Something Old, Something New

One of the things I love about living in Taiwan - though I suppose this is true for expat life in just about any country - is that I can see something that looks as though it will be the same as something I've seen in the past, but discover something completely new within it.

For example, I happened upon a temple parade in my neighborhood a few weeks ago. It is fairly rare to find one there; they usually take place in the older part of the city, not the most densely populated part of Da'an! I enjoyed it in part because, being more of a neighborhood thing, it didn't draw the massive crowds that the more well-known festivals draw. I was able to get solid close-ups of the temple cohorts and performers, including some more unique or characterful shots that are hard to get when you are pressed in by a massive crowd at, say, Qingshan Wang, Baosheng Culture Festival, the Matsu pilgrimage or others.

The other thing I liked about this festival was that I saw something I'd never seen before, despite having thought I'd "seen it all" as far as temple parades go.

And that is the offering of beer to bajiajiang, or the 8 generals!



This was really interesting to watch - a tiny temple, more like a shrine, in the lanes around Rui'an Street, coming out with a tray of Bar Beer and offering it to the performers. The performers accepted it formally and drank it quickly.

I didn't know this was something you could do, in fact, I wasn't aware they could be seen drinking, talking or using technology (though I have definitely seen bajiajiang chatting, smoking or on cell phones when they shouldn't be.



Another thing I didn't expect was the "temple parade enthusiast" (which I joked might be me in about 30 years) - I had seen spirit medium type parade followers who became possessed during parades but never one who was clearly not possessed but simply wanted to also be a part of the procession. She even had the right outfit, and was allowed to join by the rest of the temple troupes.



I was quite sad to see a truck with poles for sexy temple dancers being used for Three Princes (santaizi) instead, and none of them were dancing on the poles. A pole-dancing child god would be a wonderful photo! 



Otherwise it was a fairly normal neighborhood parade, with small crowds coming out to watch, not unlike, say, a Firemen's Day parade in the US but more colorful and interesting, at least to me. There were two bajiajiang troupes, the second fiercer than the first. These guys were legit scary: 










And the usual cohort of dragon dancers, lion dancers and tall god costumes.







What bothers me, and I feel like writing about here, are complaints about traditional temple activities and how they should be curtailed or banned. Not just temple parades but ghost money, Mid-Autumn Festival barbecue and Chinese New Year firecrackers.

People complain that they are noisy, they are dangerous, they pollute, they annoy neighbors. I have very little patience for this (maybe for the ghost money but honestly the most polluted days to me are not the ones on which it is being burned). People who think the occasional temple parade causes "pollution" don't seem overly concerned about the actual biggest source of noise and air pollution in Taipei - scooters. Or how they are far more dangerous than a few fireworks from a parade.

They say Mid-Autumn Festival BBQ annoys neighbors, without even thinking about how noise trucks, those stupid loudspeakers outside of stores, or community events (Fireman's Day is a big one in my community, and there are quite a few concerts and children's events too) that are just as noisy and maybe just as annoying to some of us. But no, a few days of barbecue is somehow more polluting than Taipei's traffic, and somehow noisier and more annoying than all the other events in the city.

Give me a damn break. I just can't take seriously the idea that temple parades are somehow worse than scooters for traffic snarls, noise, air pollution or general danger and public annoyance, that Mid-Autumn BBQ is worse than a political noise truck or more polluting than the imprint of a large, air-conditioned, concrete department store, that Chinese New Year fireworks are more annoying than the Musical China Douchemobile. That ghost money smoke creates more pollution than factory or traffic exhaust (again, the worst pollution days to me - someone with a weak respiratory system - are actually not ghost money days).

So stupid. So wrongheaded. 



I'm usually not one go to in for conspiracy theories, but I can't help but wonder in whose interest it is to slowly let the air out of the cultural street life of Taipei (and Taiwan in general, but this seems to mostly be a Taipei problem). Whom does it benefit to see temple parades become smaller, quieter and more rare until they disappear altogether? Whom does it benefit to squash autumn barbecues? Whom does it benefit to allow noise trucks and civic events but not firecrackers? Whom does it benefit to ban or discourage election posters so Taipei looks less like a democracy going through an election as you drive around?



Because it seems to me that while temple parades may have originated in China, they aren't really done much in China anymore (one year in China and I saw exactly one lion dancer, hired for the grand opening of a supermarket), and a lot of the quintessentially "Taiwanese" practices, such as bajiajiang, have their origins in a few temples in Fujian and aren't really pan-Chinese in any real sense of the word. I didn't see much ghost money burning in China either although it originated there and I am sure is still practiced to some extent. The others, such as barbecue (which originated in Taiwan with a barbecue sauce ad, but I still love it and anyone who doesn't can shove off) and, well, democracy, are not Chinese in origin at all. Night markets may be a thing in some parts of China - I went to an okay one in Yantai - but most people associate them with Taiwan...and a lot of neighborhoods have become recently and mysteriously interested in closing down night markets in their vicinity where no such animosity existed before.

Is it an attempt, consciously or not, to make Taiwan look more like China?

I don't know, and I realize I'm baiting conspiracy theory by even asking, but that's sure how it feels. 



Some people, for sure, probably aren't even thinking along those lines and think these are the things keeping Taipei from being a truly modern city - quiet, clean and upscale.

Which is of course utter nonsense.

These things are what make Taipei Taipei, rather than, I dunno, some crappy box-building city in China with streaky luxury apartment complexes rotting out by the 80th ring road, or Beijing which is even worse than that despite the cultural heritage because you literally can't breath and they are slowly razing anything of interest (rather like the cultural razing of temple parades and other items of cultural interest in Taipei in favor of luxury apartments, boring civic celebrations and department stores?), or Duluth or Peoria or Des Moines or some other city I wouldn't want to live in that feels like a stand-in for a boring, poorly-planned metropolis more known for suburbs than actual urban vibrancy. 



I mean, if I wanted to live in Duluth I would have moved to Duluth. If I wanted to live in 屁眼, China, I would have moved there.

I live in Taipei because I want to be in Taipei, and a part of that is the street life, the overall street-level liveliness, and the cultural aspects of living here. I'll put up with a traffic jam because a ten-foot god is walking down the road for that. 



Some people do say it's because so many temple events are connected with gangsters, because gangs, temples, businessmen and politicians are in many ways just an inbred group of cronies in Taiwan.

Sure, that's true.

But who cares?



Honestly, of all the things gangs in Taiwan are involved in, this is by a very wide margin the least problematic. Stopping temple parades isn't going to make gangs go away, and even if there is gang activity inherent in them, it's fairly harmless as gang activity goes.

I mean, imagine if the best pasta joint in town were run by the local mafia (which in New York might very well be the case, though not always). Would you want to stop the gang from doing anything illegal or truly problematic? Sure.

Does that mean the pasta restaurant is the problem, and you shouldn't enjoy delicious pasta there? I don't think so. It just doesn't seem like a very strong reason to me. You want to crack down on gangs, crack down on scammers, prostitution rings/pimps/brothels, drug cartels and a scary large percentage of politicians and big business.

The temple parades are not the problem.

Anyway, rant over, enjoy a few more photos:

So what is up with these Dayuling tea farms?

I'm sure a lot of you have read the Vice article on the destruction of the Dayuling high mountain oolong tea farms, which, despite having tea as something of a theme in my blog, I have refrained from commenting on as I felt as though there was probably more to the story.

Just to summarize, Clarissa Wei (the writer of the original Vice article) writes about how the government has begun enforcing high-mountain reforestation regulations, destroying agriculture at those elevations so as to prevent erosion - which is a real problem, I have to say. How much of a problem depends on the type, age and quality of the agriculture cultivated. She notes that while there are typical tea farms with younger bushes that don't secure soil against erosion, which use harmful fertilizers and pesticides to boot, that sustainable farms whose tea plants are better at preventing erosion than the saplings the government is planting, and which use organic, chemical-free growing methods, are also being destroyed. This is a problem not only because tea farming is the livelihood of the farmers affected, mostly ROC veterans given land as their pension, but also because high mountain oolong is a Taiwanese specialty commanding market presence, good international branding for Taiwan and, yes, high prices. Destroying it affects a lot of people - not just the farmers but the entire Taiwanese tea industry and international recognition Taiwan gets for its high-quality high mountain oolong tea.

That's basically the point - it's all very clear, but it does read as if Wei talked to the farmers affected but never asked anyone from the government for comment.

Then this article came out on Eco-Cha detailing the other side of the argument.

I'm not sure I buy this side of the story either.

Here are some questions I have about that rebuttal:

In recent decades, designated sections of this land can be rented from the government for tree growing and harvesting only, but not for agricultural use. 

Wait - what?

I had been under the impression that that land was given to veterans as a pension, not that it was rented. And if you give (or even rent - I suppose with eminent domain all land is "rented" to an extent? Maybe?) land to someone as a pension, how is it OK to change the rules governing that land on them and expect that everything is going to go smoothly?

I'm not saying the new regulations are "wrong" - they're probably not. Sustainability is in everyone's best interests in the long term. But I was under the impression that that land was owned by the veterans occupying it, and therefore eradicating their sources of income should be far more problematic as it's a lot harder to change the laws pertaining to the use of such land than it is for 'rented' land. How could it even be rented if it was the veterans' pensions? Renting implies paying money to occupy a place and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Am I wrong?

Since the farmers did not comply with the demand to eradicate their violations of forest land use, the government implemented the removal of farm crops and any buildings that were constructed on forest land.

Next question - what good is land given to veterans if the law then states they can't do anything with it, even have buildings? "Here's some land. You can do jack all with it except look at trees, but...here it is." I don't quite see the point of that.

And remember, the farmers interviewed for the Vice article pointed out that the government itself told them to grow tea - I mean the KMT was the government then, that's what brutal dictatorship is, and Chiang Kai-shek basically was the KMT. So I can understand a farmer being upset that in the 1950s he's told to grow tea by the government of the ROC and in the 2000s he's then told he has to give up his business by that same government (in name, at least). How would you feel if an economic development director from the government encouraged you to open a store on your first floor, you did so, it was doing well, and then that director's successor said "sorry, you'll have to close the store and personally bear any losses from doing so." You'd be pissed too, and "it's unfortunate that..." really doesn't cut it.

So my question would be, what compensation for the loss of their business and livelihood is the government going to give to these farmers after changing the regulations on them decades after giving (giving? I thought giving) them this land as their 'pension'? 

The farm that was highlighted in the recent story by Munchies was not spared because it was evidently subject to the same stipulations as other nearby farms that have already been removed in recent years. The government claimed that there was no way to preserve it without demonstrating a bias that discriminated against the farms already affected.

Again - what?

First, is it not possible to craft regulations so that every farm has to undergo an inspection to determine if they are using sustainable practices, and allow the ones that are to continue to exist while shutting down the ones that aren't? Surely this is not such a difficult thing for a successful developed country to accomplish? The whole point of regulations is that they should suit the situation in order to improve the country for everyone. It is challenging but not impossible to write more sensitively and intelligently implementable regulations. Not doing so isn't 'avoiding bias', it's straight-up laziness.

Second, Ec0-Cha says below  that their sources of high mountain oolong are unaffected because they embody sustainable practice that involves responsible use of resources and long-term profit gains.

But that's the whole point - the farmers Wei interviewed also embodied sustainable practices and responsible use of resources. So how come you are fine with your sources being unaffected, but any other source affected, even if it is just as sustainable and responsibly managed, is fair game because to do otherwise would demonstrate "bias"? This doesn't make sense.

If the regulations are applied in a blanket fashion (which is obviously not what I would advocate), Eco-Cha's sources should be affected too. If not, the Chen farm should also have been spared.

Can't have your tea and drink it too. At least own up to the double standard of that line of reasoning, Eco-Cha.

Plus, as far as I know other high-mountain oolong growing regions such as Fushoushan are unaffected. Fushoushan is a fairly popular mountain tourist destination with government ties.

And finally, this article doesn't address the point made in Vice that plenty of homestays and other land uses aren't affected, although they technically should be.

So what's this about "not demonstrating bias"?

Give me a damn break.

This basically was bound to happen sooner or later, and it turned out to be later — after the local private sector made a massive profit from producing High Mountain Tea at a price that far exceeded anywhere else in Taiwan. Simply put, they capitalized on being the highest elevation tea farms in Taiwan. Tea from this area sold for anywhere from double to ten times the amount of other sources that classify as High Mountain Tea — just because it boasted the status of tea grown at the highest elevation.

Sure. But you are implying that that elevation doesn't affect the tea - that it is only more expensive because it is grown at a high elevation. You do not address whether it actually is better.

I am far from a tea expert but as a tea-loving amateur, I'd go out on a tea-bush branch and say that yes, it is in fact better. The elevation plays a part but the tea farms being destroyed aren't necessarily producing mediocre tea at high prices just because they command high prices due to elevation. I find that tea to be excellent, though I'm also a fan of lower-elevation Pinglin tea.
In addition to the fact that it was against regulations, it is an ironic outcome of the marketing strategy that popularized this new tea type simply referred to as "Gao Shan Cha" or High Mountain Tea. The value of High Mountain Tea has been promoted for the last 30 years as being "the higher the elevation, the better" in terms of quality. This of course is not necessarily true. Quality tea production depends on knowledgeable and responsible farm management combined with skill and care in processing the harvested leaves. Elevation is definitely a significant, but hardly the decisive factor in determining the quality of tea produced.

OK but is the tea actually better? Not necessarily, but Eco-Cha is implying it's not, generally. I'd say it is.

Yet this is not an anomaly in our modern age where populations and subsequent developments of land have rapidly advanced without proper implementation of sustainable planning.

Again the farmer interviewed in the article is using sustainable practices and planning - at least according to Wei - so you can't lay that at the feet of "it wasn't sustainable" if it actually is. You really can't have it both ways.

All said and done, we are happy to say that none our sources of High Mountain Tea have been affected by these recent regulatory actions by the government. This is because our sources embody sustainable practice that involves responsible use of resources and long-term profit gains. 

Just like the Chen farm at least according to Wei. So why are yours safe again and his not? If it's to "avoid bias" shouldn't your sources be eradicated too regardless of their sustainability? So...?

Perhaps what you  mean is "our sources are farmed on land not subject to these stipulations", but if it's high mountain oolong I'd be curious about why not. Also, if this is true, to say "our sources are spared because they are sustainable" when in fact they are spared because they just happen to fall outside of regulated zones is lazy writing. Reeks of an excuse rather than a true explanation. Which is it? Be clear. 

We hope that this information has been helpful in clarifying the issue.

Not in the slightest.

Anyone else care to try?