A Look at Our Culture through Poetry

Introduction – Judi

“We and They” is a poem which is both satiric and interesting. The author of the poem is Rudyard Kipling (December 30, 1865 – January 18, 1936). Kipling was born in India and was a British author and a poet famous for his satires. In 1907 Kipling was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. 19 years later one of his poems called “We and They” was first published.

What kind of person Kipling was that he wrote this satiric “We and They”? In many articles he was described as an outspoken defender of Western imperialism. Around 1885 Kipling took a long journey from India back to England, going through Burma, China, Japan, and California and then crossing the United States and the Atlantic Ocean to London. Imagine how many countries and different people and cultures he had encountered, and this trip could be the factor of his satiric poem “We and They”.

“We and They”, sounds kind of discordant, is a product of Kipling’s feelings of encountering culture differences. Nowadays we call this sort of feelings “culture shock” that is simply considered a shock or traumas an innocent victim suffering because of different cultures. What if when people are so self-centered that they can’t bear differences? Could culture shock trigger something else, say segregation? Culture shock doesn’t just happen in people between countries or when someone is abroad. How about between groups of people on a small island which we call “the isolated Taiwan”? Obviously, culture shock is everywhere and it’s just the reflection of the poem “We and They”.

Paragraph One – Julia

Father, Mother, and Me,

Sister and Auntie say

All the people like us are “We”,

And everyone else is “They”

And “They” live over the sea

While we live over the way

But---would you believe it?

---They look upon “We”

As only a sort of “They”!

The first paragraph is easy to read, and is very important in terms of pointing out the central idea of this poem－We and They. To begin with the first four sentences, we can see very clear that these sentences show the consciousness of one’s national and racial identity between the lines. “All the people like us are ‘we’, and everyone else is They.” Therefore, people who have the same skin color as ours are “We”, people who dress like us are “We”, and people who do the same thing like us are “We.” On the contrary, those who are unlike us we simply call them “They.”

Taking an example of Taiwanese and aboriginals, we Taiwanese would call those aboriginals “They” whenever we visit Shan-Di-Men in Pingtung. Because of their dark skin, big eyes, and special dress, we regard them as a group of people who are different from us. Yet, there is an interesting exception. To think about the famous singer “A-May”, you might forget she is an aboriginal because she dresses like us. Therefore, you would say “our A-Mei” to indicate “She is one of us”, and this idea equals to “We.” However, we can never forget that members of “Power Station” are aboriginals because of their dark skin and long hair.

Now we know that people’s “appearance” will easily influence how people regard you whether you are one of their groups or not. In the next two sentences there is another key word which strengthens more about the idea of “We and They.” It says, “They live over the sea while we live over the way.” This is an irony because we Taiwanese are now in this kind of status. People who live here are “We”, and people who live in the Mainland China are “They.” Likewise, people who live here are “We”, and people who come from Thailand and Vietnam are “They.” It seems that where you live can represent which group you belong to. That is, “habitation” is also one of the keyword to distinguish “We and They.”

Reflecting to Taiwanese culture, there is a sentence/vulgarity that you must have heard before, “I don’t care whether you are a taro or sweet potato.” People use “taro” to represent non-natives (They), and “sweet potato” to represent natives (We), simply because taro is an imported plant when sweet potato is a local one. Not to mention the negative metaphor of this slang, we can enhance the surface meaning which tells people not to have a racial discrimination and ethnocentrism.

Paragraph Two – Ruby

We eat pork and beef

With cow-horn-handled knives

They who gobble “Their” rice off a leaf

Are horrified out of “Their” lives;

While “They” who live up a tree,

Feast on grubs and clay,

(Isn’t it scandalous?) Look upon “We”

As a simply disgusting “They”!

In this paragraph, the author illustrates the cultural differences of the eating and living habits between the different countries, races even individuals. The differences not only influence people’s lifestyles but also point the various roots out.

For instances, Western people eat food by using forks and knives that varies from the eating habits of Chinese who usually eat food by using chopsticks. Westerners use knives or forks because of their past lifestyle. In the past, they live on hunting so that they need light and easy tools to cut meat. In contrast, Chinese who are like us (Taiwanese) used to boil the food so they need something to pick up the food and chopsticks were invented.

Because of various roots and environments, people usually draw a line between each other. They will call the people who eat in a similar way “We,” and view people who do not have the same habit “They.” As a result, we will usually hear that a lot of people in Taiwan say that only the foreigners, they use knives and forks to eat. This example our group point out is comprehensive, and here we discuss the same idea but reduce the range. Take Taiwanese and Hakka in Taiwan as an example, their taste must be different due to the various backgrounds. Hakka like to eat salty food and noodles, but Taiwanese like to eat rice. Once they have chance to enjoy the meals together, the boundary must appear. Hakka will view Taiwanese as “They,” but in Taiwanese’ minds Hakka are “They.” This kind of boundaries will generate a lot of problems and misunderstanding, such as the racial problems happen in Taiwan.

The living habit will cause another misunderstanding and indicate social class differences. Some people prefer to living in a house while some prefer to live in an apartment. Some people like to live privately but some do not. This difference sometimes brings out arguments. For instance, in a family a mother-in-law will wish that the family could live together, but a daughter-in-law has different opinions. She may desire to own a private life without disturbances; therefore, boundary between the families obviously is drawn, and the small groups, such as “We” group and “They” in a family will also appear.

Besides, many people will evaluate others’ fortune based on the location they live. For example, people will think rich and knowledgeable people usually live in a villa but poor people live in a small house. Then, people will find their own groups based on their evaluations and definitions, so some people will look down the people who live in a small house and refuse them to join in their groups because they are “They” in their points of view, but make friends with people who live in a better environment and welcome they join the group “We” since they all live in a similar place in their perceptions.

People seldom to concern others’ opinions and they will view things based on their thoughts, if other people do not agree, other people in their minds are “They.” Everyone becomes to consider himself in the right and have fewer connections with others. However, the ideal relationship between people in the world should be connected tightly like a family and should be corporative to help others without setting up the boundaries.

Paragraph Three – Sofia

We eat kitcheny food

We have doors that latch

They drink milk and blood

Under an open thatch

We have doctors to fee

They have wizards to pay

And, impudent heathen!

---“They” look upon “We”

As a quite impossible “They”!

The author chose to use words which contain opposite meanings, such as “kitcheny food” versus “blood and milk”, “doors that latch” versus “an open thatch” and “doctor” versus “wizards”. Theses words indicate two kinds of living environments, one is civilized and the other is uncivilized. Furthermore these words, which are related to our everyday life, can present successfully the difference between modern society and ancient society. As a result, the main idea in this message discusses about the issue between civilization and barbarian. The people of civilization eat cooked food; in contrast to the people of barbarian they eat raw food. Furthermore, the people of civilization live in a house with the lock, but the people of barbarism live in the place, which is constructed by rice straw and without lock. The people of civilization see a doctor, but the people of barbarism believe wizards. And the people of barbarism look up the people of the civilization with rude manners. From the message we can realize that people live in different ways and have difference perceptions about others especially when someone doesn’t belong to their group. People look upon or down on others. This kind of situation is very common in the society of Taiwan.

Both modern society and ancient society are made up of many groups of people. Basically people consider others as “they” when one group of the people don’t act or behave as the other one expects. Naturally people are separated into different kind of social classes, upper class, middle class, and lower class. Upper class thinks the other two are “they”. And the other two consider upper class is “they”. This cycle never ends in Taiwan. The standards of segmenting people into “we” and “they” are many reasons including language and career.

In Taiwan, language is always used to distinguish the social class. “We” speak Chinese are upper class and the rests are lower class and uneducated like people speak Taiwanese. On the other hand, for people speak Taiwanese consider themselves are friendly and kind. It seems people don’t want to agree with each other or even worse look down on the other group.

Besides language, career is a common standard for people to segment groups in Taiwan. Nevertheless, people seldom pay attention to the issue of “we” and “they” which is full of our live. For example, “we” are students and we do assignments. “They” are teachers and they send us assignments, reports and presentations. “We” are clerks and we work hard in order to gain money and live in a better environment. “They” are bosses and we work for “They”. In Taiwan, career is a common standard to segment people into various groups. This standard has already created a line among people long time ago and people are accustomed to getting together with people who are similar to them. As a result the distance between different kinds of groups is getting farer.

In Taiwan, social class is always taken as a standard to view people. The serious problem, which people have already separated into many groups, exists long time ago. To feel inferior or superior exists in “we” and “they” and social class will exist in the society forever since this world is full of various people. Therefore, it is very important for us to create a more harmony society for both “we” and “they”. “We” should open mind to accept “they” so should “they”.

Paragraph Four – Yvonne

All good people agree,

And all good people say,

All nice people, like us, are “We”

And everyone else is “They”

But if you cross over the sea,

Instead of over the way,

You may end by (think of it!) looking on “We”

As only a sort of “They”!

The last paragraph is easily comprehensible. The author points out the main idea of ideology of “We” and “They”. First of all, we read the poetry from the first four sentences “All good people agree, And all good people say, All nice people, like us, are We, And everyone else is ‘They’.” It is clear to see the author emphasize the words “all good people”, “all nice people.” How does the author differentiate good people from bad people? All the people who agree with us and speak out the same idea with us are good people, “We”. On the contrary, the others who have different opinions are bad people, “They”.

The ideology could completely reflect the society of Taiwan. Taiwanese have serious ideology of “We” and “They”, especially on the political issues. From the presidential election and legislatorial election this year, we could see Taiwanese people are simply divided into two parties, MRT and DDP. Supporters of DDP conflict with supporters of MRT because both of them consider “all the people who agree with us and speak out the same idea with us are good people. “We” belong to the same group. The others who have different opinions are “They” and “They” are not good people.”

Therefore, our society separated into two parts and become a mass. In the news we have heard that husband and wife would divorce, and brothers would even be enemy just because they support different parties. In addition, Taiwanese have intensive consciousness of natives and non-natives. Natives may say, “Since you are non-natives, you are not a really Taiwanese and you would not love Taiwan.” In the eyes of natives, non-natives become “They.” Unfortunately, the ideology of “We” and “They”, no matter the issues of DDP and MRT, natives and non-natives, injures our society of Taiwan extensively no matter on the economics or social order and harmony.

Continuing reading the poet, we would think more. Throughout the author’s poem, he speaks to the differences that exist between “We” who “live over the way” and “They” who “live over the sea.” His conclusion emphasizes the power of the expatriate experience: “if you cross over the sea, instead of over the way,” we may end by realizing that there are more shades of gray than singular truths. Therefore, people in Taiwan should learn to accept multi-cultures, tolerant diverse opinions, and the most important is to try to watch everything from opponent point of view.

Conclusion – Judi

Being self-centered or suffering a trauma? “We and They” or “culture shock”? The idea of “We and They” is segregationist and this is what Kipling had intentionally revealed. And people usually cover this idea with a veil of an innocent name called “culture shock”.

If people check up the dictionary they may find definition of culture shock as “A condition of disorientation affecting someone who is suddenly exposed to an unfamiliar culture or way of life or set of attitudes”. Some dictionaries even define it as “the trauma you experience…” Now the point is not that whether we are so innocent to suffer the so-called “trauma” or not, but that whether we can tear down those mind barriers in us which brought by “We and They”, or “culture shock”. Can we human free from these mind barriers? We believe that the answer is positive.

We know that there will be always “We and They” and when “They” become “We”, somehow “We” will just become “They”, and “We” versus “They”, “They” versus “We”. But, if people are willing to be more open-minded and more human-centered, we’ll see a total different picture, and there will be more understanding between “We” and “They”. There will be more and more people willing to learn how to appreciate each other and differences. And soon human being will realize that the essential of “We and They” is not just those people of different countries or groups, but is really siblings of the same family, “We” and “They” are just “Us”. “Us” have the same mother called “the earth”; “Us” have the same home called “our planet”, and have the same goal in life called “human benefit”. In the harmony of “Us”, human being will enjoy a mutually prosperous future.

Bibliography

Whitewolf Site Index, “Debts and Credits”, http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/Ki plingRudyard/prose/DebtsandCredits/weandthey.html (Retrieved Jan 4, 2005)

Lisa Lewis, “We and They-notes by Lisa Lewis”, http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_wethey1.htm (Retrieved Jan 4, 2005)

Edward Bonver, “A complete collection of poems by Rudyard Kipling”, http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/kiplin g.html (Retrieved Jan 4, 2005)

Wikipekia, the free encyclopedia, “Rudyard Kipling”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudyard_Kipling (Retrieved Jan 4, 2005)

Yahoo, “Physical map of the world”, http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/refmap/big/14.html (Retrieved Jan 4, 2005)