When an Indian 'talks Confucian', and what it means to 'be Indian'
I was disgusted when I came across the article, 'It is time for Singaporeans to take back our country', in the neo-Nazi(Confucian version) site, Temasek Review, and by a so-called Indian too - though i would not discount the possibility that it is written by T.R themselves to give the impression that all races are united in xenophobic tendencies of the typically confucian mind. Looks like the latter half of the 'Speak Mandarin and Appreciate Chinese culture' campaign zealously pursued by the government for a few decades now is really working.
Such articles and perspectives are common amongst the 'democratic' and 'oppositional' bloggers in Singapore. And if they aren't spouting such neo-Nazi rubbish, they are keeping silent in the face of it, or complementing it with a 'pragmatic' approach toward the issue. Together, they supply both the fascist and practical perspectives that serve to give the entire nonsense a reasonable approach - a typically fascist approach toward the re-creation of reality in its own image.
T.Rajendran (excerpt):
I am also very disturbed by the influx of foreigners, especially students. In my secondary school, 20 scholars from China were brought in each year. Within months they outperformed everyone else even in English. Many Singaporean students felt they were being denied the chance to be the first in the subjects and tests.
ed:
What nonsense. You want to be ‘first’ by excluding those who can beat you simply because they aren’t ‘local’? And where do you think your foreparents came from? Bukit Merah? They were ‘PRCs’ themselves. You are obviously a self-centred jackass who simply wants the company of other jackasses so that you don’t have to think you’re dumb and docile when compared to better others. That’s what was done to the non-chinese in singapore, and now you’re adopting the same approach in the face of ‘foreigners’. That’s what happens in a confucian society where monoculturalism reigns. You think you’re going to have people becoming smart in a ‘one way of thought’ kind of society? Multiculturalism is the key, i.e. India, UK. Take that out, and we have ridiculously argued rubbish such as this letter.
p.s. the above critique applies to singaporeans regardless of ‘race’. It seems that everyone is ‘talking confucian’ now, even local ‘indians’.
-end comment
Now, let me clarify what 'Indian' means, in a nutshell. To 'be Indian' is to be a logical corollary of a multicultural milieu as is India. In other words, one who isn't averse to or discounts difference. As a result of having to contend with a highly and culturally variable milieu, they tend to produce logical and critical thinkers, able to process and respond to new information 'realtime', would be able to reformulate one's own perspectives in appreciation of an everchanging milieu, and tend to also engage in the manipulation of one's environment at all levels for the purpose of change, amongst others. When one becomes monocultural, as are the Confucians, or the nationalist/fascist Bharatiya Janata Party in India, they cease to 'be Indian' in essence.
I take the meaning of a term such as Indian, Chinese, Malay, American, African, amongst others, as referring to people whom are consequences of related or practiced cultures. Other things remaining equal, practitioners of different cultures will tend to exhibit contradistinguishable traits.
For instance, a victim of a monocultural milieu will tend to be less analytical, poor in adaptation, superficial in perspective, and socially apathetic - given the authoritarian top-down management of society, traditionalism, and top-imposed financial pressures and exploitation.
One practicing, or being reared within, a relatively democratic and multicultural milieu will tend to exhibit a greater degree of innovativeness, critical intelligence, being able to appreciate phenomena from a variety of angles, be able to process new information 'realtime' and reformulate existing ways of understanding things, tend to use metaphors, analogies, poetical expressions, amongst a host of others. If we were to subject our very own children to either of these conditions, we will see a similar result. So there is no reason why this would not be the case when it comes to 'culture' simple because it is called 'culture' and has been practiced for thousands of years.
ed
Such articles and perspectives are common amongst the 'democratic' and 'oppositional' bloggers in Singapore. And if they aren't spouting such neo-Nazi rubbish, they are keeping silent in the face of it, or complementing it with a 'pragmatic' approach toward the issue. Together, they supply both the fascist and practical perspectives that serve to give the entire nonsense a reasonable approach - a typically fascist approach toward the re-creation of reality in its own image.
T.Rajendran (excerpt):
I am also very disturbed by the influx of foreigners, especially students. In my secondary school, 20 scholars from China were brought in each year. Within months they outperformed everyone else even in English. Many Singaporean students felt they were being denied the chance to be the first in the subjects and tests.
ed:
What nonsense. You want to be ‘first’ by excluding those who can beat you simply because they aren’t ‘local’? And where do you think your foreparents came from? Bukit Merah? They were ‘PRCs’ themselves. You are obviously a self-centred jackass who simply wants the company of other jackasses so that you don’t have to think you’re dumb and docile when compared to better others. That’s what was done to the non-chinese in singapore, and now you’re adopting the same approach in the face of ‘foreigners’. That’s what happens in a confucian society where monoculturalism reigns. You think you’re going to have people becoming smart in a ‘one way of thought’ kind of society? Multiculturalism is the key, i.e. India, UK. Take that out, and we have ridiculously argued rubbish such as this letter.
p.s. the above critique applies to singaporeans regardless of ‘race’. It seems that everyone is ‘talking confucian’ now, even local ‘indians’.
-end comment
Now, let me clarify what 'Indian' means, in a nutshell. To 'be Indian' is to be a logical corollary of a multicultural milieu as is India. In other words, one who isn't averse to or discounts difference. As a result of having to contend with a highly and culturally variable milieu, they tend to produce logical and critical thinkers, able to process and respond to new information 'realtime', would be able to reformulate one's own perspectives in appreciation of an everchanging milieu, and tend to also engage in the manipulation of one's environment at all levels for the purpose of change, amongst others. When one becomes monocultural, as are the Confucians, or the nationalist/fascist Bharatiya Janata Party in India, they cease to 'be Indian' in essence.
I take the meaning of a term such as Indian, Chinese, Malay, American, African, amongst others, as referring to people whom are consequences of related or practiced cultures. Other things remaining equal, practitioners of different cultures will tend to exhibit contradistinguishable traits.
For instance, a victim of a monocultural milieu will tend to be less analytical, poor in adaptation, superficial in perspective, and socially apathetic - given the authoritarian top-down management of society, traditionalism, and top-imposed financial pressures and exploitation.
One practicing, or being reared within, a relatively democratic and multicultural milieu will tend to exhibit a greater degree of innovativeness, critical intelligence, being able to appreciate phenomena from a variety of angles, be able to process new information 'realtime' and reformulate existing ways of understanding things, tend to use metaphors, analogies, poetical expressions, amongst a host of others. If we were to subject our very own children to either of these conditions, we will see a similar result. So there is no reason why this would not be the case when it comes to 'culture' simple because it is called 'culture' and has been practiced for thousands of years.
ed
Comments
Post a Comment
The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.
Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.