---------------
Reading the article of Nguyen Van Chinh about "Swedden/ Shifting cultivation and Sedentarization/ Fixed farming, settlement", I found it very interesting to figure out the distinction between Vietnamese and foreign anthropologists attitudes towards Sedentarization policy of Vietnamese Government. While national anthropologists consider the policy as the effort to improve economic condition and quality of environment in mountainous areas as well as the rightness of Government to change the "backward" economic activities; the foreign ones point out that Government has used the policy as a method to control the ethnic minority people and as assimilate ethnic culture. That point was even analysed deeper in the class today along with the ideas of "The Art of not being governed" (James Scott).
The thing striking my mind is that how come foreigners are always doubtful about the freedom and control level of Socialist country like Vietnam? Is it because of the prejudice started from the past of lacking human rights, freedom, democracy in Communist bloc?
And most important, we already know about "The art of not being governed" but how about the 'art of governing"?
And most important, we already know about "The art of not being governed" but how about the 'art of governing"?
Of course, we all agree that every small changes in economic field can affect the culture, tradition and custom of local people, especially ethnic minority groups and they themselves also don't want to be governed by keeping moving and hiding around. However, it's undeniable that shifting cultivation is a sort of "backward" agricultural form leading to many other social problems such as children cant go to school frequently, daily life becomes unstable, low educated and isolated... As a result, the government can't help these minority groups when they're in damage or emergency, for example flood, uncontrollable burned forest, famine ... because authorities don't know where these people are located and how to contact to them. So, "controlling" or "governing" is really necessary for ethnic minority people's own seeks.
The question is how much governing/ controlling is enough and appropriate.
It reminds me a lot about the controversial 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for a Chinese citizen named Liu Xiaobo, who actually is serving 11 year jail sentence due to opposing the Chinese politics, strongly criticizing Communist Party of China's core principles and establish so-called "Chapter 8", which provides some changes in the Chinese politics in order to give the full freedom and democracy back to Chinese people. Reacting immediately to the Nobel Peace Prize, China angrily criticized Norway for violating the Nobel Prize's spirit by honoring Liu- a "criminal". Whereas, Norway said that they had already expected the controversy and still kept their opinion of Liu -" non-violated way of fighting for peace, freedom and democracy of Chinese people". Significantly, 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was such a "slap on Chinese face".
So, by honoring Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Prize, which actually is foreign actors criticize China for her over governing and controlling, even violating the human rights and rights of freedom.
In quest of answering the question above, I remember the time I was in Tiananme Square- Beijing and first time heard about the horrible Massacre in Tiananme 1989, in which thousands of Chinese protesters were killed (the exact number has never been estimated and announced officially). It became a back day, a bloody day in the history of China and no Chinese people are willing to talk about that openly. Obviously, Tiananme event horribly violated the human rights, democracy of Chinese people- a terrible massacre. However, for a country with billion population like China, if the Government tanks hadn't came to clear protesters, they would have made China in chaos and the whole country security would have been in damage. Personally, I strongly oppose the way Chinese did in Tiananme but there is an undeniable fact that they "must" have the strong action to govern their citizens.
When I was in Taiwan, I discussed this topic again with a Taiwanese philosophy scholar and he told me that most of Chinese young people in the generation after Tiananme event were educated to be nationalist and understand deeply the reason why Government made that decision for Tiananme protesters. He said, now, if we ask any young Chinese about Tiananme event, they will act like we shouldn't talk about that because it may be harmful for the Chinese image and Chinese Government was right to make such massacre.
Ironically, I think of Vietnam with "Vietnamese Liu Xiaobo" like Le Cong Dinh, Le Thi Cong Nhan, Nguyen Van Dai...who we call "phản động"- the dissidents. If Liu Xiaobo was already honored, whether these Vietnamese people will be considered as "freedom protesters", too? The predicted conflicts between democracy and government's rightness to control citizens in order to maintain national security soon will be occurred. And how about national sovereignty and Westphaila - "the non- intervention of foreign actors (normally states) to other sate's matters?
Well, in the world of globalization, Westernization where people highly appreciate the democracy, human rights, freedom..., the Authority's controlling/ governing is aggressively criticized although in some extents, it is extremely necessary. We again need to think of "The Art of governing" - how much government should control their citizens and what method they should use to balance the democracy and national administration.
The question is how much governing/ controlling is enough and appropriate.
It reminds me a lot about the controversial 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for a Chinese citizen named Liu Xiaobo, who actually is serving 11 year jail sentence due to opposing the Chinese politics, strongly criticizing Communist Party of China's core principles and establish so-called "Chapter 8", which provides some changes in the Chinese politics in order to give the full freedom and democracy back to Chinese people. Reacting immediately to the Nobel Peace Prize, China angrily criticized Norway for violating the Nobel Prize's spirit by honoring Liu- a "criminal". Whereas, Norway said that they had already expected the controversy and still kept their opinion of Liu -" non-violated way of fighting for peace, freedom and democracy of Chinese people". Significantly, 2010 Nobel Peace Prize was such a "slap on Chinese face".
 |
| Liu Xiaobo |
So, by honoring Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Prize, which actually is foreign actors criticize China for her over governing and controlling, even violating the human rights and rights of freedom.
In quest of answering the question above, I remember the time I was in Tiananme Square- Beijing and first time heard about the horrible Massacre in Tiananme 1989, in which thousands of Chinese protesters were killed (the exact number has never been estimated and announced officially). It became a back day, a bloody day in the history of China and no Chinese people are willing to talk about that openly. Obviously, Tiananme event horribly violated the human rights, democracy of Chinese people- a terrible massacre. However, for a country with billion population like China, if the Government tanks hadn't came to clear protesters, they would have made China in chaos and the whole country security would have been in damage. Personally, I strongly oppose the way Chinese did in Tiananme but there is an undeniable fact that they "must" have the strong action to govern their citizens.
 |
| Tiananme protesters |
When I was in Taiwan, I discussed this topic again with a Taiwanese philosophy scholar and he told me that most of Chinese young people in the generation after Tiananme event were educated to be nationalist and understand deeply the reason why Government made that decision for Tiananme protesters. He said, now, if we ask any young Chinese about Tiananme event, they will act like we shouldn't talk about that because it may be harmful for the Chinese image and Chinese Government was right to make such massacre.
Ironically, I think of Vietnam with "Vietnamese Liu Xiaobo" like Le Cong Dinh, Le Thi Cong Nhan, Nguyen Van Dai...who we call "phản động"- the dissidents. If Liu Xiaobo was already honored, whether these Vietnamese people will be considered as "freedom protesters", too? The predicted conflicts between democracy and government's rightness to control citizens in order to maintain national security soon will be occurred. And how about national sovereignty and Westphaila - "the non- intervention of foreign actors (normally states) to other sate's matters?
Well, in the world of globalization, Westernization where people highly appreciate the democracy, human rights, freedom..., the Authority's controlling/ governing is aggressively criticized although in some extents, it is extremely necessary. We again need to think of "The Art of governing" - how much government should control their citizens and what method they should use to balance the democracy and national administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment