Fire Break Ceremony 5 - Saying Hello in a Karen Language

Most, if not all, of the people at the ceremony could speak Thai so I got to talk pretty easily to a number of people. But Karen is their first language - well one of the Karen languages, I'm not sure which one. Here is our first Karen language lesson - it's a short 19 second video.




Wikipedia doesn't have much about this language:

The Karen languages are members of the Tibeto-Burman group of the Sino-Tibetan language family. The three main branches are Sgaw, Pwo, and Pa'o; they are not considered to be mutually intelligible (Lewis 1984). Karenni (also known Kayah or Red Karen) and Kayan (also known as Padaung) are related to the Sgaw branch. They are almost unique among the Tibeto-Burman languages in having a Subject Verb Object word order; other than Karen and Bai, Tibeto-Burman languages feature a Subject Object Verb order [8]. This is likely due to influence from neighboring Mon and Tai languages (Matisoff 1991).

[Later: Another site says that Sqaw and Pwo are the only two that have a written language and these folks said they could write in their language. So that limits it down to those two. Someone in the office said their language was "Bakayaw" but that is in Thai.]

Land Reform in Northern Thailand

My job here is supposed to be about helping with management issues, but I do need to understand what the organization does to help out. Plus, one of my functions is to help with networking with related organizations. As part of that, I've been checking the internet for information on sustainable farming, land reform, etc. in Northern Thailand.

I've talked about land reform issues before, always with the disclaimer that I don't really understand very much about the context and details. The same disclaimer applies here.


As I got to work today, there was a large group of people in the compound, many villagers of a hill tribe group I didn't recognize. I was told they were Palong. (I'm having trouble finding non-tourist oriented websites that discuss the hill-tribes, this one seems relatively neutral.) Further questioning of people at the office revealed that a ruling on a land dispute from 2547 (it's now 2551, that that would have been 2004) was handed down this morning and these villagers were found to have violated law when they occupied the land around 2500. There was a meeting going on in the meeting room and I asked if I could listen in. It turned out that Mi - who sometimes uses the other desk in my office - was running the meeting. He invited me in, and later during a break said I could take pictures, but I pushed for him to ask the people in the room first before I did.

The talk was of how many rai (.4 acres) of land, money, number of families. It is so easy to slip into filling in the missing details with my own preconceptions, but I'm trying hard not to let that happen and focus on the objective things I know or what people tell me. Even then I have to double, even triple check to make sure I understood the Thai correctly.

Our brains naturally try to make sense of things and put them into context. My most immediately related brain cells clicked onto what I know about when American Indians' land was made available for sale. Outsiders could buy the land destroying the community and unity of the tribes. People were tempted with quick cash, and as some tribe members sold their land, the tribes soon became alienated from the land. Is that what was happening here? It sounded like they were talking about selling prices and that Mi was talking about the necessity of the group holding together. But maybe I was imagining all that. I'll try to talk to him after they end the meeting today.

Later: So before pushing the publish post button I went back out and asked more questions. The court found that they occupied the land illegally, but they will be able to stay on the land. They've been there over 40 years and there really is no place for them to go. Furthermore, the land belongs to the government, not to corporations or other individuals who are trying to claim ownership of the land. So, I asked, if they get to stay on the land, why are they appealing? Answer: So that they are not ruled to have violated the law. My informants are gone and so I can't ask the other questions I still have. I'm assuming this is in hopes of setting precedence for other land disputes, but I'm not sure.

In my networking internet search, I did find this report on land reform in Northern Thailand which matches the issues I wrote about earlier. Then I was trying to give some context to the land conflict issues and this report does that. Here's an excerpt:

Misappropriation of land in Baan Hong district
As the economy grew in the late 1980s and early 1990s, financiers began looking for secure long-term investments for their accumulating capital and found that buying up rural land areas was an ideal investment. Such land could be acquired cheaply, issued with title, with every likelihood in the economic climate of the times that it would swiftly rise in value. In Lamphun province, titles for extensive areas of land were issued during the height of the economic growth period in 1990-1993 without the knowledge of local communities who became aware of the alienation of their community lands only when fences started appearing in the fields.

The land conflict I witnessed before was in Lamphun and this sounds very much like that situation. (It turns out that it should sound familiar because it was written by two people - one Thai, one foreign - who worked here in the past. But no one here even knows this English report about their work exists. So, one thing it turns out I'm helping out with is putting together a set of articles in English that relate to what they are doing. A few people here can read these with difficulty, but if they have volunteers like me, they should get these to bring them up to speed a little faster.)

The entire 15,000 râi in Baan Hong District described above, that was previously held in common by local communities and that was supposed to be allocated to local people, is now titled under the names of non-resident companies and wealthy individuals from outside the community. Local farmers have vigorously challenged the legality of the title deeds. Villagers state there was no notice of intention to survey the area and issue title either posted in the village or announced over the village loudspeaker. Research into the title deeds shows that many were issued on the basis of incomplete survey information, sometimes under false names, and from non-existent or long dead sellers (in at least one case, the space for the name and address of the seller was simply left blank).
Thus, villagers in Baan Hong were prohibited from using their community land, around which fences were constructed in or around 1990. Seeing such fences and boundary markers appearing in the lands they had traditionally claimed for village use, people from Sritia village rose up in protest at the illegal transfer of this land to outsiders. A youth leader involved in the protests was shot and killed by unknown gunmen.

I realize that you could say, OK, that's one side of the story and it seems a little extreme. My sense is that in the past (and I did work in rural Thailand forty years ago so my sense isn't totally imaginary), poor farmers, particularly hill tribes, had no power whatsoever and if they got to the courts they were sure to lose. And today's decision was only partially in favor of the villagers and wasn't filed by people who were claiming to own their land. So things that happened until recently were pretty blatant because those in power never expected to be challenged. But local activists, supported by international NGOs have come onto the scene to help the victims.
My organization, the Northern Development Federation, is working with the farmers to secure the rights to the land. The people in the pictures above and in the Chiang Dao series of posts are the people whose rights to the land they farm - and in many cases for a couple of generations - are challenged.

Sorry Hillary, You Need to Cool it or Drop Out

Saw Hillary Clinton's response on CNN to the criticism (that I wrote on yesterday) of her embellishing her story about 'running from the plane under fire' in Bosnia. I think she needs a good night's sleep, maybe two. She's so focused on becoming president that she's forgotten the long term goal - getting the country back on the right track, best accomplished, if you're a Democrat, by electing a Democrat.

All of us can be nice when things are fine and people are friendly. Our true character comes out when we are under pressure. Clearly Mrs. Clinton was under pressure. But still, this was clearly choreographed by her handlers as well. So we can't just say she's under stress. Changing the topic is a classic response to attack. But bringing back up the stuff about Obama's pastor to distract from her own crisis only turns off Democrats who range from dismay to disgust by her embellishment.

OK, a brief detour here a second. Is embellishment just another euphemism for lie? I don't think so - it's allowing for more than just 'lie' as the explanation.

I've learned from my wife over the years, that I'm on the extreme end of focusing on the literal truth of content in a conversation. For me, conversation is about getting information passed from one person to another. For some people, the content is irrelevant because conversation is about human interaction. If there is lapse in the conversation, it is all right to totally make things up to keep the communication going. Someone I won't name (not my wife), once asked at a large dinner at her home, if someone wanted mustard. When I answered I did, she got all flustered and said, "We don't have any." I've come to understand that she was "being a good hostess" in her eyes. This is not about lying or telling the truth, because the content is irrelevant to the purpose of making people comfortable.

Most people are somewhere in between on that continuum. Content and communication are both important and the balance varies depending on the context. Talking with your buddies about the fish you caught or the basket you shot from midcourt is about camaraderie and allows for embellishment. What a comedian says on stage, we understand to be fiction. When we testifying as a witness in court we're supposed to be telling just the truth.

So, it is reasonable for Clinton to have filled in some details that maybe didn't happen. Given all the briefings she had about the dangers, her brain may have actually merged the briefings with the actual event. Or maybe the first time she embellished a little on this story it got a good response so she kept embellishing. This is natural. I imagine most people reading this are conscious of doing this themselves. My brain doesn't work that way. I may remember things and relate them incorrectly, but if I am conscious that I'm straying from the facts, I stop and correct myself immediately. It's not some superior moral position that deserves credit, it's just how my brain works.

But when we are talking about a possible US president, I want someone whose brain is good at separating fact from fiction if that was the problem. I want the president to remember as close to the truth as humanly possible her interactions with other world leaders. And when she does make things up (say as part of high stakes negotiation strategy like nuclear weapons in North Korea), I don't want it to be something that can be so easily discovered to be false as this. And if the president is found out in a lie, I want a her to respond the way Mr. Obama responded to criticism of his pastor. With intelligence and class.

Mrs. Clinton seems to be so narrowly focused on winning that nothing else matters. A truly presidential candidate would recognize that the stake for the Democrats and the nation will be much higher in November. If she doesn't win the nomination, Mr. Obama will. Not a disaster for her cause. It seems to me this has gotten too personal a goal from Mrs. Clinton. As a Democrat, her highest goal should be that a Democrat wins in November. What she's doing now is counterproductive. It's making her look bad and when you throw mud, it inevitably gets the the target dirty too.

Now, I'm not sure I buy into the argument that what she says against Mr. Obama will only help Mr. McCain. All this stuff will be brought up in the final campaign whether Mrs. Clinton raises it or not. And if she is discredited, then quoting her on this will only convince the convinced. A united front would certainly strengthen things, but the Republicans don't need the Clinton campaign to talk trash about Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton, I think the honorable courses of action open to you are these:

1. Continue your campaign with the knowledge that you might not win and that's ok. Focus on the programs you think are critical and what you would do if elected. Try to influence the eventual winner to adopt your ideas. When talking about Mr. Obama and his policies, remember that he may be the Democratic candidate and possibly the president. Say things that reflect well on you as a person and as Democratic presidential candidate and that will help the party elect whomever is nominated. Don't let the media push you into a food fight with Mr. Obama
2. You already recognize that you are fighting from behind. Step back and also recognize that each day this campaign goes on, it costs the Democrats money and time they could use in the fight against Mr. McCain. If you can't be president, certainly it would be better for you to have Mr. Obama president than Mr. McCain, wouldn't it? With this knowledge, you could announce that you are withdrawing for the sake of the party and the nation. It would prove wrong the people who are saying you will do anything to win and make you look much more like a statesperson.

Hillary's "Millions of words a day"

CNN's website says that in explaining the difference between her description of running from a plane in Bosnia under fire in 1996 and the video of her walking normally from that plane:

Clinton told the paper's editorial board it was a "minor blip." Watch how Clinton described her trip »

"I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she said.

Millions of words a day? Could that be? So, I read out loud from the CNN piece for 5 seconds. I read seven words in five seconds.

12 X 7 = 84 words a minute.
60X 84 = 5040 words an hour
5040 X 24 = 120,960 [per day]

So, if she spoke non=stop for 24 hours, it still wouldn't be close to a million. OK, I know she doesn't count the words and this was simply a wild guess, but it's nice to know that someone who could be our president has a sense for numbers, not just so that she would realize it was probably impossible to say millions of words a minute [day]. But so when other large numbers are used, we can have confidence that she understands them and the implications.

More disturbing is the suggestion that because she talks all day, it's ok to 'misspeak' once in a while, because that would just be a 'misstatement.' Since we now know that she doesn't use millions of words a day, does that change anything? What is the difference between a misstatement and a lie? In this case painting a picture of running from a plane under fire when in fact she walked off, and according to the picture, she and Chelsea stopped to talk to a little girl.

Wouldn't a mother remember whether she put her daughter into a life threatening situation? I'd like to know if possibly there was some other flight when she came under fire. If there isn't some other flight she might have confused this one with - and she didn't mention one in her defense apparently - then this is all disturbing indeed. Embellishing one's stories may be ok for fishers, but it isn't ok for presidential candidates.

Or am I falling victim to anti-Clinton non-stories being leaked to the press?

Clinton - Obama Feud a Media Creation?

I caught a CNN piece this morning about how things are getting down and dirty in the Democratic primary. But as I listened to their examples of the dirt, it seemed to me mostly minor. It seemed more likely that CNN is doing its best to keep up ratings by creating the impression of a nasty fight between the two.

Example 1:

Sen. Hillary Clinton says Barack Obama's camp is spreading false information about her positions.

Example 2:

Obama described Clinton's anger as "tactical" and defended his campaign.

These are hardly fighting words. But it appears that CNN and the others are doing their best to make it seem that the two are engaged in something that will keep viewers glued to their tvs.

OK, someone might point out that they also got into Carville's Judas statement about Richardson's endorsement of Obama. But Carville and Richardson aren't even the candidates.


CNN's website sets it up for you to see them fight. They have their story - Obama and Clinton fight it out - then they pull out the clips, no matter how weak, that support their story:

Taking a mocking swipe at the Illinois senator's campaign style, Clinton said people want actions and not words. Watch Clinton mock Obama »

Meanwhile, Obama railed on Clinton for supporting NAFTA when her husband was president. Watch the latest on the back-and-forth »

This is politics as reality tv. Actually that would be fine with me if they focused on what was important instead of just the how things affect the race.


It seems that Stanley Fish at the New York Times is thinking the same things I am

This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns – no one thinks that Obama is unpatriotic or that Clinton is a racist or that McCain is a right-wing bigot – but in response to the needs of a news cycle. First you do the outrage (did you see what X said?), then you put the question to the candidate (do you hereby denounce and renounce?), then you have a debate on the answer (Did he go far enough? Has she shut her husband up?), and then you do endless polls that quickly become the basis of a new round. [emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, the things the candidates themselves are saying about really important matters – war, the economy, health care, the environment – are put on the back-burner until the side show is over, though the odds are that a new one will start up immediately.

Why? Controversy means more viewers and more viewers means higher advertising rates. Additionally, the longer Obama and Clinton fight for the nomination, the more money they will spend on political advertising.

Now, I'm pretty good using Google, but I could find precious little on media profits and the elections. From this November 2004 post on a website for direct response marketers:

In a presidential race that spent more money than any other election in history, exceeding $1.5 billion according to some experts, people were curious about who went home with bulging pockets after the last of the confetti was swept from election headquarters.
According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, media firms were among the big winners this election, in addition to lawyers and pollsters.

We see here, that it appears that the media report the news in a way (horse-race) that helps their ratings. But this also raises another question. How does advertising spending affect whether they even cover a story at all? If a newspaper, say, gets tons of money from a particular advertiser, will that cause the paper to not report news that negatively impacts that advertiser? Odds would seem pretty good they would find other important stories to write about.


So, what is legitimate and what isn't in debate? Basically, I would say that criticism of one's opponent's policy positions is legitimate. Personal attacks - questioning their loyalty, snide comments on their religion, gender, race, looks - should generally be off the table.

But separating out the personal from the professional isn't always that easy. It is legitimate to raise questions about one's experience and decision making abilities - anything directly related to the job is fair game. It's up to voters to watch the ads critically and reward those candidates who keep on task - campaigning on the issues, not trashing their opponents. Of course, the voters have to know the difference between the two.

Fire Break Ceremony Chiang Dao 4 - Embroidery

These are some of the women who were at the ceremony and their beautiful hand made clothes.

This woman said it took three days to embroider this one.

Fire Break Ceremony Chiang Dao 3 - Bamboo

These villagers could do anything with bamboo, and they did. The posters were posted on bamboo bulletin boards, and the stage where the speakers would sit was bamboo.

Upper left is a prayer stand of bamboo. Below was the bamboo ribbon for the ribbon cutting to the fire break. Pieces of the ribbon, after it was cut, were then tacked onto trees. If I weren't careful I might make some comment about talismen - but that would be me making assumptions I have absoutely no basis for. I don't know if the bamboo posted on the tree along the firebreak is anything more than decoration.

And who needs red Costco cups when there's bamboo? Complete with bamboo cup rack. In back are bamboo water holders to fill the cups with. And you don't even have to take them to the recycle center. You can just toss them when you're done.

And what celebration would be complete without bamboo serving dishes and serving spoons?

So, what is this one?

Did you get it? It's a fully adjustable microphone stand. There's a smaller piece of bamboo inside a bigger piece, you can raise and lower the mic and put little pegs in the holes to keep it in place.

Fire Break Construction Ceremony Chiang Dao

The sign says, roughly,

Celebration/Ceremony to Open the Fire Break - Mae Ba Sao and Mae Khong Sai

People and the Forest Can Live in Sustainable Harmony

Communities of Mae Ba Sao and Mae Khong Sai Subdistrict: Mueng Khong District: Chiang Dao Province: Chiang Mai

March 23, 2551

(they use the Buddhist calendar)

The ceremony was just up the road on the left where the fire break begins. I'll jump ahead here to show the ending where everyone ceremonially swept the dry bamboo leaves off the trail.

I was a little confused about the purpose of the ceremony and the efficacy of the fire break, so at lunch today I ask those sorts of questions. Essentially, the villages maintain a six meter wide fire break for 30 kilometers. The part you see at the end here was merely ceremonial. The intent of the ceremony was to show government officials who came that the hill tribe people can live in harmony with the forest. All the posters (I'll show some in later posts) talk about things like sustainable farming and global warming. I'll also do a post on bamboo here - showing a number of the things that the villagers made of bamboo for yesterday. Bamboo grows in abundance up there and is totally recyclable.

Infomekong has the following on Karen farming:

There are two main types of farming: slash and burn and paddy. Slash and burn farming involves clearing an area of trees and then burning the underbrush. The burning process adds minerals to the soil, which helps crops to be grown. Unfortunately, the negative aspects outweigh the positives. This process strips the soil of essential nutrients and leads to more erosion, therefore, only allowing crops to be grown for a few years. As a result, the Karen have begun to utilize the process of paddy farming more often than slash and burn. Instead of installing an irrigation system, a paddy farm is flooded by a close river in order to water the crop.

Note: Infomekong is an evangelical site. I have personal problems when people of one religion try to convert other people to their religion. I find it curious how they can write on their site,

...the Thai government started oppressing the Karen community by trying to convert them to become more Thai-like

without any irony. How is conversion to Christianity a better cultural diversion than conversion to Thai culture? I'm not at all defending what the Thai government has done. It is not unlike what has been imposed on Alaska Natives by both church and government schools. At its worst you get results like those Tony Hopfinger reported in his Newsweek story of sexual abuse of students by priests that I linked and which came out last week in an expanded version in the Anchorage Press. But I think the information - aside from where it veers into missionary work - is useful. But be warned.

Hilltribe.org writes:
;
Traditionally the Karen live at lower elevations than the other hilltribes and although they still practice slash and burn, unlike many hilltribes they live in permanent villages and have been aggressive in developing environmentally sustainable terraced rice fields. These factors have allowed the Karen to become much more integrated members of Thai society. The Karens living at lower elevations almost universally have Thai citizenship which has allowed them to buy land and to have access to free secondary education, luxuries other hilltribes do not yet have.

Much of the Karen population in Thailand and Burma is Christian and has been for multiple generations. Christian Karens are very strong in their beliefs.

The people in these two villages are all Thai citizens, and as later posts will make obvious, they are Buddhists. A key issue for these villages is that they live inside forest land that is government land. One of the programs of the organization I'm working with is to help the villagers get title to the land they live on. Inviting the government officials to take part is an attempt to have them see that these villagers are not going to destroy the forest.

Fire Break Construction Ceremony Chiang Dao 1

We were up for the sunrise again - our ride was going to pick us up at 8am. (The first picture is the sun through the trees, not a fire.)




And of course I was going to look for birds. You can see why it's so hard to get good photos. You can hear them, but often you can't see them unless the move. Can you find the one in this tree? They don't usually sit in such a prominent place.
All I knew is that some other NGO people from Chiang Dao were going to pick us up. It turned out we were picked up by tv cameramen who drove up from Bangkok to cover the event. So it will get coverage beyond this blog. It should, now I have to double check with Ped (I've been spelling it Pet here, because that's how it's pronounced in English, but Ped said it was with a D not a T. But in Thai a final D is pronounced like T. So should I spell it the way he does or the way my English speaking readers are more likely to read it correctly?) to see if he was joking when he said I was the media coverage. He had to have known about these cameramen, or is there another NGO involved who arranged that? I have no idea.

Here's a minute or so of the hour ride to the village.

Chiang Dao Big Tree

Coming back from the cave we saw a big tree. Not just any big tree, but one that reminded me of the big tree behind my house in Kamphaengphet long ago. So I looked through the pictures I digitized and found one that had that old tree in it. I've posted this picture before when I wrote about Kwai, but I wonder how many people noticed the tree in the background. This time, forget the kwai and the two people and notice the tree.







To show you how big this tree is, J agreed to stand at the bottom - where the yellow arrow is pointing. And then we discovered there were quite a few of these trees in the area, but we didn't see any quite as big as this one. But here's another that was pretty big.