Though some blog posts may not seem like they relate to the trip, they are all lessons I learned, topics we discussed, issues I came to be aware of and more while I was in Haiti. Regardless of what they say, their purpose is solely to reflect my experience and stimulate thought in the reader. 

Country-
       Well, first of all, when I was in Haiti, I began to realise that the two countries I chose to go to this summer are actually very similar. Both were colonised by the French at one point and their influence is still apparent today (in language, architecture, and more). In addition to that, both also had United States intervention at some point (Haiti: United States Occupation, 1915-1934, and Operation Uphold Democracy,1994-1995. Cambodia: Operation Menu/Secret Bombing, 1964-1973). But, more importantly, both countries have had a horrible past. (Do all countries in poverty have a bad history? I would assume that, to a certain extent, that may be true since there had to be something that left them in the positions they are in today). At their roots, the two countries are exactly the same, and it's apparent enough to notice, but everything else that makes them what they are, is absolutely different. It's as if Cambodia and Haiti are houses and, underneath it all, both have the same wooden structure. But on top of those structures, one house got a red brick wall and the other got plaster sheets that were painted purple; they seem so different on the surface, but they have more in common than you first would have thought.

Culture- 
(I hate to make the generalisations I've made in the next few sections, but they're there for the sake of the reader's understanding on both countries and in order to help paint the big picture). 
       The biggest difference, to me, is the culture. Yes, I know that culture is made up of many other aspects, but bear with me. The first thing I noticed was the way people held themselves and interacted with each other. In Cambodia, everyone was relatively quiet and composed. It's a very hands free culture: people don't talk with their hands or touch each other while talking (not to mention that touching someone's head is considered as a huge sign of disrespect in Buddhism). They comport themselves in the way most of us would define as polite. Now, on the other side of the spectrum, I'm not saying Haitians are impolite, because they're not, but they're just a lot more... free. They're loud, they'll always have their hand on your shoulder or arm, they dance (whenever, wherever) and so on. Personally, I do prefer Haiti for this aspect of things, because I could be myself and I felt more welcomed. In Cambodia it was awkward at times and I had to think about every movement I made. I have a good example that contrasts the two populations: In Cambodia, when I was teaching an English class, I messed up a little and instinctively did a bit of a dance in a circle. When I turned back to face the class, they were all staring at me as if I had just insulted them. A couple people were giggling, but I immediately felt obligated to apologise. For dancing. On the other hand, in Haiti, whenever I started dancing everyone would join in and sing and what not: it was normal for them and music and dance is actually a huge part of their culture. Though this point could have been made in the next section, about the people, I thought that it represents the differences in cultures rather accurately. 
       The last point also reflects the differences I noticed in the way of dress. Cambodia was a lot like Abu Dhabi, conservative. Which reflects how they act. As much as we could, we had to cover our knees and shoulders. In Haiti, it really didn't matter: we could wear absolutely whatever we wanted. There were young people there dressed like teenagers anywhere else in the world: inappropriately.  For me, it doesn't really matter: I'm used to the UAE, so Cambodia didn't bother me, but I didn't mind Haiti either. 
       The next main difference in culture is the food. The food is so remarkably different, yet both countries share a common factor: rice. In Cambodia, the food was better than good. Haiti was, well, far from good (at least what I got from my Haitian mum, some of the other food was much better). That may have been the toughest aspect for me to adapt to, or even, the only one I had difficulty with. So yes, I did much prefer Cambodia when it came to food. 
      Though I will be talking about language later on, the last part of culture that I will mention is religion. Regardless of which religions they practice, it is a huge part of life in both countries. Rituals, customs, the God they worship and so on may be different, but for both populations religion means the same thing and is of upmost importance.

People- 
       There are a couple of details about the people in both countries that are also rather similar. Both groups are very welcoming; but there was something about it that wasn't the same. I can't tell you what it was that made the difference, but for Cambodia it was more like hospitality, welcoming me to a visit. Like a good receptionist would welcome you to her hotel (that didn't have running water). In Haiti, it was more embracing me and taking me in. It was more like a welcoming into a family or a 'welcome home'. So yes, both groups of people we worked with included us in their lives, but in two different ways. 
      The biggest disparity with the people we encountered in both countries were their ages. They say 50% of Cambodia's population is under the age of 15. And yes, it's noticeable. In Cambodia, we were either with little kids (during the home stay) or with adults (when we were with the NGOs), nothing in between. In Haiti, we were either with our Haitian families or with teenagers about our age: between 12 and 22. There were some people outside that range, but that was the majority and thus made a difference. In Cambodia, we would play with the kids: it was just games and having fun. In Haiti, we were developing actual relationships with them. They didn't like us based on whether or not we would picked them up and spun them around, they liked us based on what we said, how we acted, our views and so on. I think with my family situation in Haiti, I had the best balance. Most of the families the other participants stayed with had sons and daughters our age. Meaning that whether they were at home or at our daily activities, they were always with the same age group. For me, I had two little brothers, ages 4 and 6, and a little sister who was 8, which allowed me to interact with both age groups. 
       Another characteristic I noticed about the people in Haiti as well as in Cambodia was hope. In Haiti, I hate to say it because it's a horrible thing to say, but it's as if there is one good thing that came out of a country having as horrible a history as they do, and that's youth motivation to better their country. I don't know, maybe they would still take these initiatives even if their country was better off. Either way, it's great that even though they live in poverty, even if they may or may not have all gotten an education and even though their normal lives are hard enough, they still want to change their country- one community at a time. The youth understands their problems and the solutions and they take matters into their own hands. They understand that if they don't do these things themselves, no one will. Basically, they are independent and action-oriented. In Cambodia though, the motivation is different. They were more just hopeful. They wanted their country to advance and pull itself out of the mess it's in now, but the mindset was more 'I-want-my-country-to-be-better', not ‘if-my-country-is-going-to-be-better, then-I-am-the-one-that-is-going-to-have-to-do-something'. There were still some amazing projects and NGOs on the first trip, but, the people who weren't a part of those weren't looking for what they could do as individuals. Basically, Cambodia was more like reliance on the good of certain people and Haiti was more hands on/ 'I'll do it myself'. 
       There was something I saw in the Haitian youth we were with that I didn't notice in Cambodia and that was how studious they are. (That may have only been something I saw on one of the two trips due to the fact that the people we were with in Cambodia were much younger). In Haiti, similar to the last point, they're taking every opportunity they have to better themselves. They are always asking questions about the world, about geography, about language and more. During the duration of my trip I drew a map of the world in at least three of the local youth's notebook, as well as teaching English, French, Arabic and Chinese, as much as I could. All because they asked me to. I find that really amazing. It may be the same thing in Cambodia, but I only witnessed it in Haiti. 
       For my last point in this section- something that will stick with me for a long time- is how happy they are. And how much happier they are than us. I can't explain it, I've tried in a few of my blogs, but it's true that the people we were with on both trips were never anything but content.

Community- 
[Some of the points in this section are similar to the ones in 'people', above] 
      First off, I think the community where we stayed in Cambodia was bigger. When we were there, I was told that there were just under 300 families. We never went to walk around though, so I never actually saw how large it was, or wasn't. I know the Fond Verrette region (in Haiti) covers a lot more land than the village on the first trip, but, I don't think Terre Froide is even close to comparable, size-wise. Unlike Cambodia, in Haiti we walked from the first house on the Terre Froide mountain side down to the last one on a daily basis. (Before and after those houses, there were just trees on either side of the road, so I would assume that that's all there is to it). So yes, the community on the latter trip is remarkably smaller. 
      There are several similarities in the two villages though. First of all, the roads in both are practically the same: a rocky, dirt path that runs down the middle of the district, with houses on either side. There were some overlaps in agriculture as well, including the lots between the houses where they grow corn and other vegetables. (Corn, being one of the crops that I encountered in both countries). 
      The biggest difference between the two environments was the weather. Cambodia is hot and humid; I've never sweat more in my life. It's like the UAE except all the time (we could never escape into the AC, because there was none). In Haiti, since we were up in the mountains, I was more than cold.
      There was another, a lot more minor, difference in the communities'… let's say… space. In Haiti, the houses are off the road. We would walk down the path and see an opening on either side, that leads to a dirt garden of some sorts. There's the cooking shed, the bathroom and some open space, but it's that house's space. In Cambodia the houses are all right next to each other; we could touch the neighbouring house from the one we were staying in. Their 'space' is under the house, not in front of it. 
      Something else that I noticed in the two villages is their communal relationships and how "one-with-nature" they are. For the former, more so in Haiti than the first trip, I was pleasantly surprised by how the word "community" is really represented. They don't have all the distractions we use to avoid personal contact with the people around us. Each person there knows, respects and loves each other as if they are family. For nature, I'm not sure if I used the right words (since I  witnessed a lot of littering and trash issues in Haiti that damage the environment) but let me explain myself.  Both communities understand their surroundings and use it to help themselves. They know the mountains around them, they know which crops will and won't grow on their land and so on. More than that, I just felt a lot more aware of the world around me when I was on both trips. I wasn't staring at my Macbook/iPad/iPhone/iPod or whatever other i-product you want. I know it's an odd thing to say, but for them, the world they live in is a part of their daily life. That may seem like an obvious statement, but unfortunately it's not; it's a lot more than I can say for most of us.

Home Stay- 
      The first similarity I noticed between both home stays is how the sun dictates the day. As soon as the sun sets, that's it. It's dark. People start drifting home. More so in Cambodia, but I'm not sure if that's just because the people we were with were younger. In Haiti they tended to stick around a bit longer, but both ways the sun remains both communities' major source of light. 
      There were also several overlaps in the bathroom system. Both had bucket showers, except the one in Cambodia was better. In Haiti, the "shower" was outdoors, the "walls" (plastic sheets) barely covered us, the floor was rocks and we had to fill a bucket with water each time. Whereas in Cambodia, they were indoors, with a ceiling, a door, and a tiled floor, as well as the fact that the water was already there, in a big basin. On both trips, the water was rather cold, but, in Haiti, when I showered at the crack of dawn and a breeze came in, it definitely felt cooler. 
      Along with a better shower, our home stay in Cambodia also had a better toilet. It was indoors and the kind of squat toilet you would find in some gas stations. In Haiti, on the other hand, we only had pit latrines and for those who don't know what that is, well, I think the best way to explain it is as simply a hole. My Haitian family's lattrine was practically outdoors though: just three brick walls and the open side facing the house (where everyone was). But, it didn't have a ceiling either, so I encountered several problems when it was raining. 
      So yes, Cambodia's entire bathroom system was better, but Haiti had better sleeping conditions. I was given a bed in the corner of the dining room and regardless of the fact that it was way too short and I had no privacy whatsoever, it was a bed. That made a difference. In Cambodia, we just put mattresses on the floor and that was that. But, that brings up another dissimilarity: the floors in the Haitian homes we were staying in are concrete, so whether the families have visitors or not, they don't sleep on the floor. On the other hand, the houses in our first home stay didn't have beds and the people slept on the ground: fairly comfortable wooden planks. So, it wasn't a matter of how we were accommodated, it was a matter of how they usually sleep. 
      On both trips, the houses we stayed in had little to no electricity. In Cambodia, the girls' house had just had solar panels installed and thus, had one or two light bulbs that worked from time to time. That was the only spot with electricity in the entire village. However, my Haitian home didn't have any whatsoever (which didn't bother me) but there was one place in Terre Froide (that I know of) that did. At the staff house there were two lightbulbs and a spot for everyone to charge their Nokias, but, the generator was usually off. So even if there was technically power, it was more off than on and it wasn't at the place where I was sleeping.
      The detail that really made a difference between the home stays is the length. Since, in Cambodia, our time in the village only lasted five days and our trip had other locations included, I had more the mindset of 'who cares, I'm gone in a few days, I'll just enjoy what I can and get the rest over with'. Whereas in Haiti, I knew that's where I was staying, I wasn't thinking about the end of the trip and, as a result, I was thinking more about what I could learn from them, how I could adapt and so on. Basically, Cambodia felt like a temporary visit, while Haiti felt like I was learning how to live in my new home. 
      The most defining characteristic of either home stay was how close to the population we were (or weren't). On the first trip, we weren't living with them. We just barged in there, put down our mattresses, and lived among each other. After Cambodia, when I was preparing myself for the next adventure, I was reading the Global Potential information and it kept saying things like 'immersive experience', explaining how each participant would stay with their own host family. To be honest, I really didn't believe that it could have made that much of a difference... I've never been so wrong. Now, I don't see how I could ever go on a service trip where I don't live with a separate host family (well, that is if I actually hope to learn anything). My Haitian family took me in, and yes, even though I was a bit uncomfortable at first, the experience allowed me to face the challenges presented rather than running off to be with the people I know. They allowed me to learn how to overcome the language barrier and taught me immensely about Haitian culture. The number of things I got out of the second trip is incredible and I would never have gotten even a fraction of it if I hadn't been in a separate home stay. Honestly, as a result, I sort of feel partially Haitian, now. 

Overall Trip- 
       Well, I think all the information in the other sections of this post compare the two overall trips, but the details below are more general, without picking apart each little aspect.
      I did go with two different organisations, so, I will start by comparing those. Rustic Pathways is a travelling company with some service aspects included. Global Potential is a service association with some travelling aspects included. Yes, there is a difference. For example, even though we did a home stay in Cambodia and met with about a dozen NGOs, we were still tourists. I felt more like I was learning about the country rather than doing service. But, that's not a bad thing at all; it was still an extremely interesting experience that I hope to never forget. In Haiti, it felt more like I was subconsciously learning how to be Haitian while doing work with the community. Surprisingly though, the service work we did in Cambodia was more intense than Haiti. Then again, we had 5 days and 7 people to do it all, whereas in Haiti we had at least 20 people working on the projects at once and by the end of the 6.5 weeks (the full length of the trip) they would have accomplished a lot more. 
      Overall, Cambodia was a lot of fun, but that fun was limited to just the people in our Rustic Pathways group. We did enjoy playing with the kids and what not, but the jokes and teasing never left our little circle. Haiti, as well, was highly entertaining, but it was fun with the other Global Potential members as well as with the community. The first trip was like being in Cambodia with a Rustic Pathways group and the second trip was like being in Haiti with Haitians, and on top of that, a Global Potential group.... if the difference makes sense.
      The reason for the last point may be due to our ability to overcome the language barrier. I spent more or less the same time in both countries, yet I definitely speak a lot more Creole than Khmer (and the fact that I speak French may be what made the difference). As a result, on the second trip, I was able to carry out full conversations with people. I couldn't do that in Cambodia. The challenge of "overcoming the language barrier" meant two different things: on the first visit, it meant using hand gestures and if that wasn't enough, getting someone who could translate. In Haiti, it just meant adapting my French so that they could understand. Of course, I was a lot more successful with Creole than with Khmer. 
      Speaking of adapting, I was surprised by my ability to do so on either program. I had figured Cambodia would be a lot easier to get used to: I'm familiar with Southeast Asia, I've been to Thailand, I've been to China, I've had the food, the dress is conservative like the country I've been living in for the last 11 years, the weather is like ours as well... I figured, no problem. When I was there, I felt like I adapted pretty fast. What did I say? 4 days? I thought that was good and it couldn't be much faster anyways. Yet again, I proved myself wrong. For everything except the food, I would like to think, if it's possible, that I adapted to Haiti in just about a day. The food took me just over 2 days; I still didn't like it, but I was used to not liking it. If you had told me all of this at the beginning of the summer, I never would have believed you. I've never been to the Carribean or to South America. I do, on the other hand, interact daily with Asians and more specifically Southeast Asians, but I've only ever met one person who was pure Carribean. I never would have thought that adapting to Haiti faster was possible. But again, it's that idea of 'welcome home' that I was talking about earlier; I fit in easily in Haiti (skin tone aside) and truly felt at home. It's just a shame I didn't fully realise it when I was still there (you never truly appreciate what you have until it's gone, right?). 
       The last difference, of both trips, is the lessons I learned. There were some basic overlaps but, I do feel that I got a lot more out of my trip to Haiti. That came from being immersed in Haitian culture and being pushed to develop opinions on topics I hadn't really thought about before. On the second trip, I relearned everything I got from Cambodia (more or less) and on top of that piled on a library of other lessons. 

       I know that that's a lot more information than most of you would have liked to read (except for my parents) but it's been a pretty intense few months. I hate to throw so much out there but that's still how my head feels: still continuing to slowly sort through all the information I got and all the things I experienced. This summer has taught and showed me more than I ever thought possible and that's amazing. (Regardless of the fact that I really don't feel like it's summer), these last few months has helped me decide what's really important. 
      After these trips, I don't know how I can ever go back to being the same person I was before. But, that's okay, because I don't want to be her anymore. That's actually my biggest fear right now, that I'll forget about everything I've experienced and go back to living my life the way I was. 

LM 

The most important kind of education comes form our experiences. 

       I have not only learned that, but lived it this summer. Now, I know it really is true. 
       You learn so much more experiencing something, rather than sitting in a classroom learning about it. The difference being that the former lets you truly understand it. It's not just a matter of memorising facts, it's so much more. 
       You aren't getting lessons, just living through it teaches you. I can't tell you how much new knowledge I have after this summer, but hardly ever throughout the last two months did someone stand in front of me and teach it to me. 
       There are many different kids of education: religious education (from your church, mosque, synagogue etc.), school education, family education (what you learn at home growing up), but, I truly think education from your experiences is the most important. It's all what you learn yourself and it leads to individual growth, awareness and so much more. 
       So, is it possible for someone to have gotten an education even if they've never gone to school? Yes. And arguably, they know more. Their knowledge isn't filled with the conversion rate for inches to centimetres or the boiling point of water or the uses of irony in literature. It's filled with information on how to live or survive, and what you value or prioritise. To me, that's a lot more important. It wouldn't hurt to know both, but if I had to choose between the things you learn at school and the things you know from living, I would pick the second in a heartbeat. 
       If you want to learn about poverty, don't read the textbook, go live it. That's the only way you'll ever understand it. 

LM

My parents have said it. My grandpa has said it. I knew it was true. But, I didn't fully understand it until I went to Haiti.

      When I was there, I was truly surprised by how much people interact with each other. What does that say about us? There, having a neighbour means you know your neighbour. No, not just wave to them as you get into your car. But know them, respect them; they are a part of your family. Everyone is. A community is a family and Terre Froide truly reflected that. Everyone knows each other, everyone loves each other.
      When I was there, the number of people I talked to, face-to-face (for more than a minute) in one day, unfortunately may be equivalent to the number of people some of my friends have talked to all summer. Nobody knows each other here. We spend more time talking to the people on the other side of the world, continent, country, or city through our screens, than we do acknowledging the people actually around us. 
      Don't get me wrong, our technology is an amazing tool to connect with people all around the world and it has created a global network unlike any other. But, that doesn't mean you have to stop being with the people that are physically there. We're forgetting to actually live and instead we're doing everything sitting at our computers all day. 
       It was refreshing to form relationships with people, when I was in Haiti. We lived in the moment. It wasn't about our electronics, it was about being in the environment and getting to know the people we were with. Look up from your screen from time to time. 

Disconnect from technology and instead connect to the real world. 

LM

      I've said it before but I'll say it again, everyone here is happier than us. Why? I can't say that I really know the answer to that question, but I do have a couple of theories. I've talked about gratitude and that since they have so few possessions, each thing they do have means more to them. It could be that. It could just be that they're happy to be alive. With everything that's happened, whether it be to their country, family or whatever else, being alive is enough of a miracle to be happy about. When I asked one of the Terre Froide youth why she was so happy- not that she doesn't deserve to be- she responded with a smile and said, 'Why wouldn't I be?' 
      I was talking to somebody about this whole concept and she said something I found interesting. She said that, the unhappy people are the people in the middle: they don't have it really good, but it's not that bad either. Not rich, not poor, just average. Middle class. By her logic, when you have it really good, you have so much (generally materialistically speaking) to be happy for. You have your fancy house, your sports car and your yearly luxurious vacations. Why wouldn't you be happy? On the other side of the spectrum, if life is really bad, you'll go into "survival mode". This means that anything you do have (in this case not only materialistically) will cause you to be happy. Your life is simple. When you're in the middle, things aren't good enough yet that you'll stop complaining, but they're not bad enough either that you realise there's no point in complaining. 
      I agree with this... but not entirely. I do think that the general concept could be true: more people could be unhappier in the middle classes. And though, I do think the part about survival mode or how people in the bottom can be happy, could be true, I don't entirely agree that the people in the top are always happy. On the contrary, I often find that if you have your fancy house, sports car and luxury holidays, you get greedy. Either you'll just want more and never be satisfied with what you do have or you'll "forget" to be grateful. Essentially, you're forgetting what's really important. So even if you have a bunch of stuff that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be content. Similarly, if you have money, that doesn't always mean that you have a loving family, a grasp about what you're passionate about doing or anything like that. Your life could be empty. Emptiness doesn't often involve happiness.
      This same person also said something that technically just means it depends on your perception of control. That's what I understood. The example she gave was a little girl in the US who is sad because she doesn't have the money to go to school. With that same scenario, except in Haiti, she said the girl would just shrug it off and say that her mum just couldn't pay for today, that's not her fault. Maybe tomorrow. I'm not sure if it's the best example, but it got me thinking...    
      Initially, if you view basic aspects of daily life as out of your control, like the weather, whether or not your dad gets fired, or whether you have enough money to go to school, then your mood won't be affected if some of these things go wrong. This means that if it starts to rain or your dad loses his job or you can't pay for school just now, you won't be sad. You wouldn't take any of it out on yourself, because it was out of your control. You'll just see how you can avoid these things from deeply affecting you for a long period of time. You could stay inside to cover from the rain, help your dad look for a new job, or go try and make some of your own money to pay for school. 
      It's a bit of a confusing concept, but think about it like this. Suzy, age 5, USA goes to the toy store. Her favourite doll is out of stock, which means she can't get it. As a result, Suzy starts to cry because she claims she needed the doll to be happy. Suzy's happiness depended on the availability of a doll: something that is out or her control. Thamara, also age 5, Haiti, walks ten minutes down the mountain to get to a little stand that sells the basics. Today is Sunday, laundry day, but her family is out of soap, so she is going to buy her mother some. When she arrives, she asked the man at the stand if he has any, but he tells her that they are out. He goes on to apologise, but Thamara says that it's not his fault, there's nothing he could have done. She thanks the man anyways. As she walks away, heading back to tell her mother, she isn't as enthused as she was on the way down, but she's still happy. They don't need the soap today, it can wait. Thamara's happiness did not alter based off the availability of soap: something that is out of her control.       
      I'm not sure how easy all of this is to follow, but it's basically the difference between a fixed mindset and an adaptable one. It's about understanding that if it's out of your control, there's no reason to get upset. Is getting upset really worth it? What good would it even do? They understand what really matters.
Similarly, they could be happier than us because of our dependance of normality. We are so stuck on the way our life is- our room, house, car, school/job, schedule- that if it changes without our planning so, we will be unhappy. Whereas the people in Haiti are adaptable and prepared or aware of the worst that can happen, when something changes that was out of their control, they stay happy. What could they have done? Nothing. So again, why be upset? 
      For example, let's say your entire neighbourhood has a power outage for two weeks. Is there anything you could have done to prevent that? No. Will you still be upset? Yes. Why? You claim you need electricity, but it's only because you're so used to using it.
      In Haiti, let's say the horse they keep tied to the tree outside ran away one night. Is there anything they could have done to stop that? No, they were sleeping. Will they be upset? No, not really. It was the horse they used for the one hour trip down the mountain to get to work every morning but they don't need it. They can just wake up earlier and walk the distance until they find a better solution. Sure, they may be a little frustrated, but they're still happy. They'll adapt to the change in no time, it's just their horse that ran away, nothing huge. 
   
     So, it doesn't matter if it's raining, if their dad got fired, if they can't afford school today, if they couldn't get a bar of soap or if their horse ran away. They're still happy. They have a true understanding of what really matters: they're alive, healthy and they have each other. That's all they need. We could learn a thing or two from them.
     There's no need for us to freak out when we see how happy they are. There's no need for us to try and make sense of it all. These are all just ideas, things I noticed. But, at the end of the day, why are we so desperate to find out why they're happy? They deserve it just as much as we do (if not more). So all I really have to say is good for them. It wouldn't hurt some of us to have the same mindset they do. 

(Of course, there are some exceptions to this 'unlimited' happiness. Something like an earthquake is, indeed out of their control, and yet, it's more likely to affect their happiness at first than not. I can't be certain though since I've never been in Haiti right after something like that; they might still be happy because they survived. I couldn't tell you. But for everything else, I'm talking in general, in their normal day-to-day lives).

LM

      Our society values money and unfortunately, as much as some people try to deny it, you do need it to live, at least to a certain extent. Not nearly as much as some people would think, but you do need it for basics. Our lives run on money. So, if it is the ultimate prize, why doesn't society compensate those who do work that matter with it? Why is it reserved for the greedy capitalistic people?
       Why is it that the jobs in which we manipulate other people for our own benefit are the ones that get you rich? But, on the other side of things, the jobs where you are doing service and working in international development make you very little or no income. Why is that? The number of people who benefit from the latter in comparison to other jobs is at least 5 times greater, if not more. 
       I understand that money isn't everything and that generally the people who do that kind of work are the ones who know that, but it's skewed. Our society values money, yet distributes large quantities of it to the people who will use it in all the wrong ways. Why?

LM

      If you want to get a message across and really change a society, do you need violence? If your views are so radical, people won't want to listen to you. Or is that just what sets the great revolutionists from the rest? The ability to get their ideas across without violence. Even Ghandi used violence- in self defence. But, isn't a just revolution self defence?
      It seems to me like a million of innocent lives are being lost every day with the disregard and ignorance of too many. Does a few more make a difference? People are afraid of change, they will only listen to what they want to hear, so, how do you get them to listen? Get them scared? 
      How many successful peaceful revolutions have there been? (Which brings up a whole different problem of how to measure success). But really, how many have there been? I can't answer the question myself but, I know that it's not too many. Compared to the abundance of violent ones, the peaceful ones seem like the great minority. So is violence the key to success?
     Yes, nonviolent revolutions are becoming more and more common as of the beginning of the 20th century, but is the change they brought comparable?

So, I ask, violence or pacifism? 


I'm not trying to saying anything through this. I haven't even made up my own mind on the matter, it really is just a thought. 

LM

In every way except, possibly, one. 

        I've been thinking about this a great deal over the summer. Not only does the media have complete control... well, essentially, on our opinions, but I'm starting to see that there's a lot more to it. It's more complex than I ever could have imagined. 
        The media, which is what we rely on to find out what's happening in the rest of the world, has the ability to select which facts they present, and how they present it to warp the story. They have the ability to (as I said before) play a game of association with you: the only things you know about a certain group of people are the negative aspects you hear in the media, which subconsciously or not, causes your mind to group the two together. On top of that, everything is biased. The news you think isn't biased, is. Of course if you put anything next to Fox News it won't seem so, but it is. They are all opinionated and they are carving this view on our society into our brains whether we notice it or not. From their word choice, to the footage they show while they're talking, to the facts they decide to present. Everything. 
       Even if you think you know more or less what's happening in the world right now, you probably don't. They don't show you everything. If something happens in another country, the media has the power to not mention it, so you can never know about it... almost as if it never happened... doesn't that scare you? They have power over our knowledge. 
       On top of that, every story that includes two opposing groups of people will always have one presented as the victim, even thought that isn't always the case. It just causes you to think negatively on the other group.
      Leaving Cambodia, I thought that was all there was to it, just don't trust everything you hear on the news, because as much as you want to believe that it is, it's not pure fact. 
      I realised in Haiti that there's much more to it.  
      On the trip, I was talking to somebody who, I would like to think has a correct view on our society. His regard towards all of it was unique and not a mix of all the other garbage out there, but rather based off a true understanding of all the secrets and lies. So I said, "Have you ever considered being a teacher? People should be able to develop their own opinion on issues the way you do." He said, which alone made me realise so much more, "Who would hire me? Since my views don't conform with normality, no one wants to bring that kid of controversy to their educational system." 
      Which leads me to my next point about how limited our knowledge really is. Heres how I figure it: where do you, primarily, learn? At school, university or whatever other educational system. Who teaches you? Obviously, your teachers. Can anyone be a teacher? No, you have to be hired (which generally also requires you to have some kind of a degree, which you get at a university, where other teachers taught you, which shows that, once I prove my point, it's all part of a vicious cycle) So, who gets hired? The people with revolutionary unique, eye-opening ideas? No, generally not. Unfortunately, those who are hired are those who are ready to pass on the ideas that the school, government and society as a whole accept. The ones who will feed you what society wants you to know. Nothing else.  
       If a person has the ability to express new ideas and views that are frowned upon (or just not common) in our society or if they can teach you the truth and not just what you want to hear, well, the said truth is, nine times out of ten, they won't be hired. 
       If you live your life accepting only the information you receive on a day to day basis, without going out of your way to find out more, your knowledge will stay limited to only what they want you know. Practically nothing. 
       Okay so, same thing applies to everything else. Aside from school, where else do you learn? From your church/mosque/synagogue? Same thing there, if somebody wants to say something that is against what others want to believe then they won't be given the right to talk. And if they somehow do, no matter what they say, then the person is attacked beyond belief. There are too many examples of this exact scenario. Okay, next, we have news, school, place of worship… then you have friends and family. Well think about it, anything you learn from them, they learned from the same places mentioned above. As I said, the cycle is vicious and oh so complex. What source are you left with? Where can you publish your views without societal consent? 
The information we receive is limited in every way. In every way except, possibly, one. The internet. 

       Now, don't get me wrong, there are a 1,001 things that are wrong with the internet and more than enough sites out there that are utter stupidity, but, it's changing the way we can access information. It's not just a matter of, watch the news, read the paper, that's all you can know. No, it's not like that anymore. Turn off the TV, close the paper. Turn on your wifi. Start to read. Yes, you will find the same things you watched on the news on the internet. But don't limit yourself to that one source. When was the last time you searched something and under that Google sign it said 'Showing results 1 of 1'. Exactly. Yes, there are sources there that are biased as well, but having the 6,000,732 search results to look at will help you understand that. The two news channels that your OSN box offers won't. Yes, you won't agree with everything you read but that's good, it means you're capable of accepting only part of what is being presented. You can find some reliable sources for facts and some other sources, (blogs and so on) to start forming your opinion on the topic. Your opinion comes from a combination of other people's views. It's based off of all the things you read: the good and the bad. But it's yours. The internet is home to the thousands of documentaries that can be found on YouTube that unfold the lies of our society. The internet can't be restrained, it's constantly being added to and is full of trillions of different views on practically everything. If it's used right (which is a whole other problem to get into) it's an amazing source. Use it. 
      
      As much as you want to believe that you watched the news, but developed your own opinion on the story, generally, you didn't. They're spoon-feeding you what they want you to know. Don't limit yourself to an already limited source when there are more than enough better ones out there. Be smart, use them. 

Thank you internet, this is one of the few things that you're actually doing right. 

[Read more about this topic in my racism post, history post, Haiti post, or, from the Cambodia blog, my Khmer Rouge post or media post] 

LM

      To be honest, stepping back into "civilisation" now, I feel more like I'm temporarily visiting, and in no time, I'll be back home: Haiti. 
      Haiti, as a country, is beautiful. No wonder it used to have so many tourists. The mountains in Fond Verrettes were remarkable. Haitians, as a population, are honestly just a pleasure. They are festive and happy, always singing and dancing. They treat you like family. During my visit, my Haitian mum offered to wash my bag, my shoes and more. She said she wanted everything that I have to be clean. On top of that, she also boiled my shower water when I had a cold because she said she didn't want me to get more sick. Another example is the community youth who came and stayed outside my door the morning I was sick in case I needed anything, or at the conference, when one of the cooks made me my own juice when all they were serving was chocolate milk and she found out I was lactose intolerant. From the youth to the parents, everyone was welcoming and took me in like I was family. 
      Their community, I think, represents the true definition of the word. They all know each other, help one another and work together. It's just a bonus that they included me in that. 
      Yes, it's true, food was tough for me. But everything else was fine; I was well accommodated. I think that the one-on-one home stay (where each Global Potential participant stays with a different host family) is extremely effective. We all faced our own family challenges and learned to overcome them. It gave us a chance to experience true Haitian life: we weren't just a group of visitors who went and did things our own way, the way we were used to.
      On top of just the local community, everyone from Global Potential was nice and welcoming, and that was great. We had some amazing staff who were always making us think about things in a different, interesting way. I can't even tell you how much I learned from that. 
      I think the set up of our program was also very solid. We got to experience Haiti in three different ways: Port-au-Prince (the city), Terre Froide (the village) and Forêt des Pins (the conference). It's great that we got to live through all three ways of Haitian life even though we were only in the country for such a short time. The actual Global Potential system was additionally well set up. We had a good balance of physical work in the morning, to interesting internships as well as some very though-provoking workshops in the afternoon. I enjoyed internships because it gave us the opportunity to come up with and work on our own projects, along with the ones we were obligated to do. For the workshops, I liked the fact that we were the ones leading them, and the same goes for the English classes. I also appreciate the weekend structure of our schedule. Having Saturday as an activity day gave us a chance to bond with each other and with the Terre Froide youth, while doing something fun. Sunday as a church/chores day was great for bonding with our Haitian families and for further understanding local life. During the weekdays, I found all our breaks to be the right length; we had a chance to eat, talk with our families, visit other houses, finish any work we still had, get started on our third phase projects and more. 
      As for the mandatory projects that we did (/the morning work), I really did think they would be harder. We could've worked more, but I think that the reason we didn't was because there were so many of us; each person had to do less. Obviously, if it was just the Global Potential participants who did the work, it would've been much harder. Regardless, it's not like we didn't accomplish anything, so it's fine. 
      As for the conference, I think that was also a very good experience, because it gave me the chance to meet more Haitian youth, to learn about the culture, to understand more about the problems they face as a country as well as discover how hopeful and enthused to better their country the youth are. The fact that we chose the topics we talked about was additionally very important. The idea of having the Forêt des Pins conference participants come back and stay in Terre Froide with us, was a very enjoyable experience; it gave us a chance to bond further in different environments. I would have liked to stay longer, so that I could have gone to the second conference down in Cité Soley. 
      All in all, even though there were moments when group moral was way down, and regardless of the fact that I was sick for most of it, I really did have a great time. I learned a lot and I am already starting to see how much it led me to grow as a person. I hope I will come back to Haiti soon, but more importantly back to my extended family in Terre Froide. I know for sure that I'm not done with them. Not yet. 

LM

       As I left Haiti this morning, I made a list of things that I noticed to be the same or similar between both communities I worked in this summer: the village in Kampong Cham, Cambodia and Terre Froide, Haiti. Overlaps in food, religion, daily life, the people and just the general culture. Here is what I came up with: 
      -Since they don't have all the nutrients they need in their meals, they fill up on what they do have: rice. Both countries had diets that were largely dependent on rice, it's cheap, available and won't leave them hungry.   
      -The shower process is essentially the same. The only real difference was that in Cambodia the water was already in the bathroom area whereas in Haiti we had to fill a bucket with water each time, but, after that, it's still a bucket shower. 
      -As soon as the sun sets, it's done. That's it. Not much else is going to get done because the main source of light just disappeared. After that, every one more or less just starts drifting home to go to bed. 
      -Early mornings… as I said, the sun is your main source of light, they go to bed early so they might as well be getting up early as well in order to utilise the hours of sunlight that they do have.
      -Family and community. They have very few material possessions, so, they understand what they have around them that matters. The sense of family and community is a lot stronger in both those countries than I think, unfortunately, they'll ever be in most of our own societies.
      -Running water and electricity don't necessarily come hand in hand. For us, they seem like givens, but in both communities there was only one place that had a bit of electricity from time to time, but neither had any running water whatsoever. 
      -Boredom: never an issue. I'm not sure they even know what the word means. They have each other and that can keep them entertained for hours on end. I've never seen any one of them with nothing to do and that shocks me a little bit. Here we are with a lot more stuff, yet always complaining of boredom. I won't get too much into this topic for the sake of this list, but it's something to think about. 
      -I came to understand that in both communities, the people know that they are classified under the term "poverty". I hate to say that they're poor because to me it seems like whatever they are lacking in possessions (if anything) they've made up for in life skills and values. But still, yes, they know that a lot of the rest of the world view them as poor. 
      -Understanding the outside. In addition to the last point, they also do have a general understanding that other countries aren't like theirs and again, basically, what others have that they don't.
      -Values. They know what they value and they act on it. That's all I'm going to say to explain this point, but I think that says enough, because it's already more than I can say for many of the people I know. 
      -Gratitude. For everything they receive, they give back gratitude. There are no exceptions to the word 'everything', and that's the way it should be. 
      -Religion. The religions in Cambodia (Buddhism) and Haiti (Catholic) are rather different, but in both countries I saw that they viewed it as a big aspect of their lives. They use it to guide themselves through their lives.  
      -Hope, if not more (I will be blogging about this in more detail soon). Basically, either they're hopeful for positive change in their country or they've taken the next step and they're motivated to bring it. I witnessed both cases and it truly is great. 
      -History. Both countries have lived through a generally horrible past. Is it fair to say that that has impacted the number of impoverished people in the countries today? 
      -Culture. I find the culture in both countries is so much richer that what I generally encounter. It made me realise how much culture is dying in most developed countries. We're so concerned with advancing, that we're forgetting our roots and developing at the expense of our culture. I find that that's really horrible... more and more countries have little to no culture and that shocks me. Not so much in the UAE, but as a whole it's still a fairly young country that had a rich culture to begin with, we'll see where it stands in 20-50 years. 
      -Happiness. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, it's impossible not to notice how much happier they are than us. Why? We could learn a thing or two from them. (Read more about this topic here or in one of the upcoming Haiti blog posts). 

LM