What a shallow, ignorant and patronising analysis!

“These and other repressive measures have supposedly been put in place in response to a perceived foreign threat.”

Really? First I heard of it!

“The students were all brainwashed with an identical twisted view of the world. They couldn’t think for themselves”

Yes they can! They most certainly think for themselves. They may not express what they are thinking to a young laowai teacher doing a “stint”.

God, I could go on.

China has many problems. This “writer” has identified none of them. Why are you carrying this?

October 9, 2005 @ 7:54 am | Comment

William Stimson is, like Jerome Kedating, a regular contributor to Peking Duck. I do not necessarily share his views on everything, but often enough I do. I think he makes some valid points that are certainly worthy of discussion.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:00 am | Comment

OK. What points are valid in this article?

October 9, 2005 @ 8:19 am | Comment

A very thoughtful analysis.
liuzhou laowai: Besides simply rebutting with an “Oh yes they can”, would you care to demonstrate with an example where he is wrong instead of condemning his argument wholesale? I know exactly what every Chinese person I talk to has to say about history, the West, its neighbours, Taiwan, Tibet, etc etc etc. They are all parrots, devoid of any critical thought beyond memorising the dates and events the gov’t puts into their brains (and I teach Chinese and laowei, so I speak with some authority). So much so that their shadowy leaders can say without any shame “The Chinese people believe that…”, as if their monotone views merit respect abroad.
If students “most certainly think for themselves” (I don’t know who you are to take your word for it), then why the hell does the government place all these restrictions on what they can access on the internet, how they can communicate with themselves and the outside world, and why they are sent to gaol should they ever dare utter a word beyond what this gerontocracy permits?
Now then, sonny, how about YOU attempting to explain why the government puts in place such repressive measures? I’d be very keen to hear your rationale…

October 9, 2005 @ 8:26 am | Comment

Liuzhou, I’m putting it out for discussion. As with Martyn’s and Lisa’s and Jerome’s posts, I don’t necessarily defend what they say, nor do I think it’s right to ask me a question like this (“OK. What points are valid in this article?”). If you have an issue, ask William about it and pose an argument. If you don’t like the article, my apologies. Here’s your chance to explain in greater detail why you feel this way. Thanks.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:32 am | Comment

Thanks Keir – you said what I was trying to.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:38 am | Comment

as a former chinese student who “was brainwashed with an identical twisted view of the world”, i have no disagreement with the author in general, but i do think he is too simple-minded in 1) understanding (or trying to understand) why things happen in this or that way here in china, and 2) what should be done to improve.

people of different professional fields have the access to information of their relevant fields and debates are available in certain plateforms and hierarchies, even though they are unknown to outsiders and the public doesn’t mean they don’t exist. the fear of “foreign threat” is a minimal concern since people don’t understand why the public should be get involved into issues that require specific knowledge and years of training and experiences.

true, freedom breeds creativity, but to build china a better place to live requres more than freedom. and in this stage of development, i still see many more elements that are more important than freedom.

anyway, i don’t have problem with the general intention of the article.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:40 am | Comment

You question my authority. I claim no authority!

But I have been teaching in Chinese universities for over ten years.

“why the hell does the government place all these restrictions on what they can access on the internet”

Don’t you realise that 90% of those students can proudly tell you how to get round those restrictions?

“Now then, sonny, how about YOU attempting to explain why the government puts in place such repressive measures”

I will ignore the patronising “sonny” and say that I also abhor the Chinese government.

But I do not extend that to assuming that the entire student population are too stupid to see through the propaganda. No one in China believes it, least of all the drunken scum who invent it.

Never underestimate your students. Never!

October 9, 2005 @ 8:44 am | Comment

Thanks for your very honest comment, Bingfeng. I tend to agree with you – the issue is more complex than this analysis might indicate, but there’s certainly quite a bit of truth to it.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:48 am | Comment

OK Richard. Fair point. I will get back to you with my detailed objections.

I hope you can appreciate that I need time to frame them exactly as i wish, and also I have to go into the wilds of Guangxi tomorrow where they may not have electricity, never mind internet.

Will get back to you.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:50 am | Comment

Keir:

I know exactly what every Chinese person I talk to has to say about history, the West, its neighbours, Taiwan, Tibet, etc etc etc. They are all parrots

You only say that because they don’t say what you want to hear, but sorry Keir, live with it.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:57 am | Comment

” I know exactly what every Chinese person I talk to has to say about history, the West, its neighbours, Taiwan, Tibet, etc etc etc.”

That is possibly the most arrogant and ignorant thing I have ever heard.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:08 am | Comment

Liuzhou:

But I do not extend that to assuming that the entire student population
are too stupid to see through the propaganda. No one in China believes it, least of all the drunken scum who invent it.

While I agree that most Chinese styudents see though a lot of the BS, I am constantly struck by how many have swallowed the script — hook, line and sinker – when it comes to certain issues like Tibet, Taiwan and Japan. Mao is another story – they all seem to know he was an asshole, despite the statues and portraits and endless tributes.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:17 am | Comment

Can I claim “right to reply” on this issue? It did make me angry.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:25 am | Comment

Liuzhou, of course. Reply when you’re ready.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:32 am | Comment

Well while Liuzhou Laowai is gathering his thoughts I will give him a couple of other questions to answer.

The students won’t express their thoughts to a laowai “doing a stint” ; ok, fair enough, so who do they seem to express them to? Liuzhou Laowai? I guess he is not considered doing a stint so is the receptor of all student true opinions.

90% can tell you how to get round the restrictions? two questions here 1— and then??????

2–if 90% can really get round them; (I am always suspicious of such high statistics, but I will let that pass) then why do the restrictions remain in place. Or is this the private knowledge of Liuzhou Laowai and the government is clueless?

“No one in China believes all the propaganda least of all the drunken scum who invent it” Again when the odds are so great, why is it all that we hear? Is it a characteristic to spout what they don’t believe, especially when the inventors don’t also?

“Never underestimate your students”
Well things have been quiet for the 15 plus years after Tianamen Square, but let’s say things are stirring underneath, are you sure the students are not thinking more on how to make some bucks in the growing economy? I guess we will have to wait for Liuzhou Laowai to clue us in–I hope he is not going to say he has to protect his sources and therefore cannot really answer.

And finally, Stimson knows nothing of the problems of China, agaijn, OK, Stimson does not live there, but Liuzhou does so he has the answers. So Liuzhou, what do you see as the problems?

I guess we can all sit back and wait for the truth to come out. Liuzhous ten years will fill us in on why he has the answers the world is waiting for.

October 9, 2005 @ 10:23 am | Comment

Go get him, Jerome!

October 9, 2005 @ 10:33 am | Comment

2 very extreme views here, liuzhou laowai and Bill’s. So very right yet wrong.

October 9, 2005 @ 11:18 am | Comment

I’m all ears dougie…..

October 9, 2005 @ 11:36 am | Comment

Alright, I’m going to back up Liuzhou on this one.

There’s a difference between being fed propaganda and believing it. I’d say students have lots of reservations and doubts about the stories they’re fed. On the other hand, being fed the same shit everyday does mean that when confronted with new shit, they lose their bearings, so they really are sometimes ill-equipped to process it all sometimes.

That said, that doesn’t mean they can’t or they don’t. It just means its tricky. To say:

The students were all brainwashed with an identical twisted view of the world. They couldn’t think for themselves.

is to give up on your students if you’re a teacher. I’ve been there, I’ve said what Stimson’s teacher said, and let me tell you, that’s when you need to get out of the classroom. Yes, they are fed alot of bullshit. Students get fed bullshit all the time, everywhere. It’s called school, remember guys?

As for students not telling a laowai teacher, how about just not telling a teacher? C’mon, people, do you remember high school? Hell, think of how many people you knew in undergrad who wouldn’t tell a prof what they really thought? For god sakes You are the old dude with chalk all over his pants! They’re eighteen! I’m not out of my twenties and I look old to them!

Jerome said:

if 90% can really get round them; (I am always suspicious of such high statistics, but I will let that pass) then why do the restrictions remain in place. Or is this the private knowledge of Liuzhou Laowai and the government is clueless?

I’d say most students have checked something illicit and non-porn on the internet at least once. China is huge. The internet is huge. They can’t police it all in reality or virtual reality either. As for the restrictions remaining and even being tightened, do you know how historians look at Roman records where the same laws are passed again and again? They take it as an indication that the law isn’t working, and isn’t being enforced, so the Senate passed it again to try and tell people “we’re serious!” I think this can also be applied to the anti-seccession law as well, where they basically didn’t say anything new at all but simply escalated their finger wagging.

Is it a characteristic to spout what they don’t believe, especially when the inventors don’t also?

This is one of the hallmark characteristics of living in a repressive society: you have to say all this shit that you don’t believe. Think about any society where gays can’t come out of the closet. They often construct a big huge elaborate facade of straightness. Does that make them straight? No. I’m surprised you said this Jerome, that’s kinda like Authoritarian Society 101. When I was traveling in the former Yugoslavia and Hungary the museums and the people were full of stories of having to march to a communist tune that they always thought was bullshit.

“Never underestimate your students”
Well things have been quiet for the 15 plus years after Tianamen Square, but let’s say things are stirring underneath, are you sure the students are not thinking more on how to make some bucks in the growing economy?

WTF? Tiananmen? Your benchmark for Chinese students is that they stand down a tank? That’s a little demanding, don’t you think? I mean, extracurriculars are important but I mean really.

Of course they’re thinking about making a buck – they want to live a decent life. That doesn’t mean they aren’t questioning all the other stuff. So they have no burning desire to be an amateur pundit on the internet – this does not mean they were lobotomized at an early age. This simply means they don’t get the same rush from opining and pontificating as we do. And that’s good, because there are too many of us already.

And so what if they have no interest in politics? They can still exercise a questioning mind in business, where they will butt heads with meaningless bureaucracy and idiocy. Who says they won’t think about how messed up that is?

Liuzhou is clearly coming from the position of a teacher. I think it’s wildly unfair, Jerome, to sarcastically accuse him of coming in as a know-it-all. He’s absolutely right: to accept such blanket terms for Chinese students is to be a failure as a teacher. These students are individuals with their own active minds; to treat them as one uniform group is not only to be a bad teacher, but to become exactly like the propagandists you are against!

October 9, 2005 @ 11:43 am | Comment

Mr. Stimson still has his simplitic nature of thinking, not necessary wrong, but y it’s a little lack of depth apparentl because PKD readers have always been very demanding….:)

October 9, 2005 @ 1:41 pm | Comment

Believe it or not. Some people will always think many Chinese people can not think critically unless those Chinese people think the way as they do and share similar viewpoints as they do.

It is nonesence to say the Chinese sdutents do not have enough information. The fact is that many of them simply do not want to listen (and read) what other people boo-shit about China.

October 9, 2005 @ 2:15 pm | Comment

xing is echoing my view and reply to Keir. I envy those who can formulate things much better than me.

I know Richard wants to stir up some controversy with his post, and he succeeds in that. I suspect Richard is very open minded, despite his encouragement to certain readers who are on the losing side of debate, such as:

“Thanks Keir – you said what I was trying to.”

Go get him, Jerome!

October 9, 2005 @ 3:02 pm | Comment

I’m on the losing side of the debate, ZHJ? How so? If students can be thrown in gaol for expressing their thoughts, how then can they be said to be independent? If schools can’t teach their own bloody history over the past 60 years without censoring every important event and laying the rest with an ideological gloss, how are they not brainwashed? Well? This is the second time you’ve claimed victory without offering any of your own “independent ideas”.
As for you liuzhou laowai- WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY. Or do you have to check back with CCPHQ for further information?
Thanks Jerome for your support- didn’t think I’d need to reply again after I read yours.

October 9, 2005 @ 4:49 pm | Comment

Your assumption is that Chinese cannot think independently. Don’t underestimate that. As some have pointed out previously, Chinese who really want and care, have unprecedented access to any kind of information. Because Chinese do not kowtow to you and don’t say what you want to hear, doesn’t mean their views and not genuine and thus irrelevant. If you only want to “discuss” with people who only agree with you and only nod at every point you make, then what is the point in participating in discussions?

October 9, 2005 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

Keir, let’s look at the merits of what you said:

They are all parrots, devoid of any critical thought beyond memorising the dates and events the gov’t puts into their brains (and I teach Chinese and laowei, so I speak with some authority).

And you teach? Do you walk into class and say to your students “I start from the assumption you are all braindead?” This is a gross overgeneralization and sounds pretty much like stereotyping to me.

then why the hell does the government place all these restrictions on what they can access on the internet, how they can communicate with themselves and the outside world, and why they are sent to gaol should they ever dare utter a word beyond what this gerontocracy permits?

Well, gee, Keir, if they are incapable of reaching their own conclusions then why would the blocking be necessary? Isn’t it in place precisely because they could process that information individually?

Liuzhou took issue with the notion that Chinese students can’t think. I didn’t see him, ZHJ, xing or anyone else apologizing for the CCP. Keir, you leapt all over him because you thought you saw one of our hack apologist commenters – but no one here appears to be one. And frankly, as another teacher, I understand the frustration of meeting a room full of students who only repeat what they were told, but to use that to generalize to all students as you did is a horrible thing for a teacher to do. One of the hardest parts of being a teacher is that you have to maintain the belief that all of your students are capable of learning and growing, and dismissing them as all parrots makes it sound like you need to rethink careers.

October 9, 2005 @ 5:39 pm | Comment

On discussions like this, sometimes all of us need to admit the differences between the west and the east. For good reasons, many people believe that as a country develops, it has to be like the west more and more. It is true in some aspects. Please don’t be surprised if they think and do things differently (I am sure that nobody will say he or she think that way). You can find many things that are difficult to understand in China; but people can also find many things in America or other countries that are hard to understand (for example, the cultural war, the constant debate on gay, abortion issues, and now the origin of life -:), etc).

Actually, I believe the Chinese people is more receptive to new ideas from outside than people some cultures.

October 9, 2005 @ 7:17 pm | Comment

Xing, I strongly disagree with this “hey, east is east and west is west” thinking. When you say its just a matter of culture, you’re a) making a statement so general as to be meaningless and b) it implies that we should just throw our hands in the air, because the difference is inherent and there’s nothing we can do about it. Everything I was just saying is that Chinese students behavior can be quite understandable when you consider how students tend behave and think anywhere in the world, and how people behave in other authoritarian and repressive societies. I feel my students reactions make a whole lot of sense in that context – to say “oh, well, they’re Chinese” is to ignore that context. All you do is lend credence to stereotypes and stupid cliches.

Stereotypes like “Chinese people are more receptive to new ideas from outside than people in some other cultures”. This gets us nowhere. There are some Chinese individuals who are, and some who aren’t, and to generalize based on that about the entire human race and the divisions you imagine exist in it, well, to do that is to tread on thin ice.

October 9, 2005 @ 7:42 pm | Comment

>If schools can’t teach their own bloody history over the past 60 years.

Keir,

I don’t know you are an american or not. I live in the US and I know how hard it is for people here to have a sincere discussion about race relationship in the US.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:04 pm | Comment

It seems to me that the higher the degree obtained by a student in China the less receptive they are to outside ideas and they were less critical of the gov’t disseminated propaganda. Just my observation.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:06 pm | Comment

davesgonechina: Thanks for the comment. I appreciate that I might have been over the top (reading attacks to comments without real justification while using phony aliases and email addresses gets to me) but I didn’t mean to argue that the Chinese are genetically predisposed to black and white thinking. What I wanted to say was that my experience with Chinese and foreign students in one classroom shows they have two completely different ways of thinking- to prove it the results in my school clearly show those Chinese that do human sciences (most don’t attempt it) get lower marks, and yet destroy many of the foreign kids in maths and sciences. Do you not find this?
BUT I wanted to say it’s because they come from a Chinese education background where they are taught China beat the US imperialists in Korea (THE GOV’T FORCES HISTORY TO BE TAUGHT SKEWED TO THE PARTY’S FAVOUR AT ALL TIMES- hence the charge of brainwashing) without knowing why they were fighting in the first place or how they can judge the consequences to have been positive for China. I teach grades 11 and 12 and it is very difficult to get them to think critically by the time they come to an international school. I don’t think it’s just me or my school.
Funnily enough, it is the Chinese-North Americans who seem to excell in such discusions and classes- my top history students have been Chinese American and Canadians…

I do take your point, xing. I just don’t think it applies here because there is no state goal to deny schools to teach such issues; in fact, I assume most universities offer such courses.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:26 pm | Comment

REPLY TO LIUZHOU LAOWAI:

(1) “Really? First I heard of it!” Liuzhou Laowi says of the contention that the new wave of repressive measures put in place by the Chinese leader are in response to the threat he perceives from outside China’s borders. Liuzhou Laowi would have heard of this idea weeks ago if he read the New York Times (Sept 25, 2005): I quote,

“In May, Mr. Hu and Mr. Zeng convened top officials to warn that just as governments in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan had been toppled, the government in China could be, too. They argued that the United States had fostered social unrest in those places and had similar designs on China, said people who said they had been told about the speeches.”

(2) “The (Chinese) students most certainly can think for themselves,” Liuzhou Laowi contends. “They may not express what they are thinking to a young laowai teacher doing a “stint”. The question Liuzhou Laowi avoids is, “Can they express what they are thinking to anybody?” No. They can’t. “Can they post it on their blogs?” No. They can’t. “ Can they post it on their websites?” No. They can’t. “Can they e-mail their ideas?” No. They can’t. “Can they text-message them to their friends?” No. They can’t. “Can they go freely on the internet and find others who think similarly?” No they can’t. “Can they even admit to themselves what they really think?” No they can’t. It’s safer just not to think. A shocking chapter I’m currently reading in Jung Chang and Jon Halliday’s “Mao, The Unknown Story” details how China’s Defense Minister under Mao, Peng De-huai, tried to warn people all over China that the farmers in the countryside were starving. Everybody already knew. They all thought this themselves. He tried to get people to speak up. But nobody dared say a thing. Even Mao knew the people in the countryside were starving. But because Peng dared to actually say the truth, Mao purged him. And the starvation went on. This is China. This is the problem. If people can’t speak freely then it doesn’t matter what everyone knows. Nobody has any power except the man at the top, and nobody can do anything to make China a better, fairer, place. This is the issue that Liuzhou Laowi so glibly ignores in his jibe.

And there’s another point here that he too ignores: how in the world could the Chinese students possibly think for themselves, as he contends, when the government does not allow them to interact freely one with the other in a truly open exchange of ideas. If a student can only express accepted views, then this is not “thinking for himself.” Because, as anyone knows who writes or lectures, new thoughts come exploding into our minds precisely as we endeavor to express ourselves. If we’re not allowed to express, that means we’re not allowed to think.

Can Liuzhou Laowi offer us any ideas on why China’s government needs to “protect” Chinese from truths that everybody else in the world knows? Can he suggest the rationale for putting an honest journalist in jail for sending an e-mail? What’s so nefarious about exchanging information. The danger to China arises when this is not allowed.

Liuzhou Laowi’s response is a perfect sample specimen of a Chinese who is not thinking for himself, but just parroting the accepted script. Is he in the hire of the government? Is he one of those many thousands employed to post accepted party views in chat rooms across China’s internet? It certainly seems like it from the tone of his response. The thing about mainland Chinese who can’t think for themselves, like Liuzhou Laowi, is that their first response to a novel or different idea is to ridicule it. We see this in Liuzhou Laowi’s posts. My ideas may be wrong, they may be right. How would I know? I can only speak from my perspective. These ideas can be supported, they can be refuted, they can be modified. To ridicule them, though? That’s a stupid route to go. The mainland Chinese, who’ve never been allowed by their government to be exposed to the full truth, seem so shocked when a tiny piece of this truth manages to slip through. Their jerk-knee response is to ridicule it. That makes me laugh.

(3) “China has many problems,” Liuzhou Laowi writes, “This “writer” has identified none of them. Why are you carrying this?” What I contend in my piece — I know it’s simplistic, but I think it’s true — is that all of China’s problems can be subsumed into one: the lack of freedom. The reason for this is because if there were freedom, then the capable Chinese could very quickly solve all the other problems. The only problem though would be that then, the party leadership, which exists like a parasite on poor China, might not stay in power because the magnitude of its corruption and of its exploitation of the Chinese people would be revealed for all to see. That, for the party leadership, would pose a big problem. They will do anything in their power to prevent that from happening, even if it means squandering China’s precious resources to keep the truth from reaching the people. The party leadership quite clearly cares much more about itself and its own welfare than it does China. It doesn’t care what harm it does to China, so long as it can stay in power – and continue to benefit itself. I grew up in Cuba. In my youth I was an enthusiastic supporter of Fidel Castro. Then when I returned to the island, 35 years later and saw the truth of what his regime had done to Cuba – I was shocked. I’ve written about this (http://www.billstimson.com/Isle_of_Pines.htm). Reading Jung Chang’s “Wild Swans” and then Jung Chang & Jon Halliday’s “Mao, The Unknown Story” has shown me that China is just another Cuba. The government is running exactly the same scam on the people, the same con game – a bunch of thugs posing as a government and ripping the poor country off. They don’t care about anybody else, so long as they’ve got all the goods for themselves.

Incidently, these two books I mention, “Wild Swans” and “Mao, The Unknown Story” – both are banned in China. Can Liuzhou Laowi tell us why?

As to Liuzhou Laowi’s question to Richard “Why are you carrying this?” – maybe Richard posted my piece because it said something about China today that was slightly different, or it said it in a slightly different, or simplified, way. That’s the thing about free speech. We say what we feel, what seems true to us. None of us know everything. At least I don’t. We each see one little piece. Whether we’re right or wrong isn’t the issue. But it’s just the ability to speak out, and the ability of other people to be able to hear what we say, and be able to answer, people who agree and people who disagree. The truth comes out in the interchange. That’s why the leaders of China are so afraid of free speech, and are spending so much effort to put a lid on it.

China needs people expressing what they feel, whether they’re right or wrong. What China doesn’t need is people like Liuzhou Laowi. I can’t help but feel he’s in the payroll of the government and has been assigned the task of posting the party line on this and many other chat room sites. That line is one thing nobody wants to read. Because we’ve heard it too often and because by now we all know it’s a lie. We’re tired of the lie. We can see for ourselves the harm it is doing China.

William R. Stimson

October 9, 2005 @ 8:32 pm | Comment

I think maybe you should read Liuzhou Laowai’s comments again and you will notice that he didn’t make any comments that were supportive of the CCP. His point was that your view of mainlanders is way to simplistic and you come off as arrogant.

And to claim that LL is some sort of government agent is nothing but slander.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:43 pm | Comment

Dave,

I didn’t say that the east and the west have nothing to do with each other (I thought my post was very clear on this). My point is: why some people would label the Chinese student “not able to think” when they have different political view points.

October 9, 2005 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

I can’t help but feel he’s in the payroll of the government and has been assigned the task of posting the party line on this and many other chat room sites.

——————

William R. Stimson, you remind me of another lovely guy – bellevue.

the insult on liuzhou laowai makes yourself, not liuzhou laowai, look very bad

October 9, 2005 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

William,

Your slanders do not make people angry. It just makes people laught at you.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:03 pm | Comment

Xing,

I don’t think that people lablel Chinese students as being unable to think becasue they hold differing opinions but rather becasue they are unable to support those opinions based on their own beliefs. For example, A girl I lived with many years ago was convinced that foreign agitators were responsible for the events in 1989 when I wasked what evidence she had her reply was simply: “none, but I’m sure the gov’t has some” .She is a Qing Hua and Fu Dan grad.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:06 pm | Comment

GWBH,

Thanks. I understand your points. People here in the US also blindly believe in the govcernment’s accusations on China. And how about, despite all the information available to them , haltf americans still belive Iraq is directly linked to 9.11.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:14 pm | Comment

Xing,

I completly agree with your comments about the US but this is a blog about China.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:19 pm | Comment

Luckily, China is big enough so that it can ignore what outsider say about it. China should continue to do what it has been doing in the last 20 years, taking other’s expeiences from other countries. And most Chinese believe their leaders are capable people who put the country on the right track.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:23 pm | Comment

This blog is about China and the US, so it’s fine for Xing to make this point. It is true that many people in America can be fooled into believing things by the government. But thanks to a free press, nearly 70 percent of Americans now believe the war in Iraq was a bad idea. There will always be sheep in every society who will believe what they are told. The only counter is free speech. Can you imagine 70 percent of Chinese saying they believe the “liberation” of Tibet was a wrongful act?

October 9, 2005 @ 9:25 pm | Comment

GWBH,

If things like that exist in the US, the most advanced country in the world, why should people be surprised at such things in China, a third-world country?

October 9, 2005 @ 9:26 pm | Comment

I don’t think the linkage between a country being technologically advanced and independent thought is valid. I also don’t think the US is the most advanced country (however that is measured) certainly Japan and many European countries are the equal if not superior to the US.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:36 pm | Comment

Can you imagine 70 percent of Chinese saying they believe the “liberation” of Tibet was a wrongful act?

—————–

i suspect this could become a touchstone for “independent thinking”, given the people are fed with more information and exposed to different views, their current viewpoints might be strengthened

“independent thinking” is not measured by the results

October 9, 2005 @ 9:44 pm | Comment

Richard,

I think the increase of the disapproval rating on the Iraq war is directly related to the people’s confidence drop on the administration from Kanisha, not because people suddently releasized somthing was wrong with the war. This war has costed more than 200 billion dollars, about 1900 americans and 100000 Iraqis died from the war. But since most americans are not directly related with it, they just don’t care much. US has the luxury to leave anytime they want.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:51 pm | Comment

I don’t think disagreeing with the party line necessarily demonstrates independent tought but rather being able to support a postion without having to recite verbatim the party logic…

I would repsect an opinion that supported Tibet as a part of China if it was backed up by something other than the chest thumping “historically it’s a fact, etc etc. ” arguement

October 9, 2005 @ 9:53 pm | Comment

Xing, it had plummeted to the 40s before Katrina. Then dropped another 10 percent after.

Regartding the rest of this thread… I’m disappointed Liuzhou didn;t come back because, as Davesgonechina says, he did have some good points and I wanted to hear them. As I said at the beginning, I do find William’s argument incomplete and perhaps too general, with plenty of spot-on observations. Liuzhou, I hope you didn’t get scared away. I like your site and your comments are most welcome.

October 9, 2005 @ 9:55 pm | Comment

Can you imagine 70 percent of Chinese saying they believe the “liberation” of Tibet was a wrongful act?

I can imagine there are more who doubt the government than who would actually say it to one of us laowai. There’s a difference between freedom of speech and independent thought – one is spoken, one is thought. I honestly believe there are alot of ideas and opinions in China, political and non-political, that aren’t voiced. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking. Stimson and Keir didn’t make a distinction. Both spoke in blanket terms.

Keir, I know you’re not talking about race. And it is a system that doesn’t encourage a diversity of opinions. But to say “they are all parrots” is a generalization that comes from anger, not reason. I certainly hope you don’t bring that with you in the classroom. As for not kicking so much ass at the humanities and social sciences, yes, when they enter an international setting they aren’t going to be too eloquent. But you can’t expect to throw them into a social sciences deathmatch and not have them come out feeling angry and defensive. Isn’t that what we should be trying not to provoke?

And Richard, if what you say about the press in the US being the reason 70 of the US believes the war in Iraq is a bad idea… do you honestly think that most people in the US were swayed by the debate between the parties? I’d say the swing isn’t because of the press, it’s because the neighbors son is missing a leg, gas has only gotten *more* expensive, and we still get regularly scheduled terror scares and orange alerts that do absolutely nothing. I don’t give the press too much credit for changes in public opinion, and I don’t give the American public too much credit for being readers either.

October 9, 2005 @ 10:01 pm | Comment

APOLOGY FOR SLANDER:

If I slandered Liuzhou Laowi, I apologize. It was not my intent to argue ad hominem. It just seemed to me inconceivable that someone who wasn’t in the employ of the Chinese government could hold the views he espoused. Slander is defined as “a false and malicious statement injurious to a person’s reputation.” It was not my intent to maliciously injure Liuzhou Laowi’s reputation. I don’t even know who he is. His views, though, sounded to me like government propaganda. Can I say that? Isn’t it natural that I should wonder if he wasn’t paid by the government to express those views? I did in fact suspect that. Maybe I shouldn’t have admitted in writing that I suspected it. Free speech is one thing. Slander is another. If I slandered him, I apologize. I don’t believe in slandering people.

As everyone knows, the Chinese government really has hired a group of hack writers using different pen names to produce comments on the internet in an effort to guide public opinion in the direction it desires. This is cited in a paper delivered by Erping Zhang at the annual Western Conference of Asian Studies in Denver. Zhang’s paper is entitled “Beijing’s Cyber War” and is found at http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-10-4/32924.html.

That paper makes a very interesting read. I recommend it to Liuzhou Laowi. Probably, though, he can’t access it from mainland China because the government there would have blocked that site. Of course it wouldn’t want its people to know such things as would set them thinking for themselves, and maybe lead them to ask, ‘Is our government’s censorship of information really in China’s best interest?”

William R. Stimson

October 9, 2005 @ 10:08 pm | Comment

Dave,

I wish I could put my thoughts in writing as you did.

October 9, 2005 @ 10:09 pm | Comment

>As everyone knows, the Chinese government really has hired a group of hack writers using different pen names to produce comments on the internet in an effort to guide public opinion in the direction it desires.
==================================

William,

I think the Chinese government is probably the worse among all governments in the world on public relation (although they have learned a lot on this in the last few years).

Taiwan spends many millions dollars in the US for lobbying and China spends merely $250000. That is very tiny given the dynamic relationshop between the US and China. Even with this tiny amount, there were lots of accusations of Chinese illegal lobbying in the US.

October 9, 2005 @ 10:20 pm | Comment

And Richard, if what you say about the press in the US being the reason
70 of the US believes the war in Iraq is a bad idea… do you honestly think that most people in the US were swayed by the debate between the parties? I’d say the swing isn’t because of the press, it’s because the neighbors son is missing a leg, gas has only gotten *more* expensive, and we still get regularly scheduled terror scares and orange alerts that do absolutely nothing. I don’t give the press too much credit for changes in public opinion, and I don’t give the American public too much credit for being readers either.

It’s a whole lot of things, but most Americans don’t know personally of war casualties. It’s through the media that we keep hearing the truth of the war, and for all her repulsiveness, Cindy Sheehan finally gave these atrocities a human face. None of these things could have happened without a way to channel the information to everyone, i.e., a free press. That’s how most opf us have seen the photos of shattered limbs and broken lives.

I know there’s political discussion ion Chi9na, at least more than there was not so long ago. I do think, jhowever, that there really are certain topics like Tibet and Taiwan and Japan where you can pretty much bet money on what they’ll say, and not just because you
‘re a laowai. They will actually argue very passionately about these things and they jonestly and sincerely do believe the Party line. My own Chinese teacher here in Taiwan is from Beijing and has been here for year. She’s liberal, urbane and intelligent. When we discuss Taiwan “returning to its mother” she glazes over and becomes another person. Truly strange.

October 9, 2005 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

At the risk of putting words in Stimsons mouth, I feel that his message is that top down controls are not going to help bring stability in the short or long term;

To Davesgonechina,
Liuzhou Laowai (LL) had said that China has many problems, this writier has identified none of them– that comes across to me as pretty know it all; and I have not seen LL put forth what he knows the real problems to be.

I would like to try to push it in a new direction however; back in the beginning Bing Feng had said he overall had no big quarrel with Stimsons thought but “at this stage of development” it is not what China needs. I would like to see Richard give Bing Feng space to start a new thread on what he does see that China needs at this stage of development. Try to be specific as possible without just saying root out corruption etc. or saying it is too complex, i.e. we don’t have to ofer practical solutions, just talk about how complex it is.
I think, or hope that Bing Feng would be up to it. So far I have really not heard many constructive solutions from the Chinese side.

October 9, 2005 @ 10:59 pm | Comment

“Liuzhou Laowi’s response is a perfect sample specimen of a Chinese who is not thinking for himself, but just parroting the accepted script. ”

William, I just love your post! You are such a brilliant guy. I hope to see your post like this more.

Richard, seriously, I think your writing is generally ok. But your guest writer is really hurting you.

For example, Martyn did not even bother to find out when was the last time Koizumi visit the shrine, he wrote a long article about China-japan relationship.

Now you have this Stimson fellow to write on China. By the way, has he ever been to china?

October 10, 2005 @ 4:38 am | Comment

Thanks Bill. An incisive piece, and a correct one – of course.

October 10, 2005 @ 4:50 am | Comment

Shorter Bill Stimson: If you disagree with me, you are a Communist. So ’50s of you.

October 10, 2005 @ 4:56 am | Comment

Hmmm, whether Stimson sir has been to China or not, simplistic or not, arrogant or not his writings ought to be less infuriating to some of you, should you see reform and progress in China will always be carried out with a diverse set of paths.

October 10, 2005 @ 6:00 am | Comment

richard,

My own Chinese teacher here in Taiwan is from Beijing and has been here for year. She’s liberal, urbane and intelligent. When we discuss Taiwan “returning to its mother” she glazes over and becomes another person. Truly strange.

This is not strange…I am like that as well. 🙂

October 10, 2005 @ 11:37 am | Comment

Y’all are a bunch of pontificating farts who should be sitting at some cafe table on the Rive Gauche expounding on each one’s angst while not hearing the other. Is it a “b” or iz it a “d”? It doesn’t matter. Each point of view is correct to its perceivor dependant on its idiosyncractic locus.

Vis a vis the Iraq question? Ask any Iraqi woman whether it was a mistake for the UNITED STATES to get involved. According to NPR today Average Iraqi on the the street has more hope for the future today than they did 4 years ago. Nuff sed.

October 10, 2005 @ 7:14 pm | Comment

FLS,

So, you still believe that the Iraqis should throw flowers at and embrace the invaders?

October 10, 2005 @ 8:05 pm | Comment

No, FLS, it is not enough said. Not nearly. If you haven’t noticed, they are entering into a civil war. To say they have more hope now than they had under Saddam says very, very little. And this brief moment of feel-good hope (which, by the way, I question even exists) hardly justifies all the carnage and staggering costs.

Now let’s get back to the topic.

October 10, 2005 @ 8:09 pm | Comment