Multiculturalism, even in a political sense, may be interpreted in various ways. Generally speaking, it has come to mean the argument for extending equal status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific community values.
Originally, in my opinion, it was thought to lead towards assimilation and monoculturalism. But, now, this commendable idea seems to have failed.
We have a global society that is multinational and where everyone in the developing countries, today, because of the Internet and other forms of international media, desires a higher standard of living ... and we cannot be critical of that. The problem is the perceived entitlement of citizens of poorer countries to emigrate to richer countries and, this, they will attempt to accomplish illegally, if necessary.
As I said in the introduction, it is “extending equal status to distinct ... groups without promoting any specific community values”. Therefore, it accepts religious beliefs dependent upon observance of the country’s laws and constitution. For example, if Sikhism requires a man to carry a knife, the knife should by symbolic and unable to cut. If Islam requires a women to be modest, it is too extreme to completely cover the face, and security laws must predominate. If genital mutilation is considered to be a violent and disfiguring injury, then, those who carry out such acts must face the full force of the law. Finally, Sharia law is not part of Canadian law, and any attempt to include parts of it, must be strongly resisted.
Ask an immigrant from Somalia (for example) if they are, either, a Somalian, a Somali Canadian, or a Canadian (assuming citizenship), there should only be one answer.
Assimilation was never going to be successful and, now, it seems that multiculturalism is a failure too, at least, according to many powerful world leaders — Thus, another look at our whole immigration philosophy is necessary.
Therefore, it is a political requirement ... highlighted in Norway, recently.
Is that a controversial comment to make? I hope so.
Is that a controversial comment to make? I hope so.
You seem to be chasing your tail with your various arguments. Populations have always migrated from one area to another in search of food, water, safety or whatever. Prosperous northern countries can expect a flood of migrants from Africa, India, Sri Lanka and elsewhere as war and climate change takes hold as in Africa just now.
ReplyDeleteActually, it was a flood of migrants that populated North America over a hundred years ago. Imagine what the Native Peoples must have thought as the settlers swarmed over their lands and wiped out whole populations by war or plague.There was no multiculturalism or assimilation at that time.
European populations have not been taken over by immigrants for a thousand years. Maybe the last was when the Saxons were conquered by the Normans.
Europe is being challenged by people with different customs. They don't seem very well equipped to deal with it.
I could mention the people of Tibet are being displaced by Han Chinese but the Chinese have the power to do what they want in Tibet.
Because of inefficient immigration policies, every developed country is experiencing problems. Dreamers decided that multiculturalism would be a good idea, but there was no real plan — assimilation was part of the plan but, unfortunately, this was never explained to the immigrants.
ReplyDeleteTo use the "flood" of European migrants into this huge almost uninhabited land as allegorical of today's migration is to misinterpret my point. And Europe is a poor example because Europeans have been migrating back and forth for thousands of years. For example, the Normans and the Saxons are (were) both European.
Europe has left things a little late to deal with the problem. Now, probably, draconian measures will be needed ... and not only Europe.
I always have a question in my mind, why Tibet has become a controversial question in the world?
ReplyDeleteI come from a very multicultural province with 27 minority groups include Tibetans. And our province and Tibet are neighborhood. I have been living there for more than 20 years and I didn’t feel any discrimination or unfair thing among those different groups but I do know the government gives every student who comes from different groups extra points to help them choose a better school. So, what’s wrong with Tibetans in China ?
I haven’t had any chance to visit Tibet and I wish I could in the future, to find out what sort of life they have, to know them and to help them if necessary. I don’t know what that mean by “The people of Tibet are being displaced by Han Chinese but the Chinese have the power to do what they want”. It seems they are living in the hell.
However, I do agree with one thing. The government destroyed their religion in the past, but it is not only for Tibetans but also all Chinese people from other groups. It may hurt more for Tibetans because they were used to ruled by the religion.
Canada accepts many immigrants and in fact our future will rely to a great extent on immigrants. We have a very nice country with plenty of room for new people. In general we do not like it when boat loads of people arrive unannounced on our shores because they are people who are buying their way paying 'snake heads' a great deal of money. The practice is illegal of course but in general many of those illegal people do stay here and may be exploited by unscrupulous employers and others usually from their own ethnic community.
ReplyDeleteOne can compare harmonious multiculturalism in China with past multiculturalism in Europe because it comprises similar ethnic groups. The problem occurs when non-ethnical groups from different continents invade a country and impose unacceptable cultural standards.
ReplyDeleteThere has been criticism about life in Tibet a hundred years ago, and even later, but life under the domination of Chairman Mao was quite harsh too, and I do not think that we should judge the past with today's cultural rules and laws and, certainly, it gives no excuse for invasion.
The big question is; how ethically related are the Tibetans to the Han Chinese (for example). Physically, they look different, and their language, both written and spoken shows no relationship, at all, to Chinese. The written language shows a remarkable similarity to Indian Sanskrit and, even today, there is a dialect spoken in India called Tibeto-burman.
I have personal knowledge from teaching Chinese High School students who would relate stories of only seeing there fathers during a visit at the Chinese New Year festival. The fathers were given large government grants and forced to go to Lhasa, and other towns in Tibet, for the purpose of starting small businesses. There are many similar stories, and I can not help wonder why the small business grants were not given to Tibetans. Actually, it is quite obvious -- just 20 years ago the Han population in Lhasa was 3%, today it is 57%. Less known, but equally sinister, is a similar situation with the Muslim Uyghur people in the north-western part of the country. It is known as forced assimilation.
A moment looking at this map should be interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif
To be honest, I am quite happy to discuss the problem of Tibet within this group. Most of my Chinese friends believe that I am not love China in certain sense because I had some negative comments about our government. I said I just tell the truth.
ReplyDeleteI know our government had a very negative reputation regarding many significant events such as “Tian’an Men Square”, Fa Lun Gong” and many things happened in Chairman Mao’s era. We don’t like either, no matter they are Han Chinese or minority people. We also don’t like the government corruption and some governors abuse their powers. However, we haven’t had any typically policies only for Tibetans. If they were hurt by some unreasonable policies, we are suffered in the same condition as well.
You mentioned that Tibetans haven’t had any relationship with us because their culture, their spoken and written language. I would like to show you some pictures which I took in Kunming few years ago. Those groups have their own culture, their own written and spoken language. Also Dai people (please check the picture 1) they have 20% similarity of spoken language with Thailand. But this not means they are not Chinese. Many people live on border would have similar language with neighbour countries, this is absolutely normal.
I think 100 years ago, Tibet wasn’t controlled by Chinese government. I read a book about Tibet history, Tibet was independently controlled by themselves at that time but their national power declined gradually. One group wanted to be the dominated party by asking for help from Qing Government. Therefore, Qing kingdom sent ministers to Tibet. Technically, according to this book, the Tibet’s sovereignty wasn’t belongs to China at that time. So we shouldn’t be responsible for their critical life 100 years ago.
In Chairman Mao’s Era, it was a disaster for the whole China not only for Tibetans. According to Confucius philosophy, it is really hard to judge Chairman Mao for most of traditional Chinese people. I agree with that he was a great militarist and strategist but not a great economist and politician. I don’t like this period and my mom almost die when she was a child because hungry and diseases. So, this is not typically for Tibetans.
Bernie, my province and Tibet are very close neighbours and I never heard of the government will give anyone a large grants to have a business in Lhasa. I am doing business and if it really happens I would like to take such large grants to have a business in Lhasa. I do agree with that there are more business opportunities in undeveloped areas. And the government fund would be a loan; I believe anyone would apply for a loan if they meet the requirements of bank. Or another possibility would be the student’s father corrupted the governor and they abused their power. In China, we do have lots of fund to help undeveloped areas and poor people, but due to the corruption, many areas didn’t get sufficient help. I hope we will have a good method to help those people in the future.
You said the increasing Han population in Lhasa. I do agree with Han Chinese have a very good business smell. They are trying to find any business opportunities in this world. So, it’s not hard to understand people want to find potential opportunities in Tibet. Also, I want to mention one thing, due to the pollution in most of cities in China, Tibet seems become the last pure land.
People like to live there because the environment
You may not believe one thing, but it is true. China started to control population since 1970s. But the one baby policy is only for Han Chinese, which means minority people have choice to have more children rather one.
Personally, I was quite happy to live in our province. I am proud of I am living in such a multicultural place. We join their traditional festival and have their food, and they still happy to be with us. Actually, I have lots of friends and classmates come from different groups.
I must mention that I made it my business to understand Chinese culture when I worked there ... it relates to sociolinguistics. I found that some, non-academic Chinese, find it very difficult to believe that some foreigners know more about Chinese politics (for example) than they do.
ReplyDeleteI am very aware that the Han Chinese suffer equally with minority groups under the Communist regime, but it would be useful to know who holds the most wealth ... and wealth is power.
It was not my intention to focus on Tibet, but it is interesting that you agree that Tibet was not controlled by the Chinese 100 years ago and that Tibet was a sovereign country at that time. Perhaps there is some unintended misinterpretation there.
Your greatest misconception is related to the huge number of Chinese who are employed by the government, not only poorly educated and corrupt administrators, but well educated and intelligent professionals. Thousands of professionals are given scholarships (not loans) to train abroad (Just as others are given grants (not loans) to set up businesses in Tibet, as I mentioned before). One of my students, a medical doctor and good friend, who was recently married with a new baby and a nice home, was forced to work in a remote rural town near to the Burmese border. He was given a small room attached to the hospital and would visit his family every two or three months for a long weekend — it was a traumatic experience for the whole family. Another student/friend, a teacher at Yunnan's prestigious university has been forced to relocate to Bangladesh to teach Chinese (not her major) in Dhaka, leaving her young son and husband in Kunming. There are hundreds of stories like this.
Like you, I also regret having never visited Tibet because it seems to have amazing beauty but, because of the altitude and severe winters, I am not sure that I would want to live there.
Finally, by teaching in both Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, please know that I had many student friends from many ethnic groups.
By the Way, to return more closely to the subject of multiculturalism, the commands given by Chairman Hu to Premier (Grandpa) Wen to extol the virtues of a "harmonious society," is unbelievably humorous.
ReplyDeleteharmonious, adj., free from disagreement or dissent.
Thank you anonymous for the explanation of Tibet/China relations. Thank you Bernie for encouraging such a discussion on this blog. The more we learn about conditions in the world through different eyes the better. Each society including in Canada learns from the writings and videos of people who may not understand the whole truth so we must get information from a variety of sources and form our own conclusion.
ReplyDeleteWe read that many people in the Communist Government are corrupt but the same is true in very many countries and societies. A recent newspaper article described how the governor of a state in India demanded a great deal of money to allow a road contract to go ahead. India is said to be very corrupt. How can honest people in China and India and, yes, the USA/Canada live happy lives when people with power steal part of the wealth that is created? Fair taxation is one thing but blatant bribery, mismanagement, conniving and theft is the real menace to our future world.
I definitely agree with what Bernie and John said as above. And it is true for many developing countries, the government is rich but their people are still poor. That’s why many people are “force to work in those places where they are not satisfied with” as Bernie said. Actually, they do have choice but, unfortunately, the choice is just to work or to go home.
ReplyDeleteYour friend who is a doctor in China, compared with other people who work in private companies, he will get Super, housing fund, and insurances which paid by his hospital as well. If he refused to work in the rural town, his leader may not happy with him and he may lose promotion opportunities or any other consequences in the future.
He doesn’t want to lose this job because he has a family to support, so he has to work there. I believe it is same condition for the teacher and many other thousands of people who have similar situations. The only reason is for surviving. Imagining that, if they are all rich or we have a good social supporting system, of course, they do have another choice.
Also, for those people who work in state-owned organisations, such as, hospital, universities, and state-owned enterprises, they got good compensations with super, housing fund and insurances in comparison with other people who work in private companies. They also get cheaper price when they want to buy an apartment. So, if your organisation or company want you relocation, it is hard to refuse.
On the other hand, it is a sort of competition as well. No matter you work in government organizations or private companies, if you don’t want to go, there are many other people are willing to do. Very sad competition, isn’t it? But it has become a very common social problem because we have a large population.
I read some books about the history of Tibet. It was a sovereign country 100 years ago but as I said, since Tibet their national power declined significantly, a group asked Qing government to help them become the dominated party. I am not quite sure what the agreement they made, for example, the sovereign (I will do more research about this). Absolutely, Qing government couldn’t help them for free because it was very difficult to get Tibet according to the transportation and mountain road at that time and it might cost fortune to do it. But since then, Qing government send ministers to help them to do administration and they accepted the rewards from Qing government as well. After that, Nationalist government which controlled by Chiang Kai-Shek also had his troops there to do the official management.
In fact, China has had a huge improvement compared with 60 years ago. We have had lots of good policies, for example: social supporting system for poor people, cheap government apartment for low income families; health care fee rebate for rural areas; scholarships for intelligent professionals; lots of policies to reduce pollution; lots of affects to reduce corruption; aged people get concession, etc. And all those policies applied in whole China no matter Han Chinese or minority groups.
However, with the complex government processing, it is hard for many un-educated family to apply for the social supporting fund. Also, some people abused their power; they can get the government cheap apartments easily because they have good relationship network and money.
Moreover, as Join said, we do need a fair taxation system. I think the significant taxes in China come from GST and big enterprises. Individual tax and other taxes seems incompletely. The rich people are richer and the poor are even worse.
Oh dear, this post is becoming too centered around China — multiculturalism is a global problem.
ReplyDeleteFinally, permit me to say:
■ My use of the phrase, "forced to work" away from home, implied that their work supervisor forced them — they did not force themselves in order to improve their financial situation. The doctor that I mentioned, was a senior surgeon (not a young intern), and his wife was a senior executive with Nokia. As John implied, we can be sure that there was a conniving supervisor involved.
■ Of course, no one can deny the industrial advances made in China during the past 60 years ... unfortunately, human rights have been ignored.
Perhaps, a China blog will develop later ... it is certainly a controversial subject.
On the other hand, the idea of harmonious multiculturalism has practically failed, wherever it has been formally attempted. Even in Canada, the most multicultural country in the world, there is obvious xenophobia — it is human nature and will require generations of evolvement. The dangerous rise of Fascism in Europe, related to an increasing imbalance between ethnic groups, should not be ignored because it has an increasing number of silent sympathizers.
ReplyDeleteIn order to extend these thoughts, it must be noted that French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, together with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated recently that principles of multiculturalism have failed. Therefore, is it surprising that, last year, in France, there were fierce riots and, now, even bigger riots are happening in England.
ReplyDeleteMedia interviews with some rioters indicate an anger towards the rich ruling classes and knowing (according to them) that the police can do nothing to stop the madness. Hopefully, the latter will change as the government gives the police stronger powers ... and the gentle 'bobby' on the street, who could be relied upon to tell you the time of day will, sadly, disappear. Hopefully, also, the courts will award greater punishment ... but that is questionable.
Canada is not immune to this, as we observed in Toronto recently, and the organized unemployed thug element, who have become bored with their couch potato and computer-game lifestyle, have organized themselves in sync with peaceful demonstrations.
Incidentally, it is ignorant to play the 'unemployment card' ... there are thousands of intelligent unemployed people everywhere who are not likely to riot and are, actually, unsympathetic to those that do.
In my opinion, there is a link with multiculturalism, in the sense that if we read of riots in Zimbabwe (for example) little is reported outside the country because we are unlikely to be surprised. It is part of the culture — a culture that emigrates to France, The U.K. and Canada, et al. Then, we try to hide it by filling our overcrowded jails with immigrant criminals instead of rigidly applying existing deportation laws.
Is a silent ignorance of these comments similar to sticking our heads in the sand, ostrich-like? That is the question.
I wonder if modern Chinese students are familiar of the great Chinese Admiral Chen Ho whose mighty navy nearly conquered the world from Asia to Africa and could have sailed to the Americas in the years 1405 to 1433. The protectionist Ming Emperor abruptly ended Chinese expansion and the great naval fleet was abandoned ending Chinese vision beyond its own boundaries. The vacancy allowed European naval power to fill the vacuum resulting in long lasting harm to China
ReplyDeleteThere is a possibility that the Chinese were early emigrants as far as the Americas, and emigration results in multiculturalism. Thus, you have cleverly introduced a very interesting topic, whilst remaining within the Subject ... perhaps. I am unsure if the name Chen Ho is more understood than the newer pinying transliteration Zheng He of which I am familiar, but it is the same person. It could produce some extraordinary research if a scientific DNA analysis with the Mayan people of Mexico were able show some Chinese markers. Certainly, I have met Mayans with Chinese-sounding family names.
ReplyDeleteIf Zheng He was a great admiral in that time period it could be the same man. My source was an American writer.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting thought that Chinese visited Mexican shores. Why not? I believe the emperor at the time may have destroyed records of the great armada that definitely travelled to Africa and created trading settlements there.
Yes, Chen Ho and Zheng He is the same person (Often, when promoted by an emperor, a more suitable name would be given) — He was born in Yunnan Province, and is well-known there. If this topic was about eunuchs who became admirals, then, you would be right on topic.
ReplyDelete"Anybody can make history; only a great man can write it."
Oscar Wilde
John had a very good research regarding the admiral Chen Ho in Ming dynasty. I think “Chen Ho” is pronounced in Cantonese, while Zheng He is spoken in Mandarin. He had seven voyages in his life and visited more than 30 countries including Australia. I would like to mention that he came from our province, and he was a Muslim.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the historic records, it may be three purposes for those expeditions: Firstly, to seek the previous king. It was said that the previous king died but no one saw his dead body, and the current king at that time heard that he may flee to another country. Secondly, it is said the kingdom was very powerful, and they wanted to show how rich they were to the whole world. The last purpose would be business but, actually, they didn’t make any profits from those voyages. Each trip would spend a large amount of money which they got from the government. If it was a business purpose, they should make lots of profits.
Personally, I believe he was doing those voyages for politic purpose rather than business. The Emperor just wanted to show how powerful they were. And we can see Chinese government are doing same thing at this moment. The good example is 2008 Olympic Games. Undeliverable, isn’t it? I don’t like it, but this is so called Chinese culture. The government would spend millions dollars to show how rich they are but left their people starving.
I am not quite sure “conquered” is right in this context; anyway, English is my second language and I am still learning. Although Zheng He had his mighty navy, I believe his voyages are based on friendly visiting and relationship building, so can we say conquer here? Also, according to the historic information, Ming Emperor ended the expedition not because the protectionist. The reason was the government cannot afford the large expenditure any more, plus Zheng He died during his last voyage.
John is right about the European naval fill the vacuum, but the Chinese disaster also came from the Travels of Marco Polo.
I agree with what Bernie said, actually, they also find out the Chinese DNA in the Australia aboriginals. But, I don’t think they were the early emigrants. In ancient China, I don’t think those people who worked on the ships would have free choice to settle down when they visited somewhere they like to live. On the other hand, all people who work on the ships will get very good rewards if they can get back safely. So, I don’t think they would live there and become the early emigrants. Unfortunately, Zheng He’s records have been destroyed, and it will be very hard to find out the truth.
Thank you for your information about this exciting period in Chinese history.
ReplyDeleteIt is likely that some seamen left traces of their DNA among the women of the countries they visited. My use of the word 'conquered' was figurative in that they overcame the seas and challenges of navigation far from their home shores. I believe that anonymous has given a much better account of the voyages and the reason they stopped than I had read in my books.
John, thank you very much for explaining the word “conquer” to me. Due to the language differences, actually, some words like “ambitious” and “conquer” are negative words in Chinese. But in English, they are quite positive words. I am happy to learn things from this blog.
ReplyDeleteBernie would be unhappy now because he has been teaching my English for many years, and my language is still poor. -_-
There are both students and teachers following this blog, therefore, in the near future, I shall set up a blog to discus English as a Second Language.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, in the 1950's in Polynesian culture, it was an accepted fact that the Chinese were the most adventurous emigrants. When I lived in Hawaii, where there is a large population of Chinese people, the culture of Hawaii was retained and intermarriage was the rule. Actually, Polynesians were racially mixed with the Chinese all across the Pacific ocean, but they maintained their own island cultures.
ReplyDeleteI don't think one can compare island cultures with mainland cultures. On Islands, the immigrants are almost always assimilated into largely zenophobic cultures (take Great Britain and Japan, for examples). Compare the way the Japanese deal with the issues of immigrating Koreans, for example, with the way Canada treats immigrating Koreans. One is a model of assimilation: the Japanese promote the idea that there is only one race, one culture and the Koreans become an underclass that must blend into the status quo. The second is a model of multiculturalism: Koreans own and operate businesses that promote Korean fashions and life style. Just musing.
Thanks the Anonymous above, I totally agree with what you said. Multiculturalism shouldn’t be the cultural assimilation. I visited Malaysia few years ago, and the local people told us that anyone who married with Malaysians will convert their religious into Muslim, as Muslin is the main religion in Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteWith the globalization, people go to other countries for business, travelling, immigration, education, etc. Multiculturalism has played an important role. Because it helps people understand each other better; knows the way people from other countries thinking and the way their doing things.
In 1950’s, I think it was Chairman Mao’s era. It is not hard to imagine that the large population migrated (I should say escaped) to other countries because the unreasonable management at that time.
Every country should keep their own cultures as the Anonymous said Polynesians maintained their own cultures. No matter how many races in a country, one has choice to learn new cultures from other people and keep one’s own custom at the same time. Actually, when we visit a place or a group of people, it will have lots of fun with different culture and custom.
A very interesting comment, and it raises a number of points. We, often, do not get the chance to focus on Korea regarding the subject of multiculturalism, and I welcome this opportunity, even though I have never been to Korea ... or even Japan.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I am curious why the “1950’s” period was chosen as an example, when the Chinese were known as adventurous mariners for more than a thousand years, even if they were not exactly emigrants, that is, they developed very few colonies (Oh, I see now, it was in the era of Chairman Mao). Nevertheless, intermarriage between the Chinese and Polynesians throughout the Pacific Ocean would not be surprising due to the related Asian ethnicity.
I do believe that one should compare cultures regardless of their being either “mainland” or “island” people. Obviously, geophysical origins have an affect upon cultures, but no more than latitude and longitude, amongst other aspects.
The Japanese are xenophobic regardless if the immigrant is from Korea or Europe. I understand that a foreigner is regarded as a foreigner even if having lived in the country for 50 years (or more) moreover has obtained citizenship. As you say this is similar in Great Britain but, this is where I must disagree, because I believe it is also the same in Canada and ... everywhere else.
Permit me to use Great Britain as an example because it is a country of which I am familiar. There are British who, obviously, were born there, but of Pakistani parents (for example) that have children, also born there, and are still said to be Pakistanis by the Anglo Saxon neighbours. I also know that in Europe there are French Germans and German French, etc. Xenophobia is alive in Canada too but, perhaps, not to the same degree. Thus, it is a matter of degree and quite natural.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, multiculturalism requires an assimilating foundation and, by definition, with absolute assimilation there should not be any xenophobia. Searching for a land without it would be like searching for Utopia.
The reason for our present focus on the multiculturalism problem, which is being highlighted by many world leaders, is that now more than ever we see too many economic migrants who have no intention of assimilating. Therefore, the idea of multiculturalism is an impossible Utopian idea.
Perhaps I could stimulate this discussion further by stating that, in my opinion, immigrants who fail to assimilate should be deported. The caveat being, of course, that does not mean that all cultural beliefs must be ignored and forgotten.
Bernie had a good comment regarding the xenophobia and the culture assimilation. Actually, I think I agree with you in some sense. If pushing migrants to adapt to the local culture, it won’t be any xenophobia.
ReplyDeleteHowever, how to push migrants to get used to the local culture would be a question. I don’t think it will be a good way to do if immigrants who fail to assimilate will be deported. If there is something one cannot choose, it will be one’s birth. We cannot choose which country we will be born, and we cannot choose which family either. Culture, as same as language, is given when we were born and it will come with us for life long time, unless you adapt to another culture since you were a kid. Therefore, cultural assimilation will be failed eventually.
On the other hand, in this world, people are seeking for equality and liberty. People have equal rights and freedom to choose their own culture and beliefs. So, in this sense, I believe multiculturalism would be the right choice. Personally, I am a new immigrant in Australia. I keep many of Chinese culture and am trying to understand Australian culture as well. I don’t think I will change my eating habit although I eat lots of Australian food, also I won’t change my religion from Buddhism into Christianity, even though I visit churches a lot. I had my eating habit when I was born and I have been influenced by Buddhism because my living environment. I feel I am healthy and I am happy with that.
I did, purposefully, add the caveat to the end of my post.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, if you decide to emigrate to Australia (for example) it must be because you wish to become an Australian citizen. Then, when asked, you can tell people that you are an Australian. If asked your heritage, you may tell people that your family were Chinese, and you are proud of that. But you are not completely assimilated if you use the term Chinese-Australian, in other words, you are neither one or the other.
You refer to "equality and liberty" but does that mean that when you were born in China you had the right to become an Australian citizen. I do not think so, you must earn that right.
Therefore, in fear that I may be digressing; When Islam does not dictate the wearing of the niqab, you do not have a "right" to wear it ... certainly not in Australia.
Of course, many Australians are Buddhists and eat in Chinese restaurants, even when they have never been to China. I agree with you, that it is a "healthy" and "happy" condition.
Dear Bernie, thank you so much for giving me a feedback. I am sorry I didn’t explain clearly in my last comment. I immigrate to Australia is not mean by I will become an Australian citizen. That sounds crappy, but I am serious. I am applying for permanent residential status but I will always be a Chinese. It’s nothing about I am proud of China or I want to be different, that’s just because I cannot change myself now.
ReplyDeleteI chose to live in Australia because I like the working environment. In China, since the famous leader Deng Xiaoping said, no matter it is a white cat or a black cat as long as it is able to catch mouses. That means one can do anything as long as one can achieve the target, therefore, many people forget the code of ethics in their work. Personally, I have been told that being honest and doing the right things from my education, but it didn’t work when I was working in China.
On the other hand, I think I am unable to change myself no matter how long it takes, for example, the language, my accent, the culture and the belief. So, in this sense, China will be always the motherland for me. Hypothetically, if my children born in Australia in the future, although the children will still have Chinese appearance, Australia will be the home for them. Therefore, the two generation my kids and me are both Chinese, the difference is I am Chinese-Australian, and my kids will be Australian-Chinese. Does this make sense?
I mentioned “equality and liberty” which means we have equal rights and freedom to maintain personal culture, life style and beliefs. We also respect other culture and beliefs at the same time. And this is my definition of multiculturalism. Therefore, no matter whether Islam dictate to wear the niqab or not, we will respect them equally and will have free choice to wear or not.
Now, you present me with a dilemma — to respond to your surprise announcement about citizenship or to maintain a friendship. I shall respond as honestly as I can and hope that friendship overcomes honesty. Actually, there is the added difficulty of not knowing how to explain my beliefs in a simple enough form while, at the same time, complicating the matter for a language student who may not appreciate the implied nuances. Not to mention the previously praised but awkward fact of my own imperfect language teaching ability.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I apologize if this response may seem a simplification to some readers.
Is it necessary to change in order to become a citizen of another country? The answer is, “Yes”, but there must be an inclination. It has been said that there are some Chinese in Australia who criticize others who are critical of their Chinese ‘Homeland, and it is my strong belief that they should return to China and seek employment with the CCP.
Once, I had a good friend and colleague who was born in the U.K., and lived his whole life in Canada without becoming a citizen. Why? Because he always (always) dreamed of retiring back to the U.K., but he could not because his children were Canadians. I always felt sad for him.
Changing in order to become a citizen means assimilation but, as I said before, assimilation does not mean changing your “accent” or forgetting your culture. It means, in part, of having a new homeland, to be proud of and, for example, vote in government elections. Otherwise you will just be a miserable non-Australian always dreaming of returning to your other homeland. Not to mention, that there is xenophobia in Australia which, naturally, creates discrimination that affects career opportunities (for example).
Therefore, please forgive my repetition, but multiculturalism is an impossible dream.
I have commented on the subject of the “right” to wear a niqab on another blog and, therefore, will not repeat it here.