My friend told me about a tradition among the Greeks who would follow an idea through their lifetime: wrestling with and writing down their thoughts on the matter at different times. Reading Liz Gilbert's accounts into uncovering pleasure in Sicily, whose only successful business is the Mafia running the business of protecting citizens from itself, I am inspired to reexamine an older post into my heartbreak in Indo-China.
Throughout my time in the region, I lamented their state of poverty and hopelessness. But now I think of Liz's Italian ventures and Krsa's mustard seed. And I ask that if Sicilians can take pride and pleasure in living amidst corruption, deaths, the Mafia, could I also find small havens of joy in Saigon? If the idea that the appreciation of pleasure can be an anchor of one's humanity, can I connect to Cambodians in their delight as well as their sorrow? In place of pitying the woman who had no choice but to become a fruit vendor after the war ripped her life apart, could I instead see that selling the spiniest, smelliest, stickiest durian in town can be a source of pride in an environment where human dignity is in short supply. In place of cringing at the pending public health epidemic where dead meat, live fish, raw salad, fresh garbage, and open sewage are side by side, could I instead see the tantalizing array of aromatic foods, whose sales compose of banters and exchanges between regulars, reinforcing their connectedness. In lieu of bemoaning the under-employed young men lounging in the streets on a sweaty Monday afternoon, could I instead appreciate the circle of friends that surround them, each sipping a chilled coffee sweetened with delicate laces of condensed milk (even if the ice is made from undrinkable tap water).
In Sicily, Saigon, Phenom Penn: worlds of chaos, incompetence, broken promises, perhaps beheading a fish with perfection, making the thinnest rice noodles, drinking an iced coffee that cools your entire being are the only things to ground you in your humanity.
The activist in me is already throwing a fit at this apparent acceptance of grossly inhumane living conditions. However, I'd argue that dropping into a foreign culture and running around trying to improve material conditions at all costs can be disastrous. One looks at natives not as fellow beings but as children to be taught or objects to be bettered, mindsets similar to those of European missionaries in the 1600s. Of course, I do not believe in such a simple characterization of international development work. I still believe in its value, but only if it begins with an acknowledgment of our shared humanity: a recognition that we should grieve over common sorrows, but also to find pleasures where others find them.
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
¿Una vida mejor?
Jesús, un chico con una sombra de un bigote, habla en una voz suave y tiene una sonrisa tímida. Los ojos claros y el comportamiento inseguro son testigos de sus 17 años. Hace dos años que llegó en Columbus, Ohio atravesando por Tejas desde México. El viaje duró un mes. De los 20 compañeros que empezaron el viaje, la policía captó cuatro. El cruce le costó $2,700, un número astronómico para la familia de Jesús, campesinos de Toluca que es la 5ª ciudad más grande de México.
Cuando llegó como un chico de 15 años, Jesús encontró trabajo en un rancho por un tío, pero salió porque no quería trabajar más en un rancho. Después, salió de un restaurante chino por una pelea con otro mesero mexicano que según él, “fue muy feo.” Ahora trabaja 60 horas cada semana en la cocina de un restaurante mexicano. Dice que es muy feliz ahorrando dinero para comprar una casa en Toluca adonde quiere regresar en el próximo año porque según él, “Extraño a mi familia.”
La historia suya es tan común de los trabajadores sin documentos. Los americanos ven esta historia como otro ejemplo más de un sistema de inmigración que está roto. Cómo arreglar el sistema, cómo tratar a los trabajadores, con quiénes queda la responsabilidad y la culpa del problema son las preguntas que siguen e indican un polémico fuerte en los Estados Unidos. Un tema central del polémico es si los trabajadores tienen el derecho para entrar, ganar dinero y mejorar sus vidas en EEUU; y si los americanos tienen el derecho para decirles “No, no entren en nuestro país.”
De los dos lados, se suponen que los trabajadores sin documentos tendrán más oportunidades que si quedaran en MX y mejorarán sus vidas trabajando en EEUU. Pero analicemos esta suposición pensando en la historia de Jesús. ¿Mejora él su vida trabajando en EEUU?
Jesús sólo completó primaria. Dijo que su familia no tenía los $300 por año para la matrícula. En vez de continuar su educación, su familia pagó $2,700 para el cruce a EEUU. Suponemos que llevara $3,300 con él, lo cual es lo mismo de 11 años de las matrículas. Él hubiera podido terminar su licenciatura. Esta hipótesis tiene razón porque aunque la educación sale más caro con gastos de libros, uniformes, comidas y la inflación que devalúa $3,300 en el futuro, la familia podría ganar más en 11 años que en un año también.
Pero la realidad fue que la familia lo mandó a Jesús solo a EEUU a trabajar. Hace 4 años que él no está en escuela, y ahora no quiere conseguir su educación tampoco. En su adolescente, vive en un lugar donde no habla bien la lengua, no tiene ninguna familia, vive con otros adolescentes mexicanos quienes no tienen familias en Columbus. En vez de asistir la escuela, trabaja 10 horas cada día en una cocinera. En vez de sentirse conectado a una comunidad, confesa que la mayor desventaja de vivir en EEUU es, “Tengo miedo cada vez que veo la policía.”
Con el dinero que ahorró en EEUU, Jesús y la familia suya creen que él podría tener una vida mejor porque puede comprar una casa, casarse, contribuir dinero a la familia en Toluca. ¿Pero podría vivir mejor?
Sin educación ni orientación en sus años críticos, tal vez perdió más que ganó en EEUU. ¿Qué podría hacer cuando regrese? Sin educación, nunca podría conseguir un buen trabajo en MX ni EEUU. Los que dicen que se debe respetar el derecho de Jesús a trabajar y ganar en cualquier lugar que prefiera él, deberían pensar en el futuro de él. En respetar sólo su derecho a mudarse, no están pensando en su derecho a educación, a participación cívica, a información en cómo luchar por sus derechos. La conclusión no es que los inmigrantes no deberían venir a EEUU para mejorar sus vidas. Es que todos tienen que considerar todo lo que perdieron en venir a EEUU y si vale la pena.
Jesús, el que todavía parece como un niño en varios aspectos, cree que vale la pena.
“¿Recomendarías a otros que siguieran tu camino de Toluca a Columbus por Tejas?”
“Claro. Cuando regrese yo, vendrá mi hermano menor para conseguir mi trabajo aquí… para que pueda comprar una casa también.”
Cuando llegó como un chico de 15 años, Jesús encontró trabajo en un rancho por un tío, pero salió porque no quería trabajar más en un rancho. Después, salió de un restaurante chino por una pelea con otro mesero mexicano que según él, “fue muy feo.” Ahora trabaja 60 horas cada semana en la cocina de un restaurante mexicano. Dice que es muy feliz ahorrando dinero para comprar una casa en Toluca adonde quiere regresar en el próximo año porque según él, “Extraño a mi familia.”
La historia suya es tan común de los trabajadores sin documentos. Los americanos ven esta historia como otro ejemplo más de un sistema de inmigración que está roto. Cómo arreglar el sistema, cómo tratar a los trabajadores, con quiénes queda la responsabilidad y la culpa del problema son las preguntas que siguen e indican un polémico fuerte en los Estados Unidos. Un tema central del polémico es si los trabajadores tienen el derecho para entrar, ganar dinero y mejorar sus vidas en EEUU; y si los americanos tienen el derecho para decirles “No, no entren en nuestro país.”
De los dos lados, se suponen que los trabajadores sin documentos tendrán más oportunidades que si quedaran en MX y mejorarán sus vidas trabajando en EEUU. Pero analicemos esta suposición pensando en la historia de Jesús. ¿Mejora él su vida trabajando en EEUU?
Jesús sólo completó primaria. Dijo que su familia no tenía los $300 por año para la matrícula. En vez de continuar su educación, su familia pagó $2,700 para el cruce a EEUU. Suponemos que llevara $3,300 con él, lo cual es lo mismo de 11 años de las matrículas. Él hubiera podido terminar su licenciatura. Esta hipótesis tiene razón porque aunque la educación sale más caro con gastos de libros, uniformes, comidas y la inflación que devalúa $3,300 en el futuro, la familia podría ganar más en 11 años que en un año también.
Pero la realidad fue que la familia lo mandó a Jesús solo a EEUU a trabajar. Hace 4 años que él no está en escuela, y ahora no quiere conseguir su educación tampoco. En su adolescente, vive en un lugar donde no habla bien la lengua, no tiene ninguna familia, vive con otros adolescentes mexicanos quienes no tienen familias en Columbus. En vez de asistir la escuela, trabaja 10 horas cada día en una cocinera. En vez de sentirse conectado a una comunidad, confesa que la mayor desventaja de vivir en EEUU es, “Tengo miedo cada vez que veo la policía.”
Con el dinero que ahorró en EEUU, Jesús y la familia suya creen que él podría tener una vida mejor porque puede comprar una casa, casarse, contribuir dinero a la familia en Toluca. ¿Pero podría vivir mejor?
Sin educación ni orientación en sus años críticos, tal vez perdió más que ganó en EEUU. ¿Qué podría hacer cuando regrese? Sin educación, nunca podría conseguir un buen trabajo en MX ni EEUU. Los que dicen que se debe respetar el derecho de Jesús a trabajar y ganar en cualquier lugar que prefiera él, deberían pensar en el futuro de él. En respetar sólo su derecho a mudarse, no están pensando en su derecho a educación, a participación cívica, a información en cómo luchar por sus derechos. La conclusión no es que los inmigrantes no deberían venir a EEUU para mejorar sus vidas. Es que todos tienen que considerar todo lo que perdieron en venir a EEUU y si vale la pena.
Jesús, el que todavía parece como un niño en varios aspectos, cree que vale la pena.
“¿Recomendarías a otros que siguieran tu camino de Toluca a Columbus por Tejas?”
“Claro. Cuando regrese yo, vendrá mi hermano menor para conseguir mi trabajo aquí… para que pueda comprar una casa también.”
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Tibet Question
Having spent my year in Tibetan China, many have asked my thoughts on the Tibet issue. I usually dodge so precarious a question as whoever asks (Chinese or Western) usually has strong opinions either way, ones that will not hear fresh views in one conversation. Here, I attempt to articulate views that are entirely my own. I hope to convey some of its complexity and always remain open to new perspectives.
The most popular question: Do I think Tibet should be free?
China will never let allow Tibet independence because it will set the precedent for subsequent successions in the minority west that can lead to 40% land loss. China poised as the emerging powerhouse, will not allow itself to be broken up like the Soviet Union was in its decline. China has 56 minorities that it has fought to conquer and to assimilate over 5,000 years. Historical, cultural, religious differences between Tibetans and Hans will continue to be squashed through the pursuit of a harmonious society via homogeneity.
The question should be: How can Tibetans be treated equally, with respect by their Han Chinese government(CG)?
The answer does not lie in “Free Tibet” campaigns. The more the West portrays Tibet as a victim, the more the Chinese government feels the West (US especially) is trying to break up China as a potential super-power rival. This leads to more state oppression and propaganda. Oppression keeps taking away liberties from Tibetans. Propaganda tells Hans how ungrateful these vile Tibetans are where they are rioting and killing Hans when CG has poured in billions of development aid/Han tax dollars to Tibet. Ill-will between Hans and Tibetans multiply, giving CG more ammunition in enacting oppressive policies. CG feels no pressure from Western campaigns (evidenced by its human rights record), especially when it has national support. These campaigns (initiated by exiles in Nepal and India and financed by EU and US) rile those Tibetans already prone to 3/14 acts where Tibetans set Han shops on fire and Han police fire on Tibetans. Post 3/14 led to worse relations between the Dalai Lama and CG, no Tibetans granted passports, greater military presence across 4 Tibetan provinces, Tibetans losing any sympathy they previously had from Hans because they shamed China pre-Olympics. These campaigns do nothing to help Tibetans living in China.
The answer lies in less, not more hostilities between CG and Tibetan government in exile. Yes, the Dalai Lama(DL) cannot be more a peacemaker, but no matter how saintly DL is as a person, the position of DL is not one that CG will accept. The communist party is religiously non-religious. Anything that threatens the Party=god mentality is immediately squashed. Hence the go-to Tibetan representative cannot be a lama and should reside in China. CG also needs a Tibetan sympathizer who will speak genuinely with the Tibetan representative: non-religious, non-independence, non-discriminatory. CG needs to realize how its demonization of DL and immediate denunciation of Tibetan identities only strengthen Tibetan wishes for independence. Both sides need to give in, and this is best achieved through talks between two appointed representatives. The authoritarian Chinese system allows only ‘heroes shape society’, not ‘society shapes heroes’.
I am too aware that the latter solution asks for much ideological and cultural sacrifice from Tibetans. I have seen Tibetans escorted out of malls, harassed by police, looked down upon by shopkeepers. I have witnessed the same massive aid in-flows NOT benefit Tibetans as they do not the Mayans, Quechuas, Africans…then they are blamed for being stupid and lazy. One very educated Han told me: “Scientifically speaking, less oxygen exists above 3,000m, so Tibetans’ brains do not develop to the same capacity as us.”
I cry at the discrimination. But a Civil Rights Movement cannot exist in authoritarian China. Protests end in bloodshed and further oppression as they did in 6/4, 3/14, and many other failed movements.
To really have Tibetan people’s welfare and not one’s own ideology at heart, the T question is not: Should it be free? But, How can Tibetans have a voice in China?
3/14/08 (Lhasa protests) reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941466.stm
6/4/89 (Tiananmen Sq protest) reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8057148.stm
The most popular question: Do I think Tibet should be free?
China will never let allow Tibet independence because it will set the precedent for subsequent successions in the minority west that can lead to 40% land loss. China poised as the emerging powerhouse, will not allow itself to be broken up like the Soviet Union was in its decline. China has 56 minorities that it has fought to conquer and to assimilate over 5,000 years. Historical, cultural, religious differences between Tibetans and Hans will continue to be squashed through the pursuit of a harmonious society via homogeneity.
The question should be: How can Tibetans be treated equally, with respect by their Han Chinese government(CG)?
The answer does not lie in “Free Tibet” campaigns. The more the West portrays Tibet as a victim, the more the Chinese government feels the West (US especially) is trying to break up China as a potential super-power rival. This leads to more state oppression and propaganda. Oppression keeps taking away liberties from Tibetans. Propaganda tells Hans how ungrateful these vile Tibetans are where they are rioting and killing Hans when CG has poured in billions of development aid/Han tax dollars to Tibet. Ill-will between Hans and Tibetans multiply, giving CG more ammunition in enacting oppressive policies. CG feels no pressure from Western campaigns (evidenced by its human rights record), especially when it has national support. These campaigns (initiated by exiles in Nepal and India and financed by EU and US) rile those Tibetans already prone to 3/14 acts where Tibetans set Han shops on fire and Han police fire on Tibetans. Post 3/14 led to worse relations between the Dalai Lama and CG, no Tibetans granted passports, greater military presence across 4 Tibetan provinces, Tibetans losing any sympathy they previously had from Hans because they shamed China pre-Olympics. These campaigns do nothing to help Tibetans living in China.
The answer lies in less, not more hostilities between CG and Tibetan government in exile. Yes, the Dalai Lama(DL) cannot be more a peacemaker, but no matter how saintly DL is as a person, the position of DL is not one that CG will accept. The communist party is religiously non-religious. Anything that threatens the Party=god mentality is immediately squashed. Hence the go-to Tibetan representative cannot be a lama and should reside in China. CG also needs a Tibetan sympathizer who will speak genuinely with the Tibetan representative: non-religious, non-independence, non-discriminatory. CG needs to realize how its demonization of DL and immediate denunciation of Tibetan identities only strengthen Tibetan wishes for independence. Both sides need to give in, and this is best achieved through talks between two appointed representatives. The authoritarian Chinese system allows only ‘heroes shape society’, not ‘society shapes heroes’.
I am too aware that the latter solution asks for much ideological and cultural sacrifice from Tibetans. I have seen Tibetans escorted out of malls, harassed by police, looked down upon by shopkeepers. I have witnessed the same massive aid in-flows NOT benefit Tibetans as they do not the Mayans, Quechuas, Africans…then they are blamed for being stupid and lazy. One very educated Han told me: “Scientifically speaking, less oxygen exists above 3,000m, so Tibetans’ brains do not develop to the same capacity as us.”
I cry at the discrimination. But a Civil Rights Movement cannot exist in authoritarian China. Protests end in bloodshed and further oppression as they did in 6/4, 3/14, and many other failed movements.
To really have Tibetan people’s welfare and not one’s own ideology at heart, the T question is not: Should it be free? But, How can Tibetans have a voice in China?
3/14/08 (Lhasa protests) reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941466.stm
6/4/89 (Tiananmen Sq protest) reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8057148.stm
Friday, March 27, 2009
Chinese New Year
My last posts have portrayed Beijing as sexist and racist, but Laura pointed out that those qualities are in the States as well. I certainly agree that prejudices exist everywhere, and the difference is to what degree they are blatant and widely accepted in a society. Below is a conversation with my family that I'm sure is echoed in all families to some extent.
Background information:
Chinese females my age or older are raised as asexual beings throughout their school years. Hormones, puberty do not exist in the realm of conversation. But as soon as she finishes college, she is expected be on the active lookout for potential husbands. She is to have a drive so strong that she feels a need to be married in a couple years. Everything done on schedule.
Charlene: Happy New Year Grandma!
Grandma: Happy New Year! You are here so late.
Charlene: Grandpa told me to come at 6.
Younger Aunt: Oh Mom, you think Charlene is going to tell you whether she has a boyfriend or not?
Older Aunt: We just want to prepare ourselves if she is going to bring home an American.
Grandma: I can't believe we are going to have Americans in the family.
Younger Aunt: Mom, Charlene is already an American. She doesn't even have a Chinese identity card anymore.
Grandma: She is still Chinese. She doesn't look American. Now Charlene, you need to be serious about your boyfriend situation. (there do not exist non-serious boyfriends) You are not young anymore and need to be thinking of your future. Your cousins can introduce you to people from their work. (My cousins are investment bankers in Beijing, so their coworkers would fit the criteria of good job, house, family in Beijing).
Younger Aunt: Oh Mom, leave her alone. Charlene can find her own boyfriends.
She calls this over her shoulder as she pulls me aside: "You know how your grandma is old-fashioned. You can tell me all about this boy: American or Chinese."
"African, auntie."
Eyes pop, jaw drops, "He is African American? Where did you meet?"
"We met in Africa. He is just African."
"Is he ... (swallows noticeably) black?"
"As ink."
"I've seen really black people. It's a bit scary because you wouldn't be able to see them in the dark if they don't smile!"
"Hmmm, I suppose if they weren't wearing any clothes...they would indeed be The Invisible Man."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Conversation with a Taxi Driver
"How did you get to this part of the city? A girl alone shouldn't be in this part of the city. It's all outsiders here (ie migrant workers). I's okay now that it's light, but don't come here alone at night. So are you studying or working now?"
"Studying."
"What year in university are you?" (I was glad he didn't ask if I were in university yet. With my round face, small stature, and high voice, I look young even for an Asian woman where I often get asked if I'm in university yet, when I'm in graduate school already! hff, hff :(
"I'm studying for my masters actually." (There is no equivalent of graduate school in Chinese. You say you are studying masters or doctorate. I don't mention the PhD as the general thinking and saying is: There are 3 kinds of people: males, females, female PhDs).
"Where do you study?"
"At the Beijing Forestry University." (You get very good at telling half-truths, quarter-truths even, when you are regularly asked to debrief your life upon first encounters.)
"The Financial Crisis is forcing a lot of graduates to continue school because they can't find jobs. Does this apply to you too?"
"I applied two years ago, so no."
"Then why did you go? I have a daughter about your age. I don't want her to continue studying. A girl shouldn't be too educated. My daughter graduated from college in 07, married in 08, had a baby in 09. Everything was done on schedule." (Yes, he actually said "on schedule")
"Wonderful news on the grandchild. I graduated in 07. Was your daughter born in the year of the rat?"
"Yes."
"We are the same age then."
"That's why I'm talking to you like a father. How is your individual situation?" (ie are you in a serious relationship and about to be married.)
"Well, studies take a lot of time and energy."
"See, this is why women shouldn't study too much. You know the old saying: 'An unskilled woman is a virtuous one.' (Yeah, it's 1000 years old. And without skill can also be translated as without intelligence here, so you can also say: A stupid woman.)
Your individual situation is extremely important. You need to make time and energy for it. A woman's most important asset is by no means her degree. You ask any man, he would rather marry a high school graduate than a masters graduate."
"Then maybe they don't have enough confidence in their manhood."
"Ha, how many men have that confidence. You can't find one in a hundred."
"I have to pick the one in a thousand then. China has enough men if nothing else."
"But that one will not be picked by you if you are past 30. A woman's youth is extremely important. A man will always pick young women.
By the way, raising a young woman is like raising a tiger. It's fraught with danger. You always worry about her situation:
when she is young (ie need to make sure to know where she is at all times if you do let her out so she doesn't get pregnant)
and when she is of age. (ie keeping her away from poor suitors: ones not from the big cities because even if they have made their own way in the big city, they have poor families back home who will be parasites on our family from the capital city. A good suitor is one who has a job, house, parents in Beijing. Grandparents are better to make sure there are no poor extended relations either.)
It is much more worrisome than raising a boy. (ie they don't get pregnant)
"You must be worry-free now that her work and family life are all settled."
"Yes, we are very pleased that we have avoided all the pitfalls. Remember, you are not getting any younger. Now, more than anything, your parents worry about your individual situation. What year was your dad born."
"That of the sheep."
"I'm born in that of the horse, so I'm one year older. Yes, I'm sure he is very worried about your individual situation. (actually, my dad wants me to stay away from all men and is very worried that I don't have a high enough degree.) Ah, we are here, be sure to put your wallet out of sight before you get out of the car. Be careful, don't go wondering by yourself at night. Actually, better not to go out at night at all."
It is frightening when blatant sexism is internalized by the arbitrator (dad) and victim (daughter). It simply does not occur to the sexist and agist dad that his daughter or I can have any idea on what is good for us. What could I have said to change that mindframe? How do women not let sexism influence us -where we set sexist expectations as either something to live up to or to dismantle- while taking into consideration the different needs, desires, tastes between each woman?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Follow up on Previous Post
Here is a clarification/followup of what I was trying to say in the previous post in answer to its comments.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for calling me out on the subtle distinction in my argument that apparently I did not make very well. I was not critiquing people who live ostentatiously. I critiqued those who live ostentatious AND sprout how it is good for other people: hypocrites. I argued that we should not try to fool ourselves or others when it comes to why we live the way we do. I was annoyed with people who do something because they enjoy it, then try to justify that action by saying how it is good for those around them or society in general. I believe being honest with ourselves: aware of why we do what we do is a first step towards inflicting less harm in the world through insisted ignorance.
Addressing your points:
I agree an equal society is not possible. But as an aside, many believe that a society where opportunities and the value of a life are more or less equal is one worth fighting for. My friend Laura says: "I believe that everyone deserves a life where they can control the decisions and processes that determine their fate. A just society is a society where this holds true for all citizens." http://democraciaurbana.blogspot.com/
I do not judge people's hearts. I am judging their actions and how they impact others. I believe thinking analytically of the world around you is a citizen's duty: to determine what you like and dislike about the society you live in. Only with that as a starting point, can you begin to discuss change (in or outside yourself) in a substantial manner. This is not just for the activists. Everyone wants to keep improving herself, to live a life that she deems worth living. For example, you chose to take courses online when you could have chosen the much easier option of not taking them.
As to buying a new car in Xining:
First, you are not the hypocrite I was criticizing above where you say you are in Xining because you are doing good for Tibetans there. Second, the example I gave of ostentation was the 3 story house with 3 maids for 3 people in Beijing. I am careful not to say this is extravagance and that is not, but I don’t think that you having a car is extravagant if you and Amy decided it is much easier than hailing a cab with 3 kids every time. Buses in Xining are excruciatingly slow and difficult to ride not knowing Chinese. Now if you have a Hummer, I believe you should pay all of us for the over-the-top carbon you release and fuel you use.
Lastly, I do not believe we should feel guilty for being born in a better set of conditions than others. That guilt serves no one. But we should be aware that those conditions were not ones we earned, so we should not feel that we have a right to live better than those who were not so lucky. Whether we decide to give to those worse off is what most ethicists say is an obligation. I am more practical and believe it is a choice we make, but we need to be honest with ourselves regarding why we chose what we did.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for calling me out on the subtle distinction in my argument that apparently I did not make very well. I was not critiquing people who live ostentatiously. I critiqued those who live ostentatious AND sprout how it is good for other people: hypocrites. I argued that we should not try to fool ourselves or others when it comes to why we live the way we do. I was annoyed with people who do something because they enjoy it, then try to justify that action by saying how it is good for those around them or society in general. I believe being honest with ourselves: aware of why we do what we do is a first step towards inflicting less harm in the world through insisted ignorance.
Addressing your points:
I agree an equal society is not possible. But as an aside, many believe that a society where opportunities and the value of a life are more or less equal is one worth fighting for. My friend Laura says: "I believe that everyone deserves a life where they can control the decisions and processes that determine their fate. A just society is a society where this holds true for all citizens." http://democraciaurbana.blogspot.com/
I do not judge people's hearts. I am judging their actions and how they impact others. I believe thinking analytically of the world around you is a citizen's duty: to determine what you like and dislike about the society you live in. Only with that as a starting point, can you begin to discuss change (in or outside yourself) in a substantial manner. This is not just for the activists. Everyone wants to keep improving herself, to live a life that she deems worth living. For example, you chose to take courses online when you could have chosen the much easier option of not taking them.
As to buying a new car in Xining:
First, you are not the hypocrite I was criticizing above where you say you are in Xining because you are doing good for Tibetans there. Second, the example I gave of ostentation was the 3 story house with 3 maids for 3 people in Beijing. I am careful not to say this is extravagance and that is not, but I don’t think that you having a car is extravagant if you and Amy decided it is much easier than hailing a cab with 3 kids every time. Buses in Xining are excruciatingly slow and difficult to ride not knowing Chinese. Now if you have a Hummer, I believe you should pay all of us for the over-the-top carbon you release and fuel you use.
Lastly, I do not believe we should feel guilty for being born in a better set of conditions than others. That guilt serves no one. But we should be aware that those conditions were not ones we earned, so we should not feel that we have a right to live better than those who were not so lucky. Whether we decide to give to those worse off is what most ethicists say is an obligation. I am more practical and believe it is a choice we make, but we need to be honest with ourselves regarding why we chose what we did.
Thanks for the comment!
Charlene
Charlene
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Bexley Houses in Beijing
I had a meeting in a
I stammered out a response on how I lived in similar houses in
“You need to be firm with them because they do not have the work ethic that makes us Americans self-making men and women.”
“They don’t appreciate what we do for them.”
This attitude that began at the household level moves at frightening speed towards a national level of seeing other service workers (and sometimes other natives) through a sloppy servant’s lens.
On my way to the meeting, the taxi driver asked me if I were going to see a foreigner as that neighborhood is full of foreigners, the ones with cars as that area is out of range of subway stops. The neighborhood is its own national, socio-economic, racial enclave in a new country. But isn’t the point of living abroad to immerse yourself in a new place, tongue, worldview? Those who proclaim themselves world-travelers, are implying that they are public diplomats –furthering an exchange between peoples and goods– that theirs is a noble cause. But a house divided does not allow for genuine exchange between cultures.
For enclave, live-in-maid lifestyles, I have heard the following explanations:
“It is a major benefit to be able to move around easily in English-speaking areas of the city.”
Have you considered living in an English speaking country?
“Purchasing power here is more than in my home developed country.”
Then do not try to claim you are doing people here a favor.
“I’m giving jobs to locals by employing maids and employees.”
Seen through another lens, you are also taking the job of a national.
Also, don’t view yourself as a nobleman furthering cultural exchange.
In the Wealth of Nations, Smith said that it was not the altruistic, but the self interests of the butcher, the carpenter, the shop keeper who provided others with meat, furniture, goods. So don’t try to make any claims on nobility.
These claims on the good that you are doing for the Chinese economy also blind you to the ills you are doing to the Chinese psyche. Living in such an ostentatious manner in a foreign country, you are reinforcing the idea that white=superior and wealth=foreignness, contributing to the internalized racism at which
The taxi driver said knowingly: “Foreigners are the ones with the money to live in an area of bungalows and cars.” Your lifestyles scream to the natives: “Look at us. Don’t you wish you can be us?” And you cannot hide behind the argument that it is not your fault people look at you with envy. You have a responsibility for how your actions are received, foreign or not.
To give you a concrete example, why do we call big businesses “heartless bastards who only care about their bottom line” when they close down factories in southern
Now if those houses remained in Bexley, would the owners still be as guilty of viewing the States through a divided lens, justifying their consumption as improving the economy, and furthering internalized racism? I say yes. Are they guilty to the same degree? What are the direct impacts of their lifestyles on those in inner city
Regardless, while those who look up to you are also responsible for how they view you, it does not absolve you of responsibility for how you live.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Fruit Lingo
Lingo that I've been taught:
Asian Americans.
Coconut: Brown on the outside. White on the inside.
Indian Americans.
Lychee: Brown on the outside. You try to be white, but you are really brown at the core.
Indian Americans who try too hard.
I aim to be a papaya:
Asian on the outside. Latin American/mestizo on the inside, with lots of African babies.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Things Americans say to Asian Americans in America
So as to not make Asians look like the only people capable of bigotry, I thought I’d spread the love around. Sorry, again, I should be more PC. Replace bigotry with: the lack of culture understanding that isolation brings.
Going to high school in white, white
As one of two Asian kids in my high school (the other was a Korean girl adopted by white,
“Why don’t you tell me more about where you are from? I’ve always wanted to learn more about the Orient.”
At least
“So do you, like, eat Chinese food at home? You know, I just love Wor Su Gai.”
I told him that I never heard of breaded and deep fried chicken until I came to the States.
I didn’t tell him that the bright yellow sauce reminds me of radioactive material.
“You are a very pretty Oriental girl. Now if you weren’t of another race, I’d really like to ask you out.”
Speechless.
“Speak some Chinese to me! It always sounded like pots slamming to me.”
That’s because you can’t even speak one language well.
“All Asian people look the same to me.”
To my grandmother, all white people look the same.
Eliz,
Growing up in New York and living in Orange County now, you may have forgotten how racially homogenous Ohio is. I hope not as we passed many good laughs over racial ignorance at OSU. But I maintain my humor in China as I do in Ohio because hearing racial comments more than once in my teenage years, what can I do but laugh at the ridiculousness of it all?
Love, Charlz
Monday, March 2, 2009
Things Asians say to Asian Americans in Asia
Looking for English teaching jobs:
“We are going to tell the parents that you are biracial and born in the State (while my friend does have fair skin, she definitely looks full-blooded Chinese). So will you dye your hair and eyebrows to a lighter color? You understand that the image of our summer camp is exposing kids to foreigners.”
“Mengly is too ethnic a name. Will you change it to Mimi instead? (seriously, have you heard of anyone named Mimi?).
“Yes, you graduated with two English related majors in three years, from
“This is ABOUT what we offer our foreign teachers. Yes, we know you grew up in the States, but how do you think parents would feel spending so much money just so their kids will see another pair of black eyes and black hair. After all, they just want to expose their children.”
I proceeded to ask her if the school paid higher salaries to blond haired, blue eyed, white teachers than to the brown haired, brown eyed, white teachers.
“Miss, miss, come try our special offer on skin whitening products. You’d be so pretty if you were whiter.”
Translating for my white friend that the (male) driver said: “He is so white and good looking!” (Though my friend is an attractive guy, the driver definitely meant it as a causal relationship) At that point, we decided that on the deserted plains of west
When with white male friends, I get asked, “Are you the translator, tour guide, secretary?” I answer with a succession of no’s. They wait for me to elaborate my relationship. When the explanation doesn’t come, their faces silently tell me, “Ah, you are the mistress he keeps here.” I try to tell them silently: "Trust me, he can't afford me." But they can't hear my silence the way I'm used to hearing theirs.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
On Exploitation
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paolo Freire said the liberation of the oppressor and oppressed are intimately tied. One cannot be truly free while the other is enslaved. It is not that we the bourgeois are helping the proletariat. Rather we are working to free ourselves, for one man’s freedom based on another’s slavery is not freedom at all. It is living in fear of revolt, of all the things we could lose at any minute.
This brotherhood of man mentality is never as absent as in post-communist China. Though China was never colonized militarily by the West, it is now being colonized culturally. Most Chinese think all things white are better than things Chinese. The lack of experience with colonization in the past may have left it helpless to guard itself now. It did not fight for its identity apart from that given to it by whites, unlike India, Latin America, Africa. Hence China’s sense of unconditional self-respect is underdeveloped as it is untested. It has not know how/what to treasure and preserve that quality that is uniquely Chinese: to disavow unsuitable whiteness.
So there exists a dynamic between the cultural colonizer and colonized regardless of previous military colonization, one that permeates everyday Chinese life. Providing specific examples to this abstract idea needs looking no further than on the Wudaokou streets. Chinese girls fawn over white men just for being white. They look up to the guys with those innocent, watery, dark eyes of theirs. Their necks tilted, lips pouted, hands caressing. You really can’t blame the guys for enjoying all these attention.
Yet by allowing themselves to be fawned over, the white men are participating in a history of exploitation. They may not be exploiting the girls themselves where they do treat them well (but know that there is a line of pretty girls outside waiting to please them). However, they are perpetuating a system of white superiority by not actively renouncing the image that white, English-speaking is better. So they are committing a moral wrong through sins of omission. But practically, everyone likes attention, so there is not much wrong on a personal level. So what is to be done in this situation? Is all that a white man can do is to stay faithful to one girl and make her understand that he is no better than she is. In other words, just be a good person. But asking for personal sacrifice in exchange for making an unnoticeable dent in the world’s injustices is a big favor to ask of ones not already predisposed.
I experience the same conundrum as the white men where I am given special treatment as an American studying at Columbia. Butthat is also all I am to the givers of that treatment. They expect me to play the part they designed for me, which consists of them talking and I giving affirmation that they are right in their opinions of all things Chinese and American.
And I realize how much I’m used to the freedom of writing my own part in the play that is life. And if I don’t get to write the play itself, as no one does, then I at least get to choose it. So I become sympathetic to the white men in China. Though they are fawned over, they are also put in a script without their choosing. While that play makes them out to be the heroes and saviors, it also strips them of their individuality.
Now how do the Chinese perpetuate this exploitation: by not thinking critically. Initially I marveled at how seemingly reasonable, highly educated people can just repeat what they have heard without having thought through it the least bit.
Examples: “Korean women are prettier than Chinese women, but that is because they all have plastic surgery when they are 18.”
“You will get very sick going to Tibet because of the high altitude.”
“You should not marry someone who is not from Beijing as their families are too poor.”
“The Dalai Lama is an enemy of the state because he tries to separate China.”
“President Hu cares very much about children because he went to an orphanage today.”
…
I am aware stereotypes exist in the States. But they exist at a much larger scale, especially among the educated, in China. I used to think that education exposes one to different ideologies and peoples, making one more open-minded. I was not entirely correct. It depends on the type of education and where it is situated rather than on years of education alone. In the propaganda machine that is China, all the news repeat the same lines and stories. In universities, there exist separate accounts for national and international websites where the latter require payment. So rather than having your world reflect the diverse opinions that you are taught and learn to process, your world reflect mostly the ideologies of the party. While many young people do go to blogs and access international websites at home, that is no substitute for censored media.
So where do I come in in this rant of exploitive histories seeing from positions of both the oppressor and the oppressed? In China, I have a moral responsibility to make my fellow Chinese – those who script plays for me – to see their own worth, their countrymen’s worth: independent of and in spite of comparisons to Americans. Practically, this is a next to impossible task: teaching people about unconditioned self-respect, especially when they do not listen. Yet miniscule, incremental dents made on a person-to-person level are the only certain, doable options we have.
This brotherhood of man mentality is never as absent as in post-communist China. Though China was never colonized militarily by the West, it is now being colonized culturally. Most Chinese think all things white are better than things Chinese. The lack of experience with colonization in the past may have left it helpless to guard itself now. It did not fight for its identity apart from that given to it by whites, unlike India, Latin America, Africa. Hence China’s sense of unconditional self-respect is underdeveloped as it is untested. It has not know how/what to treasure and preserve that quality that is uniquely Chinese: to disavow unsuitable whiteness.
So there exists a dynamic between the cultural colonizer and colonized regardless of previous military colonization, one that permeates everyday Chinese life. Providing specific examples to this abstract idea needs looking no further than on the Wudaokou streets. Chinese girls fawn over white men just for being white. They look up to the guys with those innocent, watery, dark eyes of theirs. Their necks tilted, lips pouted, hands caressing. You really can’t blame the guys for enjoying all these attention.
Yet by allowing themselves to be fawned over, the white men are participating in a history of exploitation. They may not be exploiting the girls themselves where they do treat them well (but know that there is a line of pretty girls outside waiting to please them). However, they are perpetuating a system of white superiority by not actively renouncing the image that white, English-speaking is better. So they are committing a moral wrong through sins of omission. But practically, everyone likes attention, so there is not much wrong on a personal level. So what is to be done in this situation? Is all that a white man can do is to stay faithful to one girl and make her understand that he is no better than she is. In other words, just be a good person. But asking for personal sacrifice in exchange for making an unnoticeable dent in the world’s injustices is a big favor to ask of ones not already predisposed.
I experience the same conundrum as the white men where I am given special treatment as an American studying at Columbia. Butthat is also all I am to the givers of that treatment. They expect me to play the part they designed for me, which consists of them talking and I giving affirmation that they are right in their opinions of all things Chinese and American.
And I realize how much I’m used to the freedom of writing my own part in the play that is life. And if I don’t get to write the play itself, as no one does, then I at least get to choose it. So I become sympathetic to the white men in China. Though they are fawned over, they are also put in a script without their choosing. While that play makes them out to be the heroes and saviors, it also strips them of their individuality.
Now how do the Chinese perpetuate this exploitation: by not thinking critically. Initially I marveled at how seemingly reasonable, highly educated people can just repeat what they have heard without having thought through it the least bit.
Examples: “Korean women are prettier than Chinese women, but that is because they all have plastic surgery when they are 18.”
“You will get very sick going to Tibet because of the high altitude.”
“You should not marry someone who is not from Beijing as their families are too poor.”
“The Dalai Lama is an enemy of the state because he tries to separate China.”
“President Hu cares very much about children because he went to an orphanage today.”
…
I am aware stereotypes exist in the States. But they exist at a much larger scale, especially among the educated, in China. I used to think that education exposes one to different ideologies and peoples, making one more open-minded. I was not entirely correct. It depends on the type of education and where it is situated rather than on years of education alone. In the propaganda machine that is China, all the news repeat the same lines and stories. In universities, there exist separate accounts for national and international websites where the latter require payment. So rather than having your world reflect the diverse opinions that you are taught and learn to process, your world reflect mostly the ideologies of the party. While many young people do go to blogs and access international websites at home, that is no substitute for censored media.
So where do I come in in this rant of exploitive histories seeing from positions of both the oppressor and the oppressed? In China, I have a moral responsibility to make my fellow Chinese – those who script plays for me – to see their own worth, their countrymen’s worth: independent of and in spite of comparisons to Americans. Practically, this is a next to impossible task: teaching people about unconditioned self-respect, especially when they do not listen. Yet miniscule, incremental dents made on a person-to-person level are the only certain, doable options we have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)