The Subaltern and Muting in Up the Yangtze

Just as a preface to my post, I'd like to say I thoroughly enjoyed this movie viewing. As the first American born child of first generation immigrants from Taiwan, I would say that Yung Chang's use of screens and cinematography were cleverly and well devised. The movie made me angry at times, and upset at the voicelessness of Cindy's situation. But it also enlightened me about the true nature of poverty, and the desperation behind just barely getting by.

One of the scenes which most caught my attention, which I have also included in my SCD#4, is the part where the tour guide is giving a showing of the relocation homes for the farmers who have lost their land. When asked by the tourists about the farmers that are not lucky enough to receive relocation, he sort of stutters and replies, "everyone is happy!"
This is the scene that made me more frustrated than anything. It is a clear example of an abuse of the language barrier, and misdirection from the issue at hand. I understand that the tour guide was merely doing his job, to show the westerners the great parts of China, instead of the deplorable poverty. But what does it mean when people with enough cash in their wallets to feed a poor Chinese family for months are standing on a cruise ship within a stone's throw of a flooding shack, and nothing is being done?
I guess I am just struggling with how the Chinese government is, as the MC on the boat said, heading in one direction with a turn signal pointing the opposite way.

On a similar topic, the workers on the ship are reminded not to mention anything about Canada or Northern Ireland. I did think it was hilarious that this random assortment of issues were on the "don't mention" list. But I found it interesting that this was their business strategy for keeping the tourists happy. Every effort on the ship is put towards keeping intact the exotic and magical nature of Chinese culture. It is only through Yung Chang's direction that we learn about how impoverished Cindy's family is, and how it almost tears their relationships apart.

In her essay, Spivak writes, "I think it is important to acknowledge our complicity in the muting, in order precisely to be more effective in the long run. Our work cannot succeed if we always have a scapegoat" (808). Even though the government is unable to efficiently handle the situation for every farmer who is displaced by the dam, it is still effectively muting its subjects from expressing their torment. This and the example of the tour guide point to the reality that China is in essence beating itself down while trying to reach its identity as an international power. I would say that in any government, the constant muting/silencing of a subaltern cannot go forever unnoticed, by the elite and subaltern alike. Somewhere along the line, someone must have a voice.