|
Culture and
Adaptation: Hmong Refugees in Australia
(Based
on an address given at the Second Hmong Research Conference,
University of Minnesota, USA, 17-19 November 1983, and published in
Hendricks, G. L., Downing, B. T, and Deinard, A. eds.. The Hmong
in Transition (New York: Centre for Migration Studies, 1986),
pp. 55-71)
Contents
1
The Traditional Productivity Base
2
Religion and Social Structure
3
Impact
of settlement
4
Cultural consciousness
and adaptation
5
Hmong
research and social change
6 Conclusion
7
References
I wish to thank the
conference organisers for financial assistance to present this paper
and the Lao Community Advancement (NSW) Co-operative in Sydney,
Australia, for allowing me time off work to attend the conference
and to visit Hmong refugees in the United States.
In an article on Hmong refugees in San Diego, California, Scott (1)
reports that they respond to external adversity "by becoming more
Hmong rather than less so". This is manifested by their preference
to settle in the same geographical area and to interact mostly with
members of their own ethnic group. The result is a heightened sense
of ethnicity which, although reinforced by environmental factors,
bases itself on strong primordial sentiments such as "a tradition of
political autonomy and social self-reliance" and a "strongly
homogeneous community" with no major differences in language,
religion or customs.
These attributes, whatever their relevance to the refugees, tell a
casual reader very little what is "being Hmong" and particularly
what is "being more Hmong".
To a Hmong, what distinguishes the Hmong from other people is
their Hmong way of life. This way of life
is centred around shifting agriculture, a language with mutually
intelligible dialects, a strong belief in ancestor worship and
animism, a division of labour according to family membership and
sex, a social structure based on kinship ties through the
patrilineage and clan systems, a patrivirilocal pattern of
residence, a history of migration from Southern China, and a long
tradition of being stateless.
To elaborate on some of these
components of the Hmong society, I will focus on the economic
productivity, social structure and religion. This will allow us a
better evaluation of Hmong cultural articulation in Australia and
may help in determining whether or not the Hmong refugees can become
more Hmong in the West or whether they have to change in order to
accommodate to the new environment.
No Hmong life style is
possible without subsistence farming, supplemented by foraging,
hunting, some fishing and handicrafts. Agriculture is the dominant
of economic production, and is closely related to the Hmong's
religion through ritual offerings to appease field spirits, or
through "first fruit" ceremonies for the dead members of one's
lineage in order to seek their spiritual protection. The "prestige
sphere" identified by Dalton (2) in another contest is also evident
when the more agricultural goods a person can produce and display,
the more they enhance his rituals but also to the ways in which
social roles and the division of labour within the household are
observed- To some extent, the Hmong come close to the Marxist
contention that the economy determines the structures and
institutions of society (3).
The roles of family members,
for instance, are designated by their order of birth as well as
their abilities to contribute to the survival of the family as a
whole. Thus, a husband's duties are to act as head of his household
and to provide for its members' physical and spiritual welfare. He
is responsible for the selection of farming sites and felling of
trees when clearing new swiddens but is rarely concerned with
domestic chores, apart from perhaps getting firewood. A wife, on the
other hand is given the tasks of caring for children, preparing
meals, feeding chickens and pigs owned by the family, sharing in all
agricultural activities with her husband, and consulting him on
family needs or major decisions.
In addition to the division of
labour, the socialisation of children is also affected when farming
keeps family members close to one another with little or no outside
contact and influences. Grand-parents, parents and children are
together nearly at all times whether in the home or in the fields.
The norms of primary group co-operation and mutual assistance are,
thus, instilled early in life through the labour requirements
imposed by the economic base. Furthermore, agriculture impinges on
the allocation and consumption of goods in that while every
able-bodied person participates in the growing of crops, these
commodities are for the consumption of the whole household.
Individual allocation of goods occurs only with jewellery, some
domestic animals, clothing, opium/money.
It is obvious that subsistence
cultivation plays a most significant part in shaping social roles
and relations within the household (4). In order to achieve their
economic ends, the Hmong have evolved their own rules of family
behaviour with rights and obligations to be adhered to.
As stated by Cohen (5), in
trying to satisfy their needs people are brought into relationship
with one another in a socially prescribed expectations. This is true
of Hmong, as of other human groups.
Two other dominant
features of Hmong society are their social structure and religion.
Hmong social groupings are generally the product of kinship
organisation and its manifestations through the rituals of ancestor
worship, two aspects of Hmong culture which are intricately related
to each other. The fortune of an individual or family depends on
close observation of ancestral reverence, geomancy and kinship
networks. A Hmong religion cannot be separated from his social
groupings, and his relations with other Hmong are meaningful only in
terms of whether or not they share similar ancestral rites.
Therefore, he cannot do without his kinsmen and a good knowledge of
their rituals in order to carry on his Hmong existence.
When two Hmong meet for the
first time, their immediate concern is to establish their clan
identities so that they can relate to each other. If they belong to
the same clan, the next question will be which sub-clan they
originate from. This is done by inquiring whether they perform
similar rituals in relation to funerals, the "door ceremony" and the
"ox ceremony"; whether the graves of their dead are of the same
construction. If these common factors are established, membership to
a sub-clan is confirmed. From this point, they may try to learn
whether they descend from the same ancestor and, thus, belong to the
same lineage. A lineage is known as a "cluster of brothers" (ib cuab
kwvtij) or " one ceremonial household" (ib tus dab-qhuas). Members
of a "ceremonial household" can die and have funerals in one
another's house, as they would share similar ancestral rituals.
People merely belonging to a clan or sub-clan cannot be granted this
ceremonial privilege.
This means that the social
structure divides Hmong into different groupings united under clans,
sub-clans and lineages. For a man, the clan makes it possible to
know which group to identify with, and which woman he can or cannot
marry (he cannot marry a woman of the same clan). After marriage, he
is expected to observe the residential prescription laid down by his
kinship system and reinforced by his ancestral cult.
Patrivirilocality is preferred, at least until the couple has
children and can establish their own nuclear household away from the
extended family. This does not prevent him from maintaining close
relationship with relatives of his wife. With the exception of
material support, there are no ritual bonds between a married man
and his affinal relatives because religion ceremonies are reserved
for agnatic ancestors.
The Hmong do not have elaborate
ceremonies for birth or during various stages of life Explanations
for the meaning of life are to be found in funeral rites, the
meeting point between the living and the dead. This relationship
between ancestors and their descendants, between religion and social
structure, gives the Hmong a clear defined way of life. As
postulated by Radcliffe-Brown (6), such a belief system gives
incentives to those taking part in them to have a sense of
dependence on their ancestors and to commemorate them for having
given them their life, while they are spurred onto bring up their
descendants to whom they will one day also become revered ancestors.
It is this sense of duty that creates a direct association between a
Hmong's religion and his social structure, particularly his lineage.
In their world view and
ceremonial practices, The Hmong see an explanation for their social
groupings; in their kinship ties, they find reason to maintain their
religion. Religious ceremonies renew group sentiment, strengthen
lineage solidarity, and inspire members to carry out their
obligations to the living, the dead and those yet to be born. These
factors, in Geertz' phrasing, form the group's ethos, and are
"rendered intellectually reasonable by being shown to represent a
way of life ideally adapted to the actual state of affairs the world
view described while the world view is rendered emotionally
convincing by being presented as image of an actual state of affairs
peculiarly well arranged to accommodate such a way of life" (7).
Having discussed some
of the most salient aspects of Hmong culture, let us now see how
they have been maintained or adapted to respond to the demands and
needs of a Western environment. To do this, the major factors which
make Hmong cultural adaptation necessary need to be examined first
by using the Australian experience of the Hmong refugees as
illustration of the issues involved. It is necessary to add that the
Hmong situation in Australia is by no means typical of other Hmong
groups, although some common features may be shared by them.
In contrast to their
subsistence farming in Laos where family members all work together,
the complex wage economy of Australia only accepts skilled adults
into the work force. For the refugees, this involves those who have
some degree of training and who can speak basic English. The
division of labour is no longer based on family membership, but on
decisions by outsiders as to who is chosen for work and who to be
made idle. This means that for the 344 Hmong in Australia, only 58
are gainfully employed or 52.5% of the total employable population
of 112. Thus, a total of 54 adults are not in employment (including
18 persons in the retired age group) with 208 children of whom 61.5%
or 128 are in primary and high schools.
The old tradition of joint
economic productivity by all household members is seriously
disrupted with those who are going their separate ways each morning
while the elderly and the unemployed remain home with or without
children to attend to. Children of school age are left to find
company with Micky Mouse, Bull Winkle or Spiderman on television in
the morning; and return from school to Sesame Street or the Brady
Bunch in the afternoon. While at school, they read Walt Disney books
or Shakespeare, interact with English-speaking children, and learn
from Anglo-European teachers with a curriculum which makes no
mention of their culture and history. These children quickly
identify with the new society.
This almost daily fragmentation
of the family by school and work has eroded the cherished ideas of a
co-operated household united by common interests and economic
participation. Many parents are no longer productive when 30 of the
67 family heads are without work. They often do not speak English
and have to depend on their children in simple tasks involving
contacts with non-Hmong outsiders. This reversal of roles and the
consequent loss of self-esteem on the part of the older family
members have made many of them feel despondent. The demands of the
West have precluded them from fulfilling their traditional roles of
providers and decision-makers for their families. Thus, social
values regarding parental authority, filial respect, clan
obligations and reverence of ancestors become gradually irrelevant
or unenforceable.
This erosion of Hmong social
values and norms within the family is also felt in the area of
interpersonal relationships between members of the Hmong community.
the social structure, as discussed previously, is already greatly
weakened by the fact that many families only share clan membership
but no other kinship features, and a few families are the sole
representative of their clan in the new country. This means that
there is little or no similarity in rituals between them, since the
sharing of rituals is restricted to lineage and sub-clan members.
Of all the clans in Australia,
the Lee has 19 families with 5 lineages, the Yang 16 families with 4
lineages, the Vang with 13 families and 3 lineages, the Thao with 10
families and 3 lineages, the Xiong and Vue number no more than 5 to
6, because only households with at least one skilled or educated
member are admitted by the Australian Government for resettlement.
Furthermore, not all members of a lineage were able to escape from
Laos or to settle in the West, thereby significantly reducing the
traditional networks of kinship and mutual assistance.
The young and skilled families
preferred by Australia are generally ignorant of religious beliefs
and practices. Most do not have with them older members who are well
experienced in Hmong customs. Unless they are related to those who
have, they do not know where to turn to in time of spiritual need.
They exist in a religious limbo, neither as Hmong with knowledge and
observances of ancestor worship, no as Australian with faith in
Christianity. Some appear to be content with this state of affairs,
filling the voids of their lives with material objects. Sooner or
later however, they have to turn to other Hmong, because cultural
and language barriers prevent them from reaching out to members of
the host society.
In the face of this
constant intrusion into their traditions by incompatible external
forces, the Hmong obviously feel their very identity threatened.
This is especially true when their identity as a household, lineage
or clan is adversely affected by conflicting claims of the new
country. Like any human groups in a state of uncertainty, most of
these in Australia have reacted by trying to regain direction by
improving themselves with education and economic productivity, or by
joining force as a group in order to gorge for themselves a new
identity.
At the individual level, the
cultural value of self-sufficiency is still strongly followed,
despite many difficulties to overcome. They are now given the stand
on their own feet, following years of surviving on hand-outs in
refugee camps in Laos and in Thailand. They know that the material
comfort enjoyed by members of the new country can be theirs if they
stride hard enough for it. Many of those who can find factory work
even see this as a big step forward compared to the farming they
used to do in Laos, for they are no longer at the mercy of nature
and war. As a measure of their adaptability, 47 of the 56 households
now own cars, and 20 have bought their own house. Two families are
in the process of buying land for market gardening. All this has
been achieved within the space of 4 to 5 years of resettlement.
The formal group, for its part,
also encourages members towards self-reliance and towards the
articulation of their culture but in a manner acceptable to the
Australian society. I am referring to the Hmong-Australia Society
which was first set up in Victoria in 1978. At present, it has
branches in New South Wales, A.C.T. and Tasmania, with a Federal
body to make policies and to coordinate the activities of the State
branches. Since I am more familiar with the activities of the
situation in New South Wales, I will discuss mainly the activities
of the Society in that State which has 204 of the total Australian
Hmong population of 344, in contrast to Victoria which has 113 and
Tasmania with 27.
In a similar vein to other
ethnic-based organisations, the Hmong-Australia Society (HAS) has
its main objectives: (i) to assist Hmong refugees in their
settlement in Australia, (ii) to foster mutual acceptance between
Hmong and other ethnic, (iii) to uphold Hmong cultural traditions,
and (iv) to safeguard Hmong interest in general. Membership is not
restricted to Hmong, and is entirely voluntary. Nevertheless, nearly
all the Hmong in the country are financial members, except for two
families.
To achieve its objective, the
HAS supplements the traditional support system with committees on
welfare, education, culture, religious, public relation and
fund-raising. It is clear that most of these concerns reflect a
conscious attempt to put Hmong culture values into practice in a new
environment in this virtual absence of kinship networks which
traditionally oversee these activities. The HAS, thus, replaces the
social structure by being a focal point for members to fall back on
in time of celebration or crisis.
One of the first tasks
undertaken was to get members to understand the Australian
Government's policies on multiculturalism and to steer the group's
activities to be in line with these policies. for example, ethnic
groups are encouraged to maintain their cultures "without prejudice
or disadvantage" and "to embrace other cultures" ( 8) . This is so
long as there is acknowledgment of "common values which give all
citizens a sense of being Australians" with importance given to the
English language (9), Hmong are , therefore, urged to consider
themselves as Australian Hmong with s unique cultural contribution
to make to their country of resettlement and with obligation to
identify with it. As the result of this policy, many Hmong have
taken up Australian citizenship and in turn enjoy the privilege and
freedom to travel overseas to visit relatives.
Faced with only a residual
social structure among its members, the HAS has tried to promote
mutual support across clan boundaries by insisting that Hmong
refugees assist each other on the basis of their common ethnic
background rather than membership to a lineage or clan. Overall, the
majority of members have shown a genuine desire to help lessen clan
and lineage consciousness by devoting time and energy for the common
benefit of the group without regard to kinship ties. There are, of
course, a few families which are still reluctant to take part in the
common New Year celebration because of their religious belief, but
this is a minor problem.
A good example of the society’s
involvement in cultural adaptation is its ethnic school. Formed in
1980, it was designed to conduct weekend classes on Hmong language
and culture for Hmong children who are growing up in Australia and
who are not exposed enough to their own mother tongue and their
parents’ culture. The aim is to enable the students to read and
write Hmong, and to appreciate the customs of their older family
members so that they may understand and assist the latter in their
settlement. With operational costs met from federal government
funding, the school has a current enrolment of forty three, with an
attendance rate of about thirty two in two classes. Two Hmong
teachers alternate in the teaching of each class.
After using an old
primer from Laos for a year, the teachers found it to be too
difficult, since many of the words refer to traditional objects no
longer found in Australia, and therefore convey little meaning to
the refugee children. This difficulty was compounded by the lack of
suitable texts on Hmong culture. With a grant from the state
government, the society has attempted to fill this gap by developing
its own teaching materials with more relevance to the Australian
context. Two books for learning Hmong – one for young children and
one for older students – have been completed along with a book of
traditional songs (for learning old forms of poetry) and a
collection of modern songs (for learning new poetry), a book of
proverbs and a collection of folk tales. A Hmong grammar and a text
on the changing way of life of Hmong refugees (for social studies)
are being completed. The new books, in very simple form, have been
used experimentally in class during 1983, and have drawn much
enthusiastic response from children and parents.
Cultural materials are taught
not only through the use of these texts, but also through simulated
performances of simple ceremonies, colour slides, recordings and
samples of relevant artefacts. Many young men have successfully
learned the mechanics of common rituals through role-playing. The
learning of more complex rituals. Has been offered to older
individuals according to their personal interest, with the elders in
the Hmong community acting as teachers.
Realising that the teaching of
Hmong language and culture may offer the refugees a sense of
cultural continuity but will not be sufficient to help them
integrate into the Australian setting, the Society also teaches them
English, or arrange to have English and simple work skills courses
provided on a short term basis by government instrumentalities. This
applies in particular to the adult Hmong, many of whom were
illiterate. There have been classes on sewing and dress-making,
Australian law and society, basic mathematics, general health
education and homemaking. The primary aim is the learning of
English, but these language skills are acquired through other
subjects deemed useful to the social adjustment of the Hmong.
Similar orientation information is also published in both Hmong and
English in the Society’s newsletter.
Initially, most of the Hmong
were reluctant to carry out any religious ceremonies in Australia,
but they are now gained enough confidence to perform readily such
rituals as "soul calling" (hu plig), "wrist-stringing" (khi tes) and
shamanic trance. Cultural expression outside the home or at public
function is limited to the display of handicrafts, the playing of
reed-pipe music (tshuab qeej) and flute (raj), and traditional
singing. Simplified versions of the new year celebration and funeral
proceedings have been adopted mainly from lack of time and man-power
rather than the fear of being found objectionable.
Unlike some of those in the
United States of America (10), The Hmong in Australia have never
questioned the relevance of traditional beliefs to their new life,
even when only rituals involving no killing of live animals are
observed. Several explanations for this disparity between the two
groups could be suggested. Firstly, the Australian Government's
refugee program does not depend entirely on church and community
sponsorship. Most of the Hmong were admitted under this official
program which provides all necessary support services with minor
assistance from voluntary agencies. They do not, therefore, come
into early contacts with people who may influence them to doubt
their traditional religion and to embrace a new one.
Secondly, the Australian
Government. actively supports the idea of a multicultural nation, as
mentioned previously, and has made funds available to various groups
to test out the concept, especially in the fields of culture, arts
and education. The Hmong happen to be in Australia at a time when
this experiment is only at its beginning stage, by joining in, they
are thus encouraged to carry on with their changing traditions while
learning to adapt to the host community.
Thirdly and most importantly,
the leadership and the very small size of the Hmong population have
been crucial factors in this process of cultural adjustment. The
informal decision-makers, whether of traditional or Western
orientation, have been most accommodating to each other with
decisions based on the democratic process instead of the dictates of
a few individuals. The old leadership acknowledge the need for
change, and the younger leaders know that change has to be gradual
with cultural elements acting as both an impetus and a buffer. These
leaders and their followers have equal role in guiding this change
towards the common good of the Hmong and their new country.
This is, of course, easier said
than done, for many problems have to be faced within and outside the
Hmong community. Overall, however, I do believe that 97% of them
share in this long term vision. With mutual support between
themselves and the continuous assistance of government and other
agencies the Hmong may yet achieve this adaptation through the use
of their culture as a means and an anchor. After all, they are a
universal minority group, and the adage of "home is where you make
it" has always applied to their situation, even if home will take a
bit longer to make in the West.
Least I am taken to
task for being too optimistic and for talking about hopes rather
than reality, let me now briefly justify my arguments.
From the literature I have read
on the Hmong in Thai, Lao, Hmong, French and English, I have been
struck by a lack of perspective in many of these readings. Too
often, sweeping negative statements or generalisations are made from
information obtained on the basis of single encounter or interview.
This is true especially of politically biased newspaper reporters,
travellers and arm-chair writers who often base their comments on
second or third-hand sources of information. Even Government
officials and serious scholars have not escaped this tendency to
refer to old, out-dated accounts of the Hmong; and to made further
sweeping statements after a few short visits to them.
Let me illustrate what I mean.
Geddes (11), following a few years of field work among a group of
Green Hmong in Northern Thailand, came to the conclusion that the
Hmong economy is a cash economy based on opium, with their whole
migration pattern and way of life affected by the need to search for
opium fields. He (12) explained Hmong polygamy on the ground that
the men marry more than one wife in order to obtain more labour for
their opium growing. Geddes did not take enough account of the fact
that thousands of other Hmong in other places do not grow opium; and
that polygamy is strongly condemned in Hmong society, whether or not
opium is produced.
Recently, Cooper (13)
speculated that "almost every Hmong family will have some experience
of patrivirilocality at some times". This is because 5 of the 87
households he studied in Northern Thailand exhibit this residential
pattern. How valid is this interpretation when only 5.7% of the
Hmong in the sample live with relatives of the wives? Again, other
factors such as the rules of the ancestral cult and the kinship
system have not been given adequate consideration, for the Hmong
hold this type of residence as being socially and religiously
unacceptable.
More relevant to our concern
here are statements by Scott I referred to earlier. In his
Conference paper two years ago (10), he discussed in detail how "
the relocation of traditional Hmong religious system into an
incompatible environment has entailed (a) the questioning of belief,
much of which now seems painfully inappropriate in an environment
with which it is no longer resonant, and (b) the abandonment of
rituals in all but a few of the most conservative families". The
annual New Year Celebration is the only occasion these rituals are
taken out of their closets to be displayed out of context as a
reminder of a "rapidly receding past". In an article on ethnic
solidarity among the same group of Hmong in San Diego a few months
later, he wrote that they have become " more Hmong " and interact
'less and less with outsiders, even with those whose task it is to
help them"(1) . Could the "rapidly receding past" have come reeling
back in such a short time like strips of a movie film being pulled
backwards?
It is true that more of them
have now joined in formal meeting or formed ethnic-based
organisations, but this does not mean that they have become more
Hmong. It is only that they have changed and have learned the value
of formal organisations in Western society. The formalised approach
to the requirements of life is in itself un-Hmong, a western ritual
quickly seized upon by the refugees. The traditions based on
subsistence agriculture as discussed at the beginning of this paper,
are mostly now inapplicable or unavailable, and much of them have to
be abandoned or changed. If the Hmong react to an alien environment
by turning to each other or by migration, we would not have
5,000,000 Hmong in China today but only a few thousands in
neighbouring countries where they were supposed to seek refuge from
Chinese oppression. If they cannot be assimilated in Laos, why do so
many Hmong women in the West still wear Lao skirts while nearly all
the men use Lao words that have been integrated into the Hmong
language whenever they speak Hmong?
I would argue that given time
and the opportunities, the Hmong cannot help but adapt themselves to
a new society, change their way of life, and make in-roads into
various social strata and employment structures of the majority
society. The key factors, however, are time and open doors. This
change cannot be achieved quickly. It has to be slow and gradual,
from the physical to the abstract, from the tangible to the
intangible, beginning now with perhaps cars, housing and clothing;
but eventually ending with the adoption of Western values and
languages. Despite opinions to the contrary, the Hmong objectively
are not the autonomous people some of us like to make them out to
be: they are usually accommodating, keen to become acceptable to
other groups.
The above comments are not
designed to discourage. On the contrary, more research and debates
on Hmong adaptation in the West are needed. May I urge that in our
search for knowledge, we should be more conscious of what is hidden
from us, what is not revealed but should be known before useful
generalisations can be made. The United Nations Crop Replacement
Project for opium farmers in Thailand in the 1970’s failed, because
there was more, much more to the Hmong economy than the need for
cash.
To avoid such pitfalls in
social science research, I believe it should be more fruitful to
take both the "enic" and "etic" approaches in which the researcher's
observations and perceptions are combined with those of the research
subjects, with information checked and cross-checked before it is
used. This has been well stated by Goodenough (14) when he said
that: (a) whenever we wish to know what people are doing and why, or
what they are likely to do, we must know what kind of things they
see and respond to, and (b) we must know what they believe to be the
relations between these things and what they see as the possible
course of action for dealing with them. As we try to unravel the
complexity of the Hmong resettlement experience in the West, I hope
that these premises will help yield information, interpretations and
ideas on the Hmong in a much wider perspective.
I have tried to compare the new
Hmong experience in the west with their traditional existence in the
hills of Laos in order to see whether or not they can maintain their
former way of life in the now social environment. I have used the
case of the Hmong in Australia as illustration of the fact that no
matter how hard they try to hold onto them, the links with the past
will be gradually severed and forgotten unless their culture can be
adapted to fit into the present. Culture is not an impediment, but
an instrument for social change. Careful guided, its transformation
may lead to a new form of cultural adjustment. Neglected, it will be
doomed to extinction. It is argued here that the active articulation
of their culture will help the refugees maintain their personal
identity in the face of perplexing external demand. while they
attempt to adjust to these demand and to acquire new cultural
element to give themselves a new identity benefiting life in a
Western society. The cultural past can act as a buffer to the
upheavals of the current social change, and can give direction to
the uncertainties of the future. Given some patience and the
opportunities, this adjustment will certainly be achieved, because
most Hmong, want to adapt, to become self-sufficient and to enjoy
peace freedom and the comfort of life. Where else can they get all
of that but in the West?
REFERENCES
(1) SCOTT, G.M.,
"The Hmong Refugee Community
in San Diego: Theoretical and Practical Implications of its
Continuing Ethnic Solidarity", Anthropological Quaterly, 55 (3):
145-160.
(2) DALTON, G.,
"Traditional Tribal and Peasant Economies"' McCaleb Module in
Anthropology, Reading,Mass.: Addison Wesleys 1971, p 14.
(3) MARX, K., "Precapitalist Economic Formations"
ed., by E.J. Hobsbaum International Publishing, N.Y. 1970. p.121.
(4) Hmong economic CO-operation rarely goes beyond
the household level. Inter-household or village relations are based
on kinship ties and other factors rather than the necessity for
economic productivity.
(5) COHEN, Y. ed. Man in Adaptation: the Cultural
Present, Aldine, Chicago,, 1968, P.2
(6) RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R.,"The Study of kinship
Systems", J.Royal Anthropological Institude, 71:1-19. 1941. p.14
(7) GEERTZ, C.P "Religion as a Cultural System", in
Banton,M. ed. "Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion",
Tavistock, London. 1966, p. 1-46.
(8) Report of the Review of Post-arrival Programmes and
Services for Migrants, (known as the Galbally Report),
"Migrant Services" Aust. Gov. Printing, Canberra, 1978, p. 4.
(9) Commonwealth School Commission (Australia):
Report on the Ethnic School Programme, Aust.Gov. Publishing,
Canberra, 1983, p.31.
(10) SCOTT, G. M., "A New Year in a New Land:
Religious Change among the Lao Hmong Refugees in San Diego", in
Downing,B.T. and Olney,D.P.eds. "The Hmong in the West: Observations
and Reports", Centre for Urban and Regional Affairs. Uni. Minesota,
1982. p. 63-85.
(11) GEDDES, W.R.. "Opium and the Miao", Eceania,
XLI(1): 1-11, 1970.
(12) GEDDES, W.R.. "Migrants of the Mountains",
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1976.
(13) COOPER, R. G., "Unity and Division in Hmong
Social Categories in Thailand, in Chen,P.S.J. and Evers,H.D. eds.
Studies in ASEAN Socioly, Chopmen, Singapore, 1978, p.31.
(14) GOODENOUGH,W., "Description and Comparison in
Cultural Anthropology , Aldine, Chicago, 1970, p. 104.
 |
