This afternoon, the invitation to come to the Bahasa Indonesia class made me curious. I just wondered how it was like. Before I went there, I had to think about my sit-in for Literacy class that took two hours, at least the last one hour was for the BI program in Gordon Greewood Bld. I managed to get out of the class when Mr. harrington allowed the students to have a break. Lucky me I was not the only one who came out of the class. I came to the BI and did what I can do - just gave a little glimpse about Bandung.
Then, in the end of the class, Mr. Ardani Sarjito said 'Harusnya banyak orang Indo yang mau datang [ke kelas Bahasa Indonesia, buat para bule di UQ] dan mempromosikan sisi positive Indonesia, jangan selalu yang terdengar berita negativenya dari media Aussie, bencana, bom di san -sini, terorr ...." - more or less he said so. Why people hardly use the word 'promote' for Indonesia. To be honest what should we promote? The appalling quality of a country huh ... phatetic ...
Having the conversation with Mr. Ardani 'n some friends (Pinus, Adi 'n Jaya), and joining the invitation from the UQISA mailing list about being the Indonesian interviewee and telling a bit more about our home town, it come to my sense that what should I promote our 'beloved' country to others when the fact says that our country is not good enough to be a good nation. I can take a little picture of Indonesia from its TV program for example, we can see that heaps of craps like infotainments, supernatural programs, rubbish sinetrons and many more low culture associated program. Another picture I want to say is that once we are Indonesian with its appalling mentality, it always be there. We are coming in one package with the mentality that can never be detached from our daily life though we are living in different situation - in Aussie for example.
Recently I have been wondering about the so-called educated and religious Indonesians in Australia were a bit ignorant to the offer from the secular school. I can not say myself that I can be responsible for this case. But the thing is when my response [to them]described a little about my scepticism and felt a little bit of responsibility just because I am legally authorised, none of them argued or even had a little discussion. To me it's a kind of the bluffing.
This kind of mentality can be found everywhere in any case. I'm not over-generalising. So, the mentality is when a group of people feels insecure about their well-being, they call for a victim to sacrifice himself for the sake of their safety. They are waiting for the volunteer victim. When they know the volunteer is not hurt, the group of that people follow the path what the volunteer has done to their community. But if the volunteer were victimised, every body in the group find the safe place for their survival and ego. The affinity of metaphore for this case is just like a herd of Hyena. They want to eat the zebra but they don't want to hunt and just waiting for lion to kill the zebra and eat the leftover. Thus, can we call this an independent mentality?
No comments:
Post a Comment