Comments on: Ways of seeing

By: VinN

VinN — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 23:19:00 +0000

In reply to Alexandra Grey. I think Chinese people may tend to have some bias upon policies, and sometimes they don't trust their government. I have a learning experience in a Minzu University (South west University of Nationalities), and I see how they are pride of protecting minority culture. The university set up a museum for relic of ethnic group. They also develop products that facilitate minority language speakers. I saw both traditional wedding dress and smart phone with minority language operating system there. The official language is mandarin and simplified Chinese characters, but researchers and the government still work on minority culture preservation.

By: Alexandra Grey

Alexandra Grey — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:17:17 +0000

Often when I tell people I’m researching language rights & state activity in relation to minority languages in China, people assume the Chinese state is only interested in “cracking down” or “oppressing” minorities. A very clearly conditioned “way of seeing”! Of course, I too (& all of us) have ways of seeing and I’m not doubt better at reflecting on some than others, but I do both despair & enjoy the chance to explain that in many ways modern China was set up with core structures to protect minority languages and ethnic polities. Those didn’t/don’t necessarily always work well, but the reasons why not are more interesting than simply a sinister, homogeneous state desire to eradicate diversity. Just reading May’s great article “Language Rights:The ‘Cinderella’ Human Right” (Journal of Human Rights, 10:265–289, 2011) in which he explains the Constitutional establishment of the Catalan autonomous region (an “autonomias” ) in Spain in the 70s; in many ways the 5 autonomous regions of the P.R.C. are similar rather than different, predating Spain’s structure by decades. Such similarity is rarely “seen” in the literature. Simpler for authors to dismiss “communitarian”/”collective” rights regimes as too different to bother discussing, I guess. This isn’t a criticism of May’s article, which covers a lot very well in a short piece, but longer books like Ricento (ed.) 2015 Language Policy&Political Economy have space but don’t deeply consider non-liberal democracies’ language rights.

By: Paul Desailly

Paul Desailly — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 01:15:56 +0000

Never ever miss Ingrid’s essays coz she ain’t misleadin’ or Miss Leeden. Her notions of fair play and justice hit the mark once again

Correcting myopic and sanitized views of history requires first and foremost on the individual’s part – an independent investigation of truth devoid of any prejudice, i.e. moral or spiritual qualities Perverted misinterpretations of history on the part of paid historians or those appealing to populism with mega books sales uppermost in mind set the scene for an historicism which hinders a much needed transformation of society

Such disastrous results ensue when one fails to absorb the views for example of our indigenous peoples that groupthink sets in. Groupthink’s most egregious examples arise when leaders in religion, in academia, in the arts and media and in politics receive free rein that circumvents most criticism whether constructive or not.

The observant among the rank and file are obliged to intervene with proofs lest disasters occur as for example in the former in which the likes of .’Reverend’ Jones lead a thousand souls to mass suicide-murder in Guyana and in the latter in which we reap the whirlwind : ‘Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer’

Groupthink is the antithesis of an independent investigation of truth