Oh shit! I don’t know what to say.

January 9, 2006 @ 9:10 pm | Comment

Re: china_hands on pandas

Chester, you’re totally right. I guess I missed china_hand’s comment about it not being political. My assumption is always that it is. When was the last time that mainland china did anything regarding Taiwan that wasn’t political?

Actually, what china_hands says makes sense from a communist’s standpoint. Their position is that PR China rules taiwan. So that anything that doesn’t suppor that idea (even if rooted in reality) is from their perspective, political.

January 9, 2006 @ 10:17 pm | Comment

You totally missed my point. When I said “they were just for cultural exchanges and are non-political” I mean they are ostensibly non-political. Of course I know they are a political move, but it is a move that can be used to be immune from being accused of being “political”.

The point is, just exactly how would Chen publicly explain his rejection of the Pandas? He can’t publicly explain it without getting people to understand. If he says “These pandas is a purely political move, and I reject them”. Then he’ll be applauded amongst his own base, but other than his own base, others will likely see him as ridiculous and narrow-minded.

January 9, 2006 @ 10:34 pm | Comment

The “Two Pandas” event is all over China’s websphere.

Here’s the one on Sina:
http://news.sina.com.cn/z/ztxm/index.shtml
http://news.sina.com.cn/z/photo/06/ztxm/index.shtml

One of them is a male and is 1 year and 4 months old. The other is a female and is 1 year and 5 months old. One weighs 46 Kg, and the other weighs 48 Kg. 30,000 names for the Pandas have been suggested by people Mainland as well as in Taiwan.

Various municipalities and zoos in Taiwan are competing to get the two Pandas. The pro-Blue parties have openly expressed their support in accepting the Pandas. KMT chairman Ma Yinjou said publicly that he is confident that Taipei will get at least one of the Pandas. Many Taiwan public officials have openly warned the Chen Shuibian not to politicize the Panda event and further poison cross-strait ties.

Chen Shuibian may have to think twice before rejecting those Pandas, as that would further consolidate the label of a “narrow-minded political troublemaker” across the straits, an image that the CCP and KMT have jointly tried successfully to use upon him.

January 9, 2006 @ 10:51 pm | Comment

Are these lender Pandas like the ones in the US? The National Zoo in DC pays China $1M in “panda rental fees.” An additional $600K is incurred for live births such as the recent one in Washington. There is, however, a sliding scale. Thailand only pays $25K for their rent-a-pandas.

January 9, 2006 @ 11:30 pm | Comment

JC, shouldn’t you be in bed?

January 9, 2006 @ 11:31 pm | Comment

Smoking Is Arson, Arson Is Crime.

January 9, 2006 @ 11:41 pm | Comment

BTW, Panda charges are per annum.

One more thing. The signs in the opening photo on this thread include “Emergency Toilets.” How are these different from standard toilets in Chinese state parks? In my experience they’re all emergency toilets.

January 9, 2006 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

China_Hand,
So again, from your latest posts, we got to know you even better:
first of all, you are a coward liar.
Second, and worse, your stupidity revealed to the world CCP’s political agenda attached behind the giant pandas.
Third, the worst, you simply do not care about this most beloved endangered species endemic to China.
You are only excited about if this would vex Chen, who no one actually cares regarding the pandas. Sorry, someone else is taking care of the imports, and don’t let Taiwanese media fool you.

January 9, 2006 @ 11:43 pm | Comment

For crisis relief, turn left.

January 9, 2006 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

Ed,
With all respect, I don’t understand what you meant by
“Actually, what china_hands says makes sense from a communist’s standpoint. Their position is that PR China rules taiwan. So that anything that doesn’t suppor that idea (even if rooted in reality) is from their perspective, political.”
What sense does it make? To who?

January 9, 2006 @ 11:49 pm | Comment

I’m certainly not a commie, but I’m just trying to explain why the commies think they are not political when in fact they are: it’s because they are not based on reality.

Chester, what I meant was that PR China labels anyone that suggests that Taiwan is not part of their sovereign territoy as being “subversive, political, etc,” even if they are stating the reality that Pres. Hu can’t go get beef noodle soup in Taipei without an ROC international visa (or ROC passport). From their warped perspective, all relations between Beijing and Taipei should be no different than Beijing and some province in PRC. So when china_hand says PRC isn’t being political, it is with this perspective, albeit a warped one not based in reality. After reading your and others’ posts elsewhere I’m only now beginning to realize that PRC isn’t really ruled by any kind of law.

This is probably an old topic on this board, but my perspective on PRC/ROC relation is that it is analogous to Argentina and the Falklands Islands in 1982. Following is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_war

“Galtieri, who was the leader of the military government of Argentina at the time, aimed to counterbalance public concern over economic and human rights issues with a speedy nationalist victory over the Falklands.”

The implication here is that Taiwan’s security from CCP’s potential attacks will be based not on what Taiwan does or doesn’t do, but based on how the CCP’s doing on the mainland.

January 10, 2006 @ 12:43 am | Comment

Got it. No worries.

January 10, 2006 @ 1:02 am | Comment

Wikipedia is awesome.

Just had a thought from my previous post:
If the ~1.3B people who have been up til now only been inside the Great Firewall and educated by the CCP all of a sudden started to edit Wikipedia with the CCP view of history, that would suck, wouldn’t it?

I’m in the US – can you guys access wikipedia in China?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

To my concerns it seems Wikipedia says
“The neutrality of this article is disputed.”

However, my concerns seem unfounded at this point, since the discussion there indicates that people feel the original article on mao was too biased for him and the CCP.

January 10, 2006 @ 1:36 am | Comment

I just read the wikipedia entry. Un-fucking-believable. That could have been written by HongXing. It is absolutely essential to read the discussion pages .

January 10, 2006 @ 2:22 am | Comment

I think wikipedia is blocked, how can it be reached? I’m not sure about the way using a bypass proxy site such as “http://***.com/***/http://…”, followed by the link I want to visit. what is the address?

January 10, 2006 @ 2:37 am | Comment

Hey Ivan; I had a copy of ‘Burnt by the Sun’ which I found here in Beijing. Wish I knew who the hell I lent it to….

January 10, 2006 @ 6:04 am | Comment

Maybe we should start working on ‘cloned Pandas’ then we could forever free our zoos Panda politics.

I’d like to see Hu’s face the day that a Korean Panda clone is donated to Taipei zoo.

I wonder if Hu would call it a counterfiet and raise an IPR suit?

January 10, 2006 @ 8:33 am | Comment

I remember Wiktionary.org being blocked in China too. I mean come on, its a dictionary. It seems that even the meaning of words has to get CCP approval.

Someone pointed out to me once, if you go into the foreign publications part of some bookstores and pick up foreign-printed dictionaries and look in the Geography part, then look for Taiwan, you will find that someone has gone through all of them and whited-out that entry.

January 10, 2006 @ 9:10 am | Comment

Chester, what I meant was that PR China labels anyone that suggests that Taiwan is not part of their sovereign territoy as being “subversive, political, etc,” even if they are stating the reality that Pres. Hu can’t go get beef noodle soup in Taipei without an ROC international visa (or ROC passport).

Your thinking is similar to many people who tout the line that “Taiwan is already indepedent in every meaningful way, so it doesn’t matter what Beijing says”.

Well if that’s the case, then what’s there to worry about for Taiwan? If Taiwan keeps the status quo (“already independent”), then surely Beijing would have no reason to attack, and everyone in Taiwan would be happy? Then why is Chen Shuibian/Li Denghui/Xie Changting/all Greens so eager to talk about “Taiwan’s sovereignty” in every one of their speeches? Why is Chen Shuibian so eager to reject the Pandas? Why does Taiwan try so eagerly every year to get a formal seat on the UN? Why does Taiwan pay out tens of millions of dollars to some unknown African countries so they would maintain a diplomatic relation with Taiwan? If Taiwan is really truly independent and has nothing to worry about, then the “Cross strait” issue should never even be an important electoral issue in Taiwan, right? If Taiwan is really independent, why do so many pro-Greens shout so loudly “I’m Taiwanese!”, as if they are afraid people will not see them as Taiwanese?

Clearly, things are not as simple as you say, and Taiwan politicians do care about the “Taiwan issue”. Please don’t be so naive.

January 10, 2006 @ 10:28 am | Comment

to my friends in china, http://www.wikipedia.org I believe has a cn version also. its got info on just about everything since its edited by the general population who can access it. the goal is to organize the sum of human knowledge. everthing from type of hard drive failures to the history of christianity, to the history of China airlines that I looked up once. its been said to rival the accuracy of encyclopedia brittanica. of course, several articles are in dispute, like one regarding Mao. I work in consulting and use it to ramp up on different industries.
btw, a friend of mine is a publisher of a leading asian business magazine. she says any time a weekly like the economist, has a pic of the ROC flag (even in the bkgroung of a picture) or the words ROC, its entire circulation does not come in to PRC

from my pda – more later

January 10, 2006 @ 11:27 am | Comment

ot Most of the movies mentioned on the last thread are available in the US from netflix.com (ongoing subscription rental place).

January 10, 2006 @ 12:34 pm | Comment

China_Hand,
If it would please you to see the “Pro-Green” shouting instead, “I am Chinese, I am Chinese”, then you just need to look at yourself for all the qualities you lack such that those people don’t want to identify with you. It’s that simple.

January 10, 2006 @ 1:43 pm | Comment

One million dollars a year to borrow a couple of pandas from China? I had no idea. Whenever China sends pandas to the US, the newspapers write up the story like it’s an altruistic gift from the PRC. At least the money is supposed to go for species protection.

January 10, 2006 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

If it would please you to see the “Pro-Green” shouting instead, “I am Chinese, I am Chinese”, then you just need to look at yourself for all the qualities you lack such that those people don’t want to identify with you. It’s that simple.

If a Vietnamese guy comes up to me and shouts “I’m not Chinese! I’m Vietnamese”, I’d have no problem whatsover. In fact, if he shouts “I’m Chinese”, I would correct him and tell him that he is in fact Vietnamese and should feel proud of his Vietnamese culture.

But if someone who speaks Chinese, whose parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, all spent their lifetimes in China, whose name are in Chinese characters, who can’t speak Japanese, can’t speak Korean, can’t speak Vietnamese, can’t speak Thai, and can’t even speak proper English comes up to me and says “Don’t call me a Chinese, I feel ashamed to be a Chinese”. I take offense. Of course I don’t REALLY take offense, I’ll just laugh it off.

Let me tell you a story and you tell me if you think it’s ridiculous. A bunch of ABC’s (American born Chinese), in their 18-20’s, were friends with my kid. And one day, they were in our house and cooking some spaghetti. During the cooking, my son suggested using a pair of chopsticks to stir the noodles a bit since it’s easier that way. Those kids immediately rejected my son’s offer, saying that, “Nah. That’s too Chinese” and insisted on using a big wooden spatula to stir it, and spilled water everywhere…

My son told me that more than one of his friends had told him that they wish they were white, and feel that their Chinese heritage and Chinese appearances were a burden for them in society, and that they avoid eating Chinese food in public with their American friends because they don’t want to be seen as “too Chinese”. Most of them even refuse to learn Chinese (language, culture, etc) at their spare time.

January 10, 2006 @ 2:49 pm | Comment

chester is right on the money. I tell friends i’m chinese, but always follow up with ‘from taiwan’. if ROC officially changes their name to Taiwan, then I will say I’m taiwanese.

chinahand, the answer to you question regarding what peole in taiwan are concerned about is due to one thing: economic incentives and military threat.

ROC and PRC both spend millions of dollars to sway foreign policies of other nations. I suspect PRC spends much more. China last year gave some carribean nation (forget name) the equivalent amt of its GDP to get it to change recognition.

The US could easily declare cuba is a 51st state, and give economic incentives so that fewer and fewer countries recognize castro. However, this doesn’t mean it is a 51st state. I could get everone else here on this board to say you have three nipples. but this does not mean you have three nipples, unless someone goes and stiches a third nipple on you. it goes to the point I saw on tpd recenty re just because you say its so does not make it true.

January 10, 2006 @ 3:10 pm | Comment

chester is right on the money. I tell friends i’m chinese, but always follow up with ‘from taiwan’. if ROC officially changes their name to Taiwan, then I will say I’m taiwanese.

Well that’s perfectly fine to say I am Chinese from Taiwan. But if the ROC officially changes their name to Taiwan, I think that would’ve broken a “bottom line” that Beijing has set in dealing with Taiwan. I think there are 3 bottom lines: Name change, Constitution Change to include explicit language for Independence, and I forgot the third one.

the answer to you question regarding what peole in taiwan are concerned about is due to one thing: economic incentives and military threat.

Economic incentives is of course at the core of this issue and is also the biggest “carrot” that Beijing has over Taiwan. The stick is of course military threat.

But do you think Beijing will actually go to war with Taiwan? Pro-green forces seem to think it’s just a bluff. Well if it’s a bluff, then what’s the problem? If it’s not a bluff, then why do so many say it’s a bluff? This is a logical puzzle that many Pro-green forces have to confront.

China last year gave some carribean nation (forget name) the equivalent amt of its GDP to get it to change recognition.

I don’t know who is spending more or less at this point. But one thing is for sure, it’ll be harder and harder for Chen Shuibian and his men to keep the allegiances of those African nations as the economic incentive factor becomes larger as larger. Those nations would calculate that it’ll be economically better to do business with China on a long-term basis than to receive stipends. A lot of nations recently have switched allegiances to China not because they were given a larger cash sum, but they themselves calculated that it’s in their best economic interest to do so.

January 10, 2006 @ 3:29 pm | Comment

China_Hand,

I am really sad you and your son’s friend’s pareants have done a poor job about the true values of CHinese cultures. That’s why your kids will soon grow up having identity crisis and shame about their own heritage.

You see, CCP and the PRC legacy to date still have meager records on carrying on the great values of the historic China’s humanistic achievment, and educated elites like you continue to deny the atrocity CCP has brought to the greatness of Chinese heritage, which before hand had already fallen victims to KMT’s corruption, late imperial Qing’s inpotence and the colonial invasions.
It’s not coincidental nor an act of betrayal that Korea, Vietnam, Japan and even Taiwan have gradually in their own way and pace, chose to search and revere other sources of cultural and humanistic inspirations, including those that dwell inside themselves. They simply want to better themselves than living in the past glory illusion which brings no present respect. I don’t mind people like you who wishes China could restore that once sole inspiring center of cultural innovations and humanitarian value originator; perhaps it should. However, PRC and CCP so far have not demonstrated those qualities that a historic China had. There has been more bullying threats, pure envy and greed for money and power, even on the mass civilian level.
You see, you got it all wrong. People in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, SIngapore and even Thailand still revere some different levels of Chineseness they practice daily, whether consciously or not (I hope you know, that in these countries, many authentic Chinese values and practices could be found today). They however, do not see the CCP China exhibiting much of the past beauty and inspiration. For the first time since the fall of Imperial China, China_Hand, please learn some humility.

January 10, 2006 @ 3:33 pm | Comment

chinahand, that is certainly unfortunate. I have known many chinese that are clearly ashamed to be from china. two points:
One – its not China that people do not like to be associated with. it is the ccp, backwardness, oppression, etc. In the last century, the early advancement of china has been overshadowed by this. I kind of have an outlet being from Taiwan, but I understand the frustration of my friends from PRC – they feel the need to defend PRC, but the CCP does not align with their values. Two-don’t worry about your kid, kids are just eager to be accepted among their peers. as they get older and understand more it will be better. if prc is no longer a authoritarian, itd certainly help.

January 10, 2006 @ 3:41 pm | Comment

chinahand, you seemed to have answered your own question on why people in taiwan are worried. but just has official govts stop recognizing taiwan, they also have economic incentives to maintain relations with a de facto independent nation. any nation threatened economically and militarily has something to worry about. this does not affect the previous point of what the reality is today: there is a democratic china that isn’t controlled by the CCP in PRC.

January 10, 2006 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

on saying one was from taiwan: the point we are discussing is why people say they are from china or not. and I explained that. prc’s foreign policy is another matter.

unreleated:
saw on foreign policy magazine today – china is transferring firewall and network spying technology to zimbabwe. getting totalitarian regimes to transition to representative ones will be increasing difficult in this world with China helping them to maintain control. BTW, how is this different than the CIA funding democracy advocates I such nations?

January 10, 2006 @ 4:05 pm | Comment

Talk about a true axis of evil….

January 10, 2006 @ 5:22 pm | Comment

The CIA funds democracy advocates? Where? You mean those pro-US stories in the Iraqi papers?

January 10, 2006 @ 5:27 pm | Comment

Just curious to know if the average Chinese feels even a slight twinge of unease that their government is the only one on earth (apart from that other bastion of repression, Burma) that supports North Korea, especially as they should know at least a little anectodal information about their country’s own suffering. Or does morality enter into their foreign policy? America for all its ills at least exports more than cheap toys produced in sweatshops; even the average Chinese can appreciate its ideas. Ironic that with its self-declared glorious past where nothing changes through the millenia it has no ideals or ideas worthy of export. Oh yeah. They respect their old people (but would rather build opera houses and rockets than provide them with basic healthcare).

January 10, 2006 @ 5:47 pm | Comment

It’s not coincidental nor an act of betrayal that Korea, Vietnam, Japan and even Taiwan have gradually in their own way and pace, chose to search and revere other sources of cultural and humanistic inspirations, including those that dwell inside themselves.

So you are saying that those countries are searching for other sources of inspiration because the Chinese regime is too evil and corrupt. I disagree. I think they are searching for other sources of inspiration because the Chinese nation has been too weak. Of course you can argue that the Chinese nation is weak because of the Chinese gov’ts incompetence, but that is another issue. In other words, if China today has an economy that surpasses the US, can send people to Mars, has 5 aircraft carriers patrolling the globe, has music and pop stars popular in other nations, has drug companies that produce cutting edge cancer treatment pills, etc, but the gov’t still suppresses dissidents and censors the Internet, I think those countries will once again turn back to China to look for their sources of inspiration. But if China today is a true democracy, yet very backward and poor, those Asian nations will look for other sources of inspiration anyway. I don’t think whether or not China is a democracy is a determinant in whether other Asian nations look up to China.

Like today, we are seeing a gradual and slow resurgence of “learning Chinese craze” in many Eastern countries. Even in the US, “East Asian studies”, especially Chinese history and language have been slowly getting popular again. Now I’ve never any research on this, but I dare to claim that this recent “China craze” is in part fueled China’s rise (or at least perceived rise). In other words, the attractiveness of a culture is directly proportional to the strength of its host/representative nation. And that’s the point. I’m willing to address any other issue you may have.

One – its not China that people do not like to be associated with. it is the ccp, backwardness, oppression, etc.

If they are only against the CCP, then that’s fine.
But many of those who want to dissasociate themselves from Chineseness are from Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapore, etc. not Mainland China. And they are not saying “No I’m not Chinese, no I don’t support the CCP”. Instead they are saying “No I’m not Taiwanese, I’m not Hongkongese, and no I don’t like to learn how to speak Chinese, and no I don’t want to eat rice”. And they get visibly uncomfortable when their Chinese heritage is brought up.

January 10, 2006 @ 8:19 pm | Comment

Correction:

Now I’ve never any research on this, but I dare to claim that this recent “China craze” is in part fueled China’s rise (or at least perceived rise).

Shoud read:

Now I’ve never done any research on this, but I dare to claim that this recent “China craze” is in part fueled BY China’s rise (or at least perceived rise).

My house is getting cold and my fingers are slippery. I apologize.

January 10, 2006 @ 8:21 pm | Comment

“Just curious to know if the average Chinese feels even a slight twinge of unease that their government is the only one on earth (apart from that other bastion of repression, Burma) that supports North Korea,”

There is one more country that supports North Korea – South Korea.

January 10, 2006 @ 8:26 pm | Comment

China Hand: “And they get visibly uncomfortable when their Chinese heritage is brought up.”

How do you know this? Is this an assumption on your part or is it based on any research or something you read…?

January 10, 2006 @ 8:49 pm | Comment

“There is one more country that supports North Korea – South Korea.”
And you got that gem of wisdom from, let me guess, Chinese sources?
That’s why they have the Yanks occupying their country and the simple fact THAT THEY HAVE NOT ENDED THEIR WAR WITH THE NORTH. Suggestion: read sources apart from the ones written and approved by the Chinese Ministry of Propaganda. Such idiotic responses will get no praise from me, who actually teaches the Korean war to senior High School students.

January 10, 2006 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

How do you know this? Is this an assumption on your part or is it based on any research or something you read…?

Um, it’s called looking at others’ expressions and body language. You are not seriously asking me to provide you with research and data on that are you?

January 10, 2006 @ 9:29 pm | Comment

No, I asked how you knew. And you replied, you know by looking at people. I guess you’ve looked at lots, and lots and lots of people being asked about their “Chineseness” to come to your indisputable conclusions. But I suspect the actual truth is that you see whatever you want to see that supports your hare-brained ideas.

January 10, 2006 @ 9:41 pm | Comment

China_Hand,

Wrong again. No, for China to be respected and revered again as a source of inspiration, innovation, China does NOT have to be the richest in the world, first landing on Mars (actually other nations will beat China first, by the way, and please think landing the moon first), or chain stores around the globe…. What you mentioned have already been achieved or mostlikely by others in the future. China inspired few by just doing what’s been done. So be humble when you are still benefiting from the experiences of your friends and neighbors.

“I think they are searching for other sources of inspiration because the Chinese nation has been too weak.”

Naturally, no one would be inclined to identify with a corrupt, weak, uninspiring, self-absorbed, cruel, and yet arrogant collective. But the CCP China has NOT been weak, yes? CCP has long used militaristic might to advance politically. Were others inspired by it? No. And now, staggering wealth in the government bank and top 1% of the population will not solve the problem. Many of China’s neighbors mentioned above have citizens that have enjoyed and demanded more liberty, democracy, arts and humanitic establishment, environmental protection, spiritual pursuit and well, material wealth than most of the Chinese citizens. What PRC has accomplished so far for itself is just simply not enough, to say the least.
Until you can say Chinese government and CHinese people have so much more greatness to share with the rest of the world, including but not limited to wealth, the contemporary China PRC still is no big inspiration, but a bore.
Japan is no where wealthier or militaristically more powerful than the U.S., but it continues to immensely inspire Americans and world citizens with numerous non-monetary achievements and values. The few Chinese people like you, however, repell non-Chinese people right away, because you spill arrogance, self-pity, dellusion, and lack humility to acknowledge and respect others. People increasingly study China to be inspired by the greatness of a historic China and avoid the mistakes and darkness of much of the Modern China. So again, please, humility, China_hand.

“If they are only against the CCP, then that’s fine.”

That’s a good start, China_Hand, separating CCP and China. And, if you have true self-respect for being ethnic Chinese, then you would not be so easily angered by trivial things like kids’ preference of using chopsticks or Western people’s ignorance of the art of Chinese cusines. You also shouldn’t confuse the demand for respect being Chinese American with the inadequacy and crimes of CCP. Best wishes to your son too.

January 10, 2006 @ 9:42 pm | Comment

I guess you’ve looked at lots, and lots and lots of people being asked about their “Chineseness” to come to your indisputable conclusions. But I suspect the actual truth is that you see whatever you want to see that supports your hare-brained ideas.

No, not lots and lots. Just some friends of my kid, and discussing it with other Chinese parents. This is not some “hare-brained” idea richard, if only you are involved in the Chinese community. In fact, I’ll be worried if some American-born Chinese start loving the CCP. But when those kids start to avoid using chopsticks in public, when they make a point in refusing to learn about Chinese history and culture, when they are trying to appear “not too Chinese” in every way they can, it worries me as someone who deeply cares about the future of China and its culture. We are not even talking about the CCP here. If someone comes here and says “I love speaking Chinese, I love using chopsticks, I love watching Chinese films, I love reading Chinese classics, but I absolutely hate the CCP”. Then I would respect them and like them as friends. In fact, I know some Americans who expressed those views and I actually often respect their opinions on China very much.

No, for China to be respected and revered again as a source of inspiration, innovation, China does NOT have to be the richest in the world, first landing on Mars (actually other nations will beat China first, by the way, and please think landing the moon first), or chain stores around the globe…. What you mentioned have already been achieved or mostlikely by others in the future. China inspired few by just doing what’s been done. So be humble when you are still benefiting from the experiences of your friends and neighbors.

I was using those as examples. My point is, and I spell it out again, the first and foremost condition for a nation’s culture/language/ideas/ to be attractive is first for that nation to be relatively powerful. I don’t know why you keep tying this to the CCP. I wasn’t even talking about the CCP. I was simply asserting a claim that the “soft power” of a nation is meaningless if you don’t have hard power first. Do you think that it’s likely that Honduras clothing, fashion, food, intellectual ideas, culture will be looked up to by teenagers and adults everywhere in the world and people will try to emulate ? The answer is NO! You are likely to say “Where the **** is Honduras and why should I care about it?” In fact, people used to say “Where the **** is Peking?” 50 years ago. Now at least they don’t say that anymore.

Japan is no where wealthier or militaristically more powerful than the U.S., but it continues to immensely inspire Americans and world citizens with numerous non-monetary achievements and values. The few Chinese people like you, however, repell non-Chinese people right away, because you spill arrogance, self-pity, dellusion, and lack humility to acknowledge and respect others. People increasingly study China to be inspired by the greatness of a historic China and avoid the mistakes and darkness of much of the Modern China. So again, please, humility, China_hand.

What “non-monetary” achievements did Japan create that made it an inspiration? Its sushi cured cancer? Its Geishas inspired people to be artists? I mean come on! The reason Japanese culture is so popular is because Japan is a lot richer and powerful than it used to be. In Chinese it’s called “Qiang Shi Wen Hua” (“Dominant Culture”). This means the hard power of a nation would spill over to its soft power. Another phrase is “Qiang Shi Yu Yan” (Dominant Language). English being the global official language is a perfect example of a culture’s host nations’ hard power spilling over to their soft power. Is Sushi really better than Spring Roll that it has such a higher standing in the world? Come on! (No disrespect to Sushi lovers, I love Sushi myself)

January 10, 2006 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

Here’s a post from a more “objective” China-watcher-blog that I found a lot more interesting:

http://the88s.blogsome.com/

—————————————————

A simple question: If North Korea had the highest standard of living in the world right now under the same police-state apparatus (no human rights, no freedom of the press nor almost anything else, political prison camps, a cult of personality, etc.), would its political system be “justified?” This is a vital question — and one that must be answered now more clearly and undogmatically than ever before by the proponents of liberal democracy and human liberty. Why has this question gained new relevance more than 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and communism around (most) of the world? Well, certainly not because of the Hermit Kingdom’s prospects of pulling itself out of the bark-eating stone age. China’s prospects, however, are somewhat better of creating the kind of society that many in the West fear: a prosperous, powerful, and decidedly undemocratic society.

Is democracy a means or an end? Is liberty a means or an end? If democracy and freedom are only means to economic prosperity and national power, then they are nothing special. How many empires and nations have become great powers without the aid of democracy and freedom? Well, most of them, since democracy and political freedom as we know it are relative newcomers on the stage of human history. Here we come to the ultimate misunderstanding between Western observers and their Chinese counterparts; in China democracy and liberty are often seen almost exclusively as means, in the West they are regarded as both means and ends. It is clear that there are cultural, historical, and religious reasons for this.

Over the past 50 years, defenders of human liberty had an ace up their collective sleeves: countries with oppressive, undemocratic regimes were poor and had low standards of living, while democratic, free countries were relatively wealthy and had high standards of living. It is quite easy to convince the poor that your political system is better when you are rich. However, true democrats (small “d”) must pose the question to themselves: what if dictatorship delivered the goods? Can liberty only be defended on practical grounds? Obviously, I think not.

China is no North Korea, but let’s return to it for the purpose of stark illustration. If Kim Jong Il created the North Korean Economic Miracle — a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and the highest standard of living in the world — would the people of North Korea demand more political freedom? Or would they worship their Dear Leader all the more? This is not fundamentally a political question. It is a psychological question. It is a question of human nature.

(some lines skipped)

“As China reforms its economy, its leaders are finding that once the door to freedom is opened even a crack, it cannot be closed. As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well.” George Bush

True or wishful thinking? The jury is still out. However, Bush’s statements are just that, statements, not arguments. And, unfortunately, if Bush and his ilk were to make the case for liberty, they would ultimately fall back on religion. Liberty needs better advocates.

Ultimately, I think most people seek their comfort, Western or not. But only comfort? And after they have their comfort, will they live with injustice, with corruption, with oppression? And, of course, one man’s oppression is another man’s culture.

The conventional wisdom is that China offers no competing ideology to the West as the Soviets did during the Cold War. On its face, this is true. However, the question China might pose to the West is “Is freedom necessary?”
——————————————————–

January 10, 2006 @ 11:01 pm | Comment

Interesting argument but I reject one of it’s pillars, i.e., that “China’s prospects, however, are somewhat better of creating the kind of society that many in the West fear: a prosperous, powerful, and decidedly undemocratic society.”

Well, it’s true China’s chances of achieving this are better than North Korea’s, but that certainly doesn’t say much! China is powerful and decidedly undemocratic, but it won’t take much travelling through China to realize it is most certainly not “prosperous” in the way Hitler’s Germany was (a far more realistic example to prove the blogger’s point). China’s less poor than before, certainly. With more pockets of wealth than before, certainly. But prosperous – not by a long shot, unless we’re using wildly different definitions of prosperity. I look at Switzerland and the US and Singapore (at least in the late 1990s) and I see prosperity. I look at China and I see a potential for prosperity some day maybe, but not even the slightest hope until the lives for the majority of its citizens improve. In the US, you can find pockets of poverty (though nothing, of course, along the lines of china’s poverty; everyone in America can get a meal), but the majority is firmly in the middle classes. In China, growing numbers are entering what some call the “middle class,” but it’s strictly a middle class with Chinese characteristics – in which membership consists of earning about $1,000 a month, which in most countries would put you near poverty. Prosperity as the rest of the world measures it is still very, very, very, very, very far off for China. And if there’s ever a shock to the country’s financial system, like a run on the banks, it could set things back years in a heartbeat.

January 10, 2006 @ 11:13 pm | Comment

I think the greatest barriers to China’s success are the lack of transparency in the government and the lack of a a consistent rule of law.

The reason we advocate democracy here is not purely out of some idealistic notions that democracy is a panacea for the world’s problems, but that political competition tends to produce a greater degree of openness and also provides a feedback mechanism into how well the government is serving its people.

Another way to get that greater degree of transparency is by unfettering the media and allowing it to freely and honestly report on problems and conditions facing the people.

But Hu seems to have shut this channel down, and this really concerns me…

January 10, 2006 @ 11:24 pm | Comment

Other Lisa, I agree with you that more transparency is good and a more consistent rule of law is good. And the Chinese leadership today realizes that more than ever. But even if Hu declares that China become a US-Style democracy tomorrow, you’ll still likely to peasants beaten by thugs in the villagers, and you’ll still likely see some blogs getting shut down. But you’ve got to look at the overall trend.

Transparency: China right now has about 20,000 government websites across all levels, everything from the local mayor’s office, to trade, to commerce, to the provincial taxation office, etc. Over 500 municipalities in China have established hotlines that the citizens can call in to inquire about various issues. Just 2 years ago, getting a driver’s permit approved in a city like Shanghai means months and even years of waiting. Now it’s just a few short clicks with an online registration system on the Internet. If you ask any Chinese citizen “Do you feel you know more about your own government compared to 5 years ago?”. The majority will give you a resounding YES answer, off-camera too.

Rule of law: CCTV has a special channel devoted to legal education. I log onto the municipal gov’t’s office website in Shanghai and I get all the phone numbers to get free legal counseling provided by the government as a public service for everything from violence against women, unfair taxation issues, child custody issues, etc etc. My sister-in-law last year was buying a condo in Hangzhou for her parents. She didnt know about any stuff on things like mortgages, taxes, property rights ,etc. So she walked into the local city’s housing office and asked for some counseling. A lawyer sat down with her and talked her through everything. She was on the phone with me and could not believe how things have improved in her city, not just materially, but institutionally.

I can go on and on and on, and it’ll probably bore you. But my point is, for average citizens, the rule of law has been strengthened and enforced, and they have greatly benefitted from them. Now, the villagers may face a tougher situation, but 3-5 years down the road, their situation would dramatically improve as well. I see things happening, I see things moving foward, and I’m optimistic.

January 10, 2006 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

First, I want to say that I was out of town when the 6-month anniversary thread happened. I just read it. Wow. At the end I need to look in my wallet to remember my own name. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of a mindfuck.

That aside, China Hand is making alot of assertions here. Almost way too many to count. But here’s a few points:

I was simply asserting a claim that the “soft power” of a nation is meaningless if you don’t have hard power first.

I write about soft power sometimes. Soft power is a pretty flexible and frankly ambiguous term – I don’t really like it, but I use it because its a good catch-all for alot of intercultural stuff. Soft power as formulated by Joseph Nye, its creator, is simply that you can get nations to do what you want by a) force or b) making friends and influencing people. That’s it. He clearly does not say soft power is impossible without hard power. That said, economic power certain helps with making your cultural products more popular, since things like distribution become less problematic. Honduras can’t exactly organize worldwide releases of Honduran films. Hollywood can. But that doesn’t make people like it. Hollywood can get Geisha in the theaters in China, but they can’t make Chinese people go see it or think its cool that Zhang Ziyi is playing a Japanese, um, “artist”. Yeah, I’ll just call geishas “artists”. Let’s face it, geishas ain’t exactly up for universally accepted sainthood.

That aside, my point is that hard power will help get your stuff out in the market, but it doesn’t make it cool. Japan and Korea’s growing “soft power” has everything to do with making stuff people in other countries find cool. China is still working on this problem. I figure in a couple of decades China will be a major center of cool, because China has mad cool potential. But China is still working on it, partly because I think China is a newcomer to the whole global cosmopolitan cool thing to begin with.

As for Japan’s soft power, let’s remember that Geisha was a Hollywood film starring Chinese actresses based on a book by an Englishman. Japanese anime, while read by legions of unassuming businessmen on the Tokyo subway, is still a geek niche in the Western world – they are very different subcultures. The California roll, which introduced the US to sushi, is from LA. Alot of the popularity of Japanese culture has nothing to do with Japan, but the rest of the world making up their own interpretations of some Other world with or without Japanese involvement. A good example of how this happens to China would be the hipness of feng shui (practiced by granola eating Californians in the US), which has nothing to do with China’s growth but rather silly American ideas about exotic eastern mysticism.

Finally, I’d point out the soft power, or more accurately disproportionate cultural influence, wielded by groups without military power or massive economic influence:

The Vatican City/Catholic Church (has money, yes, but not the way China Hand characterizes it), Ireland (before the Celtic Tiger), African Americans (the economic power of hiphop came because of cultural influence, not vice versa), the Dalai Lama, Jews (I’m thinking pre-Israel for simplicities sake, when Jews had no nation or military to speak of), Al Qaeda/Islamic neofundamentalism.

Note that these are all groups that have referred to themselves as nations, though not in the traditional sense.

January 11, 2006 @ 12:24 am | Comment

Dave: First, I want to say that I was out of town when the 6-month anniversary thread happened. I just read it. Wow. At the end I need to look in my
wallet to remember my own name. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of a mindfuck.

That’s why I posted the link today. A lot of people missed it, but certain names and allusions from that thread keep coming up. I didn’t open comments on it because I don’t want to ignite the whole shouting match again. (I have a strong suspicion the incident is now completely laid to rest; Dr. Myers is no more.)

January 11, 2006 @ 12:32 am | Comment

Chester said: It’s not coincidental nor an act of betrayal that Korea, Vietnam, Japan and even Taiwan have gradually in their own way and pace, chose to search and revere other sources of cultural and humanistic inspirations, including those that dwell inside themselves.

China Hand responded: So you are saying that those countries are searching for other sources of inspiration because the Chinese regime is too evil and corrupt. I disagree. I think they are searching for other sources of inspiration because the Chinese nation has been too weak.

I find it interesting that neither of you consider the possibility that they are looking to other cultures simply because they now have access to them. It wasn’t until modern times that Korea, Japan, et al. had the opportunity to learn from non-Asian cultures. Whether you argue that Asian countries drifted culturally from China because it was a) too evil or b) too weak, both assume that they drifted because China went wrong somewhere. What about the possibility that even if China had somehow built a new modernizing dynasty of some kind, without all the humiliation, that these countries would still have moved in foreign directions? Increasing globalization of Asia since the 18th century has forced Asian countries to rethink their cultural maps of the world, one without a clear center (which was China). The only country that hasn’t quite gotten over this seems to be China itself.

January 11, 2006 @ 12:42 am | Comment

China Hand, I would like to share your optimism – and I have been a China optimist, given the progress I’ve seen since 1979 – but lately I’ve had the sense that the government is moving away from the transparency and the strengthening of the rule of law that we both agree is necessary. Whether this is Hu’s doing (and given his expressed admiration for the “social discipline” of North Korea, I’m beginning to fear that it is) or because of factional competition in the central government, the result is that China is stepping back from reform at a point in history where this reform is vitally needed. I believe that, given the scale of China’s social transformations and environmental problems, there is a great deal of urgency to address these issues and continue the process of real reform. I worry that the chaos that is so feared by Hu and his generation of leaders is more likely to come about through their attempts to control and repress.

I would very much like to be proven wrong.

January 11, 2006 @ 12:43 am | Comment

So China_Hand,
I finally got you on the same page with CCP doesn’t = China and Chinese cultures. That’s good, although you have cowardly evaded to admit that for a while.
Second, your
“My point is, and I spell it out again, the first and foremost condition for a nation’s culture/language/ideas/ to be attractive is first for that nation to be relatively powerful.”
is again WRONG. People who do appreciate fine cultural offerings in fact despise external political power agenda attached to it- kind of like the panda thing we talked about; pandas good and cute, Chinese government agenda behind them, ugly.
The music legacy of the American blacks is one that defies your theory. Blues and Jazz became popular despite the racism against the African Americans, who for the longest time, had little political and economic capitals.
I am not stranger to the “Qiang Shi Wen Hua” talk. But what it says about you is that you are so anxious about Chinese cultures becoming the decorating accessory of China being a dominant power. Therefore, you must to admit, just as you hate “qiang shi” Japanese culture, or the fact that you hate the need to comunicate with us in the Qiang Shi English Language, it also would be legitimate for anyone to find “qiang shi” Chinese like you nauseating and unattractive- a huge disservice to Chinese cultures. Please self-criticize.

Oh, on the food note, yes, a lot more people will tell you they love sushi more than Chinese spring rolls, because sushi is better food choice overall (even although China is more qiang shi than Japan). Moreover, Vietnamese imperial rolls are far more delicious and delicate than most Chinese versions (China is again more qiang shi than Vietnam). With qiang shi or not , people today speak their heart and preference. The Great Britain was once the biggest “qiang Shi” in the world, but British food was never well received and become the Qiang Shi diet of every one. It was just simply bland and bad.
So that is, if you keep dwelling upon a qiang shi agenda and not the true values and potentials of Chinese cultures, people will find you and Chinese cultures revolting.

January 11, 2006 @ 12:44 am | Comment

davesgonechina,
The East Asian and Southeast Asian nations you mentioned had non-Chinese influence before modernity. Persian, Indian and even Hellenistic aesthetics entered these regions in the medieval time.

“Whether you argue that Asian countries drifted culturally from China because it was a) too evil or b) too weak, both assume that they drifted because China went wrong
somewhere.”
Please, I didn’t argue neither A) nor B).
But China did go wrong.

January 11, 2006 @ 1:08 am | Comment

Absolutely right Chester, I just meant theres alot more traffic now with global transportation and communication. I’m not so sure about Persian or Hellenistic influences reaching Japan or Korea directly, but you’re right that we shouldn’t think there was no contact. Reports of Asia’s isolation are greatly exaggerated.

Also, I’m with you on “qiang shi” is a bad way to approach things. The kid whose always obsessed with having the biggest and most toys is never fun to play with.

January 11, 2006 @ 1:25 am | Comment

I would agree. Persian decorative patterns and Hellenistic details perhaps could only be seen as the vestiges that attached to the Chinese main flux.

January 11, 2006 @ 1:41 am | Comment

Richard- is there a reason why the thread for the greatest comment thread of all time doesn’t accept comments? How about reopening the original thread itself – I always felt it deserved an extended life where we could add yet more observations of the ever-increasingly bizarre MAJ as he spams other sites with his diseased rantings.

January 11, 2006 @ 4:49 am | Comment

Keir, the original Fantabulist thread is open. I drew attention to it again today for a reason – even when I am totally silent, even when I totally ignore Madge, he still opens threads about me on China Daily and leaves droppings on blogs all around the Net, giving my name, threatening me and trying to stir up trouble. I want every reader here to know what this is all about. But I didn’t want to open up a new thread about him – enough is enough. If people want to leave their comments, they can go to the original thread.

January 11, 2006 @ 6:08 am | Comment

Chinahand asked the following:

A simple question: If North Korea had the highest standard of living in the world right now under the same police-state apparatus (no human rights, no freedom of the press nor almost anything else, political prison camps, a cult of personality, etc.), would its political system be “justified?” This is a vital question — and one that must be answered now more clearly and undogmatically than ever before by the proponents of liberal democracy and human liberty.

It is a valid question, not only about North Korea (or China or Vietnam, etc.), but about any nation, to include mine: the United States.

I wrote last week on this site that I proudly served in my nation’s military for 31 years. (No, I don’t expect anyone to recall that blog input.) Seems as if I always was the “liberal” everywhere I served — although, most of you, if you were to meet me, would probably be scratching your heads as to why anyone would think that about me.

I am a multi-generation Virginian who (horrors!) doesn’t have any affection for my state’s Confederate legacy, but holds the principles put forward by those towering Virginians — Madision, Monroe, Mason, Jefferson — in highest esteem. To me, the United States is a singularly great nation, but not because it is wealthy (although, I will confess to enjoying that advantage) but because it has liberty: not just freedom, but liberty — that means something broader.

So, my answer to Chinahand’s question is “no.” North Korea’s political system would not be justified. Not to me. For, it isn’t wealth that justifies a political process, but how it protects the rights of its citizens.

I already am hearing some of you grumble that – between the Patriot Act and the recent wire tapping revelations — American ain’t such a model of liberty itself. OK. Fair enough. But, you also would have to admit that these topics are being discussed and revealed openly. No one is shutting down the WASHINGTON POST or NY TIMES for their reporting. The degree to which our freedoms are at risk is equal to the degree to which we are willing to tolerate them being taken away from us. If we — the people — wanted them back, we could have them back tomorrow. Democracy, after all, is neither a spectator sport nor kibutzing activity. It requires active and full participation.

By the way, as a retired military officer, I really am enjoying the exchange of ideas over Taiwan. Let me go forward a bit and write that I was a Navy Officer. These days, a lot of Navy folks are predicting a conflict with the PRC (over Taiwan or Chinese expansion or whatever). Personally, I think this is being done to justify more ships as a conflict with China (God forbid it should ever happen!) would require a larger fleet. If any of you are inclinded to express your opinions on this matter, I would be interested.

Best to all,

Jacob

January 11, 2006 @ 6:29 am | Comment

And you got that gem of wisdom from, let me guess, Chinese sources?
That’s why they have the Yanks occupying their country and the simple fact THAT THEY HAVE NOT ENDED THEIR WAR WITH THE NORTH. Suggestion: read sources apart from the ones written and approved by the Chinese Ministry of Propaganda. Such idiotic responses will get no praise from me, who actually teaches the Korean war to senior High School students.

Keir,

It is a fact that South Korea sends millions of dollars in food, raw materials, and energy aid to the North every year. To keep good relations with the North, the South also discourages refugees who seek help from overseas embassies and consulates and has cricitized US policies and public statements towards the North. Yes, officially North and South are still at war, but relations have warmed considerably since Kim Dae Jung’s Sunshine policy. There have been numerous cultural exchanges, and the South is now operating an industrial complex in Kaesong, North Korea.

I do not get my information about the two Koreas from Chinese sources or from US high school textbooks! I get my information from Korean language online media like Yonhap News Agency, the Chosun Ilbo, the Donga Ilbo, and OhMyNews. Ever heard of them? So you teach about the Korean War to high school students? Well, a lot has changed on the Korean peninsula in the last sixty years!

January 11, 2006 @ 7:12 am | Comment

ACB, I accidentally deleted your comment about Madge here because I thought you posted it twice by mistake. It is intact in the other thread you posted it, The Fantabulist. Sorry.

January 11, 2006 @ 7:15 am | Comment

Oops, that’s fifty years, not sixty.

January 11, 2006 @ 7:29 am | Comment

If you want to laugh so hard that you wet your pants, check this link from Google’s cache

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:25CKi_4oFRoJ:www.plentyoffish.com/member185946.htm+majones03au&hl=en&client=firefox-a

It’s his email address and personal details, so, unless one of you put it up there, its definitely him.

January 11, 2006 @ 8:05 am | Comment

Sonagi

You have just named a load of news sources that are known for poking their heads in the sand when it comes to a lot of issues. You might as well be quoting Fox new.

You really should read two or three sources, preferably from several different perspectives.

January 11, 2006 @ 8:08 am | Comment

Hello from Prague. I’m tired as a heck since i haven’t slept in a day and a half. Took some time to tour the city – this place is FREEZING.

On culture:
China_hand, if I had to relate military power to culture as you are trying to, I would put it this way: cultures which are secure, stable AND FREE, will have thriving entertainment industries. These thriving industries are likely to produce the type of music and movies the world will find interesting. In turn, the culture becomes more favored. The implications of this are:

1) Because a culture is secure, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it has a strong military. The US certainly does, but Japan, France, Switzerland, Latino, Korean, and a whole host of others do not compared to China.

2) Even if China surpases the US militarily and economically, if all they produce are N Korean type operas and movies of how a chinese village fought back against japanese aggression in WWII, I will guarantee few will find Chinese culture interesting. So what maximizes this creativity? The freedom for people to create whatever the heck they want. Oppression stifles the mind in so many immeasurable ways. I’ll give you another example. Back in the days the USSR was a threat to the US, its culture certainly wasn’t popular in the US or anywhere else. And this isn’t because of communication. People will always get what they want, just as american music got in to the USSR and Taiwan’s F4 soaps got in to China (what’s up with those guys anyways?). Even in Iran, people like american music. This has nothing to do with aircraft carriers or the shuttle program.
A country’s formidability does not mean the dominance of its culture, unless it invades other countries and imposes it on them.

On China’s political trajectory:
I totally agree with Lisa’s point on the unfortunate trend going on in China. My understanding is local elections used to be possible. But these days, if you think your village official is corrupt, and try to impeach him out, hired thugs come and beat you up along with any foreign journalists.

China_hand, while it may be good intent to provide sources of information regarding laws to the people, it is not likely to be effective unless there is some structual change in the system itself. For example, the CCP takes away land from villagers to build a power plant. People protest, and they get beat up, trucked away, or shot. But I’m almost absolutely certain that they wouldn’t take my expat friends’ condos or GE’s production facility away. CCP won’t do this because foreign investment in China would go down the toilet. Power balance dictate incentives, but the little guy has no such power. The numerous people having to go to the central government on their greivances (almost all of which are dismissed) support my point.

The reality is that China today isn’t governed by laws, because there is no power balance. So what’s the point to know those laws? It’s no different than say, a US policeman abusing his power in the US. If the officer knows he gets no punishment for abusing his power, his victim knowing his rights don’t mean jack. If the police chief knows he’d get fired if such abuses occur however, he puts pressure on his officers. The officers tone down.

All organizations and people act on incentives. Take the extreme example that you are being tried for a capital offense. Just how fair can a court be if it stands to benefit from selling your organs once you are executed? You can get the best legal advisor, know all the laws, and you’d still be screwed. And although we have different viewpoints, I certainly don’t want you to be disadvantaged in this way.

BTW, if my knowledge on China is outdated, feel free to update me. I read up about China almost every day, but some things are bound to change without my knowledge.

January 11, 2006 @ 9:54 am | Comment

On culture:

I am never a fan of the “Qiang Shi” talk. I’m simply pointing out that this is the reality of the world. Sure, you can give me many many exceptions but they are just exceptions. If you stand on the moon and look at the world’s history over 5000 years, it is not hard to claim there’s a huge corrolation between dominance in national strength and the dominance of a culture. Citing exceptions do not mean anything. In other words, as China becomes wealthier and stronger, there’ll be a lot more interest in the world’s people to study the Chinese language, study Confucious, Mencious, to give a higher standing to the art of brush-calligraphy, etc etc. In fact, you are already seeing this trend now. Maybe not as much in the US, but if you go to Europe or Latin American countries…

On China’s future:
There are problems with China of course, and some of them are, like you say, structural and systemic. But my assertion is that those problems are being openly tackled by the government and great progress is being made. The fact is, China is changing and changing more quickly than most other nations on this planet today.

If you stand on a street corner in a Chinese city, take a photo, and compare it to the same photo just 3 years ago, you’d notice that the street is cleaner, wider, more vibrant, maybe a new traffic light, and maybe the stores are new and people are more bustling. If you go to a Chinese family and take a picture of their place and compare it to 3 years ago, chances are it’s better furnished, better deocrated, more modern electronics, or they might have even have a new place. If you ask an ordinary citizen how he/she commute to work, register his kids for school, pays his/her utility bills, buys groceries, interacts with the police, gets entertainment, etc. You’ll notice all of those processes are more convenient and more efficient.

You keep saying China is doomed, China is moving in the wrong direction, etc. But everytime I talk to my friends and relatives to China (both in the city and rural areas), and whenever we get into the current situation in China, the concensus is that their surroudings, their lives, the way they do things, etc are so quickly changing. They often could not stop talking to me about how convenient it is for them to get a DSL internet hooked, how easy it is for their children to take a class in a community school if they need to brush up their skills, how they had a problem with their property taxes and it was so quickly and easily it was resolved by their municipal departments. I have a distant relative who lives in the rural area, and he wanted to open a shipping business, but was afraid of all the bureacracy involved in getting licenses, renting docks, etc etc. But to his surprise, all he had to do is go to the local Xiang gov’t office, fill a few forms and he was ready to go. As a native Chinese himself, he could not believe how simple it was. He asked the guy handling his case, and said, since when did it become so easy. The guy said since 2001, when reforms in small business laws were passed. Then I asked myself, would there be more or less such bureacracy for such a procedure in the United States? I’m willing to claim there’ll be more!

Yes, there are many problems confronting China. I’m also willing to claim that the gov’t understands and sees those problems much more insightfully than we do. You’d agree to me that the lives of the village peasants (their income gap, land ownership issues, taxation isssues) are the biggest problem, right? Well, guess what, there’s a phrase called “San Nong Wen Ti” (“Three Farmer’s Problems”) that’s formulated by the government as the highest domestic priority at the last Party Congress. According to the gov’t, the Three Farmer’s Problem are : Countryside, Agriculture, and Peasants. And there are open discussions and gov’t policy papers on each of these 3 issues. In fact, US Commerce Secretary Don Evans once visited China spoke to Wen Jiabao about the severity of poverty he witnesssed in China’s countryside. Wen said, “Those ares you visited are not the poorest areas, trust me, there are places much worse than you witnessed”

January 11, 2006 @ 11:52 am | Comment

Among the Korean language sources, only the Chosun Ilbo is conservative enough to be likened to Fox News. The Donga is moderate, and Yonhap is just a news agency like Reuters. OhMyNews is actually leftist. I also get news from some more familiar English language sources: CNN, BBC, the Lehrer News Hour on PBS, and the Asia Times online.

January 11, 2006 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

Let me add the NYT, WaPo, the Daily Kos and a long list of other blogs.

January 11, 2006 @ 12:55 pm | Comment

China Hand:

“If you stand on the moon and look at the world’s history over 5000 years, it is not hard to claim there’s a huge corrolation between dominance in national strength and the dominance of a culture.”

What do you mean by “dominance of a culture”? This is a meaningless generalization. You say that we can give many exceptions, but they are always going to be exceptions. How about backing up your claim instead of pre-emptively dismissing our counterexamples as abnormal? You say you’re not a fan of Qiang Shi but that its reality. You’re simply making a groundless assertion, with no argument, and refusing to consider a counter argument. Never mind all the examples I previously gave. As for your claim that Europe and Latin America are further along in studying Chinese culture, but again give no evidence to back it up. Try making a case instead of making sweeping unsubstantiated claims.

And no one here is saying China is doomed, but I guess you hear what you want to.

January 11, 2006 @ 2:10 pm | Comment

And ACB, tinyurl dude.

January 11, 2006 @ 2:11 pm | Comment

Sonagi,
Your rationale for claiming that S. Korea SUPPORTS DPRK is minboggling:” South Korea sends millions of dollars in food, raw materials, and energy aid to the North every year.” Why? Because thery SUPPORT their pal DPRK? You answer it the next statement: “To keep good relations with the North.” D’UH! THEY ARE BLACKMAILED AND TERRIFIED BY AN UNSTABLE REGIME THAT PROMOTES ITS DESTRUCTION TO UNIFY IT THROUGH, now, NUCLEAR MEANS. I don’t care what kind of sources you refer to; admit you were naive and made an awesome mistake. Only China and Burma SUPPORT DPRK.

January 11, 2006 @ 2:47 pm | Comment

Never mind all that, everyone from Beijing to Macau, keep your eyes peeled:

Kim Jong Il Leaves House, Possibly Lost in China

January 11, 2006 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

“If you stand on the moon and look at the world’s history over 5000 years, it is not hard to claim there’s a huge corrolation between dominance in national strength and the dominance of a culture.”

What do you mean by “dominance of a culture”? This is a meaningless generalization. You say that we can give many exceptions, but they are always going to be exceptions. How about backing up your claim instead of pre-emptively dismissing our counterexamples as abnormal? You say you’re not a fan of Qiang Shi but that its reality. You’re simply making a groundless assertion, with no argument, and refusing to consider a counter argument. Never mind all the examples I previously gave. As for your claim that Europe and Latin America are further along in studying Chinese culture, but again give no evidence to back it up. Try making a case instead of making sweeping unsubstantiated claims.

This is a popular rhetorical technique: whenever you can’t think of something to say, you say, “Back up your claim! Show me your sources!”.

Well I’m sorry to inform you, but I have no data to back up my claim, and I have 0 source to support my assertions. My claim and my assertions are just what they are, claims and assertions. I am not a professional researcher and neither do I want to be. If I backed up every one of my sentences with data and sources, then I’d have to charge you to read what I wrote.

Anyway, this thread of discussion should stop for now, as I don’t want to repeat the same things over and over again.

January 11, 2006 @ 3:23 pm | Comment

Hey Sonagi,
Sorry my tone; I’m used to having to read such nonsense from intellectual pygmies trying to get a rise from their betters that when I read anything now that doesn’t strike me as right I go off the rails. YOU’RE STILL WRONG. But so am I, as I guess a case could be made for Russia which is hosting the pint-sized tyrant.
Thanks for that link too, davesgonechina

January 11, 2006 @ 3:50 pm | Comment

China_Hand, whether China or even the world is doomed or not is always an open question, yes? That being said, I do think optimism helps.

But who did you mean by doing the doomsayings of China? I think no one so far. On the other hand, critiquing and understanding shortcomings does not equal to repressing the Chinese will to achieve better. You must see this.

You said, “not hard to claim there’s a huge corrolation between dominance in national strength and the dominance of a culture”
Again, it just showed you are still mainly preoccupied with dominance. “Strength” and cultures are really not your primary concerns. You just want to piss Chinese urine on others and force feed them spring rolls! No? Ok, then try learning to trully appreciate being a Chinese American and Chinese cultures the first time of your life.

January 11, 2006 @ 3:52 pm | Comment

“This is a popular rhetorical technique: whenever you can’t think of something to say, you say, “Back up your claim! Show me your sources!”.”

Right. Facts=rhetoric in your world, Hand. To you culture is simply a function of “might makes right” simply because it is and you’ll never change your mind. It must be frustrating to be so close-minded and spend so much time chatting with people who ask questions.

January 11, 2006 @ 4:04 pm | Comment

davesgonechina,
Right on.
Hand is the modern Ah-Q in America; self-pitying on one hand and dellusional about dominating others in his head.

January 11, 2006 @ 4:39 pm | Comment

China_hand, with all due respect, you’re not actually being reasonable here.

My previous statement on culture demonstrated the following:

Cultural dominance does not necessarily follow from military dominance, because cultural dominance comes from cultural leadership (for example, cutting edge and popular entertainment), which may come from national stability, but not necessarily military dominance. I listed several culture as examples.
Lack of cultural dominance can occur despite military dominance. I listed the USSR at the height of its power as an example, and China when compared to its militarily smaller peers as an example.

It seems you are talking about history such as when the romans invaded everybody and made everyone roman catholic. This is irrelevant to my statement because we are not talking about spreading culture through invasion, but wanted adaptation. You also seem to imply that china’s economic growth has led to more people learning chinese, etc, as they look for opportunity. This may well be true, but is also irrelevant to whether military dominance leads to cultural dominance.

I welcome you to refute my point, but changing the topic does not lessen the point’s validity.

My previous statement on China’s trajectory demonstrated the following:

That whatever the best intentions, only when incentives are aligned among all organizations or persons with the law will the law actually be in effect. This is not the situation today since the CCP answers to nobody. I mentioned as example the different incentives of the CCP to take land from villagers versus expats and multinational corporations in the context of the same law. I also cite as example the capital crime case. I infer that people will therefore always suffer from this structural problem as long as it persists.
I’d be happy to hear from you that I am in fact wrong, that either China does take land from expats and villagers alike, or that China takes land from villagers only for special conditions that may equally apply to multinational corporations. Or you could argue that everything I am saying about the China is wrong, and that China is indeed ruled by law and not the whim of the CCP, it’d be nice if you support this.
However, China’s economic development, the growing number of skyscrapers, the growing DSL subscription rate, however wonderful, is irrelevant to my point that the people will continue to suffer from the structural problems. Once again, changing the subject does not refute my argument’s validity – only refuting it actually does.

January 11, 2006 @ 5:15 pm | Comment

Keir,

I lived in Korea for almost ten years. I watched Korean television, read Korean newspapers, and had many, many conversations with real Koreans. The average Korean does not worry about NK invasion. In fact, US postering towards the North with regard to nuclear weapons development and currency counterfeiting has drawn heavy criticism from Koreans. The Korean government is throwing money, food, and oil at the North to wean it off Chinese aid. By making the North dependent on the South, rather than China, South Korea is hoping to exert greater influence on its northern brother. Korean appeasement is a long-term strategy, not giving in to blackmail.

I don’t expect that I can change your perceptions of North-South-US relations, but recognize that my perceptions come interactions with Koreans and Korean and English-language media.

BTW, ACB, on which issues do you think the Chosun Ilbo, Donga Ilbo, Yonhap News, and OhMyNews “poke their heads in the sand”? Can you give some examples?

January 11, 2006 @ 5:24 pm | Comment

I read Crimes Against Logic by Jamie Whyte on my flight over to Prague. I highly recommend it – it’s very interesting, and points out how popular reasoning is often unreasonable, for example:

Pro Lift Advocate: Abortion is wrong since it is no different than killing an adult.
Pro Choice Advocate: I disagree – people should have the right to make their own choices on things happening to their body.

Whyte argues that the ProChoicer isn’t really arguing with the Life advocate on whether abortion is wrong. The question in dispute is whether or not a fetus is an adult, and therefore whether abortion is murder. By ignoring it, the pro choicer is quite possibly admitting that he agrees to the statement.

I put this here since I seem to see this time and again among my peers from PR China, even among my most intelligent friends coming out of Harvard and similar institutions (regarding China matters). Where does this come from? Whyte has a possible answer. Below is a quote from the book:

By Mao (from “On Contradiction”, Beijing Foreign Language Press, 1967):
Engels said “motion itself is a contradiction.” Lenin defined the law of the unity of opposites as “the recognition of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society).” Are these ideas correct? Yes, they are. The interdependence of the contradictory aspects presents in all things and the struggle between these aspects determine the life of all things and push their development forward. There is nothing that does not contain a contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist.

Whyte continues, and I parapharse where needed:

Mao’s passage helps us understand not only what Dialectial Materialists (DM) mean by “contraduction,” but also what it really means, by providing an example of the latter… Mao starts with saying what is contradictory is mutually exclusive. He then claims what is contradictory is interdependent. I suppose having a contradictionary definition of “contradiction” is no les than you would expect of someone who thinks everything is essentially contradictory.

DM seem to use “contradictory” simply to mean opposed or conflicting. Only this interpretation makes sense of Lenin and Mao’s opinion that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are contradictory, along with the city and the country, +,- and everything else.

But DM provides no excuse for holding contradictory beliefs. Even if DM were right, it would show only that oppositions or conflicts are rife, not that real contradictions are. You can’t show that reality is full of contradiction by calling conflicts “contradictions”. No more than you could how that goblins exist by calling birds “goblins.”

The only sense in which the world is full of contradictions is that it is full of contradictory opinions and statements. If statements are contradictory then one of them is false. Not caring about contradiction is the same as not caring about the truth.
(paraphrase ends)

Mao was either EXTREMELY SMART, to disable public discourse from seeking truth, and destroying logical reasoning skills among the Chinese in the process, to use “truth” as he see fits, or he was one of the most stupid people ever to rule such a large population. I’m guessing it’s the former.

January 11, 2006 @ 5:47 pm | Comment

Sonagi,
Would you not agree that “North Korea is home to one of the most evil governments on the planet. It has inflicted famine and de facto slavery on its own people. It is a menace to its neighbors, and with its sales of ballistic missiles to Libya, Syria and Iran, along with its efforts to produce biological, chemical and nuclear weapons–probably not all meant for domestic consumption–it is a threat to us” (copied from http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=105001703 for no other reason that it supports my view)? Do you not accept that its government is totally amoral and evil and forces its people to suffer horrendously? Surely you must accept that, otherwise there is no point in our interaction. Now then, if so- how can you possibly say that South Korea SUPPORTS it? When I say ‘IT’, I mean the regime, not the people. Of course South Korea’s collective conscience aches at the misery north of the border. But unlike China, it does not strive to suport, prop up, assist etc etc etc this horibble regime.

January 11, 2006 @ 6:38 pm | Comment

Ed, fascinating comment and I’m with you on Chairman Mao – definitely the former (“very smart”).

The only problematic(al?) part of the thesis for me is this part: “If statements are contradictory then one of them is false.” Since you started with the abortion argument, let’s return to it. A common statement by “pro-lifers” is that “Life begins at conception.” This and many other statements are nearly impossible to prove false or true. Thus, a never-ending tug of war. Truth is not always black and white, and thus we have philosophy and religion, as man constantly seeks to determine what Truth actually is.

January 11, 2006 @ 7:04 pm | Comment

That’s an interesting argument, Ed. I looked at the Mao essay and contradiction really should be understood as opposition, like black/white or good/evil. However, I’m not really persuaded that Mao was responsible for the inability to debate cogently as displayed by guys like China Hand.

For starters, this is by no means a unique feature of China or Chinese people. There isn’t a society on Earth that hasn’t produced people whose idea of an argument is “I have my beliefs, and you have yours, and nary the two shall meet”. Second, I don’t think most Chinese students really pay attention to metaphysics. Third, when I encounter people who can’t grapple with an opposing point of view, they’re actually doing the opposite of DM thought. Dialectical thinking requires synthesis, the reconciliation of opposing viewpoints. Attitudes like China Hand’s preclude reconciliation. Dialectical thinking can be found in an old canard like “without darkness there can be no light”. It doesn’t mean darkness is light, light darkness, it simply means that oppositional relationships can only be understood in context of one another.

Mao, I think, did play a part in hindering the teaching of critical thought in China, but through his more concrete activities like eliminating the actual people behind opposing points of view and stifling debate. When you’ve spent most of your life in a discursive vacuum, it can be difficult to deal with an opposing perspective. But I think all of us are in danger of making this mistake. Take Americans; Americans can be terrible critical thinkers, and perhaps the most stubborn when it comes to thinking through an opposing point of view since Americans tend to think they are given objective, fair truths most their life. Many Chinese, on the other hand, at least know they’ve been fed alot of bs – in that sense, they’re ahead of a typical American.

January 11, 2006 @ 7:07 pm | Comment

“A common statement by “pro-lifers” is that “Life begins at conception.” This and many other statements are nearly impossible to prove false or true.”

I don’t think this is impossible, Richard. If you take from a “does it have a soul” angle, ok, you’re right. But that’s not the only way of conceiving the pro-life argument. I’ve honestly never heard a pro-choice advocate confront the fact that after conception, a healthy zygote will inevitably become a human being. The die has been cast, so to speak, and to have an abortion is to end a human being becoming. Who cares if it can think or feel in the first trimester? Again, assuming it is healthy, it is a foregone conclusion that by the third trimester it will think and feel. And that is not something addressed in public debate about abortion.

Medical science is giving us more and more options to manipulate our bodies, and with that come more bioethical questions. This is especially true of babies. The question of designer babies, with designer genes, is precisely the same as abortion: when is it ethical to interfere in the process of becoming? Life threatening illness? OK, that seems straightforward. What about mild disability? There are disabled people who find this unethical because you are devaluing who they are. What about giving your baby the full options package, with enhanced reflexes, strength, power windows? What’s wrong with building a superman? Oh, that’s right, they’ll take over the world and you’ll have to exile them into space, where they’ll steal your ship and put bugs in your friends ears. KHAN!!!!!!!!!

January 11, 2006 @ 7:19 pm | Comment

I’m with you on the abortion thing, Dave. Religious Tolerance has a nice write-up about the abortion controversy:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when6.htm

January 11, 2006 @ 7:50 pm | Comment

R-

“Truth is not always black and white, and thus we have philosophy and religion, as man constantly seeks to determine what Truth actually is.”

Or: Men constantly seeks to determine what truth actually is, regardless of Truth.

January 11, 2006 @ 8:14 pm | Comment

Speaking of liberty, check this out:

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2006/1/10mccoy.html

January 11, 2006 @ 8:25 pm | Comment

My conversation With an Indian

Originally copied from tiexue.net

In Shenzhen, in a small coffee shop by the road, I was meeting an Indian from our client company, on a business trip to China. I started my first conversation with an Indian. Indian asked me: “Why don’t you ask for a receipt for your coffee?”

I, confused, said, “I can’t reimburse it, why receipt”?

Indian proudly said, “When our company sends us on business trips, all meals are reimbursed”

Before I can answer, Indian asked, “Do you know Tibet?”

I said I do. Indian started again, “This small country is between India and China.”

I replied immediately, “You have the Dalai of Tibet. We have the regime of Tibet.” I was about to kick him if he wasn’t an employee of our client company.

As we left the coffee shop, Indian mentioned Hong Kong and said randomly and stupidly, “Is Hong Kong right beside China?”. I was amusedly depressed. Must be very good propanganda in India for their citizens to receive this kind of knowledge!

So I replied, “100 years ago. China fought a war with Britain, and lost. So Hong Kong was taken away by Britain. 100 years later, China became stronger, and so took Hong Kong back.”

Indian thought a bit, and said “So Hong Kong belongs to China?”

I affirmatively said, “Just like New Delhi belongs to India.”

Indian changed the subject.

He’s from the TATA company in India, working as a software programmer for TATA. TATA is one the biggest company in India, leader in automobile and steel.

He started to proudly show me his employee ID. And said, “In my company in India, I can take this ID and face a scanner, and all doors would open for me.”

I said, “We can do the same here.”

India coughed a bit, and asked me, “Do you know TATA?” I said yes I do, it’s a big company.

He looked very proud, and said, “Is your company a big one?”

I said, “It’s not so big. Only average in China. China has about 12 cell phone companies. Our is just an average-sized one”

He felt surprised for the first time, “China has 12 cell phone companies? I always thought there are only 1 to 2 companies in China capable of producing cell phones.”

I replied, “Our company is not so big. We only sold 10,000,000 phones last year.”

When Indian heard the figure 10,000,000, I noticed a big change in the color and texture of his face. His left eye twitched a little bit.

I then continued, “Hmm, yes. Last month, our company just sold half a million CDMA phones in India.”

Indian was shocked again, said, “half a million. That’s a big number. How many cell phone users in China?”

I replied, “China has China Mobile, and it has about 200,000,000 customers in China. Another one is called China Telecom, and it has about 100,000,000 customers.”

Indian looked he was about to faint, and said, “Oh my god.”, his voice a bit unstable.

I continued, “Usually for a Chinese, he buys a new cell phone every 1-2 years.”

Indian still could not believe his ears and thought I was lying. So he asked, “In China, can a software engineer make 150 dollars a month?”

I was about to cough blood. How can India fool its citizens like this? I said, 150 dollars? That’s about how much they can earn in 1 week.

Indian was visibly shaken and could not say a word for the next few hours. In his mind, Chinese are poor, Chinese could not effort cell phones. Chinese’ salaries are lower than Indians.

Then at the end of that day, he did something that made me laugh for days.

He took out a CD, and came to my laptop, and asked, “Can your laptop support CD Rom?”

I thought to myself, “This is the level of an employee of India’s biggest software company?”

I lent him my USB harddrive. But his old IBM laptop did not support USB ports…

Then we went to our hotel, and in our hotel, I connected online using wireless. I then opened a friend’s MSN Spaces site, and showed Indian a few pictures of the city of Wu Xi. I told him, this is my hometown.

Indian was psychologically wounded, looked at the pictures, and said, “This is the most developed city in China, right?”.

I told him mercilessly, “No. There are a few hundred cities like this in China. Wu Xi is a very average one.”

Indian said, “Oh.”

I said, “Can I see some pictures of Indian cities”?

Indian, stated shifting his eyes, and touched his face, and coughed, and said “Tonight is too late. I am kind of tired, let’s sleep first.”

January 11, 2006 @ 9:36 pm | Comment

http://club.chinaren.com/33173876.html

It’s funny for about 10 seconds, but who would pay money for this?

January 11, 2006 @ 9:49 pm | Comment

Hongxing’s story in a nutshell:

Cup of Coffee: 20 yuan
Laptop with CDROM drive: 16,000 yuan
Winning a childish dick measuring contest with an ignorant Indian guy: Priceless

There’s some things money can’t buy, like petty nationalism. For everything else, there’s cash.

January 11, 2006 @ 10:41 pm | Comment

But, HongXing, chinese cities are pollution-choked concrete graveyards, their cultural relics swpt away either by the Cultural revolution or by unregulated “market develpment”.

The average indian city has far more charm and character than its Chinese equivalent.

January 11, 2006 @ 10:47 pm | Comment

It’s idiots like Hong Xing that make me lash out at everyone I don’t agree with….

January 11, 2006 @ 11:20 pm | Comment

dave, you’re hilarious, but I think you’re right on the money.

On rational thinking, I used the abortion statements solely as an example of how someone can seem to be refuting a point, while in reality they’re just stating a non-sequitur.

Regarding ignorance, I am by no means saying it is pervasive only in China. What I am saying is that when discussin politics with mainland Chinese people, (even among the brightest, lets say china_hand is), there seems to be a logic switch that gets turned off. Either that or they just really like to mess with your mind and never discuss issues regarding China point to point. I’m talking about the seeming most resonable people I’ve come across both inside and outside of China.

For example, in the US, I have friends with diametrically opposed viewpoints with me, say on the impact of globalization on US jobs. However, we can reasonably come together on identifying the dynamics affecting US jobs. We would then proceed to debate the relative impact and trends of each positive and negative dynamic, and it’d be an interesting discussion, even if we never agree.

However, this is completely different from one person suggesting a set of dynamics affecting US jobs, and the second person doen’t even address that (so we don’t konw where he stands), but says “corn prices have been high. US jobs have been doing poorly – it’s obviously the corn’s fault, and anything you say about the dynamics are just exceptions.”

January 12, 2006 @ 12:10 am | Comment

Thoughts on North Korea:

South Korea cannot economically absorb North Korea if it collapses as West Germany did for its counterpart. For that reason, S Korea will clearly do everything it can to keep N Korea from falling apart.

This doesn’t mean that they support the N Korea regime and its principles however. To my knowledge most Koreans think reunification is possible, under a framework of S Korea’s model. The only way this can realisitically occur is if N Korea increasingly becomes like the South, and this I believe is why the South wants to create economic industrial regions for mutual economic coorporation. Perhaps when enough exchange occurs there will be less distrust and eventually when the dictator dies N Koreans can start thinking for themselves instead of worshiping their head of state and perhaps reunite.

Reconciliation:
This is a far cry from the PRC ROC situation. Both stemmed from a civil war fueled by the cold war, but for that’s where the similarity ends.
There have been times when I thought: had the Nationalists retained control of the southern 1/3 of China, (and built a nice wall) then maybe reunification would be more likely today, leading to a united China – the economic “miracle” Taiwan experienced 40 years ago also would have occured in S China instead of the nice cultual revolution into backwardness. Instead of a small island being the world’s only Chinese democracy it’d be half of China.

Alas, that’s not reality. I’m jet lagged and can’t sleep so I’m babbling.

BTW, several guides such as Lonely Planet, etc say that Taiwan has more Chinese culture than mainland China does. I don’t have any details on this, but I can see how this is very likely.

January 12, 2006 @ 12:38 am | Comment

“Mark Anthony Jones, the young man accused of shooting up a Guatemalan Embassy vehicle, was formally arraigned today, having confirmed that he is indeed seventeen years old.”
http://new.channel5belize.com/archive_detail_story.php?story_id=14375
That would explain it, then.

January 12, 2006 @ 12:57 am | Comment

Ed-
Reading your last comment I think I could replace South Korea for the Republic of Ireland and North Korea for Northern Ireland.

January 12, 2006 @ 12:59 am | Comment

Hong Xing wrote:

“I was about to kick him if he wasn’t an employee of our client company.”

Kick him? Whatever happened to your esteemed leaders vision of harmony?

Although attributed to another, your post demonstrates an empathy with the Indian’s colleague. This, in turn, illustrates an all too familiar hypocrisy that pervades Chinese society, itself the product of a more potent brand of propaganda than that which (allegedly) produce misconceptions in India.

Further, if you find misleading stereotypes so objectionable, how about defending the Japanese next time you hear or read ‘rude, arrogant, nationalistic, aggressive…’?

Finally, because you seem to love numbers (substantiated or otherwise) when trying to present a true reflection of Chinese society to a foreigner, perhaps you would be good enough to fill these gaps in my own numeric portfolio:

How many victims of female infanticide in China in 2005?

How many really died in Tienanmen and its aftermath?

How many Chinese people died as a result of contracting avian flu in 2005?

How many people were arrested, beaten, or murdered for expressing their opinions or exposing corruption in 2005?

How many hundreds of billions of $US will the CCP continue to hoard while its poor are crying out for schools and hospitals?

How many miners REALLY died in 2005?

How many of China’s 1.3 billion people drank contaminated water in 2005 and never knew about it.

How many ideas did China steal, copy, and claim to be the products of their own innovation in 2005?

How many students learned that cheating is OK because nothing happens if you get caught?

How many of the above will pick up the baton of corruption and carry it forward to the next generation?

How many territorial disputes will China agitate in the next ten years in order to engage its military under the pretext of national interest?

Somebody once said that numbers don’t lie. Let’s see.

Stuart.

January 12, 2006 @ 2:17 am | Comment

Ed-
The reconciliation part you discussed, particularly regarding the “Nationalists” holding on to Southern China was basically not a possibility because Nationalists were simply too corrupt to hold-on, lacking support and militaristic might of the CCP charmed peasants and their armies. In addition, the Allies had no positive interest in investing the abominable CKS and his regime even before the War ended. So that set an interesting beginning. And then after half a century of colonial rule and the Japanese defeat, but somehow even following the San Francisco and Washington Treaties the island of Formosa became a quandry.
I will stop here with that one.

Away from that less uplifting subject, in terms of the great fun of Chinese cultures: well, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and even Vietnam arguably are “more Chinese” than PRC in some ways or another, according to the LP guides and some. (Note, I only said arguably.) Perhaps the conundrum really is: What defines being this Chinese and not that Chinese? Is being Confucian more Chinese? Does revering Cao Dong Zen buddhist cultures Chinese?
Kind of becomes like if start asking “is Germany more European than France?” and getting academic/intellectual about it.
Fun, yeah?

January 12, 2006 @ 2:25 am | Comment

Stuart,
With numeric data you can send the list to Harper’s.

January 12, 2006 @ 2:40 am | Comment

To my eternal shame (obviously I’ve been in China for too long) I just had to google ‘Harper’s’ to understand the reference. Should I subscribe?

Stuart.

January 12, 2006 @ 2:57 am | Comment

100 comments. New thread opening.

January 12, 2006 @ 3:50 am | Comment