Re: WHEN CULTURES COLLIDE

> I understand how you feel Ellis, and understand your message, even
> though I have never set foot in China. I read the daily gripe list.
> The cultures colliding is merely a collision between the collectivism
> of Chinese philosophy and the individualism of the Western. The irony
> in your message however, lies in your closing paragraph, where you
> suggest to the PRC to seek out the best and the brightest to
> "collectively" come up with some type of uniform program.
> I'm not in disagreement with your idea, just wanted to know if you
> understood the irony of it all?

> Your friend, Bill

=============================================

Dear friend, Bill,

You'd better BELIEVE that what I have suggested is ironic! And BRAVO for your astuteness in catching that (intended) part of the message.

Bill, these ARE most certainly unusual times -- particularly in view of East having met West on a host of previously "unfitting" issues, such as exchange of goods for money. After all, only (soon to be) 45 years since its creation, the People's (Communist) Republic of China is, today, very much (commercially) in league with its former Cold War foe, the USA. I mean, all you have to do is look closely at practically ANY commercial product for sale here in the States, and it bears the label "Made in China!" I can recall when that used to be JAPAN or KOREA. Now THAT's an ironic twist, if any. You see, even with our obviously vast differences in religio-political philosophy, we are still able to find a common ground for tolerance and cooperation in other fundamental ways. So, why the hell not for the sake of preserving and/or improving an already up-and-moving learning program of communication between us? Yes, Bill, that may be regarded as "ironic," but more importantly, it's a marked gesture of common sense.

Keep those ambitions high, Guys!

Love,
Ellis

WHEN CULTURES COLLIDE

Over the course of my careers in both ESL and music, I've had the privilege of residing and working in many lands alien to my own cultural heritage. At times, it represented a most difficult transition, that is, until I finally discovered that the "differences" were mainly baseless notions induced by advertising, rumor, etc.; in short, a figment of someone else's imagination. Being an American living in Europe wasn't too difficult to handle, but when I finally wound up in Asia -- Japan at first -- WOW! Did I have problems from the first bloody day, not only in accepting the status quo, but actually comprehending the why and wherefore of this, that, and the other. But, surprisingly enough, it didn't take me all that long to savvy and actually begin to move with the flow. I truly began to LOVE the experience. Therefore, I thought that China would be a "snap," as well. Hmgh! How mistaken I was. Although the PRC is certainly a land of super-modern cities which parallel the grandeur and modernness of Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, etc., a foreigner usually has a rude awakening in store. Japan, by this late date, is wholly acclimated to Americans and their ways. China, on the other hand, is only just beginning its trek toward communication with the Western world, and through the medium of English at that. By inviting instructors directly from English-speaking countries is certainly a step in the right direction, while, even at this relatively early stage, the program appears to be alive and healthy. But, with every measure of success there is usually an equal degree of failure (growing pains?)-- snags which CAN be amended, that is, IF "Barcas is willin'." Without getting deeply into the philosophical or psychological aspects concerning westerners in China (recently, we've surely been reading our fair share of THAT business), let's mercifully reduce the whole bloody mess to a science of a few words. China is a land with a centuries-old heritage. But, comparing that heritage with any entity in contemporary Western society is not the problem. Rather, it is a question of one 20th century belief vs. another. This, in fact, is the main source of opposition and the basis of all the whining, and in many cases, the unfortunate abandonment of one's contract in midstream. Let's face it, folks, we of the West are downright spoiled in comparison to the average dudes in China's working class. Consequently, the PRC is having the damnedest time of it granting recognition to the Western world's belief in the rights of man -- something which is in direct opposition to every known tenet of Communism. Under the circumstances, that's quite understandable, yet, for the sake of good public relations, the PRC is, at best, placing itself in a questionable position by failing to grant exception for the sake of retaining its imported "experts." Doubtless, the "ism" of ANY country must normally be respected by ANY foreign visitor. HOWEVER, when that country is simultaneously attempting to create outstanding cultural and economic relations with a people whose very existence is wound about a system so diverse from its own, and it has gone so far as to invite teaching representatives from that land with whom it politically vies -- in this instance a deviation from the usual course should be realistically anticipated. Yes, an "exception," if only for the sake of good public relations. YES, there will always be those disguised
"ministers of the faith" who will now and then slip into the PRC. We've got the same trouble with the occasional communist. Let's face it: there's no perfect setup, especially when extending an open invitation to those of diverse cultures to live and work amongst you. Under the circumstances, there are bound to be disagreements galore, while, the way I see things, it would pay for you to be prepared for such eventuality in the form of your own "experts" being on-hand to straighten out problems as they arise. Also, for the sake of preserving the PRC's costly investment already made to its most commendable program of English education, it would seem only sensible to strictly control the activities of all associated schools and agencies. This would also serve as an effective means of squelching their already-foul reputation circulating among prospective instructors in all English-speaking countries. It goes without saying that having to read of major improprieties on the international discussion boards each day hardly serves as an inspiration to further one's teaching career in The PRC.

In the final analysis, what I suggest to the Ministry of Education of
The PRC is to seek out and select the best personnel amongst the invited teachers to assist in the actual design and execution of the entire English language learning program. After all, with westerners assisting to this end, there might be a good chance for fewer of the disgraceful foul-ups which are now being reported on a daily basis. I further suggest that ours is NOT a conflict of political or religious differences. On the contrary, it is but a failure of mutual tolerance for our differences, resultant in a major slowdown in the progress of a most unique and much-needed nationwide learning program.

Love to all,
Ellis