{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018427114182296808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.373165618448637, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Heritage of Vietnamese poetry

in Indonesia" is to ignore the schism dividing the Chinese population that historical studies have revealed. This is Suryadinata's second theme. The third is the nature of relationships between these Chinese subgroups and between each of them and the Indonesian government. His analysis reveals that assimilation is very much a two-way street and that pribumi elite perceptions distort reality to the detriment of all Indonesians. A persistent problem has been the government's confusion oitotok attributes, political identity and foreign-directed interests, and cultural preferences with those of the whole Chinese community. These books are weakest in two areas that badly need more research—the economic status of the Chinese through history and the long-term effects of colonialism on ethnic relations. Analysis along these lines might, for example, have provided the answer to why the Indonesian government has persisted in misperceiving the reality of the Chinese community. Some scholars have argued that, given the diversity of traits within the Chinese community, an analysis of class categories cutting across Chinese and pribumi divisions would provide a more constructive model for future analysis. By dwelling instead on the ethnic divisions in Indonesian society, Suryadinata has inadvertently raised questions about the validity of this very category. Another area that warrants further research, as Suryadinata himself points out, is that of joint economic ventures by Chinese and pribumi businessmen. Such cooperation, whether in economic or political affairs, has generally been overlooked in favor of more dramatic relations of conflict. However, as recent events have shown, distorted views of the Chinese destroy cooperation and fan outbreak of violence, so the two are closely interrelated. None of Suryadinata's studies is extensively concerned with theoretical issues. For this reason, conflicts with previous work tend to be minor. A few such theoretical differences are mentioned in his critical essay in The Chinese Minority in Indonesia: Seven Papers. Suryadinata has moved away from the generalist perspective of such scholars as Victor Purcell and C. P. Fitzgerald, whose works have stressed the commonalities of the Chinese experience throughout Southeast Asia. Suryadinata instead emphasizes the uniqueness of the Indonesian Chinese, a position undoubtedly influenced by his focus on the peranakan, although the totok also show adaptations atypical of Chinese elsewhere. In this regard he is in accord with G. William Skinner and Wang Gungwu, who have also conducted in-depth studies of particular countries and became sensitive to historical divergences and potentials for assimilation. Perhaps Suryadinata's major contribution is in demonstrating that assimilation is not an inexorable process. Indeed, as he has shown, it can even be reversed in response to a number of historical determinants, all of which must be included in any calculations about its future course.