Much to the detriment of my productivity, I spend an unwholesome amount of time online verbally sparring with individuals who take extremist political positions on China, whether for or against. Most regular readers of websites and blogs focusing on China-centric topics are familiar with the never-ending commentary that plays out, usually involving arrogant Westerners condemning all that is Chinese on one side, the rabid Chinese nationalists running defense with the best English they can muster on the other, and the nauseating hypocrisy in the middle that seemingly no side can ever get away from.
I sometimes step back and look at this depressing fiasco as a whole, and wonder if we’re not all utter idiots, clutching to the vain hope that our criticisms, insults, explanations, persuasions, or emphatic exhortations will somehow change someone’s mind for what we consider to be the more balanced and the better. It is demoralizing, to say the least, to realize that, yes…we’re all utter idiots.
Take, for instance, the politicization of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. How incredibly aggravating it is to see the Chinese and the Chinese government demand that the rest of the world not politicize their cherished coming-out party, only to see that they themselves have politicized it to the hilt. It may be wholly understandable that they want that control. Yet, it is that precise double-standard coupled with bumbling–or just poorly translated–rhetoric that consistently overshadows the sheer cultural ignorance and insensitivity we see from holier-than-thou activists for whatever movement du jour that has a gripe with China, its government, or all 1.3 billion of its people.
Those on the polarized ends will never see eye-to-eye, nor do they care to. The battle has always been and will always be for those in the middle. I’d like to think I’m in the middle but unlike those on the ends, I think that’s exactly where I and the majority of people should remain. Yes, straddling the fence involves the fence being uncomfortably entrenched up my nether regions but I’ll deal. Why? Because the truth is–according to me, of course–that both sides are right and both sides are wrong. This has been the case and will unfortunately always be the case, and I’d very much prefer to associate myself with the “right” on both sides.
Perhaps,then, the reason I continue to be drawn into these debates is my idealistic–but childish–faith in the marketplace of ideas. I mean, if I know something and I don’t share it, who knows how many countless souls will be swayed into the abyss of ignorance, bias, prejudice, and greater idiocy? Ah, yes, how narcissistic of me but isn’t cherishing dissent in the presence of consent precisely the difference between Western ideals of democracy, freedom, and human rights, and the authoritarian “social harmony” of China?
But in addition to the wonderful ideal of passionate but reasoned discourse leading us all to enlightened decision-making and declared positions is the very practical notion of being practical. Trying to convince your mortal enemy that he or she is an idiot is like China trying to convince the Dalai Lama that he’s the incarnation of evil; it is a waste of time and there could be more productive things to be done like racking up notches or, In China’s case, making sure your truths, lies, and spins are believed by the only people that really matter, your domestic population.
With all of that in mind, I offer you this excerpt of a July 14th article from the New York Times, whom many Chinese largely regard as a biased, Western, anti-China publication simply because it dares to print anything critical of China:
The call he will never forget came for Peter Ueberroth in the middle of the night on May 12, 1984, over a crackling phone line from Beijing. It carried the news he believed would determine the fate of the Olympics, not just the Games he was working to organize in Los Angeles that summer but all the ones beyond.
At the other end of the line was Charles Lee, the man he had sent to persuade the Chinese to send their team to the Olympics for the first time. Ueberroth, the leader of the Los Angeles organizing committee, was asking China to defy a Soviet Union-led boycott that was announced four days earlier. The Soviets said the boycott would keep 100 countries away from the ‘84 Games. If the Soviets succeeded, Ueberroth said flatly, “we were done.”
Salvation came when Lee called and told Ueberroth, “They’re coming.”
As the world prepares for the Beijing Games in August, that moment is all but lost in the history of the Olympics, when the winds shifted and carried the Games away from a political bludgeon in the cold war to the combination of athletic and commercial success they have become since.
Ueberroth, now 70 and the chairman of the United States Olympic Committee, will lead the American team into China with a deep sense of gratitude. He believes China saved the Olympics.
So maybe the United States and George W. Bush, the fantastic man that he is, attending the 2008 Beijing Games isn’t really about kowtowing to China. Maybe its about something else and hopefully something more…human.
I know China has, in many frustrating ways, sabotaged its own Games with their own immature insecurities. I know it is difficult to put up with the politics that inevitable surround the Olympics, especially when it involves a country, government, or citizenship that has difficulty dealing with the negative attention and criticism that always comes. The dialogue and debates should continue, ideally in the spirit of greater mutual understanding and mutual growth, but maybe we should pause for a moment to reflect upon an Olympics separate from all the nonsense. If the British and German soldiers of World War I could put down their guns to play a game of football for Christmas, can’t we put aside our agendas and share a moment of peace for the Olympics?
I mean, I hear they’ve got some breathtaking architecture in Beijing. It’d be a shame to miss it.
-
I just had my 15 seconds of fame pseudo-fame on the BBC World Service radio program “World, Have Your Say.” The debate topic was “Are we turning...
-
Think the games are confined to the Bird’s Nest and the Water Cube? Well think again, outside of China the Olympics might be confined to your TV set or your...
-
As we all (should) know, the 2008 Beijing Olympics have arrived and are well underway. In fact, China is running away with the total medal count so far, pocketing...
China Olympics with Kai Pan on BBC World Service Radio 
No Escape Beijing Olympics 2008: The Olympification of the Streets 
Will The Olympics Bring Us Together…Even For A Moment? 
Philip Stephens in Financial Times wrote about Bush’s China Policy May Outlive his presidency and points out that Bush’s policy, in large part because his black-and-white “you are either for us or against us” mentality forced him into a nuanced approach toward China because of his battle against enemies real and imagined in the Middle East. Like it or not, the fates of both countries are intertwined in a deeper way than anyone would have anticipated. The good news, is that China’s growth through the hard work of the Chinese people, and participation in the global economic system, has given the country’s leaders the incentives to be a “responsible stakeholder.” The United States deserves credit for creating this playing field after the WWII, and in 27 years when China is projected to become the leading economic power, I hope Chinese people will see that China’s rise was in part due to free-trade and free-markets led by the U.S. during its period of leadership in the 80 years between WWII and 2025.
“I hope Chinese people will see that China’s rise was in part due to free-trade and free-markets led by the U.S. durging its period of leadership in the 80 years between WWII and 2025.”
Haha,interesting, you know what, this is called A “Stone from Other Hills may Serve to Polish the Jade of This One. “
“Perhaps,then, the reason I continue to be drawn into these debates is my idealistic–but childish–faith in the marketplace of ideas.”
OK, this is my vague theory about the internet (and other electronic media) as a marketplace of ideas. Could it be that it is too fast for humans? I have nothing against this technology, I’m using it myself, but ideas have never travelled faster. We can make our own thoughts public to a worldwide readership even before we have finished thinking them ourselves. I’m sure our grandparents gave it a lot of thought when they wrote a letter to the editor of their local newspaper, and found such an enterprise pretty daring. (And I think most of their letters probably made much better reads than most of what is posted on the internet nowadays.)
Clearly there are pros and cons to technology. You’re right, on one hand we’re able to speak to a wider audience. On the other, we’re able to make bigger fools of ourselves in less time.
I don’t support a boycott and I want the Beijing Olympics to be a success.
But the Games are a chance, while the world is watching, to press China for change.
Without change China will carry on executing more of its citizens than any other country in the world, it will continue censoring the media and the Internet and it will continue locking up and torturing those who try to stand up for their rights and the rights of others.
It isn’t political. To stand up for human rights is to stand up for the values enshrined in the Olympic Charter.
http://www.uncensor.com.au
On the contrary, it is very much political. You see, according to Chinese politics, the rights you hold as self-evident and inalienable just…aren’t. In China, they take a backseat to the interests of the nation, government, and society. The reason for this lies in a complex background of sociology and culture. There’s a frustrating line somewhere between idealism and pragmatism.
Now, whether or not these values are enshrined in the Olympic Charter is a different matter. Moreover, if they are and you think China holding the 2008 Games is inappropriate given its self-governance, then shouldn’t the beef be with the IOC that granted China the games and not China itself for simply wanting to host them?
Oh yes, the issue of human rights most certainly is political. I wish it wasn’t, but it is. While I do think there remain confounding disappointments with China’s political behavior in the run-up to the Olympics, I do think it is only fair to note that there have been many improvements as well.
Read chapter II of the China’s constitution and you’ll find that China’s complex background of sociology and culture managed to produce a list of rights that are pretty compatible with global norms.
One would think that China’s constitution was constructed in the best interests of the nation. Too bad the authorities have usurped the citizens rights to serve their own interests and subordinate those of the nation.
Personally, I’m a little tired of hearing this cultural relativity argument as an excuse for China’s oppressive political system. Not only is the argument negated by the FACTS that these rights are protected in China’s own constitution and that China signed and has pledged to ratify the ICCPR, but it also tags “Chinese culture” as one that supports the dismissal the basic tenets of human rights law, a set of laws that was not created by the US alone, and that was created for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of global tragedies like the holocaust. The CCP will simultaneously condemn Japan on an international scale for its past “crimes against humanity” in China and dismiss criticism of the CCP’s own human rights violations as a domestic affair that is beyond the realm of international criticism. To say, for example, that there is some sort of “cultural preference” in China for abusive dictators like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is not only inherently ridiculous, but is also insulting to the Chinese people and their truly remarkable culture of liberal thought and political and artistic creativity.
Try telling a victim of one of Beijing’s illegal property confiscations that it’s part of Chinese culture to deny an individual the right to protect his personal property. Try telling one of the parents of the Sichuan earthquake that it’s part of Chinese culture to ignore the systemic failures that led to the death of her only child. Try telling a mother of one of the protesters shot dead in Tiananmen Square in 1989 that it’s an element of Chinese culture to allow the government to employ tanks against it’s unarmed citizens. This list could go on and on.
There is no cultural basis for these problems. They are a result of a 100% conscious political decisions of the Chinese Communist Party, which makes such decisions without the organized participation of those who oppose them or of those whom they govern. In the end, these are policies which are NOT good for Chinese society as a whole, and they are policies which could have serious impact globally. It seems that every time the Chinese people are given the right to speak out on political matters, they do so energetically and passionately right up to the point when the Party sees that there is some serious opposition to their leadership. Then they are silenced once again.
I think people are being delusional when they talk about “press China for change”. China is not a democracy. You can’t apply pressure and hope to change their policies. Applying pressure would only antagonize CCP and rob them of their authority or their “face”. How many reforms made in the last 30 years resulted from CCP taking advice from a foreign government? Reforms are only made at the discretion of the leaders, when they realize themselves a reform is needed. No activist group relying on media condemnation is going to change China one bit, and they don’t need to spend any effort if they really want to achieve their goal of improving China. China is going to reform, because the current leaders are smart, competent and clean. No one can speed the reforms up or slow them down. Any frustration about China is useless; you can’t do anything; China is going to change anyways; trying to embarrass CCP to change is a cultural misconception. It’s a different system therefore a different attitude is needed to work with the system. A democracy rely on opposition to keep the system working right. An authoritarian meritocracy, which I perceive CCP as or what it is aiming at for the meritocratic part, rely on good leaders selected by the system making sound decisions. Be patient.
randomperson: The pressure is meant for western audiences. As for inside China: people get the government they deserve. They can boil in their own juices, but I will not be patient when China is influencing domestic policy in southern Africa right now. (My home.)
Kai: It seems more productive, for me, to take one extreme and in the process pull some more people kicking and screaming into the middle. My extreme: not respecting human rights makes a government completely 100% wrong always, and if you are suggesting it lies in “a complex background of sociology and culture”, then I feel no shame in saying Chinese culture and society is wrong.
Your extreme also reduces your credibility to about zero, in the eyes of all save the choir you preach to. Moreover, I’m not sure who you’ll be dragging into the middle kicking and screaming. Rather, extremes such as your own sometimes have the opposite effect of scaring those that were on your end of the spectrum to the opposite end…just to distance themselves from you.
Of course, if that’s something you’ve accounted for and consider acceptable with regards to your objectives, that’s fine and dandy. I’m not sure but it sounds like you’re admitting you do such more out of hyperbole and exaggeration for effect than sincere conviction, similar to satirists. Everyone has their own positions, their own way of expressing such positions, and their own level of comfort with the resulting consequences.
I want you to agree with me. First, I scream insults at you, then I tell you that everything you know and believe is wrong. I am the greatest, the best, my way is the best way, everything is perfect in my homeland (”everything is free in America (WestSideStory)”).
China will change in response to the demands and needs of its own people. Those who think that advice given in the vein of the first paragraph will change China aren’t thinking (or perhaps don’t know how).
Outside pressure rarely makes individuals or nations change. When it does, the change is often not what those applying the outside pressure desire. (Note that after WWI, the victors showed their disapproval of Germany by various sanctions which led to….) If pressure hasn’t succeeded in changing a small nation like Burma, Israel, Haiti, England or North Korea, how is it likely to change a large nation like the United States, India or China?
Most of the people who attack China don’t care about China. The Chinese people can see that. Personally, I ignore advice given by anyone who has either attacked or insulted me (even if I don’t acknowledge the attacks and insults).
The world, however, is changing. It is important that all of the developed nations learn how to deal with the rising might of the developing nations. China is first, but won’t be the last.
Many people seem to think that demonstrators are going to descend on Beijing for the Olympics (from many different directions, including missionaries). All they will do is anger the Chinese people and damage whatever causes they claim to be supporting.
Quick, who were the main demonstrators in Athens and Sydney, and what did they accomplish?
If we can’t remove most of the politics from the Olympics, then perhaps there should be no more Olympics? How can London qualify given it’s miserable human rights record? How can any country?
One goal of the Olympics is to promote peaceful exchanges between peoples, to learn more about each other without fighting, to replace war with athletic competition. If they aren’t held, what are we learning?
Solid essay, Kai. Good take all around.
I do take exception to the NY Times article comment. I read the same article last week, and I literally stopped myself with surprise… wow, that’s a surprisingly value-neutral (or even positive) take on the Beijing Olympics. I don’t consider myself an irrational nationalist, but I do think the NY Times and many other in the Western mainstream media takes a very opinionated, single-tone when it comes to anything China related.
On our blog, we talked about the recent series of NY Times articles revolving around the subject of Chinese athletes “forced” into competing, for example. In the mean time, NY Times didn’t seem as bothered by Alonzo Mourning risking his life to compete, Ricky Williams being forced back into uniform, or Ronaldinho nearly being kept from the Beijing Olympics by his employer. I don’t think the NY Times is “anti-China”, but I think it’s staff almost uniformly hold deep convictions that taint what would otherwise be excellent journalistic work.
(And don’t get me started on why Yang Jianli is basically the only Han Chinese who seems to be able to get his essays published on the editorial pages of major Western newspapers this year.)
I will say that I think language is one of the major obstacles, one of the major reasons for the irrational nature of a lot of debate. For most Chinese to post in English, they usually have to be extremely motivated. How many English-speakers out there, even the expats learning Chinese, have made a real effort to argue in Chinese on Chinese forums? Very few.
And who out there could possibly be “extremely motivated” about making a reasonable, moderate post? The only ones making that attempt to cross that language gap are those who happen to be extremely angry.
I think that’s why it’s incredibly important for those of us who see the “Chinese perspective” but don’t struggle with English to make our voices heard. It takes us little effort to repeat precisely what many moderate/reasonable/rational Chinese are saying, in English. And that’s what we’ve tried to do on Fool’s Mountain/aka Blog for China.
I try to remind myself that true objectivity is not possible. At best, we have sincere approximations of it. For Western journalism, an approximation of objectivity might involve having the balls to print both positive and negative viewpoints on an issue, such as China. It might mean pandering to the fears Americans with some pieces while reminding them of what China has done for them in another. Media, like government, is not its own separate entity. It is merely a combination of individual people, and individually, we’re all incredibly subjective people. It is only when we come together and moderate each other that we approach some semblance of a greater objectivity.
I agree that the language is a significant barrier in these debates, often resulting in the loss of the very nuances necessary for reasoned discourse.
That said, I still think an overwhelming amount of Chinese rhetoric with regards to these issues in incredibly flawed, riddled with logical fallacies, lack of substantiation, and the substitution of conclusions with presumptions. I’m not talking about the English stuff, I’m talking about the Chinese stuff.
For example, I think the tragic weakness of the “Chinese side” is the persistence in playing the victim card and then, often, the hypocrisy card. The “Western media bias” issue really brings out this “combo pack of stupidity” and the Chinese almost never stop for a moment to see how those two arguments could be just as damningly applied against themselves. Seriously, how short-sighted and narrow-minded must they be to sabotage their own defense?
Of course, in saying this, I am not discounting rampant idiocy from the Western side either. Nor am I discounting that there are a lot of Chinese who, on their own blogs, in forums, or in real life hold much more moderate, rational, coherent, reconciled views of these contentious issues. As you said about “angry” people, it’s just that the rabid nationalists and pseudo “wu mao dang” get far more play spamming these “bridge blogs” we operate in.
I will also say that I personally do believe that the best defenses of China, whether in mass media or in smaller pockets of discussion such as this, have not come from the Chinese themselves but embarrassingly from Westerners instead. A major part of the reason behind this, I think, is because those Westerners have had the opportunity to tangibly touch and understand both sides and cultures whereas only a far smaller minority of Chinese have. Most of the dismissive, self-affirming, nationalistic rhetoric we see come from those who have never had the real cross-cultural opportunities and experiences.* This is true for both sides, albeit the Chinese side simply has more people in it and thus feels more overwhelming.
* While the nationalistic Chinese on “bridge blogs” may be the most aggravating, the nationalistic Chinese holed up in their Chinese-language forums are the most demoralizing. Vice versa for “the West,” as any Westerner has experienced when defending China against, for example, ignorant rednecks or self-righteous activists.
That said, I still think an overwhelming amount of Chinese rhetoric with regards to these issues in incredibly flawed, riddled with logical fallacies, lack of substantiation, and the substitution of conclusions with presumptions. I’m not talking about the English stuff, I’m talking about the Chinese stuff.
Well, I can’t be sure we’re talking about the same things, but I think much of the Chinese rhetoric is anything but “incredibly flawed” and “riddled with logical fallacies”. I don’t want to defend all Chinese nationalist rhetoric… but again, as anyone familiar with our blog knows, we haven’t been afraid to step up to the plate and defend China’s positions on Tibet, challenge the Dalai Lama, defend (and criticize) government action on 6/4, and even make an argument against any sort of quick political liberalization. I think there are logical, intelligent reasons to take these positions.
As you said, there are of course a lot of Chinese rednecks that have made no attempt to understand the non-Chinese perspective, but I’ve found that few of these rednecks are in positions of power in the Chinese government, or positions of influence in the media. And in fact, these Chinese rednecks are balanced by a large population of America-worshipping Chinese liberals who also know little about the Western world.
The comment you quoted me on was not in direct reference to anything you said, so we wouldn’t be “talking about the same thing” short of us referring to the arguments between Chinese and “Westerners.” To reiterate my statement, I do indeed think an overwhelming amount of Chinese rhetoric with regards to these issues are as I described them. You may disagree simply because we see different things or simply because we just disagree on what is considered good rhetoric and bad rhetoric.
I agree with you that there are wholly understandable reasons behind the positions taken by the Chinese government (or the Chinese themselves) on a variety of the hot-button topics. It is one thing to disagree passionately with another position; it is another to not even bother trying to understand it. I do think a lot of “Westerners” are so confident and convicted in the “self-evident correctness” of their positions that they’re making the mistake of just being close-minded, culturally-insensitive, and sometimes downright disrespectful idiots.
Unfortunately, the same thing can very easily be said about the Chinese as well. To be honest, I’ve seen more “Westerners” understand and even defend the Chinese side than vice versa (not including foreign-born Chinese, who are a mixed bunch themselves). That’s disheartening, but as I’ve said before, more likely than not it is a product of ignorance. That ignorance, in turn, is born out of lack of exposure. Lack of exposure, ultimately, comes from economics. I don’t blame the Chinese for their perspectives (or lack thereof), because it isn’t necessarily their fault.
By the way, I was actually referring to American rednecks. I honestly can’t imagine that term being applied to Chinese people.
My response to you about the ignorant haters balanced by the ignorant worshipers is that I don’t really think that’s a dichotomy with any substantive bearing on the the problems between Chinese and “the West.” The vast majority of Chinese do not hold strong feelings about “the West” (or America, as in your example) one way or another. They’re just as liable to think of it as the land of opportunity as they are to suddenly condemn it for hurting the feelings of all Chinese people. It’s more about the stimulus and ensuing knee-jerk reaction that matters.
The danger of ignorant Chinese nationalism lies not in how much influence they individually have but how much legitimacy those collective knee-jerk reactions lend to anyone willing to exploit it. The same is true, of course, for ignorant populations elsewhere, like those redneck Americans I mentioned. Its really not about their influence, its about the ease through which they can be influenced. Arguably, ignorant populations with quantitatively and qualitatively less access to a diversity of information and opinions from which they can make informed decisions are more dangerous than those who do. That’s a dichotomy worth considering.
I have made a number of efforts to argue on Chinese forums. My comments, however, would not get through the firewall on any occasion, I assume, because of my foreign IP address. A brief error message flashed too quickly for me read, but I saw “IP.” My comments were not registered, and this has never happened to me in any online forum in the US. In any event it was incredibly discouraging after a while. Not to mention the little cyber police that marched out and saluted, telling me to report any inappropriate or incorrect content. At one point, I’ve actually emailed you guys at blog for China to tell you that I really like your blog, and I do, and I appreciate your project. But somehow, this notion of a “Chinese perspective” remains elusive to me. Do people in China have one perspective and one perspective only? Is it a perspective that works just as well whether you’re talking with people in Urumqi or Dujiangyan or Shanghai? Whether you’re talking with someone who’s rich or someone who’s sleeping on a mat on the sidewalk near the construction site where he works? Is it a perspective that is unique to Chinese people and elusive to the ignorant western mind? Is it right, while others are wrong?
There comes a time, in my opinion, when you can no longer explain away the inexcusable by appealing to a new “perspective.” If the Iraq War and abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are inexcusable in the “Chinese perspective” (and I know they are because I’ve read about it in the Chinese media), then the obstruction of justice and human rights in China has to be inexcusable as well.
Doesn’t a country’s population size in proportion to its middle class determine the feasability of its success as a democracy? If China does not have enough of a “middle class”, it will not be sustainable as a democracy. All this yelling, antagonizng, and pushing for democracy now is just not going to change the numbers. Oh, I forgot all this “noise” was just politics as usual.
kai: actually i retain credibility in the west where it’s pretty easy to depict china negatively, and for whom the pressure is intended as a method to sway domestic sentiment. that’s why that reporters without borders ad up there is not in chinese.
my experience growing up in SA showed me that foreign pressure can work: economic and social sanctions against whites worked well. and when you’re wrong, sooner or later you figure out yourself that you are wrong. also showed me how much thicker blood is than water: my blood boiled at some of the depictions of my culture even though i had to admit it was absolutely right and accurate. i was, in short, dragged kicking and screaming into, well, not so much the middle, rather the other side. and i’ve seen it here too: i’ve had conversations with people that have made them cry, and i have great sympathy with that, but they then went away and became motivated to either proving me wrong, or finding the truth for themselves. and they did. that’s success.
we should keep up the pressure on our own countries and our own governments, to deal ethically in our names, to deal ethically with other countries, and to have principles we can support. as you know, NO country lives up to this ideal, which is why it’s an ideal, and why we should keep up the pressure. and while i’m here, i’ll try my best to press for a china that i can actually negotiate with ten years down the line when they get even more involved in MY country than they are already.
our levels of engagement are vastly different, i think, so for your level i agree, but not for mine. with my “extreme” i mean that i’ll stick to my convictions without compromise or dishonesty: i’m really just honest with chinese people. i don’t look to make money out of china, so i have that luxury.
the right thing to do is to boycott the olympics completely, and then to boycott london in 2012 for their involvement in iraq, to boycott the south africa world cup in 2010 for our treatment of refugees AND our president’s appeasement of robert mugabe, etc, etc. until everything stops. everything. that’s the right thing to do.
not the profitable thing at all.
you’re having your nice cozy open liberal righteous discussion here, even posting that RSF picture and being all critical of the government: do you think this proves chinese people can actually do this, where it matters, in chinese, freely, without fear or social sanction? yes, china is changing, but who says it’s changing for the better? who even knows how it’s changing? does anyone know the plan? it’s not changing fast enough for the kids who died on tiananmen, or the monks who are still missing in tibet, or the alleged terrorists in xinjiang. or for hu jia.
have patience? when human lives are being squandered like loose change in a cigarette machine, and when 1.3 billion people (see, i’m being gracious) grow up thinking the world owes them everything, and pretty darn soon it really will. (that’s a foreign debt allusion.)
cerebus, please read carefully: “Your extreme also reduces your credibility to about zero, in the eyes of all save the choir you preach to.”
I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that people not petition the Chinese government for reform, change, or improvement. I’m certainly not.
My point with regards to you is that, yes, you may be honest, but is your objective to simply be “honest,” or is your objective to bring about change in the most efficient and effective way possible? You can be honest all you want, and you can think it’s going to work on everyone because you’ve had some success, but surely you’re not so arrogant as to believe that your “brutal honesty” strategy is the answer to every question and concern with regards to China? Right?
Now, I like what you say about boycotting everything, or fighting the good fight until the bitter end. That’s philosophical, idealistic, even romantic in a way many can sincerely appreciate. But it is, respectfully, entirely unrealistic. If you want to make everything so black and white, I’m really not sure how you can get much done without drawing arbitrary lines. And when you do so, you’re actually compromising and inevitably you’ll find yourself being dishonest, with others and, more importantly, with yourself. Of course, you could chose not to see it, but that would actually reiterate my point.
I get the feeling you didn’t really understand what this post was about, or, to be humble, maybe I didn’t communicate myself clearly…so hey, could be my fault. However, I’m not really sure what is so “cozy open liberal righteous” about this discussion. I am critical of the Chinese government but I posted the picture not because I actually give much a damn about it but only because I wanted a semi-relevant picture to go with the post (people like pictures). You’ve read far too much into it.
What aspect of what I’ve written suggests that I’m trying to prove that Chinese people can actually do this (do what?), where it matters (huh?), in Chinese (what the hell…), freely without fear or social sanction (…are you talking about)? Seriously, huh?
I started answering your questions about China changing until I realized they were just a series of really piss-poor rhetorical questions…uttered to what end I don’t know, but perhaps for dramatic effect? Not much point in answering them now.
Tiananmen, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hu Jia. Oh my. As I’ve read to the bottom of your latest comment, I’m going politely inform you that I’m no longer going to respond to you. I’m sure you’re a nice guy and all, and we should kick back a few beers if you’re ever in town, but you’ve framed this situation in such a way that it cannot be solved. You’re like a single-issue voter, oblivious to all the other things that matter, simply because it might not matter to you or because your “convictions” are so strong that everything and everyone else is peripheral. That’s unfortunate. What is more unfortunate is that you may never actually pop out of it. You’ve dehumanized the Chinese oppressors and have made the victims of Tiananmen, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hu Jia himself into commodities. We can’t talk because you’re rapidly erasing any common ground we can start from.
Best of luck to you, thanks for commenting.
First of all, bravo, Kai Pan, for making a very good point about how wrong the extremists on both sides are.
I, for one, believe that it is possible for Americans to love their country without taking the line that it is America’s role in the world to shape every society in the US mold. Likewise, I believe that there is a whole lot to Chinese history or society than any single political party which currently happens to rule China may make a claim to.
My view is that looking past the rhetoric, China and the US are just two countries with their unique societies, no greater and less great than others. The sooner people recognize this, then the sooner we see the humanity in each other.
Happily, I think that most of these people are more common in both societies than generally believed. Unfortunately, they are under-represented on the blogosphere which is dominated by loud voices who want to be heard online. Many of the critics of Chinese society I see here equate Chinese points of view too much with the government line, and often Chinese give fuel to the argument by taking the government line too closely.
The harsh western critics of Chinese society and the Chinese nationalists or fenqing are simply two sides of the same coin. They are the same and deserve equal contempt. As far as I’m concerned, they do not have anything constructive to add to the conversation.
My comments policy on my blog at China Vortex is simple: “How much does it add to the quality of the conversation?” If it adds nothing, I just delete it. That’s the only way to maintain a quality conversation.
My policy is not to pretend to be democratic, which I believe only has appeal to generally stupid people. I just want to appeal to intelligent people who want to listen to an interesting point of view. Whether they agree or not is up to them; if they disagree, just disagree intelligently.
fair enough, and kudos for not just coming out and saying what i figured out really quickly: I am that utter idiot you talk about in the title. you’re right on all counts: unrealistic and idealistic. permit me, as a last gasp, to try and express — maybe to myself — why i felt the need to comment: i don’t feel western critics of china and the fenqing should be tarred with the same brush. i don’t think both sides are equally wrong. i think one side is more wrong. i think sitting on the fence and trying to be fair or impartial actually strengthens the hand of one side that doesn’t deserve that kind of legitimacy.
@cerebus–
You are only “fair and impartial” in your own mind, not in those of others. You are unable to see any virtue in the arguments of those who do not precisely follow your line. This is exactly the same as the fenqing.
Some of your criticisms have some virtue but by taking a position which takes the other extreme, you lose all support, and make yourself sound silly and foolish. In the end, people ignore you and you end up alone. Moderation, listening to the views of others and common sense always win out over the shrill voices of extremism.
Always.
That’s why Nelson Mandela won in the end.
Nelson Mandela was sent to prison for acts of sabotage. Even after his release in 1990 he made it clear he was still committed to the armed struggle. Only when he was assured victory did he switch to a policy of reconciliation and negotiation. Taking up arms is not an act of moderation.
If the world had an attitude of patient engagement with white South Africa, 20-30 years ago, apartheid would still exist. Today we have a policy of “quiet diplomacy” with Zimbabwe, and look how well that’s going.
There is a place for extremism.
Chinese people don’t all ignore me. To suggest that would be to ascribe a monolithic hegemony to a very diverse people. Most don’t care for what I have to say, true. I’m not talking to them, if they don’t want to listen. I’m not ignored back home, though. And it’s MY own country whose policies I would like to influence through pressure, not China’s. Ie. my country’s policies towards China.
Could there be something like extreme moderation? I’m afraid all critics of China might end up being perceived as “extreme” by the very act of portraying the Chinese government position as somehow “in the middle”. Nice tactic: shifting the extremes. It’s like saying there’s a massive debate in scientific circles about Intelligent Design, when in fact there’s no debate at all in scientific circles about ID. It’s simply not scientific.
By taking a position on the fence you try to define where the fence should go. Well, you’re in fact on the other side of the fence from where I’m standing. Maybe there is no fence.
Where was the fence during apartheid, for example? It’s okay to be a little bit racist? Or, give the racist some time and eventually they’ll change on their own? Just don’t criticize them: they might get angry?
paul: I didn’t in fact claim to be fair and impartial. I was saying you can’t be. I see a lot of virtue in Kai’s argument above. It really is well written. He has a way with the wordy things. A way of making me look like a fool :). “I am weak-kneed with admiration.” (spot the quote) I need you to remember we move in different circles and have vastly different levels of engagement, as I like to call them. I’m not talking about the literati of China, I’m talking about the way-down-people. Again it feels like this discussion has forced me to prove my “street-cred”, and gush about all the good things in China. There are. Many. I am learning from them. Every day. But I don’t want to go into that whole thing again: the fenqing force it out of me regularly enough. Trust me, okay. I want to contribute, not break down. (See how there isn’t a fence?)
By saying that you cannot be fair and impartial, you dismiss the 99% of the population who just want to live in society. Sure, there are many injustices in any society, but you advocate violent change, and say that the system is so corrupt that it cannot be changed from the inside. The only way to make change is YOUR WAY, and you dismiss anything else as being wrong.
I suppose in the US, Americans should have overthrown their form of government because slavery was a national institution for more than 90 years, and Jim Crow laws were in place for another 100 years after the Civil War? I have never heard even the most extreme Americans voice that opinion.
You very much remind me of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, who were willing to kill 1/3 of the Cambodian population to bring back Cambodia to their twisted vision of the Year Zero. This is not to mention Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and finally Mao Zedong, with all of his endless political movements, which finally culminated in the Cultural Revolution.
You are that which you criticize so much. One and the same.
I really think it CAN be changed from the inside AND the outside together. MY way is only one way, and I can see the change from within with my own eyes, but if the outside pressure lets up the change will slow down. I’m saying the outside pressure helps, and contrary to your opinion, it doesn’t alienate ALL chinese people. They are just hard to hear, as it were. I’m afraid it seems you’re saying no-one outside should criticize China, on the basis of losing all credibility with Chinese people. I’m just trying to point out that a.) outside criticism isn’t actually always meant for a Chinese audience, and b.) you do not loose all credibility, because all Chinese people are not the same.
I really don’t get how I’m like Pol Pot. I must have missed the memo.
I’m saying that outside criticism has to be done very intelligently and for the most part, the high-pitched, criticism of “China”, lumping the people and government together, does not work and instead helps the rulers solidify their intransigent positions. This is reinforced through their loud cries of “interference in China’s internal affairs” and mobilization of the fenqing (paid and unpaid).
This outside criticism of “China” then becomes a red herring which conservative elements in government and society can then use to beat down domestic changes which need to be made to improve the lives of ordinary rural Chinese.
I know about your frustration with the circles you work in, and so do many others in China too. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that unless people criticize the government loudly, they are betraying the ordinary people.
If you make that assumption, you are hurting the very people you claim to be helping. There is a lot happening which you don’t know about and does not make it into the media. Quiet behind-the-scenes conversations always work better in China than loud criticism of the government and society.
Re your being compared to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge: you tend to use extreme language and reject any compromise. This the language of extremist ideologues like Pol Pot and Mao in his later years.
As for your thinking that because pressure worked on SA it will work in China, I would just say that SA is SA and China is China. You seem to think that the only difference which needs to be made is that more louder shouting is needed to make China change. I disagree, and think that it will reinforce intransigence at the top. Same goes for the US.
Here are few of your own quotes from above: “The pressure is meant for western audiences. As for inside China: people get the government they deserve. ”
(My note: Yeah, like Sharon Stone? Lot of good that does. So the Chinese people have the government they deserve? So why are you complaining?)
“my experience growing up in SA showed me that foreign pressure can work: economic and social sanctions against whites worked well. and when you’re wrong, sooner or later you figure out yourself that you are wrong. also showed me how much thicker blood is than water: my blood boiled at some of the depictions of my culture even though i had to admit it was absolutely right and accurate.”
(My note: The SA situation is literally a black/white situation. Very few things in China are. There are good honest people in the CCP; not everyone is corrupt. It may be that you don’t hear about them. And they are trying to quietly push change in the party.)
“we should keep up the pressure on our own countries and our own governments, to deal ethically in our names, to deal ethically with other countries, and to have principles we can support. as you know, NO country lives up to this ideal, which is why it’s an ideal, and why we should keep up the pressure. and while i’m here, i’ll try my best to press for a china that i can actually negotiate with ten years down the line when they get even more involved in MY country than they are already.”
(My note: Politics and diplomacy are not about principles and ethics, they are about furthering a country’s interests within a framework which is, as much as possible, generally acceptable. Who in China is going to negotiate with you in ten years? Who are you? Do you think that anyone is going to take you seriously? If you do, you are delusional.)
“I’m not talking about the literati of China, I’m talking about the way-down-people.” (My note: Oh, so you are Chairman Mao mobilizing the masses in revolutionary struggle? Give me a break.)
kai’s right. we can’t seem to have good faith discussions.
fbtt (from bottom to top):
I never said I’m mobilizing anyone. I’m talking about my friends, who are simply not college or university graduates.
Politics and diplomacy should be about principles and ethics. It might not actually be, but it should be. When I said “a China I can negotiate with” I was using a prosaic device where “I” meant anyone, and most specifically “My Country”. In a good faith discussion, this would have been clear.
China is not so special: South Africa’s situation was also not “literally black and white”. You are arguing a special case exception for China. What, are Chinese people genetically different? And again: I know not everyone in the CPC is corrupt, but as far as accepting the framework of their system is concerned, they have already morally compromised. If they cannot see that continued outside pressure serves their cause, well, so be it. The only honourable place left for them is in their own prisons.
“So, the Chinese people have the government they deserve. So why are you complaining?”
Leaving aside the irrelevant Sharon Stone well-poisoning, here it is again: I complain because China is screwing with the regional balance of power in my region, southern Africa; because Chinese people neither know, nor care about this and the government doesn’t even acknowledge this engagement’s problematic aspects; because they are a global juggernaut with no moral or ethical guidance propelled by the force of their inertia into a headlong collision with almost everything I hold dear and sacred.
The above is an aspect of this discussion you don’t seem to want to acknowledge: what happens in China no longer stays in China. Just like American domestic politics, it has spilled over into the global arena and affects us all. Criticizing China no longer exclusively means we’re talking about their human rights record or their relationship with Tibet: it is much closer to home for most of us.
Shouting — again — doesn’t work with China. (Not superficially anyway.) I think I’ve agreed on that. Shouting, DOES however work with my government and my people. (And by the same token, it probably works in what is generally termed “the west” on their own governments.) Criticism of China is probably going to become a feature of domestic politics in many countries around the world in the near future. And if justified criticism causes China to crawl up their own exhausts with intransigence, then it still doesn’t make them right, and someone, somewhere is going to see that, and very few people are going to give a rat’s ass about their indignation. Not if they are, in fact, wrong.
You said:
“I suppose in the US, Americans should have overthrown their form of government because slavery was a national institution for more than 90 years, and Jim Crow laws were in place for another 100 years after the Civil War? I have never heard even the most extreme Americans voice that opinion.”
Maybe you haven’t heard of Henry David Thoreau:
“Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.”
And how were those laws overturned eventually?
I’ll leave you with another nice extremist quote:
“… if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name — if ten honest men only — ay, if one HONEST man, in this state of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever.”
Which still leaves the matter on the table that you are making a living out of selling guilt-free stakes in the Chinese economy to American business people. Unfortunately that does illuminate your agenda.
Supposing Thoreau had gotten a bunch of people to practice civil disobedience in Massachusetts. Do you honestly think slavery would have ended in the South? It’s more likely that the North would have seceded from the Union, leaving slavery alone in the South. And where would we be then?
The analogy to look at is the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The revisionist view of Brown vs. Board of Education is that it was counterproductive — that perhaps, they should’ve gone for equal resources for segregated black schools (i.e. follow the letter of the law as far as Plessy is concerned), instead of integrated schools. Let integration spread itself gradually, but go for real, tangible improvements first. Equal resources for segregated schools would have measurably improved the lives of black students immediately, while enforced integration from the Supreme Court caused massive resistance from the South. More importantly, it led to the South switching en masse to the Republican Party, which has had much wider effects on the country in the last forty years.
“Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.” Simplistic views of history are frequently counterproductive. It is people with simple views who supported the US invasion of Iraq.
“go for real, tangible improvements first” you say.
I’d rather do the right thing first.
Anyway, I’ve concluded this boils down to some fundamental East-West difference regarding individual vs group. In China it’s okay for a few individuals to suffer as long as the group as a whole can get their “tangible benefits”. As long as they don’t export their interpersonal relationships and civil ethics, that’s fine by me.
“I’d rather do the right thing first.”
Where do you want to start? Go back 100 yrs?, 200 yrs? 300 yrs and undo the evils of white colonisation so you don’t get the problems in SA ( your country) or American/Australian natives, global warming ……
May be you just want to nuke the whole place and start the whole human civilisation afresh ?
And what right things have you got in mind?
Are you on mushrooms ?
This “fundamental East-West difference” also started to sound stale and cliche to me. In many of the mid-west US states people are significantly friendlier and colorful than people in NYC and other crowded metropolitan areas. Why? When you have to be squeezed into a small space and share resources with millions of others, individualism is bound to be suppressed to a certain degree.
@downunder
“where do you want to start?”
The only place and time we can start. (Here, now.) The only reason I can think of for attacking the notion that we should do the right thing, is that you would prefer doing the wrong thing. We can’t go back, can we. So, no. Not back in time then. What’s your point?
Nuking, for example, would be a “wrong” thing.
Again: what notion are you opposed to here? Is it “do” or “right” or “thing”, or maybe the definite article is offensive?
@CnInDC
“individualism is bound to be suppressed to a certain degree”
And then it’s wrong there too. But I also pick up that you view individualism as somehow opposed to the group interests. It isn’t. Individualism doesn’t mean individuals infringe on other individual’s rights. I’ll give you another cliche: cliches become cliches for a reason.
“Individualism doesn’t mean individuals infringe on other individual’s rights.”
Doesn’t? Then how come a regular Chinese is not allowed to enjoy the right of consuming the same amount of gas an average westerners does?
1. This is a lousy argument.
2. Hey, it’s not “Westerners” … just “Americans.”
3. There is no right of “gas consumption.”
1. I’d like to know how lousy it is and why.
2. Europeans consume more energy too. And last time I checked, EU was complaining China cap the coal export to EU while at the same time never flinch from criticizing the coal mine accidents caused by their demands.
3. There’s an inalienable human right to development which would be severely jeopardized by cutting off the oil supply.
With all due respect…
1. I provided a link for a reason. Click it.
2. Uh…yeah, classic Chinese apologist blunder. You can do better than that. Refer to #1.
3. Again, the right to development says nothing about the right to consume gas. More importantly, the Chinese will have a hard time getting sympathy with regards to the “right to development” when they violate so many other explicit UN-endorsed “rights.” Oops, refer to #2.
Look, are you beginning to see the problems with your rhetoric? I’m still waiting for this vicious cycle to end. It’s getting dizzy in here.
As an American working in China, I have been driving myself crazy dealing with all of the self righteous bullshit on both sides of these arguments. I have talked with Chinese who claim to be open minded but instantly socially blacklist me permanently for even suggesting the notion that their government might lie to them, or at least not tell them the truth. I’ve had Chinese get incredibly defensive and claim I “just don’t get it” when any form of criticism is mounted towards them from the West. I couldn’t believe how easily the flame of nationalism was lit over the Cafferty CNN comments back in the spring. If they got that pissed off about being called “thugs and goons,” I don’t think any one of them could ever stand being an American and dealing with the criticism that we get on a daily basis around the world.
And at the same time, I have American friends who ask me the most retarded and inane questions about China, and they clearly show that they have little to no understanding of Chinese culture or society, yet that hardly stops them from taking very strong opinions about China. I’ve been asked if the Chinese get to keep their money, or if the government takes it. Americans believe that the government commands an iron grip over every single person here, because of their “human rights abuses”, whereas in reality most of the major cities are not that dissimilar from American ones, although I contest Chinese drive a little bit more batshit insane.
Straddling the two cultures for so long, I thought I was going to go crazy trying to find a truth behind the propaganda and lying that might not even exist, but I’m glad to see that there are other people with a discerning eye and nose for political bullshit.
Keep up the good writing
@cerebus
righto … how about we start by letting Aboriginese in Australia taking back control, decide the law of the land, have a vote amongs themselves to see if they want the whites or everyone else to stay ?
And for that matter, we should extent the same courtesy to the legal owners of US, Canada, NZ ….
When do you want to start ?
we can start by giving them full human rights, an equal vote to everyone else in the country and the freedom to express their views and opinions in any forum. oh wait, they have that already. now if only those pesky tibetans were aborigines.
Hmm, I don’t have problem if you call for democracy among all Chinese. But singling out Tibetan Chinese is a different issue. I don’t think the basic human rights enjoyed by Tibetan Chinese and Chinese of other ethnic groups are significantly different. Asking China to give them the same rights as you enjoyed in the western countries is similar to asking China to pay Tibetan Chinese comparable wages as you earn while the other Chinese don’t. I’d like to know why they get the special treatments.
And the indigenous peoples in most western countries only got the equal treatments after their populations were reduced to close to nothing. I did visited a handful of Indian Nations in the mountain states of the U.S., so don’t tell me they enjoyed their ancestral lands being taken. If there were a vote among Indian people when the Mayflower first arrived the continent there’d be no United States.
CnInDC: I absolutely agree with you. Human rights should extend to everyone in China. But had the Tibetans been living in Australia, they would have had them by now. “No special treatment for Tibetans” is my new motto.
And I absolutely agree with the second count too: European colonization wreaked havoc with native populations everywhere. Cultural chauvinism, greed, ignorance, arrogance… you name it. When Europeans expanded they left death and destruction everywhere. Thank goodness those days are over and we can now learn from their stupidity. Well, at least Europeans can. China still insists on making its own mistakes.
Please enlighten me to name a few basic human rights an average Chinese of other ethnic groups enjoys but a Tibetan Chinese doesn’t. The handful of “special treatments” they enjoy, e.g., no tax, better health care coverage, less stringent birth control, are political pork barrel spendings that I won’t count as human rights related. And IMHO “cultural chauvinism, greed, ignorance, arrogance” have very little to do with human rights either. So I do prefer a more coherent message on what you want for Tibetan Chinese.
I think China does do things differently from the European colonization. China has not reduced the Tibetan Chinese population to near zero before giving them equal treatments. They are basically treated as equal already in the sense of law and institutional rules. Other things like attitudes and ignorance are difficult to change in one day so you’ll have to bear with us for a while.
@ cerebus
by your accord, all those “rights” were only “real, tangible improvements ” after the indigenous owners of Aust, US were almost slaughtered out of existence .
If you want to do the right things right now as you had claimed, should they have the ultimate right to self-determination by given them the right to vote amongs themselves to see if they want the whites or everyone else to stay ? Until that happens, all your claim for moral high ground is nothing but BS.
@CnInDC
You’re right again: Tibetans have exactly the same amount of freedom of expression, association, religion and self-determination as all other Chinese citizens. Free China.
@downunder: Listen, I’m agreeing with you: it’ll be a long time before Europeans have fully atoned (or even understood) what they’ve done to the world. What happened in Aust. & the US & South Africa, and many other places were examples of the cruelty and arrogance and chauvinism of a warped and sick paradigm, that actually still persists today in some corners. It should never be forgotten, “white”washed or forgiven. It should be studied, remembered, and laws and rights should take into account the lessons from these events. And the denials should be countered with education and disclosure. I would be very interested to hear what you propose should/could be done to correct these imbalances. Something should be done, but I don’t know what.
Oh, and China should not do the same things in Africa just ’cause Europe did it.
You are a hypocrite.
@cerebus
see … i have as much chance of convincing you then you convincing me. We are talking monologues.
Enjoy lecturing others, I’m sure you will change lots of minds.
Case closed and good nite.
ah, maybe we won’t admit it, but we’ve learned from this.
anecdote: watched a fight break out outside a bar in xi’an the other day, because the foreigner was saying: “whatever, i don’t really care about taiwan. it’s not my business.” next moment a chair was flying. it was cool. neutrality is not an option.