THROUGH exchanges and interactions, different cultures had throughout history influenced one another, and helped shape one another’s development. This natural process of mutual influence is quicker and more pronounced today, because of advances in technology such as in telecommunication, the modes of transport and the Internet. This process, unlike forced assimilation, is healthy, egalitarian and progressive.
On the other hand, the main argument for compelling cultural assimilation seems to be that, in a multi-cultural society, the minority should "compromise" and merge their cultural thinking and practices (or even languages) into the majority’s. In this way, it is argued, the people will be better able to understand one another, and all minority sectors of society will in time become more like (and hopefully very similar with) the majority sector. Such similarity or commonality, it is postulated, will ensure unity, peace and harmony.
Nothing can be further from the truth. That fusion formula will no more lead to unity and harmony than will wearing the same clothes and eating the same food result in love and brotherhood.
Underlying the thinking behind this kind of straight-line reasoning (no matter how well-intentioned) are ignorance, a lack of understanding of the true causes of conflicts among human groupings, resignation to the acceptance of a subtle form of racism, and a complete failure to appreciate the concept of equality.
To begin with, all human beings are already extremely similar in most ways (if not almost exactly the same): biologically, chemically, genetically, emotionally, psychologically, cognitively, and in terms of the capacity to acquire knowledge, intellect, experience, and both positive as well as negative traits. Yet these close similarities have not prevented us from being at one another’s throats.
This is because unity and harmony do not come from increasing commonalities, whether in terms of language, habits, behaviour, cultural practices, enforced thinking or otherwise. Mao Ze Dong thought, along with the other political motives that he had, that he could unify the people’s thinking using the confines of a little red book, taking commonalities to a new and narrow height. The disastrous result is for all to see.
Unity, peace and harmony will only come from enlightened minds and loving hearts, in a social environment that permits and encourages these qualities to grow. Such an environment, far from superficial similarity-seeking, embraces plurality and equality.
When education as well as social environment inculcates in us suspicions of people who do not share the same language, culture or religion as ours, and when both school and adult education are no more than official propaganda (and where contrary views are suppressed as being poisonous disunity factors), many minds and hearts will be filled with prejudices, hatred and bigotry. There is then no hope for unity, peace or harmony. Language and culture themselves are not to blame.
If official education using the same language is the key to gleeful co-existence in a civilised society, then by extrapolation this world would be a better place if only one language is officially employed in education, and that sole language can be "democratically" selected by way of a vote in which the majority’s choice prevails. Other languages can of course still be learned and used as a hobby. How absurd such a proposition is.
The argument of the desirability for the minorities to "compromise" and give up the choice of being educated in one’s language or actively practising one’s culture is myopic, misplaced and misguided. It also wears the self-intoxicating odour of cultural superiority and racism, tinged with the tired scent of being resigned to "facing the fact of life as it is".
But the development of human history and human values is precisely propelled by the refusal to accept "the fact of life as it is". A historian, more than anyone, should realise this. Without this spirit of refusing to accept what is wrong or dehumanising, for instance, women today would still not be able to vote, and (Barack) Obama would be an illiterate domesticated slave running around in gratitude for his meagre existence within a superior white culture.
Each language has its own beauty. Each culture has its own strengths, some of which may not even be apparent until certain events occur. Cultural superiority belongs strictly to the bigot. The lost generations of the natives of Australia and the United States are living testimony of the horribly misguided government policies of forced assimilation, done in the belief (genuine or otherwise) of helping the young natives to "progress" like their urbanised peers.
It is now accepted that biodiversity is a world treasure that must be preserved. Just last week, the world’s first universal herbal antidote for all kinds of poison was discovered in the jungles of Sarawak, thanks to the traditional culture and practices of the Bidayuh. This, and countless other advances, would not have been possible if we had forcibly assimilated minority groups such as the Bidayuh into our mainstream, majority, or "superior" culture.
Plurality and cultural diversity are as important as biodiversity. Cultural diversity must be preserved and encouraged, not deterred. Plurality must be embraced, not scorned. In today’s modern societies, unity, peace and harmony have little to do with differences in language or culture, the varieties of which we are already familiar with. Instead, they have to do with matters of the heart and mind, with knowledge, learning, enlightenment, and hence with education and politics. Yes, politics, because education is controlled and managed by politics.
The media of instruction do not cause disunity, misunderstanding or tension. It is what we teach our young that may. It is those, chiefly politicians, who wish to compel assimilation that would. Love, empathy, respect and equality, whether taught in one language or in multiple languages, stay beautiful, nurturing and constructive. On the other hand, hatred, prejudice and bigotry, whether spelt or pronounced in a single language or in a variety of languages, will lead to the same human catastrophes. For example, if I had been brought up and educated in a misguided fashion, and grown to hate you (a person from a different grouping) and see you as an enemy, it matters little whether the medium of instruction had been in my mother
Yeo Yang Poh
On the other hand, the main argument for compelling cultural assimilation seems to be that, in a multi-cultural society, the minority should "compromise" and merge their cultural thinking and practices (or even languages) into the majority’s. In this way, it is argued, the people will be better able to understand one another, and all minority sectors of society will in time become more like (and hopefully very similar with) the majority sector. Such similarity or commonality, it is postulated, will ensure unity, peace and harmony.
Nothing can be further from the truth. That fusion formula will no more lead to unity and harmony than will wearing the same clothes and eating the same food result in love and brotherhood.
Underlying the thinking behind this kind of straight-line reasoning (no matter how well-intentioned) are ignorance, a lack of understanding of the true causes of conflicts among human groupings, resignation to the acceptance of a subtle form of racism, and a complete failure to appreciate the concept of equality.
To begin with, all human beings are already extremely similar in most ways (if not almost exactly the same): biologically, chemically, genetically, emotionally, psychologically, cognitively, and in terms of the capacity to acquire knowledge, intellect, experience, and both positive as well as negative traits. Yet these close similarities have not prevented us from being at one another’s throats.
This is because unity and harmony do not come from increasing commonalities, whether in terms of language, habits, behaviour, cultural practices, enforced thinking or otherwise. Mao Ze Dong thought, along with the other political motives that he had, that he could unify the people’s thinking using the confines of a little red book, taking commonalities to a new and narrow height. The disastrous result is for all to see.
Unity, peace and harmony will only come from enlightened minds and loving hearts, in a social environment that permits and encourages these qualities to grow. Such an environment, far from superficial similarity-seeking, embraces plurality and equality.
When education as well as social environment inculcates in us suspicions of people who do not share the same language, culture or religion as ours, and when both school and adult education are no more than official propaganda (and where contrary views are suppressed as being poisonous disunity factors), many minds and hearts will be filled with prejudices, hatred and bigotry. There is then no hope for unity, peace or harmony. Language and culture themselves are not to blame.
If official education using the same language is the key to gleeful co-existence in a civilised society, then by extrapolation this world would be a better place if only one language is officially employed in education, and that sole language can be "democratically" selected by way of a vote in which the majority’s choice prevails. Other languages can of course still be learned and used as a hobby. How absurd such a proposition is.
The argument of the desirability for the minorities to "compromise" and give up the choice of being educated in one’s language or actively practising one’s culture is myopic, misplaced and misguided. It also wears the self-intoxicating odour of cultural superiority and racism, tinged with the tired scent of being resigned to "facing the fact of life as it is".
But the development of human history and human values is precisely propelled by the refusal to accept "the fact of life as it is". A historian, more than anyone, should realise this. Without this spirit of refusing to accept what is wrong or dehumanising, for instance, women today would still not be able to vote, and (Barack) Obama would be an illiterate domesticated slave running around in gratitude for his meagre existence within a superior white culture.
Each language has its own beauty. Each culture has its own strengths, some of which may not even be apparent until certain events occur. Cultural superiority belongs strictly to the bigot. The lost generations of the natives of Australia and the United States are living testimony of the horribly misguided government policies of forced assimilation, done in the belief (genuine or otherwise) of helping the young natives to "progress" like their urbanised peers.
It is now accepted that biodiversity is a world treasure that must be preserved. Just last week, the world’s first universal herbal antidote for all kinds of poison was discovered in the jungles of Sarawak, thanks to the traditional culture and practices of the Bidayuh. This, and countless other advances, would not have been possible if we had forcibly assimilated minority groups such as the Bidayuh into our mainstream, majority, or "superior" culture.
Plurality and cultural diversity are as important as biodiversity. Cultural diversity must be preserved and encouraged, not deterred. Plurality must be embraced, not scorned. In today’s modern societies, unity, peace and harmony have little to do with differences in language or culture, the varieties of which we are already familiar with. Instead, they have to do with matters of the heart and mind, with knowledge, learning, enlightenment, and hence with education and politics. Yes, politics, because education is controlled and managed by politics.
The media of instruction do not cause disunity, misunderstanding or tension. It is what we teach our young that may. It is those, chiefly politicians, who wish to compel assimilation that would. Love, empathy, respect and equality, whether taught in one language or in multiple languages, stay beautiful, nurturing and constructive. On the other hand, hatred, prejudice and bigotry, whether spelt or pronounced in a single language or in a variety of languages, will lead to the same human catastrophes. For example, if I had been brought up and educated in a misguided fashion, and grown to hate you (a person from a different grouping) and see you as an enemy, it matters little whether the medium of instruction had been in my mother
Yeo Yang Poh
1 comment:
The sample of forced assimilation in Malaysia is the forced learning of Mandarin imposed on CAntonese, Hakkas, Teochews and Fochows,just because China has forcefully adopted Mandarin as their national language.
Language is a form of communication. The language that will be adopted must be those that allow efficient communication among people. In South East Asia, Malay has played such a role simply because it is easier for locals to learn. Even chinese have slowly learned Malay but Mandarin and other chinese dialects are difficult for natives to learn.
Now these chinese communities use Mandarin to discriminate other natives by openly looking for workers who only speak Mandarin.
This is preposterous when Malaysia is mostly non-Mandarin speaking, even among Chinese who are more versed in their individual dialects.
Post a Comment