I’m still reading from Immigrant Ambassadors, and lately Hess argues that the identity of Tibetan youth is becoming more cosmopolitan because their focus is to support the Tibetan cause, which is becoming “increasing internationalized” (210). Her opinion reminded me of an incident I had read about from a Refworld page where 300 Tibetan youth were detained after protesting at a rally for the Chinese Olympic Torch (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCRI,,AFG,4562d8cf2,4a40d2a75d,0.html). It reminded me because I was surprised to hear about protests by Tibetan youth. I had a vision of quiet village people in my head and then all of the sudden they’re protesting, so when Hess talked about their cosmopolitan identity I wondered if that was the cause for the protest.  I tend to connect such passionate protesting with nationalism.  Now I’m not an authority on Tibetan youth, or the Tibetan cause, but that kind of nationalism has to come from somewhere.

What would cause them to identify so passionately to the Tibetan cause?  The fact that they’re born Tibetan? Or born exiles? Or the education which teaches their history from a heavily Tibetan perspective, and probably lacks coverage from a Chinese perspective?  Does exposure to other cultures and nations increase ones own nationalism? 

I believe there are too many variables to prove that the cause of increased activism is a result of international exposure.  

Prodigal Blogger

Whew! It has been a while since my last post, but this is my re-dedication to learning journals. Any who, onto the meat-and-potatoes of this blog...

Culture has been on my mind lately and there are a couple reasons why. I've been reading chapters of a book called "Immigrant Ambassadors: Citizenship and Belonging in the Tibetan Diaspora" by Julia Meredith Mess. It's a book that Melissa recommended which talks about the Tibetan diaspora (mainly in the US, but there's general coverage of their diaspora in India). I like the way that this book is trying to understand Tibetan culture/identity. For example, one of the quotes Hess uses is from a CTA (Central Tibetan Administration) employee as he dealt with one foreign woman who complained that she thought there was "too much commercialization," because of the intermingling between Tibetans and western "hippies". The employee responded to her by saying, "culture is not static, one identifies one's own culture through interaction with others. You were disappointed because you have an illusion" (17). I've been pondering about how one's culture is fluid since reading this particular quote. Often I've thought of culture as inbred, lasting, and static, however that's not necessarily true when you look at people, especially Tibetans. For years the outside world thought of a isolationist Tibetan culture, yet now Tibetans are on the world stage and being visited be thousands of tourists. Was it Tibetan culture that changed, or an outside illusion that was shattered? Maybe a little of both was going on. At any rate, a culture was better identified/understood because of interaction with others.

Once you decide to interact with another culture then comes the question of how to interact with that culture. Last night I watched a short movie called Barbequeria with the cultural inquiry club (I think this is the right group...but no guarantees). This movie was a satire which reversed the roles of black indigenous people and white colonizers in Australia. There is a black reporter who lives with a white family in their slums, and follows them through a number of changes in their family (all changes are initiated by the black government and include things like taking their daughter away for a "better" education). This reporter interviews the family in an attempt to understand how they feel about these changes, but you can tell that she's not even close to understanding them. There are times when she asks the right questions, yet the family doesn't feel comfortable giving open and honest answers. She is trying to understand them from her perspective and it's just not enough.

Alas, there are a few conclusions I've come up with as a result of these sources. First, try not to go into a culture with illusions - this one might be hard because I think we naturally imagine the experience we're going to have. Second, don't make assumptions about a culture based upon my own illusions. Third, try to avoid getting caught up in one perspective. And forth, enjoy the people and their culture.

Postscript: The New York experiment was fun :) I have a new love for New Yorkers, the subway, and bustling cities. Here are a few reasons why my friends in the city still live in the city:
#1: It's home. I heard this answer the most. People had grown up in New York, or lived there for so long, that it was hard to imagine living anywhere else.
#2: They loved the city. One cute Filipino woman told me she loved how there's always something going on, and that she's gone to other smaller cities and thought they were really low-key. "What do you do," she asked, "when it's late and you're hungry and there's no street vendors open?". Being a lover of gyro vendors, I think she brings up a serious point.  
#3: They stay because of their situation. Their situation could include a job, family, etc. A woman from Zimbabwe wasn't such a fan of the city, but her husband liked living in New York and she was a good woman who was willing to be a supportive wife.
This list is a small sampling of New Yorkers, but I had a ton of fun talking to them. Good people.

So Tuesday I went to the Raffa Raffa activity and it was pretty cool. I'll admit, I was a little skeptical when they told me to start making animal noises...but it worked out in the end. Anywho, I like that the activity puts you in a different environment and then allows you to analyze your own behavior. Automatically I was of the impression that my dog-barking-pig-squeeling trade culture was the way of life, but then we went into the other "tribe". I wanted to relate things to what I understood, like trade/competition/or power. However, because I was trying to understand based upon my small perspective, I was limited and couldn't appreciate the ways of this new culture. They were different, and that was fine with me, but it wasn't the "best" way in my mind. As we talked about the activity later I realized my uneven bias and decided to attempt to change my way of looking at new things.

Now I'm in New York. On the plane over here, a friend remarked that the people of New York were mean compared to the west because that's what you had to do in order to succeed in the big city. I asked another friend what he thought about New York, "it's great to visit," he said, "but it can't compare to my mountains". I guess it's natural to try relating your world to the unknown.

These conversations have led me to an experiement...I'm going to try viewing this city outside of my perspective. What's great about it? What do native New Yorkers love about living here? Why do they live here? I know this isn't India, and these people are Americans, but I'm still tempted to compare everything to my west coast way of life. Hopefully by experimenting on New Yorkers, I'll be more prepared for Tibetans.