My readers here on CNReviews have probably noticed that I haven’t blogged in quite some time. One of them probably wonders what happened. The other is probably hoping I’m actually dead.

Actually, I’m still around, as most of my hard-earned enemies and trolls rue whenever I pop up making the odd comment or 20 on my favorite garden of low-hanging fruit, chinaSMACK.

Oh boy, some of you are going to chafe at that one.

Heh, good.

However, the main reason I haven’t been posting much here on CNR is because I’ve been busy organizing a crack team of royal ass-kickers excellent bloggers and developing a new China blog.

But before I introduce this new blog, I want to publicly thank Elliott and CNR for having me here.

Kai and CNR, sitting in a tree…

I’ve been contributing posts to CNR for almost exactly two years now and last April, I had taken over as the main blogger and a part-time lead editor of sorts. Elliott and I had re-envisioned CNR and then rebooted it with a new design. At the time, we were getting ~30k visits a month. Today, CNR is enjoying 50k+ visits a month, which is not bad, considering that we haven’t updated recently nor have we been updating regularly over the past few months.

Even so, we had made the mistake of positioning CNR to be too much too soon, a harsh reality that set in over the subsequent months. Elliott spawned his third child and it, along with his day job, prevented him from blogging much about China. Min, through whom I first met Elliott, had retired into becoming a full-time quant, deciding that she wasn’t too keen on English blogging. As for me, as time went on, I realized that most of my posts revolved around socio-political commentary about contentious, divisive issues involving China and the Chinese. Yet CNR was to be more than just my personal opinions and rhetoric on cross-cultural politics and perceptions. The more I posted, the more my personal interests skewed what CNR professed to offer and deliver.

We had planned to scout and recruit other writers to join our little party, and over the past year, we’ve been blessed with contributions by Baoru, mollie, the BloggerInsight team (Ying, Lucas, and Kai Lukoff), Elizabeth, Aimee Barnes, voodikon,  and finally C. Custer. Unfortunately, we never managed to develop and keep the right team of people to adequately cover the many broad fields we so over-enthusiastically committed ourselves to.

And then…?

Several months ago, faced with this cognitive dissonance, I began rethinking my relationship with blogging on CNR. I had always wanted to build a reasonably “successful” blog.  By “successful”, all that meant was that the blog would be notable for something. I had also always wanted to accomplish this with a team of like-minded individuals, a group of people who would push each other, challenging each other to become better, all towards the goal of developing a notable blog. Why a blog, as opposed to, say, “curing world hunger?” Because a blog fulfills my personal interest in writing commentary, reacting, responding, and influencing the world I live in and the people I share this world with, even if it’s a wee tiny bit.

How very democratic of me, right?

I decided that CNR wasn’t the right platform for me to pursue my goals, despite my immense purely heterosexual love for Elliott. Even if I redesigned and rebooted it to be focused on the socio-political commentary I wanted to spend most of my free time writing, I would always be annoyed with the domain name. While CNReviews or “China Reviews” is perfectly fine for a blog broadly covering “People, Business, and Life in China”, but it doesn’t quite convey “socio-political commentary”. Blogging under CNR is like wearing boxers that are 10 times too large.

I’m Asian, I know my genetic limitations.

As such, I sought out fellow bloggers that shared my interest in writing socio-political commentary about issues facing and involving modern China. They also had to occupy a similar position as me on the ideological spectrum. They couldn’t be unrepentant “panda huggers”, nor unrepentant “panda bashers”. If they were, we’d end up clawing at each other’s faces too much to really cooperate. A good sense of humor wouldn’t hurt either.

Fortunately, I’ve been following the English-language China blogosphere for quite some time, and have come to know and admire quite a few people. So, I set some large steel traps where I knew they’d frequent and then waited in the bushes for the tell-tale clank of triumph.

Within days, I had caught me a Custer and an Abrams. While the Abrams is a bit more mangier than the younger Custer, both are fantastic specimens of bloggers who regularly and consistently publish critical, incisive, and nuanced commentary about modern China issues. After they agreed not to run away, I let them out of the traps and attached the collars.

CNR, compared to many other well-known small English-language China blogs, is pretty successful given the amount of traffic we pull, even when we’re sitting around twiddling our thumbs doing absolutely nothing. Of course, we’re no chinaSMACK or Shanghaiist, nor Danwei. Hell, we’re not even an ESWN. All blogs I — and we — admire and respect.

But 50,000+ visits a month is pretty decent for a small blog like CNR, and it suggests we’ve done something right. Therefore, giving up this built-in traffic up is hard, but it only makes sense for my captives and I to start a brand new blog, from square one, fresh, with a clean sheet.

And that’s exactly what we’ve done.

Entering the already crowded “English-language China blogosphere”, is china/divide, a daily updated group blog publishing social and political commentary on news and issues involving modern China written by Charles Custer, Stan Abrams, and your’s truly. We’re like the Three Amigos, except I’m not white bread. And, if everything goes according to plan, we won’t remain at three.

The first post is by Stan, titled “Goat Meat, Loose Women, and the Imperfect China Dialogue“, and it delivers. Of course, over the next few days, Custer and I will also rear our ugly heads, and henceforth, china/divide will be the place to read what much of what we think, and then proceed to disagree and hate us for it.

Please, do come and take a look.

As for CNR, given that I will be spending most of time and energies on china/divide, I’m formally saying “so long, and thanks for all the fish.” Ironically, and much to his consternation, just as Elliott’s starts a stint in Shanghai and may have more time to regularly blog on CNR, I’m seemingly abandoning him. I wouldn’t quite put it that way though. I can’t make any promises, but I don’t think this is the goodbye forever between CNR and myself, and I may guest post here in the future, especially if the subject-matter falls under CNR’s umbrella more than china/divide‘s.

But then again, which one of you actually enjoyed my non-socio-political commentary posts anyway?

See you in the divide.

What was interesting and memorable about 2009?

Interested in your answer to this question.  To jog your memory, we compiled our “best” posts of the year.  Here’s part two of our “CN Reviews Best of 2009,” covering the topics we touched on in the second half of 2009 (including some stuff in June).  Part one is here.

People

In June, Kai brought us up to date on what happened to Chai Ling, the controversial TAM incident protester turned software company executive.  She brought defamation charges onto the filmmakers of the award-winning documentary “The Gate of Heavenly Peace” where “she arguably came across as a sniveling self-centered, power-hungry, emotional wreck quoted as secretly desiring bloodshed to advance her ends.”

In June, Kai also covered Barcamp Shanghai (coverage overview) and TedxShanghai (coverage overview), including some write-ups of:  Jenny Bai on Youth Pop Culture and how make China cool;  Renee Hartmann of enovate on selling to the China youth Market;  John Fan on the challenges of serving the China’s internet market from a Taiwan base;  Toine Roojimans on payment systems in China;  Gang Lu, on the overall state of the social internet in China;  Stefano Negri of McKinsey on China’s rapid urbanization; and Andrew Yu on how travel can be transformative, and his NGO 1kg.org

In July, Kai met up with Tania Branigan, correspondent of the Guardian, and spoke about her experience covering the Urumqi riots and the general topic of Western coverage of China.  The Guardian also did an excellent piece called China at the Crossroads which includes video and photography from colleague Dan Chung who also posts at DSLR News Shooter blog and did a great timelapse and slow-motion video on the National Day parade in October.

In August, I met up with Rebecca MacKinnon and wrote about her perspective on the internet’s uncertain future globally and US-China relations.  I also noted that prominent Chinese tech blogger Keso was suspended from Twitter, probably because the use of VPN services, and shortly after we publicized this, his account was reinstated.

In September, Thomas Friedman wrote an editorial contrasting China’s “one-party autocracy” with the U.S.’ “one-party democracy.”  Here’s an excerpt of his post:

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power.

This drew some reaction from Richard Berger at Peking Duck who felt that Friedman was papering over the significant flaws in the Chinese system:

Namely, that that kind of authority comes only with a very heavy price, and that while the CCP may be “reasonably enlightened” about energy, natural resources and ensuring sustainability, these benefits are balanced, and sometimes far outweighed, by its knee-jerk self-protective tendencies, which put the party’s survival on the very top of its priority list…

We felt that Western reactions to Friedman were largely defensive and overreacting, in a way the flip side of the “easily hurt feelings of the sensitive Chinese netizens defending China’s fragile online honor.” (paraphrasing Kaiser Kuo).

In September, I wrote about Jack Ma‘s speech at the Clinton Global Initiative (see below).  Kai also rounded up the usual suspects in his post about great China blogs that translate Chinese news content, including:  Roland Soong, Oiwan Lam, Bob Chen, et al; Fauna, and Key.

In September, we were 2nd after the WSJ in breaking the news on Kai-Fu Lee‘s resignation from Google, and we broke the news (in English) on the name of Kai-Fu Lee’s new firm, Innovation Works.  We also interviewed Keso on Lee’s transition. BloggerInsight followed up with a poll of bloggers that uncovered a sense of the constraints that Lee was under at Google.

In October, we discovered David Moser’s Blue Ocean Network who profiled Jeremy Goldkorn & Michael Anti and the Chinese blogosphere.

In November, we wrote about Kaiser Kuo‘s speech at TedX Honolulu entitled “Red Guards vs. Rednecks” and the effects of online extremism creating a growing rift between Chinese and the West.

During the 2nd half of the year, Kai also experimented with CNReviews Quotes, where we featured short quotes from:  Elaine Chow, Roland Soong, Josh from Cup of Cha, Alec Ash, Charles Custer, Col. Timothy Reese, Paul Carr, Jeremiah Jenne, Carol Bartz, Andy Keller, Kelly Hammond, and Howard French.

Business

In July, Kai highlighted an Ogilvy China report on the opportunity in 4th-6th tier cities and encouraged entrepreneurs to get out of Beijing and Shanghai to see how life is different in these other cities.  I didn’t even know cities were tiered beyond 1st and 2nd tier!

In August, BloggerInsight posted on the top 4 reasons why Chinese social networking is different.  One insight I appreciated: “Young Chinese netizens view their SNS profiles as representations of themselves to the world, establishments of self territory outside of their parents’ and schools’ oversight. For them, social networking is about standing out and building a reputation in an online world. Local social networking sites do a great job of catering to this need for self-expression.”

Meanwhile, in August I was invited to attend a Churchill Club roundtable hosted by Symbio.  Speakers included: Linda Chen (Partner, KPMG), Jacob Hsu (CEO, Symbio), Harry Shum (Corporate VP, Search Development; Microsoft), and Lip-Bu Tan (President & CEO, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.). My coverage in two parts (part 1, part 2) included some discussion of the nature of innovation in China, the myth of cheap labor (in certain industries), the cost advantages of China eroded by the high cost of senior people and “always having to have a Plan B,” and techniques for retaining staff through rewards on one hand, and guilt on the other.

In September, I attended the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting (CGI) and seemed to be the only blogger/journalist covering the China related news (all CNReviews CGI posts tagged cgi2009).  I posted on the fact that Jessica Alba was there, but no China.   Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba Group, was the only major representative of China.  Together with Grameen Trust, Alibaba announced its involvement in Grameen China.  Also in attendance was  Calvin Chin of Qifang.  Wang Yusuo of ENN Group announced a partnership with Duke Energy to work on clean coal and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).  There was extensive discussion about approaches toward innovation in social entrepreneurship.

In September, BloggerInsight continued to cover social game trends featuring iPartment, which was designed to appeal to teen girls who, you guessed it, would attract pimply teen boys.  As a result of that post, we now rank #3 in Google for the term “hot teen girls China.”  Thanks a lot, BloggerInsight!

In December, Ying Xue (founder of BloggerInsight) wrote about the future of microblogging in China and her talk at Ad:Tech China.  She was later quoted in a CNN piece about trends in this space.

Life

In June, Baoru (Katherine) posted on a report that Chinese students have longest study hours.  During the Gaokao examination season, Kai pulled together a review of some posts from Wang Jianshuo (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), James Fallows, and Jeremiah Jenne.

In July, Kai commented on the widely read spoof of Chinese journalism by The Onion.  Kai’s take: “While most of the pieces are pretty amusing (some are pretty lame, as if they were trying too hard), I have to agree with Elaine when she concludes that the satire overall falls a bit short from the ludicrous content of genuine state-sponsored Chinese journalism and rhetoric.”  I thought it rang pretty true!

Kai also wrote about Transformers in China and how Chinese netizens saw it as American propaganda.   Roland Soong comments “outlines three arguments for how Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was a big showcase advertisement for the sale of American arms, propaganda for all countries to cooperate with the United States, and an idealization of American soldiers.”  Will Moss followed up with an Imagethief post aptly entitled “Hard robots, soft power.”

Kai also highlighted a post about FLG persecution by Charles Custer at ChinaGeeks:

There is nowhere on earth we can learn about or read about without bias, but even given the assumption that bias exists everywhere, China might be the worst country in the world to attempt to study if you’re trying to assess the veracity of anything remotely controversial.

In July, the Urumqi riots were well underway, and Kai covered an interesting story about why the Uighurs didn’t get the same love as the Tibetans from the West.  One writer concluded that they were simply “less photogenic.”  Whatever that means.

In September, Kai followed up with a post that talked more about Han discrimination toward Tibetans, inspired by a Chinese writer at Alec Ash’s 6 blog who said “it is not easy to comment on Tibet [for Han people]”

In September, we continued to muse about manufacturing reality with media with an excellent follow up post about The Onion spoof and some commentary from a blogger called the Last Psychiatrist, which basically talks about the propaganda power of media.

We also followed the blowback from the Lou Jing incident.  Lou Jing is a Shanghainese girl who’s father was African-American and mother is Shanghainese.  After appearing on DragonTV’s Jia You! Oriental Angels, she was faced with online racism in Chinese BBSs, translated by chinaSMACK.  However, Kai noted that foreigners attacking Chinese racists reveated their own racism:

Just as the examples of Chinese racism were outrageous were the foreigner comments predictable. In the face of ridiculously ignorant and malicious racism by many Chinese netizens, many foreign netizens flooded chinaSMACK’s comment section with equally ignorant and malicious racism against the Chinese. “A hah! I knew Chinese society was racist!” the chorus crooned.

Chinayouren also offered some commentary on racism in China.

Kai also generated some discussion around Taiwan’s status, weaving between the Straits to say that while eventual reunification is in Taiwan’s best interests, Taiwan currently is a de facto, independent state.

October was the scene of National Day celebrations, which we reported would be larger than the Olympics.  Kai shared a contemplative piece about Shanghai side streets, away from the manufactured excitement of the parade itself.

November brought more commentary on American interference with China’s internal affairs, and Kai’s general indifference to that.  We also talked about the movie 2012 and whether or not it was really praising the Chinese (more youth reaction to 2012 reported by enovateChina).

Yes, Obama made his first visit to China, but we (and Chinese netizens) were more entranced by a beautiful girl wearing red and black.  Wonder if her name is “Creamy.”

In December, Kai shared his experience on overnight trains between Shanghai and Beijing and whether or not to take it vs. flying. Min also wrote about 2010′s Chinese holiday schedule.

Well, that’s what we blogged about.  Pretty sure a lot of interesting stuff happened in 2009 that we didn’t blog about.

What did you find interesting and memorable about 2009?

China is definitely one of those places where the locals sometimes give themselves English names that sound mighty odd for native English speakers. I still remember meeting one East China Normal University student, a pint-sized runt of a lass, who told me her English name was “Creamy”. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. You can be sure I was thinking the same. And that’s just one of my own experiences.

Two Dutch ladies, who have since fled Shanghai back to Europe, have seen fit to document over 200 Chinese people and their inspiration for their adopted English names in a 176-page book that I’m certain would make a great addition to coffee tables everywhere (I’m actually saying this with all sincerity). As described on their website:

Researched, written and photographed by Valerie Blanco and Ellen Feberwee, Dutch travelers and students of international social trends, “In China, My name is…” introduces the reader to dozens of Chinese people and their reasons for selecting their English name. Apple, Henry, Molly, Phoenix and Zat are among the nearly 200 names—some deeply personal, some random, some humorous—discussed in the small-format, 176-page book.

Apple, for example, says she selected her name because she always dresses in green and often turns red with shyness. Young Henry’s name was chosen for him because his Chinese name is Han Rei, Han being an ethnic group and Rei meaning lucky. Molly named herself after the Demi Moore character in the American movie, “Ghost.” Phoenix picked her name because she admires both the bird whose spirit is said to never die and the American city that has a basketball team she likes very much. Zat says that her English name has no meaning at all, but was selected merely because it was “simple and easy to remember.” Zat and several others featured in the book provide additional comments on the trend, and how their friends and family have reacted to their English names.

So why did Valerie and Ellen write this book?

We hope ‘In China, My name is…’ accurately shows some of the cultural changes taking place in China, and the differences between Chinese people and Chinese hopes and dreams….We wanted to share simple stories, touching stories, and perhaps even future developments resulting from a far more open-door policy in China with the rest of the world.

Sounds like my kind of gals.

If you haven’t already heard, the ever-smackable chinaSMACK is running a nifty contest where three lucky commenters will win a free copy of the book (think of your coffee table) by sharing their own stories of the English appellations Chinese people have given themselves. You better hurry, however, as the contest ends this coming Sunday or so. Go share your stories »

Otherwise, “In China, My name is…” can be purchased online through the book’s official website (via Amazon) or at a local book store. For Shanghai and Beijing, you might want to check out Garden Books:

Just how crazy can the Chinese media react to seeing a beautiful girl?

A young woman was caught taking off her coat behind US President Barack Obama during his town hall meeting in Shanghai early November.

I would not be naming her anymore as her name and photos are all over the internet now. And well, I am sure this blog would merit her more unwarranted attention.

But really, I find it weird how the press would just be entranced by her presence.

Anyone care to share their analysis on this topic? This is really one of the more distorted things I have noticed in Chinese broadsheets.

Some off-the-wall, “weird” news” keep popping up in the papers. Does this confirm what I read about the Chinese media lacking in “in-depth” news due to them being politically sensitive?

It’s quite entertaining though.

“I don’t want to be popular this way.” [from her blog]

Ummm…yeah.

I’ll first summarize Kaiser’s comments, and then share my own reactions and feelings below.  I do want to quickly say that this centripetal force of the Internet is the opposite of what I had in mind when I started CNReviews in 2007.  I expected that smart use of  internet media, even on a small niche blog like CNReviews, could create awareness and attention far greater than any person-to-person effort.  But the seeds planted by online outlets like Danwei, ESWN, Global Voices Online, Shanghaiist, even chinaSMACK, have not resulted in a great harvest of ongoing interest and understanding in China among Western readers, and instead remain a relatively small niche community serving Chinese expats and those with pre-existing interest in China.  And yes, the comment threads are indeed full of unthinking China-bashers, unthinking China defenders, self-important egomaniacs, and even sock puppets (and the China “experts” that hold them).

Meanwhile, in the real world, we continue to live apart (in geography and in mindset) as the dynamics of global capitalism increasingly tie us together.

Introduction: Kaiser Kuo

Kaiser Kuo (Twitter) moved to China in 1996 and is a rock musician in a band Chunqiu, writer, journalist, and speaker.   He most recently served as director of digital strategy for Ogilvy Digital China, where he wrote at the (now defunct) blog Ogilvy China Digital Watch.  In my opinion, he is one of the most articulate thinkers and writers about how internet and technology is shaping the most important bilateral relationship in the world today: US-China.

Will online relationships boil down to Red Guards vs. Rednecks?

Kaiser spoke on the growing awareness of the chasm between Chinese and Westerners thanks to increasing interconnectedness on the internet.  He gave a longer speech (video, 78 min)  at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, entitled “Shouting across the Chasm.”  His TedX speech was a shorter version but sounded the same themes (I will link to it when it is available).  Bob Page, at The Mercury Brief, did an exceptional job summarizing the speech.  The post, and the speech was picked up by numerous esteemed China blogs including China Herald, Useless Tree, China Digital Times, ChinaGeeks, Danwei, and Peking Duck.  Plenty of discussions have happened already around this speech.

Earthquakes happen when pressure builds up under the surface

By and large, US-China relations at a government to government level have been as healthy as it ever has been.  Last summer, during the Beijing Olympics, I recall watching George W. Bush enjoying the autumn days of his Presidency watching the US Women’s Volleyball team and thinking that China was one of the one bright spots of the presidency of George the Younger.  I (who never had a good thing to say about George W) even stuck my neck out and wrote about George Bush’s Uncharacteristically Nuanced Approach toward US-China Relations.  With Obama’s arrival 11/16 in Shanghai on his first trip to China as President (see itinerary on ForeignPolicy.com), a fairly functional relationship exists between governments.

But under the surface, according to Kaiser, at a people-to-people level, “a real crisis exists, and relations between Chinese and Anglophone Westerners are at a real low.”  To use the analogy of an earthquake, the surface looks calm, but the invisible shifting of the techtonic plates.

In the past, contact between Chinese and Americans “took place at small scale and with intermediation” often in “painfully polite settings.”  Bob Page summarized Kaiser’s contrast of the past with the present in his blog post:

“For most of the 30 years since China’s reforms began, Chinese and American civilians rarely met face-to-face in significant numbers,” Kuo says. “When encounters did take place, they were typically stage-managed events among civil, often painfully polite participants in sister city arrangements, trade delegations and cultural exchanges.

“In March 2008, in the run-up to the Olympic Games, Chinese people were curious about what the world would say about them…. But they were blindsided by negative English-language reporting. While hundreds of millions of Chinese had risen out of poverty, while the Chinese economy had grown by 10 percent annually for nearly three continuous decades, while China’s biggest cities had become forests of skyscrapers with vibrant cultural scenes, none of this was deemed newsworthy by Western news media….

“Instead, Chinese and Americans went after each other in the comment sections of news stories, blog posts, YouTube, forums and boards in an escalating people-to-people brawl that continues to this day. They fight over a litany of issues: Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, trade, Internet censorship, religious freedom, Myanmar, Darfur, sanctions on Iran, carbon emissions, and so on. The first real people-to-people encounter between the world’s reigning and rising superpowers did not bode well.

What changed?  In short, English literacy in China, and the internet.  “What has happened since is two things.  One, has been the ubiquity of English language education in secondary schools in China, and the other thing that has happened is the stupendous rise of the Internet.” said Kaiser.  “In 1999, there were only 8 mm people on the Internet. Fast forward to today, we have 338 mm Internet users (in China) and in the course of 10 years, have achieved 94% penetration of broadband….this has made it possible for unmediated, large scale interaction with Westerners and Chinese.”

In this new media landscape, government-to-government relations are on the surface, while a hot, turbulent sub-surface of popular opinion continues a hidden techtonic shift.  What if a crisis were to happen?  How could popular opinion shape and limit government’s response?

Welcome to the Internet:  where your one-sided beliefs are reinforced by others just like you

Even within the West, with its tradition of free press and free speech, we see how the Internet has caused us to self-segregate into communities of similar interest and political leaning.  From Bob Page’s post:

But this is the Internet we’re talking about, which many of us believed would bring down barriers and usher in the death of distance, the good times of a global village. Instead, it has made us more fractured and tribal…. It’s also true within America, where nowadays you only read the political blogs and viewpoints of those who happen to be on your side of the political aisle.

We read what we want to read, according to Kaiser.  Those on the left read Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo, and those on the right read “whatever wacko right wing website they read.”  (Its clear where Kaiser falls on the ideological divide).  The “kumbaya” factor of the Internet is, in fact, more dead than alive.

In China, the internet “has historically been dismissed as greasy kids stuff” (e.g. internet games, internet cafes, entertainment) but is “also the emerging public sphere in Chinese life.  China has never had a public sphere for intellectuals to gather and discuss the issues of the day,” according to Kaiser.  As a result, the internet in China is extremely important for shaping popular opinion.  But the internet in China is no more enlightened than in the US.  In fact, at Chinese Blogger Conference 2008, Chinese blogger Ping Ke (平客 aka buchimifan) spoke on the need for greater rational online debate within the Chinese blogosphere.  And Roland Soong, in a speech prepared for Chinese Blogger Conference 2009 (see 1kg CNBloggerCon minisite and summary of event on GlobalTimes) and Blogfest Asia, shared the reasons why he doesn’t allow comments on the EastSouthWestNorth translation portal that he runs.  An excerpt:

I do not think it helps for me to facilitate this kind of exchange between “Red Guards versus Rednecks” (or “Chinese Fenqing (angry youth) PK Foreign Fenqing (angry youth)”).  I may want to communicate some information to people, but I am likely to encounter the kind of situation as described by Leung Man-tao (梁文道) in Southern Weekend:

在一篇一萬字的文章裏看見一句令我不滿的話，忘記剩下那部分吧，我要寫一篇兩萬字的回應來批判它。我為什麼要耐著性子看完 那篇東西呢？我為什麼要深入甚至同情地理會它的真正含義呢？它只不過是我用來表達自己的機會和藉口罷了。

In a 10,000 word essay, I came across one sentence that displeased me.  I forgot about the rest of that essay and I wrote a 20,000 word essay to criticize it.  Why should I bother to read the whole essay?  Why should I bother to delve into it or try to comprehend its true meaning?  It is merely an excuse and opportunity for me to express myself.

Indeed, I have come across someone who wrote: “I am not interested in the facts about what happened in Tibet, because I already know how to define the event.”  What is the point for providing information to people like that?  They are not interested in any information.  My own utility to them would be to provide the excuse and/or platform to rave and rant about their pre-established and immovable positions.

Spiraling toward bipolar disorder?  Toward a more resilient system of US-China relations

Unfortunately, the diagnosis of our condition is more painfully clear than the remedy.  Kaiser, blogger Roland Soong, journalist/professor Rebecca McKinnon and blogger Aimee Barnes have each shared some thoughts on how we can prevent the downward spiral that we won’t even recognize until something goes wrong.  I’ll caveat this by saying that these suggestions are in English for the English speaking audience.  Of course, there is just as much work to be done on the Chinese side, and supporting those who can influence Chinese opinion in a positive way is just as much part of the prescription of success.  It is very much a two-way relationship.  Here are Kaiser’s recommendations:

1. Cultivate personal knowledge – From Roland Soong’s post: “Knowledge is the first step. You can[not] talk about something unless you are knowledgeable about it. Why do you want to talk about that something? Because you think that the knowledge has changed your position. And that knowledge may also change your readers, especially those who form the subject of the discussion.”  Blogs are a great place to start.  For English-language readers, Kaiser mentioned several sources including Alltop China, CN Reviews, ChinaGeeks, Danwei (Danwei China mirror site) and ESWN. CNReviews had highlighted blogs that translate Chinese netizen comments and other blogs to watch in 2009.
2. Understand Chinese History – Accept the need to understand Chinese history.  Chinese current events are framed by a view of history held by elites.  Understand that view as best you can.  According to Kaiser, a place to start would be The Search for Modern China by Jonathan Spence.
3. Learn what Chinese people actually think when their defenses are down. The conversations taking place when it’s not believed ‘whitey’ is around are decidedly more nuanced.  Blogs that translate Chinese content (listed above) can be a starting point.

Rebecca MacKinnon wrote an open letter to Barack Obama advocating a people-to-people approach toward building relationships between Americans and Chinese.  I posted on an Aug 2009 conversation I had with Rebecca and excerpted from the original letter:

Just as you have used new technology to engage with the American electorate, your China policy can be greatly strengthened if you conduct a real conversation with the Chinese people. Listen as much as you talk; provide a much-needed platform for open discussion. The U.S. embassy in Beijing should build a Chinese-language website modeled after change.gov, focused not just on U.S.-China relations, but on the range of concerns and interests – from environment, to food safety, to factory safety standards, to education and real estate law — shared by ordinary Chinese and Americans. Some linguistically talented State Department employees should start blogging in Chinese. Open up the comments sections, see how the Chinese blogosphere responds, then respond to them in turn. Translate some of the Chinese conversation into English for Americans to read and react, then translate it back.

Perhaps the idea of open comments will just draw out “those shouting loudest on both sides…Red Guards and rednecks,” as Kaiser Kuo characterizes the internet.  I believe that more person-to-person efforts are complementary to and more important than an online approach.  This could potentially involve study abroad, educational tourism, volunteer tourism, sponsored events, cross-border events, and informal delegations.  The goal of online efforts should be to convert online connections into in-person connections, and take it out of the blogosphere and into the realm of real-world discussions.

Aimee Barnes comes up with a 5 point approach:

1. Including youth leaders and business influencers into the dialogue now hosted by academic and governmental elites
2. More support for business leaders in both countries to build bilateral relationships
3. More study of Mandarin among US kids and adults
4. Deeper understanding of China’s history and government among Western media
5. New “equal access” research institutions/think tanks that include more Chinese-born specialists

In my opinion, based on 2 years of following English-language Chinese blogs, mainstream media, and actively blogging on CN Reviews, I am more and more convinced that actual person-to-person contact, as opposed to online blogging and conversation, is the most important ingredient to building trust, relationships and increased understanding and mutual respect.  I suppose many of you would say “Duh, of course.”  But if we believe that the internet can be a force for evil (or divisiveness) we must also conclude that it can be a force for good (or improved mutual understanding).  In any case, the “genie can’t be put back in the box” and online discourse will continue on both sides of the Pacific.  But energy should be placed toward efforts that bring together business leaders and non-governmental leaders on issues that we both care about, and rely on material self interest as a mechanism for building bridges.  And a much heavier investment in person-to-person connections between leaders in all fields in China and US is necessary and cannot be replaced by the online discourse dominated by trolls, fenqing, panda-huggers, panda-bashers, Red Guards, and rednecks. In the meantime, your free speech is not guaranteed on the Internet, at least not on our blog.  You can go create your own blog if I don’t like what you have to say!

From written content, to community organizing

For people like Kaiser and Rebecca MacKinnon who are working on writing books, I feel a key metric of success is not just the number of books sold and the number of online references, but the number of influential people on both sides that engage in a deeper and more informed dialogue with the other side as a result of the book.  It is an exercise in community building and community organizing, rather than just the act of authorship.  The pen is mightier than the sword, but only in combination with eye-to-eye contact (or at least numerous meals and drinking together), and trust built over time.

Business partners, motivated by self-interest properly understood

In an article entitled “New Friction and Vast Agenda Awaits Obama on China Trip” in the Wall Street Journal, Ian Johnson highlights that the issues that require US-China coordination have exploded:

A decade ago, most issues discussed at China-U.S. summits were limited to three issues: human rights, nuclear nonproliferation and trade. Now, the list of topics has grown to include almost every problem facing the world, from clean energy and the war in Afghanistan to African development and fixing the world economy — all of which are expected to have a place in talks between Mr. Obama and his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao.

“For the first time in the history of our relationship, global issues are at the top of the agenda,” says Kenneth Lieberthal, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who was a special assistant on Asian affairs to former President Bill Clinton. “This is new territory for us.”

It is a change that analysts on both sides see as potentially problematic. Chinese officials and analysts note that the U.S. still has an arms and high-tech embargo on China — hardly something one does with a true partner, they say. “Obama wants us to become strategic partners or friends but we aren’t either of those,” says Yan Xuetong, a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University. “We are business partners who share material interests rather than common values.”

It is this last comment from Yan Xuetong that gives me hope and concern.  We indeed have significant material interests, from energy, environment, the monetary system…so lets start there.  With self-interest properly understood, we can build a more resilient global system between the US and China.

Lest you think that Kaiser is too distraught about our future, he claims to be optimistic about our future, and we recently had a great time on Oahu.  Here’s a picture:

I’m interested in your comments.  Even if you are a Red Guard or a Redneck!

If you’re not familiar with BON, you’re not the only one. Apparently, however, it’s “a brand new, pioneering television network producing a wide range of objective English language content bringing the human side of China to homes across the Western world.  BON goes live on air in Summer 2009 in the United States.” You can read more about them here.

I’ve personally never heard of David Moser but that’s probably because I spend too little time rubbing elbows with major figures in China academia and media and waste too much of my time slumming it at chinaSMACK . Apparently, Moser has even been a host for everyone’s favorite CCTV. Either way, he seems like a nice guy.

Jeremy Goldkorn and Michael Anti, however, are both names long-time China watchers are probably familiar with. South African Goldkorn is the founder of  Danwei (Danwei.tv for those behind the GFW), one of the largest, oldest, and most influential English-language blogs covering China, updated multiple times a day with links to great reading as well as plenty of original content, including tons of excellent translations. Michael Anti is the Chinese journalist-blogger with the cool name, having worked for a number of known and reputable news organizations both domestic and foreign.

Reviewing the two part video took some time, as the videos often would not stream smoothly and happily, if at all. To help you decide if you want to try loading them up, I’ve included some of my notes from each part below the embedded videos here:

Part 1

Interesting Points:

• Goldkorn: SARS situation in 2003 and American political blogs helped inspire him to start Danwei, he felt there wasn’t enough English information available on China’s media to adequately reflect its “vibrancy and diversity”.
• Anti: China is so large that it is fragmented with influence only extending so far. “Internet is the first time in Chinese history we have a national community.”
• Anti: English blogs like Danwei and ESWN have a “two-direction effect” that benefits and “is crucial” for both English-readers and Chinese. Websites like these help the outside world better understand China and also help “make public” the Chinese voice. “If something isn’t written in English, it does not really exist in the world.”
• Anti: Bridge-blogging becoming bridge-tweeting.
• Moser: Questions the word “blog”. Is “blog” the right word? Or is “website” better because “blog” suggests “personal expression”. How should we refer to these “English blogs about China”?
• Moser: Brings up word “aggregator” and asks if ESWN’s content is Roland Soong‘s own content or he just “translates and copies” other people’s material.
• Goldkorn: “Sex scandals, people doing disgusting things” and “scandalous” BBS comments are things chinaSMACK does well.
• Anti: Reference News translates English news into Chinese to help Chinese know more of how the outside world is looking at China.
• Moser: On blogs replacing the fourth estate, discusses downside of blogs not being vetted, being “wild”.
• Goldkorn: Says blogs and newspapers can both make mistakes, vetting or not, but reputation and trust is built up over time.
• Moser: Alludes to process journalism.

English Blogs About China Mentioned:

• Danwei
• EastSouthWestNorth
• chinaSMACK
• RConversation
• Global Voices Online
• Sinosplice

Part 2

Interesting Points:

• Goldkorn: On financing Danwei, they make “some” money on advertising, “a little more” on job advertising/recruitment advertising, and make “most” of their money on research services for corporate customers.
• Goldkorn: Says most people use blogs as “loss-leaders” to build influence and reputation for other things like consulting.
• Anti: Blogs cannot depend on advertising because of possibility of being blocked.
• Moser: Suggests that English blogs have “a certain immunity” because most of the audience is English and overseas.
• Goldkorn: While Moser and Anti discuss Anti-CNN, jokes about American nationalists being scarier than their Chinese counterparts.
• Goldkorn: “So difficult when discussing China in English to get the right mix”, referring to always being criticized by someone for writing critical or complimentary pieces about China.
• Anti: On power of new technology like Twitter, Kaiser Kuo tweeted about Xinjiang riots 1 hour before Xinhua English news reported about it.
• Anti: Described NYT’s “agenda” as being “weird” for himself and many Chinese people because Chinese people come from a “propaganda society” where the media is usually used to promote or inspire people to do things, “positive media report”, but the NYT and most foreign media is mostly “negative reporting”.
• Anti: On fact-checking: “Don’t trust anything until someone denies it.”

English Blogs About China Mentioned:

• China Digital Times
• China Media Project

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.

It is my opinion that Taiwan is a de facto independent, sovereign state.

Before I explain why I believe that, first allow me to be clear about what my opinion on the issue of “reunification” between Taiwan and China:

Tuan Tuan & Yuan Yuan, the sinister reunification pandas.

Based upon the information I have at this point, and my expectations of the future, I believe eventual reunification is in Taiwan’s economic and geopolitical best interests.  Note what I have bolded. I am not advancing immediate reunification nor I am not setting a concrete timeline. I believe there needs to be significant changes (and assurances) with the political system of mainland China before Taiwan will consider and agree to true reunification.

Or…the PRC will militarily and forcefully reunify (if you believe they were divided) or conquer (if you don’t). This isn’t impossible, but I personally believe this is an extremely unlikely scenario that neither side, nor any third party, is seriously considering outside of political posturing. There is very little good to come out of forceful reunification. The costs outweigh the benefits. If you want to go around threatening that this is what the PRC leadership really wants to do, go ahead, but the fact that I see this as “extremely unlikely” means I won’t take you seriously.

Second, I want to acknowledge that there are certainly many people, political scientists or whatnot, who are surely far more knowledgeable about this issue or the issues involved in this issue and/or far more persuasive in arguing their position. I don’t study this subject as a profession, but I do believe I have given this subject more thought than most, have done more research than most, have discussed this issue more than most, and have what I consider to be a coherent platform for what I believe.

Third, I know there are many different arguments for or against the notion of Taiwan independence. While I welcome people to challenge my position, present arguments, and seek to persuade me to change my position or reconcile my position to new information, I will be blunt in telling you what does or doesn’t make sense to me and why. I will tell you when I disagree and I will tell you what I find wrong or irrelevant. I will tell you when we’re no longer discussing the same thing. I may also categorically ignore you when I have decided we cannot have an intellectually honest discussion.

Now, let’s begin:

Taiwan is a de facto independent, sovereign state.

When I say this, I am specifically judging Taiwan by the definition of sovereignty and of an sovereign state. I believe this definition is independent of whether or not other sovereign states recognize it or not. However, I am not ignorant of the fact that things are not so simple in reality and that recognition or non-recognition by “other sovereign states” certainly affects the sovereign state in question in many serious and very real ways.

From Wikipedia:

A sovereign state is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it difficult to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

I believe Taiwan is indeed a sovereign state because it indeed has effective sovereignty over its territory and is not dependent upon or subject to any other power or state. It has both de jure sovereignty and de facto sovereignty. The people in Taiwan recognize the government to have legal power over them, which it in fact can and does exercise. There is a social contract.

Taiwan’s de jure status in international law and politics (not domestic) is not so clear. I know this. This is why I qualify my statement that Taiwan is a “de facto” sovereign state internationally. While it has, over time, lost recognition by the majority of other sovereign states in the international sphere, this has not changed the fact that it continues to meet the definition of a soverign state, maintaining domestic de jure and de facto sovereignty. This is the premise upon which I state “de facto“.

To this day, Taiwan controls and governs itself, whether or not outsiders, namely the PRC, likes it or not. It is not Hong Kong, which has been and is de jure and de facto controlled and governed by Beijing. If Hong Kong does something Beijing does not like, Beijing has de jure and de facto recourse. In contrast, Taiwan enjoys an autonomy substantially greater and significantly different from what Hong Kong has. The PRC can indeed influence Taiwan as it can influence any separate political and economic entity (like the United States), but influence alone is neither control nor governance by fiat, again unlike the PRC’s control and governance of Hong Kong.

This is not a “one country, two systems” situation. This is at the very least a “two separate systems” situation. This is not a parent-child scenario as can be applied to Hong Kong. This is, with respect to the history between the KMT and CCP, arguably a separated sibling scenario.

Source: Poagao on Flickr.

Taiwan is a renegade province because China says so.

I have outlined the basic premise and limitations of my position above. Below are the arguments of a certain chinaSMACK commenter that disagrees with me. I have reprinted it in near-entirety and will respond to it point-by-point. I have tried to add clarifications as necessary and note that I do occasionally address the commenter with “you” or “your”.

He begins by outlining his position and general claims:

1.) Taiwan is not a country
2.) Taiwan is not a sovereign nation
3.) Taiwan is a rebel state belonging to Greater China

I disagree with #1 and #2, believing Taiwan is very much a de facto country and a sovereign nation. With regards to #3, I ask that “Greater China” be defined. What is “Greater China?” If you say “Greater China” is the PRC, I disagree and do not believe Taiwan is a “rebel” state “belonging” to the PRC. However, I do personally believe Taiwan to belong to a Greater China insofar as that China is defined as an entity or association independent and separate from the CCP and the modern PRC. “Greater China” to me, is about a certain Chinese culture, heritage, and identity. It is not, to me, a specific political entity as the PRC or CCP is.

Next, the commenter proceeds to elaborate and provide arguments in support of each of his above three claims:

1

a) Taiwan is not reocognised as a sovereign nation by United Nations and its members.

I do not think the definition of a country or sovereign nation necessarily requires specific recognition by the “United Nations and its members” though, again, I fully understand the real world disadvantages of lacking that recognition. I believe there is an objective definition for “sovereignty” and a different, malleable definition employed by politicians in the United Nations and its members for political expediency. I recognize the latter, but will you recognize the former?

(b)Political debate has been about Taiwan separating or claiming independance from China – this wording would implicitly imply that Taiwan is not considered an independent country.

I strongly disagree with this characterization of the “political debate” surrounding Taiwan and the “implication” drawn from it. I can accept that this may be the debate within certain circles but certainly not in or with the circles I am familiar with. To me, a lot of political debate is precisely over how to label Taiwan given its de facto independence but ambiguous international de jure status. These political debates regularly involve philosophical and theoretical arguments over “statehood”, many of which are summarized in the Wikipedia entry for “sovereign state” already referenced above.

In these debates, Taiwan is already de facto separate from China, in everything but the unilateral claims of the PRC. The PRC rarely disputes and cannot dispute the actual “separateness” of Taiwan economically, political, and even socially from mainland PRC. It insists that Taiwan not declare, uphold, or emphasize its separateness, the most obvious way being “claiming independence”.

The controversy over “claiming independence” does not “implicitly imply that Taiwan is not considered an independent country.” It explicitly represents the on-going and unresolved political question mark concerning Taiwan’s international status, over how it should be recognized in the international political sphere.

Those who advocate “claiming independence” are not doing so to “separate” Taiwan from the PRC as if their current status is de facto part of China. They are doing so to remind others that they are separate, independent, and not part of China. They are restating a fact in their minds to those whom they believe do not recognize or sufficiently recognize that fact. They do this for many ends, including efforts to more clearly define Taiwan’s international status in hopes that doing so will persuade international organizations to recognize them for what they believe they already are, an independent, sovereign state that deserves international recognition as such.

Those who advocate against “claiming independence” generally belong in two camps. One camp is the mainland “One China/Reunification” camp and the other is the “Maintain the Status Quo” camp. I don’t think I need to explain the former. The latter, however, are the people who understand and recognize the complicated history surrounding the Chinese Civil War, how Taiwan figures into it, how ambiguous — even unresolved — Taiwan’s international status is, and have a vested interest in maintaining peace between the two sides. They know that Taiwan “claiming independence” rocks the boat, pissing off an increasingly powerful PRC that cannot be ignored. They also know that this rocking of the boat accomplishes very little because the PRC holds enough influence over other nations to deny Taiwan what some seek for it. Finally, they know too that Taiwan remains de facto independent even if it doesn’t “claim independence”. The expected costs of Taiwan “claiming independence” outweigh the expected benefits for those in the “Maintain the Status Quo” camp.

The wording here does not imply Taiwan is not an independent country…not if you have even a basic understanding of the issue.

(c) Recently, Chinese anti-secession law allows a Chinese military attack on Taiwan to prevent the island from seeking independence.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Taiwan can be seen as a sovereign nation or not. This does not prove that Taiwan is not a country, it just proves that the PRC does not see Taiwan as independent and is willing to issue a political threat. Me writing a document titled “anti-secession law” in which I authorize myself to use force against you should you “seek independence” does not mean you actually belong to me. This is a unilateral declaration of fact, not a representation of fact.

(d) The Olympics, which publically promotes sports over politics disallowed Taiwan to enter under even the Republic of China name. Taiwan was not allowed to play their national anthem and were registered as Chinese Taipei and prohibited to use their flag.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not Taiwan is a sovereign or independent country. If I get everyone to agree with me that you are not a person, are you suddenly not a person? The Olympics has always been political. The PRC and mainland Chinese should have seen this first hand last year. How The Olympics has treated Taiwan is all about politics and not about sports. Suggesting that this treatment is not about politics but about objective indisputable fact as above is ignorance at best and willful stupidity at worst.

2/3

(a) Based on the reasoning that Taiwan is not an independent country in itself, this would correlate to the fact that Taiwan is a renegade/rebel country.

No. First, you have not sufficiently established that Taiwan is not an independent country in itself. Without doing so, you cannot use it as a premise for further “reasoning”. Second, I don’t think proving Taiwan as not being an independent country would “correlate” to it being a renegade/rebel country. I believe it would correlate to Taiwan simply not being a country at all. Interestingly, your claim #1 argued that Taiwan is not a country, yet you refer to Taiwan as a country here. Did you mean “province”? Either way, argument #2/3a here does not support claim #2/3, it just restates it.

(b) Based on your definition:

(i) that Taiwan governs itself – this is not a distinguishing key factor of sovereignty – I could mention HK is the same but you are of course are emphasising the differences as being the key exceptions to why Taiwan is different. I’ll address this below.

For clarification, this commenter is disputing my previous assertion that Taiwan’s self-governance contributes to it meeting the definition of a sovereign state. I believe self-governance is very much an distinguishing key factor of sovereignty since it is part of the definition.

Some extra questions to challenge your comparison to Hong Kong: Does the PRC appoint the government leaders and personnel in Taiwan as it does in Hong Kong? Can the PRC unilaterally decide matters of governmental policy for Taiwan as it can for Hong Kong? If the PRC wanted to build a railroad on Taiwan territory, can it do so as it can do so on Hong Kong territory?

(ii) cannot be governed/controlled/influenced by outside forces such as Beijing

- this could be poor wording on your behalf, but I’m sure that you are relying on (iii) to pull you out of it. As far as I’m aware, Taiwan can be controlled and influenced in more than one way through both Chinese legislation and international pressure both economically and politically by the PRC.

Again, for clarification, this commenter is partially quoting my previous arguments and responding.

I acknowledge that my previous statement to which this commenter is referring to is indeed susceptible to disingenuous literal interpretation (and accusations of poor wording), but it should have been clear what my intended point is, that Taiwan governs itself. I will respond further below.

(iii) any more than most countries (key point ^^)

- Unfotunately, I dont think that this sneaky part of the sentence will help you here.

China osentsibly has more control over Taiwan than most other countries. Not only do they have overwhelming political support but they are legally entitled through their own legislation – which I assume also has international support – to force Taiwan from declaring independance, seeing that it would be an internal affair.

This isn’t sneaky. It’s only sneaky if you choose to disingenuously interpret my direct previous statement (and this statement) too literally. The point is that Taiwan self-governs but is free from or subject to largely the same external pressures and influence as most other sovereign states.

Does the PRC “ostensibly” have more control over Taiwan than most other countries? I prefer “influence” — even “intimidation” — over “control” but this is largely due to their rather unique, complicated, and ambiguous international status, not due to Taiwan belonging to the PRC. I, and most people, acknowledge and agree that that Taiwan is often largely at the PRC’s political mercy in the realm of international politics. But this has nothing to do with whether or not Taiwan meets the objective definition of being an independent/sovereign state.

Continuing, the PRC’s domestic political support to prevent, with force, Taiwan from declaring independence is a given. That domestic political support seeing it as an internal affair is also a given. But neither of these prove that Taiwan is not a sovereign state. That the PRC entitles itself to using force also proves nothing except that the PRC can unilaterally declare its own view and proclaim to others how it may react to certain conditions it sets for itself.

Next, there is little international support for the PRC’s anti-secession law from what I have seen. Given that you (the commenter) “assume” there is support, I take that you actually don’t know anything about whether or not there is support internationally. This is bad. One, other countries cannot dictate what legislation the PRC wishes to draft and enact for itself. If the PRC wanted to, it could pass a law declaring the United States to be a renegade province and even the Americans who take it seriously could not do much to overturn it. Two, the existence of that law or legislation does not change reality, just as that aforementioned law would not automatically make America a renegade province of the PRC. Three, outsiders’ inability to stop or change a nation’s legislation does not equate to their support.

Assuming that there is international support for China’s anti-secession law is strong evidence that of inexcusable ignorance concerning the anti-secession law’s reception in the international sphere. The reception I am aware of is of strong criticism of this legislation as a political gesture designed to threaten and intimidate a Taiwan that is rocking the boat and challenging the status quo that the PRC has, in practice, accepted and supported. Ask yourself when this legislation was made and in response to what. I can tell you it was not made in response to international requests and support.

The United States would be bound by treaty to protect Taiwan if this happens, however this is a separate matter.

I agree this is a separate matter. It is not necessary to discuss this to argue my position over your’s.

Concluding remarks:

The overwhelming debate about Taiwanese independance revolves around the acceptance of Taiwan being a region and not an independant country.

Maybe in your circles, not in mine nor my understanding of most circles of debate concerning Taiwan. The debate is not about “accepting” Taiwan as a region, but about the problem of how Taiwan should be treated in the international sphere: Whether as a region of the PRC to appease the PRC…OR…whether as an independent country as it actually is in practice.

As I mentioned in the previous post, there are political issues involved in the reason why Taiwan is not recognised as a country. However this does not change what is already considered a fact by the United Nations and most international organisations around the world.

I’m going to employ a fallacy to respond to this: Then why is the issue still so hotly contested by so many people?

Political expediency (or necessity) does not reflect unanimous, even popular, agreement with the claim that Taiwan is not an independent country. Your own statement above is illogical, even ludicrous. The fact that there are political issues involved in whether or not Taiwan is recognized as a country has everything to do with how political international organizations like the UN treat Taiwan’s international political status. The political issues have determined how the UN and other international organizations treat Taiwan. How they treat Taiwan is not separate from those political issues. That the UN and most international organizations around the world have chosen to compromise the definition of sovereignty does not change the definition of sovereignty, nor does it automatically change the fact that the Taiwan is an independent state.

I believe that the Peoples Republic of China is claiming sovereignty of Taiwan is justified.

I disagree. As stated at the beginning of this post, I do think there’s an emotional appeal for mainland Chinese to claim brotherhood with the people in Taiwan but I strongly disagree that the PRC, as founded and operated by the CCP, has any legitimate political or territorial claims on Taiwan. If one day they should take the island by force or Taiwan voluntarily reunites, then they’ll have a political and territorial claim. Not prior. Until then, it is still the political claim and territory of the state and government that formerly controlled mainland China.

(i) Firstly on the fact that Taiwan has not recognised as a sovereign country.

See above. I agree Taiwan is not “recognized” as a sovereign country, but I disagree that it isn’t. This is a crucial difference between our positions. Also, this point alone is insufficient to “justify” the PRC’s claim. Remember what came first. The claim came before the rescinding of recognition by other nations. Not the other way around. It was not that other nations did not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation and then the PRC laid a claim. It was the PRC making the claim first and then influencing, even coercing, other nations to not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country. Don’t get this mixed up.

(ii) The constitution of both the ROC and PRC recognises Taiwan as a province.

Yes, but the constitution of the ROC recognizes it as a province of the ROC, not the PRC. Nice try. Did you really think this through?

(iii) When the Republic of China was in control of Mainland, led by the KMT. They were able to exercise sovereignty over the Mainland. The Republic of China continued to claim to be the sole legitimate government of China even after losing the civil war.

While this is a positive statement which in itself is not relevant directly to the topic, we can still infer some important reasoning from it. If the Republic of China felt it could claim over the mainland, why could the PRC not claim sovereignty over Taiwan based on the same reasoning that a previous government which governed the nation of China now controls Taiwan – reverse logic.

Actually, the statement is definitely directly relevant to this topic. It has everything to do with how politics does not reflect reality, how political sovereignty/independence does not mirror de facto sovereignty/independence.

Yes, we can infer some important reasoning from it, but you are not going far enough. The ROC’s claim on the mainland was due to its previous control of the mainland. It saw the CCP takeover of the mainland as a coup that it would continue to fight with the expectation that, one day, it will reclaim its territory. The ROC did not base its claim on the previous Qing Dynasty government’s claim over mainland China. It based it upon it actually retaking territory from warlords and foreign powers and establishing governance over them. The PRC has never controlled or governed Taiwan as the ROC has controlled and governed mainland China. When the PRC came into existence, it did so without control of ROC-controlled Taiwan and it has never wrested control of that territory from Taiwan unlike, say, Hainan.

The PRC has no direct historical or territorial claim to the island of Taiwan. To have a claim, it must appeal to a previous government. If it appeals to the ROC, it cannot deny that the ROC still exists and controls Taiwan. If it appeals to the Qing Dynasty, its claim is one step removed from the ROC’s claim. It’s only entertain-able claim is to a persistent “nation” of China that is separate from from the CCP. But where does that leave the PRC? You see, the ROC can make the same claim, and it has de facto control of the territory in question.

I need to point out that based on reverse logic on Taiwan’s continous claim to sovereignty over the mainland; based on the current stance of the United Nations; based on Chinese legislation and its impact on Taiwanese sovereignty; and based on Taiwan’s own view that it is not an independent country, that it is safe to infer that Taiwan is not a country by any standard and thus is only a renegade province that belongs to the PRC at this stage.

Is that “continuous claim” still continuing? I do not believe Taiwan or the KMT maintains their claim. Quite awhile ago, it become obvious that they were never going to retake mainland China and they have effectively given up that claim. I argue that their claim is stronger than the PRC’s claim to Taiwan to illustrate how physical control of a territory is a fundamental component of determining sovereignty and legitimizing claims upon territory. I do not see or agree with the “reverse logic” you seem to see. Neither the PRC nor the CCP has ever physically controlled Taiwan so what legitimizes their claim? Furthermore, what makes their claim more legitimate than the ROC’s?

See above for my views on the “current stance of the United Nations” and “Chinese legislation and its impact on Taiwanese sovereignty”. As for Taiwan’s own view that it is not an independent country, I believe you are completely wrong because Taiwan strongly, without ambiguity, views itself as an independent country.

Given that I find none of your arguments to be persuasive in supporting your claims, I cannot agree with your inferred conclusion. I believe Taiwan is definitely a country by most standards. In fact, I believe you totally failed to argue why it isn’t a “country”. I definitely do not believe Taiwan is a “renegade province” belonging to the PRC in anyone’s eyes except for the PRC. I believe most people believe Taiwan to be a difficult conundrum that the people in Taiwan and China need to sort out for themselves, ideally peacefully.

Whether or not Taiwan is deemed an independent or sovereign country should first look to whether or not it meets the definition of these terms. You’re skipping that and saying “Taiwan isn’t independent or sovereign because China says so.” That’s an extremely unpersuasive argument. I’m willing to entertain and accept the fact that international bodies refuse to recognize Taiwan as an independent/sovereign country as a matter of accepting a political reality that is too difficult to change, but it is my position that Taiwan satisfies the objective definition of an independent/sovereign state.

Your comment about error of logic does not apply here. I would not say that Taiwan has always belonged to the PRC. However the ROC ceased to be a legitimate government upon the succession of the PRC which under the succession of states theory gives control to the PRC.

In general, don’t claim an accusation of error of logic (fallacy) does not apply, explain why it doesn’t. You haven’t.

Judging by your next statements, I strongly believe you have an inadequate understanding of the “succession of states” theory. The theory is as useful for the legitimacy of the ROC’s control over Taiwan as it is for the legitimacy of the PRC’s control over mainland China. It has little persuasiveness for proving the legitimacy of the PRC’s claim over Taiwan, at least relative to that of the ROC’s. More importantly, the “succession of states” theory may support the ROC ceasing to be the legitimate government of mainland China upon succession of the PRC but it does not support the cessation of the ROC being the legitimate government over the island of Taiwan.

Most importantly is that the constitution of the ROC states that Taiwan is a province of China which is not an independent country. As the PRC governs China, it also asserts sovereignty over the province which is Taiwan.

See above. This cannot possible be the “most important” argument for your position.

Yes, the PRC governs mainland China and, yes, it “asserts” sovereignty over Taiwan. But that’s about it. It “asserts”.

Concluding remarks

I believe that if you disagree with my statement that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state, you must prove to me one of two things:

1. Taiwan does not meet the definition of a sovereign state; or
2. My understanding of the definition is wrong.

If you want to say the UN definition is different (is it really? or are they, again, compromising the definition to not piss off another member they can’t afford to piss off?), you still need to be intellectually honest and acknowledge the definition I am operating on before you explain your disagreement. If we cannot agree on what defines a sovereign state, we’re not going to agree on any issue of contention that depends on that definition.

Again, I am willing to be persuaded to change my position, but I will not be persuaded by appeal to authority and appeal to common practice fallacies. Go ahead and point out the problems or mistakes in my position or reasoning, but I will not be persuaded by an argument that boils down to: “Taiwan is a renegade province because China says so.”

The Players

From oldest to newest…

EastSouthWestNorth

EastSouthWestNorth is the personal blog of Hong-Kong-based Roland Soong and the oldest — even most influential — blog of this bunch. It is also the simplest, a no-frills affair cobbled together and maintained with arcane late 1990s Microsoft Frontpage 5.0 desktop software. While many of Soong’s translated news articles draw heavily from Hong Kong media sources, Soong has a wonderful habit of occasionally diving head first into the deep end of major incidents, collecting — and contrasting — the reporting from sources around the world. He’s also not afraid to tackle underreported subjects either. As a statistician by training and trade, Soong’s blog also regularly features translated poll and survey results about all manner of topics, a quick way to gauge what people (often Chinese, Hong Kong, or Taiwanese) feel about something or another, provided you’re conscious of how such polls work and the most they can reveal. Unlike most blogs, ESWN does not allow reader comments, which is maddening for readers wishing to discuss the topics he covers but nonetheless a conscious decision by a Soong that doesn’t want to worry about criticism. Updated daily.

Global Voices Online China

Global Voices Online is a massive blog with hundreds of volunteer bloggers publishing reports and translations from multiple countries, in multiple languages, and a self-proclaimed “emphasis on voices that are not ordinarily heard in international mainstream media.” It is part of the non-profit organization Stitching Global Voices, founded by Rebecca MacKinnon and Ethan Zuckerman. GVO’s China section itself has several different contributors reporting on different issues, providing not just background and summaries but also translations of opinions and perspectives from Chinese bloggers and other Chinese netizens. Updated multiple times per week.

chinaSMACK

chinaSMACK popped onto the scene a little over a year ago, ostensibly created by a young Shanghainese girl named Fauna. Along with a small army of irregular contributors, chinaSMACK translates internet posts and topics that have become popular on China’s major discussion forums like Tianya, Mop, NetEase, Sina, etc. Most of these topics are social or cultural in nature, often shocking, scandalous, or silly and generally always entertaining to behold. One thing that makes chinaSMACK somewhat unique — even popular — is their aversion to strongly political subjects, something most blogs about China revel in. Another thing is a their strong emphasis on including translations of Chinese netizen reactions and comments with their translations of the original posts or news they’re reporting, even more so than GVO above. They even have a special glossary defining common Chinese internet memes, slang, and expressions. The grand scheme? To give non-Chinese readers a glimpse into what many Chinese netizens find interesting, what they’re talking about, and how many of them behave…for better or for worse. Updated daily.

ChinaHush

ChinaHush was started by a Chinese-American guy named Key nearly a year ago and was quickly derided by many as a shameless copy-cat of chinaSMACK in too many ways ranging from its name and design to its content and self-professed mission. However, there’s certainly more than enough interesting content coming out of China’s internet space for there to be more than one chinaSMACK, and ChinaHush aims to establish itself in that niche. Like chinaSMACK, ChinaHush reports on popular Chinese internet stories, minus the consistent inclusion of translated Chinese netizen comments. More impressively, ChinaHush posts ever so slightly more often than chinaSMACK. For us selfish readers of both sites, the best scenario is for each site to cover the material the other one misses. Can ChinaHush get out from under chinaSMACK’s shadow? Only time will tell, and Key’s consistent postings and continued efforts to differentiate from the latter will only help. Updated daily.

China News Wrap

China News Wrap appeared at the start of this year with its early posts being translations of headlines on the front page of major mainland China newspapers (similar to Danwei, which can be accessed behind the GFW here), publications, or news websites. It soon evolved into each post being translations, or sometimes summaries, of the individual Chinese articles themselves. There’s not much information about who runs the website except that it may be a certain Marc Howe in or from Australia. Most of the selected articles are skewed towards international economics and politics though there are some social and human-interest articles as well. Updated multiple times per week.

The Awards

Now that you’re familiar with the main contenders, we’ve got a few random awards to give out, partly to honor (or gently rib) these websites and partly to give you, dear reader, some more interesting information and commentary.

Most Prolific – EastSouthWestNorth

Roland Soong is a veritable one man juggernaut, generally translating  more original Chinese content into English than any of the other blogs listed here. In fact, he probably publishes more content overall, and has been doing so longer than all the rest of these blogs combined. Given ESWN’s bare bones design and atypical blogging format, however, it can be a bit difficult keeping tabs on all the content he hemorrhages nearly daily if you’re relying on an RSS subscription. The reason is because much of his content is placed on a rolling homepage that isn’t syndicated to RSS. Fortunately, a CNR reader previously set up a Page2RSS feed that scrapes ESWN’s content and syndicates it via RSS, albeit with a lengthy delay. Still beats visiting the site constantly.

Most Lively Community – chinaSMACK

Of all the websites here, chinaSMACK owns the rest when it comes to reader participation and comments. Not only does their content almost always include translated Chinese netizen comments, each of their posts gets an avalanche of comments from their visitors. On average, a post of their’s will quickly accumulate up to 50-80 comments within the first couple of days while their most controversial posts will easily hit 300-400-500 comments as their readers argue, debate, or troll each other. No one comments at China News Wrap, those who would like to can’t at ESWN, and though they started only a few months after chinaSMACK, ChinaHush only manages a couple comments per post on average. One caveat though, chinaSMACK’s comment section is as lively as it is often demoralizing.

Most Investigative – EastSouthWestNorth

This category because everyone has their own opinion on what deserves further attention and digging. To be clear, none of these websites do any “investigative journalism” in the traditional sense, as they’re not journalists out in the field traveling and interviewing subjects of interest. They’re just bloggers reporting on what they see and can find on the internet, piecing things together into a coherent and hopefully clearer picture for their readers. With perhaps the exception of China News Wrap, all of these blogs have had their moments revisiting a story or posting a follow-up, but prolific ESWN wins this award for the sheer amount of information Soong can collate when he sinks his incisors into something. Just take a look at his coverage on the recent Urumqi riots or the infamous Edisen Chen Sexy Photos Gate.

Best Designed – chinaSMACK

Ah, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and this beholder (with two eyes, not one large one and many smaller ones on tentacle stalks) has to bestow this award upon chinaSMACK, despite the somewhat garish exploitation of hot pink. Of course, that hot pink has also rightfully defined chinaSMACK’s brand (along with 囧) and, while some parts of their website still feature too much of it, the website overall is tastefully balanced with dark and light grays. More importantly, an obvious amount of effort was put into the design so that images and text all have their place in a logical, coherent whole. We’ve even taken cues from them here on CNR. The design isn’t perfect, but its good enough to beat the rest of these sites…though just barely so over the cool pastels and fancy satellite map eye candy of Global Voices Online. Just barely.

Worst Designed – ChinaHush

No offense to Key, but ChinaHush edges out ESWN for this dubious award. Why? Because there’s a difference between trying and failing and not trying at all. ESWN is the latter. Originally, ChinaHush looked like a cheap shanzhai version of chinaSMACK, but with some blunt prodding (by me over e-mail to Key), the design has changed with substantial differentiation, albeit with little overall aesthetic improvement. Some main culprits include: its the harsh color contrasts (you think hot pink is bad, try blocks of black and white ), the distorted or improperly resized images, the clunky featured content slideshow on the sidebar, and the general in-cohesiveness of the overall layout and design. Oh sure, I’m being mean, but I’m also pushing Key to improve it for ChinaHush’s own long-term benefit.

Most Unreliable Website – chinaSMACK

Whether it is due to its own popularity, external hacking attacks by enemies, or some mysterious technical reason, chinaSMACK is too often bogged down or outright inaccessible. YMMV but, these days, not a week goes by without an attempted visit to chinaSMACK resulting in several 500 Internal Server Error or 503 Service Temporarily Unavailable messages being thrown back in my face. This is a big problem and one it needs to take seriously because it hurts everything they’ve accomplished so far. A pretty design is useless when the page won’t load and a lively community isn’t so lively when its members can’t post their comments.

Most Advertising – chinaSMACK

I’m generally not opposed to websites having advertisements, as long as the ads don’t pop-up or take over my screen. After all, they’re offering free information, entertainment, or services and they deserve to get some compensation for their hard work. We have ads on CNR too. That said, ads still take up real estate and can sometimes be distracting. chinaSMACK and ChinaHush have the most advertising spots of this bunch. ChinaHush’s off-center 728×90 Leaderboard ad at the top of its page is pretty annoying (mostly because it stands out), but it is nothing compared to chinaSMACK’s sidebar-topping triangle of doom, especially when all three show the same advertiser (for me, it’s often Ctrip).

Most Scandalous – chinaSMACK

This was a tough call between chinaSMACK, ChinaHush, and ESWN. ChinaHush was quickly ruled out simply because its too much an emulation of chinaSMACK with very similar content but lacking the distinction of being first to the game. That left chinaSMACK and ESWN. Neither website shies away from featuring controversial content including salacious or grotesquely violent images, and while both sites also feature less shocking content, chinaSMACK gets the edge simply because ESWN dilutes its shocking content more with non-shocking news articles and poll numbers. chinaSMACK has, by some measures, toned down over time, particularly with content including nudity, but the scandalousness of its commenter community somewhat compensates for that. Oh, and they even have an online personals service now. ‘Nuff said!

Are we missing any China blogs that emphasize English translation of original Chinese content? Have a good idea for an award? Let us know in the comments below!

Stories of racism turn up all the time, in every part of the world, whether it is an African-American who dared to return to America leaving behind in Shanghai the Chinese woman he impregnated, a black Brazilian man standing next to his Ford Ecosport SUV at a Carrefour in Brazil, or another African-American Harvard professor entering his own Massachusettes home. And these are just instance of racism against black people, in a world where racism and reverse-racism cuts not just both directions but every direction.

Lou Jing and her Chinese mother on the Chinese talent show, "Oriental Angels".

To see this, we only need to revisit the aforementioned Lou Jing fiasco, where a Shanghainese girl of mixed blood (black American and yellow Chinese) found herself in the middle of a torrent of racist comments by Chinese netizens, all kindly translated for us by infamous China-tabloid chinaSMACK (and the upstart ChinaHush).

Just as the examples of Chinese racism were outrageous were the foreigner comments predictable. In the face of ridiculously ignorant and malicious racism by many Chinese netizens, many foreign netizens flooded chinaSMACK’s comment section with equally ignorant and malicious racism against the Chinese. “A hah! I knew Chinese society was racist!” the chorus crooned.

To be sure, many of them meant well, meaning to voice their distaste for and opposition to racism in general, but so many simply couldn’t do so without racially generalizing the Chinese in the process. It was as if the only way they could show that they were outraged by racism against blacks was to be even more racist towards the Chinese. It made me wonder: Are these people here to condemn racism? Or are they here to condemn the Chinese?

Some may say, “we’re here to condemn the Chinese for their racism”. Indeed, and is it necessary to be racist in doing so? Or are we really here to use racism as an excuse to condemn the Chinese? Is using racism or tolerating racism to condemn racism somehow right? Or does it just create more problems of self-righteous hypocrisy…amongst races? Are those of us who consider ourselves non-racist actually not racist? Or have we merely been trained with conditional response to certain forms of racism but not others? What is more important? The state of being racist or the state of being Chinese?

Websites like chinaSMACK are as accurate — and as flawed — a representation and reflection of foreigners as it is of Chinese people.

Behind racism is a frightening combination of ignorance, insecurity, and plain stupidity. To this day, the vast majority of humanity is still content to align themselves to race and nationality over logic and rationality. We still find it more important to reinforce or tolerate the superficial identities and seemingly persuasive diatribes that make “us” better and “them” worse, rather than celebrate the similarities that make “us” better and condemn the similarities that make “us” worse.

Racism is a problem. With all of us.

UPDATE: Great post by Uln on this topic over at CHINAYOUREN »