Our latest work to be done is that among the Chinese. We were led into this work by two circumstances. In Rangoon we found a few Chinese Christians who were not looked after by anybody, and to these were added some of our own Chinese converts from Malaysia and some from China. As Rangoon and Burma are the natural termini of the immigrants from China by sea and overland, we have a large Chinese population in Rangoon, and this same population is very evenly distributed in all important villages of the province. These Chinamen marry Burmese women, so that they become identified with the Burmese people. As we aimed at the conversion of the Burmese, it was easy to begin preaching for those that were Christians, and to fortify the foundation of our mission to the Burmese.
As in other work, we had to employ just such preachers as we could pick up. But in 1897 we secured a young man trained by Dr. West, of Penang, who has done faithful preaching in Rangoon and vicinity. There have been some thirty baptisms since he came to us. This work is so important that it must be done by somebody. There is a demand for as great a school for these people as we have founded in Singapore or Penang. But its support is not in sight.
CHAPTER XV
A Unique Enterprise
In March, 1897, the Rangoon Orphanage was removed to the Karen Hills, east of Tomgoo, and established on an industrial basis, where it has been maintained these four years under the new plan, and it has become the “Unique Institution of the East,” as one discerning official called it.
When one starts an enterprise that is entirely new he is called upon for his reason for doing so. So long as he proceeds exactly as other people, he needs no apology. But in all conservative countries to go contrary to “custom” is to invite criticism, even if one’s efforts are an advance on the established order. One curse of India is that its people are enslaved by “custom;” and some of these customs are very bad, and most of them are wholly unprogressive. Custom has bound chains on the people, and they have worn these chains so long that they have come to love their bonds better than liberty. In most matters “change” is undesired, and to announce that a plan is “new” is enough to condemn it hopelessly with many, and to start a thousand tongues to attack it.
It has been shown elsewhere how pitiably situated are the poor of European descent in all parts of Southern Asia, there is a greater percentage of these poor dependent on some form of public or private charity than among any people I know of in any land. Perhaps in no country do the social customs do more to unfit the poor to help themselves. I am persuaded also that very much of the charity of the country, of which there is a great deal, is unwisely, if not harmfully, bestowed. Rangoon, for instance, like all Indian cities, has a charitable society made up of ministers and officials, which dispenses a great deal of relief. Studying its methods as a member for six years, I became convinced that, while very much good was done, the system pauperized a relatively large number of people, who should have been self-sustaining.
In this general dependent condition of a large part of these people, there is the ever-present and acute distress of poor or abandoned children, for which there have been established many Orphanages and schools. All managers of these Orphanages are appealed to by indolent or destitute parents to give free schooling, including board and clothing, to their children. The truly orphaned, or the abandoned, children are always touching our sympathies, and appealing irresistibly to us for aid. The number of children born in wedlock, as well as out of legal bonds, who are abandoned by parents or legal relatives, is astonishingly large. The result of all these combinations is to fill our Orphanages; for the innocent child must not be allowed to suffer all the consequences of others’ sins. So the “Orphanages” are found everywhere to care for these children of European descent, whether they be Anglo-Indian or Eurasian.
The founding of the Methodist Orphanage in Rangoon has been noted elsewhere. In managing this Orphanage for a number of years after the custom of the country, I became convinced that while the amount of relief and protection given to child-life during its earlier years was exceedingly great, there was a very serious defect in the system of conducting all such institutions. I have intimated elsewhere how little ordinary work is done by anybody of European extraction in the whole of Southern Asia. This applies generally to the schools, including even the Orphanages. Everything that can be done by servants is delegated to them. It may surprise many American readers to know that “orphanages” and “homes” for Eurasians in India depend on the work of servants, and very little on the inmates, much as other establishments of the country. This, too, not only in those things where the work is beyond the power of boys and girls to do, but in many kinds of work which it is considered “improper” or “undignified” for them to engage in.
It is considered right and proper for the girls to learn to sew, in addition to learning their lessons, and sometimes to arrange their own beds. Some of them even learned to cook some kinds of food, generally “curry and rice.” But to sweep, or scrub a floor, or thoroughly to clean a house, to wash or iron their own clothes, much less the clothes of others, or to take up cooking or dish-washing as a regular task, is not thought of. Those are “menial tasks;” a “servant should do them.” What a lady of refinement and wealth in a Western land often does from choice, even the destitute depending on “charity” are ashamed to do in Asia. To be dependent or even to “beg” is no disgrace; but to be a cook, a nurse for a lady, or housekeeper, unless aided by servants, is considered a disgrace. Indeed, these kinds of work are never done by any one unless under great extremities. The boys and men are even less willing to do the ordinary work of life. Clerkships and such like only are considered “respectable” employment.
In all this it will be observed that the question is not one of indolence or lack of energy, but one of a social system. The individual is not so much to blame. He does not do differently from his neighbors. In the matter of the children, the managers of the Orphanages are responsible, in so far as they can resist the enfeebling social conditions under which they work.