Two violins...

Two violins.

The first was from last week when Fanfan's parents took us out to TuCheng to see the blooming youtonghua that were/are blooming there. It was there that I took the pictures posted here the other day. It was a wonderful little hike, even though it was hot as the devil, and all the more relaxing when we wandered upon this gentleman playing the erhu.

(You can hear Fanfan and her mom talking about my hat. It just says "帽子" which just means "hat")*



The second is in the underground crosswalk in GongGuan. The guy was playing a beautiful song when we passed by, so I started to get out my camera. He stopped and asked me what I wanted to hear, and I told him I just liked to hear him play. He then proceeded to play something that was either too hard (to impress us) or that just wasn't as aurally pleasant as the first song. I think it's interesting nonetheless, the juxtaposition of two violins, the product of two cultures, in one place.

*

Another video from the parade.

This is the other video from the parade the other night. I've been trying for three days to get it up, but youtube is suddenly not accepting about half of the videos I upload. Whenever I try another service (revver, dailymotion, etc.), my computer freezes.

Fanfan and I are leaving this afternoon for Thailand where we'll be for the next three weeks. I'll be attending the East-West Center's Summer Seminar on Transitional Justice in Bangkok, and she'll be wandering in Bangkok.

After the Seminar, we'll be heading to Ko Samet for a couple of days, then (if all goes well with my visa) we'll make our way back to Taiwan.

Ireland's got nothing on Taiwan...

(UPDATE: Click on images for larger version)

The first time I ever left the US, when I was 20, I took my bike to Ireland to ride around the country for three weeks. Before going, the general consensus among those I talked to was that I would never see a place more green than Ireland.

"It's so green." "So lush." "Fifty different shades of green."

I'm not saying they were wrong, but they've never been to Taiwan. I'm almost hypnotized by the mountains and forests here. They seem almost dangerously green and vivacious. You see a tree sitting atop a giant rock, it's roots snaking around the hulking mass, determined to live where it shouldn't, and you wonder, if your not careful, is a tree going to swallow your Binglang stand or are vines going swallow your children whole?

Then, perhaps, you remind yourself to lay off the Shel Silverstein books.

Anyone who's seen the gray skeleton forests of the Appalachian winter, I think, would be enamored by the verdant cool of a Taiwanese mountain in January.

Wandering upon parades in Taiwan

During our recent stay in the States, whenever people asked me if I was excited about coming back to Taiwan, I always referenced my fascination with the sporadic parades in Taiwan that just seem to materialize with little concern for the day of the week, the time of day, or the weather. These parades can consist of a couple of trucks full of musicians playing music in the back of three or four of the ubiquitous little blue trucks one sees in Taiwan or a spectacle such as the one above (for the goddes Matsu). Sometimes they're so small and fast, they seem like little musical bullets on the streets of Taipei.

These events are perhaps the best image I could present in trying to explain why I love living in Taiwan. Aside from trying to explain the history, the politics, and the people I've come to know here, the sheer unpredictability of daily life, while perhaps a terrible prospect to many, gives me comfort and provides one simple image to those who ask me about life in Taiwan. (Of course, I do quite often expound on the history, politics, and people here, too, as best I can.)

I don't particularly like when things are the same day in and day out, and my day is brightened just a little every time a truck whizzes by me with an old man thudding on a drum followed by another with a group of squealing erhu players.

I would, however, like to better understand why these seemingly spontaneous parades happen. I've been told they're for "gods' birthdays," for funerals, or for marriages. As I mentioned before, they seem to take place at any time of day, and on any day of the week. Sometimes, I can hear them all day from the rooftops of Fanfan's parents house as they wander through the streets of XinZhuang. What's strange is that, often, I don't seem to be the only one who has wandered unwittingly into a parade, because I've never actually seen a group of Taiwanese people on the sidewalk waiting for one. Everyone usually seems just as surprised as I do that there's a giant, luminescent god-truck shooting bottlerockets into the night sky, and as soon as it's all passed, everyone goes back to what they were doing.

I've got a lot left to learn about Taiwan.

A Chinese student's interview with the Dalai Lama

Lingxi Kong (孔灵犀), a Chinese student at Columbia University studying Greek and Latin, recently had the opportunity to interview the Dalai Lama while on a stop at Colgate University. He later published an article with his thoughts on the meeting in Chinese and English.

His article was published in its entirety at the China Digital Times, and it's certainly worth the read because not only does he present the Dalai Lama's thoughts and perspectives on many of the misunderstandings that are sparking protests around the world but he also had the opportunity to make several proposals to the Dalai Lama:

While I was having a moment’s reflection, his staff reminded us that His Holiness had to go to the airport soon. So I hurried to proceed to the next part, which was the main purpose of my trip: seeking the creation of multiple communicative channels for exchange of views between Chinese and Tibetan people, which is of crucial importance for “minzu da tuanjie” (Great Unity of Ethnic Groups). I proposed to initiate an open-letter exchange between Chinese and Tibetan students, to be posted on a website with translations in both English and Chinese, so that both peoples (and the whole world) can explore each other’s feelings and sentiments. Television debate(s) may also be held between overseas Chinese and Tibetan students on an American television channel. He enthusiastically endorsed those proposals, adding that in times of crisis, instead of being antagonistic or hating each other, people may discuss and explore what is really happening. I also mentioned that a very good friend of mine, who is a computer scientist, volunteered to make documentary films on the life of Tibetan settlements in India. He was very happy to hear about it and asked his delegation to give full support. His Holiness also accepted the advice that whenever he visits a place abroad, he should meet local Chinese students and immigrants, promote the exchange of views and clear up misunderstandings, and accumulate grassroots support from Han Chinese.

Kong's account of the meeting was refreshingly illuminating, which sets it apart from much else being said about Tibet-China relations of late.

Responding to Chinese poem on the world's perception of China

Below is a poem that was written anonymously and has been circulated widely on the internet. It's ironic that a poem which closes with demands for understanding and cooperation to make the world a better place is proceeded by a couple dozen lines of vague accusations as to how "you" (the US? France? Japan? the World?) view and/or treat China in a negative, unfair manner. It just goes to prove that the lack of understanding goes both ways.

I don't deny that China has gotten a lot of unjust criticism lately. Many experts have made valid, measured analyses of certain events and developments in China (Tibet, class division, etc.) that merit considerable attention, both in and outside of China. These same analyses have been used by people who know very little about China, and here I'm not claiming to be an expert, to serve as a means of blaming them for most of the ills in the world today.

This isn't productive. Somewhere in the thick of it all, the idea that we're all in this together is lost.

On the other hand, the ostensible nationalism that's apparently even got the Chinese government itself worried about the flames it's fanned is quite worrisome. Many people have presented the poem below as a valid call for understanding from the Chinese, but I can't help but see it as emblematic of a certain, perhaps large, group's belief that criticism of anything Chinese is an insult to all of China (case in point the absurd, though vehement, criticism of Jack Cafferty for his "racist" remarks). This sort of knee-jerk reaction not only overshadows the valid concerns being raised over China, highlighting the more fantastic admonitions, but it also weakens the Chinese defense of themselves.

I copied the poem as it appears at The China Desk, where there is also another edited version. My comments are in bold.


What Do You Want From Us?
Original Version by Anonymous

When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
Sick? It had, in the US at least, to do with G-O-L-D. Things like that are almost always economic. Which is why every generation has it's perceived threat (and they always seem more dangerous when you put "the" in front of them: the Italians, the Irish, the Japanese, the Latinos, the communists, the Muslims, the Osmonds, the abolitionists, etc.), and it's something we have to deal with in every country.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
You are also, as you noted, called the next superpower. Let's not forget that.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.
And you used them. That's the sad thing about drugs. Ever heard of Afghanistan?
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
The easiest person to blame is never yourself. To be honest, though, most of the criticism I've heard is of the companies that ship the jobs off, not of the people to whom they go.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
You've done your fair share of marching. (Still not finished) All countries have done a little too much dabbling outside of their borders.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion!
How long does it count as broken? You going to pick up Korea and Vietnam, too? Heck, if Tibet is a part of China, isn't Mongolia, most of Russia, Iraq, the Ukraine? Where does it stop?
When tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.
"We" obviously "hated" you less than that other communist country.
When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
By that reasoning, I'm afraid of snakes because they have scales, and I like computers because they're made of plastic. That's obviously not the case. Your transition to capitalism isn't in and of itself the cause of current disputes.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
You are. We all are. All six billion of us. Everyone else's problem is that you want to say that it's not fair that the West had its chance to destroy and, now that its your time, no one will let you. There's only one environment to destroy, and it's almost there. Sorry. Life's not fair.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
Sure, if that were the only way to limit numbers. There are plenty more options than the one you implemented, and, now, where are the wives for those twenty million men?
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
No. People said you ate dogs, which, as all my Chinese friends told me, is spot on.
When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
I've never heard anyone blame China for lending cash. I have however heard people express anxiety over the fact that China holds so much US' currency. There's a difference. Most Americans see it as irresponsible and blame their government.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
Again, you are number one. That's not a baseless claim. It is reality. I know most western countries did it in the past, but that doesn't make it okay now. Sorry. On the bright side, there's a lot of money in renewable energy, which China is actually starting to use more and more. Hope it goes well for you. I really do.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
Again, we blame everyone. Everyone who doesn't ride his bike everywhere (that he made out of spare parts from an older bike), grow his own food, compost waste, use solar energy, only buy biodegradable packaging, and so on. Which is to say, almost everyone. You are not being blamed. You -- no, we are being warned.
When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.
When you give weapons to the Sudanese government in return for oil, it's called supporting genocide. When you sail a ship full of weapons to some of the most corrupt places in the world, it's called exploitation. You're country isn't the only to have done it, but the government seems to have remarkably few qualms about its effects.
When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
Yep, and you might have heard how badly that went for us. I wouldn't advise you to do the same.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
I'm pretty sure a lot of you were demanding rule of law as well. Isn't that normal, in chaos, to want order?
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
That's a mouthful. What's confusing there is the fact that upholding the law in China often means violating what many around the world believe are inherent human rights. For instance, in China, it's illegal to view certain things on the internet, so when you are caught doing so, you are punished. Therefore, the punishment is for a crime by Chinese law, but, elsewhere in the world, that crime is actually a basic right of the citizenry.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
The thing here is that there are a lot of people who aren't silent, until they're silenced. It's your personal choice to be silent, but your right to speak freely should not be abrogated should you desire to do so.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Some are. They're the ones who make the news. It's the same everywhere.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
I don't at all actually. (Phew! Glad we got that cleared up!)
No, you answered, we don't hate you.
Oh. Should have read the whole thing through.
We don't hate you either
Good. That's a start.
...But, do you understand us?
Understand you? Yes and no. It doesn't have everything to do to do with being Chinese, though. There are plenty of Americans, French, and Taiwanese that I don't understand either. It's safe to say I have a lot to learn about everyone.
Of course we do, you said,
No, I didn't. Not exactly. I said, "Yes and no." (see above)
...We have AFP, CNN and BBC's...
And you have XinHua, CCTV, and the People's Daily.
What do you really want from us?
That would take forever...
Think hard first, then answer... Because you only get so many chances.
Oh, no, really. I've actually thought about it quite a bit. It's just that that question is so vague. I mean, I think the world asks a lot of China, just as it asks a lot of other countries. Believe it or not, most Americans feel like the entire world looks to them to fix things. Your question, though, implies that the world is only asking these things of China.
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
Amen!
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.
對阿!
This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.
Indeed. But it's crowded, so we need to work together to get some of this stuff worked out.

Picking through The China Desk's claims on Tibet and California

Recently, an article entitled "China's Claims to Tibet Have Greater Validity than US Claims to California"at The China Desk caught my attention. I have admittedly little knowledge of the historical links between China and Tibet compared to other issues I usually study, and I was intrigued by Bevin Chu's idea that California might serve as a parallel not only to better understand what is happening in China and Tibet but also to re-evaluate my own perspectives on the US' claims to the Southwest. Concerning the latter, I'm always interested in the double standards different nations impose when dealing with other countries, like, for instance, when the US supports the secession of one region, though it fought dearly against the secession of southern states during the Civil War.

In the end, though, I found Chu's arguments, and those made in the article he referenced, to be very misleading on most counts. The very fact that he seems to give no credence whatsoever to countervailing arguments is worrisome. I have an inherent hesitation from accepting beliefs that are presented from a position of such self-assured infallibility as Mr. Chu often seems to write.

The reason I decided, this time, to read the article was because of my own misgivings over the recent revelations that Western press outlets have taken liberties in editing photos and videos when reporting on Tibet. I've been very troubled by this, so I decided I needed to get a better understanding of the situation.

After doing so, however, I find China's claims over Tibet are just as tenuous and rooted in historical approximation as many of China's other claims, including Taiwan, of course.

Chu's general premise: If Americans want to dispute the justice of Chinese rule over Tibet, then they should also, to avoid imposing double standards, take a look at their own control of California.

But the United States annexed California in 1848, a mere 160 years ago. If the passage of 160 years must be accepted because "Too much time has passed. What's done is done," then Tibet, which became part of China 737 years ago, is even more "irrevocably a part of China."

If "You can't turn the clock back" because "Too much time has passed, and what's done is done," then why are these Hollywood stars attempting to turn the clock back for the Tibetan region of China, but not for the California region of the US?

In fact, China's vastly more compelling claim to Tibet doesn't end there. As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.

Chu's Claims

Claim #1:

Many Dalai Lama acolytes don't even know that the honorific title "Dalai," as in "Dalai Lama," is not even a Tibetan word. It is a Mongolian word. It was first conferred upon leaders of Tibet's lamaist theocracy by the Mongolians during the Yuan dynasty. It was later conferred upon Tibet's theocrats by Hans during China's Ming dynasty, and Manchus during China's Qing dynasty.

That's right. The Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China.

It seems here that Chu is saying that because the term "Dalai Lama" actually comes from the Mongolians who were, at the time in control of China, then the authority also conferred upon the man named the Dalai Lama derives from China. Does that mean that the American president's authority should be traced to the origin of the word president itself, being derived from the French président or, further back, Italy, as it was the seat of Roman power and the origin of the Latin præsidentum?

The term "Dalai Lama" comes from the Mongol prince Altan-Khan's translation of the 3rd Dalai Lama's name: Sonam Gyatso. Gyatso means "Ocean" in Tibetan, and Lama is the Tibetan word indicating a priest of high rank. All the Mongol prince did was translate Gyatso into the Mongolian word for "ocean," which is dalai.

The only way Chu could make the argument that the "Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China" is if he could prove that it was the Emperor of China who chose each successive Dalai Lama, which is not the case. The succession of the Dalai Lama is dictated by consultation of the Nechung Oracle. Therefore, the authority of the Dalai Lama is derived from the people who believe in the oracles' ability to sense into which body the phowa has chosen to channel the Dalai Lamas "mindstream."

Of course, the PRC would say that, traditionally, China permitted the selection of each Dalai Lama, and by way of it's permission displayed its authority over the process. In order to prove that, though, Chu would need to present an instance, before the PRC or ROC, when a selection was made by the oracle but the Chinese refused the selection. Such an event would have to predate the ROC and PRC because otherwise it would not show a traditional precedent. The PRC's desire, for instance, to weigh in on religion is well publicized, and Tibetans are certainly not exempt. In the nineties, the PRC tried to designate their own Panchen Lama (2nd after the Dalai Lama), despite the Dalai Lama having named another to the position. The boy named by the Dalai Lama is now the world's youngest political prisoner. Ironically, it appears that Panchen Lama is a wholly Tibetan term, unlike Dalai Lama, yet it's the only position that evidences a precedent of Chinese involvement in its selection.

Moreover, the PRC has announced that it will have the final word on reincarnation:

Whenever the next succession takes place there will be three extra complications. The first is that in 2007 China announced new regulations to govern the reincarnation of all Tibetan clergy: it has said it will have the last word in determining whether someone has been reincarnated. In other words, atheist party officials will govern Tibetan spiritual decisions.

Claim #2

As noted above, the US acquired California by invading Mexico and extorting California from Mexico at gunpoint.

I'm certainly not going to defend 19th-century American beliefs in Manifest Destiny, and indeed in the very PBS article that Chu cited there is a quote from Ulysses S. Grant expressing his belief that the war was

one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

Yet, unjust as it may have been, the Mexicans fired first, and there is an official treaty in which Mexico ceded what is now the American Southwest to the US government with no wiggle room. To my knowledge, the same doesn't exist with Tibet, while a tradition of Tibetan de facto independence and even, arguably, Tibetan superiority does.

Of course, I know treaties aren't the only manner by which countries go about procuring territorial bounty, and that tradition, such as would be the case for Tibet, is another way countries lay claim to their soil. However, it's funny that, as Chu readily states, it was through Mongol collaboration, during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, that Tibet became a part of the "Chinese" (then, Mongol) Empire.

Thus, it seems that the existence of, at present, an independent Mongolia would be the best evidence countering Mr. Chu's claims that Tibet is an inseparable part of China. Moreover, China's vague, distant authority in Tibet over the centuries, to my knowledge, isn't terribly different from the tributary kingdoms China once ruled over in Korea and Vietnam. I doubt many would take kindly to the idea that China still has claims over these independent countries as well.


Claim #3

From article linked in Chu's post:

For years, the “re-conquista” movement in California and across the southwest has been gaining momentum.

To put it simply, the author gives no evidence.

Claim #4

From article:

Mexico claims the right to interfere in our internal politics as more of its citizens move across the border and establish residency. When Vicente Fox was the President of Mexico, he regularly referred to the “120 million” Mexicans he represented. At the time, Mexico’s population was only 100 million but he explained he also represented 20 million Mexican living inside the United States.

That seems about right. If they are not citizens of the United States, then he still represents them. I live in Taiwan, but Chen Shui Bian is not my president.

Doesn't the United States reserve the right to interfere in the internal politics of a nation if it concerns US, its people, or its interests? For better or for worse, I'm pretty sure that's the way it goes.

Claim #4

From article:

Two years ago, the Mexican Congress passed an absentee voting law to accommodate these many new citizens of their country. Now, Mexican citizens living permanently inside the United States may participate regularly in Mexico’s national elections. There have also been initiatives inside the Mexican Congress to add seats for representatives from districts in areas like California. Imagine a Mexican legislator telling a U.S. Congressman that he received more votes in the district and is therefore the democratically elected representative of, say, Los Angeles?

In November, I'll be voting for the next United States president by absentee ballot from Taiwan. Is that so alarming?

Moreover, if that Mexican legislator was foolish enough to present himself before the US Congress and claim himself, by virtue of his votes, the elected congressman from a certain district, it would suffice to simply point to the Constitution and alert the politician to these lines:

• Article 1, Section 2
  

  No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

• Article 1, Section 3
  

  No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

That should clear up any misconceptions. If need by, I'm sure they can procure a cope of the document in Spanish.

Claim #5

From article:

Many Americans were shocked to learn that 58 percent of Mexicans surveyed in a national poll believed the Southwestern United States rightly belongs to Mexico.

Who did the poll? I'm assuming it's the Zogby Poll written about here.

Most of those that emigrated from Mexico became naturalized US citizens and have become productive citizens. Unfortunately, some embittered intellectuals (on both sides of the border) have advocated that most of the southwest US belongs to Mexico. As a result they also believe that there should be no border control between Mexico and the US. Their rantings have convinced many that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. This view is reflected in a recent Zogby poll. The poll revealed that 58% of Mexicans believe that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. That probably explains why 60% of Mexicans also believe there should be no border control.

Remember, the poll says nothing of Mexican Americans, only Mexicans. The article is where the connection to intellectuals on both sides of the border who believe that the lands belong to Mexico. The people polled have no voting power in the US and join the ranks of people around the world who espouse beliefs that just don't match up with reality.

Moreover, I assume that if one were to do a poll among Mexican-Americans and recent Mexican immigrants in America, seeing as they fled their country, the results would be considerably different. Even if they believed the US unjustly acquired its Southwestern territories, they probably wouldn't be advocating its return.

Also, let's not forget that, in 2004,

Despite statements by such officials as the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector, David Kay; its former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke; former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, as well as admissions by senior administration officials themselves, a majority of the public still believes Iraq was closely tied to the al-Qaeda terrorist group and had WMD stocks or programs before U.S. troops invaded the country 13 months ago.

''The public is not getting a clear message about what the experts are saying about Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and its WMD program'', said Steven Kull, director of the Program'' on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey.

''The analysis suggests that if the public were to more clearly perceive what the experts themselves are saying on these issues, there is a good chance this could have a significant impact on their attitudes about the war and even on how they vote in November'', he added.

The survey and analysis found a high correlation between those perceptions and support for Bush himself in the upcoming presidential race in November.

Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was either ''directly involved'' in carrying out the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided ''substantial support'' to al-Qaeda, 57 percent said they intended to vote for Bush and 39 percent said they would choose his Democratic foe, John Kerry.

Yeah, opinions can change, when the facts become more apparent.

Claim #6

From article:

Most of the ingredients the U.S. State Department considers necessary before calling for a plebiscite are already here: A large population of unassimilated foreign nationals and another government pretending to be their voice. The ingredient still missing is civil unrest or severe economic conditions that aggravate the delicate political situation.

This paragraph in the article cited by Chu really seems to undermine his original argument. It certainly seems that one could easily defend the position that Tibet fits all four of those conditions.

I'm no expert on Tibet. Indeed, this is the first time I've ever really sat down to take a look at China's claims to the region. I thank Mr. Chu for giving me the opportunity. I look forward to any comments or corrections those reading this may offer.