. A couple of months ago I was living in Paris, now I'm living in Berlin. Before that it was Tokyo, and before that New York. I may be an extreme case, but I don't think my life is unusual or against the grain. It's just an accelerated version of how most of us live these days.

Now, sometimes I feel like 'I live everywhere'. But other times I feel like 'I live nowhere'. They're both true. I find myself meeting the same kind of people whichever city I live in, usually musicians from somewhere else. My latest aquaintances here in Berlin are a musician from Budapest, a Jewish-French musician who came here from college in London, and a web / graphic designer from Leeds... But really I could as easily have met these people in Tokyo. And, despite our different roots, we all have a lot in common: a certain rootlessness, a connection to transnational cultures like the web, the music industry, 'design culture'. We resemble the internet in that we're everywhere and nowhere at the same time. We are the monoculture. 'We are the world'!

But of course we're not. Difference does exist, and in fact we're outnumbered by it.

Some areas of Berlin are now being occupied by 'us'. The block I'm living in has really just two types of people in it: old people who lived here when it was still East Germany, and younger people by and large like me, who've arrived within the last ten years. The old people have amazingly baroque flats full of chintzy bric-a-brac. The younger ones (and even me, despite some initial resistance) go to the huge Ikea out at Spandau. As a result, if you went into one of the oldsters' apartments (I catch glimpses when UPS or FedEx delivers some package from NY or Tokyo to the old man who lives alone with his dog next door) you get a real sense of 'the original style of this place', a strong link to the vanished state of East Germany. It's fascinating, because it's so 'other'.

So I've tried to give my apartment some 'local flavour' by buying secondhand granny tablecloths, Karl Marx posters and pseudo-baroque furniture from nearby markets and secondhand stores. But all to no avail: the irony implicit is what shines through, rather than any real 'East German-ness'. As soon as it crosses the threshold to my flat, the furniture, once authentic, becomes ironic. And that irony is a quintessentially monocultural perspective. Irony in this case is no more than a form of sneaking sympathy for the thing it is driving out.

It seems pretty certain that when the old people in this building die, the connections of this area with East Germany, the communist state, will get more and more tenuous. The flats will get more 'vanilla', more 'latte', more 'Ikea', more 'monocultural', despite the apparent diversity (racial and national) of those who will live in them.

It's almost impossible to imagine how this process could be reversed, except by something as radical as the rebuilding of the Berlin wall. But strange things can happen, and happen very fast. If SARS, for instance, gets a lot more serious it's not impossible that we may all be forbidden to travel, and many areas will be quarantined. And that might respresent the end of the 'postmodern monoculture' I'm talking about.

I am still unconvinced by this. I’ve asked you upthread to define what would constitute enough ‘difference’ or ‘true diversity.’ I think you’ve done so (something that would be sufficiently discomforting to people not from that society)

First, I’m not sure whether that is necessarily a bad thing, I would be willing to sacrifice some of the unique cultural characteristics to be found here in exchange for an improvement of the lives of people. Most of what would be lost is also stuff I think most would have a hard time defending (FG, abductions/forced marriages, slavery and so forth).

Second, as logajam pointed out, there are many non-western societies which have had histories of coexisting pretty peacefully while having diverse communities comprised of different ethnic groups and religions. The ways they have evolved to accommodate these different groups can serve as models for their change.

In regards to your gloomy predictions of blandness, even in the metropolis where things seem pretty similar, once you delve a little below the surface you will probably find a surprising amount of local difference, which is still a part of people’s lives. Picking and choosing what you will take from your own society and what you will keep is not necessarily bad. I’d argue that the best aspects of a culture would survive in some form or another.

IKEA goes to Japan

I was introduced to the pleasures of shopping at IKEA by a German girlfriend during a brief fling with yuppiedom in late 80's Vancouver. Douglas Coupland's description was "semi-disposable Swedish furniture".

Just like Starbucks. At that time I liked it. Now it's just a bane on the Kyoto townscape.

Maybe you're right about creeping monoculture. Though I'm not sure it's a paradox ... it may be a tautology.

And maybe I'll have to move to Myanmar.

"As I lay alone in the dark, I began to think about the secrecy of this whole mysterious land, a secrecy so deep that it seemed like sorcery. Indonesia is the fifth largest country in the world, exceeded in population only by the three superpowers and India, home to more people than South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Hong Kong and Nepal combined. But how often was it heard from? And what did we know of it? ... Indonesia was far and away the largest Islamic nation in the world, with twice as many Muslims as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia combined. Yet even in Muslim Java there seemed to be few mosques, the mythology was Hindu and its most famous monument (Borobudur) was Buddhist."

It is stated that I am 34 years of age and married man having two little children and I am jobless for last 10 months. my education is B.S.C Iam only supporter of my family and my wife is disabled she lost her right leg from hip joint in her childhood and since then she is using wooden leg. We don’t have any other source of income and currently I am not able to give our children two time meal. I am helpless and facing deep crises. I need job or finanacial support very badly to support my family I pray for you in my prayers five times to my Allah.
shakeel hussain
House No-358 Street No-10.
Gulbahar colony No-2 Near Kids Montessori School.
Peshawar city.Pakistan Phone no.923005905472

lol resist monoculture

for u jho