cnx4shan wrote:
Gone Fishing wrote:
Henry Cate wrote:
.... What can be done to ameliorate the plight of the Shan people in Northern Thailand?
My agenda ... involves publicizing cases of overt Thai racism against the Shan, and also teaching English (for free) to various Shan and hill-tribe people. What (ahem) do YOU do?
Hopefully anyone who seriously claims to be "doing" something can justify their boast with rather more than constantly posting about Shan getting fined for breaking the law and "teaching English" to Shan/hill-tribe bar-boys he has offed.
Those who are "doing" something are risking their lives in the jungles of Myanmar and the Thai border areas providing help and assistance to refugees and victims of the conflict. I'm not gonna compromise my or anyone else's safety by commenting further on a public forum like this.
Last Shan bar boy I know who learned English agreed to quit the business in return for a Farang sending him to school. Guess what, a year later he's back in the bar, boasting how he gets so many more off's due to his new skills! Apart from that, what's the point. They won't need English on a construction site, or in a restaurant kitchen, and they sure as hell have no job prospects elsewhere.
Check out Henry's text book: http://www.paiboonpublishing.com/details.php?prodId=35 Maybe they're working on a Shan version with the help of practical examples
I guess you didn't read that part of my posting about straw men, or you wouldn't have picked Benjawan's worst book as my so-called "textbook."
The problem with "straw men" is that you can utterly destroy them and your real opponent is left standing, untouched. But I'll leave Benjawan alone for now; she's a nice lady and I know her slightly. The real question is why you think you should be my opponent.
Your current vendetta apparently centers around the folly of teaching English to Burmese refugees. And you state the blindingly obvious when you say that English proficiency will get them more offs -- if they are working as bar-boys.
Well, I'll reply with another blindingly obvious statement: when the time comes for them to leave that trade (if they are, in fact, bar-boys), an ability to communicate in English will simply be money in the bank for them. To put it in another way: no matter what your job is, in Thailand, if you supplement the basic job skills with a knowledge of English, you'll quite likely increase your earnings by 10,000 baht per month (if not more). My very first graduate was a song thaew (red truck) driver, who had previously been operating on a very slim margin, but was able to cut his business BACK by finally doing business only with farang tourists who called him on the phone. He has since moved on (somewhat incredibly) to become a sales manager at a large life-insurance firm, but he still keeps that red truck for the times when the Australians (and other people connected with Agape House) call him for transportation. They like him a lot -- so do I -- and he makes really good money driving them around BECAUSE HE CAN SPEAK ENGLISH.
In just the same way, someone who leaves the career of "bar host" behind will find all sorts of doors open to him if he can actually communicate in English. But I don't state or imply that my students work at this job -- even if some do, sticking with the program for 9 or more months shows a real dedication to self-improvement and discipline. But my students also include/have included high-school seniors, college freshmen, etc. etc. Anyone with enough brain to realize that free English lessons are a very rare opportunity in Thailand.
If you would like me to discuss my approach to teaching English conversation, I'd be happy to oblige.
I notice that someone else put "teaching English" in quotation marks, as if I were really doing something else, or was incapable of teaching English. As if they knew me, or had seen my resume -- or knew anything about the subject themselves.
Digression: at a party, I once met a newly-arrived farang who had decided to teach English himself. The key to his brand-new method was to ignore teaching vocabulary ("300 words is enough") and forget about grammar, because COMMUNICATION WAS THE KEY THING. I'll let other people analyze the weak points in his plot, but here's a hint: most linguists regard language as a result of syntax + vocabulary.
Finally, I really want to say that "risking your life along the border" is not really a necessary part of helping people. I am currently working on a plan to get more involved (with orphanages, etc.) near the Burmese border, but I'm plenty busy now.
