Tibetans Protest China's Plan to Curb Language

[Anonymous]

I apologize for not providing the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/asia/23china.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=tibet&st=cse

[Anonymous]

It is a very interesting article. As we know, China is a large-population country, which exists overwhelmingly amounts of dialects nationwide. Imagine: if the Chinese government doesn't do anything to unify the official language, it would be extremely difficult to communicate among the nation. For those minorities, I don;t think there should be any limitations for them to speak their languages at home or within their groups.

[Anonymous]

I don't feel that it is ever right for a government to limit the culture of any one group. Obviously they want as many people as possible to communicate within the country, but this is dealing with the denial of a fundamental element of culture. It should be the responsibility of the citizens, not the government, to recognize the benefit of learning, knowing, and speaking the "official" language of the country; in order to be competitive in the workplace, communicate with the majority of citizens, etc.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for providing that link.
It's another brick in the wall. Many totalitarian regims have tried this kind of oppression. The results haven't been "encouraging". A plan to curb the Tibetan language would only deepen the problem. China's authorities should learn from the failures of others.

[Anonymous]

History repeats itself ... And unfortunately like in many other situations the leaders forget to understand the historical events of the past. As mchristov states there are many similar examples of failure when oppression has been used.

[Anonymous]

Many great countries have more than one national language-- Canada, Switzerland, etc.-- with no apparent communication problems. If anything, I would think the Tibetans would be more inclined to accept Chinese authority and learn Chinese if they were allowed to maintain their own language and cultural identity at the same time. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Bravo to Ms. Petkova. History does indeed repeat itself! Yes. There have been other totalitarian regims that have tried to limit people in what to speak. They have failed and so will the Chinese. They should embrace diversity. They may have one common or universal language, but have and allow dialects. Spain comes to mind as a recent country where a dictator wanted to rid Spain of dialects and customs of those regions. He failed. It did the opposite and united the peolpe more. My suggestion to the Chinese is to learn from history.

[Anonymous]

I agree with jbaxter; trying to eliminate the use of the Tibetan language is not a way to promote support for the Chinese government amongst the Tibetan people. I understand the desrire to try and unify the country under one common language, but the article goes further and explains how, "Many Tibetans in western China also complain of strict controls over the practice of Tibetan Buddhism, including a ban on images of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader..." Taking away their religion AND their language hardly leaves them with anything left to identify themselves with and banning religion, imagery, and language just starts wading into dangerous waters, which as someone stated before, is history repeating itself.

[Anonymous]

Banning a culture's language is tantamount to the slow erosion of a the very culture itself. While China, as any other modern nation needs a common language to create and sustain a national identity, the annihilation of one of its ethnic minorities cannot be the price. Not only do we have the historical examples under fascist regimes in the 1930's, we have these dirty little secrets in our own history: Native-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans to name a few. All of these ethnic groups have experienced the crippling effects of an active government-sanctioned forced assimilation. These groups have to one degree or another adapted, resisted, or assimilated to an encroaching linguistic dictatorship of a dominant culture. High school Chicano students in the 1960's protested for a more equitable education that celebrated their culture and identity just as the high school & college students in Tibet are doing now. Yet these advances have to be constantly defended. We in California have also waged war in the linguistic battlefield as recently as 1998 with Proposition 227 that imposed the exclusive education of children in English. Though it was conveniently packaged as a measure to assist our English learners, the proposition was insidiously designed to dismantle bilingual education. Twelve years later, we have very few bilingual programs in California, and a staggering numbers of Long term English learners. Perhaps it is easier to criticize the Chinese government as outsiders, since we are not caught in the politically charged maelstrom of culture, immigration, and identity in which the US currently finds itself.

[Anonymous]

I agree with this thought. Having a common language is necessary for unifying a country as well as having effective communication. Curbing the teaching of a language is not limiting an individual who chooses to preserve and pass down their cultural background.

[Anonymous]

We had a Tibetan Monk come to speak to our school in the Spring last year and it was really interesting to hear him talk about China. He was so calm and respectful towards them, despite the challenges he has faced individually from their political regime. My students came back to my classroom with so many questions. This is a great topic to bring into World History classes, and look on the BBC for some great, but slanted, articles.

[Anonymous]

Im glad you mentioned the proposition that did away with bilingual education. Having read the topic, that was the first thing I was reminded of. Studies have proven that instruction in both language is most effective. The melting (away of culture) pot seems to be taking it's toll in China as well.

squezada wrote:

Banning a culture's language is tantamount to the slow erosion of a the very culture itself. While China, as any other modern nation needs a common language to create and sustain a national identity, the annihilation of one of its ethnic minorities cannot be the price. Not only do we have the historical examples under fascist regimes in the 1930's, we have these dirty little secrets in our own history: Native-Americans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans to name a few. All of these ethnic groups have experienced the crippling effects of an active government-sanctioned forced assimilation. These groups have to one degree or another adapted, resisted, or assimilated to an encroaching linguistic dictatorship of a dominant culture. High school Chicano students in the 1960's protested for a more equitable education that celebrated their culture and identity just as the high school & college students in Tibet are doing now. Yet these advances have to be constantly defended. We in California have also waged war in the linguistic battlefield as recently as 1998 with Proposition 227 that imposed the exclusive education of children in English. Though it was conveniently packaged as a measure to assist our English learners, the proposition was insidiously designed to dismantle bilingual education. Twelve years later, we have very few bilingual programs in California, and a staggering numbers of Long term English learners. Perhaps it is easier to criticize the Chinese government as outsiders, since we are not caught in the politically charged maelstrom of culture, immigration, and identity in which the US currently finds itself.

[Anonymous]

your point about having a common language for effective communication seems valid in terms of unifying. However, I dont know that the Tibetans have had much of a choice in their "unification" with China.

bmiramontes wrote:

I agree with this thought. Having a common language is necessary for unifying a country as well as having effective communication. Curbing the teaching of a language is not limiting an individual who chooses to preserve and pass down their cultural background.

[Rob_Hugo@PortNW]

So, I read an article in the NY Times about China's effort to limit the teaching of Tibetan. (The article's title is the subject) On one hand, I understand China's need to unify the country under one language; it makes communication easier in such a large and diverse nation. On the other hand, it does in some way, rob the Tibetans of an aspect of their culture. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Again a country is trying to get rid of a minority that will not conform to the majority. There is a need for a need for a common language to unify a country, but why get rid of another? The need to be multi-lingual is ever increasing as globalization grows. Here in the US we have gotten rid of bilingual education, which has hurt students. Students are no longer mastering their own native languages, which can not only lead to a cultural disconnect, but also less desirable in the future job market. Very few countries are mono-lingual, China would be doing a big mistake if it tries to curb out the tibetan language.

[Author]

Posts