A little over 16 hours away from China’s painstakingly prepared and widely anticipated (by Chinese, in both instances) National Day holiday parade, celebrating the People’s Republic of China’s 60th anniversary, I’m reading an angry, angry post by Richard Burger of The Peking Duck fame.
What’s Richard angry about?
He’s angry at the people angry about the the Empire State Building, a New York City icon, commemorating the PRC’s anniversary by lighting itself up in red and yellow colors. For those of you trapped behind the Great Firewall in China, I’ve reprinted most of Richard’s comments below. If you use RSS, you can copy and paste The Peking Duck’s RSS feed address directly into your RSS reader to bypass the GFW.
China has done bad things, and it’s done good things, like all countries. China has its fair share of atrocities, injustices and a considerable legacy of repression and injustice. But China is not Nazi Germany, they are not a nation of deranged Maoists, and they happen to be one of the linchpins in the global economy that keeps America afloat. They happen to be moving in the right direction, despite some infuriating steps backwards. We all know the story, we all know the bad stuff and the good stuff.
So when I see Americans go insane over the Empire State Building turning red and yellow to mark the 60th anniversary of the PRC, I have to say it’s simply nuts. We recognize China, we trade with China, we work with China – our fates are tied together, perhaps inextricably. Seeing the outpouring of hate and paranoia from the right-wing blogs, while predictable. is a good reminder of the prejudices many in America bear toward our No. 1 trading partner, and of our ongoing inbred stupidity when it comes to scare words like “Red China.”
Here, Richard links to a Village Voice article reporting on some of the American bloggers going completely ape-shit over the news. He also quotes some of them more completely. The anti-Chinese comments on Village Voice responding to that article also rank right up there with the most retarded Chinese netizen comments chinaSMACK regularly finds and translates, a similarity I openly hope some foreigners remind themselves of before fashioning themselves superior by default.
Richard continues:
I know, the Chinese blogs and message boards aren’t always overflowing with nuanced, compassionate, thoughtful dialogue about the US, but really, this is absurd. The hypocrisy is beyond belief as these bloggers pound on their made-in-China keyboards.
I’m all for constructive criticism of any autocratic regime. I’m for calling China (and the US, etc.) out for their crimes and misdemeanors. But this is not only ridiculous when you consider how innocuous the actual event it – this hyperbolic, coordinated reacton is much more sinister than that. It is being used as a tacit attack on “Obama’s America,” as Rush Limbaugh has proudly called it. What these ignoramuses are saying has almost nothing to do with China, a country they know virtually nothing about. It is all about smearing Obama, because this is happening here, in “Obama’s America,” an America that encourages palling around with terrorists and coddling dictators and appeasing madmen, the new socialist communist fascist Muslim America.
…It’s embarrassing and it’s stupid. The PRC plays a vital role in America’s interests, it’s here to stay (at least throughout our lifetimes), it sucks in many ways but the extension of this courtesy, lighting up the Empire State Building, is not an act of appeasement or treason. This is diplomacy, whether it’s done by Bush or Obama. Grow up and get used to it.
Richard makes another good point here. Above and beyond the criticism of many Americans suffering from the same ignorance and hypocrisy that afflicts China’s worst hypernationalist fenqing, this is a veiled cheap shot against Obama’s administration. No, his administration isn’t beyond criticism, but the rhetorical tactic employed here is contemptible, a tactic based not on facts but on fears and misleading associations.
Speaking of fears and misleading associations…let’s go back and take a look at that AFP news report again:
NEW YORK — New York’s iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China.
The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement.
The upper sections of the building are regularly illuminated to mark special occasions, ranging from all blue to mark “Old Blue Eyes” Frank Sinatra’s death in 1998 to green for the annual Saint Patrick’s Day.
Just last week the tower turned bright red.
However, that was not to mark some other communist achievement, but the 70th anniversary of the film “The Wizard of Oz” in which Dorothy wears ruby slippers rather than the silver of the original L. Frank Baum novel.
Emphases mine. Now, feel free to accuse me of reading too much into this…but was it really necessary or relevant to mention “communist” in this piece of news? Other than to tap into their target audience’s negative preconceptions about “communism”, for a country that is “communist” only in name?
Does the Chinese media emphasize “democratic” or “capitalistic” descriptors when they mention the United States of America or other Western nations? Any other fear-mongering descriptors? If they do, what’s the next appropriate question?
From the official AFP (Agence France-Presse) website:
The 1957 statute
It defines the fundamental principles that guarantee the independence of AFP and the freedom of its journalists.
Article 2
“Agence France-Presse may not under any circumstances take account of influences or considerations that would compromise the accuracy or objectivity of the news; it must not under any circumstances pass under legal or de facto control of an ideological, political or economic group.”
Is the 60th anniversary of the PRC a “communist” achievement? Or a Chinese one? Is “communist” ideology the main reason behind the PRC making it to 60 years? Would “PRC” or “Chinese” not have been a better, more objective descriptor to use before “achievement”?
Yes, there are far more obvious examples of media bias but I like this one for its simplicity. In fact, it stands out to me precisely for how subtle it is in reinforcing — and propagating — dangerously out-dated but still closely-held Cold-War rhetoric and attitudes amongst the Western world.
Seriously, what use is the word “communist” in today’s world, as applied to the PRC? What, if anything, does it tell us about how to deal with modern China and all its problems, including the problems the West loves assailing it for? Does it say anything about Tibet? About Xinjiang? About human rights? About censorship? About corruption? No, it says nothing. All it is today is a catch-all bogey word, used to represent, convolute, and confuse a multitude of ills without providing any meaningful information or guidance.
-
CNR’s Weekly Review highlights some of the most interesting and can’t miss blog posts from the English China blogosphere. This week: June 21-27, 2009.
-
Google leaving China will not be as big a revolution in the business world as you think. Getting excited over China’s loss of face may be playing into its hand.
-
How did Thomas Friedman’s mere suggestion that China’s one-party autocracy is more efficient at making decisions label him as demanding Communist revolution?
Beggars, Expat Habits, Netizen Revolution, Jackson, & Parkour 
Google Leaving China Will Not Be A Revolution, Televised Or Not 
American Bias & Insecurity From China’s One-Party Autocracy? 
A couple of observations on this:
1. The news on this came from AFP. The supposedly more enlightened Europeans also cannot resist mentioning China without “communist” in the same breath. (They seem to have a real problem with traditional Muslim dress as well.)
2. PekingDuck calls the lighting a “courtesy”. I would be interested to know if this is a verified fact or an assumption. If it’s an assumption, then there’s room for another. Upon seeing the news, my assumption was that colored lighting on the Empire State Building is for sale to anyone willing to pay. The red and yellow lights are coming “courtesy” of the Chinese government who want nothing more than a photo opp to show its citizens how much they are loved and respected by the USA. But I could be wrong.
The Village Voice article and its comments SHOCKED me and made my heart crying.
” Joanna Reade says:
Whoever decided to turn on the lights for China should be shot and sent to HELL.
Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 29 2009 @ 8:01PM ”
Why after so many years of trades and communication, some people still hate us to such degree?
crying crying crying
Don’t worry Wang.
These are extremists and fundamentalists of our society. It is they who are doomed for hell.
Actually I think the double use of the word “communist” was quite accurate and did have nothing to do with bias.
“60th anniversary of communist China”: if you leave out “communist” here, the phrase wouldn’t make sense anymore, not with China claiming itself to have 5000 years of history. Admittedly, one could use PRC instead.
“not to celebrate another communist achievement”: red IS the colour of communism, so one would obviously think of communism in this context. “Achievement” might sound a bit too positive, but on the other hand, China is really celebrating, so better use something euphemistic than something too negative.
“if you leave out “communist” here, the phrase wouldn’t make sense anymore”
I agree. Plus, communist ideology is how the CCP try to justify their grip on power; today is all about them.
All this fuss over the Empire State Building is a bit overblown; I can’t imaging it’s anything other than the usual right-wing crowd trying to pour a little rain on the parade.
Mei Mei,
I’m willing to entertain your suggestion that “communist” was inserted only to identify what Chinese nation/regime they’re specifically referring to. I agree the journalist could’ve opted for the “People’s Republic of China”.
However, I’m less willing to entertain your explanation for “communist achievement”. For one thing, red is a color associated with communism, but it’s also a color associated with tons of other things. Leaving out Dorothy’s red ruby slippers, we can think of love, McDonald’s, or any number of things. For another, I’d wager that few Americans know when China’s National Day or assorted holidays are for them to have a “context” to immediately interpret or associate a red-lit Empire State Building with China. Given the Wizard of Oz explanation, I don’t think it was even necessary to suggest that being lit red had any possible “communist” relation at all. They didn’t juxtapose St. Paddy Green with Palestine/Hamas, did they?
I maintain there was a conscious effort to exploit Cold War attitudes.
Hey Kai, if Mainland China themselves drops communism and the “People’s” part in their names, then they should actually be celebrating their 100th anniversary in 2011 as the Republic of China.
As long as the country calls itself Communist, then it IS a Communist achievement and a Communist milestone.
The official saying is “China is a socialist country with Chinese characteristics.” No “communist” there.
Only the party uses “communist” in its name and the names of its affiliate organizations such as gongchan zhuyi qingniantuan.
And if you go ask people on the street if China the country is a gongchan zhuyi country or shehui zhuyi country, 80% would tell you shehui zhuyi while the rest who know all the terms would say “state capitalism with an authoritarian political system.” Nobody, and I do mean nobody, would say China is a gongchan zhuyi country. In fact, the term “Communist China” is one of the first things Chinese English learners find strange when they read Western news.
And don’t play the “it’s in the official name” card. Taiwan’s official name is “Republic of China,” a term, despite the DPP’s independence efforts, is ubiquitous in Taiwan but when did anyone ever see it used in Western media coverage?
I don’t see the big deal. A lot of it are purely based on emotions; I mean I certainly will blithely blabber on about fascists NWO globalists. Because? It’s the RIGHT THING TO DO! We must fight the system! The point is, China communist party system is a dictatorship, it’s a bullshit system, we must oppose it! Same thing with imperialistic America. It’s the same thing. We must fight them all! Anarchy must rule! I will die by these words!
**** CHINESE COMMUNISTS. F**** THEM ALL.
Like I said on Chinageeks, seeing how Obama is labeled a Stalinist Communist Nazi who used his witch doctor voodoo to kill a quarter of Cambodian population, I don’t expect much from Americans when it comes to China.
However, I would imagine that Joanna Reade who wants to kill whoever lit the building for China will (not would) not hesitate to kill Chinese people.
As for the AFP, I think the passionate European empathy for a child-rapist/sodomite because he made great films could be used on the CCP. You see, the commies were responsible for millions of death from 1949-1978 and destroying the Chinese culture, but after that they lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty amid an economic miracle that also built the country’s status in the world – much higher than 1840 or 1949 I would say. Personally I think both Polanski and the CCP must answer for their past crimes. But the Europeans are being inconsistent with double standards here.
I can not believe Richard’s response. This is a classic example of what is going on in the USA today. I am not ignorant and I consider Richard and the people like him traitors. I am sure he is not a veteran and as far as I am concerned, he isn’t much of an American.
Richard Burgers was managing editor of Global Times the English mouth piece of Beijing People’s Daily.
LoL!
State media has been pushing this as a Communist Party event pretty hard, what with all of the 中国共产党执政兴国60年 and similar slogans. I appreciate the possible connotations of “communist” in the west, but if that’s how the government identifies itself (regardless of how accurate it may be from an economic and political standpoint), is the onus on the foreign media to massage that into something more palatable for its readers?
Also, how’s this for a game: biased foreign media or tone-deaf state propaganda organ?
–> Forming the background to the parade were slogans on Tian’anmen Square, including “Being loyal to the Party”, “Always following the order from the Party” and “Socialism is good”, indicating the Party’s absolute rule over the country.
to: maurice
You are wrong.
Richard, blogger of Peking Duck, was foreign editor, Global Times, English Edition. He was not the managing editor.
He was recruited by Global Times for his love of China and his unbiased reporting on US imperialism.
Zhang Yong is managing editor, Global Times, English Edition.
Kai, incredibly good post! As a New Yorker (who has a clear view of the Empire State Building, which looked splendid in red and yellow BTW), I can assure you that no one I have come across here is up in arms about the commemoration- many weren’t even aware of the occasion behind the red and yellow hues (that’s a bit sad…) That said, mainstream media has done an excellent job of promoting America’s “ugly face” once again, which is really a shame.
In terms of the Tibetan protesters, well…they are out here all the time, for any event/holiday that may attract CNN’s attention. I don’t mean to minimize their cause, but this observation from some news outlets that the “lights sparked protests” isn’t entirely accurate.
From my understanding, no fees are charged to light the Empire State Building and decisions are made as to what to commemorate based on an application alone.
It would be interesting to count up how many times commentators on CCTV used the word “harmonious.”
THEN, it would be interesting to count up how many times US news outlets used the words “communist” and “totalitarian” in their coverage.
Loved this post.
I love New York where I searched for American partners for my old Beijing company most of 1995. I would often walk by the Empire State at night, savoring the view with its top above the clouds. So nice. As a Chinese person, I also appreiate the iconic tower lit up in red and yellow on important dates on the Chinese calendar. I feel sorry for those that feed on hatred of the old past in today’s world, reading bitterness out of beautiful things like this, as the use of ‘communist’ reveals hereof. Bad deal to live like that, but it’s their life, what do I day?
typo, what do i say ;)
@Kai
You’re going nuts over this, as you’re supposed to do. Have fun. Now, how do you think a lot of Chinese would react if a national monument of China, like Tian’anmen, was draped in stars and stripes on July 4? Don’t expect Americans to be any more tolerant than the average Chinese. THAT is hypocrisy.
Hemulen,
No, then BOTH would be hypocrisy. You’re making the same argument we always give the fenqing a hard time for.
And, for fun, when did the Empire State Building become a national monument?
I have yet to see or hear any “outrage” over the Empire State Buildings lighting display. I should add that I live in a fairly hard-core Limbaugh/Palin part of Florida, yet it hasn’t been the talk on the radio at all. So I was surprised to hear about this outrage, but then i guessed it was a chance to pat yourself on the back for being a right-thinking fellow, correct?
If you look around, in a country of 300 million, you will find quite a lot of nationalists who post and blather about all manner of things. That hardly makes them mainstream, or even a very significant minority… but in a 100% wired nation, even a tiny percentage will still generate a lot of “buzz”, since ANYTHING on the internet is buzz if you are looking for it.
Which brings me to my second point – juding from how often I see your name attached to loooong posts on various Chinasphere blogs (besides your own) you seem to spend a great deal of time functioning as an articulate and thoughtful voice on all things Chinese, and I have seen you post that the fenqing, Chinese racists, et. al that post nonsense are a minority. I agree with you on that point. However, you seem to be guilty of the same thing you so often accuse others of doing towards CHina, i.e. taking the voice of a tiny idiot fringe and posting as if they represent some signifant, noteworth movement. If you want to find a few dozen blogs that have patently silly things to say, that is even lazier than the normal parasitic work bloggers turn in.
Did you look at that Village Voice article? They link to no major news sources or major blogs. I am subjected to CNN, MSNBC and Fox in my office building, and there was no wide-spread outrage to speak of.
I would never suggest that there aren’t strong strains of China fear floating through the U.S., but not about this one.
Your blog is one of the few that acknowledges (in your piece on Tania Branigan) the short comings of bloggers, so I hope that you don’t give in to those short comings now.
Harold,
Yes, exactly. Great point. Applies to both sides. Let’s see if anyone else will keep this in mind when the roles are reversed.
Really? Do I suggest that this represents all Americans? Do I then degenerate into a self-righteous racist that pretends “my people” or “my nation” are inherently superior and could never be accused of similar faults, or at least not while the Chinese are around? It’s one thing to identify idiocy where it lies and condemn that idiocy. It is another to misrepresent that idiocy as defining a people and nation. I don’t think I do the latter, which is what I accuse some people of doing towards China AND what I accuse some Chinese of doing towards “the West”. Please don’t conflate the two, you’re misrepresenting my position.
Define “outrage”.
I think you need to carefully re-read what I wrote instead of operating on your preconceptions about me or what you think I think.
Uh, as a blogger, I am, by definition, bound by the same shortcomings I acknowledge, right? Bloggers are like op-ed columnists, Harold. We’re commentators. We share our thoughts and opinions with whoever wants to read them. What “shortcomings” are you referring to? Be more specific.
I will add that I agree with you about the constant use of “communist” to stir up cold war-era feelings, but i think that more and more people know about China now, and the negativity attached to the word “communist” doesn’t carry so much weight anymore. It’s just another brand identifier, like calling expensive cars by their brand name (“the killer drives a stately Mercedes sedan…”) while more pedestrian cars remain generic and unadorned.
Thats what newsmen/women do these days.
Harold,
Glad we agree. I too agree that more and more people are developing more nuanced views and understandings of China these days. That said, I’m criticizing the intent behind the exploitation of the word. It leads me to suspect bias from a journalist and industry that proclaims objectivity. Of course, I never expect true objectivity (isn’t realistic) but, again to me, this just seems too blatant and obvious.
As a stumbling block on the road to the desired endpoint of mutual understanding, the misperceptions and stereotypes evoked by the occasional (mis)use of the word ‘communist’ when referring to China are really small potatoes.
That said, if the C’C'P still uses the word so conspicuously as a symbol of one-party legitimacy, and that same party carries widespread popularity despite its thinly veiled reminder on Oct 1 that citizens should ‘obey or else’, then neither the party nor its apologists can really complain.
My teachers always advised solving the easy problems first before tackling the harder ones.
If we can’t even handle the small potatoes, how’re we going to handle the big ones?
The Irish demand to know.
“My teachers always advised solving the easy problems first before tackling the harder ones.”
Good judges, every one.
Therefore, I humbly suggest the removal of the ‘C’ word from the names of all China’s political parties. It’ll be so much easier on my keyboard to deal with the CP.
stuart,
I agree with both our points. :)
i love dis picture. Makes me think of those old video movies based on Pearl Buck novels, something like Ingrid Bergman and Agnes Moorehead made up to look “Chinese” in Dragon Seed.
They talk in pidgin English and Agnes Moorehead has eyes made up to look long and slanting. Totally evil as sister-in-law.
An American Art Deco building dressed to “look” Chinese! Lol.