Siraya petition

[Chun Jimmy Huang]

I have learnt from my experience in Hawaii (ICLDC and Hilo) a few 
things:

When asked about how they go about language and cultural 
revitalization, the Hawaiian say, "we do it our way, the Hawaiian 
way." That is, even if they encounter a problem posted in American 
English, they would interpret it in Hawaiian and react 
accordingly. Or, they ignore it because it is an American English 
problem. Someone asked, "how do you deal with LP issues such as 
'No Child Left Behind'?" And they said, "'No Child Left Behind,' 
we left it behind." They simply did not accept the standardized 
test prescribed by the US govt. I am impressed by how strong the 
Hawaiian are.

Phil Cash Cash said, "we do it our way, the Nez Perce way. We 
listen to what our elders teach us." When someone asked how the 
Nez Perce deal with new ideas such as technology, Phil Cash Cash 
said, "I don't know... I don't know if technology is what we 
really need. We follow what our elders teach us." While the 
Hawaiian program has a language committee that coin new words for 
modern concepts, Nez Perce do not seem to be concerned. I am 
impressed by how strong the Nez Perce are.

But the Hawaiian and Nez Perce models do not work for the people 
whose languages are just awakened from a status of dormancy, such 
as the Myaamia (Miami) and Siraya, because these peoples do not 
have as much at hand to begin with.

I felt extremely fortunate to meet Wesley Leonard, a Miami person 
and a linguist, who has shared the Miami experience with me. Since 
the mid 90's, the Miami reclamation program has been able to 
re-construct their ancestral tongue and teach it to tribal youth 
through various summer camps. The summer camps have also evolved 
year after year as the youth participants have evolved. A family 
has even successfully brought the language back home. While the 
Miami people do need to negotiate with state and federal govts 
sometimes, especially concerning issues related to language 
policy, they seem to me very focused on their language and culture 
tasks and not too distracted (for lack of better words) by outside 
politics. I am impressed by how strong the Myaamia are.

Compared to all these peoples, the Siraya may seem a bit 
over-zealous and "political" at times. The American indigenes know 
what their own "nations" are: they are not the US nation-state. 
But the Siraya in general are still overwhelmed by the 
Chinese-nationalism-vs.-Taiwanese-nationalism agenda of the 
dominant Han population in Taiwan. I have not heard anyone (except 
myself) who would openly talk about the Siraya nation. And quite 
frequently, the Siraya people would also embrace the "Taiwanese" 
identity, which is mainly defined by the Southern Min Han people, 
or the Taiwanese nationalists. So, the Siraya have done many 
things that are not so purely Siraya. They/we do seem to be 
distracted by the top-down Discourse, or Environment, from time to 
time. But, this is the Siraya way. And I am impressed by how 
strong the Siraya are.

Different peoples do have different ways... strategies. After I 
have listened to them, I appreciate all of them. Defining/ 
discovering the "generals" or "fundamentals" may help guide some 
of us, yes. But many are simply very focused on what they are 
doing in their specific context...

And Piers, I do recognize a significant difference between what I 
described and what you were getting. My examples all involve 
heritage linguists working on their respective heritage languages, 
and hence these linguists are also non-linguists since they/we 
necessarily need to take the role of being a community member. As 
a member, with community responsibility, we are obliged to act 
before thinking carefully sometimes. On the other hand, you seem 
to be mainly (but not solely) talking about linguists who are not 
community members... and hence there is cautiousness, which I 
sincerely respect. Well, I don't know... I don't have any real 
experience working in a non-Siraya project. But we do have a 
couple of Han volunteers in the association who are linguistic 
students. Maybe I will talk to them about this issue and see how 
they feel.

regards,

Jimmy

On Thu Apr 02 19:06:34 EDT 2009, Piers Kelly 
<piers.kelly at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jimmy,
> Thanks for your excellent email and I'm glad this discussion is 
> occurring.
> My post was perhaps deliberately vague in order to get a feel for 
> the range
> of opinions out there.
> 
> Just to clarify a few specifics, I don't believe linguists should 
> avoid
> politics ????????? quite the contrary ????????? and I readily 
> agree that language work is
> necessarily political from the outset. Whether a linguist desires 
> this or
> not, the political reality must at the very least be 
> acknowledged. Nor do I
> accept the argument that political engagement undermines the 
> "objective"
> scientific worth of a study. (For an eloquent refutation of this 
> idea, see
> Cameron, Deborah et al. *Researching language: issues of power 
> and
> method.*London; New York: Routledge, 1992.)
> 
> Every language exists in a different political context, and a 
> strategy that
> is effective in Taiwan (such as a petition) may not be suitable 
> elsewhere.
> This, for me, is not contentious.
> 
> Thinking beyond the specifics of the Taiwan situation, what I 
> suppose I was
> really getting at was the question of strategy generally. My 
> observation is
> that environmentalists have become very clever and pragmatic 
> campaigners
> over the past few decades. Far from publicly quibbling over the 
> most
> effective ways to measure threats to biodiversity, environmental 
> scientists
> have succeeded in "stepping back" to create a public space in 
> which
> non-scientists can actively and positively participate. Rarely if 
> ever are
> "paid lobbyists" necessary for a successful environmental 
> campaign. Nor do
> environmental scientists have to stand in front of bulldozers 
> wherever a
> dynamic collaboration with activists already exists.
> 
> Another linguist has pointed out to me the problems with invoking 
> an
> environmentalist analogy in the context of living cultures. If 
> you yourself
> are not a custodian of an endangered language then the extent to 
> which you
> can advocate on behalf of that language is automatically limited. 
> Unlike a
> rainforest, speakers of rare languages can and do represent their 
> own agenda
> and articulate their own needs. This is a crucial distinction, 
> but it
> doesn't obviate the need to think carefully about strategy. It 
> simply means
> that language activism is more complex.
> 
> By and large, I don't believe linguists are crowding out 
> indigenous voices,
> though I don't deny the possibility of this occurring. Maybe, 
> then, the
> discussion ought to be reoriented to outlining what the specific 
> goal of a
> language endangerment situation is, what we as linguists can and 
> can't do
> for endangered languages, and how speakers of rare languages 
> might
> collaborate successfully with scientists, non-scientists and the 
> public to
> achieve this goal.
> 
> Or more simply:*
> *If revitalisation is the goal of a speech community, how do we 
> define
> successful language revitalisation (as opposed to, say, 
> successful
> description)?
> How do we divide tasks to achieve this most efficiently?
> 
> The answers will be different for each language and my feeling is 
> that
> linguists cannot and should not do everything. Ditto speakers. 
> How to
> proceed? Are there any fundamentals we all agree on?
> 
> Piers.
>