Beth is a well-respected researcher in Archaeology. She is retired, but still comes to the College for lunch occasionally. It’s her way of staying in touch with an important part of her life and career. We enjoy her company as well.
One day at the lunch table, she was sitting opposite me. So we talked. Beth was interested in my Chinese background. She was intrigued to find out that I was from Inner Mongolia, China, and I am actually a Mongolian. She then asked me to share how ethnic minorities such myself or Muslims in China have been discriminated, marginalised, repressed, and tortured by the Chinese government. Beth was so sure about what she know about China, so much so that she stated such views in a firm, matter-of-fact manner. I and Aiyun, another Chinese scholar sitting next to me, looked each other in disbelief.
We both told her that ethnic minorities have been treated favourably in China, and most of the news about the mistreatment of Muslims in Tibet is not true. Those are lies to secure financial and political support from overseas to realise personal ambitions, not for the wellbeing of those ethnic minority groups. Beth gave us a deep look, and basically told us “You two are brain-washed by the Chinese Communist Party!”
We are not. I told her that my parents made decisions on their own, not under the gunpoint of the local government, to send me to the mainstream education system, because the chance for me to have a decent life is much better than if they put me in a Mongolian-speaking school. This is why I was sitting in the dinning hall of a Cambridge College and having an intellectually stimulating conversation with a Cambridge professor. Both my parents and myself are very grateful about the opportunity available, for free, to us back then. This is true for all ethnic minority groups in China. Besides, we receive 10 bonus marks automatically in the national university admission examinations; we have allowance at colleges; we are priorities to become a Communist Party member, which brings many benefits at workplaces. Once again, this is true for all ethnic minorities in China.
Beth was not impressed. She changed her angle of attack. “The Chinese government should not make people to give up their heritage. They should have the right to remain in their religion and traditions.” It sounds like that she believes that the ethnic minorities have been victims of Chinese government’s conspiracy, by which they are quietly and unconsciously converted to the ‘majority’, and hence under the manipulation of the Chinese Communist Party. My story of independent and conscious decision to leave Inner Mongolia for a better life did not sink in at all.
I suddenly realised that Beth has more than one definition of a better life. For her life it’s the western standard – being financial independent and living in a modern and civilised environment. For us, SHE thinks the better life is just to be ‘ourselves’, living in the harsh environment in Inner Mongolia without indoor plumbing, because that is what we are suppose to be and that must be what we want.
I quickly drew an analogy in my mind. Beth lives in a house with a beautiful garden. There is an ornament shaped like Helen in Beth’s garden. Somehow this Helen ornament has a mind one day, and wants to live in the house like Beth as well. Yes the garden is pretty. But there are also mosquitos and thunderstorms. The bedrooms in the house is a much better place to be. However, Beth does not think so. “No, you should stay in the garden, because you are part of the pretty view. Once in a while, I want to look at you and marvel about how amazing the nature is and how good my life has been. Even if it’s just a few minutes a week, you should stay in the garden, being battered by rain and wind, because I enjoy the view with you in it. That’s nature.”
Who can argue with her? Why should a garden ornament deserve a good modern life in the house? It should stay in the garden, where it supposed to be, to be part of the view, instead of having her own life of choice.
I cannot help but find such a double standard attitude offensive. Yet, it is so pervasive and persistent. Human rights are defined in different way between the two groups. The human right fighters think they are superior, and the world is like their private gardens. Efforts must be made to preserve bio-diversity and cultural diversity. But do they really understand what development means?
We need to be very careful about the judgement and advice that we pass to other people, particularly those who are not in our social class. Aiyun, the one who was in disapproval of Bathe’s biased view about China, made the same mistake today.
We were talking about the current political environment in China. She showed strong disapproval of the country’s dealing of online entertainment platforms such as Kuaishou, YY, and Douyin. Videos shared at those websites are at best described as unsophisticated. Simply put, the sites are popular among rural residents, most of whom are uneducated. The content of the videos is often associated with violence and sex, and full of unimaginably foolish posts just to gain attention. Aiyun’s view is that those websites should be banned outright. “Why didn’t they do anything?”
I had to ask her to calm down. In economics, demand creates supply, not the other way around. “But these are BAD demand!” Wait a second, in economics, there is no such a thing as bad demand. Money has no value judgement. Business is business. Drugs and prostitutions are all ‘bad demand’. But the markets are huge everywhere. Why? The demand is real and you cannot resist it.
China’s problem is that it gets rich a bit too quickly. Economic development can be achieved in a short period of time. Education, on the other hand, takes long time. The rural residents in China, and to certain extent some urban poors, now have the money to use wifi, computers and phones. But their education did not catch up accordingly. Those unsophisticated videos are all they can understand and appreciate. The market needs to provide something to them. The products are not ideal, sometimes even problematic, but they are the least of all evils. Without a venue to channel their energy, those customers may cause social problems or even political unrest.
Aiyun cannot accept that. She is applying her own standard to those rural migrant workers. What inappropriate for her as a Researcher in Cambridge University should not be appropriate for those workers as well, and should be banned outright.
Am I contradicting myself? Should Beth argue that those ethnic minorities are not sophisticated enough to live a modern life like hers, and should be kept in the jungle and mountain?
No, we are talking about two different issues. It is investment good for the ethnic minorities, and consumption goods for the rural migrant workers. Beth is denying those people’s opportunity to pursuit a better life, and Aiyun is trying to take away one of the few meaningful past-times in those people’s life. For former, equality and fairness are essential so the same standard and provision should be given to everyone, for latter personal preference dominants so products should be tailored.
