Hi amhoanna,
Thanks for the explanation. Indeed, words *rich with historical texture* are so very nice
.
Reminds me of "Are Taiwanese Chinese" discussions in every way.
I first started being interested in identities when I met so many Taiwanese who said that "they were not Chinese". Initially, I found this so strange (I no longer do, but the reasons for this will become clearer as one reads on). For someone like me, who was born into the Chinese community in Malaysia, this statement was initially impossible to believe. I spoke a little Hokkien (but not very well), couldn't speak Mandarin, couldn't read or write Chinese characters. And yet I considered myself to be "very much Chinese". How then - I asked myself in amazement - could all these Taiwanese, who spoke Taiwanese much better than I did Hokkien (or so I thought), spoke Mandarin fluently, could read and write Chinese characters - how could they possibly not consider themselves to be Chinese? Taiwanese culture was "patently and obviously" derived from the wider "Chinese culture" - yet another reason I found it odd that they didn't consider themselves to be Chinese. Furthermore (to bring it back to my personal situation), I grew up eating very hot Indian, Malay, and Baba curries, my grandparents wore sarongs and ate with their hands, we had a matriarchal society, etc, etc, whereas the Taiwanese *didn't* have any of these cultural aspects. Surely that would make them even more Chinese than me? In other words: in every "logical" respect, Taiwanese were "more Chinese" than I was, and I considered myself Chinese - so how could they not?
So, I started to mix with Taiwanese, talk to them, go to EATS conferences, and gradually I started to understand. What I came to understand is what we've been talking about for most of this thread (and elsewhere on the Forum). Namely, the identification with a particular group does not have to go according to strict "logical" lines. As I said earlier, that's also definitely not to say that it goes according to *illogical* lines. It goes according to historical circumstance, and any of the directions it goes in - and the choices that are made in self identification - all make sense when looked at from a historical perspective, but not necessarily from a "strict" rational/logical perspective. So, for example, in Malaysia, the descendents of the Chinese immigrants developed an identity which labelled them as "not Malay, not Indian" (which happened to end up as "Chinese") - understandably - because of the social and political circumstances which they found themselves in, and the Taiwanese ended up labelling themselves as "not Chinese" - again, understandably - because of the social and political circumstances which *they* found themselves in.
Anyway, this is how I gradually began to understand the meaning and subtlety of identities and their formation.
One analogy which helped me focus my thoughts was by looking at the "Americans" (I mean the citizens/residents of the United States). Of course, I have never thought of them as "English" - that much was obvious to me and everyone else in the world. But then I started to ask myself "why not?". They speak English natively. For their annual "high school play" they do Shakespeare as often as the English do. For their amateur theatricals, they do Gilbert and Sullivan (I read somewhere that they do this
more than the English do!). An enormous amount (if not the overwhelming majority) of the total research on Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Wordsworth, etc done in the world is done at US universities. Americans eat mashed potato and roast beef. 80% of their cultural heritage is English - i.e. American culture was "patently and obviously" derived from the "English culture". What I started to realise is that if one looks at "external/logical criteria" only, then perhaps the Americans are as English as the Taiwanese are Chinese. And yet, I would never consider the Americans to be "a type of English", so why should I consider the Taiwanese to be "a type of Chinese"? The fact is that historically, there was a conflict - with independence - and that led to the development of a separate identity on the two sides of the Atlantic. Similarly, there was another historical conflict - with (de-facto) independence - and that led to the development of a separate identity on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Once I had got this insight and made this parallel, it helped me tremendously to understand why the Taiwanese "don't consider themselves to be Chinese".
I wrote all the above not because I think it's such a smart thought, but because of how difficult I found the mental process (it took me about 5 years), and because I felt that sharing it with other readers might help them in their understanding as well. I would like to make some qualifications however:
1. I would like to say that I'm also aware that none of these "identities" are set in stone / concrete.
While I think it is unlikely that the American and English identity will ever "merge" into a single one again, it's not at all inconceivable (IMHO) that the Taiwanese and Chinese identity might merge again, in the future - *given the right historical/social conditions*. The parallel of this is the loss of Baba identity. In the time of my great-grandparents and grandparents, the difference between Babas and Sin-kheks was probably at its greatest - prior to that, it might not have fully formed, and after that, it gradually faded, as with each succeeding generation (the womenfolk) stopped wearing sarongs and eating with their hands (in the course of the 40's and 50's); and the children of Baba families started to speak Mandarin (in the course of the 80's and 90's); etc. So, nowadays, I think the Baba identity would be quite a weak one (if not totally gone) - i.e. it's merged back into a general "Malaysian (or Singaporean) Chinese" identity, because of historical/social conditions. It might have been unimaginable to my great-grandparents to think that one day their great-great-great grandchildren would only think of themselves as Chinese, and not as Baba, but that perhaps already has happened. Similarly with the Taiwanese/Chinese situation, in the future.
2. I would also like to say that none of the arguments and examples I give above are being given as "hard facts".
There are lots of counter arguments to much of what I've outlined above. For example, one can point out that historically, the cultural influences on America were a lot more varied and diverse than just "English" (so the figure I gave of 80% English influence is perhaps too high). To start with - if considering only the British Isles - there was a lot of Irish and Scottish influence in the US. Looking more widely, there was Jewish, Black, Armenian, Italian (think of "the Godfather"!), Spanish (i.e. Mexican), French (i.e. New Orleans/Louisiana), Native American, etc, influence. [But then, similarly, Taiwan has Japanese and Taiwanese aboriginal influence.] Similarly, one can counter that the US and England have been separated for 200 years, whereas the time of separation between Taiwan and the mainland is much shorter. Or one can counter that the Atlantic is a lot wider than the Taiwan Strait!
These (and others I can't think of at the moment) are all valid objections to the parallel I am trying to draw. So, with this qualification, I'm only asking for a bit of tolerance in viewing my statements above: I'm not offering them as "proof" of anything, only as a general sketch of an idea; as vague parallels, and as gentle suggestions to help in thinking about the world.
... And united by a common religion. Islam in the first case, "ancestor worship + belief in a common ancestor" in the second case.