When earlier this week I pointed readers to Danwei to read Philip Cunningham’s response to comments on his being bounced from the Chinapol listserve, I specifically urged readers to avoid insult or snark.
Danwei has opened the door for Philip Cunningham to reply to commenters who responded to news of his banishment from Chinapol. [If you plan to go there to comment that’s your choice, but I urge you to avoid insults and snark, and keep the conversation relevant to the topic. Ad hominems and anonymous emotional outbursts only give Philip ammunition to position himself as a martyr, and to point to obnoxious commenters as haters.]
That thread has been closed and Philip has the last word. Ever gracious and polite, here’s how he references this blog in his final comment.
I don’t believe the handful of self-aggrandizing China-bashers on Chinapol and its small contingent of hard-core neo-cons represents the vast majority of Chinapolers any more than the quacking canards of the minuscule Peking Duck faction represent Danwei’s diverse readership, but in both cases the conversation spoilers wait poised, ready to attack any one who deviates from their own grim worldview. This essentially makes sustained dialogue difficult if not impossible.
And later:
As for the quacking of the Peking Duck faction, mired in an expired paradigm of Cold War belligerence, this tiny group of China-can-do-no-right commenters offered mostly snark and awe diversion, acting out in an amusingly predictable way the sort of identify crisis that comes with a paradigm shift as I alluded to in the opening comments.
You see, we are “quacking canards,” bogged down in our Cold War mentality. Mao had his Filthy Stinking 9th, BCPC (Brilliant and Charming Philip Cunningham) has his Quacking Canard. We are instantly and systematically robbed of any intellectual worth because we fall into this Cold Warrior category. None of our questions are answered – we are dismissed as contemptible. As to dialogue being impossible: I have repeatedly tried to engage BCPC, both on Danwei and Joseph Bosco’s blog, but my very specific and rather tame questions were always ignored. Of course dialogue is impossible: BCPC only knows how to change the subject.
About my being a Cold Warrior… Obviously, Philip knows nothing about me or this site. I went to China with stars in my eyes, dazzled by the positive coverage China was receiving in 2001 for its economic miracle, its selection for the Olympics, its apparent trend to greater openness and a host of other factors that convinced me “China is the place to be.” In some ways, I still believe it’s the place to be – but my belief that it was becoming freer and its government reforming was quickly shattered. None of my disdain for the CCP is a product of Cold War mentality, only of recent personal experience. That BCPC has the nerve to make such blanket assumptions and generalizations is galling, but not at all surprising. As I said before, he truly follows the model of our troll “Jessica Copeland” – any criticism of the Chinese government stems from X or Y (for BCPC, it’s Cold War brainwashing, for Jessica it’s Christian brainwashing). They will not even consider that perhaps we are critical because we have seen with our own eyes the injustices of which the CCP is capable. Just as I have seen the outrages of my own president. Others who make observations similar to my own are Rebecca Mackinnon, John Pomfret, Philip Pan, Joseph Kahn, Howard French,Xiao Qiang, Sophie Beach and countless other intelligent liberals. Are we all infected with an indelible Cold Warrior sickness?
(more…)
Comments