New Mandala

8 responses so far ↓

• 1 James Haughton // Nov 14, 2006 at 3:28 pm

  Would it be more accurate to say that understanding (or at least, a western understanding) of the global issues is far away, rather than the issues themselves? For example, many upland groups in Laos are directly affected by the policy of banning opium cultivation – this has been made a “global issue” chiefly by the United States, for reasons which are not entirely clear to me, nevermind to upland Hmong – but the effects of that global issue are definitely felt.

• 2 Nirut // Nov 14, 2006 at 8:25 pm

  A nice recentering of the perspective James but your particular version (even with its caveat) lends itself to framing “the rural folk of the hills” as unsophisticated. I would be inclined to take that extra step and say that the earth not being flat is only one other way of understanding the cosmos that we all occupy and that within our system it is hard (if not impossible) to refute, but not unlike the Azande Oracle and the system within which it sits or is a part of. In terms of the flat earth issue however, we are inclined to render it particularly meaningful and do so by misrecognising its historical emergence (contingence) and the circumstances around which it occurred through as a revolution of science rather than the cultural and political one (structural change in the sense of the structure of the conjuncture that Sahlins developed) it really was and as the quote from the article illustrates not subscribing to our enlightened perspective is at least worthy of exclamation in disbelief if not a total tsk tsk-ing over ignorance…though the latter is never far away

  I would say that the “surprising” fact that these children (as many of the people in my experience who dwell in the highlands of northern Thailand, Burma, Laos and Southern China do) do not “know” the world is not flat as “we do”, is better understood perhaps in terms of the rich diversity of human posibility and rather, than how far away understanding of the global is, it might be a better reflection of the relevance (or lack thereof) of it, to other people’s life worlds. I for one am of the opinion that the global, in the sense that it is being used here and in most academic writings, is but a cultural elaboration of the globe earth theory and as such an analytic construct that has taken on a life of its own…I say this in the sense of the discussion of rationality superstition and voodoo that Hobby and I have been having on another thread here…

• 3 James Haughton // Nov 14, 2006 at 10:39 pm

  I was more thinking in terms of Nick’s later comment and the ways in which upland groups are tied into the global political economy, even if they are unaware of how or why (though I suspect american exile Hmong probably have a better idea of how global P.E. works than I do). Of course, the knowledge/theory of upland groups as to why american funded agencies keep coming and burning their crops would probably provide its own unique insights.

• 4 aiontay // Nov 15, 2006 at 10:36 am

  There were, and I assume still are, Karen villagers that could distinguish between different mortar rounds by the sound they made, and different calibers of small arms fire, but had never seen an escalator. Bertil Lintner recount in his book “Land of Jade’ how an small boy in the Kokang region ran away from him crying when he pointed a camera at the boy; the child thought it was a gun. Lintner commented that it was sobering to reflect that there were areas of the world at the close of the 20th century where children didn’t know what a camera was, but already knew what a gun was capable of. I suspect the same holds true in the 21st Century. I’m afraid that in lots of remote upper mainland SE Asia people, like the villagers in Laos, are quite connected to the global scene and political economy. It just depends on what aspect of the global scene you are talking about. By the same token, the average Australian or US citizen is probably quite dislocated from aspects of the global scene and political economy, especially the unpleasant bits.

  Somewhat off topic, but Nicholas have you heard about the elephant tusks of the Ginsi Duwa?

• 5 nganadeeleg // Nov 15, 2006 at 7:49 pm

  Excellent post, Aiontay – it puts things into perspective nicely.

• 6 Nicholas Farrelly // Nov 16, 2006 at 8:16 pm

  Thanks for the comments, everyone.

  There is certainly no effort on my part to claim that global forces have no impact, or that, on the contrary, they are all-pervading. These examples show, quite nicely, I think, how a range of messy interactions continuously go on. Individual knowledge and experience of life is shaped by these.

  They can lead to all sorts of unexpected insights…and unexpected gaps in people’s understanding…

  Aiontay, as for the elephant tusks of the Ginsi Duwa – no I haven’t heard of them. But I am intrigued.

• 7 aiontay // Nov 16, 2006 at 11:27 pm

  Next time you are in Burma, ask about them. It probably would be better to get the story from a Kachin. Basically, they have to do with establishing Kachin claims to the Hpakant jade area, but in a way quite different than Western groups would. I was reminded of it when you wrote how global and lowland issues can seem so far away.

• 8 Nicholas Farrelly // Nov 17, 2006 at 12:58 am

  Thanks, Aiontay,

  I will look into that – thanks for the tip.

  Don’t read too much into my comments on one former Hmong highlander reflecting that he remembers a childhood of not “knowing” the earth was round. There is much that we all don’t know. That’s just the way it goes – global, local, or the many places in between.

  Nich

Leave a Comment