It was a brilliant publicity move and considered by itself, ethically correct: those treasures belong to China, no question (whatever the current legal situation of the items).

I’m curious to see whether China’s attitude will affect cooperation with the National Palace Museum here. Everything was all peachy-keen before this….

Michael

March 3, 2009 @ 3:46 pm | Comment

BTW, things are sooooo much better since you started moderating. I know how much work it is. Thanks, guys.

March 3, 2009 @ 3:47 pm | Comment

Interesting thoughts. It sure has made for a great story, but I’m hesitant to claim a victory with you for Chinese PR. There are two things that hold me back:

1) You assume that Cai is just a puppet of the government. I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it sure seems like he was just trying to score big points with his country and the government just happen to benefit from that from a PR standpoint. Why praise them for it?

2) There also seems to be the assumption that Chinese reaction to this is unified. From various newspapers I read and from what Danwei has pointed out, this isn’t the case. Chinese aren’t sure whether he brings them honor or disgrace and they’re waiting for somebody to tell them which it is.

Now, if the government steps in and creates a hero out of Cai, then I claim victory for Chinese PR. Otherwise, jury’s still out for me.

March 3, 2009 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

“has brought its people together”

All 1.3 billion of them? Are you basing this claim on the Global Times poll? (Which for all its patriotic fervor can only find 70% of its readers that support this turn of events.) Don’t you mean it has given the ultra-patriotic segment of the population another reason get online an spew their vitriol all over the “Strong nation forum” and other sites of its ilk?

I agree this was a good publicity stunt, and more than giving this story a global resonance, it has become a front page drama domestically. But “its people”? If I see one more comment or post trying to lump all the people in China together, I’m going to vomit.

Wouldn’t it be more patriotic for this rich guy to sacrifice his millions to bring these “precious” pieces back to China? As it stands, they will probably end back up in Mr. Berges possession instead of where “the Chinese people” think they should belong (in a museum owned by China Poly where they can charge “the Chinese people” an entrance fee to see a bunch a bronzes formerly owned by a Chinese rich guy (aka the emperor) who wouldn’t have let “the Chinese people” get within 100 meters of them)

*Sigh* history…

March 3, 2009 @ 5:32 pm | Comment

I’m not sure I agree with you about the significance of Mr. Cai’s shenanigans. A very modest PR coup, if you ask me. More interesting, I think, is how recent events contribute to the construction/perpetuation of nationalist “myths” and, in particular, to the politicization of the Summer Palace narrative.

The current issue of the journal *Modern China* contains a particularly timely essay by Lee Haiyan of Stanford University (a few of her shorter essays have appeared this past year at The China Beat blog) entitled “The Ruins of Yuanmingyuan: Or, How to Enjoy a National Wound.” I’ll send you a pdf copy.

March 3, 2009 @ 5:44 pm | Comment

I never said “all the people,” Andy. I mean, I say things like, “The American people are very concerned about the economy,” but of course i can’t say whether that applies to all Americans. Still, I feel safe to say it. I do know for a fact that Mr Cai is now a media darling and beloved by virtually every Chinese person I know. If you feel you need to vomit, please turn the other way, thanks.

Also, I am not saying he did anyting good or bad. I’m not passing any judgment. I’m saying this was a PR coup.

Josh I never said he was a puppet of the government. But he is indeed closely affiliated with the government, the government has benefitted (PR-wise) from his little trick and they are endorsing him 1,000 percent. Is he a puppet? I never thought that – it sounds like this was his own cool idea. However, he may well now become a puppet. We’ll see, Once you get famous, the CCP tends to take over and control you.

Hong, I guess it’s all about how you measure it. I have one way of measuring a PR coup, and that’s media response. Plus public awareness. The guy is now famous beyond all belief here. The foreign media are going wild with the story. To me, that is a PR coup. Whether it’s a minor PR coup or a super-duper-gee-whiz-holy-shit-biggest-coup-ever, I can’t say yet. Please do send me a copy of the PDF, thanks.

March 3, 2009 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

“He is so much more civilized than those who did the looting,” wrote one of the commentators.”

Funny, I wonder where all those Chinese who took part in the Cultural Revolution and destroyed all kinds of Chinese cultural relics would fit into this story…?

March 3, 2009 @ 6:17 pm | Comment

How can the article imply that the Chinese government spoilt the auction, unless we assume Cai was working on their behalf? Personally I think he was doing this off his own bat.

I’m sure that there are lots of Chinese who care about this, but of the friends I’ve talked to none were very excited. I’ll try to ask what they think about his refusal to pay, but given they’ve already told me they weren’t interested I can imagine what the response will be.

I’m not sure whether this is a PR coup, at least in regards to outside of China. Before he refused to pay China merely objected and pursued its legal options, which it could be praised for. Now, by acting somewhat petulantly, Cai has spoilt that. Of course non-Chinese may generally agree that he was justified in doing it and have international, not just domestic, support.

March 3, 2009 @ 6:30 pm | Comment

well,well,let me to add some wits of Chinese netizen ,the truth is we donot care the looted twins,what enjoy us so much is the feeling of fucking France without paying (pardon my language),we are loving this feeling.

According to the PR coup, it’s about the business of westener,you used to produce some “news” and sell,we like it. On China ,we just donot believe communism and make some fun of CCTV news.

Agree with Richard with the view “Once you get famous, the CCP tends to take over and control you.”.In Chinese ,we say “ZhaoAn”

March 3, 2009 @ 6:56 pm | Comment

In a fit of patriotic pique, Mr. Cai, like millions of angry Chinese before him, impotently thumbs his nose at the perfidious West. What has he accomplished, really? Aside from manifestly demonstrating his own nationalist bona fides, not a whole lot. Meanwhile, the bronze heads remain in France, part of a French citizen’s private art collection. Moreover, the French court has made it abundantly clear (to China and the the rest of the world) that, regardless of provenance, the bronze heads are the property of said French citizen. In short, the whole thing makes the Chinese appear weak – yet again. A century and a half after the French laid waste to the Summer Palace, a French private citizen has told the Chinese government to go f*ck itself. (“Sure,” he says, “I’d be happy to return the two bronze heads to the Chinese people – provided that the Chinese government make certain guarantees concerning human rights and allow the Dalai Lama to return to Tibet.”) If this does not constitute rubbing the Chinese government’s nose in its own excrement, I don’t know what does. Can you imagine – the French steal a bunch of Chinese stuff and then have the temerity to suggest (without a hint of irony, mind you) that they lack the legal standing to do anything about it. Absolutely delicious. What’s more, a single, crazy old pervert then stands toe-to-toe with the government of the People’s Republic and lectures them about their own failings. Outrageous. Did you miss all this or what, Richard?

In the end, what you see in the Chinese press is an exercise in spin control. Indeed, how does the Chinese propaganda ministry make this look like something other than what it most certainly is – i.e., a proper ass-reaming by a French sodomite? PR Coup? Good grief, Richard. Are you serious? You are living in the Chinese bubble, my friend. (You have my sympathy. Been there, done that. In 1999-2000, the Chinese press nearly convinced me that the Falungong was actually evil.) I’ve read the Chinese headlines. Here in Cambridge, Mass., however, this news is not even news. Back page stuff at best.

I sent the Lee Haiyan essay I mentioned earlier to your gmail address. Enjoy.

March 3, 2009 @ 6:57 pm | Comment

Sorry Richard…this whole thing has continued to irk me as its developed, and the term “Chinese people” has been distorted to a sickening degree as usual. Anyway, sorry for taking my frustration out on your innocent turn of phrase…

March 3, 2009 @ 7:03 pm | Comment

Being an American Chinese, here is my perspective on the brouhaha. You state that the auction is legal. But I wonder who wrote the law (I suspect it was most likely something initiated by Europeans). I remember the first case I read in Property Law: Johnson v M’Intosh. In that case, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US “owned” America and Native Americans did not have title to the land of their ancestors. Talk about conflict of interest. In certain cases, it’s not about legality (or fairness or morality), it’s about power. The world was more or less ran by Europeans for the past two hundred years and they determined the rules of the game. But we are witnessing a shift in power paradigm. The argument that — yes it was looted over 150 years ago, but we’ve since came up with a law saying that after a certain number of years, you no longer have claim, and we are now legal owners of items looted by our ancestors and you have to pay us lots of dough to get them back — will not fly at all. The Chinese are saying: why should we follow your rules? We want to set the rules of the game too!

On a second note, I am tired of you guys always looking at things through the “nationalism” lens. There are other approaches to analyzing an issue. I am not a Chinese national and could care less about the Chinese government. Like many persons of Chinese descent, I went through an identity crisis while growing up in America. My travels to China and Taiwan and visiting the museums and seeing the cultural relics have helped me regain my sense of identity as a person of Chinese descent. Chinese people went through hell in the 20th century and their culture was smashed to pieces (especially during the Cultural Revolution). We are in the process of piecing back together of what makes us a people, what makes us Chinese — the good parts and the bad parts. How did our culture degenerate into the madness of the Cultural Revolution from the openness and prosperity of the Tang Dynasty? And each cultural relic is a small piece to this puzzle. It makes my heart ache seeing them on sale especially given how they were lost; it’s like part myself is being sold.

The irony of the whole situation is many western people accuse the Chinese government of destroying the Tibetan culture and yet the very same people are perfectly fine with being completely insensitive to the cultural rights of people of Chinese descent. Their disdain for the Chinese government has made them lose their senses.

March 3, 2009 @ 7:11 pm | Comment

“China has just pulled off another incredible PR coup… From a PR perspective, well done…”

ROCK ‘N ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

March 3, 2009 @ 7:32 pm | Comment

They really should give out awards for the best propaganda.

“And the Oscar goes to…”Qing Dynasty Bronzes”!

March 3, 2009 @ 7:36 pm | Comment

There’s an interesting artcile on this in the telegraph

http://tinyurl.com/bqg8gf

choice quotes:

“The looting in 1860 was undeniably thorough…..But the records are also clear that local Chinese happily joined in the looting”

“The Chinese also periodically continued to loot the remains for decades (indeed a century) afterwards. Despite the fire, the palaces were by no means entirely destroyed; they could have been repaired, and indeed the Western palaces were offered to the invading powers to reopen as their embassies”

“The destruction of the Old Summer Palace was really completed when the New Summer Palace was rebuilt, as what could be taken away was salvaged and reused. The site was then used by Beijing residents as a quarry, with Hope Danby witnessing marble blocks being hauled away for building projects in the 1930s. There was more damage in the Cultural Revolution.”

“The pillaging of the Summer Palace was a conscious punishment for the behaviour of the Qing (Manchu) court, who had tortured and killed the peace emissaries sent by the allies to Beijing – 18 were mutilated and murdered”

whilst i agreed the relics were stolen, the whole tedious chinese self righteousness sticks in the craw. personally i think the articles should probably be returned but a little less of the “china good, foreigner bad” quacking and a little more honesty and self-examination would probably help.

March 3, 2009 @ 7:38 pm | Comment

Raj, are you in China?

Si, I don’t care about whether the Chinese or Westerners are “right” or “wrong” about the sale of the plundered art. That’s irrelevant to this conversation. I don’t really care about the history of the plundering and who stole what. That is being written about on many other blogs and in countless Chinese and Western news articles. Let’s just say this question is too messy to resolve. I’m writing about is the ability of the government to manipulate public opinion and generate patriotism with the promotion of a new hero.

Hong, please don’t be patronizing. I live in no bubble. Here’s is the big mistake you are making – seeing my post about the effectiveness of this PR coup as endorsement of the CCP party line. Not at all. And to a lot of the world this will look like a cheap stunt and a catty, nasty, slimy thing to do. What I am talking about is only the party’s use of this event, however you want to categorize it, to galvanize public opinion in a manner that furthers its own interests. Period.

Andy, it’s okay – just realize the phrase can be used innocently. I had dinner tonight with a Chinese friend and we discussed this topic, in Chinese (there was no choice in the matter). He said it was next to impossible to be living in China today and not know the story or Mr. Cai, and not to recognize his face. Now, maybe there are some cave dwellers or people travelling on long train rides who haven’t seen the news. But it seems pretty fair to say the Chinese people know who this guy is, just as the American people know who, say, Joe the Plumber is.

Cate, I truly appreciate the comment. I want to make it very clear that I approach the Free Tibet movement with a great deal of caution, the way I approach any group that defines things in pure black and white, be they pro-right or pro-left, GOP or Dem, etc. I don’t think any readers of this blog are that naive as to see Tibet in black and white terms. Well, maybe some, but, like Math and Hong Xing, who are obsessive in the opposite direction, they won’t be taken very seriously,

March 3, 2009 @ 8:02 pm | Comment

I wonder what the generation of Chinese who participated in the destruction of cultural and religious relics during the Cultural Revolution would have to say about this?

March 3, 2009 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

I am also afraid this might work counterproductive for China.

There might be the (short-term) internal PR benefit of rallying the chinese around a symbol case, but I have my doubts on how long public attention can be held over two bronze artefacts.

Now outside of China’s borders, I think this will not be perceived with a lot of benevolence. How many countries are not fighting to get their historic relics ? How long is Greece’s struggle over the Elgin marbles going on ? Recently I saw a documentary about Peru claiming artefacts back from Spain. China is hardly in a unique position, yet it is the first time I hear of such a move in a case like this. As much as it may draw attention to the patriotism of “the chinese” with respect to their cultural heritage and the importance they attach to it, it just as well draws the attention to the failure of Chinese diplomacy to settle this sort of issues on another level. Besides, it’s a vulnerable strategy. What if Christie’s would decide to sue and eventually would obtain a conviction of Mr. Cai, leading to him having to pay a penalty still for breach of contract ? If you’re not sure you can win the battle, better stay out of it.

Also, although these particular artefacts were probably looted by foreigners (I am not particularly familiar with the history of how these pieces got to the West, I just take that what I read so far is correct), there will always be people to gently point out that had they not been brought here, they might have well been obliterated by the gusto for destruction of historic relics by the Red Guards.

All in all, I think China has a pretty weak case to defend this way of behaviour and I wouldn’t like to be the one having to take this to a court.

March 3, 2009 @ 8:27 pm | Comment

Richard, in pr terms for domestic consumption this is probably pretty good. however in the international arena i think this maybe counterproductive for china to bang on about how the world (or rather the so called west) owes it a favour. i am also not especially interested in the details of who did what to whom, but am interested in the way this fits into the shameless lies and hypocrisy of the ccp when it comes to their twilight zone version of history. this is what i meant.

March 3, 2009 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

Don’t be so delicate, Richard. Your analysis is downright wrong-headed, it seems to me. That said, I never did take you for an apologist for the CCP. Likewise, my belief that the Chinese find themselves on the losing end of this exchange should in no way be taken to imply that I am completely unsympathetic. The fact that no one gave two hoots about these bronze heads until very recently does not change the fact that they were indeed stolen. The moral argument that the Chinese make is a compelling one. On the other hand, it’s difficult to sympathize too terribly much with a group of scolds who like nothing better than to point out the failings of others while ignoring their own. In the end, how many “precious treasures” were destroyed during China’s civil war and the first several decades of the PRC? The fact that China so frequently claims the moral highground in its arguments with the West and Japan is what makes the Monsieur Berge’s retort about human rights and the Dalai Lama so delightful.

Finally, you DO live in a bubble, Richard. We all do. What appears to you like a substantial PR coup, looks to me like damage control. Then again, how is it possible to characterize this as a PR coup when every last Chinese media outlet is presided over by the good offices of the Ministry of Propaganda? Simply put, the phrase “PR coup” implies a certain amount of skill and finesse. This media “blitz” that you are witnessing is nothing less than a hamfisted assault on the senses. Shock and awe. You think it’s coincidence that every major newspaper in China leads with the story of Mr. Cai? Hardly. The very fact that Mr. Cai is front page news throughout China indicates that the Ministry of Propaganda desperately wants to shape public opinion regarding this issue. Do you recall the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman lecturing Christie’s and the French government on their moral responsibilities vis-a-vis the bronze heads? In other words, the government of the PRC leveraged its prestige and moral standing in an effort to stop the auction – and lost – badly. Recent media coverage of Mr. Cai is the CCP’s attempt to a claim a moral victory and avoid looking like chumps.

March 3, 2009 @ 9:45 pm | Comment

I won’t disagree with Si and Lao Lu. It may not be good for China’s international PR. Just like the visa controls prior to the Olympic Games, which made China seem paranoid and fearful. However, the truth is that it achieved their goals of iron-fisted if irrational control, and it cost them very little aside from a lot of bitching (mostly justified) among the expat community. I also agree with the points about how the Chinese under Mao destroyed so much that there is deep irony to their insistence now as to the sanctity of ancient relics. No argument. This outrage seems as legitimate and as well-thought-through as that over the Forbidden City Starbucks. But…but…it pushes all of the right buttons in a population that gains great energy from its perceived victimization, and it comes at an exquisite time, as China girds itself for battle over the upcoming anniversaries of the CCP’s ascension to power, the invasion of Tibet and the civilian massacre on the side streets of Tiananmen Square.

Michael, your comments showed up very late – apologies. Everyone should be sure to scan the threads from the beginning each time, because as Michael noted, we’ve become more aggressive about keeping out bad comments. Unfortunately, doing that always leads to good comments getting blocked as well, and these can be delayed for hours. Apologies, but it’s for the common good.

March 3, 2009 @ 9:51 pm | Comment

Hong, I’ve been doing PR for more than 20 years. No need to lecture me on what constitutes a media blitz or effective PR. I teach that stuff.

If you say we all live in a bubble, then no one lives in a bubble -which is to say, the phrase has no meaning if it applies to everyone. To put it another way, what’s the point of saying to someone, “You live in a bubble” if in the next breath you say “everyone lives in a bubble”? Think about it; it’s not that hard.

Anyway, the one consoling joy I have in operating this blog is that I always get to be right in the long run. So let me make it clear: I am totally right about this, and if you don’t see that, then we are arguing past each other. Because I am arguing facts, not hypotheticals. To repeat my very simple contentionsfacts: the CCP has helped to create a new media darling, oodles of article have gone out in the global and Chinese media, Chinese people love a guy they never heard of 24 hours ago, we’re seeing an example of mass psychological and emotional manipulation, and it comes at a time when the Party needs to buttress public opinion against the Western perception of a once-paradisiacal Tibet now being terrorized by evil Chinese soldiers and settlers. Period. Might this episode have bad long-term effects? Maybe. No one knows. Might it backfire? Maybe. No one knows. Will the CCP regret it? Maybe. No one knows. All I am talking about is the here and now, about what happened. How can you say this is “wrong”?

March 3, 2009 @ 10:05 pm | Comment

This is really positive for China. And, in this global economy downturn, the timing is perfect. This incident enhances the opportunities for China to focus on internal market and leave the export market to cool down naturally. All failed export business opportunities can be attributed to the global financial gloom, and not to this incident.

March 4, 2009 @ 12:01 am | Comment

“If you say we all live in a bubble, then no one lives in a bubble.”

This depends of how many bubbles. If each of us lives in their own individual bubble, we all live in a bubble. If we all live in the same bubble, then no one lives in a bubble.

March 4, 2009 @ 12:04 am | Comment

[…] pursuing that goal than Mao Zedong did. Small wonder they are so eager to focus public attention on the West’s looting and plundering sacred Chinese relics. That sets the stage for labeling any Western protests regarding Tibet as a continuation of the […]

March 4, 2009 @ 12:05 am | Pingback

The story sounds silly to me. These aren’t the only artifacts to have been looted. China is not the only country that has had artifacts looted. This is not the first time a looted artifact has been auctioned off. According to the article the two pieces belong to a set of 12 animals from the zodiac. 7 have been found. other bronze animal heads from the set have been auctioned off and actually purchased by other chinese.

Cai’s gesture seems empty to me. Also Mr Berge’s statements about tibet sound shallow. Sounds like a silly pissing contest among snooty art dealers.

Who knows if this Cai is telling the truth or not. If Cai is telling the truth then what was the second highest bid? Seems like the second highest bidder must have won the auction.

At the very least Christie’s should no longer trust this Cai in any future auctions. Not a wise move for art dealer and auctioneer to piss of a large auction house like christie’s. But then when it comes to these kinds of auctions if Cai shows up with the money at the next auction to buy his next winning bid that he will be forgiven.

I doubt the average chinese citizen really cares that much about an 18th century bronze head from the summer palace being bought by rich art collector.

March 4, 2009 @ 12:38 am | Comment

Lindel, you should talk to some of them: they do care, maybe not because of the Qing dynasty bronzes, but because of the perceived slap in the face to China by the imperialists. I have now discussed this with four separate Chinese friends, and I want to repeat, they do care and they can all tell you the entire story, or at least the version they saw on CCTV. This has been a media sensation here and the people are savoring it,

March 4, 2009 @ 12:55 am | Comment

They care about the bronze heads? What about the other bronze heads that have been already purchased by other chinese? Do they care about those?

The 5 missing ones that no one knows the whereabouts of, do they have an emotional attachment to those?

Or is it just the two that are now in the possesion of a french man ?

March 4, 2009 @ 1:41 am | Comment

No, no, see my comment again – they don’t care about the bronzes, except to the point that they’ve been told to. I mean, two weeks ago these bronzes didn’t exist in their consciences, and it’s not the bronzes anyway, but what they symbolize. Silly? Ridiculous? Hypocritical? All of the above, perhaps. But in terms of a media coup, those are small side issues. The coup is the ink and awareness (whether that awareness is fact-based or not is another story). Those are a matter of fact. Now you and I know a lot of this is quite silly. But the awareness and outrage and sudden reverence for Mr. Cai is real, so the CCP can say, at least today, “Mission Accomplished” in terms of domestic consumption.

March 4, 2009 @ 1:50 am | Comment

I guess I am the one who does not care. I do not care that the chinese who watched CCTV and now claim some emotional attachment to these relics and a perceived insult by the west.

If the art dealer Cai had negotiated a fair price because of the looting issue and purchased these 2 or all 7 of the heads and loaned them to a museum in beijing then I might think he cared about his cultural relics.

March 4, 2009 @ 1:52 am | Comment

Looking at his past, I don’t think we can deny that Cai has demonstrated a caring for ancient relics. But what he did this time was a sly trick, a game that we might see as silly but that China sees as heroic, sticking it to the bad guys.

Going to bed. The spam filter is screwed on tight.

March 4, 2009 @ 1:58 am | Comment

Raj, are you in China?

No, I’ve had visitors here in the UK and talked to others on the internet. I’m not suggesting their views are reflective of the majority, but it’s difficult to gauge exactly how everyone feels because with these sorts of internet polls the people who don’t care usually don’t take them in the first place.

March 4, 2009 @ 2:31 am | Comment

“I guess I am the one who does not care. I do not care that the chinese who watched CCTV and now claim some emotional attachment to these relics and a perceived insult by the west. ”

Why do you want to say that aloud is beyond me. Seriously, a little childish.

March 4, 2009 @ 2:51 am | Comment

Hi Cate.

But I wonder who wrote the law… The argument that — yes it was looted over 150 years ago, but we’ve since came up with a law saying that after a certain number of years, you no longer have claim, and we are now legal owners of items looted by our ancestors and you have to pay us lots of dough to get them back — will not fly at all. The Chinese are saying: why should we follow your rules? We want to set the rules of the game too!

No one can “set the rules” in another country. Of course they can ask for the law to be changed, but if these Chinese say things like “don’t interfere in our internal affairs” when people criticise what China does, that would be hypocritical.

Any applicable limitation period would have not been set with this sort of thing in mind. It’s a general feature of a legal system to draw a line under disputes, rather than have the courts clogged with old claims people have dug up and to allow the transition of property (imagine the expense of trying to figure out whether the ownership of something might be disputed or not). I would be surprised if there are no limitation periods in Chinese civil law.

It makes my heart ache seeing them on sale especially given how they were lost; it’s like part myself is being sold.

Could you explain a bit more why you feel like that? Is it because something “Chinese” is being sold and not returning to China? From my perspective pieces of British art are often sold to foreign collectors, and although there are campaigns to raise money to have them stay I don’t think we suffer because they go abroad.

Or is it more because they were stolen and being sold?

The irony of the whole situation is many western people accuse the Chinese government of destroying the Tibetan culture and yet the very same people are perfectly fine with being completely insensitive to the cultural rights of people of Chinese descent.

Some people will have been insensitive, but the two situations are rather different. The allegations against China with regard to Tibet are that China is deliberately suppressing Tibetan culture, trying to trivialise/reduce it to a tourist curiosity, etc.

Now regardless of how far such allegations are true/false, what we are talking about is a private sale of two bronze heads that have a very controversial history. Although many Chinese feel annoyed by this, it cannot be compared to what supposedly goes on in Tibet. You cannot say that Chinese culture is being suppressed by an auction like this. This is about Chinese sensitivities – complaints about Tibet focus on general life there.

March 4, 2009 @ 3:07 am | Comment

“No one can ‘set the rules’ in another country.”

Is this a joke or Raj is from the Mars?

March 4, 2009 @ 4:09 am | Comment

I don’t care about chinese who watch CCTV and claim to be upset about two bronze heads stolen from the summer palace in the 1860’s. it is not childish to not care about childish behavior.

I just said this outloud. the sensation was almost like a spiritual enema.

Until the chinese people learn how to respect the Tibetan people they are not worthy of the cultural relics looted in the 1860s from the summer palace.

March 4, 2009 @ 6:21 am | Comment

Richard you are right. The altercation was manufactured to give the government something to use to manipulate PRC domestic public opinion against the west.

I wonder how many artifacts looted by the chinese people themeselves are in Cai Xiansheng’s collection. I wonder if he owes the CCP a favor in return for their looking the other way while he looted or smuggled other cultural items.

I wonder if the Red Army looted any cultural relics in Lhasa?

March 4, 2009 @ 6:36 am | Comment

After a Russian gun boat fired on and sank a Chinese freight liner and killed 8 Chinese sailors last month off the east coast of Siberia, which used to be the territory of Qing dynasty, the Chinese govt and public did not make too much fuss over the tragedy, as they both know that it is impossible to make Russia feel guilty, a thug who is more ruthless than the Chinese govt. It is counterproductive to use Russia for patriotic propaganda. Russia won’t care no matter how they whine.

Just like the anti-CNN.com, the sham bid on the Chinese relics is the same type of shenanigans to make the West look guilty, to evoke nationalistic sentiment and distract the people’s attention for a while away from the CCP’s long record of wrong-doing. CCP, the main victimizer, again looks like a defender of the Chinese interests.

If the Chinese people can’t change their one-way thinking, can’t reflect upon themselves as the political and mental slaves of the Chinese govt, can’t criticize their govt for depriving them of democracy, freedom, many of the human rights and subjecting them to the status of second class people of the world, their claim won’t be taken seriously.

March 4, 2009 @ 8:32 am | Comment

Seriously, Richard, if this is what constitutes a PR coup, then perhaps we should all regard the North Koreans as our PR masters.

As for the idea (yours) that no one lives in a bubble, I have this to say – media bubbles are like nation states: we all live in one, and they are not all the same. Again, you live in the Chinese bubble. I don’t. What you take to be a spectacularly successful PR coup looks to me like same-old, same-old. The CCP is simply up to its old tricks. Ordering Chinese newspapers to lead with the story of Mr. Cai is the flip-side of ordering newspapers to withold a story about corruption, social unrest, etc.

Read *1984*? How do you feel about the Ministry of Truth? Remind you of the Ministry of Propaganda? Come to think of it, you display a remarkable talent for double-think. Too much time in the Chinese bubble, I guess.

Again, I’ve always felt that real PR required a degree of subtlety and finesse that the CCP utterly lacks. Conflating propaganda and PR does a disservice to people who actually do PR.

March 4, 2009 @ 10:03 am | Comment

Hong, at this point I default and agree with everything you say. This is not a PR coup. The nearly 1,000 global news articles written about it don’t exist. The millions who know his name and love him do not exist. The LA times and the NY Times, both of which I quoted, were totally wrong when they called this a PR win for China. You know PR much better than I do.

Here’s the point: This is a media coup because the story is on the front page of the NY Times, the WSJ, the LA Times and every other major non-Chinese media. Do you get that? You can say it’s just the same old crapola if it’s just on CCTV and in China Daily. When it is all over the global media, it is a PR coup. I realize this is hard to grasp and is really complex. But try really hard to get the distinction between domestic media and global media. And try to see that even if you feel this story is offensive and makes China look bad (which is simply a reinforcement of your existing perception of China), many Chinese people reading the same exact articles will be absolutely delighted.

In fact, let’s look at what the NYT has to say in its very first graf:

A Chinese man’s assertion that he sabotaged the auction of two Qing dynasty bronzes at Christie’s in Paris last week handed Beijing a wry public-relations coup on Monday after it battled for months to block the sale.

Wow, so many of us living in this bubble. Read the LA Times piece as well – it makes it clear that this was a success for China because its goals were accomplished: Christie’s has been left in an impossibly awkward position, millions of Chinese and non-Chinese around the world now know the story and China has a new rallying call to sustain patriotic fervor.

This is not bubble thinking. You are in your own bubble, believing that I am the one calling it a PR coup. Wrong. I am quoting the NY Times. This is not some freakish or obscure theory. It is simply what is. I condemn Chinese propaganda and censorship ad nauseum, so please don’t make it sound like I have been influenced by them or believe a single syllable they say. What I do know and understand is how, just as with the Paris attack on the handicapped torchbearer, China has scored a major PR coup from a story that the entire world is watching, and the global media are telling it for them.

March 4, 2009 @ 10:45 am | Comment

How much of a victory is it when the Chinese bidder will not get his hands on the statues and Christie’s will not release them to the PRC?

BTW, Beijing could easily give this guy the money and there are plenty of Chinese who could have afforded to actually get those horse heads, but they know good art and the quality of those heads is allegedly bordering on piss poor.

So why isn’t Beijing stepping up with the cash, only gum flapping? And where is the patriotic fervor of the monied set?

March 4, 2009 @ 11:02 am | Comment

It’s a kind of nasty and childish victory – China poked a finger in the eye of the Western Establishment. It is a domestic PR victory, watching the entire world read how China has pulled the rug out from under mean imperialist Christie’s and one of France’s super-privileged. Of course, it’s a pyrrhic victory and has little actual meaning in terms of concrete gains. They will still not have the statues, and art collectors will be tut-tutting about the immature prank for a long time to come. But in China, it’s the biggest PR coup since Paris 2008 in terms of bringing everybody onto the same page, and causing the people to rejoice at the international attention. And that’s the key – the international attention. That’s where the gloating comes from. If it were just another propaganda piece on CCTV everyone would be yawning.

So why isn’t Beijing stepping up with the cash, only gum flapping? And where is the patriotic fervor of the monied set?

Excellent questions. Why bother when they can create such an effective stir by simply gum flapping? 🙂

March 4, 2009 @ 11:21 am | Comment

Raj,

I suspect there is some sort of international law regulating the sale of looted antiquities. But if it is solely French law that enabled the sale of the looted relics, then it’s even more questionable. There is clearly a conflict of interest. I see the point of having a time limitation in law. But again, law is not the words of God especially if the rulemaker has a vested interest. Sometimes we need to what is right. If I had a piece of art looted from Jewish victims of Nazis, I would never flaunt it like Mr. Berge did and hold it hostage: if the Israeli government would do x, y and z then I’ll give it back. It would not make any sense to punish the victims of Nazis because I disagree with the policies of the current Israeli government.

My heart ached because it felt painful to see the Chinese people and Chinese culture being disrespected. I am not a victim of western agression in anyway but I want to pay proper respects to my forefathers who have suffered tremendously. My grandmother had to work at a Japanese cement factory as a twelve year old because the men in her family were hooked on Opium. They were a wealthy family but lost everything to their Opium habits. My grandmother’s parents died of malnutrition, leaving her and her siblings orphans at a young age. It was very painful experience for my family but we have moved on, and we certainly don’t think about the Opium War 24/7. But we would appreciate it if the French/British could demonstrate some humility and sensitivity to the victims of the Opium trade. Instead, the attitude has been utter arrogance: we don’t like the current government in the country of your ancestors so you don’t have a right to claim your cultural heritage. Huh? What have we (as a people) done to deserve this? If you have a problem with the Chinese government, then go after IT, why do you have to make us and our culture the collateral damage in the process?

That brings me to my last point: please stop analyzing every issue through the if the Chinese government supports it, then it’s bad, if the Chinese government doesn’t support it, it must be good lens. Sometimes an issue has nothing to do with the Chinese government. I am not a Chinese national; I don’t care about the Chinese government’s view. I examine each issue on its own merits. If I had the ability to register to be a bidder to disrupt the auction process, I would’ve done the same thing as Mr. Cai. You guys call his actions “little tricks” and “shenanigans” because you do not have a deep emotional attachment to Chinese culture. Those objects do not mean anything to you. But they mean something to me. And that’s the difference.

March 4, 2009 @ 11:43 am | Comment

Most Chinese have never heard of these bronze statues before this kerfuffle, but EVERYBODY knew about the destruction of Yuanmingyuan, a symbol of national humiliation. The issue here is not two statues of dubious artistic value that are not even Chinese. The statues are European in design and/or craftsmanship and were acquired as Western curiosities for the amusement of the imperial ruling class. The auction and the media attention it created pushed the nationalist buttons of a whole lot, if not necessarily the majority, of Chinese. The CCP is capitalising on this. It IS a PR victory.

March 4, 2009 @ 11:54 am | Comment

schticky, spot on, every single word.

March 4, 2009 @ 11:59 am | Comment

deleted. I’ll comment on one point soon

March 4, 2009 @ 1:11 pm | Comment

Indeed, where is Jin Jing now? Banished from the pantheon for siding with Carrefour, if I remember correctly.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. This is a lie. She was never banished. The government encouraged her to speak out against the Carrefour boycott, which never amounted to anything. She is a national hero, whether the ignorant feel she deserves to be or not. Long after the Paris attack she led the opening of the Special Olympics in Beijing and is now an ambassador for Chinese sports. You’re the one who’s going to be banished. You can disagree with me, but you can’t make things up. If you say something as a fact you’d best be prepared to back it up. Thanks for your understanding.

Sorry for getting annoyed, but I have a short fuse when people spout slander as if it’s the truth.

March 4, 2009 @ 1:25 pm | Comment

“You guys call his actions “little tricks” and “shenanigans” because you do not have a deep emotional attachment to Chinese culture. Those objects do not mean anything to you. But they mean something to me. And that’s the difference.”

Good grief, Cate, spare us the sickening melodramatics. For your information, I am ethnically and culturally Chinese. Though I live and study in the U.S. now, my “emotional connection” to China is as substantial as your own – more substantial, perhaps, since I was born, raised, and educated there. Claiming moral legitimacy for your point-of-view based on ethnicity or family history is both pathetic and unconvincing. Likewise, try reading the posts more carefully. I reject Richard’s claim that the Chinese media’s handling of recent events constitutes a “PR coup.” However, this disagreement and my disgust with the CCP should not be taken to mean that I’m unfamiliar with the history of the looting of the Summer Palace. Time for you to climb down from your soapbox/high-horse, Cate.

March 4, 2009 @ 1:35 pm | Comment

Cowardly, Richard. The week after Jin Jing was made a national hero, she was pilloried by many who objected to her unwillingness to support the Carrefour boycott. By “banished,” I was speaking figuratively. I’m not stupid – I saw several photos of her recently at Wangfujing. That was a good post you deleted. I suspect it has nothing to do with my comment about Jin Jing being banished.

March 4, 2009 @ 1:41 pm | Comment

I just saw the Jin Jing part and got quite pissed. If you want to repost please feel free, but leave that sort of thing out unless you are ready to stand by it. I didn’t get the sense you wre being figurative at all. Not at all. Let’s see if we can spot the figurativeness:

Indeed, where is Jin Jing now? Banished from the pantheon for siding with Carrefour, if I remember correctly.

Maybe we should all recognize you were being figurative, and sorry if I misread what you wrote. I still don’t see it. I’m glad you think what you wrote was “a good comment.”

March 4, 2009 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

Again, Richard, you’re pretty sad. If you object to my characterization of Jin Jing, why not delete the relevant sentence or two. Surely the rest of my post was worth reading, huh?

As for Jin Jing – the following link is to an article about Jin Jing and the criticism she received following her unwillingness to support the Carrefour boycott.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/04/nationalists-paris-torch-relay-hero-now-a-traitor/

“Chinese nationalists have turned their sights on a new, and frankly shocking, target: Jin Jing, the wheelchair-bound fencer declared a national hero last week after using her frail body to protect the Olympic flame from protesters in Paris. Jin’s crime? Expressing doubts over plans for a boycott of French retailer Carrefour–a boycott motivated in large part by the treatment she received in Paris.”

And some of the comments left by angry Chinese netizens:

Below is some of the commentary from netizens:

Netizen from Jinan, Shandong: “Jin Jing is bullshit! Speaking on behalf of Carrefour. I think she’s a traitor.”

Netizen from Beijing: “Torch bearer Jin Jing, I earnestly request you to shut your mouth. You’ve done your duty already. Don’t go around making irresponsible remarks. First she’s missing a leg, now she’s missing a brain.”

Netizen from Dalian: “This c*nt’s attitude is the same one the Qing rulers had after the Eight Allied Forces came. What was the result then? Are you capable of representing the Great Han Race? Do you what you’re supposed to do!”

Netizen from Chengdu: “Someone goes to France once and it’s like she thinks she’s French. Jin Jing speaks with the voice of an utterly brainless evil-eyed wolf traitor. No wonder her original work unit wanted to get rid of her.”

Netizen from Jiangmen, Guangdong: “Jin Jing??? A cultureless, brainless stupid c*nt!!! And she’s a torch bearer…I demand we rip the torch from her hands!!!”

The phrase “banished from the pantheon” that I used in my post was an example of irony, poetic license, etc. Shame on you for deleting it.

March 4, 2009 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

Suggesting that a journalist from the LA/NY Times called this a PR coup is no defense, Richard. Perpetuating a wrongheaded point-of-view is just as wrongheaded as being the first to assert said wrongheaded point-of-view. The LA Times, NY Times, and WaPo all supported the invasion of Iraq. See my point?

Christie’s, I expect, will suffer very little. Sure, Sotheby’s will get more of the China trade, but any suggestion that Christie’s will be undermined by recent events is a gross overstatement.

And remember, what the CCP tried to do was stop the sale. It failed. It took a Chinese private citizen to do that. For weeks prior to the auction, we were all entertained by repeated Chinese govt. demands that 1) the auction be stopped, and 2) the bronze heads be returned to China. Neither happened. Christie’s and the French government/legal system took a pass, and a French private citizen delighted us all with a moral lesson of his own directed at the Chinese. Just consider, no less than the Chinese Foreign Ministry weighed in on this. Having leveraged both its prestige and moral authority, the CCP was badly embarrassed. What is happening now in the Chinese media is a face-saving bit of damage control meant to make us all forget that the bronze heads are still the property of a French private citizen. Has this media campaign been successful? In my estimation, it has not. In the end, what has been accomplished? The Chinese have been given yet another opportunity to wave the flag. Big deal. Preaching to the choir and all that. Has this influenced the way people in the West think about this? Not much. No one cares here. No one. Your assertion, Richard, that “the whole world is watching” is evidence that you live in a bubble. I can assure you that it is not. The number of people here in Cambridge (not to mention the rest of America) who pay attention to such things is so few as to be insignificant. With all due respect to the NYT (my favorite rag), this “wry public-relations coup” they speak of has failed to materialize. Did the Chinese pay much attention to Joe the Plummer? We’re not paying much attention to Mr. Cai. In fact, one could make a compelling case in favor of the idea that, in the long run, all that was accomplished was to increase the value of Monsieur Berges’ two heads (the bronze ones, you dummy). As for Mr. Cai – add his name to impossibly long list of patriotic heroes belonging to the Chinese pantheon. If this is what passes for Chinese patriotic resistance these days, then the Chinese are indeed the sick men of Asia.

As for reading the LA/NY Times – I applaud you, Richard. Way to make an effort. Nevertheless, you still live in a bubble from which there is no escape. As for the American bubble – how many people read the LA/NY times, do you think? And how many of them read the article/editorial about Mr. Cai? And how many of them give a shit? PR coup? Please. What I’ll remember is the French government, the French courts, Christie’s, and a French citizen telling the Chinese to go get bent. Mr. Cai is an afterthought. In any case, the story of the two bronze heads is hardly finished. Let’s allow this one to play out, shall we?

I’d also like to say this – I’m not so sure that such obvious propagandizing works very well even in China. There’s been a lot of talk this past year about the stupidity of kneejerk patriotism (no one likes to be called a 愤青) and the need for greater freedom of speech. Then there’s the recent fire at TVCC which seems to have inspired very little sympathy for Big Brother. Quite the opposite, in fact. Perhaps the Chinese public’s response to Mr. Cai’s act of patriotism is more ambivalent than either one of us understands.

Lastly, one needn’t be a PR professional to express an intelligent opinion about the effectiveness of a certain PR campaign any more than one must play quarterback for the Patriots to know when Brady is having a bad game. Your claim to a certain expertise based on years working in PR notwithstanding, you are still dead wrong – regardless of whose blog this is. If, as you seem to believe, PR and propaganda are one and the same, then I’ll concede your point. Otherwise, you’ve been duped.

Enough. Genug. Gou le.

[Hong, I removed the graf about Jin Jing, which I explained I can’t allow on my site. Otherwise, here’s your comment. There are some lines I won’t allow to be crosed. Again, thanks for your cooperation. Richard]

March 4, 2009 @ 1:55 pm | Comment

She got attacked by fen qing. She was never, ever banished. You said “where is she now” and I told you. She is NOT banished or gone from the public eye as you insinuated. You were dead wrong about her being banished or punished or silenced or made invisible or obscure in any way, aside for some name-calling by the usual angry mobs. Shame on you for insinuating otherwise. Get back on topic now, please. Thanks.

And sorry again for getting annoyed. This is a topic close to my heart and I know more about it than most people. I can’t abide false accusations.

March 4, 2009 @ 1:55 pm | Comment

I can’t agree with you. I don’t think this is a pr coup. My arguments; first,we don’t have any convincing evidence to prove that Mr Cai acted under the government’s instruction; second, it’s not like that chinese media is launching a patriotic propaganda campaign. Both the media and netizens’ responses are very much diversified. Even CCTV seems slightly disapproving of Mr Cai’s act. and we all know who CCTV is, the voice of the government.

I can’t understand why you westerners always associate chinese people’s reaction with CCP, nationalism, etc, why you always view chinese people’s feeling from a political angle. Maybe it’s because people refuse to think standing in others’ shoes. And even if you are willing to view the issue from chinese’s angle, there is a problem: can you? This has nothing to do with knowledge,intelligence,insight and experiences(You are a sinologist, you must possess all these qualities.). I’m just an ordinary chinese. whenever I read,see or think of things related to Yunmingyun Palace,my heart is filled with a kind of emotion that I can’t describe. It’s so overwhelming that I would feel almost offended if somebody insinuates that it is aroused by propaganda. There is something westerners can never understand just like there is somthing chinese can never understand. Just like an westerner can never have a yellow face no matter how much he likes China. It’s something that is determined by the blood. Although we are living at a time when people can communicate through internet from both ends of the world,there still is and maybe will always be an invisible barrier between diffrent peoples or cultures.

March 4, 2009 @ 3:38 pm | Comment

Hong,

I didn’t have time to read all the posts and skipped yours so my post wasn’t directed at you. As for the melodramatics, sorry you feel that way but I wrote whatever that was on my mind without any intention of melodrama. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

Regards.

March 4, 2009 @ 3:58 pm | Comment

Hong, I already defaulted and conceded you were right, so let it go, okay? And i never said PR and propaganda were the same. What I said – and it’s agonizingly simple, but you can’t seem to get it – is that when you have the world’s leading media spouting your messages, that is a PR coup par excellence., That’s all. Not sure why your knickers are in such a knot about this.

Xu, this is all about nationalism. The story from the very start was about nationalism and victimization, the usual topics for energizing the masses. The Party runs the media, and when all the Chinese media run the same story with the same photos you know it’s your government supporting and spreading the story. Whether the government was part of Mr. Cai’s actions I have no idea. But they are certainly having a field day involving themselves now!

I’m just an ordinary chinese. whenever I read,see or think of things related to Yunmingyun Palace,my heart is filled with a kind of emotion that I can’t describe. It’s so overwhelming that I would feel almost offended if somebody insinuates that it is aroused by propaganda.

I don’t mean in any way to offend, but these feelings are aroused by propaganda. Now, there may be truth to this propaganda. Foreign forces really did do atrocious things there. But it is mainly propaganda that keeps this fresh and alive in your conscience, and this story has given the propaganda a new burst of energy that the party couldn’t possibly let pass by unexploited.

March 4, 2009 @ 5:13 pm | Comment

Interesting take from Danwei.

March 4, 2009 @ 5:14 pm | Comment

Richard

If you insist,what can I say? I guess maybe only Egyptians and Greeks can understand and sympathise with Chinese. And right now Indians are “fussing over” a pair of glasses and a watch that used to be Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s belongings and is said to be auctioned in US. Do you think they are subjected to CCP’s propaganda as well?

March 4, 2009 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

Xu, you really don’t understand. I totally sympathize with the Chinese. I’ve gone to great lengths to understand Tibet beyond the Free Tibet misinformation campaign. I’ve read all about China’s travails and sometimes feel ashamed that my country participated in its pillaging (though less than a lot of other countries). Here’s where your confusion enters: You see my pointing out CCP propaganda about Yunmingyun Palace as equivalent to my saying it didn’t happen, that China never was pillaged. No. What i am saying is that propaganda keeps the energy going, the sense that this is a raw wound although it occurred a century and a half ago. The wound doesn’t stay raw by itself. Salt needs to be rubbed into it periodically. That’s what the propaganda does.

Funny, to be assaulted by a fanatic on one front for being too sympathetic to China, and on the other for not being sympathetic enough. What can you do? It kind of tells me I’m in the right place.

March 4, 2009 @ 8:12 pm | Comment

“The Party runs the media, and when all the Chinese media run the same story with the same photos you know it’s your government supporting and spreading the story”

when the lunar new year comes,all the Chinese media run the same story with the same photos as well, can we say it’s the government “supporting and spreading the story”? All the Chinese media run the same story because all Chinese including the reporters care so much about it. This has nothing or little, at least, to do with who is their boss. And please tell me what is good to launch a propaganda campaign? Just to increase the hostility between China and France which is tens of thousands miles away? Or to help CCP stay in power by shifting people’s attention from domestic affairs to an imaginary battle? If you think this way, I think you underestimate CCP and Chinese people.

March 4, 2009 @ 8:28 pm | Comment

Richard
I didn’t say you deny the looting. I just disagree with you that you say Chinese’s reaction was due to propaganda. Personally, I think that’s not the case.

March 4, 2009 @ 8:36 pm | Comment

Cool, let’s agree to disagree, Xu. I wish everyone were that mature.

March 4, 2009 @ 8:38 pm | Comment

I found this quote from the danwei article to be interesting.

“In his announcement, Cai stated that ‘every Chinese would have done the same as I did. It’s just that I got the opportunity. I have fulfilled my duty.'”

Yet the other 5 bronze heads were purchased by chinese people and for a lot less money than Cai allegedly bid for these two.

If the heads were so important would not it be his patriotic duty to negotiate a low price and successfully bring the beloved heads back to the mother land?

seems the chinese people are less interested in the return of their cultural artifacts then they are in pissing off a french man.

it appears the chinese people are not upset by the loss of the cultural relic, but are pissed off that the red guard did not get the opportunity to loot these particular items themselves or destroy these items of the hated foreign qing dynasty.

March 5, 2009 @ 5:34 am | Comment

Cate

@ 43

I suspect there is some sort of international law regulating the sale of looted antiquities.

Even assuming that there is, it doesn’t mean that it has effect under French law – either because France did not sign/ratify and/or did not bring into force via domestic legislation.

But if it is solely French law that enabled the sale of the looted relics, then it’s even more questionable. There is clearly a conflict of interest.

How is it a conflict of interest for the French to have their own laws?

But again, law is not the words of God especially if the rulemaker has a vested interest. Sometimes we need to what is right.

It’s arguable whether France has a “vested interest” in not handing these items back. Any interest it has in having limitation periods is for general certainty of property.

Doing what is right is not a matter for the courts. It is one for the owner(s) and the body political.

I want to pay proper respects to my forefathers who have suffered tremendously.

I’m going to play devil’s advocate and probably sound insensitive, though it’s not my intention. How does getting frustrated about this sale pay proper respect to your forefathers?

I ask this because when one questions things that happened in China under the Communists, at one common response from Chinese is “oh well that will re-open too many old wounds – we have to move on”. Yet when the subject of misery caused by foreigners is raised, one can hear “we need to discuss these things to clean the wounds out and get closure”. These positions are often held by the same people.

I don’t understand why there appear to be different rules depending on who caused the misery. Could you shed some light on this?

we don’t like the current government in the country of your ancestors so you don’t have a right to claim your cultural heritage. Huh?

I don’t get that. I don’t see any Britons making those sorts of comments…

please stop analyzing every issue through the if the Chinese government supports it, then it’s bad, if the Chinese government doesn’t support it, it must be good lens.

I’m confused. Where have I done this?

You guys call his actions “little tricks” and “shenanigans” because you do not have a deep emotional attachment to Chinese culture.

I won’t speak for the others, but I question what he did because if anything he has harmed the ability for Chinese to recover lost artifacts. It is quite possible that Chinese bidders for Chinese artifacts will undergo discrimination in bidding because auctioneers will be concerned they’ll copy him.

As someone who does care about Chinese culture, but is approaching this from a less emotional perspective, I think it’s more important to recover artifacts than score points.

March 5, 2009 @ 5:39 am | Comment

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/04/content_10942816.htm

I thought this story more interesting. It will be fun to watch chinese lawyers use legal and moral arguments to repatriate cultural relics.

I wish them success in pursuing this angle. Using the rule of law will also force them to accept others with equal legal and moral claims, such as the tibetan people and then also the chinese people themselves against their own government.

March 5, 2009 @ 5:54 am | Comment

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/63106.html

This one is even better. If China wants to claim moral and legal damages for the looting in 1860. then they are opening themselves up to moral and legal arguments for the things they have done and are doing.

March 5, 2009 @ 6:08 am | Comment

The auction was probably legal, but nevertheless immoral. You see, not all existing international orders/institutions are moral, and you don’t have a moral obligation to obey an immoral order. Mr. Cai’s personal action might not be the best one, but it’s nevertheless the first time (as far as I can remember) that a Chinese individual had the gut and confidence to challenge an international powerhouse. This gut and confidence, rather than the auction itself, is the larger story here.

March 5, 2009 @ 6:29 am | Comment

Raj, you seem to have missed the whole point. For Chinese nationalists, it IS in fact more important to score points than to recover the artifacts, which happen to be European in origin and are not Chinese at all. It IS in fact more important to stick it to Christie’s, the French, the Free Tibet movement, Western hypocracy and the whole shabang. There is no collective Chinese emotional attachment to these damn statues. There is a collection emotional attachment, however, to the national humiliation that it represents. Rightly or wrongly, this auction has tapped into the collective memories of national humiliation from Yuanmingyuan of the nineteenth century straight to Paris of 2008. The CCP can only be too happy to capitalize on this, but one should not dismiss this as mere brainwashing of the seething masses. The West’s attitudes and prejudices have been feeding this backlash just as much as any government propaganda.

March 5, 2009 @ 9:30 am | Comment

Schticky, you so get what I’ve been trying to explain, and you say it better than I do. This whole episode was about scoring PR points, justifying the Party line and improving the Party’s standing with the public at a time of crisis. It was a gift from heaven. Maybe later it will backfire. Maybe later they’ll regret it. Maybe some Chinese people will be sad the country didn’t actually get the bronzes back. Maybe world opinion will sour on China. Maybe. But for now, the Party is happier than a pig in shit. They just scored major points. This episode at this moment is a major PR coup just when a major PR coup was needed. China poked the world in the eye and the world’s media covered it and declared it a win for China, and the Party will milk the story for every last drop of domestic PR value. They killed many birds with one stone – they resuscitated the victim/humiliation meme, they produced a hero to rally around, they made the world laugh at a major Western institution perceived as being insensitive to China, and they created a media sensation around the world. Who cares if they get the artifacts back? The artifacts are irrelevant.

“Faked Quartet” above makes a similar point, accurately.

March 5, 2009 @ 10:59 am | Comment

So it could be a France thing, because France and the YSL gay friend supports human rights in Tibet.

China is leaving Britain out for now, though it also looted plently.

March 5, 2009 @ 11:44 am | Comment

s-rice

Raj, you seem to have missed the whole point. For Chinese nationalists….

I was talking to Cate directly. So unless you are accusing her of being a Chinese nationalist who is only out to score points, you need not be concerned. I am sure that many people are out to make a point rather than see anything change – I have never said that was not the case.

richard

China poked the world in the eye and the world’s media covered it and declared it a win for China

Hmm, I can’t say as I have seen the British/European media take that view. Perhaps the American press is more excited about it.

Also, I don’t see why China poked the world in the eye. Not only is the world not really involved, refusing to pay for something isn’t much of an eye poking.

One could argue that as the auction went ahead despite China’s threats against Christie’s it is China whose eye has been poked, especially because in the past it has been able to prod companies to do what it wants rather than face the threat of losing existing/future business in the PRC. Christie’s gave China two fingers over that whilst blowing a loud raspberry.

March 5, 2009 @ 11:55 pm | Comment

Raj, Raj, whatsamadawityou?

Richard

China poked the world in the eye and the world’s media covered it and declared it a win for China

Hmm, I can’t say as I have seen the British/European media take that view. Perhaps the American press is more excited about it.

Do I really have to give the quote again, for yet the third time?? Sigh. Okay, here goes. But read it slowly and carefully this time, one word at a time. From the original NYT piece I quoted:

A Chinese man’s assertion that he sabotaged the auction of two Qing dynasty bronzes at Christie’s in Paris last week handed Beijing a wry public-relations coup on Monday after it battled for months to block the sale.

Study it. Mark the words well. Go even further – “Bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes,” as God tells us in Deuteronomy. I really don’t know why people ignore the quotes I go to great lengths to provide for their edification and personal growth.

March 6, 2009 @ 12:04 am | Comment

Cai did not stand up to the auction house. He decided not to spend his $18M because the CCP planned to seize his bronze heads when he attempted to bring them into hong kong.

March 6, 2009 @ 12:09 am | Comment

Lindel, I love your comments, but this is an example of us arguing past each other. You and I know why the Chinese people are riled up about the bronzes (going back to the ingrained victim mentality). You and I know this was a clever and perhaps ultimately unhelpful trick Mr Cai pulled off. You and I know what the CCP is up to. But I am talking about the way people here in China perceive it, as well as a good number of Chinese people around the world. This is your typical David vs. Goliath story, and the whole world loves a David, especially when he hurls the stone squarely at the forehead of the “plunderers.” In the eyes of the Chinese, he did indeed stand up to the auction house, and he won. He totally won. Now, whether that is what happened in reality or not is not the issue. All that matters in a PR coup is the perception, which is always more powerful than reality anyway (which is why we dole out large chunks of money for products we don’t need, only because our perception shaped by the marketing copy tells us we do). And thanks to the coverage by that awful China-loathing media, China did indeed come off looking like a winner. Let me repeat in case some readers missed the money quote:

A Chinese man’s assertion that he sabotaged the auction of two Qing dynasty bronzes at Christie’s in Paris last week handed Beijing a wry public-relations coup on Monday after it battled for months to block the sale.

Make a note of it. Beijing won a wry PR coup in the eyes of the world, whether we find it deserved or not.

March 6, 2009 @ 12:25 am | Comment

Richard

I really don’t know why people ignore the quotes I go to great lengths to provide for their edification and personal growth.

I wasn’t ignoring it at all, but I don’t see how an article in the NYT equals the view/position of the global media. That’s a reasonable position to take, surely.

March 6, 2009 @ 3:14 am | Comment

Last time I checked, the NYT is just about the most-read, most linked-to, most influential of the global media. And this story got syndicated to many, many hundreds of other overseas media. And they are not, by long shot, the only ones stating this obvious truth. Those who deny the PR coup simply don’t want to believe it, and it won’t matter how many more links I put up. But tell me, is there a number of such links i can provide at which point you’ll concede that yes, this was a damned successful PR coup? I mean, would three be enough? Maybe 5? What will it take?

March 6, 2009 @ 1:01 pm | Comment

Pretty much. The bronzes aren’t particularly attractive.

March 6, 2009 @ 1:35 pm | Comment

Raj,

Thanks for replying to my comments.

The reason I comment here isn’t to say that my viewpoint is 100% correct but to impress upon non-Chinese commentators that there IS another take on the same issue. The reason I brought up my family experience isn’t to score some melodromatic points, but to demonstrate that people have very different personal experiences. Ultimately, our viewpoints are shaped by our individual experiences. I have my views on certain world issues, but I defer to those who actually have experienced the situation first hand. I wouldn’t presume that I know better than them. I don’t appreciate it at all that my mentioning my family experience is considered emotional or melodramatic… as if that de-legitimizes my argument. So what if I am emotional? I am not a robot.

The fact that you don’t get my point makes me think that our experiences are way too different. I don’t know your background but I am fairly certain that it’s different from mine. The western side in me (I consider myself a product of the Enlightenment) knows very well the point of view of most non-Chinese commentators… if I hadn’t been Chinese, I’d think the same way.

March 6, 2009 @ 3:33 pm | Comment

Last time I checked, the NYT is just about the most-read, most linked-to, most influential of the global media.

That doesn’t mean it represents the views of the world media.

Those who deny the PR coup simply don’t want to believe it, and it won’t matter how many more links I put up.

That’s a rather unfair presumption to make, richard. Some people may be obstinant like that, but the same will be true that others will want to believe it happened regardless of any alternate views.

I queried your comment because at least in the UK I hadn’t heard such a universal body of opinion. Indeed there is some disagreement. For example:

CNN leads with the statements that he is a national hero and an embarrassment. I’m not sure how it can be a PR coup if there’s a dispute over which he is – at least that’s how CNN present it.

http://tinyurl.com/atxjsc

The Telegraph notes that the sale went ahead despite calls from China to stop it. No comment about PR victories.

http://tinyurl.com/arr6ee

The Times comments that the Christie’s are unlikely to be impacted in a serious way, but that it is Cai whose standing will be affected in the international art market.

http://tinyurl.com/dea3ce

The Economist asks whether Cai will be celebrated as a hero when it’s found out one of the two underbidders was planning to gift the bronzes to China. Sounds like if “China” made this decision it shot itself in the foot. It’s position is that the State Administration of Cultural Heritage has sought to distance itself from what he did.

http://tinyurl.com/afbnbs

Now that’s just a smattering of what I’ve read on the matter, but I can’t help if it if the major sources I’ve read (and listened to) didn’t make the same observations of the NYT. I’m sure there are other websites out there that do take a similar line, but I don’t see how one can easily say when the “world-wide/global media” has a general view on something.

March 6, 2009 @ 6:42 pm | Comment

Cate

I don’t appreciate it at all that my mentioning my family experience is considered emotional or melodramatic… as if that de-legitimizes my argument. So what if I am emotional? I am not a robot.

Did I say it made your argument invalid? But sometimes as human beings we have to put our feelings to one side. If two parties in dispute always acted on their emotions, would anything get resolved without coming to blows physically or legally? We aren’t robots, but we’re not animals either. We can exercise self-restraint and reflection.

March 6, 2009 @ 6:47 pm | Comment

Raj, you are a great googler. Look, finding an article that doesn’t mention the words “PR coup” doesn’t mean there was no PR coup. None of these articles, by not saying those precise words, negates the fact there was a PR coup. Look at the Internet, for Christ’s sake! The blogs! The news articles! The TV coverage! Look at how we are talking about it now.

Sigh. Since I know I need to be patient, let’s look at your links. Like CNN:

On the front pages of the state-run papers in China, it’s all about the man who says he will not pay.

Headlines read, “Patriotic bidder thwarts relics’ sale,” “Bidder traps Christie’s,” and “Mysterious Bidder Emerges.””

Nope, no sign of a PR coup here. Whatever could I have been thinking? Opening line of the Economist piece:

WILL Cai Mingchao, the Chinese auctioneer who sabotaged the sale of the Qing Dynasty rat head and rabbit head (pictured below) at Christie’s in Paris last week, still be celebrated as a patriot when it is discovered that one of his two underbidders was planning to give the bronzes to China?

Ah, acknowledgement that Cai is now being celebrated as a patriot! Nope, no PR coup there. Sure, they question if it will last. So maybe the PR coup will backfire – but that’s acknowledging that there was indeed a PR coup.

Moving right along. London Times:

The revelation of what now appears to have been a stunt bid in Paris last week was made by Cai Mingchao, already a well-known buyer on the international auction scene and the general manager of the Xiamen Harmony Art International Auction Company.

Mr Cai described his bid as a patriotic act. “I think any Chinese person would have stood up at that moment. It was just that the opportunity came to me. I was merely fulfilling my responsibilities.”

Nope, no sign of a PR coup here. The guy no one ever heard of last week just gets to tout his message to the Times of London. Sure, there’s more to the story, but the existence of all these stories is proof of one thing – that Cai pulled off a PR coup.

And we come at last to one of my favorite writers on China, Richard Spencer whom you quote. But before we get to him, It’s time for a word from our sponsors. Please use your mouse to place the cursor over the link and then click to watch.

Okay, now that you’re back…. Here’s a clip from Spencer’s post. Ready?

Despite calls from the Chinese government for the auction to be stopped, the two heads sold in Paris for 15.7 million euros (£13.9 million) each, to a telephone buyer who at the time remained anonymous.

Now a Chinese collector, Cai Mingchao, has said that he was the successful bidder for both heads but would now refuse to pay for them. He said his bid had been a “patriotic act”.

“I think any Chinese person would have stood up at that moment,” he said.
“It was just that the opportunity came to me. I was merely fulfulling my responsibilities.”
The China National Treasures Fund, to which Mr Cai is an adviser, suggested it had backed the plan to sabotage the auction.

“The fund faced great pressure and risks by bidding for the two sculptures, but this was an extraordinary method taken in an extraordinary situation, which successfully stopped the auction,” said Niu Xianfeng, the deputy head of the fund.

The fund is a patriotic association of collectors, historians and prominent figures, which works closely with the government.

China has a global forum for declaring victory and every columnist in Beijing is obliged to write a story about Mr. Cai and give his and the Chinese government’s point of view.

Raj, I’m not really certain of what you’re trying to argue here (for a change). I mean, is it just that Spencer didn’t use the exact same words, “PR coup”? Or that, well, yes it’s a PR coup, but there’s also some bad stuff in the articles so it’s not completely a PR coup? Or….?

You can keep arguing if you’d like, though personally I’d recommend we give it a rest. You can’t win. This was a global PR coup. That is a simple statement of fact. Why some want to deny that is stunning, amazing, incomprehensible. I mean, we can also argue that Mt. Everest isn’t really that high, but what do we get for all the effort?

NOTE: The “Word from our Sponsors” idea was lifted shamelessly from this magnificent blog.

March 6, 2009 @ 7:19 pm | Comment

So maybe the PR coup will backfire – but taat’s acknowledging that there was indeed a PR coup.

It’s acknowledging that many Chinese see him as a hero. It’s not a comment on how the Economist sees it, or how the Economist believes it has been perceived world-wide.

The Chinese media is generally presenting it as a PR coup. But they’re only a part of the global media (and going to be the most partisan in this affair).

Sure, there’s more to the story, but the existence of all these stories is proof of one thing – that Cai pulled off a PR coup.

I disagree. This was big news already because of the sale itself. Cai’s actions were the continuation of the story. That he is mentioned does not mean there was a PR coup for him or China. Sanlu had a relatively small profile outside of China before the health scandal – were all the stories generate a PR coup for it/China? This isn’t the same, but it goes to show that sheer volume of news coverage isn’t always good.

Raj, I’m not really certain of what you’re trying to argue here (for a change). I mean, is it just that Spencer didn’t use the exact same words, “PR coup”?

Richard, you said that the world’s media declared it a win for China. It’s not to do with exact words used by someone like Spencer, I was commenting that there was no such judgment made. Just because “China” has the ability to say it won doesn’t mean it is viewed as having won. Giving someone a voice is a double-edged sword because they can come across as a prat. China often makes a habit of this in relation to human rights and other issues.

I mean, we can also argue that Mt. Everest isn’t really that high, but what do we get for all the effort?

Mt Everest can be objectively measured. Saying whether a news story is a “win”/PR coup for a country is a lot more subjective.

March 6, 2009 @ 7:52 pm | Comment

As I said, Raj, there’s no point in further discussing this. You can measure when there is a PR coup with a simple measurement: oodles and oodles of ink, a firestorm throughout the world’s media, everyone fighting for interviews with the guy who started it, television interviews and press conferences being held. If you don’t understand that, if you will not acknowledge that, then it’s equivalent to my maintaining Mt. Everest is a very short mountain, and saying nothing will change my mind because I don’t except the measurement you’re using. That’s what this argument is like.

March 6, 2009 @ 7:57 pm | Comment

oodles and oodles of ink, a firestorm throughout the world’s media

Sanlu had that.

everyone fighting for interviews with the guy who started it

A lot of people (in the UK at least) want an interview with Fred Goodwin. No one would say his pension award is a PR coup for him.

Sorry, richard, I can’t agree that mere coverage equates to a PR coup.

March 6, 2009 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

I gave direct quotes from the links you provided, from your very own articles! That wasn’t “mere coverage”! It was loaded with the message that Cai had pulled off a stunning coup. But you’ll see what you want to see. Oh well, never mind.

March 6, 2009 @ 8:43 pm | Comment

It was loaded with the message that Cai had pulled off a stunning coup.

If they all honestly thought he had pulled of a stunning coup, why not express that view directly? The NYT did.

I think you might be right that people somtimes see what they want to see.

March 6, 2009 @ 9:15 pm | Comment

There. I knew it. It’s because they didn’t use the word “major coup.” At least you admit that’s what you were looking for.

If they all honestly thought he had pulled of a stunning coup, why not express that view directly? The NYT did

Well, maybe they wanted to use, um, their own words,, since that’s what they get paid to do. And they each did say that. But with different syllables than the NYT. But come on, let’s face it – you always want to put China it in the worst possible light every chance you get. It’s not like it’s a secret or anything.

This is now totally exhausted, as yet again Raj parses an argument until it wears everybody out, turning even the strong and healthy reader into a comatose zombie. Thread closed, okay?

March 6, 2009 @ 9:26 pm | Comment

Here is my thoughts:

when an Egyptian walks aroud the obelisk standing in the Place de la Concorde, or a Greek stares at the marble statues housed in the British Museum or Louvre, does he need a pr coup to feel the sorrow? When a Jew stands before the Wailing Wall, does he need a media or the government’s agitation to weep over his people’s miseries and sufferings? It’s said that when Pres Obama won the elction, General Powell was moved to tears. So why would a GOP bigwig and a veteran fighter cry for a democrat’s win? Doesn’t it has something to do with those black slaves who had toiled and suffered back in history? And if these are still hard for you to understand, please think about this: Just suppose, suppose you are standing at where the twin towers used to stand, or gazing at the seawater on the Arizona Memorial, what will you feel? It’s one hundred percent that you will feel a strong emotion(if you won’t, I will be surprised). Just at this time, I come up to you and say, “you know what, nationalist, you look so sad just because of propaganda.” Then you will give me a good beating or throw me into the sea, by no means will you say, “you are right, man, I’m just a victim of distasteful pr coup, I’m exploited.”
a

March 6, 2009 @ 11:55 pm | Comment

[…] clearly not worth the noise, so I will be brief. Here’s what the forums say.  On the West side: it’s a clever PR coup by China;  on the East side: indignation, history, insults and record […]

March 13, 2009 @ 7:33 pm | Pingback