Imagine using Korean (or Japanese) script when presenting the content of historical ‘Chinese’ texts to Western audiences. This is to say that although supposedly discussing from the Chinese script (regardless of historical era) the Chinese script is ignored only to be expressed through a related – but distinct (and different) – linguistic expression. Furthermore, in contemporary versions of this scenario – the linguistic symbols chosen to replace Chinese script align only with those Asian cultures (Japan and South Korea for example) which are allies of the dominant United States, support liberal, democratic political systems and pursue predatory capitalism. In other words, the languages of Asian countries that deliberately choose to exist on an antagonistic (and oppositional) level to that of (modern) Mainland China. This would be an absurd situation – but I do not understand ‘why’ the Chinese Authorities insist on using ‘American-English’ when translating Chinese language texts (converting British ‘£’ into ‘$’ – usually spelling ‘Pounds’ and ‘Dollars’ – such is the stupidity in operation) when American-English is the language of out and out ‘White’ racist domination and anti-intellectual stupidity in the world! American-English, of course, is also the recognised language of anti-Communism.
When I translate Chinese script into English – I use only (standardised) Mainland Chinese ‘Pinyin’ (Spell-Hear’) to express my understanding. The West, of course, has developed its own phonetical systems to represent Chinese script – but it is obvious that the understanding is cumbersome, disjointed and quite often involving ‘dialectical’ expressions of regional ethnic Chinese groups who happened to live in areas of China that fell victim to Western colonial expansion throughout the last four-hundred years. The imperialistic Europeans ‘privileged’ the Chinese populations living in these areas – allowing a certain number of these Chinese populations to migrate to the host countries of these European powers (such as the UK, US, Germany and Portugal, etc). The dialects these people speak, from a historical perspective, were used by illiterate populations for most of their existences (until the poat-1949 era). Therefore, the understanding of these Chinese populations was limited to the requirements of everyday life and usually relevant to only a relatively small geographic area.
Regional Chinese existence – pertinent to ethnic Chinese cultures – is a vitally important expression of pre-modern Chinese culture, but it does NOT express the view of Chinese culture and existence as developed at its highest incarnation as manifested by the Imperial Courts of China. The Imperial Courts of China, of course, pre-date Confucius (c. 5th century BCE) – and express a required organisation of a patriarchal household that must be replicated in EXACTLY the same manner throughout China with NO variations! Hierarchical respect, the earliest known expressions being matriarchal (before transitioning into its more familiar patriarchal expression) – was all held together with an emphasis upon spiritual, intellectual and physical self-cultivation and betterment. The Western systems of phonetical transliteration of Chinese script into the Roman alphabet are riddled with misunderstanding, bias and political misrepresentation – with the ‘sounds’ expressed not being exactly correct or accurate.
This is why I use the ‘Pinyin’ system as defined and developed by the government of Mainland China (ignoring that of the US-friendly Taiwanese system – or the unofficial systems of transliteration preserved within diasporic Chinese communities spread throughout the world). As ‘English’ is the language of ‘England’ – and given that I am ‘British’ and ‘English’ – I would state that American-English is NOT correct English – but rather a deviation from it. Furthermore, there is no such entity as ‘British’ English – as this is an insulting designation that reduces our original language of ‘English’ to a relative construct, or just one version amongst many. This is similar to reducing Chinese script to the scripts as developed by its Korean or Japanese cousins. Indeed, American-English is a vehicle which has been historically developed and designed to express a) US anti-intellectualism, and b) US racial (anti-Chinese) attitudes. This is why I reject the Chinese State habit of officially using ‘American-English’ when translating Chinese-language articles into ‘English’. The English language as spoken and written in the UK is ancient and historically pre-exists any modern notions of Western racism (unlike its Ameican counter-part – which expresses the racism within which US culture has developed). Therefore, the English as used in the UK possesses a historical ‘strength in depth’ – that can be moulded in any direction as required.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 