I watched Australian Open with Dad and saw the Star Sports pundit, Vijay Amritraj. This has disturbed my mind for long time - many Indians could talk, dress, think and present themselves like Englishmen, but no Chinese could.
In sports we have Vijay Amritraj, Vijay Singh, and the Indian cricket players like Ganguly, Laxman & Tendulkar. They compete against other Anglo-Saxons in sports & in debate, they could quote Shakespeare & James Joyce, they are witty.
Unfortunately, no point in looking for their Chinese counterpart. We have a Jung Chang, but she's full of anger at China, and she doesn't wear full windsor knot, laughing with an Englishwoman over FA Cup 3rd round replay. Heck, the other Korean or Japanese I could think of also full of anger.
So, why do the Indians absorb British Humanism much better than the Chinese do? Dad said part of the explanation is that Indian culture permits individuality & liberty better than the Chinese culture, as demonstrated by the differences between Mongolian rule in China & Moghul dynasty in India.
India is now a democratic republic, while China is an authoritarian state. Can't be disputed. India was ruled by the British, but so were Singapore & Hong Kong. Yet while the Chinese make bull stocks & semiconductors, their cricket skill can't match the Australians, fail to make badminton a classy sport, bad at soccer (associate football, but Indians are worse), the male dress awfully, and as I said, they are not witty.
As another punch, I switched the channel to Channel News Asia, which advertised a Singaporean financial talk show. The Chinese in ties look as drab as Japanese politicians.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment