Allowing Laos to Persist
Perhaps it's a confluence of things, a perfect storm of unfortunate conditions that perpetuate Laos' status as a panhandler nation.
Ok, typepad as crapped out on me for the third time. And this is my last time writing this post.
Laos is pleasant, and I don't get it. In my three weeks here I've met more gracious, gentle and polite hosts than I've ever encountered during my three years in New York. Helpful isn't the right word. Naturally gentle is more like it. Laos is able to retain somehow the child-like purity that the rest of the world has shed on our marched towards a civilized and global society. The kindness approaches an almost spiritual way of living – and I'm observing the entire country! It's hard enough to find these qualities in an individual...
But then again, somnolence approaches something else here, too.
Perhaps it's the pervasiveness of Buddhism. I mean, Buddhists aren't really known for their violence or controversial political maneuverings, are they? I suppose there was violence between the various sects and kingdoms in history, but in these modern times? I don't hear too much about a Theravada jihad or a Mahayana crusade... Buddhism to religions is sort of like James Blunt to music – not really controversial, but in light of post-modern cynicism, it's tenets for tolerance and peace and charity sounds kind of hokey. It's nice to hear, but not many of us can put it into play all the time. But the Laotians somehow have managed to incorporate a lot of Buddhism's admirable tenets into their daily lives.
Maybe it's low population >> scarcity of resource. In a country around the size of Texas, there are only 6 million people (compare that to New York City's 9 million). That's a lot of land for people. Granted, not a lot of people here are wealthy, but then again, everyone is equally poor. You can tell the well-off people by their cars, just like everywhere else, but here, the nice cars are Toyota pick-up trucks. When there is a lack of haves & have-nots, there is little breathing space for competition, and with the lack of competition, greed and jealously and all that nastiness doesn't become a big Debbie Downer to society (ahem, Vietnam).
And Communism doesn't really help things, even a feeble disguise of Communism over an attempt at market economics... shared resources and profits are still popular theme in the state propaganda.
Perhaps it's a confluence of things, a perfect storm of unfortunate conditions that perpetuate Laos' status as a panhandler nation. The country has an inordinate dependency on foreign aid to stay afloat. Japanese firms build the roads, US firms prop up exports and the rest of the world pitch in to stabilize the currency, maintain infrastructure and pump up GDP growth. The beggar mentality is a self-defeating one... and Laos historically has done 'just enough' to get by.
It's not her fault, really. When you've had a history of wars (in which you've been bullied by the greater powers around you), landlocked borders (name me one landlocked country that is rich... Russia's entire history has been geared towards getting a warm-weather port), and uncooperative natural resources (the mountainous countries allow only for marginal cultivation) – it's hard to feel good about productivity when you've never witnessed the rewards of hard labor.
Or maybe I'm talking out of my bum. Maybe Laos society has found a formula for grace, peace and gentleness that escapes the rest of us. But how long will this last, with the rush of tourists tramping in through the borders? With them, they bring cash and their own unremarkable values... and the usual lament of lost sangri-la's. But will the people of Laos still be happy but poor? And will the birds still sing at dawn, the elephants roam the forests, and the monks subsist on the kindness of alms... will the country still be able to conjure its otherworldly image?
hmmm... i remember reading somewhere that buddhism is classified as one of the more aggressive religions, along with islam and christianity. I'll do some more research on it. I'm not sure if they were referring to recruiting or to taking over lands from other people.
Posted by: kyle | July 13, 2006 at 01:49 PM
interesting kyle. 'brain' aka wikipedia has no mention of that.. Buddhism has an official stance towards non-violence (contrast that with the Old Testament or Koranic call to purposeful arms)... however, I think like any organized religion, Buddhists have committed violence in their histories as I mentioned (Siam, Khmer, etc.). I know that Buddhism in Vietnam has a particularly politicized aspect. And while they don't prosetelyze much, I think this has to do with the pervasiveness of Buddhism in lots of cultures – they don't need to, because the wats have already undertaken to provide education and spiritual guidance for boys at an early age... just some thoughts, but lemme know what you find!
Posted by: j.fisher | July 14, 2006 at 02:52 AM
Oh, and this is from the BBC's Religion and Ethics site:
Buddhism is essentially a peaceful tradition. Nothing in Buddhist scripture gives any support to the use of violence as a way to resolve conflict.
In times of war
Give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion,
Helping living beings
Abandon the will to fight.
Posted by: j.fisher | July 14, 2006 at 02:54 AM